Summarized below are various ethical dilemmas for your consideration. Choose one of the situations and write a short (one to two pages typewritten) commentary addressing the question, “Is this ethical?” Your commentary should reference the Code of Ethics for Engineers cited in lecture. You may compare notes and bounce ideas off other students, but the commentary you submit should be your own. Be sure to reference which situation you are commenting on. This assignment is due in class on Wednesday, February 17.
The following ethical dilemmas are from Moaveni, S., 2014, Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to Engineering, 5th ed., Cengage Learning, Mankato, MN, pp 133-137, Chap.5.
1. 2012 Milton F. Lunch Ethics Contest
Facts:
Engineer A works for Company X, which is owned by Engineer B. Company X is currently experiencing financial problems and Engineer B recently created another company, Company Y. Engineer A has learned that Engineer B recently advised clients of Company X to remit payments for work performed by Company X and its employees to Company Y.
Question:
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
2. Confidentiality of Engineering Report: Case No. 82-2
Facts:
Engineer A offers a home owner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers. Following the inspection, Engineer A renders a written report to the prospective purchaser. Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence. The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence. They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
Question:
Did Engineer A act unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate firm representing the owners?
3. Credit for Engineering Work-Design Competition: Case No. 92-1
Facts:
Engineer A is retained by a city to design a bridge as part of an elevated highway system. Engineer A then retains the services of Engineer B, a structural engineer with expertise in horizontal geometry, superstructure design, and elevations to perform certain aspects of the design services. Engineer B designs the bridge’s three curved welded plate girder spans, which were critical elements of the bridge design.
Several months following completion of the bridge, Engineer A enters the bridge design into a national organization’s bridge design competition.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for his part in the design?
4. Software Design Testing: NSPEBER Case No. 96-4
Facts:
Engineer A is employed by a software company and is involved in the design of specialized software in connection with the operations of facilities affecting the public health and safety (i.e., nuclear, air quality control, water quality control). As part of the design of a particular software system, Engineer A conducts extensive testing, and although the tests demonstrate that the software is safe to use under existing standards, Engineer A is aware of new draft standards that are about to be released by a standard setting organization—standards that the newly designed software may not meet.
Testing is extremely costly, and the company’s clients are eager to begin to move forward. The software company is eager to satisfy its clients, protect the software company’s finances, and protect existing jobs; but at the same time, the management of the software company wants to be sure that the software is safe to use. A series of tests proposed by Engineer A will likely result in a decision whether to move forward with the use of the software. The tests are costly and will delay the use of the software at least six months, which will put the company at a competitive disadvantage and cost the company a significant amount of money.
Also, delaying implementation will mean the state public service commission utility rates will rise significantly during this time. The company requests Engineer A’s recommendation concerning the need for additional software testing.
Question:
Under the Code of Ethics, does Engineer A have a professional obligation to inform his company of the reasons for needed additional testing and his recommendations that it be undertaken?
5. Services-Same Services for Different Clients: Case No. 00-3
Facts:
Engineer A, a professional engineer, performs a traffic study for Client X as part of the client’s permit application for traffic flow for the development of a store. Engineer A invoices Client X for a complete traffic study.
Later, Client X learns that part of the traffic study provided by Engineer A to Client X was earlier developed by Engineer A for a developer, Client Y, at a nearby location and that Engineer A invoiced Client Y for the complete traffic study.
The second study on a new project for Client X utilized some of the same raw data as was in the report prepared for Client Y. The final conclusion of the engineering study was essentially the same in both studies.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to charge Client X for the complete traffic study?
6. Use of Alleged Hazardous Material in a Processing Facility: Case No. 99-11
Facts:
Engineer A is a graduate engineer in a company’s manufacturing facility that uses toxic chemicals in its processing operations. Engineer A’s job has nothing to do with the use and control of these materials.
A chemical called “MegaX” is used at the site. Recent stories in the news have reported alleged immediate and long-term human genetic hazards from inhalation of or other contact with MegaX. The news items are based on findings from laboratory experiments, which were done on mice, by a graduate student at a well-respected university’s physiology department.
Other scientists have neither confirmed nor refuted the experimental findings. Federal and local governments have not made official pronouncements on the subject.
Several colleagues outside of the company have approached Engineer A on the subject and ask Engineer A to “do something” to eliminate the use of MegaX at the processing facility. Engineer A mentions this concern to her manager who tells Engineer A, “Don’t worry, we have an Industrial Safety Specialist who handles that.”
Two months elapse and MegaX is still used in the factory. The controversy in the press continues, but since there is no further scientific evidence pro or con in the matter, the issues remain unresolved. The use of the chemical in the processing facility has increased and now more workers are exposed daily to the substance than was the case two months ago.
Question:
Does Engineer A have an obligation to take further action under the facts and circumstances?
7. Whistleblowing: Case No. 82-5
Facts:
Engineer A is employed by a large industrial company that engages in substantial work on defense projects. Engineer A’s assigned duties relate to the work of subcontractors, including review of the adequacy and acceptability of the plans for material provided by subcontractors. In the course of this work, Engineer A advised his superiors by memoranda of problems he found with certain submissions of one of the subcontractors, and urged management to reject such work and require the subcontractors to correct the deficiencies he outlined.
Management rejected the comments of Engineer A, particularly his proposal that the work of a particular subcontractor be redesigned because of Engineer A’s claim that the subcontractor’s submission represented excessive cost and time delays. After the exchange of further memoranda between Engineer A and his management superiors and continued disagreement between Engineer A and management on the issues he raised, management placed a critical memorandum in his personnel file and subsequently placed him on three months’ probation, with the further notation that if his job performance did not improve, he would be terminated.
Engineer A has continued to insist that his employer had an obligation to ensure that subcontractors deliver equipment according to the specifications, as he interprets them, and thereby save substantial defense expenditures. He has requested an ethical review and determination of the propriety of his course of action and the degree of ethical responsibility of engineers in such circumstances.
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?
Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]