ECOR 4995A: Professional Practice

Winter 2019
Essay #1

The Application of Professional Ethics in the Engineering

Design Process

Ben Clark
100861523
Due Date: January 30, 2019
 Just as traffic signs, signals, and cautions work to regulate drivers’ behaviour on the road,
professional ethics in engineering design provide standards to achieve an acceptable quality of
design. Heinz C. Luegenbiehl, a philosopher engineering ethicist, proposes six foundational
principles regarding engineering ethics which are [1]:

 The principle of public safety

 The principle of human rights
 The principle of environmental and animal preservation
 The principle of engineering competence
 The principle of scientifically founded judgement
 The principle of openness and honesty

This list of principles is a comprehensible checklist to determine whether a design has undergone
true ethical decision-making and is worthy of the label “professional ethical engineering”. These
are the principles that are taken into consideration when constructing a code of ethics for
engineers to abide by. It is worthwhile to note how the principle of public safety was placed first
since this should be the top priority when considering ethical implications. This principle is
really the primary purpose behind a binding code of ethics [2]. Engineering design relies on a
large amount of trust from the public and professional ethics aim to ensure this trust is not
betrayed since it is not easily restored.

Governing bodies responsible for deciding upon an acceptable ethical standard through
discussion by different committees is obtained which can be very relevant to certain cultural and
societal values differing among different parts of the world [3]. The ultimate focus of these agreed
upon protocols should be to make sure the engineering design process is oriented with public
safety as a top priority. Many of the design demands that engineers are faced with, directly
interact with the public and can have very detrimental consequences if design standards are not
met or the agreed upon standards are too lenient or are flawed. This is very scary from the
perspective of the public where professional engineers have been entrusted with guarding the
safety and well being of all members of the general population. This is why a structured system
of professional ethics is essential to govern professional engineers in their design process.
Without it, the public would have to trust engineers at face-value which can leave the public
vulnerable which has been demonstrated with horrendous aftermaths many times, such as what
was demonstrated by one of the more notable cases, when the Quebec Bridge collapsed,
implications of which will be investigated later [4]. In Canada, we depend on the federal
organization, Engineers Canada, and provincial regulators, like Professional Engineers Ontario
(PEO) of Ontario to set standards and ensure that standards are met through a licensing process
[5] [2]
.

It is also important to encourage or enforce engineering designs to be conscientious of

Luegenbiehl’s other five principles. In Canada, we have developed a very reliable system to
achieve dependable designs both for public and private projects. However, this dependability in
protecting the public welfare comes at certain cost to industry participants. When there are so
many regulations and legislative hurdles implemented for companies to surmount, design
methods that may be cheaper and more desirable for the company are deemed unacceptable in
public interest. Also, where more precautions are applied, costs increase significantly since more
rigorous training is required which in turn demands higher valued employees with higher salaries
[6]
. These are the factors that ethics committees must balance when creating a code of ethics. One
way this is accomplished is instead of creating limiting boundaries, incentives can be offered to
encourage companies to make ethically conscientious decisions that benefit both the public and
the company.

Luegenbiehl points out how moral autonomy is not given the same value within different
societies [7]. In other words, the expectation of self imposed universal objective morals is
reflected much more in the code of ethics constructed by certain societies with their specific
societal and cultural values as opposed to other societies [8]. In Canada, we treat moral autonomy
very seriously but in places such as Japan, moral autonomy is actually discouraged in society and
at work. This type of value bases can in fact be observed across other countries with Confucian
cultural heritage as well as middle eastern countries [7]. These differences in cultural and societal
values create very different design process dynamics. Where companies in Canada must make
much more ethical considerations with regard to moral autonomy than companies situated in
these other countries. This can allow these companies with much less stringent regulations, to cut
corners and effectively cut costs. While this may seem like a positive, the trade off is unrequited
since the practice of engineering by nature is purposeful to consider the relationship that will
materialize between an engineering design and the societal interactions and benefits. Negative
effects within countries with low moral autonomy are evident when looking at their related
pollution levels and air quality. The countries that are the worst in the world in these respects, are
all situated in this middle east/Asian pocket. It can be concluded that with less emphasis on
moral autonomy, there is less enticement to shift to more ethically consciences methods.
Therefore, a moral autonomy should be prominent in the ethical decisions during the design
process to ensure the end product is effective at benefiting the public or persons the design is for
[11]
.

It is important to note that engineering is a very broad discipline, and umbrellas many
sub-disciplines which can vary immensely from each other. Each discipline has a different
relationship with the code of ethics statute. Luegenbiehl’s principles for engineering ethics have
varying relevance for different disciplines of engineering. For instance, a software engineer that
is employed at a firm, responsible for software development of an entertainment application does
not share the same concerns for public safety implications resulting from their design that a
structural design engineer, responsible for designing a bridge in charge of transporting thousands
of citizens across every day. Both profession types have the same professionalism considerations
to uphold, just at different degrees and different corresponding liabilities. To be trusted with the
responsibilities of a professional engineer and also carry the title, both professions must
participate in the in depth and thorough licensing process required. In Ontario, these
requirements are controlled by the provincial organization, Professional Engineers Ontario. Upon
receiving a licence, a newly named professional engineer receives their professional engineer’s
seal. Application of this seal constitutes liability for all work prepared by, or under the direct
supervision of, said professional engineer [7]. Under the Professional Engineers Act, section 53 of
Regulation 941/90 gives incite on the intended use for the professional engineer’s seal which
states:
“53. Every holder of a licence, temporary licence, pro-
visional licence or limited licence who provides to the
public a service that is within the practice of professional
engineering shall sign, date and affix the holder’s
seal to every final drawing, specification, plan,
report or other document prepared or checked by the
holder as part of the service before it is issued. R.R.O.
 1990, Reg. 941, s. 53; O.Reg. 13/03, s. 16.” [8]

This seal of professional confidence is much more vital for engineering designs that have more
liability since this increases the risk for legal repercussions. Luegenbiehl’s has effectively
ordered the ethical principles from highest associated liability to lowest. Regardless of the
associated legal liability however, professionalism standards set a preeminent quality of design
and should be adhered to. This is what promotes and maintains honour and integrity within the
profession.

In projects where a large amount of liability is at stake, strict and meticulous application
of the engineering design ethical principles must be followed or the project can end in disaster.
This can result in loss of life or injury, removal of professional licence, and/or law suits. This
means of design was disregarded by the arrogant, yet well recognized for his many prestigious
projects, American engineer, Theodore Cooper when he was chosen to design the Quebec Bridge
which catastrophically collapsed in 1907. The result was the death of 75 of the 86 workers on the
bridge. The weight of these events lay squarely on the shoulders of Cooper, whose
superciliousness prevented him from receiving any criticism or contradiction. When others tried
to point out the fundamental flaws within Cooper’s design, he would become outraged and
belittle the accuser with his pompous attitude. Cooper did follow any of the principles for
professional engineering ethics and not only he paid for his mistakes, but so did everyone who
was effected by this tragedy. This took place at a time in Canadian history before strong
professional ethics regulations were implemented throughout the country. Since then, many steps
towards the conferring of legal status on the profession of engineering have been undertaken to
prevent similar events to the Quebec Bridge, which has formed the legislative bodies and
professional engineering ethics regulations that are in place today [4]

In more recent history, on September 30th 2006, the De la Concorde overpass in Laval,
Quebec collapsed, killing five people and injuring six others. In this case however, the
regulations for professional engineering design ethics were followed perfectly. In a report into
the collapse filed by the Johnson Commission stated “a ‘chain of causes’ led to the collapse of
the overpass, but no single person or group can be held responsible for the disaster”. During the
government’s inquiry into the collapse, the panel would hear from 58 witnesses, including an
expert testimony [4]. In this situation, the standards for engineering professionalism actually
worked in favour of the engineering designers since they were able to produce their design notes
in court which were concurrent with the design codes at the time the bridge was constructed in
1970. Since then our understanding of reinforced concrete behaviour has increased so that if the
same bridge was designed today, it would not adhere to todays design codes. Dr. Edward
Sherwood, a professor at Carleton University and an expert in the field, credits a major
contribution of the collapse was due to phenomenon experienced in deep reinforced concrete
beams called the “size effect”, making them much more susceptible to shear failure, something
we had no understanding of 1970 [14]. Here is a case where even though professionalism
standards were met, they should be monitored to ensure continued adherence as our knowledge
and standards evolve.

Heinz C. Luegenbiehl’s foundational six prominent principles required in the application

of professional ethics in the engineering design process, stand to guide all engineers. They are
listed in descending order of their relationship to the associated liability. The most important
principle which also bestows the greatest liability is the principle of public safety. Engineering
design should always be oriented with this as the top priority. The remaining principles are also
important to achieve an engineering design that is credible as a professional ethical engineering
design. The trade-off of conforming to a high level of ethics is it poses obstacles that can limit
the feasibility of a project. An optimal balance point that yields a feasible design while
maintaining a reasonable level of moral autonomy. In order for a professional engineer to signify
their full liable responsibility and accountability for a project’s integrity, implying that the design
conforms to all professionalism and ethical standards, professional engineer’s seal is used. Poor
application of professional ethics in engineering design process can result in major catastrophic
events when high amounts of liability is involved or simply diminish the integrity of the
profession for instances of low associated liability. Engineering design relies on a large amount
of trust from the public and professional ethics aim to ensure this trust is not betrayed since it is
not easily restored.
 References

[1] Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2010). Ethical Principles for Engineers in a Global Environment. In van
de Poel, I. and Goldberg, D. E. Philosophy and Engineering (pp. 147-159). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.

[2] Professional Engineers Act, 1990, R.S.O., Def 1. Government of Ontario

[3] Defining and Developing an Effective Code of Conduct for Organizations. New York:
International Federation of Accountants, 2007, pp. 6-7.

[4] J. Marsh, "Quebec Bridge Disaster", The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2013. Available:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-bridge-disaster-feature. [Accessed 30
January 2019].

[5] "National Guideline on the code of ethics | Engineers Canada", Engineerscanada.ca, 2016.
[Online]. Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/national-guideline-on-the-code-of-
ethics. [Accessed: 30- Jan- 2019].

[6] O. Holmes, Professionalism and Ethics. Texas: Texas Association of Police Explorers, p. 2.

[7] Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2004). Ethical Autonomy and Engineering in a Cross-cultural

Context. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 8(1): 57-78.
[8] J. Dryden, "Autonomy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy", Iep.utm.edu, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.iep.utm.edu/autonomy/. [Accessed: 30- Jan- 2019].

[9] Q. Zhu and B. Jesiek, "Engineering Ethics in Global Context: Four Fundamental
Approaches", ASEE, pp. 6-7, 2017. Available: https://peer.asee.org/engineering-ethics-in-global-
context-four-fundamental-approaches.pdf. [Accessed 30 January 2019].
[10] CANTILIE, C., CHU, V., ENNIS, B., FISHER, N., HARAUZ, J., IRELAND, D.,
MITELMAN, L. AND ROSS, B., Use of the Professional Engineer's Seal. Ontario: Professional
Engineers Ontario, 2005, p. 5.

[11] O. Smith, "Mapped: The world's most polluted countries", The Telegraph, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/most-polluted-countries/.
[Accessed: 30- Jan- 2019].
[12] Ontario Regulation 941, Section 77, made under the Professional Engineers Act, R.R.O.
1990, c. P.28, <http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900941_e.htm>
(January 28, 2019)
[13] S. Leavitt, "De la Concorde overpass: Before and after the collapse", CBC, 2016.

[14] Canadian Consulting Engineer, "Commission reports on causes for Laval overpass
collapse", 2007.