Introduction
Ethical dilemmas are a barrier between choosing what is right, and what is easy. These dilemmas
play an important role in our lives. Ethical dilemmas range in magnitude, and depending on the
situation, an immoral choice could cause society massive consequences. Specifically, an
occupation that has the potential to come across world-effecting ethical dilemmas is engineering.
Engineers are responsible for designing, improving, and maintaining the structures that society
depends on. With such a massive responsibility, it is essential for engineers to do the right thing
when faced with an ethical dilemma. For example, a bioengineer may have been on the brink of
releasing a product that improves pacemakers when he suddenly discovers that his product gives
off large quantities of radiation. Does he make the moral choice, or does he release the product
anyway to make money? His choice effects society on a massive scale. Or, as another example,
think about the ethical dilemma that nuclear weapon engineers faced during the 1940's-1950. They
were offered massive amounts of money to develop nuclear weapons, but at the same time they
knew that what they were developing could end the lives of infinite creatures. These examples are
just a few of countless ethical dilemmas that engineers face, and with the power and responsible
that they have, it is imperative for engineers to make the right decision. Failing to do so could
damage society in tremendous magnitude.
Ethical Scenario
Recently, I was faced with an ethical dilemma with the magnitude to affect future generations.
Before it all happened, I was the president of the Brust Solar Research Corps. My research
organization was researching a way to efficiently harvest solar energy. Back then, our energy was
generated by the burning of fossil fuels. When a fossil fuel is burned, it releases carbon into the air
that can't escape the atmosphere. And with the burning of fossil fuels on a society- sized level, the
trapped carbon was heating the Earth's atmosphere up. It was imperative to find an alternative
energy source before the Earth's temperature rose too high and effected the environment.
Discovering an alternative energy source was exactly what my team of researchers felt was a
calling. We knew that the sun released enough energy in a day to power society for a year, so we
began researching into solar power. In particular, we worked on ways to improve the artificial
photosynthetic solar harvesting system made by Berkley scientists. This system absorbed sunlight
with nanowires and used natural pigments to turn the sunlight into energy, just as plants do. The
only problem was that this system only absorbed about 5% of sunlight effectively. To make the
system usable commercially, it had to increase its efficiency, so it became our goal to improve this
efficiency. During our research, Solar Research Corps. made a nominal profit, and even as
president I still only made a barely- livable wage. This is because we hadn't launched any sort of
products and were still paying off a large debt for the permission to conduct research on the
Berkley researcher's system.
Suddenly, though, and after years of progress, it became apparent that our team was going to
successfully develop the artificial photosynthetic system to be suitably used for commercial energy
consumption. News journalists reported this to the public, and it became a known research project.
The news reporters analyzed how large the impact would be economically and environmentally if
we were successful with our research on solar power. They told the public that system would take
eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels, and that we could a heated planet. But because our
artificial photosynthetic system would also decrease the need for natural gas, the natural gas
company Anadarko attempted to bribe me to discontinue my research. They offered me an
incredible amount of money, more money than I had made or would ever make in the future. It
was a very tempting offer to not have to spend any more time or hard work on my current research
project and live comfortably for the rest of my life. On the other hand, though, if I decided to scrap
all of the previous research I would be throwing away an opportunity for society to become
independent fossil fuels, and avoid the fateful environmental impacts associated with them.
NSPE Code of Ethics
When Anadarko first contacted me with the bribe, I immediately researched the engineering code
of ethics to look for guidance with my dilemma. Based off of the NSPE code of ethics, I would
have been breaking multiple fundamental and professional obligations. For example, fundamental
canon number 5 forbids deceitful and lying acts for engineers. Obviously, if I chose to discontinue
my company's research, I would have to lie to the public when explaining why the research would
be discontinued. I would have lie to the public by saying that the research has turned out to be
unsuccessful to protect my public image.
I would also be violating perhaps the most important professional obligation of the NPSE.
Professional obligation number one states that "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health,
and welfare of the public." If I chose to scrap my research, I would be holding myself paramount
to the welfare of the public. Had the public continued to consume fossil fuels for energy, they
would have severely damage the Earth. An increased temperature means that glaciers would melt,
wildlife would die or have to migrate to different temperatures, droughts would be created, and
many other negative effects would occur. I, though, had an opportunity to avoid these fateful side
effects. If I threw my research away, I would be keeping the public at a serious risk of global
warming its effects and would be holding myself paramount instead of the public.
The violation of these two codes of ethics somewhat persuaded me to choose not scrap my
research, but I still had a strong desire to take the money from Anadarko. I would justify to myself
that it wasn't my responsibility to help the planet develop a new energy system and that no one
would know why I chose to scrap my idea. At this point, the violation of the codes of ethics wasn't
swaying me that effectively to do the right thing, so I was leaning towards choosing to take the
money from Anadarko.
IEEE Code of Ethics
Based off of this continued indecisiveness, I decided to look into the specific engineering ethics
that applied to me, the IEEE code of ethics. According to my research, I would be violating three
ethic codes. Firstly, code four states to reject bribery, which I would be clearly breaking if I
accepted money from Anadarko to discontinue my research. I would also be breaking code five,
which states that I have the responsibility to improve technology to my best ability. If I chose to
scrap my research, I would obviously be neglecting my responsibility to improve technology.
Instead of improving solar power technology with my research, sitting idly by, not contributing to
improving technology. Finally, I would be violating code one, which states "to accept
responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and
to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment". This code of
ethics from the IEEE seemed quite similar to code one of the NSPE code of ethics. It was clear to
me that both codes of ethics were very emphatic that as an engineer, and specifically an electrical
engineer, I have the responsibility to protect the welfare of the public. I would be neglecting this
responsibility by choosing to scrap my research and accept money from Anadarko, keeping the
welfare at risk of global warming.
It became clear to me after reviewing the two codes of ethics that if I chose to scrap my research,
part of that would be unethical. I understood that bribery was unethical, because it was swaying
me away from doing the right thing. I also understood that choosing not to improve technology
was unethical. I had the ability to contribute ground- breaking solar technology to science, but by
choosing scrap my material, I would also be scrapping a way to improve society. The idea that I
did not understand from the ethical codes, which is what they stressed the most, was that it was
my responsibility and obligation to protect the welfare of the public and give my research to
society's benefit. I thought that it was my research, so I had the right to do what I wanted with it. I
also thought, "Why is it my responsibility to help society? Why do I have to be the hero? Why do
I have to sacrifice money and time to help others who can't help themselves?"
To gain further insight on my ethical dilemma, I found an article by Stephen H. Unger of the
University of Columbia about the ethics of bribery for engineers. Stephen states that the IEEE
Code of Ethics forbids bribery, which seems like a non-controversial provision. In reality, though,
bribery is "one of the most disputed parts of the code" because in certain situations engineers who
cannot accept bribes "will be significantly handicapped in the marketplace." If I followed the code
of IEEE code of ethics, I certainly would be handicapped in the marketplace. I would be losing the
opportunity to be given money that I wouldn't be able to receive if I didn't take the bribe. But was
it really permissible for me to take a bribe instead of possibly saving the environment just because
I would not be able to get so much money any other way? I was torn, so I decided to look into case
studies for more insight in this dilemma.
Case Study
A case study that related to me occurred between a senior geo-environmental engineer and a
company called Industrial Solvents, Ltd. This engineer was hired by the company to test the purity
of the soil around the factory, and prove that Industrial Solvents was not responsible for the recent
reports of high-level ground pollution. When the engineer tested and analyzed the pollution levels
around the factory, he found that Industrial Solvents, Ltd. was not responsible for the toxic soil
around the area. But, when the engineer was finishing up his analysis and doing one last check, he
found that the manager of the factory was pouring water into the factory wells, which made the
pollution concentration in the soil appear to be less than it really was. Seeing this put the engineer
in a tough situation. He could either report the manager and factory for covering up pollution, or
collect the twenty-five thousand dollar check that was promised by Industrial Solvents, Ltd. for
proving that they weren't responsible for the pollution. His situation was very similar to mine. He
could either protect the public from an increasing threat of pollution, or walk away and collect a
lot of money with no questions asked. It surprised me when I read the engineer chose to report the
company for the good of the public and didn't care about the money. It wasn't clear to me why the
engineer felt like it was his responsibility to help the public. He did exactly what his job described,
which was test analyze the soil, not notice someone manipulating it. That was the police's
responsibility, not his. Why was it his responsibility to do something that requires him losing
money and time to help others out? That question was exactly what was holding me up in my
ethical dilemma. At the time, I simply couldn't understand the engineer's motives and couldn't find
a solution to my question.
Realizing
After looking into the case studies and not finding a solution, I delayed the offer for a while. I
knew that I would be taking a bribe and not contributing to technology, which was unethical, but
I didn't understand why it was my responsibility to help the public and sacrifice money and my
time.
It took me a long while find an answer to my question. One night, I was talking to my mom about
my dilemma. She adamantly told me to reject the bribe because it was the right thing to do. She
said, "Engineers are responsible for building, maintaining, and developing the materials used by
the public. When you chose to become an engineer, you took this responsibility on." The
conversation with my mom made me think more about what being an engineer really entails.
Before this conversation, I just kind of thought engineers do their job to make a lot of money. But
my mom got me to shift my attitude towards the idea that engineers do their job as a responsibility
to improve the public, and get paid in the process. It became clear to me that I had to continue
researching solar power because as an engineer, it was exactly what I signed up for.
With my new realization, I decided to continue researching solar power and reject the bribe.
Fortunately, the research was successful and we were able to make efficient solar power
commercial worldwide. This caused the amount of pollution being released into the atmosphere to
drastically decrease, so the planet's climate stopped increasing and we were able to avoid the
environmental consequences of global warming. Also, in the end, this positive impact was more
rewarding than any amount of money.
Why All Engineers Must Do the Right Thing
Engineers face dilemmas like mine throughout their careers, of both small and large magnitude.
At first, it may appear to an engineer that the unethical choice is the most appealing. But they have
to remember that engineers do not live in a vacuum. They are responsible for helping the public,
because their decision is going to have a massive impact on the world. For example, had I taken
the bribe from Anadarko, the ice caps in the Arctic Ocean would have continued to melt and raise
sea levels. That means that Manhattan would eventually be covered up by the ocean. Think of all
the art, culture, and humanity that would have been destroyed had I chosen to take the bribe.
Engineers need to make the ethical decision every time and understand their responsibility to the
public to prevent the welfare of the public from suffering, or valuable things like health and culture
can be destroyed. An article by S.P. Nichols and W.F. Weldon emphasizes the importance of
engineers understanding their ethical responsibilities. They say that engineering ethics should be
taught on a level of importance the same as other engineering courses. This way, engineers can
understand the ethical responsibility they have to the public so we can avoid devastating disasters
like the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Thomas Jefferson understood the importance of making ethical decisions, as he once said, "Give
up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains, rather than do an
immoral act." Thomas Jefferson said this because making an immoral choice can have a negative
effect on the surrounding public. An engineer's ethical dilemma can be of great magnitude, as mine
was, so it is imperative for them to understand their responsibility to the public. Engineers cannot
take the easy and selfish way out of an ethical dilemma, they have to do the right thing to avoid
creating massive consequences.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my co-workers for their contributions to research. Without them, I'd be in the
same place I started out. I would also like to thank the University of Pittsburgh for giving a fantastic
education. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my all of my college peers, but particularly Steve
Schanes and Zach Reger, for their generous assistance throughout my undergraduate career.