Schaub 4:00
R10
Daniel Wang ( dpw19@pitt.edu
)
St. Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne received a new piece of technology that could be extremely innovative in the field of ethics to guide me in making the correct decision for my situation.
medicine, the BioPen. Developed in the laboratories of the
University of Wollongong in Wollongong, Australia, the
BioPen utilizes the method of three dimensional printing and medicine to create bone implants [1]. The BioPen takes the
Although there may not be “one” correct decision, I must consider the Code of Ethics listed by the National Society of
Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the American Institute shape of a pen so that surgeons can precisely and efficiently
“draw in” bone implants for the injury [1].
The BioPen utilizes “ink” cartridges filled with various types of living cells depending on the area that requires mending [1]. Alginate, an extract found in seaweed, acts as a biopolymer gel that coats the living cells [1]. Finally, the seaweed and cell mixture is inserted inside a protective gel at the exit point of the pen [1].
The combination of alginate, cells, and protective gel makes up the “ink” that the surgeon will apply to the damaged area. After the mixture exits the BioPen, the fixed UV light near the tip solidifies the “ink”, enabling the surgeon to produce a unique 3D implant for the wound with multiple layers of hardened cells [1]. Each individual cell will then duplicate to turn into muscle, nerve, or bone cells that effectively heal the patient’s injury [1].
For example, if a soccer player fractures another player’s foot during a game, a surgeon should use the BioPen to repair the fracture because the surgeon can easily carry the BioPen onto the field [2]. The surgeon would draw a three dimensional implant using bone cells for the fractured area and then let the cells multiply to mend the wound. Jessica
Wiles, a writer for New Med Tech, mentions that healing with traditional methods of surgery would take several months or even years, but the technology of the BioPen greatly reduces this recovery period [2].
The hospital hired chemical and biomedical engineers to perform clinical trials on the BioPen. As a chemical engineer at the hospital, I am required to research the Biopen’s living cells and optimize the cells to their fullest potential. It has come to my concern, however, that other hospitals have pressured the leading professor at St. Vincent’s Hospital
Melbourne, Peter Choong, to permit early use of to the
BioPen’s technology. In result, he asked me to accelerate the process by forging data and creating a false report in exchange for a greater salary. Consequently, if I accept his offer, Dr.
Choong will release the BioPen to the public more quickly, enabling many hospitals to use the BioPen earlier to help more patients. However, if I agree, I risk releasing an ineffective product that is subject to malfunction, endangering the reputation of chemical engineering, and, more importantly, the lives of many. I will dissect sources about of Chemical Engineers in order to make the best one. These organizations made lists that describe the ethical rules for the field of engineering, which will assist the process of making an informed decision.
The National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE)
The NSPE is a society of engineers that addresses the professional aspects of engineering. The group created a Code of Ethics that engineers are required to follow in order to represent the profession with integrity and honesty. There are six fundamental canons that I must consider for my situation.
The first states that “engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public” [3]. Because the
BioPen extracts living cells directly onto the bones of the patient, these living cells must perform perfectly or the patient’s health may be endangered. For example, if a patient needs an implant for their kneecap, the BioPen can be used to place living bone cells that multiply into a bone implant.
However, if we fail to perform any research on the bone cells, a mutation could occur and the cells would multiply at an extraordinary rate, endangering the patient by possibly creating a tumor in his or her knee. I must not allow this to happen because then I would be violating the first canon in the Code of Ethics, meaning that I will have to refuse
Professor Choong’s request.
The second canon, asserting that engineers shall “perform services only in areas of their competence”, does not apply to me because as a chemical engineer at the hospital, I am qualified to be analyzing cells; therefore, I am only working within my region of expertise [3]. The third canon states that engineers ought to “issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner” [3]. This canon applies to my situation because the forged numbers on the BioPen’s living cell data can be released to the public to ensure that clinical trials were performed for the BioPen. By violating the third canon, I would not be making an ethical decision since the false reports will not be truthful; therefore, I should not falsify my research desired by Professor Choong.
The fourth canon does not apply to my situation because I am only working for Professor Choong, which means I will maintain fidelity towards St. Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2014-10-28

Daniel Wang whether I agree to fabricate my data or not [3]. The fifth canon declares that “engineers shall avoid deceptive acts” [3].
The fifth canon definitely pertains to my situation because if
I release my data on living cell multiplication to the public and confide the fact that the data is fake, then I will be deceiving the public. If people find out that I am purposefully publishing false information, then my reputation will be in shambles and I would be violating the fifth fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics. Therefore, if I wish to remain loyal to the NSPE, I should refuse Professor Choong’s request. The sixth canon applies to my situation as well because it states that engineers shall “conduct themselves honorable, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession” [3]. If I do not follow the previous five canons, then I violate the sixth one as well because disregarding any canon in the code of ethics is deemed unethical. In addition, if the public discovers that I am committing fraud, then their overall opinion of chemical engineering will definitely be negative, similar to how “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch”. After careful consideration, it will be in my best interest not to accept a raise in exchange for fabricating research data.
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers created a
Code of Ethics as well [4]. There are three canons that effectively describe the group’s opinion on morals. The first canon declares that chemical engineers shall “be honest and impartial and serve with fidelity their employers, their clients, and the public” [4]. In order to achieve this, I cannot be selfish in my actions and should instead think about Professor
Choong and the public. If I agree with the professor and fabricate numbers, then my employer, Professor Choong, will benefit from my actions because he will be able to release the
BioPen earlier, pleasing the other hospitals. However, following through with Dr. Choong’s wish is disloyal to the public since I will be blatantly lying to them. I believe I should not fake my research because deceiving the public not only infringes the fifth canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, but also affects many people. Dr. Choong’s stress because of the other hospitals will only be a problem during the research stage of the BioPen, while misleading society can create problems for much longer; perhaps beyond the BioPen’s lifespan in medicine. The second canon is similar to the sixth canon in the NSPE Code of Ethics in that they both acknowledge the reputation of engineering. It states that chemical engineers must strive “to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession” [4]. To achieve this, I must make a decision that would benefit the chemical engineering profession. Creating false data would definitely not help the profession if discovered by the public; therefore, I should refuse Professor Choong’s raise and perform clinical trials on the BioPen as planned. Finally, the third canon is analogous to the first canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics since the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers proclaims that chemical engineers shall use “their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare” [4]. Although misinforming the public does not enhance human welfare, surgeons working with the BioPen are able to provide care to those who need it sooner. Dr. Choong’s request appears beneficial to human welfare when considering the wording of the canon; however, I strongly believe that the risks of any malfunction overshadow the benefits for a small group of individuals. After applying the American Institute of
Chemical Engineer’s Code of ethics to my situation, I have concluded that I should look for accurate results in my research of the BioPen.
In his article concerning the ethics in engineering, Wade
L. Robison discusses the principles of unintentional harm when creating solution to engineering problems. Robison mentions multiple times that engineers “are ethically obligated to use their special knowledge and skills competently and with due care” [5]. By mentioning “with due care”, Robison insinuates that engineers must make conscious decisions for any design or else careless mistakes may inflict unnecessary harm for others. These slipups can hold the engineer morally responsible and focus the blame toward the engineer if applicable.
In the third section, Robison describes a situation where a dentist accidentally drills through a patient’s tooth and concludes that the dentist is morally responsible for his actions [5]. Regarding my situation, falsifying research results and releasing them to the public is comparable to Robison’s daydreaming dentist scenario. The dentist is professionally unethical because he “failed to be careful when great care is required” [5] and I have to be tremendously cautious when releasing the BioPen into the public as well since I consider thoughtless research to be professionally unethical. Thus, it would be immoral of me to falsify medical reports because I am consciously aware that my actions potentially hold dangerous consequences for patients.
Robison discusses morals in the field of engineering while
Dr. Neelam Adhikari, professor at Patam Academy of Health
Sciences, focuses on the field of medicine [6]. Because I am working in hospitals and with patients, I believe that ethics in medicine relates to my situation. Adhikari considers the definitions of medical harm and safety. He defines medical harm as “doing the wrong thing when meaning to do a right thing” and medical safety as “absence of medical harm” [6].
When contemplating my situation, I understand that my actions can be viewed as medical harm if I choose to release incorrect data to possibly benefit medicine since my wrongdoing would be misleading the society with incorrect
2

Daniel Wang information about the BioPen despite my good intentions of improving the medical field. Because my potentially unethical deed fits the classification of medical harm, I am defying the definition medical safety. Ergo, not only will my actions determine my integrity as an engineer, but also my morality as a medical researcher.
When making difficult decisions, I always refer to Ruth
Chang’s TEDTalk where she discusses the philosophy of decision-making [7]. In the video, she states that although not all choices are obvious, every decision one makes defines him or her as a person [7]. I agree with this idea because all of the choices that I have made, such as becoming a chemical engineer and attending the University of Pittsburgh, describe my interests, alma mater, and a plethora of other statements about me. Therefore, if I follow Professor Choong’s request, then that choice will define me as a liar, something I would not prefer to live by. Henceforth, I ought to consider the possibility of my choices representing who I am when I have an ethical dilemma.
Not only do the opinions of others affect my decisionmaking process, but the quotes of famous philosophers also help me when I experience an ethical impasse. Jeremy
Bentham, a British philosopher, stated, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” [8]. I refer to this quote often because when I make a moral decision, I consider the consequences and their effects on others. Bentham’s quote relates to my moral predicament because I must sacrifice my personal gains to benefit patients, the “greatest number” in my situation, and protect them from any harm that denies them of their happiness. Thus, Bentham’s quote convinces me to refute Dr.
Choong’s offer of a raise in order to shield society from the danger of false medical research.
After thoroughly examining the Code of Ethics for the
National Society of Professional Engineers and the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, articles on morals, and the ideas of philosophers, I am able to make an informed decision in regards to Professor Choong’s request. I will not be forging my data in order to accelerate the release of the BioPen because although earlier access will allow surgeons to begin work with the BioPen almost immediately and possibly enhance the medical field, the chance for malfunction that can jeopardize lives. I will also be denying the raise the he offered simply because the additional money in my pocket does not outweigh the loss of human lives.
My recommendation for future engineers that are at a moral standstill is to consider all possibilities of the situation similar to any other problem. I utilized a multitude of sources to develop a sound understanding of my problem and many other engineers can do the same for theirs. By looking at an ethical predicament from all perspectives, engineers can formulate the most informed conclusion to solve all difficulties, whether physical, mental, or ethical.
[1] M. Star. (2014). “3D printing ‘bio pen’ lets doctors draw implants on the fly” CNET . (online article). http://www.cnet.com/news/3d-printing-bio-pen-lets-doctorsdraw-implants-on-the-fly/
[2] J. Wilk. (2013). “Revolutionizing Orthopedic Surgery with BioPen: Stem Cell 3D Printing” New Med Tech . (online article). http://www.newmedicaltechnology.net/revolutionizingorthopedic-surgery-with-biopen-stem-cell-3d-printing/
[3] The National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007).
“NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers” NSPE. (online). http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[4] The American Institute of Chemical Engineers. (2014).
“Code of Ethics” AIChE The Global Home of Chemical
Engineers . (Online). http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[5] W. L. Robison. (2014). “Ethics in Engineering” IEEE .
(online article). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6
893391&tag=1
[6] N. Adhikari. (2010). “Medical Harm and Medical Safety”
Journal of Nepal Paediatric Society . (online article). http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/JNPS/article/view/3930/33
36
[7] “Ruth Chang: How to make hard choices” (2014).
TEDTalks . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GQZuzIdeQQ
(video).
[8] J. Bentham. (1891). A Fragment on Government . Oxford,
England, UK: Clarendon Press. (print book). pp. 93
(2010). “Adoption of a Safe Component” Stanford Biodesign .
(online). http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/19safecompon ent.jsp
(2013). “Air Bags, Safety, and Social Experiments” Online
Ethics Center for Engineering . (online). http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/AirBag.aspx
(2014). “Ethics Cases”
Texas Tech University . (online). http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
3

Daniel Wang
I would like to thank my writing instructor, Nichole Faina, for answering any questions that I had regarding my paper.
Additionally, I would like to thank my peers for editing my paper and providing moral support.
4