Mahboobin T/Th 10:00
L06
ETHICAL UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING MISLEADING INFORMATION
AND UNCLEAR RESEARCH
Heather McCray (hmm61@pitt.edu)
ETHICS AND ENGINEERING
Engineers must always be aware of the larger consequences
of their actions on the world since their jobs are so crucial to
the welfare of the public [1]. This is why it is so important in
engineering education to emphasize ethics, defined as “the
branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human
conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of
certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives
and ends of such actions” [2]. Often engineers are taught to
think analytically rather than to think about more challenging
concepts like right and wrong [3]. This is why most
companies and organizations have a Code of Ethics that all
members must abide by. I am currently at an ethical
crossroads, because my supervisor has been distributing
misleading information to clients and has now asked me to
ignore this situation.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
My name is Heather McCray. I am a Civil Engineer
and an active member in the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE). The purpose of the company I work for is
to update structures to make them more earthquake and windresistant, specifically by installing a variety of what are called
Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs).
Tuned mass dampers are a technology used to reduce
the effects of earthquakes on buildings, especially multiplestory buildings. Specifically, a TMD is a large device installed
at the top of tall buildings that dissipates the vibrations of an
earthquake so as to cause less stress to the structure of the
building. The TMD is most commonly used in the form of a
pendulum suspended from the ceiling. When any category of
earthquake vibrates the building, the pendulum will swing the
opposite way of the floor movement, creating a force in the
opposite direction, reducing the force of the earthquake.
Tuned mass dampers do not completely cancel out the force,
but they reduce it by a great deal. They are also commonly
used to reduce vibrations from the wind [4].
THE SITUATION
A year ago, I finished a project installing an
expensive, newer tuned mass damper at the top of a mediumsized skyscraper owned by Verizon. I was the head engineer
for the project and I represented my company for much of the
planning and financial proceedings with the client, a man
named Mr. Reynolds, the building coordinator. Yesterday I
met with Mr. Reynolds, for the first time since last year. He
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
Date of Submission 2014-10-28
was upset because the Verizon skyscraper had recently been
damaged by strong winds and the cost of repairs was high.
Mr. Reynolds explained his understanding that the tuned mass
damper technology is not perfect and its purpose is to reduce
vibrations from earthquakes and wind. However, he said that
he was told and even guaranteed by my boss, a man named
Mr. Patton, that the TMD would reduce 80% of the vibrations.
He had hired a building inspector to inspect the wind damage
and the report from the data collected by the TMD showed
that only 53% of the total wind vibrations had been reduced.
This difference between what the repair cost might have been
and what the repair cost is currently, came out to $3 million.
I expressed my apology on behalf of the company and planned
another meeting for next week with Mr. Reynolds.
First I decided to review the research and designs for
this newer TMD installed in the Verizon skyscraper. In all of
the research, the percent of the vibrations reduced was
mentioned only once. The research showed that anywhere
from 55-80% of earthquake and wind vibrations are estimated
to be reduced by the damper. Next, I talked to Mr. Patton and
he confirmed that he had guaranteed an 80% reduction. I
knew that we had installed 3 of these dampers over the last 3
years, including one we are currently installing. I asked Mr.
Patton if he had told these two other clients the same thing
and he said “Of course, it’s the truth.” I suspected he knew
this was a stretch of the truth, not ‘the truth,’ so I showed him
the research. His reply was that the research was not very
thorough nor clear. I pressed on, asking him if he believes this
to be true, why would he guarantee 80% success of the
damper? Mr. Patton became frustrated and asked me not to
make a big deal of it and, despite a few attempts to continue
talking with him, he ended the conversation.
THE DILEMMA
I face an ethical dilemma. It appears that my boss has
been giving misleading information to clients (presumably to
gain their business), my company’s research and development
team has done poor-quality research on this new tuned mass
damper, and now my boss has asked me to keep quiet about
the incident. I have a meeting with Mr. Reynolds next week,
and I don’t know what I am going to say. At first, I took a step
back and tried not to get flustered so that I could remain
professional. Then, I decided to turn to research to seek advice
on the appropriate course of action.
Exaggerated Information
The first ethical issue in this situation is the
misleading/exaggerated information. According to the
Heather McCray
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of
Ethics, engineers should “Conduct themselves honorably,
responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the
honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.” The
NSPE Code of Ethics also states “Engineers shall
acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the
facts.” Mr. Patton distorted the facts and failed to
acknowledge his errors [5]. According to the ASCE Code of
Ethics, “Engineers shall issue public statements only in an
objective and truthful manner” and “Engineers ... shall not
participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or
exaggerated
statements...”
Engineers
should
be
knowledgeable about the facts and not just blindly accept and
distribute them [6]. My boss violated all of these standards.
Mr. Patton also has a duty as a senior engineer to be
a good role model. According to the Code of Ethics of the
Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), senior engineers
must “Honor the responsibility not only to train [junior
engineers] in proper professional conduct in performing
research and publishing results, but also to model such
conduct before them” [1]. This states that a senior engineer
cannot effectively train junior engineers unless his/her own
performance is beyond reproach, otherwise the training is
hypocritical [7]. My boss’s poor ethical judgment
compromises his subordinate’s trust in him and may even lead
us to wonder what other unethical activities he has been a part
of [8].
my company to help gain any profit I can, I have another
obligation to my company to represent it in the best possible
way including being trustworthy and moral [10].
MY RESOURCES
I turned to other sources for advice on this issue.
First I went over the Code of Ethics of the National Society
of Professional Engineers, the American Society of Civil
Engineers, and the Biomedical Engineering Society.
There are six fundamental canons of the NSPE Code.
Canon 1 states “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,
health, and welfare of the public.” The dilemma I am facing
does not directly involve safety or danger. Canon 2 states
“Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their
competence.” In my dilemma, no one did someone else’s job.
Canon 3 states “Engineers shall issue public statements only
in an objective and truthful manner.” This canon directly
relates to my case. My boss, Mr. Patton, did not give truthful
statements, he gave exaggerated statements [5].
Canon 4 states “Engineers shall act for each
employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.” No one in
this instance acted in a disloyal manner to the client or
company. Canon 5 states “Engineers shall avoid deceptive
acts.” This canon relates in two ways to this dilemma I am
facing. Mr. Patton used deception by exaggerating statistics
to gain clients and then he asked me to use deception to cover
up his ethical shortcomings. Canon 6 states “Engineers shall
conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession.” This canon was useful three
ways. My boss did not act honorably by giving misleading
information. The researchers did not act responsibly by doing
a poor job researching. Finally, I must abide by this canon in
deciding my course of action [5].
There are seven fundamental canons of the ASCE
Code. All but two are the same as already mentioned in the
NSPE Code. The fifth canon states “Engineers shall build
their professional reputation on the merit of their services and
shall not compete unfairly with others.” This relates to this
situation because my boss engaged in unfair competition by
exaggerating the effectiveness of our tuned mass damper. The
seventh canon states “Engineers shall continue their
professional development throughout their careers, and shall
provide opportunities for the professional development of
those engineers under their supervision.” This doesn’t really
relate to this case [6]. I also referenced the eight obligations
of the BMES Code because, even though they are intended
specifically for Biomedical Engineers, I found the basis of
some of the obligations useful in the ethical dilemma I face.
I referenced case studies as well. These I found to be
the most useful of all because they gave examples of how the
Codes of Ethics related in real situations. I utilized two
educational short videos that gave a fictitious case study then
much analysis. They were very useful because the analysis
related to my case in many ways, such as finding motives
Unclear Research
The second ethical issue is that the researchers did a
poor job which was never corrected. According to the Code
of Ethics of the BMES, researchers have an obligation to
“Publish and/or present properly credited results of research
accurately and clearly” [1]. If the research is not clear and
accurate, it is possible that incorrect information may be
assumed true, as in this case with Mr. Patton. Also, according
to The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity,
“Researchers should report to the appropriate authorities any
suspected research misconduct, including... carelessness...”
[9]. This was not done by the researchers either.
My Integrity
The third ethical issue occurred when my boss asked
me to compromise my integrity to cover up his ethical
shortcomings. According to the NSPE Code of Ethics,
engineers should “Avoid deceptive acts.” In this case, I would
classify covering up misrepresented facts as deceptive [5].
Therefore, by asking me to forget about this issue, he is asking
me to risk my professional license and career [10]. This might
even be seen as my agreeing to take part in a cover-up, if there
was to be an investigation [11].
The workplace should always value ethics above all
else. Employees should feel comfortable enough to be able to
voice their concerns. Also, although I have an obligation to
2
Heather McCray
behind unethical behavior. I read two articles on ethics that
were on very specific topics such as engineering mentoring,
so only a few pieces of information were helpful. I also
consulted the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
which was helpful in determining the standards for effective
research.
anything about the situation. I utilized my resources to decide
upon the best course of action. My plan involves
professionally talking to Mr. Patton and refunding the clients.
I feel confident that I am doing the ethically right thing and I
feel that I have handled the situation well. I maintained the
reputation of Engineers as ethical professionals.
MY COURSE OF ACTION
REFERENCES
There may be multiple correct responses or there
may be no truly correct responses to an ethical dilemma, but
an engineer should have the ability to decide on the best
response [10]. It is important that I act quickly and decide on
the best response in this instance so that the issue does not
escalate [12]. My first step should be to write everything
down, specifically the details of the case and the ethical
research I have done [10].
Then, remaining professional, I should talk to Mr.
Patton again and explain my situation. I will recommend to
him that we refund Mr. Reynolds the $3 million difference.
Our research and development team should re-evaluate the
performance of the TMD. Then we should inform the two
other clients for whom we installed this new damper of the
real statistic. If they demand a refund of a reasonable amount,
we should agree to it [10]. If Mr. Patton is still being
unreasonable, I should report this case. Since I am a member
of the ASCE, I may file a complaint to the ASCE Committee
on Professional Conduct [6]. I also could report it to the
National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) [8].
[1] Biomedical Engineering Society Code of Ethics. (2004,
February 1). Retrieved October 25, 2014, from
http://bmes.org/files/2004 Approved Code of Ethics(2).pdf
[2] Ethics. (2014, January 1). Retrieved October 26, 2014,
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
[3] Koehn, E. (1991). An ethics and professionalism seminar
in the civil engineering curriculum. Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 117(2), 96-101.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1991)117:2(96)
[4] Gutierrez Soto, M., & Adeli, H. (2013). Tuned mass
dampers. Archives of Computational Methods in
Engineering, 20(4), 419-431. doi:10.1007/s11831-013-90917
[5] NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. (2014, January 1).
Retrieved
October
17,
2014,
from
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[6] Code of Ethics. (2014, January 1). Retrieved October 25,
2014, from http://www.asce.org/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/
[7] Forister, C. A. (2003). Ethics and civil engineering: Past,
present, and future. Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, 129(3), 129-130.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:3(129)
[8] Great Projects Film Company of New York City
(Producer). (July 2010). Henry’s Daughters [Educational
Video]. USA: National Institute for Engineering Ethics,
Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Edward
Whitacre College of Engineering, Texas Tech University.
[9] The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2010,
September 22). Retrieved October 23, 2014, from
http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html
[10] National Society of Professional Engineers (Producer).
(1989). Gilbane Gold [Educational Video]. United States:
National Society of Professional Engineers.
[11] Case 1010-What’s the Angle? (1999). Retrieved October
25,
2014,
from
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[12] Karagianis, E. (1999). The Cost of Integrity. Retrieved
October
25,
2014,
from
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/cost-integrity
[13] Public Health and Safety-Delay in Addressing Fire Code
Violations. (2014, April 30). Retrieved October 23, 2014,
from http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER Case No
13-11-FINAL.pdf
ADVICE TO OTHERS
Here I have some general advice for other engineers
faced with ethical dilemmas. First, remember that the NSPE
Code of Ethics should be the first stop. It very clearly outlines
the standards for ethical behavior [10]. Also, the safety of the
public comes before all else, even the other articles in the
NSPE Code of Ethics. If an engineer’s judgment is overruled,
s/he needs to report the situation, even breaking
confidentiality [13].
Engineers should keep it professional at all times
[10]. It is recommended to mentally prepare oneself before a
discussion so s/he is confident and doesn’t appear nervous.
Engineers need to be so sure in their decision that they won’t
be pushed around or made to doubt themselves [13]. Two
good questions to ask when deciding on a course of action is
‘What would my role model do?’ and ‘How will I feel after
making this decision?’ [8].
THE ETHICAL DECISION
This situation faced me with three ethical issues: my
boss misleading clients with exaggerated information, the
poor research done on the new tuned mass damper, and my
boss asking me to compromise my integrity by not saying
3
Heather McCray
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Carissa Corkery and Violet Lawson for
revising my essay. I would like to thank Aaron Marko for
discussing ideas with me. I would like to thank Becky
Ghobrial for reviewing the formatting requirements with me.
4