Budny 10:00
L16
IS IT REALLY WORTH IT?
Kayla Williams (kaw182@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
The following is a possible scenario that I could see
myself in as a future engineer in which my ethics would be
questioned. I am working at a pharmaceutical company, doing
research on dissolvable microneedles as a better method of
delivering drugs and vaccines to patients. This is a technology
that I am passionate about and have been working on for
years. We are nearing the end of the research and testing
process on animals, and will move to human trials next. The
only aspect that we are concerned about is the long-term
effects of the materials used in the microneedles after they
dissolve in the bloodstream. We have not considered all of the
possible interactions between the materials and the human
body and, if over a long period of time, these materials will
come to harm the patients. My lab is approached with an
extremely handsome offer by the company to have these
microneedles ready to go onto the market in 6 months so as to
beat another company working on the same project and that
is close to putting them on the market as well. If we manage
to get the microneedles on the market in 6 months, my lab
team receives a raise. If we don’t finish in 6 months, and the
other company releases the microneedle technology on to the
market first, we are told we do not want to know what will
happen as a result. We think this could consist of terminating
the project, lowering our salaries, or even being fired.
As we continue work on the project, we realize that the
deadline does not give us enough time to test the long-term
effects of the dissolvable materials in the microneedles. Our
lab team has a meeting to discuss the issue, and some people
suggest fudging the results in order to get the microneedles
approved for human trial, and then to be put on the market
before the deadline. They reason that the microneedles will
pass the human trials because we already know that there are
no short-term adverse effects, and any issues that might arise
will not be for months or even years later. If we do not make
the deadline, we miss out on a huge financial reward, and we
risk losing our jobs all for the chance that there might be longterm effects for the patient. What if there aren’t any adverse
effects of the microneedles and we miss the deadline all for
nothing? But what if we fudge the results and there are health
complications that arise in years to come? The company
would be vulnerable to various lawsuits as well as my lab
team.
CODE OF ETHICS
In order to better evaluate my ethical obligations in this
scenario, I would refer to two codes of ethics in order to
determine which canons I would be violating. Those two
codes are the National Society of Professional Engineers
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2014-10-28
(NSPE) code of ethics and the American Chemical Institute
of Chemical Engineers (AIChE).
According to the NSPE code of ethics, I could be in
question of violating the first canon of holding “paramount
the safety, health, and welfare of the public” [1], but this is
not a helpful canon in helping make my decision. When I look
at the Rules of Practice category and read the details under the
first canon, it says that “Engineers shall approve only those
engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable
standards” [1], but this is vague. What does it mean
“applicable standards?” The microneedles would be
extremely applicable in this case, and due to all the benefits
of the microneedles, my team of engineers would most
assuredly be holding “paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public” [1]. It is difficult to gauge exactly if I
would be in direct violation of these canons, and it would be
easy to argue that I would not be in violation of the code,
therefore, looking at this code of ethics would not help me in
this decision.
In addition to the NSPE Code of Ethics, I would reference
the AIChE code of ethics since the AIChE has beneath it the
Society of Biological Engineering (SBE). Looking at this
code of ethics, the obligation to “formally advise their
employers or clients (and consider further disclosure, if
warranted) if they perceive that a consequence of their duties
will adversely affect the present or future health or safety of
their colleagues or the public” [2] stood out to me because it
explicitly mentions taking into consideration consequences
that will affect the future health or safety of the public.
However, I can easily make the case, again, that because, in
my scenario, there are no adverse effects that we know of, and
the only question is whether to put in the extra effort to be
sure that there are no adverse effects, this rule of the AIChE
code of ethics is no more helpful than the canons of the NSPE
Code of Ethics.
OTHER CASE STUDIES
Looking at other case studies could be helpful, too in
deciding the most ethical course of action.
Case 1: In the case titled “What’s the Angle?” [3], an
engineer’s employee discovers that there are rusty clippings
on a building that create the risk of granite blocks falling into
the street below and hurting someone. The employee alerts
the engineer employer, who then relays this to her employer,
but he does not want to mention the rusty clippings because
the clippings were not a part of the agreed upon survey he had
to complete, and he is about to close a deal selling the building
to a client. The money that he will receive from this deal will
be enough for him to retire to a 50-acre estate. If the engineer
goes behind her employer’s back and tells the client about the
Kayla Williams
clippings, she is in violation of her contract, and if she does
not do anything, her employer promises future work
opportunities for her small firm [3]. This case is similar in that
the engineer faces the dilemma of having to choose between
lying (or omitting information, which I view to be the same
thing) in order to reap a reward or telling the truth and risking
losing business. Her husband’s response is to do nothing
because if she loses her business relationship with her
employer, that also means less business for the 15 workers
under her who have families [3]. In this situation, I
immediately thought I would say something about the rusty
clippings because the lives of the people walking by the
building are at risk, and the company would face a huge
lawsuit if someone is seriously injured or killed. But, the
engineer has a small firm, and helping this client could be her
big break to get the firm off the ground and expand. There is
a good chance that her worker did not assess the situation
correctly and that the rusty clippings could be less of an issue
than she thinks. But, again, does the risk outweigh the value
of a life? That same question arises in my scenario: does me
getting a raise outweigh the risk of a patient developing
serious health problems in years to come?
Case 2: A Lead Product Development Engineer, Keith, is
on a team who is also working with a manufacturing company
to release a new medical device on to the market. They have
been waiting to release this product a long time, and their
supervisors are pressuring them to release the product, but
they find that they are 6 months behind schedule for releasing
the product. Testing has been done, but Keith notices that not
everything was documented properly including engineering
rationale behind why some tests were avoided in the testing
process. However, one of the other engineers on the team
sends an email to the company announcing the soon release
of the medical device, provided Keith signs the Product
Release Authorization (PRA) form. The medical device is a
rather low-risk technology and is non-invasive, so Keith
struggles with whether to sign the form in the hope that there
was a substantial engineering rationale behind avoiding
certain tests—and they just weren’t documented properly—
or to not sign the forms to avoid the risk that something goes
wrong with the device in patients, and blame falls on the team
of engineers and the manufacturing company [3]. This case
relates to my scenario almost directly because Keith has a
choice between allowing the incorrect documentation pass
just to reach a milestone for the company or being overly
concerned about a device that is low-risk. Because
microneedles are low-risk, and non-invasive as well, and the
only concern in my scenario is that there might be adverse
effects a long time down the line, it is almost the exact same
situation. Engineers should be concerned about the risks they
put against patients’ lives, but at the same time, improper
documentation is trivial in the grand scheme of things just like
passing the microneedles on to human trial and avoiding
testing long-term effects is trivial since we do not know if
there are any adverse effects, what they would be, and how
long it would take for long-term issues to arise.
OTHER OPINIONS ON ETHICS
In the book “Biomedical Ethics for Engineers,” the
authors raise the question of what it means to be a
professional, and they discuss it with undergraduate students
in a professional ethics course at Duke. The verdict was that
a professional is someone that the public trusts: “Instead, for
professionals, there is an expectation of trust, i.e., credat
emptor, on the part of the patient of the patient or client.
Engineers fall into the trust category” [4]. This raises a good
point because for engineers, especially, people are putting
their lives in our hands. They are trusting us to take care of
them to the best of our ability. Relative to my scenario, each
and every decision I make has to account for the fact that we
are expected to value the well-being of the public and any
patients that would receive treatment via microneedles. Not
wanting to account for long-term effects of microneedles in
order to receive a raise is not keeping the patient at heart. But
at the same time, I cannot disregard my own desire to have
professional success in the future. Another issue is that longterm adverse effects are not inevitable, so we might end up
passing up the offer and/or losing our jobs for seemingly
nothing.
“Engineering Ethics,” by W. Richard Bowen, discusses
consequentialism as being key to an engineer’s method of
thinking and practice. “There is a tendency for engineers to
adopt as a default position in the consideration of ethical
problems a calculation of consequences and risks, a calculus
of consequences. The philosophical basis of this approach to
ethics is termed consequentialism” [5]. This quote essentially
says that any engineer can and will account for all possible
outcomes of their actions, which is what I must do in my
ethical dilemma. I must consider if further down the line a
long-term adverse effect will arise in a patient, in which case,
I am at fault for not fully considering the consequences of the
dissolvable microneedles. Even if we can never truly know
how far into the future the long-term adverse effects will
occur, we must still carry the burden of having allowed
dissolvable microneedles on to the market without being at
lease more certain of their safety in patients. This ties back to
the last paragraph where I discussed trust being something
crucial to the engineering profession.
MY PERSONAL VALUES
After consulting all of the other documents and sources of
information on ethics, at the end of the day, there are two
sources that matter the most to me: my dad and the Bible. I
grew up in a Christian home, and Christianity is central to the
decisions I make in life, thus it is very important to me and
my family. Since my dad is a preacher, I would consult him
first because not only would he have a lot of helpful advice to
offer to me, he would also give me some Scriptures to look at
to get me directly involved with what the Bible says about
2
Kayla Williams
different issues in life. Essentially, he would tell me to not be
concerned about missing out on the opportunity to have a raise
in salary or even being fired because God would make a way
out of no way. His favorite thing to say to me is “You’re a
child of the King” [5], which means as a child of God, I do
not have to worry about issues such as losing my job because
as long as I pray about it and trust in God to take care of me,
everything will work out. Even if I did lost my job, God would
still make a way for me, perhaps opening the door to an even
greater opportunity.
In the Bible, there are tons of Scriptures that would
support my Dad’s advice to do the right thing regardless of
what man might say the consequences will be. “So we may
boldly say: ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not fear! What can
man do to me?’” (Hebrews 13:6) “For God has not given us a
spirit of fear, but of power of love and of a sound mind” (2
Timothy 1:7). “Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel
of Christ…and not in any way terrified by your
adversaries…” (Philippians 1:27-28). “Let nothing be done
through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you
look out not only for his own interests of others.” (Philippians
2:3-4).
Something else my dad would say is that even if I am
fired, I shouldn’t worry because, again, I am a child of the
King, and God wouldn’t leave me suffering for long. “When
you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through
the rivers, they shall not overflow you. When you walk
through the fire, you shall not be burned, nor shall the flame
scorch you.” (Isaiah 43:2). “For the Lord will not cast off
forever. Though He causes grief, Yet He will show
compassion according to the multitude of His mercies.”
(Lamentations 3:31-31).
CONCLUSION
My final decision would be to not fudge the data and just
hope to God that I am not fired, and that there are no dire
consequences for not meeting the deadline. I cannot put my
monetary desires over the value of a life, because that is not
fair to a patient. If a health problem develops in a patient,
that health problem could end up costing a lot more than any
raise I would receive in my salary. I also could not live with
myself knowing that the public trusted me with their health
and welfare, and I failed them due to selfish desires. As a
recommendation to other engineers, I would say it is never
worth it. If you even have to ask the question, it is simply
not worth it. Do what seems right to you and stick to it,
because at the end of the day, you will be rewarded for that.
If you do not believe in God, then good ole’ karma will
repay you for your commitment and adherence to what is
morally required of engineers.
3
Kayla Williams
REFERENCES
[1] NSPE Executive Committee. (Last Revised 2007). “NSPE
Code of Ethics.” http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/codeethics
[2] AIChE Executive Committee. “Code of Ethics.”
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[3]
“What’s
the
Angle?
(Case
1010)”
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[4] “To Release or Not to Release: An Engineer’s
Perspective.”
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/21releasequesti
on.jsp
[5] Daniel Vallero, Jonathan T. Simpson. (2007). Biomedical
Ethics for Engineers. (eBook). Pp. 139-141.
[6] C. Williams. (2025, March 15). Conversation.
[7] W. Richard Bowen. (2009). Engineering Ethics. (eBook).
Pp. 29-41
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
C.I. Scofield. (2002). The Scofield Study Bible, New King
James Version. New York, New York: Oxford University
Press. (print book).
4