Academic Integrity and Ethics in
Science & Engineering -NSF AY-REU Fall 2012 *
Karman N. Ghia
School of Aerospace Systems
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Ohio
October 5, 2012
__________
*Author acknowledges assistance of Santosh Dungi, Michael Cline and Seezan Prajapati
in preparing the PowerPoint presentation
Academic Integrity and Ethics in
Science & Engineering -NSF AY-REU Fall 2012
Concepts and Cases
Plagiarism
• Plagiarize: Definition “To take ideas or writings from
another and pass them off as one’s
own.”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College Ed., Collins)
• Plagiarism: To plagiarize means to copy
something that someone else wrote or said
without telling where you found it.
• Plagiarism is not good professional behavior:
Don’t do it!
How do you know if you are
plagiarizing?
• “You are plagiarizing if you copy from published
sources without adequate documentation.”
www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/plagiarism.html
What are the penalties for plagiarism?
•
•
•
•
Failing grade for a paper or a course
Retraction of a journal paper
Retraction of a degree
Expulsion from the University
How do you Avoid Plagiarism?
You must give credit whenever:
• You use another person's idea, opinion, or theory.
www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html
• You use any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings--any pieces of
information--that are not common knowledge.
• You use quotations of another person's actual spoken or written
words.
• You paraphrase another person's spoken or written words.
–
(To paraphrase means to express another person's
spoken or written words in your own words).
How do you give credit? -
Use References!
Someone else’s words:
• “This system remains linear at all frequencies.”
• It can be shown that this system remains linear at all
frequencies.7 7. P. Das, IEEE Transactions on…
• Das7 showed that this system remains linear at all
frequencies. 7. P. Das, IEEE Transactions on…
When don’t you have to Give Credit? - When Something is
General Knowledge
F=ma
Every modern computer has an
operating system
World War II ended in 1945. Paris is the capital of France
Code of Ethics for Engineers
Preamble
•
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this
profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of
honesty and integrity.
•
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all
people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require
honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the
protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
•
Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that
requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
Rules of Practice
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of
their competence.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an
objective and truthful manner.
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as
faithful agents or trustees.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts
Professional Obligations
•
Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity
•
Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest
•
Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.
•
Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business
affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which
they serve.
•
Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests
•
Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements
by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods
•
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional
reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others
are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for
action.
•
Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however,
that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than
gross negligence, where the engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected
•
Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize
the proprietary interests of others
Social Contract &
Responsible Engineering
• Service
• Self-Regulation
-Promoting well being of general
-Create and enforce high standards
public
-Autonomy
-Ensuring competence of
professionals
•
• What we do matters a
great deal
• Minimal legal standards
– Accidents are costly
– Public health at stake
– Environmental impact
You are the Professional
– Acknowledgement of fault
– Above and beyond call of duty
Moral Thinking and
Tests for Moral Problem Solving
• Experience – education,
work, relationships
• Ethical Sensitivities
• Personal and Common
Morality – religion, family
• Problems
• Prudence
- Is it justified because it is
in our own best interest?
• Cost / Benefit
– Is the most economic
decision the most moral?
• Golden Rule
– “do unto others…”
• Questions
• Analysis
• Rights
– Freedom, well-being,
moral, legal, laws
– Just because it is legal, is
it right?
Problem Solving - Honoring
Engineering Ethics
State the Problem
Get the Facts
Defend Viewpoints
Honesty, Truth, Reliability
• Accurate and complete technical
knowledge Unreliable judgment worse
than none at all
• Lying
• Deliberate deception
• Failure to seek truth
Formulate Opinion
Qualify
Recommendation
State the Problem and
Get the Facts
• Clearly define exact nature of ethical problem or dilemma
• Need to be clear so that we can anticipate the kind of solution
that is required
• Want to provide an answer that is relevant to the interests at
stake.
• Want to make an informed decision.
– Must possess and understand the relevant facts
• Must make clear any interpretations of factual matters or the
values than underlie conflicting moral viewpoints.
Identify & Defend Competing Moral
Viewpoints
• Critically assess the strengths and
weaknesses of competing moral viewpoints
• Begin by identifying what we believe to be the
most compelling reason for the course of
action
• We must be able to justify the course of
action
Formulate an Opinion
and Qualify Recommendation
• As engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing
questions or leaving a question unresolved
• Decide which of the compelling viewpoints is the most
compelling
• The committee approach (voting) is advantageous
because the decision is representative of the general
public
• Committees must qualify the recommendations they make
by describing the level of consensus that was received
• Should include the voting distribution and any dissenting
opinions
Case Studies
• Engineering ethics is often times best
explained through the use of case
studies.
• Case studies allow examples of good
and bad decision making in a real world
context.
Credit for Engineering Work
• Introduction:
• Engineer A is designing a bridge as part of an
elevated highway system
• Engineer B is asked to help with the design and helps
design critical elements of the bridge.
• Engineer A enters the bridge design into a national
competition and wins, but fails to credit Engineer B
for her part in the design.
• Question:
• Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to
Engineer B for her part in the design?
Credit for Engineering Work
Discussion –
•
“Basic to engineering ethics is the responsibility to issue statements in an
objective and truthful manner (Section 1.3.) The concept of providing credit
for engineering work to those to whom credit is due is fundamental to that
responsibility.
•
This is particularly the case where an engineer retains the services of other
individuals because the engineer may not possess the education,
experience and expertise to perform the required services for a client.”
•
“While each individual case must be understood based upon the particular
facts involved, we believe that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to his
client, to Engineer B as well as to the public to take reasonable steps to
identify all parties responsible for the design of the bridge.”
Conclusion –
“It was unethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for
her part in the design.”
Engineering Disaster
The Ford Pinto Case
• “not to weigh an ounce over
2000 pounds and not to cost a
cent over $2000.”
– Lee Iacocca
• Crash tests reveal defect in
gas tank
• Rear-end collisions over 25
mph resulted in rupture and
explosion
Cost Benefit Analysis – The Ford Pinto
Scandal
• Safety problems
• Rear end shunt -> rupture of fuel tank -> fire
• Spotted during design and manufacture
• $11 at manufacturing stage would have fixed problems
• Suggestion Avoided on strength of ‘Cost-Benefit’ analysis
Ford Pinto Design Methodology
• Cost-Benefit Analysis for Unsafe Design
– According to Ford, the unsafe design would cause:
• 180 Burn Deaths
• 180 Serious burn injuries
• 2100 Burned vehicles per year
– Ford assumed it would have to pay
• $200,000 per death
• $67,000 per injury
• $700 per vehicle
Ford Pinto Design Cost Analysis The Ford Pinto Scandal
• Cost-Benefit Analysis of Dangerous Design
– An alteration would cost $11.00 per car.
Cost to make safer cars
12.5 million cars x $11 = $137 million
– Benefits
180 Deaths, 180 Injured, 2100 Burned Cars = $ 49.5 million
• 1971-1978
•
•
•
•
Up to 500 deaths caused by Pinto fires
Death to serious injury ratio actually much higher (1:10)
95% would have survived with a safer design
$5 alternative was also actually available
Ford Pays and Pinto Debate
• Lawsuits and personal injury cases total over $450 million even
as Ford continues to argue the car was safe if driven correctly
• Over 500 documented deaths related to rear-end collisions in
Pintos
• Company nearly folds after lawsuits and lack of trust in Ford
products
• Who is to blame for Ford’s design?
– Chairman, Engineer, Designer
• Was the decision making unethical?
• Is cost-benefit analysis a reliable ethics technique?
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Before Accident
Accident on April 2010
After Accident
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
•
•
•
•
•
Owned by Transocean
Was under lease to BP from March 2008 to
September 2013
Located in the Mississippi Canon Block 252
Leakage of high pressure of methane gas explosion
let to fire on the Oil Rig on April 20th , 2010
After burning for 36 hours approximately, Deepwater
Horizon Rig sank on the morning of April 22nd , 2010.
Location of Deepwater Horizon
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Issues:
•
•
3 leaks in Riser
5000 Barrels of oil leakage per
day
Casulaties:
•
•
•
•
•
Human: 11 died, 17 injured,
6,814 dead animals: 6,104 birds,
609 sea turtles, 100 dolphins and
Sother mammals, and 1 reptile.
Oil Spill covered 580 square miles
Polluted coastal areas
Beaches inconvenient for scuba diving, fishing,
swimming
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Technical Issue:
•
•
•
•
Flawed testing procedure
Insufficient testing done on the foam cement slurry
before the actual usage
No clear guidelines for the negative pressure test to
check the integrity of wellhead seal assembly
Flawed Safety System
i.
The heating, ventilation and air conditioning fans
and dampers were not electrically classified upon
gas detection.
ii. The emergency systems in operating blowout
preventer of the oil rig faces many potential
problems that limits its functionality.
iii. Allowed drilling without needed permits
iv. Insufficient safety checks
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Human Error:
•
Misjudgment due to unwarranted assumptions
•
Wrongly concluded that the well integrity has been established
•
Lack of evaluation process after cement placement
•
Flawed Cost Benefit Analysis
•
BP wellhead’s blowout preventer are not fitted with an remote-control for
emergency use
Down play seriousness of issue:
- Actual 24000 barrels were leaked instead
of 7000 barrels
- Operation was already 5 weeks late and
adopted riskier procedures to save time and money
- In late march 2010, blowout preventer was damaged in a previously
unreported accident and workers were afraid that they could get fired for
raising safety concerns that might delay drilling
•
Am I to
Blame?
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
CEO Tony Hayward
•
•
•
Lack of professional attitude
‘I want my life back’ comment made to Americans.
Went for a yacht holiday in the midst of the crisis
Slowness to react
•
•
Government intervention was
late due to political system in
USA
BP rejected help from other
countries with expertise
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Information Manipulation:
•
•
BP president reconfirmed that the damaged well’s maximum
release rate hovered around 5,000 barrels a day. However
Professor from Purdue University estimated the release rate to
be 65,000 barrels a day.
BP bought sponsored links for Yahoo and Google so that they
could manipulate search results for company safe image.
Ethical Issues:
•
•
If BP managers were public (i.e. Fishermen or people who live
by the coast) they may want to know the actual amount of oil
spill and their affect on livelihood and health.
The authority and environmentalists also need the actual data
to take the appropriate measure to solve oil spill. Thus, BP
should not underestimate the spill rate.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Recommendations:
•
•
•
•
•
Code of Ethics:
- Use the liner/tie back option and 21 centralizers. Also run the cement
bond log test
Finding the best Compromise:
- Safety should not be linked with cost or time
External Whistle-Blowing Agencies:
- Engaged an external auditing company to have a whistle-blowing
hotline where employees can file allegations against their own
company anonymously
Respecting the Hierarchy of the company:
- Instead of risking his job by stopping the work immediately, one
should consult with his colleagues and supervisor regarding the
problem.
Internal Task force:
- To ensure critical equipment's are always in good condition
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
References
1.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4355958/Lecture-8-EngineeringEthics?autodown=ppt
2.
Cohen, Kelly, “Ethics in Engineering”, AEEM 361, University of Cincinnati
3.
Mantei, Thomas, “Academic Integrity and Plagiarism”, CEAS, University of
Cincinnati, 2012
ASCE Code of Ethics
…continued
ASCE Code of Ethics (cont’d…)
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Cost and Time Vs. Safety:
•
Liner/Tieback has a higher chance to succeed in cement lift, but
takes more time and cost to build than long string casing. BP
decide to us long sting casing because of less cost and less time
consuming.
•
Instead of 21 centralizers requested by the model maker, BP
engineer used only 10 centralizers. Centralizers are used to
prevent the risk of gas flowing up the annular space around the
casing due to formation of channels in the cement
Skipped cement bond log test that determine whether the
cement has bonded to the casing and surrounding formation to
save time, about 9 to 12 hours. Also taking the test would have
cost $128,000, cancelling it will cost only $10,000
•
•
Modified Blowout preventer used had a increased risk of failure.
Blowout preventer is a device that automatically cuts the pipe
and seals from the well to prevent the oil leaking from the well in
case any failure in system occurres.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
Ethical Issues:
•
BP engineer should have chosen line/tie back casing and
more centralizers installation to avoid drawbacks
•
Cement bond test should not be ignored due to high price
and to save 9 to 12 hours of working time
•
Even though BP did the right things in terms of cost benefits
analysis, it should not be used here as it concerned lives of
the workers on the oil rig platform and the marine lives.
•
BP was able to save $128,000 without the cement bond test,
however due to explosion and oil leakage, they were fined
$37.2 Billions. They had to pay more than the amount they
should have spend on well design, centralizers and cement
bond log, i.e. they under estimated the amount of money
needed to pay if any accident occured.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
•
Communication and Company Culture:
BP management decision that led to accident could have been averted by
the Deepwater Horizon rig personnel's who had concerns regarding the
safety. Even though after the whistle blow by the personnel's, the workers
fulfilled their duty. If every workers had abandoned their responsibility, no
action would have been taken by the company
•
Workers should respect their colleagues’ live and public’s health and have
respect for company. Their outweigh respect to the company led to tragedy.
Thus the workers took the wrong decision.
•
Some workers are partly to be blame for not reporting what was going
wrong. It could be due to BP ‘s culture too. Workers did not report as they
understood that the act of raising safety concerns could delay the work and
that they could lose their job.
•
The company might have fired some workers to protect the company’s
image and respect the company. However they neglected respect for
individual worker’s honesty and dignity.
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Gulf of Mexico)
•
Case Study:
Not the first accident in BP history
- March 2005, Explosion in BP’s refinery in Texas City, Texas; 15
workers died, 170 were injured, 4,800 barrels of oil was found in
Alaska, 5000km away from the refinery in Texas.
•
BP was warned to check pipeline in 2002, but ignored it and paid $12
million fine.
•
BP violated its own policies and made 18 hours work shifts daily for
75% of the workers
BP fails to learn from past mistakes:
•
•
•
Violates its own policies and code of ethics
Huge trade-off in safety for lower cost and for saving time.
Management does not share the same safety view as the employees.
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Introduction • Kim works as an engineer for a civil
engineering contractor reviewing the work
of subcontractors.
• Kim discovers that certain subcontractors
have made submissions with excessive
cost, time delays or substandard work
• Kim advises management to reject these
jobs and require subcontractors to correct
the problem
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Introduction, continued • After an extended disagreement about
the subcontractor’s work, management
places a warning in Kim’s file and
places Kim on probation, warning of
future termination
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Question • Does Engineer A have an ethical
obligation, or an ethical right, to
continue his efforts to secure change in
the policy of his employer under these
circumstances, or to report his concerns
to proper authority?
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Code of Ethics References
– "Engineers shall at all times recognize that their
primary obligation is to protect the safety, health,
property, and welfare of the public. If their professional
judgment is overruled under circumstances where the
safety, health, property, or welfare of the public are
endangered, they shall notify their employer or client
and such other authority as may be appropriate."
– "Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans
and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to
the public health and welfare and in conformity with
accepted engineering standards. If the client or
employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they
shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from
further service on the project."
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Discussion “Here the issue does not allege a danger to
public health or safety, but is premised upon
a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the
unjustified expenditure of public funds.”
“As we recognized in earlier cases, if an
engineer feels strongly that an employer's
course of conduct is improper when related to
public concerns, and if the engineer feels
compelled to blow the whistle to expose the
facts as he sees them, he may well have to
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Discussion, continued
“We feel that the ethical duty or right of the engineer
becomes a matter of personal conscience, but we
are not willing to make a blanket statement that
there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations
for the engineer to continue his campaign within
the company, and make the issue one for public
discussion. The Code only requires that the
engineer withdraw from a project and report to
proper authorities when the circumstances
involve endangerment of the public health, safety,
and welfare.”
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Conclusion –
“Engineer A does not have an ethical obligation
to continue his effort to secure a change in
the policy of his employer under these
circumstances, or to report his concerns to
proper authority, but has an ethical right to do
so as a matter of personal conscience.”