1.

Faulty Valve
Shiley, Inc., a Pfizer subsidiary, was a pioneer in artificial heart valves. From 1965 to
the late 1970s, Shiley manufactured and sold artificial heart valves that never had a
fracturing problem. In the 1970s it came up with a new model, the C-C, that allowed
better blood flow than other models, thereby reducing the risk of blood clots. The new
valve consisted on a metal ring through which blood flows, with two wire struts
protruding from the ring that hold a small disk in place. The disk tilts up and down
within the struts, opening and closing the valve according to the natural flow of blood.
About 86,000 C-C valves have been implanted in patients.

Unfortunately, about 450 fractured C-C valves have been reported so far, with nearly
300 resulting deaths. Investigators have come up with disturbing findings. Since
fractures can be fatal, Shiley inspectors were told to look very carefully (through
microscopes) for any evidence of cracks. Each valve was hand-built, with one strut
welded to the valve’s metal ring at a much sharper angle than in earlier models. Then
the wire strut was bent up and down, often several times, to insert the disk. Scratches
had to be polished off to let blood flow through smoothly. If any cracks were
discovered, the valve was to be rewelded or discarded. Each valve was accompanied
by a card recording dates and the manufacturing operations performed. What
investigators discovered was that many cards indicating rewelding were falsified.
Many cards were signed off by Inspector No. 2832, an employee who had left Shiley
six months before the valve was first manufactured.

Investigators learned that some cracks were simply polished over rather than
rewelded. Further investigation revealed skepticism about the notion that rewelding
was an acceptable practice. Nancy Wilcox, a Shiley employee, testified in a Houston
court case that she had talked with Cabot Corp., supplier of the metal alloy Shiley
used with its struts. She reported that a Cabot official said they do not normally
recommend rewelding.

Shortly after this conversation, Shiley stopped rewelding, and it disposed of any
valves observed to have cracks. Shiley also reduced the angel of the outlet strut,
thereby making the initial weld of strut to ring easier.

A 1984 internal memo written by a member of Shiley’s task force on valve fractures
expressed concern about pressure on quality control inspectors to inspect valves at a
rat that causes eye fatigue, increasing the probability of not noticing some defects.

Pfizer apparently takes a different view. It is reported as holding that the major reason
for fractures was an abnormal closure of the disk, causing it to hit the tip of one strut
with too much force. Repeated striking can produce metal fatigue, ultimately resulting
in a broken strut. In addressing this problem, Pfizer says that, in early 1984, it made
design changes that avoided the abnormal disk closure--and that no valves with the
new design have fractured.

The Federal Drug Administration’s position is that no specific cause of fractures has
been proven.

Identify and discuss the ethical issues this case raises. Discuss the safety issues this
case should raise for engineers.

2. Defective Sensors
Charlie Long is an electrical engineer working for a major automobile company in the
year 2010. He works in the automatic sensors department, and his job is to design and
test electronic sensors for use in different parts of cars.

The latest version of the Lightning-100 was recently launched into the national
market, equipped with an electronic sensor crucial to an innovative safety feature of
the vehicle. This sensor was designed and tested by Charlie’s department. The
Lightning-100's major competitor equipped its comparable model (the Bolt-80) with a
somewhat similar sensor two years before, and it apparently was effective in reducing
the number of fatalities in head-on collisions.

Convinced that they could quickly come up with a design for an electronic sensor to
match the Bolt-80's, Charlie’s department committed to preparing one in time for the
2010 Lightning-100 model. Unfortunately, the design challenge proved to be more
formidable than they expected, and they fell behind schedule. At the same time, they
were under pressure to have something ready for the 2010 model. This, they were told
by management and marketing strategists, could be the key to competing successfully
with the Bolt-80.

So, time was short, and Charlie’s department could delay its recommendation no
longer. Although the prototype was not subjected to as rigorous testing as usual,
Charlie’s department recommended a go-ahead. Charlie was uncomfortable with this
decision. He objected that more testing was needed on sensors that served an
important safety function. But he was overruled, and he pressed the issue no further.
Several months after the Lightning-100 was on the road, a disturbing set of data
emerged. An unusually high percentage of collisions resulted in the serious injury or
death of passengers in the Lightning-100, much higher than similar collisions
involving the Bolt-80.

As Charlie thought about this, he realized that the problem could lie in the new
electronic sensor. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
decided to do a detailed study of the Lightning-100. Although it could not determine
the precise nature of the problem, NHTSA found that, for some reason, the new
electronic sensor was not functioning according to the design. All the new Lightning-
100s would have to be recalled as soon as possible in order to correct the problem.

Charlie re-examined the design. Suddenly he realized that there was a very specific
design flaw. He was not sure why this realization had come to him--it would not be
obvious, not even to experienced electrical engineers. But there it was, staring him in
the face. Further testing might have revealed this earlier, but there had not been time
for that.

Meanwhile, many expensive lawsuits are being filed against Charlie’s company. With
whom, if anyone, should Charlie share what he has learned? Discuss.

3. Fire Detectors
Residential fires cause many deaths each year. Several companies manufacture fire
detectors in a highly competitive market. Jim is a senior engineer at one of these
companies. He has been invited to discuss with management the directions his
company should take in manufacturing and marketing fire detectors.

Jim knows that there are two basic types of fire detectors. Type A is very good for
certain types of fires, but for smoldering fires the detector will delay the alarm too
long or fail to detect the fire at all, sometimes resulting in the loss of life. Most
companies still manufacture type A because it is cheap to build and generally
performs well. Type a sells for $6 to $15.

Type B detectors combine Type A fire detecting abilities with a device for detecting
smoldering fires, which constitute about 5 percent of all fires. Type B detectors sell
for $15-30, but they could be sold for almost the price of type a detectors if they were
manufactured in large quantities. In order to bring this about (short of government
intervention prohibiting the sale of Type A detectors), many companies would have to
decide that, in the interest of greater public safety, they will sell only Type B fire
detectors.
There is little evidence that this is going to happen. As things stand, most companies
either manufacture only Type A detectors, or at less depend on Type A detectors for
the vast majority of their profit. Relatively few Type B detectors will sell under
present market conditions. However, we do not know for sure what the actual effect of
a company’s example of selling only type B detectors would be. It might stimulate
other firms to follow the example, or it might cause the government to outlaw Type A
detectors.

Jim’s company could still stay in business if it manufactured only Type B detectors,
because there is some market for them and fire detectors are only one of the products
manufactured by Jim’s company. Jim takes seriously the engineer’s responsibility to
hold paramount the safety and welfare of the public. He wonders what this obligation
implies in this situation. As he sees it, he faces two options:

Option 1

He can make no attempt to change his firm’s policy, which is to manufacture mostly
type a detectors and sell a few Type B detectors (3 percent of the firm’s fire detector
sales). Type A detectors, of course, are safety devices with a known deficiency, one of
which can be corrected in Type B detectors. However, Type A detectors do work well
95 percent of the time. Also, far more people will buy Type A detectors than B under
present market conditions.

Option 2

He can urge his company to go out of the business of making type A detectors and
make only type b detectors, arguing that this is the only ethically responsible thing to
do. In the long run, if other companies did the same thing, more lives would be saved
and people would not be exposed to a danger of which they are generally not aware.
(People generally do not know of the differences between Type A and Type B
detectors.)

Which of these two options do you think is preferable? Can you think of any other
options that Jim should consider?

Note: The factual assumption you make about the effect the company’s decision to
stop manufacturing Type A detectors would have on the rest of the market (or other
effects it might have) is crucial in this case. State your assumption and stay with it
throughout the analysis. One assumption, of course, is that you just don’t have any
idea what the effect would be. You could ask what conclusions you would get if your
started with this. To complicate the situation, the assumption you make here may
itself be in part governed by ethical considerations, even though it is about the facts.
That is, when you don’t know what the case will be in the future, what assumption is
it most ethically justifiable to make? After all, a lot rides on this assumption.

4. Employment Opportunity
Part I: A Dilemma

Gerald Wahr was not prepared for such a sudden turn of events. He was scheduled to
complete his degree in chemical engineering in June. He planned to return to help his
parents run the family farm right after graduation. However, in early May his father
became seriously ill, and it was evident he would have an extended, expensive stay in
the hospital. Gerald’s mother and his older brother could continue to operate the farm
as long as they could manage the bills. But without an additional source of income,
the family would soon begin defaulting on the farm’s mortgage payments. The best
hop for saving the farm would be for Gerald to find employment as an engineer.

Since Gerald had expected to return to the farm, he had already missed many
opportunities for job interviews. He would have to work quickly. After an intensive
search, only one solid opportunity surfaced. Pro-Growth Pesticides, Inc. would be on
campus next week to interview candidates for a supervisory job requiring a degree in
chemical engineering.

Gerald certainly is academically well qualified for the job. However, there is a hitch.
The Wahr farm uses strictly organic methods; Gerald’s family has always opposed the
use of pesticides. In fact, Gerald’s father is noted in the area for his outspoken views
about this and Gerald admires this in his father. As a young child he often proudly
announced that he wanted to grow up to be just like his father. Harold Wahr, however,
had different ideas about this. A high school dropout, Harold advised young Gerald to
further his education. "Without a college degree," he told Gerald, "you’ll be as
ineffective as I am. You have to fight fire with fire. If you really want to show those
pesticide folks a thing or two, you’ve got to be able to talk their language." So, Gerald
decided he would go to college and study chemical engineering.

Gerald’s studies have done nothing to shake his conviction that organic farming is
best. Quite the contrary. He is now more convinced than ever that the pesticide
industry is not only harming the environment generally, but farm products in
particular. Despite this, should he go for the interview with Pro-Growth?

Part II. Conversations with Friends

At first Gerald rejects the idea of going for the interview. He thinks of it as a matter of
integrity. How can he work for a company that researches, produces, and markets the
very products he and his family have so long opposed? However, his friends counsel
him otherwise. Here are some of their arguments. How might Gerald respond to
them?

Ellen: Look, if you don’t go for the job, someone else will. The job won’t go away
just because you stay away. So, the work’s going to be done anyway. Your refusing
the job won’t change a things.

Bob: Right! Furthermore, you need to look at this from a utilitarian point of view--the
greatest good for the greatest number. If you don’t go for the job, someone else who
really believes in pesticides will--and that’s going to make things even worse! If you
take the job and aren’t gung ho, that might just slow things down a little.

Dan: Besides, you might be able to introduce a few reforms from the inside. That
won’t kill the pesticide industry, but it might make it a little bit better--certainly better
than if some zealous pesticide nut takes the job.

Ellen: So, it’s pretty clear what to do. All things considered, you ought to go for the
job. It’s your only real chance to save the farm; and if someone else gets the job, Pro-
Growth will cause even more harm. You can’t be a purist about these things. It’s not a
perfect world, you know.

Unlicensed Engineer
Charles Landers, former Anchorage assemblyman and unlicensed engineer for
Constructing Engineers, was found guilty of forging partner Henry Wilson’s signature
and using his professional seal on at least 40 documents. The falsification of the
documents was done without Wilson’s knowledge, who was away from his office
when they were signed. Constructing Engineers designs and test septic systems. The
signed and sealed documents certified to the Anchorage city health department that
local septic systems met city wastewater disposal regulations. Circuit Judge Michael
Wolverton banned Landers for one year from practicing as an engineer’s, architects,
or land surveyor’s assistant. He also sentenced him to 20 days in jail, 160 hours of
community service, $4000 in fines, and a year of probation. Finally, Landers was
ordered to inform property owners about the problems with the documents, explain
how he would rectify the problem, and pay for a professional engineer to review, sign,
and seal the documents.
Assistant Attorney General Dan Cooper had requested the maximum penalty: a four-
year suspended sentence and $40,000 in fines. Cooper argued that "the 40 repeated
incidents make his offense the most serious within the misuse of an engineer’s seal."
This may have been the first time a case like this was litigated in Alaska. The
Attorney General’s office took on the case after seeking advice from several
professional engineers in the Anchorage area.

According to Cooper, Landers said he signed and sealed the documents because "his
clients needed something done right away." (The documents were needed before
going ahead with property transactions.) Lander’s attorney, Bill Oberly, argued that
his client should be sentenced as a least offender since public health and safety
weren’t really jeopardized--subsequent review of the documents by a professional
engineer found no violations of standards (other than forgery and the misuse of the
seal themselves). The documents were resubmitted without needing changes.

However, Judge Wolverton contended that Lander’s actions constituted a serious

breach of public trust. The public, he said, relies on the word of those, like
professional engineers, who are entrusted with special responsibilities: "Our system
would break down completely if the word of individuals could not be relied upon."

The judge also cited a letter from Richard Armstrong, chairman of the Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors Board of Registration for Alaska’s Department of
commerce and Economic Development. Armstrong said:

Some of the reasons for requiring professional engineers to seal their work are to
protect the public from unqualified practitioners; to assure some minimum level of
competency in the profession; to make practicing architects, engineers, and land
surveyors responsible for their work; and to promote a level of ethics in the
profession. The discovery of this case will cast a shadow of doubt on other
engineering designed by properly licensed individuals.

Questions:

 Identify and discuss the ethically important elements in this case.

 How relevant is it that subsequent review showed that none of the falsified
documents needed to be changed? (Although Judge Wolverton did not impose
the maximum penalty, he did not treat Landers as a least offender.)