Case study 1:

A chemical engineer working in the environmental division of a computer manufacturing

firm learns that her company might be discharging unlawful amounts of lead and arsenic
into the city sewer. The city processes the sludge into a fertilizer used by local farmers.
To ensure the safety of both the discharge and the fertilizer, the city imposes restrictive
laws on the discharge of lead and arsenic. Preliminary investigations convince the
engineer that the company should implement stronger pollution controls, but her
supervisor tells her the cost of doing so is prohibitive and that technically the company is
in compliance with the law. She is also scheduled to appear before town officials to
testify in the matter. What should she do?

Case study 2:
Caroline Whitbeck suggests that engineering design is in many respects a model for
“designing” courses of action in many moral situations, in engineering and elsewhere. As
an illustration, she cites a class assignment in which she supervised several mechanical
engineering students. The assignment was to design a child seat that fits on top of
standard
suitcases with wheels. She specified several constraints. Some pertained to size: The
child seat must be easily removable and storable under airplane seats and in overhead
storage bins. Others pertained to use: The seat must have multiple uses, including the
possibility of strapping it into a seat on an airplane. Still others set safety limits:
conformity to applicable safety laws plus avoiding unnecessary dangers. Yet there were
many areas of
uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding how to maximize safety (for example, when
carrying the infant in the seat) and how many convenience features to include, such as
storage spaces for baby bottles and diapers. The students arrived at strikingly different
designs, varying in size and shape as well as in the basic structure of the crossbar that
held the infant in place. Several were reasonable solutions to the design problem. Yet no
design was ideal in every regard, and each had strengths and weaknesses. For example,
one was
larger and would accommodate older infants, but the added size increased the cost of
manufacturing. Again, the bar securing the infant was more convenient in some
directions of motion and less convenient in other directions.

Case study 3:
Whistle-blower to leave Toyota Vietnam
for good
An engineer who exposed Toyota flaws leading to the biggest
vehicle recall in Vietnamese history said he will leave Toyota
Vietnam to seek pastures new after he was suspended by the
very company he denounced.

Tach who is being suspended from working for Toyota Vietnam for
three months starting June 13 told Dan Viet on Tuesday that he is
preparing to open a private business and will quit the Toyota job.

But before leaving, Tach said he will complete paperwork to expose Le Van Tach.
more technical faults on Toyota cars assembled in Vietnam and
appeal against the suspension decision.

He revealed he had discovered four more technical errors on Toyota cars.

Tach became famous when he leaked information to the press and authorities about Toyota Vietnam’s technical
faults. Due to Tach’s expose, since April this year, Toyota Vietnam has recalled 73,000 cars for problems related to
bolts, pressure and seats.

In the latest move that Tach considers a punishment, he was suspended on the grounds that he negatively affected
work and had a “bad influence” on colleagues.

However, the company denies punishing Tach, saying the suspension is in line with labor laws and company
regulations.
The suspension stems from Tach’s baseless accusations that caused disunity among employees, and not to his
whistle blowing, the company confirmed.

On May 31 Tach sent a complaint to the general director that seven senior officials had insulted and threatened him.
He wanted the company to apologize and compensate him.

But the general director replied that the accusations lacked evidence.

Tran Quoc Hung, head of Toyota Vietnam’s planning department, earlier told Nguoi Lao Dong newspaper that after
an investigation, the company found that many of the employees had “only joked” while some did not remember or
spoke in an individual capacity and not on behalf of the company.

It thus ruled out paying compensation or tendering an apology.

https://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/9243/society-in-brief-16-6.html

Case study 4:
The following widely discussed case study was written by Bernard Williams (1929–
2003). The case is about a chemist, but the issues it raises are equally relevant to
engineering. What should George do to best preserve his integrity? Is it permissible
for him to take the job and “compartmentalize” so as to separate his work and his
personal commitments? In your answer, discuss whether in taking the job George would
be compromising in either of the two senses of “compromise”: (1) undermine
integrity by violating one’s fundamental moral principles; (2) settle moral dilemmas and
differences by mutual concessions or to reconcile conflicts through adjustments in
attitude and conduct. What might rights ethicists and utilitarians say?
George, who has just taken his doctorate in chemistry, finds it extremely difficult to get a
job. He is not very robust in health, which cuts down the number of jobs he might be
able to do satisfactorily.
His wife has to go out to work to keep [i.e., to support] them, which itself causes a great
deal of strain, since they have small children and there are severe problems about
looking after them. The results of all this, especially on the children, are damaging. An
older chemist, who knows about this situation, says that he can get George a decently
paid job in a certain laboratory, which pursues research into chemical and biological
warfare.

Case study 5:

Joaquin was hired as a senior researcher for a medical research facility. His department
has been developing a new medical device to detect HIV faster and cheaper, and the
facility has promised investors a prototype would be ready in a year. However, the
preliminary results have been somewhat disappointing as only 60% of the case samples
have tested positive for HIV, whereas the expected sensitivity was aimed at 80%.
Product development had been extended for another six months, but additional funding
is needed to continue the project.

Concerned about the low true positives detected in HIV cases, senior managers decide
to convene with their scientific advisors (who are under non-disclosure agreement) to
determine if 60% is sufficient, if the study is adequately powered, and if there is a better
way to evaluate the data. Before the meeting, Joaquin’s boss asks him to trim the data
by reporting results only from certain samples, and filter out samples with low yields
through observations made during meta-analysis of the clinical data.

Joaquin is uncomfortable with trimming, and argues with his boss that the scientific
advisory board (SAB) should see all of their analyses, unfiltered and filtered, because it’s
valuable information that could be telling them something about disease stage or test
performance. His boss states that as long as they don’t lie about the numbers, there’s no
harm in filtering. Joaquin counters they should show a flowchart of the numbers they
started with, clinical metadata groupings, analysis methods and filtering steps so that all
the information is laid out openly. In this way, the SAB has the opportunity to ask about
the methods used to achieve their receiver operating curves, and better understand the
clinical cohort subclassification applied to the analysis.

The more they argue over the discussion, the more his boss is unwilling to relent.
Joaquin knows that the scientific advisors will expect to see sensitivity and specificity
data, ROC curves, false positives and false negatives, and figures of all unfiltered data.
While the device is on its way of determining positive HIV results, it is not there yet, so
he understands his boss’s reluctance to share the information. How should Joaquin and
his boss address this problem?

Case study 6:
After earning a graduate degree in Engineering Management, Ashton began working for
PDRC International. This is a company based in the U.S. which offers engineering,
design, and construction services to countries all over the world.

Ashton’s work is focused on international development; her first assignment is to lead a

team to develop a bid for a highway construction project in East Africa. After the
engineering proposal is submitted, Ashton is proud of the work her team has
accomplished and promises her manager she will do everything possible to make sure
that PDRC receives the contract.

PDRC’s bid is well-received, and Ashton and her team are flown to East Africa to finish
negotiations. Ashton is thrilled when her company receives the bid; the only stipulation
is that they build their construction headquarters in a specific region in the country.
Ashton then begins scouting the region for a location to build their headquarters.

In order to obtain building permits in the region, Ashton has to negotiate with the local
government. As she begins negotiations, she realizes that bribery is both a common and
expected practice. If she does not bribe the local officials, she will not be able to build
PDRC’s headquarters in that region and consequently will lose the contract; her first
managerial project will be a failure. However, it is illegal for a U.S. citizen to bribe a
foreign official in order to obtain business; if she is caught for bribery, she could face jail
time and her company could be fined millions of dollars.

What should she do?

Case study 7

Data-Time Inc. is a company which manages databases for a large city in Colorado.
Included in these databases is information collected from the city’s homeless shelters
and free clinics. Specifically, the databases contain personal information of the users of
these services over the past 10 years; this includes people’s Social Security numbers and
health records.

This data is highly secure and only accessible to the employees of Data-Time Inc.
Employees are given a laptop when they are hired which allows them to access the
database remotely. Unfortunately, one of these laptops is stolen and the security of the
database is compromised.

A majority of the people whose information was compromised are homeless; therefore
there is no easy way to contact them in order to alert them of the security breach. How
should Data-Time Inc. manage this breach in security?

Case study 8
Dylan is a manager at a leading consumer electronics company. In his role, he must
frequently interact with industry partners and customers. One day, Dylan met with a
customer of one of his company’s custom products. The custom product was a special
chip for an electronic appliance that was currently in its final stages of review before
market release. During the meeting, the customer wanted to know the method of
making the chip, a process which was not specified in the given datasheet. The client
claimed this information was needed to ensure that the chip would function properly
when it was integrated with electronic appliances.

At first, Dylan was uncertain. He wanted to give his customer more details if it was for
the benefit of his client’s final product, but, at the same time, was concerned because
the requested information was protected under his company’s non-disclosure
agreement (NDA).

Dylan decided to discuss the matter with his supervisor; however, Dylan’s manager was
overseeing many projects and, knowing that Dylan was capable and experienced,
entrusted him to take care of the situation. When he returned to work the next day,
Dylan received an email from his customer. The message stated that, if the chip’s
manufacturing methodology was not disclosed, the customer would cease further
investments in the product.

Shocked, Dylan believed that if the customer could not abide by the NDA, he should tell
the contract should be broken off. However, doing so would mean losing a significant
amount of profit they had intended on garnering from selling the chip. On the other
hand, sharing confidential information with his customer could cause negative
repercussions, especially if his company were to discover the legal breach.

Although it is highly unlikely that the extra chip information would be used by Dylan’s
client for malicious purposes, its disclosure could potentially affect his company’s
reputation, lead to mistrust in the company and compromise Dylan’s position. What
should Dylan do?

Case study 9:
Jack has been working as a project engineer for a mechanical energy technology firm
for a few years now, and has recently been promoted to review projects for in-need
communities overseas. He has been put in charge of managing the current company’s
charity projects, and determining how to distribute the funding for them.

Some of the projects are pretty straightforward in their mission and material
requirement, but for one project, Jack isn’t sure whether the company should be funding
it. The project’s mission is to provide new solar panels for an East African community but
the project data suggests it is more practical to just install better lighting inside the
homes. Jack wonders whether to bring up his doubts with his boss. Based on the
company’s research on the community, the community desires better lighting system for
their homes, and the solar panels would be an expensive and high maintenance project.
Not to mention, there was a previous project that (when followed through) resulted in
equipment being stolen from the same region to exchange for money.

Jack understands their local sponsor would gain a great advantage in featuring solar
panels in the community. It would also foster a good business partnership between the
two companies. However, Jack feels it is his responsibility to provide the community
with a more simple and efficient solution to their problem, without diving into a large
project that could possibly lead to negative side effects. Is Jack’s company wrong to
provide technology to the community when they don’t need it?

Case study 10

The Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) is a suburban rail system, constructed during
the late 1960s and early 1970s, that links San Francisco with the cities across its bay. The
opportunity to build a rail system from scratch, unfettered by old technology, was a
challenge that excited many engineers and engineering firms. Yet among the engineers
who worked on it were some who came to feel that too much “social experimentation”
was going on without proper safeguards. Their zealous pursuit of the truth resulted in a
classic case of whistle-blowing.

Three engineers in particular, Holger Hjortsvang, Robert Bruder, and Max Blankenzee,
identified dangers that were to be recognized by management only much later. They
saw that the automatic train control was unsafely designed. Moreover, schedules for
testing it and providing operator training prior to its public use were inadequate.
Computer software problems continued to plague the system. Finally, there was
insufficient monitoring of the work of the various contractors hired to design and
construct the railroad. These inadequacies were to become the main causes of several
early accidents.
The three engineers wrote a number of memos and voiced their concerns to their
employers and colleagues. Their initial efforts were directed through organizational
channels to both their immediate supervisors and the two next higher levels of
management, but to no avail. They then took some controversial steps. Hjortsvang
wrote an anonymous memo summarizing the problems and distributed copies of it to
nearly all levels of management, including the project’s general manager. Later, the
three engineers contacted several members of BART’s board of directors when their
concerns were not taken seriously by lower levels of management. These acts
constituted whistle-blowing within the organization.

One of the directors, Dan Helix, listened sympathetically to the engineers and agreed to
contact top management while keeping their names confidential. But to the shock of the
three engineers, Helix released copies of their unsigned memos and the consultant’s
report to the local newspapers. It would be the engineers, not Helix, who would be
penalized for this act of whistleblowing outside the organization.

Management immediately sought to locate the source of Helix’s information. Fearing

reprisals, the engineers at first lied to their supervisors and denied their involvement. At
Helix’s request the engineers later agreed to reveal themselves by going before the full
board of directors to seek a remedy for the safety problems. On that occasion they were
unable to convince the board of those problems. One week later they were given the
option of resigning or being fired. The grounds given for the dismissal were
insubordination, incompetence, lying to their superiors, causing staff disruptions, and
failing to follow organizational procedures.

The dismissals were very damaging to the engineers. Robert Bruder could not find
engineering work for eight months. He had to sell his house, go on welfare, and receive
food stamps. Max Blankenzee was unable to find work for nearly five months, lost his
house, and was separated from his wife for one and a half months. Holger Hjortsvang
could not obtain full-time employment for 14 months, during which time he suffered
from extreme nervousness and insomnia. Two years later the engineers sued BART for
damages on the grounds of breach of contract, harming their future work prospects,
and depriving them of their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. A few days before the trial began, however, they were advised by their
attorney that they could not win the case because they had lied to their employers
during the episode. They settled out of court for $75,000 minus 40 percent for lawyers’
fees. In the development of their case the engineers were assisted by an amicus curiae
(“friend of the court”) brief filed by the IEEE. This legal brief noted in their defense that it
is part of each engineer’s professional duty to promote the public welfare, as stated in
IEEE’s code of ethics. In 1978 IEEE presented each of them with its Award for
Outstanding Service in the Public Interest for “courageously adhering to the letter and
spirit of the IEEE code of ethics.”