ME 470 Ethics Case Study

Due: Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Relevance:
In engineering practice you will encounter situations that demand you to make decisions with ethical
dimensions. Many times these situations are encountered in the design stages. Often you are balancing
competing societal issues in the same way you balance technical performance issues.

Benefit to Student:
Practice with case studies helps develop awareness, identifies resources, and clarifies possible
actions.


Rose-Hulman requires that graduates demonstrate an understanding of ethics as applied to their
disciplines. The institutional requirements are shown below.


Goals for the Ethics unit:
Primary: Become familiar with and apply the ASME code of Ethics
Read the ASME Code of Ethics
Answer basic questions related to the Code
Apply the Code to different scenarios
Secondary: Consider both big and small pictures
Consider from where the Code may arise
Consider how you want to live your life..
Steps:

1. Code of Ethics: As a mechanical engineer, ASME is the governing professional organization. The ASME
Code of Ethics is attached to this handout. Read the Code and discuss each item with your group. Do you
see any requirements that you think are unreasonable? Try the following web-sites:
http://www.professionalpractice.asme.org/Transition/Ethics/Introduction.cfm (Interactive)
http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/NewsPublicPolicy/Newsletters/METoday/articles/28207.pdf (.pdf)

When you finish, keep in mind the three philosophical approaches for exploring how an individual
reached, or might reach, an ethical decision: Malpractice or minimalist, reasonable or due care, and good
works. The information also discusses perspectives for exploring the impact of engineering decisions on
society using either utilitarianism or respect for persons.

There is an on-line ethics quiz that each member of your group should take before the midterm and
final. Questions from the quiz will be on the exams.


2. In-class discussion: Bayer court case in India
Scenario
The Wall Street Journal recently reported (Bayer Loses Drug Ruling in India, March 13, 2012) that a court
in India ruled that Bayer must allow a generic drug manufacturer to produce a particular cancer drug
(Nexavar) prior to the expiration of the patent.

The drug has been found to be effective, but costs several thousand dollars a month. The court ruled
that the drug should be available to more people at a lower price, and the generic maker will be able to
sell a monthly supply for less than $200. A portion of the income will go to Bayer.

Background
Patents Law in the United States flows from the Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ; To promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . The exclusivity provides the opportunity for the
inventor to profit from their work and the limited time means that society will eventually get benefit at a
lower cost. The life of a patent is typically 20 years with about three of those in the approval process.

Tasks
a) Describe the design conflict that the judge is facing. What two factors is the court trying to
balance? What are the two goods that are in conflict?
b) What ASME Canons may apply (if the judge is a Mechanical Engineer)?
c) What ethical criteria may apply that are not in the ASME Code?
d) Name three possible actions the judge could take and justify them from an ethical perspective.



3. Ethics Write-up:
1. Write an article to appear in the Thorn for your peers (fellow engineering students).
2. The article should describe the ethical conflict. This should be described such that proponents
on either side consider the statements fair and accurate.
3. The article should name the applicable ASME ethical Canons that apply and explain why/how
they apply. You may wish to qualify based on Minimalist, Due Care, or Good Works
interpretation.
4. The article should describe two possible actions that can be taken by John James to resolve the
conflict and explain how the ASME Canons inform the ethical choices made in selecting each
possible action.

Question Was ASME ethical (through the actions of its representative John James?
In 1971, Eugene Mitchell, Vice President for Sales at McDonnell and Miller, Inc., located in
Chicago, was concerned about his company's ability to persist in its dominance of the market for
heating boiler low-water fuel cutoff valves. Heating boilers must have a low-water fuel cutoff to
ensure that boilers cannot be fired without sufficient water in them, for deficient water could
cause an explosion.

Hydrolevel Corporation entered the low-water cutoff valve market with an electronic low-water
fuel supply cutoff that included a time delay on some of its models. Hydrolevel's valve had won
important approval for use from Brooklyn Gas Company, one of the largest installers of heating
boilers. Some Hydrolevel units added the time delay devices so the normal turbulence of the
water level at the electronic probe would not cause the fuel supply to be turned on and off in
rapid cycles. Mitchell felt that McDonnell and Miller's sales could be protected if he could secure
an interpretation stating that the Hydrolevel time-delay on the cutoff violated the ASME BPV
Code. He referred to the following section of the ASME code: Each automatically fired steam or
vapor system boiler shall have an automatic low-water fuel cutoff, so located as to automatically
cut off the fuel supply when the surface of the water falls to the lowest visible part of the water-
gauge glass.3

Thus, Mitchell asked for an ASME interpretation of the mechanism for operation of the
Hydrolevel device as it pertained to the above section of the code. He did not, however,
specifically mention the Hydrolevel device in his request.

Mitchell discussed his idea several times with John James, McDonnell and Miller's Vice President
for Research. In addition to his role at McDonnell and Miller, James was on the ASME
subcommittee responsible for heating boilers and had played a leading role in writing the part of
the Boiler Code which Mitchell was questioning. James recommended that he and Mitchell
approach the chairman of the ASME Heating Boiler Subcommittee, T.R. Hardin. Hardin was also
Vice President of the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. When Hardin
arrived in Chicago in early April, 1971 on other business, the three men went to dinner at the
Drake Hotel. During dinner, Hardin agreed with Mitchell and James that their interpretation of
the code was correct.

Shortly after the meeting with Hardin, James sent ASME a draft letter of inquiry, and sent Hardin
a copy. Hardin made some suggestions, and James incorporated Hardin's suggestions in a final
draft letter. James' finalized draft letter of inquiry was then addressed to W. Bradford Hoyt,
Secretary of the BPV Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee.

Hoyt received thousands of similar inquiries every year. Since Hoyt could not answer James's
inquiry with a routine, response, he directed the letter to the appropriate Subcommittee
Chairman, T.R. Hardin. Hardin drafted a response without consulting the whole Subcommittee, a
task he had authorization for if the response was treated as an "unofficial
communication."Hardin's response, dated April 29, 1971, stated that a low-water fuel cutoff
must operate immediately.

Although this response did not say that Hydrolevel's time-delayed cutoff was dangerous,
McDonnell and Miller's salesmen used Hardin's conclusion to argue against using the Hydrolevel
product. This was done at Mitchell's direction.

In early 1972, Hydrolevel learned of the ASME letter through one of its former customers who
had a copy of the letter in his possession. Hydrolevel then requested an official copy of the letter
from ASME. On March 23, 1972, Hydrolevel requested an ASME review and ruling correction.

ASME's Heating and Boiler Subcommittee had a full meeting to discuss Hydrolevel's request, and
confirmed part of the original Hardin interpretation. James, who had replaced Hardin as
Chairman of the Subcommittee, refrained from participating in the discussion but subsequently
helped draft a critical part of the Subcommittee's response to Hydrolevel. The ASME response
was dated June 9, 1972.

In 1975, Hydrolevel filed suit against McDonnell and Miller, Inc., ASME and the Hartford Steam
Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, charging them with conspiracy to restrain trade under
the Sherman anti-trust law.


4. Grading:
The description of the conflict should be substantive (multiple sentences) and each side of the
conflict should be thoroughly and fairly described
The Ethical Canons should be named, written out, and clearly related to the problem and the
solutions.
The two actions should be reasonable, feasible, separable, and supported by the Canons (and
any other ethical principles that are appropriate).



ASME Code
P-15.7
4/23/09
SOCIETY POLICY ETHICS
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.
CODE OF ETHICS OF ENGINEERS
The Fundamental Principles
Engineers 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 their clients (including their employers) and the
public; and
III. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.

The Fundamental Canons
1. 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; they shall build their professional
reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
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 respect the proprietary information and intellectual property rights of others, including
charitable organizations and professional societies in the engineering field.
6. Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or organizations.
7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and shall avoid any
conduct which brings discredit upon the profession.
8. Engineers shall consider environmental impact and sustainable development in the performance of
their professional duties.
9. Engineers shall not seek ethical sanction against another engineer unless there is good reason to do so
under the relevant codes, policies and procedures governing that engineers ethical conduct.
10. Engineers who are members of the Society shall endeavor to abide by the Constitution, By-Laws and
Policies of the Society, and they shall disclose knowledge of any matter involving another members alleged
violation of this Code of Ethics or the Societys Conflicts of Interest Policy in a prompt, complete and truthful
manner to the chair of the Committee on Ethical Standards and Review.

The Committee on Ethical Standards and Review maintains an archive of interpretations to the ASME Code of
Ethics (P-15.7). These interpretations shall serve as guidance to the user of the ASME Code of Ethics and are
available on the Committees website or upon request.