EDGE™ Introduction to Engineering Ethics Based on the Book “Engineering Ethics – Concepts and...

EDGE™

Introduction to Engineering Ethics

Based on the Book

“Engineering Ethics – Concepts and Cases”

Prepared by: Edward Hensel

Copyright © 2005 Rochester Institute of TechnologyAll rights reserved.

Charles E. Harris Jr, Michael S. Pritchard, Michael J. Rabins, 3rd Edition, Thomson-Wadsworth, © 2005, ISBN 0-534-60579-6

EDGE™

“Engineering Ethics – Concepts and Cases”

• Engineering Ethics: Making a Difference• Responsibility in Engineering• Framing the Problem• Organizing Principles• Computers, Individual Morality, and Social Policy• Honesty, Integrity, and Reliability• Safety, Risk, and Liability in Engineering• Engineers as Employees• Engineers and the Environment• International Engineering Professionalism• Engineering Professionalism and Ethics: Future Challenges

I strongly recommend that you add this book to your personal library.

Charles E. Harris Jr, Michael S. Pritchard, Michael J. Rabins, 3rd Edition, Thomson-Wadsworth, © 2005, ISBN 0-534-60579-6

EDGE™

Engineering Ethics: Making A Difference

Engineering Ethics: Concepts & Cases by Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins

The NASA family lost seven of its own on the morning of

January 28, 1986, when a booster engine failed, causing the Shuttle Challenger to break apart just 73 seconds after launch.

The crew of STS-51-L: Front row from left, Mike Smith, Dick Scobee, Ron McNair. Back row from left, Ellison Onizuka, Christa McAuliffe, Greg Jarvis, Judith Resnik.

www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_256.html

• Common Morality– The set of moral ideals shared by most

members of a culture or society

• Personal Morality– The set of moral ideals established on an

individual basis, which are usually acquired in early home or religious training, and are often modified by later reflection

• Professional Morality– The set of moral ideals and standards

established by a group of professionals as related to the practice of their profession

“Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat.”Gerald Mason, Senior VP at Morton-Thiokol, to Robert Lund, Supervising Engineer, 27 Jan 1986, as cited in the Presidentially Directed Roger’s commission report.

EDGE™

The Rogers Commission ReportThe Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (the official name of the Rogers Commission) submitted its report to President Ronald Reagan on Friday, June 6; the report was released to the public the following Monday. The over 200-page document, which contained detailed assessments of the causes of the accident and of NASA's overall failings related to the mishap, culminated in nine recommendations. Among them were: Recommendation I - "The faulty Solid Rocket Motor joint and seal must be changed. This could be a new design eliminating the joint or a redesign of the current joint and seal." Also, "the Administrator of NASA should request the National Research Council to form an independent Solid Rocket Motor design oversight committee to implement the Commission's design recommendations and oversee the design effort. " Recommendation II - "The Shuttle Program Structure should be reviewed. " Also, "NASA should encourage the transition of qualified astronauts into agency management positions. "28 Recommendation III - "NASA and the primary shuttle contractors should review all Criticality 1, 1R, 2, and 2R items and hazard analyses. " Recommendation IV - "NASA should establish an Office of Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance to be headed by an Associate Administrator, reporting directly to the NASA Administrator." Recommendation VI - "NASA must take actions to improve landing safety. The tire, brake and nosewheel system must be improved. " Recommendation VII - "Make all efforts to provide a crew escape system for use during controlled gliding flight. " Recommendation VIII - "The nation's reliance on the shuttle as its principal space launch capability created a relentless pressure on NASA to increase the flight rate ... NASA must establish a flight rate that is consistent with its resources. "29

In carrying out its mandate, the Rogers Commission had inter-viewed more than 160 people and held more than 35 formal investigative sessions, generating more than 12,000 pages of transcripts. The full-time staff grew to 43, plus some 140 part-time support specialists. In the end, the report toned down any strong criticism of NASA's overall performance and responsiveness; such a harsh approach had been proposed by Commissioner Richard Feynman.30 Rather, the report's recommendations were followed by a conciliatory "concluding thought": "the Commission urges that NASA continue to receive the support of the Administration and the nation....

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter15.html

EDGE™

Responsibility in Engineering• Forms of Responsibility

– Obligation Responsibility: the need for engineers to use their specialized knowledge and skill in a way that benefits clients and the public. A key issue for engineers are the concepts of reasonable care and proportionate care.

– Blame Responsibility: the identification of those to whom blame can be attributed for wrongdoing.

– Role Responsibility: the person who occupies a position or role of supervision takes on some level of both obligation and blame responsibility.

• Impediments to Responsible Action– Self interest: “looking out for number one”, placing corporate and managerial

issues above technical and safety issues– Fear: fear of retaliation, losing our job, fear of our mistakes being publicized,

fear of punishment– Self Deception: Rationalization, Seeing what we want to see, looking at the data

through a bias, not admitting errors, “Everyone takes shortcuts once in a while…”, “I could have done it myself – it was just faster to copy the other persons work”

– Ignorance: Making decisions without needed knowledge– Microscopic Vision: Making decisions without a view to the bigger picture

implications.– Uncritical Acceptance of Authority: “I did what I was told to do.”– Group Think: peer pressure to conform, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity


EDGE™

Honesty, Integrity, and Reliability

• Forms of Dishonesty– Lying, generally considered to incorporate three aspects (i)

something that is believed to be false or seriously misleading, (ii) is normally stated in words, (iii) is made with the intention to deceive.

– Deliberate Deception, generally includes mis-representations such as one’s own expertise or the value of certain products or designs.

– Withholding Information, is generally a form of dishonesty of omission if one (i) fails to convey information the audience would normally expect not to be omitted, and (ii) the intent of the omission is to deceive.

– Failure to Seek out the Truth, is generally a form of dishonesty if one uses results of tests, analysis, etc as provided, without fulfilling their responsibility to investigate their accuracy.


EDGE™

How Do I Use This Knowledge?

• Ok, so Engineering Ethics is important

• I understand some basic concepts of professional ethics

• I want to practice engineering in an ethical manner

• How do I translate this information into practical guidance that can help me make appropriate decisions not only as a student, but also as an engineer?

• A good starting place: Professional Code of Ethics


EDGE™

Code of Ethics of Engineers

The Fundamental PrinciplesEngineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients; andIII. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.The Fundamental Canons1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of

their professional duties.2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.3. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall

provide opportunities for the professional and ethical development of those engineers under their supervision.

4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of 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 associate only with reputable persons or organizations.7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.8. Engineers shall consider environmental impact in the performance of their professional duties.9. Engineers shall consider sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

ASME requires ethical practice by each of its members and has adopted the following Code of Ethics of Engineers as referenced in the ASME Constitution, Article C2.1.1.

Responsibility: Council on Member Affairs/Board on Professional Practice and EthicsAdopted: March 7, 1976Latest Revision: September 13, 2003

EDGE™

Organizing Principles• Universalizability

– Closely related to the Golden Rule, a principle found in the religious and ethical writings of virtually all cultures: Treat others as you would have them treat you.

• Reversibility– The idea that whatever is right (or wrong) is right (or wrong) in any relevant similar situation,

implying that it should not matter whether one is on the giving or receiving end of what is done.

• Utilitarian Moral Standard– The Cost Benefit Approach

1. Assess the available options2. Assess the costs (in monetary terms) and the benefits (in monetary terms) of each

option for ALL OF THOSE affected by the decision3. Make the decision that it likely to result in the greatest benefit relative to cost

– The Act Utilitarian Approach1. Enumerate the options2. Determine the audience for each option3. Whatever course of action chosen must be an approved course of action for others in

similar circumstances4. Decide which option is likely to bring out the greatest good for the appropriate audience

– The Rule Utilitarian Approach• Traffic Rules• Design Codes and Standards


EDGE™

A Few Examples and Tools

• Young Engineer Examples

• Dishonesty in an academic environment

• Dishonesty in a laboratory environment

• Dishonesty as related to technical papers and publication

• Dishonesty as related to team projects

• A Tool for framing the problem and trying to find an appropriate position for an Ethical Dilemma:Line Drawing


EDGE™

Case 1Tom is a young engineering graduate who designs automobile brakes for Ford. While working for Ford, he learns a lot about heat transfer and materials. After five years, Tom leaves Ford to take a job at General Motors. While at General Motors, Tom applies his knowledge of heat transfer and materials to design engines. Is Tom stealing Ford’s intellectual property? (See Table 6.1.)

EDGE™


(Ethical ) (Unethical )

EDGE™


EDGE™

Case 2

Tom is a young engineering graduate who designs automobile brakes for Ford. While working for the company, he learns a lot about heat transfer and materials. After five years, Tom leaves Ford to take a job at General Motors. While at General Motors, Tom applies his knowledge of heat transfer and materials to design brakes. Is Tom stealing Ford’s intellectual property? (See Table 6.2.)

EDGE™

Case 3Tom is a young engineering graduate who designs automobile brakes for Ford. While working for Ford, Tom helps develop a new brake lining that lasts twice as long as conventional brake linings. Ford decides to keep the formula for this brake lining as a trade secret. After five years, Tom leaves Ford to take a job at General Motors. While at General Motors, Tom tells the company the formula for the new brake lining. Is Tom stealing Ford’s intellectual property? (See Table 6.3.)

EDGE™

Additional Topics… Beyond the scope of this presentation

• Safety, Risk, and Reliability in Engineering– A companion presentation reviews the rights and responsibilities of engineers with respect to safe

product design, and product liability, etc.• Engineers as Employees

– What happens when you change employers?– How do you handle dishonest acts by your employer?

• Engineers and the Environment– 1969, National Environmental Policy Act– 1948, Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Amended 1972, 1977)– 1970, Clean Air Act (Amended 1977, 1990)– 1976, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Plus many more…

• International Engineering Professionalism– Seeking culture transcending norms– Avoiding Exploitation– Avoiding Paternalism– Avoiding Bribery and Gifts– Avoiding the Violation of Human Rights

• Engineering Professionalism and Ethics: Future Challenges– Role of Professional Societies– National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors– Professional Licensing


EDGE™

A Few Examples and Tools

• Young Engineer Examples

• Dishonesty in an academic environment

• Dishonesty in a laboratory environment

• Dishonesty as related to technical papers and publication

• Dishonesty as related to team projects

• A Tool for Framing the problem and trying to find an appropriate position


EDGE™

Perceived Plagiarism at Ohio [email protected] Nov 1, 2005

Thomas A. Matrka has his master’s degree in engineering from Ohio University and a good job in the private sector as a mechanical engineer. So why is he still spending so much time and energy trying to prove that as many as 30 master’s theses in the university’s engineering college contain unoriginal work?

“They’re compromising the value of the degree of honest students by not distinguishing between the plagiarism and the honest works,” says Matrka. He has spent lunch hours poring over hundreds of pages of theses in the university’s library and writing university officials and accreditors on a one-man quest to spur an investigation by those better qualified than he is to judge plagiarism. “I’m no expert – I’m one guy over there poking around the library. I just want them to look into it and remove these from the public record, because you’ve tainted all of us by leaving them there.”

The dean of Ohio’s Russ College of Engineering and Technology, Dennis Irwin, rejects Matrka’s view that a widespread plagiarism problem exists in the engineering program, and says the former student is wrong to believe that Ohio officials haven’t taken his charges seriously. The college, he says, has investigated the “four or five” cases that Matrka has brought to his attention, and while Irwin asserts that a federal student privacy law prevents him from discussing details of the review, he acknowledges that “a thesis or theses have been removed” from the library.

Irwin says college officials have also altered their policies in ways that will improve their ability to monitor potential plagiarism in student work in the future, including by requiring electronic submission and using software to check new theses against those previously submitted electronically. But the university has no plans, the dean says, to invest the faculty time necessary for what he calls a “witch hunt” to review the hundreds of past engineering theses and dissertations in the library.

“I’m not sure what action I could take beyond the action I’ve taken up to this point,” Irwin says.

Read the rest of the article at: http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/11/01/plagiarism

EDGE™

Ohio University probe finds plagiarism

April 1, 2006 - A committee at Ohio University has determined that 21 mechanical engineering graduates committed plagerism.

ATHENS, Ohio -- A committee at Ohio University has determined that 21 mechanical engineering graduates plagiarized in the theses they wrote as part of the requirements for master's degrees, school officials said. The committee reviewed 46 of the research papers from the past 20 years and found that the 21 contained passages copied from published materials or previous students' work. The committee has recommended giving the graduates accused three months to respond and another nine months to rewrite the theses. It also will recommend revoking the degrees of those who don't comply, but College of Engineering Dean Dennis Irwin said he's considering more extensive measures. "My view is that if someone has plagiarized, there should be something in their transcript or in their thesis that notes that," he said.

Besides the 21, the committee found that another 16 students who worked in groups may have copied from each other or failed to note group research in their theses. The committee did not find fault with any instructors, but Irwin said he will conduct his own review into possible involvement by professors.

The committee was formed after former mechanical engineering student Tom Matrka told university officials in 2004 about suspected plagiarism he found while reviewing the theses of master's graduates, which are stored in a university library. He eventually pointed out 30 suspected cases. Matrka graduated in 2005 with a master's degree and now works as a mechanical engineer in Vinton County in southeast Ohio. He said the committee should review all 335 mechanical engineering master's theses from the past 20 years.

Irwin said he won't ask the committee to do that. "It's not good what we found, but it is from the past," he said. "Do we dwell on the past or do we fix the problem and go on?"

Provost Kathy Krendl in March formed a separate committee to consider ways to change university rules and practices to prevent plagiarism. She expects a report by late this month.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=local&id=4045296

EDGE™

May 30, 2006

To: Dr. Kathy Krendl, Provost, Ohio UniversityFrom: Gary D. Meyer, Asst. V.P. for Economic Development & Technology Development and H. Hugh L. Bloemer, Associate Professor (Emeritus) of Geography; Director (Emeritus) of the Ohio University Cartographic Center (OUCC) & former Chair for the Ohio University Faculty Senate (2001-04)

Subject: Plagiarism in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the Russ College of Engineering at Ohio University

We have assessed the issue of plagiarism in the above department over the past four months and we conclude that rampant and flagrant plagiarism has occurred in the graduate program of the Department of Mechanical Engineering for over twenty years. All members of the academic community, students and faculty alike, are responsible for the integrity and originality of their work. According to the documents that we read and investigated, there are seven faculty members in the department who supervised theses where plagiarism was found. However, the vast majority of the cases revolve around three faculty members who either failed to monitor the writing in their advisees theses or simply ignored academic honesty, integrity and basically supported academic fraudulence. We consider this most serious.

There can never be a time or reason at an academic institution, such as our Ohio University, when plagiarism can be justified. Equally, there can not be any tolerance of the individuals who participate in this serious misconduct. The ad hoc committee of the college established some guidelines to mitigate the obvious problems but we do not concur that the problems are caused by the graduate students and subsequently it is up to the graduate students to remedy the situation. When a faculty member becomes the advisor/mentor of a graduate student, she/he automatically assumes the responsibilities to monitor the progress of the students as they advance to become professionals. Supervision of theses is part of the process. We are appalled that three members of the faculty in mechanical engineering have so blatantly chosen to ignore their responsibilities by contributing to an atmosphere of negligence toward issues of academic misconduct in their own department. We are amazed to see that the internal ad hoc committee recommended no reprimand for those individuals.

Source: http://www.ohio.edu/outlook/media/BMIR.cfm

Ohio University Report of Findings

EDGE™

We recommend the following: 1) A lack of faculty oversight on theses work is of particular concern in relation to two faculty members in the Department who served as advisors in many of the theses included in this investigation. These two members' involvement in these issues should be referred to the College of Engineering Professional Ethics Committee, consistent with the Ohio University Faculty Handbook, for their deliberation and recommendations to the Dean of the College. We recommend that, consistent with Ohio University policy, you initiate the dismissal of the current chair of the department immediately, start the process of rescinding the title of Moss Professor and dismiss the Group II faculty member, who had the second highest incidences of plagiarism, 11 theses under his direction. 2) Place the individual with five violations on probation for a period of two years with regards to chairing theses. 3) Encourage the Dean of College speak with the other four individuals to ensure that they understand the gravity of their 'oversights'. 4) Remove all theses that contain known plagiarism from the library records. If University policy permits, as suggested by the College of Engineering Academic Honesty Oversight Committee, to 'correct' their theses, they should be required to defend their theses again and, as all other students who defend their theses, to re-enroll for at least one credit hour at Ohio University during the quarter of defense. The cost of this enrollment should be paid by the Department of Mechanical Engineering. 5) All theses and dissertations submitted to Ohio University must be in digital form. There should be no exceptions! 6) Change the practice of only two internal thesis committee members (in the College of Engineering) to three and strongly recommend that all theses committees have an additional external committee member throughout Ohio University. 7) Review university policy to assure that external funding for research can in no way be in conflict with the academic mission of the university. Academic integrity can never be subject to suspicion of external influence. The fourteen cases identified in this investigation that have received external funding should be reviewed further to assure that there was no external influence on the research.


Ohio University Report of Findings (Continued)

EDGE™

8) Review ALL theses of concern in this investigation to determine external funding sources, if any, and scrutinize them as directed in 7 above. 9) After the review, as recommended in 7 and 8 above, inform the funding organizations (if warranted) of the corrective steps that have been taken by the College. 10) We reviewed an additional 65 theses from 13 other disciplines across the campus based on similarities in titles (the same approach used to ascertain the problem in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.) From this cursory review we conclude that this plagiarism issue is unique to the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio University. 11) We have identified that seven of the Masters students identified in this plagiarism investigation continued their graduate education at Ohio University and earned a Ph. D. from Ohio University. The dissertations of these individuals were supervised by the two faculty members who have the highest number of infractions in this misconduct. We recommend that these dissertations be carefully reviewed and scrutinized by the College of Engineering. 12) There are currently three graduate students in the Ph. D. program who have been identified as having committed plagiarism in their thesis. They should be suspended until ALL their thesis work has been properly cleared. 13) Of the total 293 master theses completed in the department of Mechanical Engineering (according to the College's records), 106 or 36% were supervised by the two individuals who have been identified as the major contributors of the plagiarism problem in that department. All of these theses should be reviewed by the College to ascertain if additional theses contain plagiarism and, if so, they should be included and be subjected to the appropriate actions suggested by the college committee and the Provost. 14) Act swiftly to get this unacceptable conduct at Ohio University behind us and let us move forward with our noble mission of educating the future professional from poets to CEOs of the world.


Ohio University Report of Findings (Continued)

EDGE™

Ohio University takes actions in response to recommendations from independent team investigating plagiarism allegations 10 July 2006

Source: http://www.ohio.edu/outlook/05-06/July/588n-056.cfm

ATHENS, Ohio (July 10, 2006) -- In response to recommendations by an independent team investigating allegations of plagiarism, two faculty members in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio University already have faced sanctions and more sanctions may follow in the fall.

Jay Gunasekera and Bhavin Mehta have been relieved of their duties as graduate advisers. Gunasekera's privilege to advise graduate students has been suspended for three years and Mehta will not advise graduate students for the duration of his faculty contract.

Also, the two received no merit pay increases for the academic year of 2006-07, according to Dennis Irwin, dean of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology.

In addition, Gunasekera has stepped down as chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The decision was made jointly between Gunasekera and Irwin.

The recently released provost-sanctioned independent investigative report of plagiarism allegations compiled by Gary Meyer, assistant vice-president for economic and technology development in the Innovation Center; and Hugh Bloemer, professor emeritus of geography, director emeritus of the Cartographic Center and former Faculty Senate chair, recommended that Gunasekera be referred to the Russ College's Professional Ethics Committee for possible action.

Dean Irwin is sending the matter directly to his faculty this fall to determine the possibility of further sanctions. Irwin also will meet during the fall term with other Russ College named-professors to determine whether Gunasekera's Moss Professorship should be terminated.

Gunasekera's current Distinguished Professor Award is a university-level appointment. Possible revocation of that award is presently under consideration. All current and emeriti faculty who received the award will be eligible to voice an opinion on this issue. A final determination is expected by early fall quarter.

Mehta is an Ohio University Group II faculty member, which is a year-to-year contract and non-tenured. In early March 2006, he was notified that his contract would not be extended beyond the 2006-07 academic year. During his year remaining at Ohio University, he only will be doing research.

EDGE™

For More Information…• Plagiarism Review Board up for vote: 20 Oct 2006

– http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/articles/2006/10/20/news/15658.html • Washington Post Article “Ohio College Stung by Plagiarism Charges” year 21 Aug 2006

– An article about starting the new school in the wake of the scandal– http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100068.html

• The Chronicle of Higher Education “The Plagiarism Hunter” 11 August 2006– Ohio University ranks second in Princeton Review's list of top party schools. Now he

says it's "oh, you go to the plagiarism school." – http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i49/49a00801.htm

• http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/09/06/20060906-A8-01.html• http://www.ohio.edu/outlook/05-06/August/627n-056.cfm• http://www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=25913 • http://doctorfreeride.blogspot.com/2005/11/completing-misconduct-trifecta.html • http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/11/01/plagiarism

EDGE™

Student Academic Honesty Workshops (Fall 2006)

Russ College undergraduate and graduate students are invited to attend a workshop on academic honesty, offered on Tues., Oct. 24, from 6:10-8 p.m. or Wed., Nov. 1, from 11:10 a.m.-1 p.m. in Stocker Center 103.

Student ideas and opinions are needed to help define "plagiarism" and "academic honesty" for engineering and technology, and also to develop a Russ College honor code. Questions addressed will include "Is it okay to work together on homework?" and "Am I allowed to study from a friend's old exams?“

Students will gather in small groups, review case studies, and have an opportunity to participate in a large group discussion. Free pizza will be served.

http://www.ohio.edu/engineering/plagiarism/workshops-fall06.cfm

EDGE™

Russ College Position on Plagiarism

Plagiarism is one of the most serious academic offenses and undermines the integrity of any document containing such violations.

The Russ College does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Current students under suspicion of plagiarism will be referred to University Judiciaries for further actions, which could include expulsion from Ohio University. Former students found to have committed plagiarism in any document submitted as part of their coursework or research while at the University may also suffer penalties up to and including revocation of degrees.

What is plagiarism? – download PDF Russ College guidelines and examples – download PDF Russ College thesis/dissertation screening procedure memo – download PDF Statement of originality for theses and dissertations – download PDF FAQ about plagiarism Ohio University student code of conduct: Academic misconduct

http://www.ohio.edu/engineering/plagiarism

EDGE™ Introduction to Engineering Ethics Based on the Book “Engineering Ethics – Concepts and...

Documents

Transcript of EDGE™ Introduction to Engineering Ethics Based on the Book “Engineering Ethics – Concepts and...