Mahboobin 10:00
L06
ETHICAL REASONING IN ENGINEERING: A DILEMMA CONCERNING
AIRBORNE WIND TURBINES
Kristina Kline (knk26@pitt.edu)
MY ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE AT
CALUMET ENERGIES
I am the newest addition to the aerodynamics team for
airborne wind turbines at Calumet Energies. Graduating
from the University of Pittsburgh in the spring of 2019 with
a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, I was young,
inexperienced, but eager to jump into the field with the
engineering knowledge I had acquired over the past four
years.
My admission to the company was quicker than
expected, and my supervisor, Mr. Ramos, seemed just as
anxious as I to test my skills in the field. He first introduced
me to my team comprising of four men, three of which had
acquired specialized education in aerodynamic engineering.
The other man, much older than the rest of us, took on a
more compelling role as design executive and team leader. I
immediately felt at ease with my team and supervisor, and
after working with them for several months, was promoted
to a position in which I created the schematics for propeller
design in the wind turbines.
Airborne Wind Turbines: A Closer Look at Our Product
Originally a company dedicated to producing traditional
ground windmills, Calumet Energies experienced a shift in
business and decided to invest in a new type of windmill
technology that had just been introduced to the market in
2015. The innovation sounded promising: a streamlined,
airborne wind turbine that could potentially produce a higher
output of wind-generated electricity. Hovering at altitudes as
high as 1000ft. into the air, the turbine captured fast-paced
wind present in Earth’s inner atmosphere and converted it
into a purer form of usable electricity. Compared to ground
turbines, which usually produce energy at around 25 percent
capacity, Calumet had manufactured an airborne turbine
proven to generate electricity at a fascinating 52 percent
capacity.
In order to accomplish this feat, however, using
appropriate materials that ensure maximum air buoyancy
and streamlining was absolutely necessary. As an engineer
whose sole responsibility was to help design the turbine’s
core, I also examined the specific materials being used to
construct the propellers. For this reason, I spent a lot of time
communicating with Calumet’s partnered research lab,
MarkWest, and I learned about a new alloy technology
called EPM-102. The single-crystal material was perfect for
the manufacturing of turbine blades; it allowed the
propellers to achieve long-term durability while cutting
through the dense air of the lower atmosphere [1].
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015-11-03
I remember being fascinated by the new material. It
excelled as a second-generation alloy, much better suited for
turbine blades than the old alloy, IN-738, in every respect.
Coupled with the existing airborne turbine design, EPM-102
guaranteed a longer life-span of more energy-efficient
electricity for Calumet’s customers.
An Ethical Dilemma: Advertising Falsehood and Bribery
By the fall of 2022, Calumet was gearing up to officially
release the airborne turbine as a purchasable product. The
marketing team had already published a sales brief claiming
the wind turbine to achieve an average 52 percent capacity
energy output over a warranty of eight years. The brief was
held in high regard, and I remember my aerodynamics team
being especially excited for the first model to be sold.
In the midst of anticipated energy, I received an
unexpected e-mail from my supervisor, Mr. Ramos, one
evening after work hours. Mr. Ramos had invited me to a
dinner commemorating my “continuous dedication” to the
project during the last couple years. Not thinking much of it,
I readily accepted the invitation and continued celebrating
our company’s success.
I had anticipated the dinner to include all of the
aerodynamics team or anyone else involved in designing the
turbine’s inner mechanics. To my surprise, however, when I
arrived at the dinner later that week, only Mr. Ramos and
one of his associates were present. It felt unprofessional at
first, but then remembering that the nature of the dinner was
meant to be celebratory, I relaxed. Mr. Ramos, his associate,
and I conversed casually about the company for at least a
half an hour until my supervisor brought up the EPM-102
alloy used in the turbine blades. I remarked that it was a
revolutionary chemical innovation and that I was amazed at
how well it could improve aerodynamic performance.
Immediately, however, I realized that my supervisor did not
share a similar opinion.
At that moment, Mr. Ramos informed me that he was
considering replacing the EPM-102 alloy in propellers with
the original IN-738 prototype. Shocked, I listened to his
reasoning behind the decision-making. He explained that the
EPM-102 material simply wasn’t “cost-efficient” and that a
newer way to manipulate the old alloy could hypothetically
produce similar results as EPM-102. Of course, I was
skeptical right away because I was certain I knew more
about the alloys than he did; it was most likely impossible,
but something about disagreeing with my line-of-command
felt wrong on my part. Insisting that using IN-738 instead of
EPM-102 would barely affect turbine performance, he asked
for my support in switching the materials.
Kristina Kline
Refusing to give a straight answer, I questioned whether
he would release a new sales brief on the product. If we were
going to change the turbine composition in any way, we had
to update performance data to our consumers. Again,
however, he simply stated that the performance results
would remain stable. The tone in his voice at that moment
hinted that I shouldn’t argue anymore with what he had to
say. An uncomfortable silence followed until Mr. Ramos’s
associate revealed a packet of paper. For my “diligent
loyalty” to the company, Mr. Ramos offered me a generous
raise of salary with an additional yearly bonus. Feeling
immensely unprepared at this point, I told him that I would
have to think more about it and excused myself from the
dinner. Returning home that night, I never imagined that my
first job coming out of college would involve such an
ethically-questionable situation.
to bring renewable sources of electricity to more remote
parts of the world due to their unique mobility
characteristics. Any falsehood being advocated by company
reports could ultimately jeopardize the likelihood of these
remote places receiving sufficient electricity to operate.
Depending on how heavily remote locations would use our
products, serious consequences could result on the host
community, such as energy crises. Simply put, people
planning on using Calumet’s products must know exactly
what to expect so that they can plan accurately and act
accordingly.
Further pondering these consequences helped me realize
the pertinence of just engineering decisions to the safety of
society. Engineers design the world’s infrastructure,
transportation systems, energy reservoirs and many more
fundamental aspects to the underlying science of society’s
mechanics. As Abbas El-Zein from the Guardian defined it,
we act as “social custodians of technology,” providing the
world’s technological basis for progressively moving
forward [4]. Thus, I now understood the severity of
dishonesty in such a fundamental field as engineering.
To further investigate the situation, I decided to refer to a
more specialized code of ethics, one that pertained to my
own field of engineering. According to the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, or ASME, engineers
should not “solicit or accept financial or other valuable
considerations for specifying products or material or
equipment suppliers without disclosure to their clients or
employees” [5]. This code really stood out to me in relativity
to the increased salary and bonus deal that Mr. Ramos had
offered me at dinner. It became clear that instead of an
honest “promotion” or reward for hard-work or significant
contribution, the money was a form of bribery that was
unethical to accept. Mr. Ramos hoped that the funds would
compensate for the wrongdoing of the situation and sabotage
the value of providing truthful information to our company’s
clients.
This aspect of my dilemma helped me realize that not all
unethical situations in engineering deal with mathematics,
science, or quantitative data. Here was an issue that
conflicted with my personal values, which helped raise the
flag that the situation was ultimately inappropriate.
“Personal values should be used to judge our involvement in
ethical dilemmas in our career,” writes Jim Watson, an
electrical engineer with over 35 years of experience in the
field working for engineering firms. “These values are an
important foundation during our identification and
participation in the solution of an ethical problem” [6]. Thus,
not only do the codes of ethics provide strict guidelines that
coincide with the law, but they derive from a humanitarian
inflection, leading me to believe that I should let my
personal feelings play a role in coming to a decision.
In investigating both codes, I decided to use them as
highly viable resources to reach a decision. Obviously, the
codes were implemented to guide engineers facing an
unethical situation to the right moral solution. The codes’
Making a Decision: Referring to the Codes of Ethics
My supervisor seemed very certain that using the IN-738
alloy would offer no severe consequences to the
performance of the wind turbine. From working with the
MarkWest laboratory, however, I knew that the extremely
different chemical properties of the two alloys made it
impossible for them to handle effective streamlining and
erosion from the harsh winds in a similar manner.
Immediately, I searched through laboratory directories
open to Calumet staff and found multiple data from studies
conducted on IN-738 propellers [2]. The studies were old;
IN-738 was used on ground turbines by the company before
they began revolutionizing an airborne alternative. In every
study containing IN-738 that I examined, the turbine output
efficiency hovered at around 25 percent, nowhere near the
efficiency level released by our product brief. It was now
clear to me that my supervisor sought only financial benefits
from downgrading the turbine efficiency; IN-738 was a
cheaper material to import, and by advocating a false energy
output, he could sell our product for much more than its
worth.
Referring to the NPSE Code of Ethics for Engineers, I
then examined exactly how my supervisor’s actions were
violating certain ethical expectations set for engineering
firms and companies. According to the NPSE, engineers
should “avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the
public,” including “the use of statements containing a
material misrepresentation of factor omitting a material fact”
[3]. Not only would using an outdated product while
advocating false performance results undermine company
integrity, but Calumet’s customers would be consuming an
underperforming product without the appropriate knowledge
of it. In the long run, this could impose several different
consequences. First, many of our customers looking to
purchase a high energy-outputting turbine may use it as the
foundation of their wind farm; being able to perform to an
expected degree is vital in order for the farm to work
properly. Additionally, airborne wind turbines are expected
2
Kristina Kline
sense of professionalism helped me to realize that anyone in
an engineering firm, despite the prominence of his or her
position, is equally capable of instigating unethical conduct
and that I was encouraged to report it.
described to him my situation, he smiled and told me that
ethically-concerning dilemmas are not entirely uncommon in
the world of engineering. “We are responsible for building
the world up from its core,” he said. “but no one looks at us
under the same microscope that society does with doctors or
politicians [10].” He then explained that we should therefore
take more upon ourselves to ensure that ethics in engineering
stays alive.
Concerning my particular situation, my father advised
me to report my supervisor’s actions to a higher level of
administration within the company. He told me to be honest
and consistent with my claims and to perhaps provide
concrete evidence, such as the salary raise, to support them
[10]. I took my father’s advice seriously, and I finally felt
comfortable enough to make a decision.
Making a Decision: Referring to Real-Life Situations
Although I felt that the engineering codes of ethics were
very straightforward and valuable enough to help me reach a
solution, I wanted to familiarize myself with real-life
examples of ethically-questionable situations in order to
learn constructive feedback from engineers who have
experienced similar dilemmas.
One particular case, for example, involved a trainee at a
medical center whom received an invitation to a special
dinner meeting sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.
This situation had many disturbing parallels to mine; those
who went received a significant financial benefit or gift,
much like Mr. Ramos offered me a bonus and salary raise.
Ultimately, the dinner was unethical since the gifts were
third-party and not authorized by the trainee’s employer [7].
Another more closely examined the power of bribery. In
this particular case study, three relatively young and
inexperienced employees received $1000 bonus checks on
top of their regular pay. The following day, however, they
were called to a meeting with their group supervisor who
informed them that they greatly owed certain members of
the city council for their endorsement of the company. As a
result, the employees felt pressured to donate their
“bonuses” to the council members [8]. Like the engineers in
this scenario, I felt obligated to keep silent about the material
mishap due to the generous salary raise that Mr. Ramos
offered me.
The final case study to which I referred addressed the
problem of false performance reports that were released to
the public. In this example, data reported to hearings on the
county budget was discovered to be incomplete by the
program manager of the County Executive’s Office. One of
his employees was entrusted with the task to complete the
report. Thus, the manager was faced with the ethical
question of whether to speak up publicly during the next
meeting, despite the fact that it could potentially damage his
program’s reputation, or to keep silent [9]. This particular
scenario appeared very similar to my situation in that I was
also conflicted with the decision to report the suspicious
actions of my supervisor or to shortsightedly protect the
reputation of my company.
Making My Decision
Later that week, I scheduled an appointment with my
supervisor’s administrator. I showed him the salary offer I
had received and explained to him Mr. Ramos’s intentions
of replacing the EPM-102 alloy to gain extra profit. I
compared energy output data of the two alloys and proved
that it was impossible for them to produce the same
performance results. I also asserted that I never accepted the
offer but simply postponed it until I could report the issue.
My supervisor’s administrator handled the situation
professionally and had a team further investigate Mr.
Ramos’s actions within the company; Mr. Ramos was
relieved of his position after two weeks.
I was absolutely certain that I had made the right
decision concerning the ethical dilemma. Drawing from the
engineering code of ethics, model situations, and advice
from an experienced engineer, I was able to reach an
appropriate and ethical conclusion. I did not accept the
bribery because it was a false reward and an attempt to
instigate dishonest administrative action. Additionally, I
refused to support Mr. Ramos’s decision to use outdated
material in a product advocated to perform at an unattainable
level. It violated the merit of company services and
jeopardized costumer prosperity, both of which conflicted
with the ASME code of conduct.
In conclusion, facing an ethical dilemma in the
engineering workplace requires diligent research and
investigation of possible methods to resolve the problem.
My advice to any engineer facing a potentially unethical
situation is to first understand and identify the moral issue.
Be able to recognize whether the problem conflicts with
your personal values. From there, consider all of the possible
consequences to the action in question. Explore how the
decision could affect company reputation, employee
security, and most importantly, the welfare of the general
public. Finally, do not allow administrative hierarchy to
prevent you from reporting the issue. Your company exists
to provide service towards the betterment of society, and
Making a Decision: Turning to Someone I Can Trust
In spite of all the knowledge I gained from studying case
hearings and engineering codes of ethics, I knew I wanted
real advice from someone I both knew and trusted. I asked to
meet my father for lunch; he was a chemical engineer with
35+ years of fieldwork experience and current plant manager
of a natural gas gathering and processing unit. When I first
3
Kristina Kline
most are willing to defend that responsibility against the
selfish and personal interests of others (2,718).
into class to outline paper expectations and to show us
proper research techniques.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Walston, A. Cetel, R. MacKay, K. O’Hara, D. Duhl,
R. Dreshfield. (2004). “Joint Development of a Fourth
Generation Single Crystal Superalloy.” The Minerals,
Metals
&
Materials
Society.
(Online
article).
http://www.tms.org/superalloys/10.7449/2004/Superalloys_2
004_15_24.pdf
[2] E. James. (2015, April). “IN-738 Alloy in Propeller
Dynamics and Air Buoyancy.” MarkWest Laboratories, Inc.
(data journal; additional source). p. A5
[3] (2007, July). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.”
National Society of Professional Engineers. (Online code).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics. pp. 10
[4] El-Zein, Abbas. (2013, December 5). “As engineers, we
must consider the ethical implications of our work.” The
Guardian.
(Online
article).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/05/en
gineering-moral-effects-technology-impact. pp. 12
[5] (2006, November 5). “Society Policy: Ethics – Code of
Ethics for Engineers.” The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
(Online
code).
https://www.asme.org/getmedia/9EB36017-FA98-477E8A73-77B04B36D410/P157_Ethics.aspx.
[6] Watson, Jim. (2006, August). “Ethics for engineers falls
in an unstructured gray zone.” IEEE Potentials. (Online
journal;
additional
source).
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1
664063&tag=1. pp. 14
[7] “Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign: Case 12 – An
Invitation to Dinner.” Stanford University. (Online case
study).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/12invitationtod
inner.jsp.
[8] Bucknam, RE. (2003). “The Coercive Contribution
Conundrum (Case 1006).” National Institute for Engineering
Ethics. Texas Tech University. (Online case study).
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:43k
YZ3dJiEYJ:www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/ca
ses/case-1006.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.
[9] Hanson, K. (2001, December 7). “The Case of the
Mangled Data.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa
Clara
University.
(Online
case
study).
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/mangleddata.html.
[10] Kline, Richard. (2015, October 29). Interview.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was made possible through the support of my
close family and friends. I’d like to thank especially the
librarians at the University of Pittsburgh for again coming
4