GATEWAY
Ethics in Engineering
Concepts and Cases
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #1
GATEWAY
Introduction
What do we mean by Ethics?






“a body of moral principles”
A set of rules and behaviors
Standards, rules and guidelines
Socially approved conduct
Respect for people and rights
Distinguished from matters of legality
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #2
GATEWAY
Professional Ethics

Who decides
 Standards adopted by professional community and
established companies
 NSPE, ASME, ASCE, etc
 May conflict with personal ethics

Case studies used to set examples,
standards
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #3
GATEWAY
NSPE Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in fulfillment of their
professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare
of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their
competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective
and truthful manner.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #4
GATEWAY
NSPE Fundamental Canons, cont’d
Engineers, in fulfillment of their
professional duties, shall:
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly,
ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the
honor, reputation, and usefulness of the
profession.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #5
GATEWAY
Social Contract
Service
 Promoting well being of general public
 Ensuring competence of professionals
Self-regulation
 Create and enforce high standards
 Autonomy
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #6
GATEWAY
Responsible Engineering
What we do matters a great deal
 Public health at stake
 Environmental impact
 Accidents are costly
Public
health
justice
Ethics
Minimal legal standards
 Acknowledgement of fault
 Above and beyond call of duty
responsible
care
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #7
GATEWAY
Introduction to Moral Thinking

Reflect expectation of public and professionals

Experience – education,
work, relationships

Personal and
Common Morality
– religion, family
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #8
GATEWAY
Tests in Moral Problem Solving

Prudence
- Is it justified because it is in our own best interest?

Cost / Benefit
 Is the most economic decision the most moral?

Rights
 Just because it is legal, is it right?
 Freedom, well-being, moral, legal, laws

Golden Rule
 “do unto others as you would have
done to you”
Good
Right
Legal
Illegal
Wrong
Bad
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #9
Ref: Murdough Center for engineering Professionalism
GATEWAY
Honesty, Truth, Reliability

Accurate and complete technical
knowledge
 Unreliable judgment worse than none at all

Deliberate deception
 Lying
 Failure to seek truth
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #10
GATEWAY
Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics
State the Problem
Get the Facts
Defend
Viewpoints
Formulate
Opinion
Qualify
Recommendation
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #11
Ref: What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics, by Kenneth K. Humphreys
GATEWAY
State the Problem

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.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #12
GATEWAY
Get the Facts

Want to make an informed decision.
 Must possess and understand the relevant facts.

Must make clear any interpretations of factual
matters or the values that underlie conflicting
moral viewpoints.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #13
GATEWAY
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
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #14
GATEWAY
Formulate an Opinion

As engineers we do not have the luxury of
postponing questions or leaving a question
unresolved

Decide which of the plausible viewpoints is
the most compelling

The committee approach (voting) is
advantageous because the decision is
representative of the general public
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #15
GATEWAY
Qualify the Opinions or
Recommendations

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
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #16
GATEWAY
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.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
*** These case studies have been selected from among the various rulings of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. Ref: http://onlineethics.org
Sl. #17
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 92-1
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.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #18
Ref: http://onlineethics.org
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 92-1
Credit for Engineering Work
Question
Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give
credit to Engineer B for her part in the
design?
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #19
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 92-1
Credit for Engineering Work
NSPE Code of Ethics References
 Section 1.3.:Issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner. Section 11.3.a.:Engineers shall be objective and
truthful in professional reports, statements or testimony. They
shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such
reports, statements or testimony.
 Section 111.3.:Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice
which is likely to discredit the profession or deceive the public.
 Section 111.5.a.:Engineers shall not accept financial or other
considerations, including free engineering designs, from material
or equipment suppliers for specifying their product.
 Section IlI. l 0.a.:Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the
person or persons who may be individually responsible for
designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #20
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 92-1
Credit for Engineering Work
NSPE 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.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #21
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 92-1
Credit for Engineering Work
NSPE Discussion, continued
“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.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #22
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 92-1
Credit for Engineering Work
NSPE Conclusion
“It was unethical for Engineer A to fail to give
credit to Engineer B for her part in the design.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #23
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 82-5
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Introduction

Engineer A works as an engineer for a defense
contractor reviewing the work of subcontractors.

Engineer A discovers that certain subcontractors
have made submissions with excessive cost, time
delays or substandard work.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #24
Ref: http://onlineethics.org
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 82-5
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
Introduction, continued

Engineer A advises management to reject these
jobs and require subcontractors to correct the
problem.

After an extended disagreement about the
subcontractor’s work, management places a
warning in Engineer A’s file and places him on
probation, warning of future termination.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #25
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 82-5
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?
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #26
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 82-5
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
NSPE Code of Ethics References
 Code of Ethics- Section II.1.a.: "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."
 Code of Ethics- Section III.2.b.: "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."
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #27
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 82-5
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
NSPE 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 pay the
price of loss of employment.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #28
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 82-5
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
NSPE 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.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #29
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 82-5
An Engineer’s Right to Protest
NSPE 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.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #30
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 87-5
Complimentary Seminar Registration
Introduction

The ABC Pipe Company is interested in becoming
known within the engineering community and, in
particular, to those engineers involved in the
specification of pipe in construction.

ABC sends an invitation to Engineer X announcing a
one-day complimentary educational seminar to educate
engineers on current technological advances in the
selection and use of pipe in construction.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #31
Ref: http://onlineethics.org
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 87-5
Complimentary Seminar Registration
Introduction, continued

ABC will host all refreshments, a buffet luncheon
during the seminar, and a cocktail reception
immediately following. Engineer X agrees to attend.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #32
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 87-5
Complimentary Seminar Registration
Question
Was it ethical for Engineer X to attend the
one-day complimentary educational seminar
hosted by the ABC Pipe Company?
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #33
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 87-5
Complimentary Seminar Registration
NSPE Code of Ethics References
 Code of Ethics- Section II.4.c.:"Engineers shall not solicit or
accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or
indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other parties in
connection with work for employers or clients for which they are
responsible."
 Section III.5.b.:"Engineers shall not accept commissions or
allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractors or other
parties dealing with clients or employers of the Engineer in
connection with work for which the Engineer is responsible."
 Section III.11.a.:"Engineers shall encourage engineering
employees' efforts to improve their education."
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #34
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 87-5
Complimentary Seminar Registration
NSPE Discussion
“The Code unequivocally states that engineers must not
accept gifts or other valuable consideration from a
supplier in exchange for specifying its products. (See
Sections II.4.c.; III.5.b.) However, in this case we are
dealing with a material supplier who is introducing
information about pipe products to engineers in the
community and has chosen the form of an educational
seminar as its vehicle.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #35
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 87-5
Complimentary Seminar Registration
NSPE Discussion
“We view the buffet luncheon and cocktail reception
immediately following the seminar as falling within the
minimal provisions noted in previous cases, and thus it
would not be improper for Engineer X to participate in
those activities. We note, however, that had Engineer X
agreed to accept items of substantial value (e.g., travel
expenses, multi-day program, resort location, etc.) our
conclusion would have been quite different.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #36
GATEWAY
NSPE Case No. 87-5
Complimentary Seminar Registration
NSPE Conclusion
“It was ethical for Engineer X to attend the one-day
complimentary educational seminar hosted by the ABC
Pipe Company.”
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #37
GATEWAY
Engineering Disaster
The Ford Pinto Case

Crash tests reveal defect in gas
tank rear-end collisions over 25
mph resulted in rupture and
explosion

Cost benefit analysis estimation
Cost to pay for injuries
180 Deaths, 180 Injured, 2100 Burned Cars = $ 49.5 million
Cost to make safe cars
$12.5 million cars x $11/car = $137 million
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #38
GATEWAY
Ford Pays

Over 500 documented deaths related
to rear-end collisions in the Pintos

Lawsuits and personal injury cases
totaled over $450 million even
as Ford continues to argue the car
was safe if driven correctly

Company nearly folded after the lawsuits and
low sales due to lack of trust in Ford products
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #39
GATEWAY
Challenger Explosion

O-ring Sealing problems

Engineers argued against
launch at low temperature

Management over-ruled
the engineers warnings

Shuttle exploded minutes
into the flight

7 Lives lost
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #40
GATEWAY
Ethical Questions

Were the decisions made unethical?

Who is to blame for these disasters?

What were the ethical obligations for
management? For the engineers?
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #41
GATEWAY
Ethical Summary
Professional ethics for engineers
Set of rules and guidelines for professional
behavior for engineer.
For personal, moral, social, professional and
environmental well-being of individuals and
the communities that we serve.
Do the right thing!!!
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #42
GATEWAY
Credits

This module is intended as a supplement to design classes in
mechanical engineering. It was developed at The Ohio State
University under the NSF sponsored Gateway Coalition (grant
EEC-9109794). Contributing members include:

Gary Kinzel, Blaine Lilly, Anthony Luscher ... Project supervisors
Jim Piper and Rachel Murdel ………………... Primary authors
Phuong Pham and Matt Detrick ……….…….. Module revisions
L. Pham ………………………………….….. Audio voice



Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #43
GATEWAY
Disclaimer
This information is provided “as is” for general educational purposes; it can
change over time and should be interpreted with regards to this particular
circumstance. While much effort is made to provide complete information,
Ohio State University and Gateway do not guarantee the accuracy and
reliability of any information contained or displayed in the presentation. We
disclaim any warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of fitness
for a particular purpose. We do not assume any legal liability or responsibility
for the accuracy, completeness, reliability, timeliness or usefulness of any
information, or processes disclosed. Nor will Ohio State University or
Gateway be held liable for any improper or incorrect use of the information
described and/or contain herein and assumes no responsibility for anyone’s use
of the information. Reference to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacture, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Sl. #44