INFORMATION PAGE

SOMALI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

CAMPUS: GAHEYR

FACULTY: ENGINEERING

Department : CIVIL ENGINEERING

Batch : 5TH

Student Name: ABDISHAKUR ALI HARIRE

Roll Number: 412

Subject Name: ENGINEERING ETHICS

Topic of assignment: ENGINEERING ETHICS CASES

& SOLUTIONS

Lecturer: ABDIKADIR YUSUF MOHAMED

Submission Date: 27/DEC/2023

 CASES-SOLUTIONS
CASE 1: RESPONSIBLE CHARGE

Ed Turner graduated from Santa Monica College (a two-year

school) with an associate degree in 1961. He worked for eight years
for the City of Los Angeles in its engineering department and took
the professional engineer in training exam in California. As a result,
he received a civil engineering/professional engineering license in
the state of Idaho. To get his license, he had to work under the
direction of already licensed supervisors and be strongly
recommended for licensure by all of them. Because he did not have
a BS degree in engineering from an accredited school, his
experience had to be exemplary.
In the late 1960s, Ed moved to the city of Idaho Falls and went to
work for the Department of Public Works. As a licensed
professional engineer in 1980, he had sign-off authority for all
engineering work done in the city. His problems with the city
started when he refused to approve some engineering designs for
public works projects. One such project omitted the sidewalk,
requiring students to walk in street traffic on their way to school.
The public works director and mayor responded to his refusal by
demoting him and moving him out of his office to a new and
smaller work area. They appointed an unlicensed non engineer as
city engineering administrator to replace him and sign off on all
engineering work. This was in violation of Idaho state law. Ed
stayed on that new job as long as he could to keep an eye on
1
engineering work in the city and because he needed an income to
support his family.
Finally, he was dismissed, and he and his wife had to sort potatoes
and do custodial work in order to survive and to finance a court
appeal. The Idaho Job Service Department approved his request for
unemployment insurance coverage, but the city of Idaho Falls
succeeded in getting that ruling reversed. The Idaho Industrial
Commission eventually overturned the city s ruling, and Ed
ultimately received his unemployment insurance. Ed and the
American Engineering Alliance (AEA) of New York managed to
obtain the support of 22 states in his case against Idaho Falls for
wrongful discharge and for not having responsible charge of
engineering work.
The Idaho State Board of Professional Engineers and the National
Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) also supported him, as
did the ASME, the ASCE, the AEA, as well as several other
important professional societies. Ed`s wife, Debra, played a
significant role throughout the four-year litigation. In addition to
keeping the court files in order, she was on the witness stand and
was cross-examined by the city s lawyers. Many individuals
cognizant of the issues involved, including one of the authors of
this text, volunteered their services to Ed on a pro bono basis and
submitted depositions. However, the depositions were not admitted
by the Idaho Falls city court that was hearing the case, and the case
was thrown out of the court because the papers submitted to the

2
Idaho Falls judge were late and on the wrong forms.
Fortunately, the story does have a happy ending. On the advice of
many, and with a new lawyer, Ed`s former lawyer was sued for
malpractice at a court in another city. In order for a malpractice suit
to be successful, the jury must first vote that the original case was
winnable, and then it must separately determine that there was
malpractice involved. Ed won both those decisions, with the court
admonishing the government of Idaho Falls that it had violated state
law. Although the settlement was large, after legal fees and taxes
were paid, it was clear that Ed was not, in his words, made whole.
But he resumed practicing as a licensed professional civil engineer
and happy that he was able to contribute to his profession and to
public safety. It is noteworthy that in response to the devastation
caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Ed and his wife Debra spent
months doing volunteer work in Alabama to provide aid to its
victims.
discuss the ethical issues of this case raises?

3
SOLUTION:

The ethical issues raised in this case include:

 Professional responsibility: Ed Turner had a professional

responsibility to ensure the safety and integrity of
engineering work in the city of Idaho Falls. His refusal to
approve engineering designs that compromised public
safety demonstrated his commitment to his professional
responsibilities.
 Lack of Accountability and liability: The city's wrongful
discharge of Ed and their violation of state law demonstrated
a lack of accountability and responsibility. This raises
ethical questions about the accountability and liability of
government entities in ensuring public safety and upholding
professional standards.
 Lack of Admissible Evidence: The court's rejection of the
depositions and the dismissal of the case due to late and
incorrect paperwork raise concerns about fair and just
legal proceedings. This highlights the ethical issue of
ensuring a fair and unbiased judicial process.
 Transparency and public safety: The city's decision to
appoint an unlicensed non engineer to replace Ed and sign off
on engineering work raised questions about transparency and
public safety. This decision compromised the public's safety
and violated Idaho state law.

4
  Financial considerations: The city's response to Ed's refusal
to approve engineering designs, including demoting him
and moving him to a smaller work area, may have been
influenced by financial considerations. This raises ethical
questions about prioritizing financial interests over public
safety and professional integrity.

5
CASE 2: A Construction Inspector`s Responsibility in Collapsed
Cantilevered Balcony

No engineer was involved in the project, which is common for

residential structures like this one, but the same ideas about ethical
responsibility in design and construction oversight apply to engineers
with these responsibilities.
In 2004, two visitors to a recently constructed Central Texas
lakeside residence walked out onto a third-floor balcony to enjoy the
new view of Inks Lake, but the balcony collapsed and both fell more
than 20 feet, which caused serious injuries. The cantilevered balcony
had been attached to a ledger board that was nailed to the structure
by the framing subcontractor instead of bolted as specified by the
architect. The ledger board separated from the structure under dead
load plus a very light live load (the two visitors). The architect
designed the structure, including the balconies, and oversaw the
construction but did not inspect the finished balcony closely enough
to detect the deviation from his plans and specifications.
The architect`s contract required that he sign off on the contractor`s
pay applications as assurance that the quality of workmanship and
materials used conforms with the contract documents. But the
contract also said that, The architect shall not be required to make
exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or
quantity of the work.
The legal argument centered on whether the architect should have
done more to inspect the structure, with the plaintiffs arguing that he

6
was contracted to observe construction and endeavor to guard the
owner against defects and deficiencies in addition to providing his
design services. The defendant architect argued that his inspection
could not be detailed for that fee and that he had properly discharged
his responsibility for construction observation. A general
counsel for the Texas Society of Architects wrote, unless the project
s owner retains the architect to provide more extensive services, the
architect`s on-site duties are limited and do not include exhaustive
or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality of the
construction work performed by the contractor. The architect cannot
be expected to guarantee the quality of the contractor s work,
however, unless the architect has agreed to provide the additional
services that would be necessary to enable the architect to provide
that assurance.
In our assessment, the construction error that occurred was
egregious, and because of the criticality of the cantilevered balcony
components, this construction error should not have gone undetected
by any reasonable inspection by a professional architect or engineer
with ANY responsibility for oversight of structural construction. The
original design has not been questioned, but it called for joist
hangers that were not used by the framing subcontractor to secure
the joists to the ledger board and bolts to secure the ledger board to
the structure. Instead, nails were used. But even the original design
was likely inadequate. Joist hangers are not designed to carry a
moment as in this cantilevered application. Had the joist hangers

7
been used and

8
had the ledger board been more securely fastened to the structure
with the bolts originally specified, the failure would likely have
occurred between joist and ledger, rather than between ledger and
structure, and perhaps with more than two people on the structure.
A more reasonable design would involve joists that penetrate into the
structure and are secured to parallel floor/ceiling joists that allow
them to develop the required moment capacity at the wall, and it is
not clear whether this design was an alternative that was also rejected
by the general or framing contractor.
The lesson here is that the professional engineer (or architect) has a
moral responsibility, even where there is no clear legal
responsibility, to prevent problems like this from developing in
projects in which he or she has a significant role. In engineered
projects, there must be a contractual arrangement allowing
appropriate construction inspection engineering efforts, and the
most critical design details such as the one in question here should
have the highest priority for the construction inspector.
Discuss the ethical issues of this case?

9
SOLUTION

There are several ethical issue of this case include:

 Moral Responsibility: The case highlights the moral
responsibility of professionals, including engineers and
architects, to prevent problems and ensure the safety and
integrity of their projects. Even in the absence of clear legal
responsibilities, professionals have an ethical duty to
prioritize the well-being of individuals who will interact with
their designs.
 Ethical Responsibility in Design: The original design itself
raised ethical concern about the architect's judgment and
decision-making. The use of nails instead of specified bolts
and the absence of joist hangers in the construction deviated
from best practices. Professionals have an ethical
responsibility to ensure that their designs are safe, robust, and
meet industry standards.
 Contractual Obligations: The architect's contract required
them to sign off on the contractor's pay applications as
assurance of the quality of workmanship and materials used.
However, the contract also stated that the architect was not
required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site
inspections. The ethical issue here lies in the interpretation
of the architect's contractual obligations and the extent of
their responsibility in overseeing the construction.

10
  Failure in fulfilling the duty of care: The architect failed to
fulfill their professional duty to ensure the safety and quality
of the structure by not closely inspecting the finished
balcony and detecting the deviation from the plans. This
breach of duty of care raises concerns about the architect's
judgment and decision-making.
 Transparency and Communication: The architect has an
ethical obligation to communicate effectively with other
stakeholders, such as the construction team, to ensure that
potential issues are identified and addressed in a timely
manner. The failure to do so can be seen as a breach of
trust and professional integrity.

11
CASE 3 : TV Antenna

Several years ago, a TV station in Houston decided to strengthen its

signal by erecting a new, taller (1,000-foot) transmission antenna in
Missouri City, Texas. The station contracted with a TV antenna
design firm to design the tower. The resulting design employed
twenty 50-foot segments that would have to be lifted into place
sequentially by a jib crane that moved up with the tower. Each
segment required a lifting lug to permit that segment to be hoisted
off the flatbed delivery truck and then lifted into place by the crane.
The actual construction of the tower was done by a separate rigging
firm that specialized in such tasks.
When the rigging company received the 20th and last tower
segment, it faced a new problem. Although the lifting lug was
satisfactory for lifting the segment horizontally off the delivery
truck, it would not enable the segment to be lifted vertically. The
jib crane cable interfered with the antenna baskets at the top of the
segment. The riggers asked permission from the design company to
temporarily remove the antenna baskets and were refused. Officials
at the design firm said that the last time they gave permission to
make similar changes, they had to pay tens of thousands of dollars
to repair the antenna baskets (which had been damaged on removal)
and to remount and realign them correctly.
The riggers devised a solution that was seriously flawed. They
bolted an extension arm to the tower section and calculated the size
of the required bolts based on a mistaken model. A sophomore-level

12
engineering student who had taken a course in statics could have
detected the flaw, but the riggers had no engineers on their staff.
The riggers, knowing they lacked engineering expertise, asked the
antenna design company engineers to review their proposed
solution. The engineers again refused, having been ordered by
company management not only not to look at the drawings but also
not to visit the construction site during the lifting of the last
segment. Management of the design firm feared that they would be
held liable if there were an accident. The designers also failed to
suggest to the riggers that they should hire an engineering
consultant to examine their lifting plans.
When the riggers attempted to lift the top section of the tower with
the microwave baskets, the tower fell, killing seven men. The TV
company was taping the lift of the last segment for future TV
promotions, and the videotape shows the riggers falling to their
death.
Consider how you would react to watching that tape if you were the
design engineer who refused to look at the lifting plans or if you
were the company executive who ordered the design engineer not to
examine the plans. To take an analogy, consider a physician who
examines a patient and finds something suspicious in an area
outside her specialty. When asking advice from a specialist, the
physician is rebuffed on the grounds that the specialist might incur
a liability. Furthermore, the specialist does not suggest that the
patient should see a specialist.

13
What conceptions of responsibility seemed most prevalent in this
case? Can you suggest other conceptions that might have helped
avoid this tragedy?

14
SOLUTION
In this case, the prevalent conceptions of responsibility seemed to
be focused on
avoiding liability and protecting the company's interests, rather than
prioritizing public safety and ethical decision-making.
Other conceptions of responsibility that might have helped avoid
this tragedy could
include:
 Recognizing that as professionals, we have a moral
obligation to prioritize the safety and well-being of others
over our own legal concerns. This means taking proactive
steps to identify and address potential risks, even if it
means incurring liability.
 Additionally, promoting a culture of open communication
and collaboration between different stakeholders, including
engineers and riggers, could have helped identify and
address potential flaws in the lifting plans before the tragic
accident occurred.
 Upholding professional standards and ethics, which includes
actively seeking to prevent harm and taking responsibility
for one's actions or inactions. The design engineer should
have recognized the potential consequences of not reviewing
the plans and taken appropriate action.

15
CASE 4: Member Support by IEEE
In the mid-1970s, the New York City Police Department operated an online
computerized police car dispatching system called SPRINT. Upon receiving a
telephoned request for police assistance, a dispatcher would enter an address into a
computer and the computer would respond within seconds by displaying the
location of the nearest patrol car. By reducing the response time for emergency
calls, the SPRINT system probably saved lives.

In 1977, another system, PROMIS, was being considered by New York City
prosecutors using the same host computer as that for SPRINT. The PROMIS system
would provide names and addresses of witnesses, hearing dates, the probation
statuses of defendants, and other information that would assist prosecutors or
arresting officers who wanted to check the current status of apprehended
perpetrators. This project was being managed by the Criminal Justice Coordinating

Council, or Circle Project, a committee of high-level city officials that included the
deputy mayor for criminal justice, the police commissioner, and Manhattan
District Attorney Robert Morgenthau as chairman.

The committee employed a computer specialist as project director, who in turn

hired Virginia Edgerton, an experienced system analyst, as senior information
scientist to work under his supervision. Soon after being employed, Edgerton
expressed concern to the project director about the possible effect on SPRINT s
response time from loading the computer with an additional task, but he instructed
her to drop the matter.

Edgerton then sought advice from her professional society, the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

After an electrical engineering professor at

Columbia University agreed that her concerns merited further study, she sent a
memorandum to the project director requesting a study of the overload problem. He
rejected the memorandum out of hand, and Edgerton soon thereafter sent copies of

16
the memorandum with a cover letter to the members of the Circle Project s
committee.

Immediately following this, Edgerton was discharged by the project director on the
grounds that she had, by communicating directly with the committee members,
violated his orders. He also stated that the issues she had raised were already under

continuing discussion with the police department s computer staff, although he

gave no documentation to support this claim.

The case was then investigated by the Working Group on Ethics and Employment
Practices of the Committee on the Social Implications of Technology (CSIT) of the
IEEE, and subsequently by the newly formed IEEE Member Conduct Committee.
Both groups agreed that Edgerton s actions were fully justified. In 1979, she
received the second IEEE CSIT Award for Outstanding Service in the Public
Interest. After her discharge, Edgerton formed a small company selling data-
processing services.52 Discuss the supporting role played by IEEE in this case.
Does this provide electrical and electronic engineers? an ethical basis for joining or
supporting IEEE?

17
SOLUTION:
The case study shows the important role IEEE plays in supporting its members to

uphold ethical standards in their profession. In that particular case, Virginia

Edgerton sought advice and support from the IEEE when faced with a dilemma

regarding the possible negative impact of the PROMIS system on the SPRINT

system. The IEEE provided Edgerton with a forum to receive peer counseling and

later supported his efforts when he expressed concerns about the potential ethical

implications of the project. The organization and its Ethics and Professional

Practices Task Force and membership found that Edgerton's and #039; action is

justified and recognized by an award for outstanding service in the public interest.

This case shows how the IEEE can be a valuable resource for electrical and

electronic engineers who face ethical dilemmas in their professional practice. It

provides a basis for engineers to join or support IEEE as an organization that

prioritizes ethical behavior and supports its members to uphold ethical standards in

their work. Because engineers are part of the IEEE, they can receive guidance,

support, and resources to address complex ethical challenges in their professional

roles.

18
CASE 5: Resigning from a Project
In 1985, computer scientist David Parnas resigned from an advisory panel of the
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO).63 He had concluded that SDI was
both dangerous and a waste of money. His concern was that he saw no way that any
software program could adequately meet the requirements of a good SDI system.64
His rationale for resigning rested on three ethical premises.65 First, he must accept
responsibility for his own actions rather than rely on others to decide for him.
Second, he must not ignore or turn away from ethical issues. In Parnas case, this
means asking whether what he is doing is of any benefit to society. Finally, he must
make sure that I am solving the real problem, not simply providing short-term
satisfaction to my supervisor.

However, Parnas did more than resign from the panel. He also undertook public
opposition to SDI

This was triggered by the failure of SDIO and his fellow panelists to engage in
scientific discussion of the technical problems he cited. Instead, Parnas says, he
received responses such as The government has decided; we cannot change it, The
money will be spent; all you can do is make good use of it, The system will be built;
you cannot change that, and Your resignation will not stop the program. 66 To this,
Parnas replied,

It is true, my decision not to toss trash on the ground will not eliminate litter.
However, if we are to eliminate litter, I must decide not to toss trash on the ground.
We all make a difference.

As for his part, Parnas regarded himself as having a responsibility to help the public
understand why he was convinced that the SDI program could not succeed, thus
enabling them to decide for themselves.67

Parnas concerns did not stop with SDI. He also expressed concerns about research
in colleges and universities:68 Traditionally, universities provide tenure and
academic freedom so that faculty members can speak out on issues such as these.
Many have done just that. Unfortunately, at U.S. universities there are institutional

19
pressures in favor of accepting research funds from any source. A researcher s
ability to attract funds is taken as a measure of his ability.

Identify and discuss the ethical issues raised by David Parnas. Are there other
ethical issues that should be discussed?

20
SOLUTION:
The ethical issues raised by David Parnas include:

1. Responsibility and accountability: Parnas felt a personal responsibility to uphold

ethical standards and not contribute to a project that he believed was dangerous
and a waste of money. He felt that he needed to take responsibility for his own
actions rather than relying on others to decide for him.

2. Societal benefit: Parnas questioned whether his work on the SDI project was
of any benefit to society. He believed that it was important to consider the
potential impact of his work on the greater good.

3. Integrity and honesty: Parnas felt a responsibility to speak out and oppose the
SDI project publicly, even after resigning from the advisory panel. He believed in
being transparent about his concerns and helping the public understand the
reasons for his opposition.

Other ethical issues that could be discussed include:

1. Academic freedom and institutional pressures: Parnas expressed concerns

about the institutional pressures in universities to accept research funds from any
source, which may compromise academic freedom and integrity. This raises
ethical questions about the influence of funding on research and the responsibility
of researchers to maintain independence and integrity in their work.

2. Ethical decision-making in professional settings: Parnas' decision to resign from

the SDI project and publicly oppose it raises broader questions about ethical
decision-making in professional settings. It highlights the importance of upholding
ethical standards and speaking out against projects or practices that one believes
are unethical or harmful.

Overall, Parnas' case raises important ethical considerations related to individual

responsibility, societal benefit, integrity, academic freedom, and ethical decision-
making in professional settings.

21
 CASE 6: Gilbane Gold

The fictional case study presented in the popular videotape Gilbane Gold
focuses on David Jackson, a young engineer in the environmental affairs
department of ZCORP, located in the city of Gilbane.24 The firm, which
manufactures computer parts, discharges lead and arsenic into the sanitary
sewer of the city. The city has a lucrative business in processing the sludge into
fertilizer, which is used by farmers in the area. To protect its valuable product,
Gilbane Gold, from contamination by toxic discharges from the new high-tech
industries, the city has imposed highly restrictive regulations on the amount of
arsenic and lead that can be discharged into the sanitary sewer system.
However, recent tests indicate that ZCORP may be violating the standards.
David believes that ZCORP must invest more money in pollution-control
equipment, but management believes the costs will be prohibitive. David
faces a conflict situation that can be characterized by the convergence of four
important moral claims. First, David has an obligation as a good employee to
promote the interests of his company. He should not take actions that
unnecessarily cost the company money or damage its reputation. Second,
David has an obligation based on his personal integrity, his professional
integrity as an engineer, and his special role as environmental engineer to be
honest with the city in reporting data on the discharge of the heavy metals.
Third, David has an obligation as an engineer to protect the health of the
public. Fourth, David has a right, if not an obligation, to protect and promote
his own career. The problem David faces is this: How can he do justice to all
of these claims? If they are all morally legitimate, he should try to honor all of
them, and yet they appear to conflict in the situation. David s first option
should be to attempt to find a creative middleway solution, despite the fact that
the claims appear to be incompatible in the situation. What are some of the
creative middle-way possibilities?25 One possibility would be to find a cheap
technical way to eliminate the heavy metals. Unfortunately, the video does not
22
directly address this possibility. It begins in the midst of a crisis at ZCORP and
focuses almost exclusively on the question of whether David Jackson should
blow the whistle on his reluctant company. Another avenue to explore in
Gilbane Gold is the attitude toward responsibility exhibited by the various
characters in the story. Prominent, for example, are David Jackson, Phil Port,
Diane Collins, Tom Richards, Frank Seeders, and Winslow Massin. Look at the
transcript (available at www.niee.org/pd.cfm? pt=Murdough). What important
similarities and differences do you find?

23
 Solution:

The ethical issue in this case is the potential harm caused by the company's
pollution and the responsibility of the company to mitigate that harm. It also
involves the ethical responsibility of the city to enforce regulations that protect
the environment and public health. Additionally, there may be ethical
considerations regarding the cost of implementing pollution-control measures
and how that may impact the company's financial well-being.
Some potential creative middle-way solutions for David Jackson could include
negotiating with ZCORP to find a compromise on pollution-control equipment
costs, seeking alternative methods for reducing heavy metal discharges, or
working with the city to find a solution that meets their regulations while also
being feasible for the company. Additionally, exploring the attitudes toward
responsibility exhibited by the various characters in the story could provide
insight into potential approaches to resolving the conflict.
The company should take responsibility for its pollution and take proactive
measures to mitigate its impact on the environment and public health. This may
involve investing in pollution-control technology, implementing stricter waste
management practices, and regularly monitoring and reporting on their
emissions. The company should also be transparent about their pollution levels
and actively engage with the community and local authorities to address any
concerns.
The city should enforce regulations that protect the environment and public
health, and hold the company accountable for any violations. This may involve
conducting regular inspections, imposing fines for non-compliance, and
working with the company to ensure they are meeting environmental standards.
Both the company and the city should consider the long-term consequences of
their actions and prioritize the well-being of the environment and the
community over short-term financial gains. It may also be beneficial for the
company to seek guidance from environmental experts and engage in
24
collaborative efforts with other businesses to find sustainable solutions to their
pollution issues.
Case 2 :
A small library seeks a software system to catalogue its collection and keep
records of materials checked out of the library. Currently, the records of who
has checked out what, when materials are due, and the can be opened when no
one is looking. What assurance is there that the software systems under
consideration will provide as much, if not greater, security? Assuming that no
one in the library is a software specialist, the library has no alternative but to
place its trust in someone who presumably has the requisite expertise. How
concerned should that expert be (again, bearing in mind that even the best
system is like are kept in a file drawer behind the check-out desk. These
records are confidential. Patrons are assured that these records are not
accessible to anyone other than library personnel. But of course drawers not
completely sleuth proof)? Furthermore, what assurance has the library that it is
not being oversold or under sold in general? To what extent should software
specialists be concerned with determining precisely what the various needs of
the library are and to try to meet those needs rather than offer more than is
necessary in order to secure greater profit or less than is needed in order to
come in with a lower bid?

25
CASE 7: Ethical Responsibility
Smith is a nontechnical entrepreneur who has the patent rights for chemical
compound for cleaning up oil spills. The substance has an extremely long shelf life
for typical storage situations. However, if it is subjected to elevated temperatures it
degrades quickly. The intended application is for small quantities of the substance
to be stored for small shop spills. Investors are interested in supporting the
commercialization if an inexpensive temperature indicator is available, i.e. the
indicator activates permanently when the critical temperature is reached. Off-the-
shelf temperature indicator systems are too costly for the application.

Entrepreneur Smith approaches Jones who is an engineering consultant with

expertise in temperature instrumentation. He has Jones sign a non-disclosure
agreement regarding the specific chemical and needed storage specifications. Jones
says that he believes that a temperature indicator solution is available by an unusual
combination of components from several instrumentation suppliers. They reach a
verbal agreement for Jones to specify the components and the basic indicator
design at an hourly rate and to give Jones a sub-contract to calibrate the assembled
system if the investors fund the project. Jones asks for a formal contract regarding
their agreement and Smith asks for a copy of Jones’ resume to share with the
investors. Jones delivers a specification of the needed components and the basic
design with a bill for the services provided and a copy of his resume; Smith says
that he has not had time to prepare the contract due to preparing for the investors
meeting. After the investor meeting, Smith pays Jones for his services and says that
the investors are handling the calibration development with their own consultant.
Jones complains about the loss of the sub-contract, but Smith says it was the
investors’ decision.
Consultant Jones hears that a competing consultant (with a similar instrumentation
background) has been approached by the investors to do the calibration work. He
suspects that the investors are using the components and basic design from his
initial work for the entrepreneur.

What are the ethical questions in this situation? Has the entrepreneur Smith dealt
ethically with Jones? Should the consultant Jones inform the competing consultant
of the situation? What ethical responsibilities do the investors have? What ethical
responsibilities does the new consultant have?

26
Solution:
The ethical questions in this situation include:

1. Has the entrepreneur Smith dealt ethically with Jones?

Smith may not have dealt ethically with Jones if he failed to fulfill his promise of
providing a formal contract and subcontract for the calibration work after receiving
the specification and design from Jones. If Smith used Jones' initial work without
compensating him or giving him credit, it would also be considered unethical.

2. Should the consultant Jones inform the competing consultant of the situation?

Jones may consider informing the competing consultant about the situation,
especially if he suspects that his initial work is being used without his knowledge
or consent. This could help the competing consultant make an informed decision
about whether to proceed with the calibration work and potentially protect their
own interests.

3. What ethical responsibilities do the investors have?

The investors have an ethical responsibility to treat all parties involved fairly and
transparently. If they are using Jones' initial work without his consent or
compensation, it would be considered unethical. They should also ensure that they
are not taking advantage of Jones' expertise or intellectual property without proper
acknowledgment and compensation.

4. What ethical responsibilities does the new consultant have?

The new consultant has an ethical responsibility to conduct themselves

professionally and with integrity. If they are aware that Jones' initial work is being
used without his consent or compensation, they should consider discussing the
situation with Jones and potentially reconsider their involvement in the project.
They should also avoid participating in any unethical practices or actions that could
harm Jones or compromise their own professional reputation.

27
 CASE 8: Resigning from a Project

In 1985, computer scientist David Parnas resigned from an advisory panel of

the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). He had concluded that
SDI was both dangerous and a waste of money. His concern was that he saw
no way that any software program could adequately meet the requirements of a
good SDI system. His rationale for resigning rested on three ethical premises.
First, he must accept responsibility for his own actions rather than rely on
others to decide for him. Second, he must not ignore or turn away from ethical
issues. In Parnas case, this means asking whether what he is doing is of any
benefit to society. Finally, he must make sure that I am solving the real
problem, not simply providing shortterm satisfaction to my supervisor.
However, Parnas did more than resign from the panel. He also undertook
public opposition to SDI. This was triggered by the failure of SDIO and his
fellow panelists to engage in scientific discussion of the technical problems he
cited. Instead, Parnas says, he received responses such as The government has
decided; we cannot change it, The money will be spent; all you can do is make
good use of it, The system will be built; you cannot change that, and Your
resignation will not stop the program. To this, Parnas replied, It is true, my
decision not to toss trash on the ground will not eliminate litter. However, if
we are to eliminate litter, I must decide not to toss trash on the ground. We all
make a difference. As for his part, Parnas regarded himself as having a
responsibility to help the public understand why he was convinced that the SDI
program could not succeed, thus enabling them to decide for themselves.
Parnas concerns did not stop with SDI. He also expressed concerns about
research in colleges and universities: Traditionally, universities provide tenure
and academic freedom so that faculty members can speak out on issues such as
these. Many have done just that. Unfortunately, at U.S. universities there are
institutional pressures in favor of accepting research funds from any source. A
researcher s ability to attract funds is taken as a measure of his ability. Identify
28
and discuss the ethical issues raised by David Parnas. Are there other ethical
issues that should be discussed?

29
 SOLUTION:

David Parnas raised several ethical issues in his actions and concerns, including
Conflict of interest particularly in the context of his resignation from the SDIO
advisory panel and his broader reflections on research in universities. Here are some
of the ethical issues highlighted by Parnas: Individual Responsibility, Public
Engagement and Transparency
The ethical issues raised by David Parnas include the responsibility to act in the
best interest of society, the obligation to speak out against potential harm, and
the importance of upholding ethical principles even in the face of institutional
pressure. Parnas' decision to resign from the panel and publicly oppose SDI
demonstrates his commitment to these ethical principles.

Other ethical issues that could be discussed include the conflict between
academic freedom and financial pressures in research institutions, the
responsibility of researchers to prioritize the public good over personal gain,
and the ethical implications of accepting research funds from potentially
harmful sources. Additionally, the ethical implications of government
decisions that may have negative consequences for society and the
responsibility of individuals to speak out against such decisions could also be
considered

30
CASE 9: Profits and Professors
Wall Street Journal article reports:

High-tech launches from universities frequently can’t get off the ground without a
steady supply of students, who are often the most talented and the most willing to
toil around the clock. But intense schedules on the job can keep students from doing
their best academic work. And when both student and teacher share a huge financial
incentive to make a company a success, some professors might be tempted to look
the other way when studies slip or homework gets in the way.58 In some instances,
the article claims, students seriously consider leaving school before completing their
degrees in order to devote themselves more fully to work that is financially very
attractive. In 1999, Akamai won the MIT Sloan e-commerce Award for Rookie of
the Year, an award to the start-up company that seems most likely to dominate its
field. The article comments, No company has been more closely tied to MIT. The
firm has its roots in a research project directed by Mr. Leighton [Computer Systems
Engineering professor at MIT] about 3 years ago.

Daniel Lewin, one of Mr. Leighton s graduate students, came up with a key idea for
how to apply algorithms, or numerical instructions for computers, to Internet
congestion problems.59 Soon, Mr. Leighton and Mr. Lewin teamed up to form
Akamai, hiring 15 undergraduates to help code the algorithms.

They tried to separate their MIT and Akamai responsibilities. Mr. Leighton advised
Mr. Lewin to get a second professor to cosign his master s thesis because he
worried about the appearance of conflict in his supervising Mr. Lewin s academic
work while also pursuing a business venture with him. It turns out that the cosigner
was someone involved in Mr. Lewin s original research project, who sometime
after the completion of Mr. Lewin s thesis became a part-time research scientist at
Akamai. Akamai continues to rely heavily on MIT students as employees.
However, it does not hire student’s fulltime before they have completed their
undergraduate degree. Still, the opportunities seem very attractive. According to the
article, Luke Matkins took a summer job with Akamai in the summer after his
sophomore year. By age 21, prior to completing his degree, he was making $75,000
a year and was given 60,000 shares of stock estimated to be worth more than $1
million. Mr. Matkins grades suffered because his work left him too little time to
complete all of his homework assignments. However, he apparently has no regrets:
Mr. Matkins says the prospect of being a millionaire by his senior year is very cool.
He loves MIT, but in many ways, he says, Akamai has become his real university.
There are different ways to learn stuff, he says. I ve learned more at Akamai than I
would in a classroom.

31
The article notes that Mr. Lewin s doctoral dissertation will be based on his work at
Akamai, although he ll probably need permission from the Akamai board of
directors to use some of the material. The article concludes, He will also probably
need approval from Akamai s chief scientist, Mr. Leighton, who, it turns out, is his
PhD adviser.

Identify and discuss the ethical issues that the previous account raises.

32
SOLUTION:
The previous account raises several ethical issues related to the interplay between
academia, business, and student employment. Some of the key ethical issues
include:

1. Conflict of interest: The close relationship between the professors and the
business venture raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. For example,
the fact that Mr. Lewin's doctoral dissertation will be based on his work at
Akamai, and that he needs approval from the company's chief scientist who is also
his PhD adviser, raises questions about the objectivity and independence of
academic research.

2. Academic integrity: The article highlights instances where students'

academic performance suffered due to their intense work schedules at the
company. This raises questions about the balance between academic and
professional commitments, as well as the potential impact on the quality and
integrity of the students' academic work.

3. Exploitation of students: The article suggests that students are being lured
away from completing their degrees in order to pursue financially attractive job
opportunities. This raises concerns about whether students are being exploited for
their talent and potential financial gain, and whether they are making informed
decisions about their long-term educational and career prospects.

4. Responsible mentorship: The professors' involvement in the business venture

and their advising of students involved in the venture raise questions about
responsible mentorship and the duty of care towards students. There may be
concerns about whether the professors are adequately considering the well-being
and academic development of their students, or prioritizing their own financial
interests.

Overall, the account highlights complex ethical considerations related to the

intersection of academic research, student employment, and business ventures, and
raises questions about the appropriate boundaries and responsibilities of all parties
involved.

33
CASE 10: Intellectual Property
You find a novel solution to an important problem posed by your advisor; however,
your advisor sees this as an opportunity for him to get published, downplays the
significance of the results, collates a paper and submits

it before you are any the wiser (the paper acknowledges a discussion with you, but
does not include you as an author). You are absolutely clear that this idea was
yours, and feel suitably put out. You approach your advisor and make a complaint,
but he empathizes with you and tells you to be a bit quicker with the write-up next
time.

He tells you, “That’s just the way of the world.”

You decide not to leave it there, and approach the head of the department (going up
one link in the management chain). You make your complaint to him, and he asks
you for evidence, but you can’t provide any because you didn’t keep a dated
notebook: all of your notes are in several ring binders, some at home and some in
your desk at work. You start feeling a bit silly, and the head advises you to drop the
matter.

Questions

• Should you drop the issue?

• Are there long-term consequences for anyone to not dropping the issue?

• Is there a “fair” way to make a claim to the results?

• In the last question, what does the word “fair” mean?

• The section on Educational Concerns has a case study about whistleblowing.

Are there any whistleblower aspects to this case study?

34
SOLUTION:
1. Should you drop the issue?

No, you should not drop the issue. It is important to stand up for your rights and
ensure that your contributions are acknowledged and credited appropriately. By
dropping the issue, you may be enabling unethical behavior and setting a precedent
for similar situations in the future.

2. Are there long-term consequences for anyone to not dropping the issue?

There may be long-term consequences for both you and your advisor if you do not
drop the issue. Your relationship with your advisor may become strained, affecting
your ability to work together in the future. Additionally, if your advisor's behavior
goes unchecked, it could set a precedent for him to continue taking credit for others'
work and potentially harm the academic integrity of the department.

3. Is there a "fair" way to make a claim to the results?

Yes, there is a fair way to make a claim to the results. This would involve
presenting evidence, such as dated notes or other documentation, to support your
claim that the idea was yours and that you should be included as an author on the
paper. It is important to follow proper channels and procedures within the
department or institution to address this issue.

4. In the last question, what does the word "fair" mean?

In this context, "fair" means just and equitable. It refers to a process or outcome that
is unbiased and treats all parties involved in a manner that is morally right and
reasonable.

5. Are there any whistleblower aspects to this case study?

Yes, there are whistleblower aspects to this case study. By bringing forward your
complaint to higher management, you are essentially whistleblowing on your
advisor's unethical behavior. Whistleblowing involves exposing wrongdoing or
unethical conduct within an organization, often in the interest of protecting the
public or upholding moral and ethical standards.

35
 CASE 11: Units, Communications, and Attention to Detail the
Loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter

The Mars Climate Orbiter was a 629 kg Mars satellite launched by NASA on
December 11, 1998, with a mission to map the Martian surface and atmosphere
for about two years and serve as a communications relay station for future
Mars landers for about three additional years. The Orbiter was lost during
entry into Martian orbit; it is presumed to have burned up during atmospheric
entry or overheated and skipped into space. The following, taken from the
official report of the investigation into the loss of the Climate Orbiter, indicates
the probe was inserted into Mars orbit much lower in the atmosphere than
designed because of cumulative navigation errors resulting from the use of
data in English units provided by a contractor in onboard calculations requiring
metric units. At the time of Mars insertion, the spacecraft trajectory was
approximately 170 kilometers lower than planned. As a result, MCO either
was destroyed in the atmosphere or re-entered heliocentric space after leaving
Mars atmosphere. The Board recognizes that mistakes occur on spacecraft
projects. However, sufficient processes are usually in place on projects to catch
these mistakes before they become critical to mission success. Unfortunately
for MCO, the root cause was not caught by the processes in-place in the MCO
project. A summary of the findings, contributing causes and MPL
recommendations are listed below. These are described in more detail in the
body of this report along with the MCO and MPL observations and
recommendations. Root Cause: Failure to use metric units in the coding of a
ground software file, Small Forces, used in trajectory models. In addition, the
report lists eight contributing causes, including inadequate communications
between project elements, inadequate staffing, and inadequate training.
Consider the responsibility of engineers in organizations to satisfy the standard
of care, that is, to make sure that their errors and omissions are no more in
number or in significance that would be made by other competent engineers
36
working in the same field. Discuss how engineers working in multiple large
organizations on large projects can be sure that the standard of care expected
by the public is satisfied

37
 SOLUTION:

The ethical issue in this case is the failure of the engineers and project team to
ensure that proper processes and checks were in place to catch mistakes before
they became critical to the mission's success. The responsibility of engineers in
organizations to satisfy the standard of care is to ensure that their errors and
omissions are no more in number or significance than would be made by other
competent engineers working in the same field. In this case, the failure to use
metric units in the coding of a ground software file and the inadequate
communications, staffing, and training all contributed to the loss of the Mars
Climate Orbiter.
To address this ethical issue, engineers and project teams working on large
projects must prioritize thorough and rigorous processes for quality control
and review. This includes ensuring that proper communication channels are in
place, that staffs are adequately trained, and that there are sufficient checks
and balances to catch potential errors. Additionally, engineers should be
proactive in speaking out about potential issues or concerns, even in the face
of institutional pressures, to ensure that the standard of care expected by the
public is satisfied. This may involve advocating for additional resources or
changes to processes to ensure the success and safety of the project.
The case of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) highlights several ethical issues,
primarily related to professional responsibility, communication, and adherence
to standards. Here are some ethical considerations and recommendations for
engineers working on large projects across multiple organizations:
1. Professional Responsibility:
 Engineers have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and reliability
of their work, especially in critical systems like space missions. The
failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file
reflects a breach of this responsibility.

38
  Engineers should be aware of the potential consequences of their
actions on public safety and the success of the mission. In this case,
the failure to convert units led to a critical error that resulted in the loss
of the spacecraft.

2. Communication:
 Adequate communication between project elements is crucial. In the
MCO case, inadequate communication between different teams and
the use of English units in one part of the project while metric units
were expected in another led to a catastrophic failure.

 Engineers must prioritize clear and effective communication

channels within and between organizations involved in large projects
to ensure that everyone is on the same page regarding specifications
and requirements.

3. Adherence to Standards:
 Engineers must adhere to industry standards and best practices. In the
MCO case, the failure to use metric units violated the standard
practices in aerospace engineering and contributed to the mission
failure.

 Organizations should enforce the use of standardized units and

regularly review processes to ensure that they align with industry
best practices.

4. Adequate Staffing and Training:

 Inadequate staffing and training were identified as contributing
causes to the MCO failure. Engineers should ensure that they have
the necessary resources and expertise to carry out their tasks
effectively.

 Organizations should invest in continuous training and

39
 development programs to keep their engineers updated on the latest
technologies, methodologies, and industry standards.

40
Ethical Recommendations:
 Engineers should prioritize transparency and honesty about their
work, especially when mistakes are made. Promptly reporting errors
and addressing them is crucial for preventing catastrophic failures.

 Organizations should foster a culture that encourages open

communication, learning from mistakes, and continuous
improvement.

 Engineers working across organizations on large projects

should actively participate in peer reviews and cross-
disciplinary communication to catch and rectify potential errors
early in the development process.

 There should be robust quality control processes in place, including

regular audits and checks, to catch errors and ensure compliance
with standards.

In summary, ethical conduct in engineering involves a commitment to

professionalism, effective communication, adherence to standards, and
continuous improvement. Engineers and organizations must work
collaboratively to establish and maintain a high standard of care to meet the
expectations of the public and ensure the success and safety of their projects.

41
42