CASE ANALYSIS #1:

“Case 21: Resigning from a Project”

By,

KIMURA, Yumi
MACAPAGAL, Paulene
MARIANO, Irvette Seigrid
PANTALEON, Kenneth Vicel
Chapter 1: About the Case

1.1 Summary of the Case

A respected computer scientist, David L. Parnas, has resigned from the consulting panel
handling the antimissile defense, widely known as the “Star Wars” plan. Parnas upheld his
doubts that the plan, as large as this scale, will never be possible and will only become well
grounded by means of adjustments on its use. It is also unattainable for computers to function
reliably when opposed with a salvo of nuclear missiles, he added.

1.2 Main Problem in the Case

Reagan’s regime is known for being vocal on the doctrine of mutually assured
destruction or MAD. Reagan described this as a “suicide pact” and initiated the antiballistic
missile program. The panel who responded to his request was asked to handle a missile before it
could be deployed. One computer scientist from the panel, David Parnas, contradicted, resigned,
and undertook public opposition from the program. According to his resignation letter, the
software will be unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that the conventional software
development will not produce reliable results. He also stated the limitations of software
engineering methods. He then regarded himself as being the one responsible for informing the
public and letting them decide for themselves why he was convinced that the Strategic Defense
System will never be possible. 

Chapter 2: Ethics of the Case

2.1 Ethical Issue/s Identified

With the converging interests of the government and Parnas’s coworkers, a conflict of
interests is visible due to the unethical decision of the organization to pursue the project. This
raises an ethical issue to which Parnas, a professional lead computer system designer, does not
see SDI would benefit the society and would just spend a large amount of money. He stated in
principle, that it is not possible to establish a program to create a good SDI system making the
project futile and would only waste billions in revenue. For Parnas, it is not ethical to accept and
pursue work creating a national ballistic missile/system that cannot possibly work wherein the
project just lays over the assumption that it is possible. Furthermore, it would give a false sense
of safety to the citizen at which the project would be in contrast to the one advertised to the
public. With this, he layed off from his position, and disclosed to the media the situation within
the organization’s futile project. With the resignation of Parnas and disclosure to the public with
regards to the SDI program, an ethical issue arises creating a dilemma if the decision made by
Parnas is ethically justifiable to lay off from the project which he knows will still proceed on
establishing a dangerous ineffective system.    

2.2 Concepts used to Identify Ethical Issue/s

With the presented ethical issue within Parnas’s case, the concepts used to identify the
ethical issues mainly rest if the decisions and actions are ethically justifiable in accordance to
ethical theories including Kantian ethics, consequentialism, and Aristotle’s ethical theory
together with code of ethics to which in this case, the Association of Information Technology
Professionals’ (AITP) standards of conduct and ACM/IEEE-Computer Society (CS) Software
Engineering Code of Ethics. These code of ethics in summary dictates the obligations and
responsibility of a professional to the society being consistent with the public interests,
cooperating with others in identifying problems and disclosing it to the people involved and to
the public, that they reasonably think is associated with the software or documents. As Parnas
resigned from his position and disclosed the risk factor of the project, it affected the
responsibility of Parnas as a professional towards the organization. With this, the action made by
Parnas situated in the case creates an ethical issue/dilemma.  

2.3 Tools used to Analyze Ethical Issue/s

Kantian contradiction and Aristotelian are the tools used to analyze ethical issues.
According to Immanuel Kant’s contradiction, if people are forced to work on projects and they
are aware of the consequences, then it is not worthy to further work on it. It was stated that
Kant’s point-of-view is if there is a certain thing that needs to be done but has a negative effect
on the person who will help, then there is no reason at all to lend a hand. This will lessen the
damage done by the scenario to both parties. Aristotelian thinking focuses on doing something
that an individual knows is wrong is not an acceptable reason to continue what he/she is doing.
These tools helped identify the ethical issues of this case, as for Parnas, he believed that it is not
ethical to pursue the project he was working on which only depends on the assumption that it is
possible. These tools also identified how Parnas chose to disclose to the public the
ineffectiveness of the SDI program and its danger posed for those who will avail and trust the
said program.

Chapter 3: Conclusion

3.1 Courses of Action (at least 2)

An Engineer-centric Perspective of the Code of Ethics

Engineers are bound by the Code of Ethics in performing their professional duties. The
Code is meant to be a guide for engineers to make decisions that will protect public welfare, the
client, and the engineer themselves. In the Software Engineering Ethics and Professional
Practices, it is stated that the engineer must act in accordance with the client’s best interests
which includes reporting if they think a project may fail or is too expensive. With this in mind, a
possible course of action is to voice out these judgements to the employer, compromise a
solution, and act upon it. If, however, the engineer still believes that the project is impossible and
hence can’t complete it, then they can withdraw from the project with the basis that there is a
limitation in their experience and knowledge.  

Acting in Line with Public Welfare

  As mentioned before, an engineer must report whether they believe a project is
problematic and unlikely to succeed. This is in accordance to the Code’s principle that adheres to
the employer’s best interest. However, it must be taken into account that an engineer must act
consistently with public welfare. The project Parnas withdrew from focuses on developing a
software that will protect the nation from missile attacks by detecting an incoming missile attack,
its trajectory and source, and destroying the missiles. Parnas stated that his opposition was
“based on the inability of the technology to accomplish those goals.” The Code indicates that an
engineer must further their knowledge and improve their ability in software engineering. With
this in mind, only with continuing the project can it be confidently stated that the project truly is
or isn’t possible.

3.2 Suggested/Chosen COA

For this case, the chosen course of action would be a combination of both courses given.
An engineer should provide their professional opinion on the development of the project and
create a compromise after talking to the person-in-charge or the client. Since the project is
founded on the protection of the public, it is likely that the project will be continued whether or
not a single engineer withdraws from their position. However, if an engineer truly believes that
the project is impossible, then they should be given the right to withdraw from it.

3.3 Reasons for choosing that COA

When an engineer is consulted on a project’s development, they are obligated to provide

their honest perspectives and in turn, it is the employer’s obligation to listen. From this
communication, the project development can flow smoother and be more efficient to produce a
higher quality product. There is a possibility that the engineer would still have doubts on the
project and be forced to work. However, aligning with the Kantian contradiction, it would be
better for an engineer to leave a project if they’re not confident that it can be accomplished to
avoid problems that may arise in the future. In line with this, it is better for engineers to work in
projects that they are truly interested in and are willing to exert effort on.

References
Cohen, D., Parnas, D.L. (1987).  SDI: Two Views of Professional Responsibility.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt6bv8p2md/qt6bv8p2md_noSplash_f0636af94d03dedc85
67311799833d95.pdf

IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force (1999). Code of Ethics. https://www.computer.org/press-

room/2016-news/code-of-ethics

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. (2002). “Star Wars” Revisited: Ethics and
Safety-Critical Software. Retrieved from
https://www3.nd.edu/~kwb/Bowyer_Tech_Soc_2002.pdf 

SOFTWARE ASPECTS OF STRATEGIC DEFENSE SYSTEMS. (1985, December).

Communications of the ACM. https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs99r/readings/parnas1.pdf

Times, T. N. Y. (1985, July 12). SCIENTIST QUITS ANTIMISSILE PANEL, SAYING

TASK IS IMPOSSIBLE. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/12/world/scientist-quits-antimissile-panel-saying-task-
is-impossible.html