Ethical uncertainty surrounding misleading information and unclear research

Tuned mass dampers are a technology used to reduce the effects of earthquakes on buildings, especially multiple-story buildings. Specifically, a TMD is a large device installed at the top of tall buildings that dissipates the vibrations of an earthquake so as to cause less stress to the structure of the building. The TMD is most commonly used in the form of a pendulum suspended from the ceiling. When any category of earthquake vibrates the building, the pendulum will swing the opposite way of the floor movement, creating a force in the opposite direction, reducing the force of the earthquake. Tuned mass dampers do not completely cancel out the force, but they reduce it by a great deal. They are also commonly used to reduce vibrations from the wind [4].

First I decided to review the research and designs for this newer TMD installed in the Verizon skyscraper. In all of the research, the percent of the vibrations reduced was mentioned only once. The research showed that anywhere from 55-80% of earthquake and wind vibrations are estimated to be reduced by the damper. Next, I talked to Mr. Patton and he confirmed that he had guaranteed an 80% reduction. I knew that we had installed 3 of these dampers over the last 3 years, including one we are currently installing. I asked Mr. Patton if he had told these two other clients the same thing and he said “Of course, it’s the truth.” I suspected he knew this was a stretch of the truth, not ‘the truth,’ so I showed him the research. His reply was that the research was not very thorough nor clear. I pressed on, asking him if he believes this to be true, why would he guarantee 80% success of the damper? Mr. Patton became frustrated and asked me not to make a big deal of it and, despite a few attempts to continue talking with him, he ended the conversation.

Mr. Patton also has a duty as a senior engineer to be a good role model. According to the Code of Ethics of the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), senior engineers must “Honor the responsibility not only to train [junior engineers] in proper professional conduct in performing research and publishing results, but also to model such conduct before them” [1]. This states that a senior engineer cannot effectively train junior engineers unless his/her own performance is beyond reproach, otherwise the training is hypocritical [7]. My boss’s poor ethical judgment compromises his subordinate’s trust in him and may even lead us to wonder what other unethical activities he has been a part of [8].

The workplace should always value ethics above all else. Employees should feel comfortable enough to be able to voice their concerns. Also, although I have an obligation to my company to help gain any profit I can, I have another obligation to my company to represent it in the best possible way including being trustworthy and moral [10].

There are six fundamental canons of the NSPE Code. Canon 1 states “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” The dilemma I am facing does not directly involve safety or danger. Canon 2 states “Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.” In my dilemma, no one did someone else’s job. Canon 3 states “Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.” This canon directly relates to my case. My boss, Mr. Patton, did not give truthful statements, he gave exaggerated statements [5].

Canon 4 states “Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.” No one in this instance acted in a disloyal manner to the client or company. Canon 5 states “Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.” This canon relates in two ways to this dilemma I am facing. Mr. Patton used deception by exaggerating statistics to gain clients and then he asked me to use deception to cover up his ethical shortcomings. Canon 6 states “Engineers shall conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.” This canon was useful three ways. My boss did not act honorably by giving misleading information. The researchers did not act responsibly by doing a poor job researching. Finally, I must abide by this canon in deciding my course of action [5].

There are seven fundamental canons of the ASCE Code. All but two are the same as already mentioned in the NSPE Code. The fifth canon states “Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.” This relates to this situation because my boss engaged in unfair competition by exaggerating the effectiveness of our tuned mass damper. The seventh canon states “Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.” This doesn’t really relate to this case [6]. I also referenced the eight obligations of the BMES Code because, even though they are intended specifically for Biomedical Engineers, I found the basis of some of the obligations useful in the ethical dilemma I face.

I referenced case studies as well. These I found to be the most useful of all because they gave examples of how the Codes of Ethics related in real situations. I utilized two educational short videos that gave a fictitious case study then much analysis. They were very useful because the analysis related to my case in many ways, such as finding motives behind unethical behavior. I read two articles on ethics that were on very specific topics such as engineering mentoring, so only a few pieces of information were helpful. I also consulted the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity which was helpful in determining the standards for effective research.
MY COURSE OF ACTION
There may be multiple correct responses or there may be no truly correct responses to an ethical dilemma, but an engineer should have the ability to decide on the best response [10]. It is important that I act quickly and decide on the best response in this instance so that the issue does not escalate [12]. My first step should be to write everything down, specifically the details of the case and the ethical research I have done [10].

Then, remaining professional, I should talk to Mr. Patton again and explain my situation. I will recommend to him that we refund Mr. Reynolds the $3 million difference. Our research and development team should re-evaluate the performance of the TMD. Then we should inform the two other clients for whom we installed this new damper of the real statistic. If they demand a refund of a reasonable amount, we should agree to it [10]. If Mr. Patton is still being unreasonable, I should report this case. Since I am a member of the ASCE, I may file a complaint to the ASCE Committee on Professional Conduct [6]. I also could report it to the National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) [8].

Engineers should keep it professional at all times [10]. It is recommended to mentally prepare oneself before a discussion so s/he is confident and doesn’t appear nervous. Engineers need to be so sure in their decision that they won’t be pushed around or made to doubt themselves [13]. Two good questions to ask when deciding on a course of action is ‘What would my role model do?’ and ‘How will I feel after making this decision?’ [8].

[3] Koehn, E. (1991). An ethics and professionalism seminar in the civil engineering curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 117(2), 96-101. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1991)117:2(96)

[4] Gutierrez Soto, M., & Adeli, H. (2013). Tuned mass dampers. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 20(4), 419-431. doi:10.1007/s11831-013-9091-7

[5] NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. (2014, January 1). Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

[6] Code of Ethics. (2014, January 1). Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://www.asce.org/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/

[7] Forister, C. A. (2003). Ethics and civil engineering: Past, present, and future. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 129(3), 129-130. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:3(129)

[8] Great Projects Film Company of New York City (Producer). (July 2010). Henry’s Daughters [Educational Video]. USA: National Institute for Engineering Ethics, Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism, Edward Whitacre College of Engineering, Texas Tech University.

[9] The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2010, September 22). Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html

[10] National Society of Professional Engineers (Producer). (1989). Gilbane Gold [Educational Video]. United States: National Society of Professional Engineers.

[11] Case 1010-What’s the Angle? (1999). Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.php

[12] Karagianis, E. (1999). The Cost of Integrity. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/case-studies/cost-integrity

[13] Public Health and Safety-Delay in Addressing Fire Code Violations. (2014, April 30). Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER Case No 13-11-FINAL.pdf