Budny 4:00
R04
Engineering Ethics Dilemma
David Provost (dvp6@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
“The greatest ethical test we’re ever going to face is the
treatment of those who are at our mercy,” says activist Lyn
White [1]. Though this quotation may best be applied to a
leadership context, to me it resonates in an engineering one
as well. Structures engineers design or products they create
must have the best interests of society in mind, especially
when lives are at stake. Regular people are largely powerless
to effect any change in the design of the engine of a plane or
car or the support system of a bridge. Everyday life as we
know it depends on the trust of society on its engineers to
provide a certain quality of life in which performing daily
tasks is neither risky nor worrisome. For instance, drivers
should not have to worry whether their cars’ breaks will
work and homeowners should not have to worry that their
houses will spontaneously combust due to faulty electrical
work. For reasons like these, engineers operate by a general
code of ethics provided by the National Society of
Professional Engineers. To summarize the six canons,
engineers must hold the safety and welfare of the public
paramount, adhere to their specialty, be honest with the
public, be faithful to their clients, refrain from dishonest or
unethical practices, and act responsibly to uphold the
integrity of the profession [2]. Any time engineers encounter
ethically questionable situations, they should use these
canons as guidelines to work towards a solution.
MY DILEMMA
The year is 2025. Five years ago I was hired by an
engineering consulting firm that makes recommendations
regarding the repair and rehabilitation of massive structures
such as bridges and certain buildings to construction firms
that perform the actual repairs. When a bridge, for example,
is due for routine maintenance, the state or county hires a
construction contractor who then commissions an
engineering consulting firm, us, to make accurate repair
recommendations and cost estimates. Sometimes, the state
hires our company before hiring a construction firm, but
only in cases in which the structure has not undergone
routine maintenance for a long period of time. Usually the
degree of repair needed is far greater in these instances.
Nevertheless, one morning, my boss instructed me to
assess the condition of a small 200 ft. bridge that was due for
routine maintenance and to give the contractor my report the
next morning. So, I went to the site of the bridge and met the
contractor. He immediately noticed that I was fairly young,
but I assured him that my experience was not an issue.
Previously, during my first four years with the company, I
made these consulting trips with another senior engineer
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015-11-03
whom I learned from by example, and gradually he came to
supervise me on the job as I made the decisions. For about a
year, my employer has trusted me to handle these consulting
jobs on my own, and I told the contractor this exactly. It
seemed to me that he was hardly convinced and had me sign
the usual confidentiality agreement that makes my
evaluations his property, preventing lawful disclosure to a
third party without his consent. Then, he told me that despite
whatever my report will say, he is certain the bridge only
needs the bare minimum repairs, which are pothole and
cement crack fillers, minor corrosion treatments, etc. I
simply agreed to look over the bridge.
During my inspection, I found that there was significant
damage to the pavement on the surface of the bridge as well
as extensive rust on the guard rails. In my prior research I
learned the bridge was approaching its intended 50 year
design life, so the rust was not surprising. However, under
the bridge, the end of one of the five steel trusses had
suffered severe corrosion damage and needed replacement.
In addition, under this truss was a concrete support that had
a very high number of fatigue cracks and likely needed to be
replaced. In my notes I recommended paving over the entire
road surface on the bridge, coating every square inch of steel
with siloxanes to prevent further corrosion long-term, and
replacing part of the steel truss as well as the cement panel
beneath it. If performed, these repairs would extend the
bridges life another ten years at the very least.
After my inspection, I gave my notes and a rough cost
estimate to the contractor, who was, needless to say,
displeased. Apparently, my cost estimate almost tripled the
budget allocated by the state and the repairs would take
multiple weeks. Though this bridge is small, it receives
heavy traffic loads as it parallels a major highway. The
contractor proceeded to claim my evaluations were
inaccurate and that if I failed to stick to his “bare minimum”
cost requirement, he would find another engineering firm
that would. Furthermore, if I revealed my information to the
state, he would sue my firm for breaching the confidentiality
agreement.
IMPLICATIONS
That day, I never gave the contractor a definite response
as to what I would include in my report. On my way back to
my firm’s office, I pondered my options and their respective
consequences.
Option One
One choice I have would be to heed the contractor’s
warning and submit a report with the usual maintenance
David Provost
repairs. Consequently, my firm would be paid its usual
commission, so I would not be punished by my boss due to
lost revenue. I could also continue the growth of my career
without any major speedbumps or setbacks. Furthermore, in
abiding by the confidentiality agreement, I would be
following the fourth canon of the civil engineering code of
ethics provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers
which states as follows: “Engineers shall act in professional
matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or
trustees” [3]. This canon goes hand in hand with the fourth
canon of NSPE code of ethics. Both mean to establish a
measure of trust between the engineers and their clients,
which includes disclosing information to other parties.
However, option one does have its share of downsides.
For example, on the relatively small chance the bridge
collapses within the next five years and someone is hurt or
worse, I cannot imagine the tremendous guilt I would feel
when I knowingly made a dishonest recommendation. My
company’s reputation might also be tarnished should the
bridge collapse and I might never get a similar job again.
There is also the consideration of how many more times this
contractor will try to use intimidation in other instances to
earn a larger profit. Should he be stopped?
technically already engaged in business with this
contractor’s firm, but if I send the real report to the proper
authorities, I am forgoing my firm’s commission (and by
doing so makes option two feel morally better). Option three
is that I could have decided just to walk away from the site
without filing any report and explaining to my boss that I
cannot engage in any business with this contractor because
he is being dishonest. Hopefully, my boss will recognize that
I was protecting the reputation of the company from being
associated with an unstable bridge and from what could be a
lengthy legal battle. However, doing this would not be
putting the best interests of society first because the
contractor said he would just find another engineer who
would take his deal. In a way, I would be violating the first
and most important canon because I did not disclose
important information to the state.
RELEVANT INFLUENCING FACTORS
I am far from the first person to experience a moral crisis
in the engineering workplace or any workplace and I am far
from the last. There exist many stories of people in similar
ethical dilemmas that I can learn from and influence my
decision. For example, the NSPE describes a situation in
which Engineer A becomes aware of a fire code violation
that cannot be fixed until the client receives the proper
funding. Engineer A has a similar problem that I have, one
that questions whether a confidentiality agreement should be
broken in order to protect the people living in the building
or, in my case, crossing the bridge. The NSPE Board of
Ethical Review found that should the client choose to do
nothing regarding the ongoing fire code violation, then
Engineer A is obligated to notify the proper authorities. The
Board of Ethical Review cited the first canon, which says
holds the obligation of an engineer to the safety of the public
“paramount,” as taking precedence over the fourth canon,
which protects the confidentiality between engineer and
client [4]. Evidently, if I pick option two, I have history on
my side.
In another case study, a geotechnical engineer advises his
contractor to use pile supports at the bases of five two-story
buildings so that the buildings will not settle and possibly
collapse in long-term due to soft soil. He tells the engineer to
recommend the use of a cheaper, less safe method that does
not guarantee the safety of the buildings long-term, provided
no signs of cracking exist within one year—the warranty
period of the project. This engineer has a similar problem to
mine in that he has a contractor who refuses to use a solution
safer to the public. The general consensus of people who
looked at this case study concluded that the engineer should
not alter his report and that he should be fair and accurate in
his recommendations [5].
Another factor that could impact my decision is the
perception of the public. People are becoming increasingly
aware of America’s deteriorating bridge system. This
awareness has brought about some degree of change.
Option Two
The second option is to report the actual condition of the
bridge to the state as well as the unprofessionalism of the
contractor. Fortunately, I would be adhering to the most
important of the canon which states, “Engineers shall hold
paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and
shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable
development in the performance of their professional duties”
[3]. This canon happens to be the first of the NSPE canons
as well. They mean that an engineer’s first priority is to
protect people from any preventable harm. Sharing my
report with the state would be ensuring no accident would
happen for years to come.
As for the downsides, most of them come back to me.
The legal headaches caused by the contractor might come
back to me and my firm, costing me and hurting my relation
with my company. Strained relations might cause my
company to let me go and then getting a different job could
be difficult because companies might see me as a liability.
Further still, shutting down this bridge for repairs will be an
inconvenience to hundreds if not thousands of people and
might direct traffic to the highway, causing more problems
still.
Option Three
There is another canon to consider and that is part A of
canon six which states, “Engineers shall not knowingly
engage in business or professional practices of a fraudulent,
dishonest or unethical nature” [3]. Unfortunately, I am
2
David Provost
According to an article published by the Wall Street Journal,
“The bridge situation in almost all states has improved as a
result of greater emphasis given to the condition of the
system in the eyes of the public” [6]. The increased
awareness can be attributed to bridge collapses in
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. However, new
advances in technologies to insect bridges, such as x-rays
and ultrasound, have made inspection easier [6]. With these
advances, people will question how a bridge could possibly
fall; option one is looking worse and worse.
I began to think back to a bridge in my hometown. It
never collapsed, but I remembered how inept the
management of it was. Every winter, deep potholes covered
the paved surface, especially the winter of 2014, and the
township would only ever fill the potholes and the filling
would come out every snowfall. Finally, the entire surface
was paved over one month. Not three months later, I learned
the entire bridge would be replaced the next year, closing
that busy road for 18 months with construction beginning
November of 2015. After that, naturally, the construction
was delayed until March 2016 [7]. I definitely do not want
history to repeat itself with the bridge I inspected because I
remember how much of an inconvenience the reconstruction
and the mismanagement was to my town.
By this time I am realizing that the only one who benefits
from my choice of option one is the contractor. Option one
is basically a house of cards lying upon shaky moral ground
that falls with the bridge. The real choice now is between
options two and three. I can potentially save lives while
putting my career at risk or I can wipe my hands clean of the
entire situation. I think this choice is the one that really boils
down to one’s sense of morality. In order to make a decision,
I need to dig deep and think about how I define myself.
If there were one conversation I will try to remember
when a decision of this magnitude comes during my career,
it would be one I had with my stepfather the day I graduated
from high school. He and my mom took me to dinner that
night and he grilled me about the type of adult I will
become. He wanted to know how I define myself and I
responded with the importance I place on morality and how
it decides almost every decision I make and will make. He
then proceeded to make me promise to never forget this,
especially with how hard I have worked and the adversity I
have faced in my life [9]. I have not yet forgotten.
My career might be more important to me, but I
genuinely hope I will become the kind of engineer who
abides by the codes of ethics. Today, I would pick option
two; ten years from now, I still think I would pick option
two.
REFERENCES
[1] L. White. (2013). “Lyn White.” Goodreads, Quotes.
(website).
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3186595.Lyn_Whit
e
[2] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” (2015). National
Society of Professional Engineers. (online code of ethics).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[3] “Code of Ethics.” (2015). American Society of Civil
Engineers.
(online
code
of
ethics).
http://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/
[4] “Public Health and Safety—Delay in Addressing Fire
Code Violations.” (2014). National Society of Professional
Engineers, Case No. 13-11. (online case study).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
[5] “An Unsettling Situation (Case 1015).” (2014). Texas
Tech,
Ethics
Cases.
(online
case
study).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[6] C. Bialik. (2013). “No Shortcuts in Measuring Bridge
Safety.”
Wall
Street
Journal.
(online
article).
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/no-shortcuts-in-measuringbridge-safety-1244/
[7] F. Maye. (2015). “Construction of New Route 926
Bridge in Pocopson Delayed.” Southern Chester County
News.
(online
article).
http://www.southernchestercountyweeklies.com/article/SC/2
0150411/NEWS/150419997
[8] “Wrong Test Score Given.” (October 2013). Real Life
Ethical Dilemma from Past. (additional source).
[9] “Moral Conversation.” (June 9, 2015). Conversation with
Stepfather Kenneth Ballinger. (additional source).
CONCLUSION
Realistically, I cannot determine with certainty which
option my future self would choose because I cannot be sure
of the kind of person I will be years after I graduate. I want
to say that I would choose option two because it ring true
morally. For years now I have defined myself by my morals;
they are something that I feel have always set me apart from
everyone else. For instance, one time in AP US History
during my junior year of high school, my teacher was
handing back tests, but I knew I had already gotten a 96
percent because the score was online. I remember how proud
I felt because it was the first test of supposedly the hardest
class offered by our school. However, when the teacher
handed me the test, I saw a big, red 80 at the top of the
paper. My heart absolutely sank. At the end of the class, I
informed my teacher of her mistake because I clearly had
not earned that A in the gradebook and she corrected the
gradebook. When I told my friends after the class, they said
they would have kept the 96 [8]. If there is one aspect I will
remember from this experience, it will be that I had no
regrets after telling my teacher.
3
David Provost
I would like to firstly thank Josh Lapekas for reading and
grading my papers. Secondly, I thank Beth Newborg for
reviewing the assignment in detail during class. Lastly I
thank my roommate Ryan Barrett for discussing possible
topics with me so that I could finally decide on a clear focus.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“What’s the Angle? (Case 1010).” (2014). Texas Tech,
Ethics
Cases.
(online
case
study).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
David Provost
5