ENGR 0011 Schaub 6:00
R07
CLEAN WATER AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
Natasha Gilbert (NAG65@pitt.edu)
THE ARTICLE
“Natasha, you will evaluate every code of ethics to
the fullest extent, in order to counter this article”. This was
the statement from the CEO, John Trimble, of Clean Water,
company for which I work, not two days ago. Clean Water
is, at the moment, a private company which builds artificial
wetlands within buildings of all types. These wetlands then
filter collected rain water from the roof of the building and
create an environmentally sustained building. The building
then needs little to no outside resources of water. Just a week
before Clean Water was scheduled to go public with stock, a
reporter for the New York Times released an article claiming
to have inside information on Clean Water. According to the
article this information would expose Clean Water to be in
direct conflict with the Engineering Code of Ethics. It is my
job, as the head engineer of the project, to refute this
upcoming article in the New York Times by writing my own
article which evaluates each code of ethics we could
possibly be in conflict with. My CEO assures me that Clean
Water has made no errors; therefore, it is my duty to clear
these allegations.
WORST-CASE SCENARIO
I was unable to pin point an area of the codes that were in
direct conflict with the work that Clean Water does for
society while evaluating the different code of ethics that
apply to Clean Water: the National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE) and the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE). Due to the fact that I could find no error
in the physical work of building the artificial wetlands, I
began to evaluate possible ethical breaches of the company
itself. One portion of the code I first overlooked and
dismissed was Cannon 9 of “NSPE Code of Ethics for
Engineers”. This portion of the code states, “Engineers shall
give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is
due” [1]. The original reason for overlooking Cannon 9 of
the code was due to the assurances John Trimble presented
to me. He claimed the company had not acted wrongfully;
but what if the allegations in the upcoming article claim
Clean Water stole the engineering plans? It is possible I was
not given completely truthful information.
If Clean Water was found guilty of using another
engineer’s work and research for the wetland designs, there
would be both legislative and financial consequences. Just a
year ago there was a similar case, Case 1009, in which a
company presented a plagiarized proposal to a larger firm.
The penalties of the plagiarized proposal ranged from loss of
money to a full investigation of the company [2]. In the case
of Clean Water, similar consequences would occur. As seen
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015-11-03
in Case 1009 the ramifications for Clean Water would start
with loss of money due to legal fees and to reimbursement to
the victim for plagiarized ideas [2]. I was able to speak first
hand with Kevin Harris, CEO of Jamie’s Children’s Home,
who experienced a similar situation. The company he
worked for was “under scrutiny for a program that mirrored
a competitors”. Even though, at the end of the legal hearings,
Jamie’s Children’s Home was found not guilty of
plagiarism, there was still a “loss of business through lack
recommendations from the state” [3]. Due to the fact that
Jamie’s Children’s Home’s case is analogous to the possible
Clean Water case, it can be assumed a court hearing for
possible plagiarism would bring bad publicity to Clean
Water and possibility result in a loss of business.
Not only would a breach of the Cannon 9 NSPE code
lead to financial impacts, but, as seen in Case 1009, it could
also lead to a full scale investigation of Clean Water. This
investigation could halt the progress of any current wetland
projects [2]. The investigation of Clean Water would involve
all parties of the Clean Water Company, including me as the
head engineer. Even though I was not the engineer that
plagiarized the work or research, an investigation would
taint my name as well as the names of the engineers who
work alongside me. If my coworkers or I attempted to
transfer companies our names would be associated with the
plagiarism scandal, making it more difficult to get hired.
If Cannon 9 of the NSPE code was breached by Clean
Water not giving credit where it was due, possible
consequences would range from financial impacts to the
company to personal loss of reputation [1]. While this
scenario is just a possibility, it is my job to evaluate any
areas in which Clean Water could conflict with the NSPE or
ASCE code. As an engineer for Clean Water, I trust my
CEO to have disclosed the whole truth to me. Therefore,
although I am forced to consider this option, I will dismiss it
as a possible conflict.
PUBLIC SAFETY
A large portion of both the NSPE and ASCE code of
ethics is concerned with the welfare of the public. The NSPE
and ASCE both state: “Engineers shall hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public” [1, 4]. Clean Water,
when engineering the wetlands, looks first at the structural
integrity of the building. In the past 10 years buildings have
been known to collapse due to stress from too much
precipitation on the roof. Precipitation is the main source of
water collection for the artificial wetlands. In 2013, the
Hubert H. Humphrey Stadium was faced with an
engineering failure that caused the roof to collapse under the
stress of heavy precipitation [5]. This type of engineering
Natasha Gilbert
flaw is first considered in each building before proceeding
with the construction of the wetlands. The construction will
add stress to the roof during heavy precipitation because
drainage is slower with the wetland adaptation than with
regular water systems. It is imperative that Clean Water
analyzes each structural aspect of the building to ensure it
can withhold the added stress. Once the water is collected
from the roof of the building it is filtered and allocated
throughout the building using the same techniques as a
normal building structure. In turn, once the structural
integrity of the building is ensured, the artificial wetland
poses little to no safety risk to the people in the building.
Another concern Clean Water has taken into account is
the purity of the water. If not purified through proper
techniques the health of people in contact with the water
would be at stake. Years of research and experimentation
have gone into the balance of sediments, micro-organisms,
and macro-organisms in each engineered ecosystem. It is
imperative that each constructed wetland is “regarded as,
and designed as natural integrated ecosystems”. This
ensures, as in a natural wetland, that each micro and macro
organism obtains the correct nutrients they need to survive
[6]. This idea of an interdependent, self-sufficient ecosystem
is what Clean Water strives for in order to keep the
constructed ecosystem in a constant self-purifying state.
Furthermore, Clean Water takes an additional step in the
purification process to guarantee there are no health risks to
the water. Clean Water uses the same final chemical process
as the water treatment facility in the region in which the
building is located. For example, Clean Water installed an
artificial wetland into a business building in Reading,
Pennsylvania in 2014. The final step of the purification of
the water mirrors that of the Reading Waste Water
Treatment Plant; this way the treatment is tailored to the
specific water of the surrounding area. Before mirroring the
process of the water treatment plants, a contact is created
that allows for the sharing of information between the
treatment plant and Clean Water. This constant flow of
information is imperative to meet the idea of “modify[ing]
[the] organizational structure to meet external environmental
pressure,” or, in other words, consistently changing
approaches to water purification based on external
environmental pressure [7]. Clean Water upholds the utmost
safety precautions in order to safeguard the health of our
clients.
rate greater than they are being replenished. Cannon 1,
Directive F, “Engineers should be committed to improving
the environment by adherence to the principles of
sustainable development so as to enhance the quality of life
of the general public,” is the basis for the Clean Water
Company [4].
Clean Water has participated in studies for over 30 years
on wetland ecosystems and the application of the ecosystems
to society. The studies by Clean Water in no way harm the
environment, and are solely based off of observation and
field testing. Plants, micro-organisms, and macro-organisms
of these ecosystems are not removed for testing or for the
application of our ecosystems. All portions of our ecosystem
are cultivated and grown in a lab prior to installment. This
method is used to keep endangered wetlands from being
tampered with for artificial use. Clean Water strives to
preserve the environment and duplicate its processes; not to
remove or interfere with any biological feature.
The largest area for concern with the artificial wetlands is
the bacteria used to purify the water. There is controversy as
to whether the bacteria used to purify the water is safe for
consumption. People are exposed to different bacteria in the
water based on where they live. Some bacteria, such as
Amoebas, are harmful to people who live in America but are
not harmful to people who live in Mexico [8]. Due to the
risk of people becoming sick as a result of coming in contact
with new bacteria, Clean Water has added the extra step in
the process to eliminate the bacteria. As stated previously, a
mirrored process to that of a waste water treatment plant is
used to kill any straggling harmful bacteria. Clean Water is
in complete compliance with the NSPE and ASCE
environmental ethical cannons. Environmental safety and
sustainability is what Clean Water strives for.
DOUBLE AND TRIPPLE CHECK
As the head engineer on these projects I make it my duty
to evaluate each engineer that works under me. Each
engineer hired by Clean Water is highly qualified for the
work which they are completing. Each engineer is required
to “perform services only in the areas of their competence,”
as stated in the NSPE codes [1]. There is never a task that is
not both overseen by me and checked by other engineers of
equal qualifications to me. When on annual checks of our
installed systems, it is my responsibility to address any
errors made either by people or by the system. If a system
were to fail and create a health or environmental hazard,
Clean Water and I would assume full responsibility: NSPE
Cannon 2, Directive C and Cannon 8 [1]. It is possible for a
system to fail, but through the precautions taken, the risk of
failure is diminished. Clean Water is yet to have a total
system failure that endangers consumers or the environment.
ENVIORMENTAL PRECAUTIONS
As stated above, Clean Water has taken environmental
precautions to guarantee the health of consumers, but Clean
Water also takes precautions to guarantee the wellbeing of
the environment. Clean Water is an environment-oriented
company which has had the conservation of the environment
in mind since its creation. Clean Water began building
artificial wetlands in order to cut down on the amount of
water usage from resources which are being depleted at a
2
Natasha Gilbert
MY ARTICLE
REFERENCES
After I evaluated each code that Clean Water could
possibly be in conflict with, I began to evaluate each code
that I could possibly be in conflict with. Earlier in the
evaluation of the company, I came to the conclusion that
Clean Water was at no fault unless I was not presented with
truthful information from the CEO. If this is the case, then
the article I wrote to refute the New York Times article would
be an ethical violation itself. In my article I chose to leave
out the possibility of untruthful information leading to the
“Worse-Case Scenario”. This in itself could be a violation of
NSPE Cannon 3, “Engineers shall avoid all conduct or
practice that deceives the public” [1]. If in fact this scenario
was proven to be true, Clean Water and I would then be in
violation of two codes NSPE Cannon 9 and Cannon 1 [1].
As indicated by Science Engineering Ethics,
“Professional organizations and journals do provide crucial
guidance in this realm [authorship], but this cannot replace
the need for frequent and diligent discussions in engineering
research communities about what constitutes appropriate
authorship practice” [10]. In order to discuss my decision, I
referred to the ASCE Ethics Hotline, where I discussed this
ethical dilemma with Jenifer Herring [9]. As the “WorstCase Scenario” is only a hypothetical, if I didn’t receive
truthful information, I am not in conflict with any ethical
cannons. It was also discussed that if the “Worst Case
Scenario” were to come true I would still not be in conflict
with any cannons, because at the time of the article there
were no facts to prove its truthfulness [9].
[1] U.S. Department of State. (2015). “Code of Ethics for
Engineers.” Code of Ethics | National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
(Online).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
[2] Texas Tech University. (2014). “The Plagiarized
Proposal”.
Ethics
Cases.
(Online).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases/cas
e-1009.doc
[3] K. Harris. (2015, October 30). Interview
[4] American Society of Civil Engineers. (2015). “Code of
Ethics.”
Code
of
Ethics
|
ASCE.
(Online).
http://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/
[5] T. Mason. (2013, December 29). “Remembering the
Hubert Humphrey Metrodome: 1982-2013”. Fox Sports.
(Online).
http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/hubert-hhumphrey-metrodome-1982-2013-122913
[6] G. A. Moshiri. (1993). Constructed Wetlands for Water
Quality Improvement. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. (Print
Book). pp. 3-7
[7] C. Yu, C. Chen. (2014). “From the Actual Practice of
Corporate Environmental Strategy to the Creation of a
Suggested Framework of Corporate Environmental
Responsibility”. Environmental Engineering Science. (Print
Journal). Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 61-70.
[8] C. Fortney. (2015, October 6). Lecture Notes. General
Chemistry I. University of Pittsburgh.
[9] J. Herring. (2015, October 30). ASCE Ethical Hotline.
[10] J. Borenstein. (2011). “Responsible Authorship in
Engineering Fields: An Overview of Current Ethical
Challenges”. Sci Eng Ethics. (Print Journal). Vol. 17, No. 2,
pp. 355-364.
FOR THE FUTURE
As an engineer, understanding the Codes of Ethics is
imperative. Being familiar with the codes allows for less
error and for less actions to come into question. When an
action is called into question there are many resources to aid
engineers. Each society, such as the ASCE, has their own
codes and Ethical Code Hotline to help define what is right
and wrong in the engineering field. It is through trial and
error that engineers learn, therefore it is important to discuss
these errors in order to learn from them. As a future engineer
one should utilize all the resources available.
By utilizing my resources and by referring to the Codes
of Ethics I was able to write a pre-emptive article to refute
the upcoming article in the New York Times. I have come to
realize that there is always a possibility that a code could
have been breached, but from my stand point as an engineer,
it is my conclusion that Clean Water has not breached any
ethical codes. Clean Water strives to improve society as well
as the environment through innovative artificial wetland
technologies.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“It’s All About Sharing…”. (2015). Ethics Case Studies.
(Online).
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/its-all-about-sharing
J. Basart, M.Serra. (2011). “Engineering Ethics Beyond
Engineers’ Ethics”. Sci Eng Ethics. (Print Journal). Vol. 19,
No. 1, pp. 179-187.
J. Smith, P. Gardoni, C. Murphy, et al. (2013). “The
Responsibility of Engineers”. Sci Eng Ethics. (Print Journal).
Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 519-538.
“Paying Attention to the Details”. (2015) Ethics Cases.
(Online).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases/cas
e-1017.doc
3
Natasha Gilbert
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my writing instructor: Dan
McMillan and the librarian: Anne Schwan for their help and
guidance throughout this paper.
4
Natasha Gilbert
5