Name:__________________________

1. Herbert Hoover assumes that engineers are accountable for whether the products they make actually work according to expectations. But suppose, as is typical, that an engineer works on only a small part of a building or computer. Is Hoover mistaken in saying that the engineer shares responsibility for the project in its entirety? Does what he says apply only to the project engineer responsible for overseeing the entire project? Distinguish the applicable senses of ‘responsibility.’

CBS News had an article online regarding the court case involving the Army Corps of Engineers and their accountability with the levee failure during Hurricane Katrina. CBS News reports that the ruling could impact northern Texas. Congress made the decision that if something happened, the Army Corps of Engineers would not be held accountable. So when something happens, who is responsible? The city that the levee protects? The Federal Government is one thing, but what about all of the other engineering companies large, small, and everywhere in between? Obviously, one company can’t ever say “We cannot be held accountable if one of our products fails and injures people”. That’s wrong. So, how where would the accountability be pinned?
If one of those smaller companies produced a product that ended up hurting or killing people, the entire company should be accountable. According to the Encyclopedia of Business, “businesses can be held liable for any damage or harm their products might cause”. However, this does not go into further detail. If a large corporation produced a product that hurt or killed people, is the entire corporation accountable or is the liability confined to the engineer/group of engineers that worked on that one product? As far as the public is concerned the entire company is liable. Once inside the company, who is really accountable? Let’s say one specific part of a widget failed and injured the user. The engineer that designed that one part should be responsible, but that engineer’s superior should also be responsible because it was his job to overlook the design. Maybe the liability should also be on the test engineer who didn’t bring up how that one specific part might fail under certain conditions. Every situation is different and each one requires close examination of all the facts and all parties involved. Then, it seems, it should be up to a Jury to decide exactly on whom the responsibility falls.

Phillips, L.P. "Hurricane Katrina Ruling Could Impact North Texas." CBS DFW. CBS News, 9-25-2012. Web. 30 Sep 2012. <http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/hurricane-katrina-ruling-could-impact-north-texas/>.

"Product Liability." Reference for Business. Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd ed.,Web. 30 Sep 2012. <http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Op-Qu/Product-Liability.html>
As regards each of the following cases, use one or more of the dilemma paradigms to first discuss what ethics requires and then what self-interest requires. Is your argument the same or different between those two points of view?

a. Bill, a process engineer, learns from a former classmate who is now a regional compliance officer with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that there will be an unannounced inspection of Bill’s plant. Bill believes that unsafe practices are often tolerated in the plant, especially in the handling of toxic chemicals. Although there have been small spills, no serious accidents have occurred in the plant during the past few years. What should Bill do?

b. On a midnight shift, a botched solution of sodium cyanide, a reactant in an organic synthesis, is temporarily stored in drums for reprocessing. Two weeks later, the day-shift foreperson cannot find the drums. Roy, the plant manager, finds out that the batch has been illegally dumped into the sanitary sewer. He severely disciplines the night-shift foreperson. Upon making discreet inquires, he finds out that no apparent harm has resulted from the dumping. Should Roy inform government authorities, as required by law in this kind of situation?

a.
The OSHA enforcement “Inspection Priorities”, found on their website, include: Imminent danger, catastrophes, worker complaints and referrals, high injury and illness rates, severe violators, and follow-up inspections. According to those Inspection Priorities, Bill’s plant must have some major issues that must be dealt with immediately.
The ethics paradigm Truth vs. Loyalty applies to Bill’s situation. If he follows truth, he should tell his superiors about the inspection so they can analyze and fix what they can before the unscheduled inspection. Assuming they can fix a reasonable number of the unsafe practices and handling of toxic chemicals in the allotted time, the inspection shouldn’t be as bad as it previously would be. Then after the inspection, Bill should push to continue to fix the issues that still exist. Maybe Bill could work it out to have a part-time job looking over the new and safer practices. If Bill follows Loyalty, then being loyal to the government regulation would mean he shouldn’t say anything and let the inspection go as planned. No matter what he chooses, assuming he still has a job after the inspection, he should put in significant effort to mitigate all dangerous and questionable practices in the plant.

"OSHA Enforcement." Occupational Safety & Health Administration. United States Department of Labor, n.d. Web. 1 Oct 2012. <http://www.osha.gov/dep/index.html>.

b.
When looking at the OSHA enforcement Inspection Priorities, it can be assumed that the OSHA would be all over the plant manager once he informs them and any other government authorities. The ethics paradigm Justice vs. Mercy comes into play. If Roy follows Justice, he should notify the governmental authorities of the situation and have them deal with it. Assuming the government doesn’t directly or indirectly force Roy out of his job, Roy should fire the night-shift foreperson and hire a more responsible foreperson. It sounds like the current foreperson had it coming. This may backfire on Roy because it would bring up questions about why nothing was said about the spill to everyone else since Roy made “discreet inquiries”. The Mercy option seems to be the better alternative. Roy would not need to let the government authorities know about the situation since no apparent damage was done, but he should still fire the night-shift foreperson.

"OSHA Enforcement." Occupational Safety & Health Administration. United States Department of Labor, n.d. Web. 1 Oct 2012. <http://www.osha.gov/dep/index.html>.
A transportation engineer has been hired as a consultant by a large development firm to make a study of the feasibility of a proposed toll road. The engineer quickly learns that the toll road would have a very negative impact, especially in terms of pollution and economics, on the lives of a low-income rural population and that the developers had no intention of divulging that information during public hearings. The engineer believes the rural population has a right to informed consent and also that the road places an unfair burden on them. Is it all right for the engineer to say nothing and continue with the study? Does confidentiality require saying nothing? Defend your reasoning using the NSPE Code of Ethics.

The NSPE Code of Ethics can be found on their website, and the fundamental canons are as follows:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. 2. Perform services only in areas of their competence. 3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. 4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. 5. Avoid deceptive acts. 6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

It is ok for the engineer to keep going with the study, but he might be wasting his time. He needs to say something about his findings. All of the fundamental canons, except the second, have been breached by the developers. When the first fundamental canon is applied, the transportation engineer’s findings claim the “safety, health, and welfare of the public” are in danger. The health and safety of the public in that area will be hurt because of the pollution and the welfare of the public will be upset because of the economic downfalls. The third canon poses a big concern. Since the developers had no intention of divulging the bad information to the public, the possibility of getting hit later on with lawsuits being blamed for the further downfall of the low-income area increases dramatically. The transportation engineer must bring the issues to the eyes and ears of the appropriate parties. The fourth canon was breached by the developers because they did not disclose all the information. The transportation engineer will also breach the fourth canon if he/she does not divulge the important information. The developers will breach the fifth canon if they go on with their project because they did not properly inform the public. The transportation engineer would also breach the fifth canon if he/she continued with the study and said nothing. The sixth canon emphasizes: honor, responsibility, ethics, lawfulness, reputation, and usefulness. If the engineer says nothing, he is not being ethical, he will be ignoring the responsibility set down by his superiors, his reputation could be under fire, and it might seriously hurt the “usefulness of the profession”.
The developers have two major issues. First, being their lack of informing the public, and the second being the location of this toll road. Changing the location and letting the public know all the facts could turn this entire project around. The transportation engineer has only one issue. He must make known the facts about the physical and economic health of the area and how it could be changed by the proposed toll road.