Engineering ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engineering Ethics is the field of applied ethics which examines and sets standards for engineers' obligations to the
public, their clients, employers and the profession. This article addresses the subject for both professional engineers
and other engineers.

Engineering does not have a single uniform system, or standard, of ethical conduct across the entire profession.
Ethical approaches vary somewhat by discipline and jurisdiction, but are most influenced by whether the engineers
are independently providing professional services to clients, or the public if employed in government service; or if
they are employees of an enterprise creating products for sale.

In the United States the first are usually licensed Professional engineers, are governed by statute, and have
generally consistent codes of professional ethics. The latter, working as engineers in industry, are governed by
various laws including whistleblowing, and product liability laws, and often rely on principles of business ethics rather
than engineering ethics.

Contents

 1 Professional,Chartered engineers and Incorporated engineers

 2 Current codes of ethics

 3 General principles

o 3.1 First principle

o 3.2 Whistleblowing

o 3.3 Other ethical issues

 4 Background

o 4.1 The nineteenth century and growing concern

o 4.2 Turning of the twentieth century and turning point

o 4.3 Current status in the United States

 5 Current ethical issues

 6 Case studies and key individuals

 7 Notes

 8 References

 9 External links

1
 o 9.1 Canada

o 9.2 United Kingdom

o 9.3 United States

o 9.4 International

Professional, Chartered engineers and Incorporated engineers

Main articles: Professional engineer, Chartered engineer, Incorporated Engineer

Professional engineers (Chartered and Incorporated engineers in the United Kingdom.) are distinct from other
engineers in that they have obtained some form of license, charter, or registration from a government agency or
charter-granting authority acting on their behalf. As such they are subject to regulation by these bodies, as are other
regulated professions.[1]

Professional, chartered engineers and incorporated engineers enjoy significant influence over their regulation. They
are often the authors of the pertinent codes of ethics used by some of these organizations.[1] These engineers in
private practice often, but not always, find themselves in traditional professional-client relationships in their practice.
Engineers employed in government service find themselves on the other side of the same relationship.

Engineers in industry, sometimes termed "graduate engineers" in the US if they hold a Bachelor's degree, are not
formally accredited by government agencies. Their professional relationships are much more likely to be employee-
employer relationships.[2]

Despite the different focus, engineers in industry or private practice face similar ethical issues and reach similar
conclusions.[3] One American engineering society, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has sought
to extend professional licensure and a code of ethics across the field regardless of practice area or employment
sector.[4]

Current codes of ethics

Many American engineering professional societies have prepared codes of ethics. Some go back to the early
decades of the twentieth century.[2] These have been incorporated to a greater or lesser degree into the regulatory
laws of several states.

The engineering profession's emphasis on ethics dates back to the end of the 19th century. In 1946, the National
Society of Professional Engineers released its Canons of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct,
which evolved to the current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1964. While these statements of general principles served as
a guide, many engineers requested interpretations of how the Code would apply to specific circumstances. These
requests ultimately led to the creation of the Board of Ethical Review in 1954. Ethics cases rarely have easy answers,
but the BER's nearly 500 advisory opinions have helped bring clarity to the ethical issues engineers face daily. (See
"Reference" below for some of these and links.)

The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) in the UK has a code of ethics incorporated into its standards of conduct.[5]
The Canadian societies of Professional engineers likewise have as well. These codes of ethics share many
similarities. (See "Reference" below for some of these and links.)

2
General principles

“ Engineers, in the fulfillment of

—National Society of Professional

“ A practitioner shall, regard the

—Professional Engineers Ontario, [7]

Codes of engineering ethics identify a specific precedence with respect to the engineer's consideration for the public,
clients, employers, and the profession.

This is an example from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):[8]

"Fundamental Canons

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with
the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and
shall avoid conflicts of interest.

5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete
unfairly with others.

6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the
engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.

7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide
opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision."

Like virtually all professional societies and chartering authorities, ASCE expands upon these and publishes specific
guidance.[9]

First principle

Generally, the first duty recognized by Professional and Chartered engineers is to the safety of the public.

3
The ICE's "Code of Professional Conduct" identifies similar ethical values as the ASCE's but likewise places the good
of the public as the highest ethic.

"Members of the ICE should always be aware of their overriding responsibility to the public good. A member’s
obligations to the client can never override this, and members of the ICE should not enter undertakings which
compromise this responsibility. The ‘public good’ encompasses care and respect for the environment, and for
humanity’s cultural, historical and archaeological heritage, as well as the primary responsibility members have to
protect the health and well being of present and future generations."[10]

Canadian engineering codes of ethics also place the public good above all other concerns:

 Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO): "A practitioner shall, regard the practitioner's duty to public welfare
as paramount."[7]

 L'Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ): "In all aspects of his work, the engineer must respect his
obligations towards man and take into account the consequences of the performance of his work on the
environment and on the life, health and property of every person."[11]

As in ASCE's Fundamental Canon 1, other American professional societies are likewise specific on this point:

 National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE): "Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties,
shall: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public."[6]

 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME): "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and
welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties."[12]

 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): "We, the members of the IEEE, … do hereby
commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1. to accept responsibility in
making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly
factors that might endanger the public or the environment;"[13]

 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE): "To achieve these goals, members shall hold paramount
the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in performance of their professional
duties."[14]

Whistleblowing

4
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is used as a case study of whistleblowing and organizational behavior
including groupthink.

Main article: Whistleblower

A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has the duty to report to the appropriate authority a possible risk to others
from a client or employer failing to follow the engineer's directions. According to first principles, this duty overrides the
duty to a client and/or employer.[15] An engineer may be disciplined, or have their license revoked, even if the failure
to report such a danger does not result in the loss of life or health.[16]

In many cases, this duty can be discharged by advising the client of the consequences in a forthright matter, and
assuring the client takes the engineer's advice. However, the engineer must ensure that the remedial steps are taken
and, if they are not, the situation must be reported to the appropriate authority.[17] In very rare cases, where even a
governmental authority may not take appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge the duty by making the
situation public.[18] As a result, whistleblowing by professional engineers is not an unusual event, and courts have
often sided with engineers in such cases, overruling duties to employers and confidentiality considerations that
otherwise would have prevented the engineer from speaking out.[19]

Other ethical issues

There are several other ethical issues that engineers may face. Some have to do with technical practice, but many
others have to do with broader considerations of business conduct. These include:[9]

 Relationships with clients, consultants, competitors, and contractors

 Ensuring legal compliance by clients, client's contractors, and others

 Conflict of interest

 Bribery and kickbacks, which also may include:

 Gifts, meals, services, and entertainment

 Treatment of confidential or proprietary information

 Consideration of the employer’s assets

5
  Outside employment/activities (Moonlighting)

Some engineering societies are addressing environmental protection as a stand-alone question of ethics.[8]

The field of business ethics often overlaps and informs ethical decision making for engineers.

Background

The nineteenth century and growing concern

The first Tay Bridge collapsed in 1879. At least sixty were killed.

As engineering rose as a distinct profession during the nineteenth century, engineers saw themselves as either
independent professional practitioners or technical employees of large enterprises. There was considerable tension
between the two sides as large industrial employers fought to maintain control of their employees.[20]

In the United States growing professionalism gave rise to the development of four founding engineering societies:
ASCE (1851), the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) (1884),[21] ASME (1880), and the American
Institute of Mining Engineers (AIME) (1871).[22] ASCE and AIEE were more closely identified with the engineer as
learned professional, where ASME, to an extent, and AIME almost entirely, identified with the view that the engineer
is a technical employee.[23]

Even so, at that time ethics was viewed as a personal rather than a broad professional concern.[24]

Turning of the twentieth century and turning point

6
The Boston molasses disaster provided a strong impetus for the establishment of professional licensing and codes of
ethics in the United States.

When the nineteenth century drew to a close and the twentieth century began, there had been series of significant
structural failures, including some spectacular bridge failures, notably the Ashtabula River Railroad Disaster (1876),
Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), and the Quebec Bridge collapse (1907). These had a profound effect on engineers and
forced the profession to confront shortcomings in technical and construction practice, as well as ethical standards.[25]

One response was the development of formal codes of ethics by three of the four founding engineering societies.
AIEE adopted theirs in 1912. ASCE and ASME did so in 1914.[26] AIME did not adopt a code of ethics in its history.[23]

Concerns for professional practice and protecting the public highlighted by these bridge failures, as well as the
Boston molasses disaster (1919), provided impetus for another movement that had been underway for some time: to
require formal credentials (Professional licensure in the US.) as a requirement to practice. This involves meeting
some combination of educational, experience, and testing requirements.[27]

Over the following decades most American states and Canadian provinces either required engineers to be licensed,
or passed special legislation reserving title rights to organization of professional engineers.[2] The Canadian model is
to require all persons working in fields of engineering that posed a risk to life, health, property, the public welfare and
the environment to be licensed, and all provinces required licensing by the 1950s.

The US model has generally been only to require those practicing independently (i.e. consulting engineers) to be
licensed, while engineers working in industry, education, and sometimes government need not be licensed. This has
perpetuated the split between professional engineers and those in industry.[1] Professional societies have adopted
generally uniform codes of ethics. On the other hand technical societies have generally not adopted these, but
instead sometimes offer ethics education and resources to members similar to those of the professional societies.
This is not uniform, and the question of who is to be held in the highest regard: the public or the employer, is still an
open one in industry, and sometimes in professional practice.[2]

Current status in the United States

William LeMessurier's response to design deficiencies uncovered after construction of the Citigroup Center is often
cited as an example of ethical conduct.

7
The difference in perspective between the "engineer as a professional" and the "engineer as employee" is still
reflected today in the use of the title "engineer". In US industry, the title "engineer" is determined by the firm and can
often apply to anyone executing design work. These can include individuals with an Associate degree or degree in
engineering technology. Here, the term "graduate engineer" is pertinent to differentiate those with a bachelor of
science degree in engineering. While most American state licensure laws require a bachelor of science degree for
licensure, the current US model law for Professional Engineers requires a minimum of a master of science degree in
engineering, or a bachelor of science degree with additional equivalent graduate level work.[28] This has received
strong support from civil engineers.[29][30]

That difference in perspective has also led to the division of engineering societies broadly into professional and
technical societies. Both professional and technical societies advance technical practice through developing
standards,[31] and providing educational, and training resources. However, professional societies like ASCE, ASME,
IEEE, and later AIChE (1907), and NSPE (1934), also focus on professional practice issues facing the engineer such
as licensing laws and ethics.

Technical societies like AIME,[22] the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) (1899),[32] and later the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (1905) and Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) (1932)[33] generally
don't address professional practice issues, including ethics.

Current ethical issues

Efforts to promote ethical practice continue. In addition to the professional societies and chartering organizations
efforts with their members, the Canadian Iron Ring and American Order of the Engineer trace their roots to the 1907
Quebec Bridge collapse. Both require members to swear an oath to uphold ethical practice and wear a symbolic ring
as a reminder.

Currently, bribery and political corruption is being addressed very directly by several professional societies and
business groups around the world.[34][35] However, new issues have arisen, such as offshoring, sustainable
development, and environmental protection, that the profession is having to consider and address.

Case studies and key individuals

Petroski notes that most engineering failures are much more involved than simple technical mis-calculations and
involve the failure of the design process or management culture.[36] However, not all engineering failures involve
ethical issues. The infamous collapse of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the losses of the Mars Polar Lander
and Mars Climate Orbiter were technical and design process failures.