Group 11 – Basilisk: Ethics Report
Brian Lubasky
Robert Richmond
Barry Martin
Alan Fluder
Francis Murray
Case 1: Accepting Gifts
1.
What are the circumstances of this disaster?
Engineers often have to make decisions on whether or not to accept a gift from a client. Often
times this is a gray area in the industry and the decision could be a difficult one. Though
sometimes considered as a common business practice, sometimes accepting a client’s gift
breaches business ethics and could possibly be unlawful. Though this case study does not refer to
any specific disaster, there are scenarios to be discussed. In this installment, we have a
department manager named Tom that manages a new chemical process unit to be designed and
constructed. During the process, Tom realized that a new type of valve could be used. The new
valve proved to be less costly and provided the system with tighter shutoff. This ultimately
improved the safety of the design while reducing costs. Now Tom is left with a few decisions
after the salesman (Jim) of the new valves offers him numerous gifts. (See question 4)
2.
What key ethical principles were involved? Be sure to identify the specific codes (from
the ethics standards of IEEE, ACM NSPE etc.) that may have been violated.
The NSPE Rules of Practice clearly states that “They shall not offer any gift or other valuable
consideration in order to secure work.” The IEEE also states that an engineer should “Reject
bribery in all forms.”
Due to the “gray” nature of these codes, some companies provide their employees with
guidelines. For the sake of the case studies, we will refer to the partial list of gifts in which a
large electronics firm does not allow its engineers to accept.
3.
How could this disaster have been avoided?
Any disaster that is caused by the giving or receiving of gifts can always be avoided by simply
not giving or receiving any gifts. If an engineer has a question regarding the giving or receiving
of gifts, they should question their supervisor and/or refer to company policies.
4.
What actions could you have taken if you were part of the project in question?
First scenario: After a large number of values have been specified and purchased, the salesman
for the valves (Jim) visits tom and gives him a plastic pen with the name of Jim's company
stamped in gold. The pen is worth about $5.
Should Tom accept the pen? – Because the pen is not considered a gift of “excessive value” and
will likely not create a feeling of obligation or compromise of professional judgement, it is likely
OK for Tom to accept the Pen.
Second scenario: After a large number of valves had been specified and purchased, Jim invites
tom to play golf with him at the local country club. Tom is an avid golfer and has wanted to play
golf at the country club for some time — it is the best course in town.
Should Tom accept the invitation? – Because Jim is inviting Tom to play with him, the invitation
is not considered an outright gift. However, depending on Tom’s perception the invitation may
create a feeling of obligation. Because the valves have already been purchased and the business
dealings for the project are complete, it is likely OK for Tom to accept the gift, however he
should definitely ask his supervisor first.
Third scenario: After a large number of valves have been specified and purchased, Jim offers to
sponsor Tom for membership in the local country club. Tom is an avid golfer and has wanted to
be a member of the club for some time, but has not found a sponsor.
Should Tom accept Jim's offer? – Tom should not accept the gift. Many companies prohibit the
acceptance of outright gifts where the supplier does not intend to accompany the employee and
also prohibits a sponsorship by the supplier.
Fourth Scenario: Before Tom's decision to recommend any type of valve, Jim visits Tom and
offers him a very nice fishing trip to South America, if Tom will recommend the valve produced
by Jim's company. Jim's valves are less safe and more expensive than other types of valves.
What should Tom do? – Tom should absolutely reject the gift. This is a perfect definition of
bribery and could definitely lead to a disaster.
Case 2: Ford Pinto
1.
What are the circumstances of this disaster?
This disaster is an extreme violation of moral ethics. Essentially, Ford Motors knew that the
design of the Ford Pinto would cause multiple deaths and injuries, but did not want to add a
simple safety feature to the car due to a price increase. Ford estimated that the Ford Pinto would
cause 180 burn deaths, 180 burn victims, and 2,100 burned vehicles. After payouts, Ford figured
that they would pay roughly 49.5 million dollars. In order to add a fire prevention device priced
at 11 dollars per car/truck, Ford would have to pay 137 million dollars. In other words, people
could burn alive as long as Ford saved money on their vehicles. Future reports should that Ford
could have added the life saving device to the card for only $5.08 per vehicle for a total cost of
63 million dollars. Due to many lawsuits, Ford was forced to stop production of the Pinto
because they decided to be cheap.
2.
What key ethical principles were involved? Be sure to identify the specific codes (from
the ethics standards of IEEE, ACM NSPE etc.) that may have been violated.
Ford violated multiple IEEE codes:
3.

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.

To be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data.

To improve the understanding of technology, it’s appropriate application, and potential
consequences.

To seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct
errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others.

To avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious
action.
How could this disaster have been avoided?
This disaster could have been avoided if Ford followed the code of ethics and spent $5.08 per
vehicle to enhance the vehicles safety and save lives. Ultimately, the additional $5.08 would
have saved Ford money in the long run by avoiding all the lawsuits.
4.
What actions could you have taken if you were part of the project in question?
If we were part of the project in question, we would have teamed up with engineers and
employees at Ford that demand safety and take safety seriously. Because safety was not a big
priority at Ford, it would have required a large team of engineers to refuse to design the unsafe
vehicle for management to take note.
Case 3: Apollo 1
1.
What are the circumstances of this disaster?
The Apollo 1 mission was the first in a series of NASA programs designed to get an American to
the moon. Because it was the first, many tests needed to be completed and issues needed to be
sorted out. During a preflight test on the launch pad, a fire started in the command module and
all three astronauts on board were killed. The astronauts on board noted that a high oxygen flow
periodically triggered a master alarm in the spacecraft, but command believed that it resulted in
movement from the crew and never resolved the issue. Faulty communications between the crew
and the control room occurred during the test and eventually led to faulty communication
between the crew and the operations and checkout building and the blockhouse. Before the
countdown, instruments once again showed that there was an unexplained rise in oxygen flow to
the spacesuits. Immediately after this, a fire erupted in the cockpit and the crew tried to escape
from the escape route. All 3 astronauts were killed. Contributing factors are as noted. The Teflon
wiring on the craft was prone to penetration by abrasion and could have led to combustion.
Because of the high levels of oxygen, the fire spread extremely fast. Highly combustible nylon
was used to prevent items from dropping into equipment areas during tests. The hatch was hard
to manage if a quick evacuation was needed. NASA ultimately failed to identify the situation as
hazardous.
2.
What key ethical principles were involved? Be sure to identify the specific codes (from
the ethics standards of IEEE, ACM NSPE etc.) that may have been violated.
Though this was a test and risks are likely, NASA could have taken some more safety
precautions. Ultimately they ignored the increased oxygen sensors putting their astronauts at risk
if a fire were to erupt. They did not consider safety as a primary consideration, and they did not
have the proper emergency personnel available.
By NSPE standards, NASA did not hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
and the spacecraft’s crew. NASA staff allowed themselves to be influenced in their professional
duties by conflicting interests because they were under pressure to minimize costs.
3.
How could this disaster have been avoided?
This disaster could have been avoided if NASA and its contractors did not cut corners. Because
they were under pressure to preflight the spacecraft, they rushed the process. They should not
have ignored the oxygen alarms and should not have ran the test with inadequate communication
between the crew and the command center. Also, they knowingly used nylon when they knew it
was combustible.
4.
What actions could you have taken if you were part of the project in question?
We would have delayed the test to sort out and run tests on the system that provides the crew
with oxygen. We would have made sure that the form of communication was persistent and did
not fail in a time of need. We would not have used and products with known defects such as the
combustible nylon net and the abrasion prone Teflon. We would have also had plenty of
emergency response personnel on site.
Our Analysis
1.
What are the ethical issues that may be involved in your own project?
Because our project is a Project Management system and is simply an interface to help coders
and engineers produce projects in a simpler manner, there is not a high risk of any safety codes
being violated. In that aspect we must ensure that our system will reliably track bugs to allow the
coder or developer to create a bug free project. We have crunched numbers and have provided
our sponsor with realistic estimates of cost and function. The biggest issue that we may have to
deal with during the development of this project is the improvement of the understanding of
technology, its application, and potential consequences.
2.
What steps would you take to make sure there will be no disasters involving your
project?
In order to ensure that there will be no disasters involving our project, we will confide with our
sponsor and instructor, as well as resort to the IEEE code of Ethics, ACM, and NSPE standards.
We are all remaining accountable for our actions and have yet to come across any ethically
challenging decisions. If we do, we will talk to our sponsor before making any decisions.