The Price is Right?

XYZ orders 5000 custom made parts from ABC for one of its products. When the order is originally made ABC indicates it will charge $75 per part. This cost is based in part on the cost of materials. After the agreement is
completed, but before production of the part begins, ABC engineer Christine Carsten determines that a much less expensive metal alloy can be used while only slightly compromising the integrity of the part. Using the less
expensive alloy would cut ABC's costs by $18 a pa rt.

Christine brings this to the attention of ABC's Vernon Waller, who authorized the sales agreement with XYZ. Vernon asks, "How would anyone know the difference?" Christine replies, "Probably no one would unless they were
looking for a difference and did a fair amount of testing. In most cases the performance will be virtually the same -- although some parts might not last quite as long." Vernon says, "Great, Christine, you've just made a
bundle for ABC." Puzzled, Christine replies, "But shouldn't you tel l XYZ about the change?" "Why?" Vernon asks, "The basic idea is to satisfy the customer with good quality parts, and you've just said we will. So what's the
problem?"

The problem, Christine thinks to herself, is that the customer isn't getting what was pro mised. Further, even if XYZ would be satisfied with the different part, shouldn't it be given the opportunity to decide if it finds the
change acceptable -- and to benefit from lowered cost?

Should Christine share her further thoughts with Vernon, or shoul d she simply drop the matter?

*From NSF Engineering Ethics Case Report.

Oil Spill

Peter has been working with the Bigness Oil Company’s local affiliate for several years, and he has established a strong, trusting relationship with Jesse, manager of the loc al facility.

The facility, on Peter’s recommendations, has followed all of the environmental regulations to the letter, and it has a solid reputation with the state regulatory agency. The local facility receives various petrochemical products
via pipelines and tank trucks, and it blends them for resale to the private sector.

Jesse has been so pleased with Peter’s work that he has recommended that Peter be retained as the corporate consulting engineer. This would be a significant advancement for Peter and hi s consulting firm, cementing
Peter’s steady and impressive rise in the firm. There is talk of a vice presidency in a few years.

One day, over coffee, Jesse starts telling Peter a story about a mysterious loss in one of the raw petrochemicals he receives by pipeline. Sometime during the 1950s, when operations were more lax, a loss of one of the
process chemicals was discovered when the books were audited. There were apparently 10,000 gallons of the chemical missing. After running pressure tests on the pipeli nes, the plant manager found that one of the pipes
had corroded and had been leaking the chemical into the ground. After stopping the leak, the company sank observation and sampling wells and found that the product was sitting in a vertical plume, slowly d iffusing into a
deep aquifer. Because there was no surface or groundwater pollution off the plant property, the plant manager decided to do nothing. Jesse thought that somewhere under the plant there still sits this plume, although the
last tests from the sampling wells showed that the concentration of the chemical in the groundwater within 400 feet of the surface was essentially zero. The wells were capped, and the story never appeared in the press.

Peter is taken aback by this apparently innocent revelati on. He recognizes that state law requires him to report all spills, but what about spills that occurred years ago, where the effects of the spill seem to have dissipated?
He frowns and says to Jesse, "We have to report this spill to the state, you know."

Jesse is incredulous. "But there is no spill. If the state made us look for it, we probably could not find it; and even if we did, it makes no sense whatever to pump it out or contain it in any way."

"But the law says that we have to report...," replies Pet er.

"Hey, look. I told you this in confidence. Your own engineering code of ethics requires client confidentiality. And what would be the good of going to the state? There is nothing to be done. The only thing that would happen is
that the company would ge t into trouble and have to spend useless dollars to correct a situation that cannot be corrected and does not need remediation."

"But...."

"Peter, let me be frank. If you go to the state with this, you will not be doing anyone any good --not the company, no t the environment, and certainly not your own career. I cannot have a consulting engineer who does not
value client loyalty."

What are the ethical issues in this case? What factual and conceptual questions need to be addressed? How do you think Peter shoul d deal with this situation?

Whose Property?

I
Derek Evans used to work for a small computer firm that specializes in developing software for management tasks. Derek was a primary contributor in designing an innovative software system for customer services . This
software system is essentially the "lifeblood" of the firm. The small computer firm never asked Derek to sign an agreement that software designed during his employment there becomes the property of the company.
However, his new employer did.

Derek is now working for a much larger computer firm. Derek's job is in the customer service area, and he spends most of his time on the telephone talking with customers having systems problems. This requires him to
cross reference large amounts of information. I t now occurs to him that by making a few minor alterations in the innovative software system he helped design at the small computer firm the task of cross referencing can be
greatly simplified.

On Friday Derek decides he will come in early Monday morning t o make the adaptation. However, on Saturday evening he attends a party with two of his old friends, you and Horace Jones. Since it has been some time since
you have seen each other, you spend some time discussing what you have been doing recently. Derek me ntions his plan to adapt the software system on Monday. Horace asks, "Isn't that unethical? That system is really the
property of your previous employer." "But," Derek replies, "I'm just trying to make my work more efficient. I'm not selling the system to anyone, or anything like that. It's just for my use -- and, after all, I did help design it.
Besides, it's not exactly the same system -- I've made a few changes." What follows is a discussion among the three of you. What is your contribution?

II
Derek installs the software Monday morning. Soon everyone is impressed with his efficiency. Others are asking about the "secret" of his success. Derek begins to realize that the software system might well have company -
wide adaptability. This does not go unnoticed b y his superiors. So, he is offered an opportunity to introduce the system in other parts of the company.
Now Derek recalls the conversation at the party, and he begins to wonder if Horace was right after all. He suggests that his previous employer be conta cted and that the more extended use of the software system be
negotiated with the small computer firm. This move is firmly resisted by his superiors, who insist that the software system is now the property of the larger firm. Derek balks at the idea of goi ng ahead without talking with
the smaller firm. If Derek doesn't want the new job, they reply, someone else can be invited to do it; in any case, the adaptation will be made.

What should Derek do now?

Highway Safety

David Weber, age 23, is a civil engineer in charge of safety improvements for District 7 (and eight -county area within a midwestern state). Near the end of the fiscal year, the district engineer informs David that delivery of a
new snow plow has been delayed, and as a consequence the district ha s $50,000 in uncommitted funds. He asks David to suggest a safety project (or projects) that can be put under contract within the current fiscal year.

After a careful consideration of potential projects, David narrows his choice to two possible safety impr ovements. Site A is the intersection of Main and Oak Streets in the major city within the district. Site B is the intersection
of Grape and Fir Roads in a rural area.

Pertinent data for the two intersections are as follows:

Site A Site B

Main road traffic (vehicles/day) 20,000 5,000

Minor road traffic (vehicles/day) 4,000 1,000

Fatalities per year (3 year average) 2 1

Injuries per year (3 year average) 6 2

PD* (3 year average) 40 12

Proposed Improvement New signals New signals

Improvement Cost $50,000 $50,000

* PD refers to property damage only accidents.

A highway engineering textbook includes a table of average reductions in accidents resulting from the installation of the types of signal improvements David proposes. The tables are based on studi es of intersections in urban
and rural areas throughout the United States, over the past 20 years.

Urban Rural

% reduction in fatalities 50 50

% reduction in injuries 50 60

% reduction in PD 25 -25*

* Property damage only accidents are expected to in crease because of the increase in rear -end accidents due to the stopping of high -speed traffic in rural areas.

David recognizes that these reduction factors represent averages from intersections with a wide range of physical characteristics (number of appr oach lanes, angle of intersection, etc.); in all climates; with various mixes of
trucks and passenger vehicles; various approach speeds; various driving habits; and so on. However, he has no special data about Sites A and B that suggest relying on these ta bles is likely to misrepresent the
circumstances at these sites.

Finally, here is some additional information that David knows about.

(1) In 1975, the National Safety Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration both published dollar scal es for comparing accident outcomes, as shown below:

NSC NHSTA

Fatality $52,000 $235,000

Injury $3,000 $11,200

PD $440 $500

A neighboring state uses the following weighting scheme:

Fatality 9.5 PD

Injury 3.5 PD

(2) Individuals within the two gro ups pay roughly the same transportation taxes (licenses, gasoline taxes, etc.).

Which of the two site improvements do you think David should recommend? What is your rationale for this recommendation?

ASME vs. Hydrolevel Corp.

"A conflict of interest is lik e dirt in a sensitive gauge,"1 one that cannot only soil one person's career, but can also taint an entire profession. Thus, as professionals, engineers must be ever alert to signs of conflict of interest.
The case of the American Society of Mechanical Eng ineers (ASME) vs. Hydrolevel Corp. shows how easily individuals, companies, and professional societies can find themselves embroiled in expensive legal battles that tarnish
the reputation of the engineering profession as a whole. The following case is appr opriate for all engineering curricula, for it discusses not only conflicts of interest and various engineering codes of ethics, but also illustrates
the various roles engineers play in their professional societies.

In 1971, the engineering firm of McDonne ll and Miller requested an interpretation of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel ("BPV") Code from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes Committee. Although initially
undisclosed by them, McDonnell and Miller used the response to their inquiry to show that a boiler control device competitor, the Hydrolevel Corp., was selling a device not in compliance with the ASME BPV Code.

T.R. Hardin, chairman of the ASME committee and employee of the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company in Connect icut, wrote the original response to McDonnell and Miller's inquiry. ASME's
interpretation was used by McDonnell and Miller salesmen as proof of Hydrolevel's noncompliance. Subsequently, Hydrolevel never acquired sufficient market penetration for sustainin g business, and eventually went
bankrupt.

As a result, Hydrolevel sued McDonnell and Miller, the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, and ASME on the basis of restraint of trade. Hydrolevel's lawyers argued that two key ASME subcommitte e
members acted not only in the self -interest of their companies, but also in violation of the Sherman Anti -Trust Act.

McDonnell and Miller and the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company settled out of court, but the litigation against ASM E went all the way to the Supreme Court where, on a 6 -3 decision, the Court found in
favor of Hydrolevel on the liability issue. Following a damages retrial, the case was settled for $4.75 million in favor of Hydrolevel.

Essays #1 through #4 appended at t he end of the cases in this report will have relevant background information for the instructor preparing to lead classroom discussion. Their titles are, respectively: "Ethics and
Professionalism in Engineering: Why the Interest in Engineering Ethics?;" "B asic Concepts and Methods in Ethics;" "Engineering Design: Literature on Social Responsibility Versus Legal Liability."

Notes

1. Wells, Paula, Jones, Hardy and Davis, Michael, "Conflicts of Interest in Engineering," Module Series in Applied Ethics, Cente r for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, Dubueque, Iowa:
Kenall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1986, p. 20.

*NSF Grant Number DIR -9012252

Forced Rankings

I
Jim Peters leaned back in his office chair and sighed with relief . Supervisor of the Metallurgical research Section at XYZ, he had just finished writing the last of the annual performance appraisals on his 12 -person research
team. Nearing the end of his first year as supervisor, this was Jim's experience in appraising e mployees. Nevertheless, he felt he had done his appraisals well. He had held a thorough performance review discussion with each
individual, going over progress toward specific annual objectives established early in the year. These discussions were open, fr ank, and, Jim believe, of value to him and to each employee.

XYZ's appraisal forms required giving each employee a ranking of: High Achiever, Excellent, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Deficient. Each ranking requires a supporting, written justification. Jim r anked 8 of his 12 people at either
High Achiever or Excellent. He ranked only 1 as Marginal, and he ranked the other 3 as Satisfactory.

Jim delivered his appraisals to his immediate supervisor, Jason "Mac" McDougal, manager of the Materials Research Depart ment at XYZ. Mac had review Jim's appraisals, along with those of his other sections, approve them
and submit them to the Human Resource Director for XYZ's total research operation. Jim assumed Mac would quickly and easily approve his appraisals.

Much to Jim's surprise, Mac appeared stormed into Jim's office a few days later, threw the appraisals on his desk and exclaimed: "Jim, these appraisals just won't do! You're overrating your people! You know I have to force -
rank everyone in Materials Research and tu rn that ranking in with all the appraisals. It looks to me like you've tried to assure that all your people will be placed high in the forced ranking. I want these appraisals rewritten
and your ratings adjusted to something that more closely approximates a 'normal distribution' --you ought not to have more than a couple of High Achievers and probably a couple of Marginals or Deficients. I want the
revised appraisals back on my desk by the end of the working day tomorrow! Understand?"

Jim felt frustrated, dis illusioned and disappointed by this turn of events. It seemed to him the appraisal system was being manipulated to produce an expected result and was not truly reflecting the performance of people.
He also felt pressed for time, since he had the next day f ully committed to other projects. What options do you think Jim has? Which do you think he should select? Explain.

II
Jim Peters worked late into the night to meet Mac McDougal's deadline. As he approached the end of his task, he grew careless and changed two Excellents to Satisfactory without changing his comments on their
performance.

Jim submitted his revised appraisals to Mac and went back to the daily routine of supervising the Metallurgical Section. Mac appeared satisfied with the revised appraisals a nd submitted them (along with his forced ranking)
into the normal chain of approval in the laboratory.

Some weeks later the appraisals were returned to Jim, who then scheduled individual appointments with each of his people to inform them of their appraisa l ratings and discuss plans for subsequent improvement.

Jim's individual meetings went reasonably well until he met with Pete Evans. (Pete's appraisal was one which had the changed rating without revised comments.) Pete listened to Jim as they reviewed the appraisal and finally
burst out, "Jim, your comments seem to sound like I'm an excellent performer but you only rated me 'satisfactory'!"

Jim had been afraid of such an observation but hadn't carefully thought out a response. He simply blurted out, "I had to reduce most of the ratings I gave to conform to the distribution management expects!"

Pete stormed out of Jim's office muttering: "I thought my appraisal was supposed to motivate me to improve! It sure as hell didn't!"

Discuss Jim's handling of his rea ppraisal task. What might he have done differently that would have had better results? What would you suggest that he do now? What changes, if any, do you think XYZ should make in its
appraisal system?

Defective Sensors

Charlie Long is an electrical engine er 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 somet hing 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 pr ototype 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 o verruled, 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 reexamined 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 engineer s.
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 w hat he has learned? Discuss.

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 d ocuments.
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 he alth 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, architect’s,
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 r eview, 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, Lan ders 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 resubmit ted 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 mak e 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:
1. Identify and discuss the ethically important elements in this case.
2. 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.)

Forced Sex

The New York Times (November 16, 1993, p. A12) reported that an engineer filed a lawsuit against her employer, claiming that her superiors "forced her to have sex with a Pentagon official so that the c ompany could get
millions of dollars in government financing." She said her bosses told her she would lose her job unless she maintained a sexual relationship with a key Pentagon official. She contended that "in an act of desperation" she
went to bed with the official and that talks between her company and the official began the very next day. Adding that she "refused to continue the relationship," the engineer said that one of her superiors "retailiated by
abusing her and degrading and humiliating her."

Discuss the ethical issues this set of circumstances raises.

Drinking Problem

I
Branch, Inc. has been losing ground to its competitors in recent years. Concerned that substance abuse may be responsible for much of Branch's decline, the company has just adop ted a policy that imposes sanctions on
those employees found to be working under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs.

John Crane and Andy Pullman have worked together in one of the engineering divisions of Branch for several years. Frequently John h as detected alcohol on Andy's breath when they were beginning work in the morning and
after work breaks during the day. But, until the new policy was announced it never occured to John that he should say anything to Andy about it, let alone tell anyone els e about it. Andy's work always has always been first
rate, and John is not the kind of person who feels comfortable discussing such matters with others.

Two days before the announcement of the new alcohol and drug policy, Andy tells John that he is being c onsidered for the position of head of quality control. Although pleased at the prospect of Andy's promotion, John
wonders if Andy's drinking will get in the way of meeting his responsibilities. John worries that, with additional job pressures, Andy's drink ing problem will worsen. What should John do?
II
Harvey Hillman, Plant Manager at Branch, knows that Andy and John have worked together many years. He has narrowed his choice for Head of Quality Control to Andy and one other person. He invites John out for lunch to
see if he can learn something more about Andy from John. Should John volunteer information about Andy's drinking? Suppose Harvey says, "This is a really important decision. We need a top person for the quality control
job. We've had some real pro blems the last few years with shoddy production, probably because of alcohol and drug abuse in the workplace. I had to move Jack Curtis out of head of quality control because he was drunk on
the job. We have to get this under control. The new policy might help. But quality control will still have to keep a really close eye on things." Should John say anything now?

III
Branch's policy on the use of alcohol and drugs has been in effect for a year. It does not seem to have made a significant difference. Absen teeism is still high. Shoddy workmanship continues. And Branch's profit margins are
still declining. Management is now proposing mandatory random drug testing for its non -professional workforce, and mandatory drug testing for all new workers. The labor uni on protests that such a policy is undesirable in
two respects. First, it is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of workers. Second, exempting professionals from the testing is discriminatory and, therefore, unjust. Since John knows you have a longstandi ng, serious
interest in ethics, he asks you what you think about the two concerns of the union.

*From NSF Engineering Ethics Case Report.

Gift-Giving

Accepting Gifts And Ammenities

Instructor's Guide

Introduction To The Case

One of the most challenging and interesting areas of moral reasoning involves deciding where to draw the line between permissible and impermissible actions. Even if we know that some actions are clearly right and others
are clearly wrong, there may be gray areas where making decision s is difficult.

Deciding when to accept a gift or amenity illustrates this challenge. In this case, developed from the experiences of a chemical engineer, the students will be asked to decide where they would draw the line between morally
permissible and impermissible acts and to justify their decisions. Students will be asked to decide, in other words, how they would distinguish the perfectly proper acceptance of a business favor from an improper acceptance
of a bribe.

The topic of bribery has a long his tory, and bribery seems to be an area in which our moral views are changing. For this reason, a short history lesson may be instructive.

John T. Noonan, a lawyer and historian of moral ideas, traces the history of thought on bribery from 3000 B.C. to the present. He finds that moral concepts change: "Moral concepts found enshrined in traditions do not stay
the same. They undergo transformation. They are subject to investigation and criticism. They expand, shrink, or disappear."1

This thesis can be illustr ated by comparing the history of the concept of bribery with the history of other moral ideas. Until about the sixteenth century, it was considered wrong to take interest on money, and "usury" was a
serious sin. It still is in Islamic countries, which have simply preserved the old prohibition. Due to a number of circumstances which we cannot discuss here, the prohibition of taking interest on money was lifted in the West.
Today, the term "usury" is reserved for the extraction of excessive interest. Slavery and torture were widely accepted in Western society until the eighteenth century, and now both are condemned as heinous evils.

What is the trend with regard to the concept of bribery? Is the idea likely to remain vigorous and even expand its dominance, so that more and more types of behavior will be condemned as contrary to the anti -bribery ethic?
Or is it likely to shrink and wither as a moral concept? Is bribery becoming increasingly tolerated (thus following the pattern of usury), or is it increasingly frowned upon and prohibited, as has been the case with slavery and
torture? Noonan believes that the evidence shows that bribery is increasingly viewed with intolerance throughout the world. In fact, in virtually every country in the world bribery is a sha meful act. Those who accept bribes do
not speak publicly of their bribes anywhere. Noonan claims that only the Westerner supposes that a modern Asian or African society does not regard the act of bribery as shameful in the way Westerners regard it.2

There are good moral reasons for this increasing intolerance, especially as the capitalist system becomes more widely accepted:

1. Bribery corrupts the capitalist economic system. The capitalist system is based on competition in an open and free market, where people tend to buy the best product at the best price. Bribery corrupts the free -market
mechanism by getting people to make purchases that do not reward the most efficient producer.

2. Bribery is a sellout to the rich. In any situation ruled only by money , the deeper pocket will prevail. If bribery were universally practiced, expert testimony, justice in the courts, and everything else would be up for sale to
the highest bidder.

3. Bribery produces cynicism and a general distrust of institutions. It destr oys people's trust in the integrity of professional services, of government and the courts, of law enforcement, religion, and anything it touches. There
is good evidence that societies which allow bribery tend to have social unrest and perhaps revolutions.

4. Bribery treats people as commodities whose honor can be bought and sold. It thus tends to degrade the respect we owe to other human beings.

The Method of Casuistry

Even if we agree that bribery is wrong, there is still a problem of determining what is and isn't a bribe and when an action is close enough to a bribe to be morally out of bounds. Where, in other words, do we draw the line?

One way of dealing with this question is through the method of casuistry. This method has a long history, going bac k to classical times, but it has recently been revived in medical ethics. It also has a background in common
law. In common law a judge decides a case by comparing it with the way previous judges have decided similar cases in the past. Her reasoning involv es citing analogies and disanalogies between past cases and the present
one. If the analogies seem more important than the disanalogies, she decides the case in a way similar to the way the earlier judge decided the case. If the disanalogies seem to be mor e important than the analogies, she
decides the case in a different way.

The method of casuistry is similar to the method used by the Board of Ethical Review of the National Society of Professional Engineers when they decide cases involving questions of e thical and professional propriety. Here
the method of comparing controversial cases with previous decisions is also used.

How does this method work? In applying a moral principle, you will often find some circumstances in which it clearly applies, borderl ine cases in which the application is controversial, and other cases where it clearly does not
apply. Let's call the cases where the principle clearly does or does not apply paradigm cases and the cases where its application is not clear problematic cases.

Let us consider an example. Most people would probably agree to a moral rule which could be stated in the following form: "People should not steal (or commit theft)." Breaking into a store at night and taking several
thousand dollars worth of merchandise would be a clear violation of the rule. We could say the same thing of shoplifting, or "borrowing" a friend's car and failing to return it, or taking a bicycle that someone had forgotten to
lock. By contrast, it would seem peculiar to say that picking up a quarter on the street is an instance of theft. The same would go for failing to return a sheet of paper or a paper clip someone had given to you. We probably
would not say that an engineer -manager was guilty of theft because he used some management techn iques that he had developed while working for his old employer.

Some situations, however, are more problematic. It is not always easy to determine whether a particular action should count as "stealing" (or "theft"). What would we say about an engineer who helped to develop a new
chemical process at Company A and then moved to Company B, where she used some of the same ideas, but applied them in a very different way to a different process? What would we say about an engineer who developed
a computer program on company time for his company, and then patented a considerably improved version under his own name? What about borrowing a book from a friend, forgetting about it and then deciding not to
return it because the friend has left town?

Examples such as th is could be arranged in a series, beginning with clear examples of "stealing" (or "theft"), then moving into more problematic examples, and finally moving to examples which we would not consider to be
instances of "stealing" (or "theft") at all. Such a ser ies might look like this:

Moral rule: "People should not steal (or commit theft)."

1. Breaking into a store and taking $3000 in merchandise.

2. "Borrowing" a friend's car and failing to return it.
3. Taking a bicycle that someone had forgotten to lock.
4. Developing a computer program on company time for your company, and then patenting a considerably improved version of the program under your own name.
5. Borrowing a book from a friend, keeping it by mistake for a long time and then failing to return it. (You discover the book after your friend has moved away, and you decide to keep it.)
6. Using some ideas you developed at Company A for a very different chemical process at Company B.
7. Using some management techniques at Company B that were develo ped at Company A.
8. Picking up a quarter that you saw someone drop on the street.
9. Failing to return a sheet of paper (or paper clip) you borrowed
10. Picking up a quarter that someone (you don't know who) has dropped on the street.

There would be virtually universal agreement that examples 1 -3 are examples of theft. There would be virtually universal agreement that examples 9 and 10 are not examples of theft. there might be disagreement about
examples 4 through 8. Probably most people would consider example 4 a type of theft. Example 5 is something many of us have done. We might say that the action is justified, because the expense and trouble to us of
returning the book is probably greater than the value of the book to our friend. This might be espe cially true if we knew the book was old and out of date. We would probably resist the use of the work "theft" to describe our
action. Examples 6 and 7 might be considered less clear examples of theft than example 8, except for the potentially large amount of money involved in these two examples.

One of the considerations that makes the determination of what is and is not theft so difficult is that there is no single criterion that can be used to decide the issue. The most obvious such criterion is the mone tary value of
the property in question. But this criterion will not always work. Snatching a dollar bill from an old lady is more clearly an example of theft than using an idea one developed at Company A for a very different application at
Company B, even though the latter example involves vastly greater sums of money than the first. A variety of considerations are relevant, monetary value being only one.

Similar consideration can be applied to bribery, We all agree that accepting bribes is a violation of professional ethics, but we may not always find it easy to determine what is and is not a bribe. Certainly not all examples of
accepting gifts and amenities qualify as accepting bribes, just as not all cases of taking another's property should be considere d theft. Determining when a rule against taking bribes is being violated requires common sense,
discrimination, and powers of moral deliberation. These kinds of abilities should be a part of one's professional training.

Application of the Method

C-X. Tom was named the department manager of a large new chemical process unit which was to be designed and then constructed. Tom's responsibilities included forming the process unit staff, looking over the designers'
shoulders to assure the plant was designed to be safe, operable and maintainable, and then starting the plant up after construction.

During his previous experience Tom had noted that a new type of valve and valve operator could often be used in place of more common gate valves and their operators. I n every case the new valve was less expensive and
often gave a tighter shutoff than the gate valve. Tom convinced the project designer to add even more of these valves and operators to the design. This improved safety, because more flows could be shutoff m ore quickly in
an emergency.

After a large number of valves had been specified and purchased, the salesman of the valves visited Tom and invited him on a very nice fishing trip to South America. Tom had not known the salesman, Jim, prior to the visit.
He also had no direct purchasing responsibilities; he had just wanted the valves for increased safety in the new process unit. Should he accept the fishing trip?

The first thing to notice about this case is that it is not a paradigm case of bribery. In fact, it is not a case of bribery at all. We might define bribery as remuneration for the performance of an act that is inconsistent with the
work contract or the nature of the work one has been hired to perform . Tom did not act contrary to his obligations to h is employer, and in fact he acted in accordance with his obligations. Furthermore, the gift, was given
after Tom's recommendations concerning the valves and (we shall assume) without any prior knowledge and expectation of the gift.

The following might qua lify as a paradigm case of a bribe. We shall call it C -1.

C-1. Tom was in charge of designing a large new chemical process unit. He was directed to design the plant to be safe, operable and maintainable, and of course to be as economical as possible withi n these requirements.

During this period a salesman approached Tom and offered him a number of amenities if he would specify the valve sold by the salesman's company. The valve was more costly and not as safe, but Tom recommended it
anyhow. After the valv es were purchased, the salesman invited Tom on a very nice fishing trip to South America.

Even though the original case (C -X), unlike C-1, is not a bribe, it does involve accepting a large gift that has some analogies with a bribe. In order to see this, c onsider the following case, which has very few, if any, analogies
with a true bribe. We shall call it C -10.

C-10. Tom was named the department manager of a large new chemical process unit which was to be designed and then constructed. Tom's responsibiliti es included forming the process unit staff, looking over the designers'
shoulders to assure the plant was designed to be safe, operable and maintainable, and then starting the plant up after construction.

During his previous experience Tom had noted that a new type of valve and valve operator could often be used in place of more common gate valves and their operators. In every case the new valve was less expensive and
often gave a tighter shutoff than the gate valve. Tom convinced the project designer to a dd even more of these valves and operators to the design. This improved safety, because more flows could be shutoff more quickly in
an emergency.

After a large number of valves had been specified and purchased, the salesman came by and introduced himself, giving Tom a plastic pen worth about five dollars.

It is obvious that there is a continuum of cases here, all the way from C -1 which is a clear case of bribery to C -10 which is clearly not a case of bribery. Now the question is: What place in the continu um do we assign to C -X?
Should we call it C-2, indicating that it is very close to C -1 so that it should probably be considered morally wrong? Or should it be labeled C -9,in which case it probably should not be considered morally wrong? Or should we
give it some number in between?

In order to begin thinking about this question, consider some of the characteristics of C -1.

1. Tom had direct responsibility for specifying the valves.

2. The salesman approached Tom and made the offer before the valves were s pecified or purchased.
3. The valves specified were less safe and reliable and more expensive (or in some other way less desirable) than alternative valves.
<4. There was in fact a causal relationship between the offer of the amenities and Tom's decision . In other words, Tom requested that Jim's valves be used because of Jim's offer.
5. Even though C-1 involves bribery, the company will probably benefit from an ongoing cordial relationship with suppliers of the valves which Tom purchased. For example, ob taining service will probably be easier. [We shall
assume this to be the case.]
6. Tom rarely accepts amenities from suppliers with whom he does not do business. [We shall assume this.]
7. Knowledge of the gift may influence others to buy from Jim, even if Jim's product is not the best.
8. The gift was for a substantial amount of money.
9. Even if there had been no actual corruption, there was certainly the appearance of corruption. For example, consider IBM's test: "If you read about it in your local n ewspaper, would you wonder whether the gift just might
have something to do with a business relationship?" By this test, there was the appearance of corruption. (In this case, of course, the appearance was not misleading.)

C-10, we shall assume, shares on ly characteristic #5 with C -1, but C-X shares characteristics 5 and 7 -9 with C-1. We shall assume that in C -X Tom often accepts amenities from suppliers after a deal is completed, even if the
supplier has not won the sale. Furthermore, even though Tom did not share direct responsibility for purchasing or specifying the valves sold by Jim, he did have an influence on which valves were specified and purchased. So
C-X also shares some aspects of characteristic #1 with C -1.

How would you evaluate Tom's action in C-X? Do you think it crosses the line between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable conduct? We shall give several arguments on both sides and then leave it to you to come
to a final decision. But before giving these arguments, one observation may be helpful.

There are going to be cases that are unclear in terms of their moral permissibility. Although there are clear cases at either end of the spectrum and even some near the middle that can be decided with reasonable conviction,
there are some cas es that are so ambiguous that they must be decided arbitrarily. This is true in the law, and it is also true in morality.

To use a common analogy, there is dusk or twilight as well as daytime and night. If there is any specific point in time where night b ecomes day or day becomes night, it must be set arbitrarily. This does not mean that there
is no difference between day and night, however. It does not even mean that some of the areas of transition are unclear. Most of us would probably say sunrise is mor e like day than night. Late dusk is probably more like
night than day. But what about late evening? Better still, precisely when does day become night? We could set a time. We could say that it is when we have to turn on our car lights when driving, for ex ample. But for other
purposes, a different time might be more appropriate. So the moment of transition is not only arbitrary, but it may be arbitrarily set at different times for different purposes.

Now there are a number of cases which we could probably agree on in terms of their location in the continuum. For example, if the offer of the trip had been made before Tom made his recommendation, we would probably
agree that Tom should not have accepted the offer. We might want to call this C -2. Let us suppos e that Tom still recommended Jim's valves because he genuinely believed they were the best, so that Jim's offer of a trip to
South America was not the cause (or at least not a necessary precondition) of Tom's recommendation. In this case, Jim's offer clear ly was a bribe, but Tom did not make his decision because of the bribe. Nevertheless, Tom
probably should not accept the offer.

Now let's consider some of the arguments, beginning with arguments that C -X should be considered morally impermissible.

Arguments For And Against Tom's Action

Arguments Against Tom's Action of Accepting the Invitation

1. We have pointed out that the tendency in Western morality --and probably morality throughout the world --is to increase the restrictions on bribery. This implies that the restrictions on actions closely related to bribery
would also be increased. The corporate codes cited in the student handout give evidence of the increasing restrictions, and by most of these standards Tom's actions would probably be out of bound s.

2. The size of the gift is morally troubling.

3. Knowledge of the gift could influence others to buy from Jim, even if Jim's products are not the most appropriate for them. This might operate as a kind of bribe -ahead-of-time for other people in Tom's plant or in other
plants, even if Tom had no idea he would be offered a trip. They might say, "If we buy from Jim, we can expect a nice gift."

4. In morality, one of the important questions to ask is whether you would be willing for others to do the same thing you did. If every salesman offered gifts to people who bought --or recommended the purchase of --his
products, and every purchaser accepted the gifts, the practice would of course become universal. Our first reaction is to say this would neutralize the influence of the gifts. You could expect a bribe from somebody, no matter
whose product you recommended. Thus Tom might have been offered a nice trip to South America by whatever valve salesman made the sale. But this begins to look like extortion if not bribery: a salesman has to offer
something to even have his product considered. Furthermore, smaller companies might not be able to offer the lavish gifts and so might not have their products considered. This would harm the competitive process.
Furthermore, the gifts would probably tend to get larger and larger, as each salesman tried to top the other one. Thus, the general acceptance of the practice would have undesirable consequences.

Arguments In Favor of Tom's Action of Accepting the Invitation

1. We have already pointed out that Tom's action cannot be an example of accepting a bribe in the true sense of the term. In order to be a true bribetaker, Tom would have had to make his decision because of Jim's offer.
Since the trip was offered after Tom's decision and Tom did not know about the trip ahead of time, the trip could not be a bribe in the true sense.

2. Tom's company may stand to benefit from the personal relationship between Tom and Jim. It may make it easier to get replacement parts for the valv es and to get other types of service from Jim's company.

3. Business life should have its "perks." Business and professional life involves a lot of hard work. Fishing trips and similar amenities add spice to life that is important in terms of job satisfac tion and productivity.

4. Accepting the kinds of gifts that Tom took advantage of is quite common in Tom's industry. It adds very little to the cost of the product. Any industry large enough to manufacture the valves in the first place would be able
to afford such gifts as this without financial strain.

5. It is true that, in taking the moral point of view, we must assume that everybody has a right to do what we do. But if every salesman offered trips and every person in Tom's position accepted them, no h arm would result.
Things would equalize. There might be a kind of "extortion" here, but this is just a word. You have to ask what harm is done.

Note that each side has legitimate reasons for the decision made. Your responsibility will be to lead a discuss ion that will enable students to think responsibly about an issue that they will almost certainly encounter as soon
as they begin their professional careers.

Essays #1 through #4 appended at the end of the case listings will have relevant background infor mation for the instructor preparing to lead classroom discussions. Their titles are, respectively: "Ethics and Professionalism in
Engineering: Why the Interest in Engineering Ethics?;" "Basic Concepts and Methods in Ethics;" "Moral Concepts and Theories;" and "Engineering Design: Literature on Social Responsibility Versus Legal Liability." Also, much
of the discussion in the ASME vs Hydrolevel case will be found relevant to this case as well.

Recommended Overheads For Use In Classroom Discussion

The enclosed overheads form a series in which each overhead depicts a slightly different type of gift -giving case. As with the example of borrowing money discussed earlier, the students will need to find means of
distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable gifts.
Notes
1. Noonan, John T., Jr., Brides, New York: Macmillan, 1984, p. 683.
2. Noonan, p. 703.

Accepting Gifts And Ammenities

Overheads
1.) First Installment of the Case
2.) First Scenario
3.) Second Scenario
4.) Third Scenario
5.) Fourth Scenario
6.) Fifth Scenario
7.) Sixth Scenario
8.) Seventh Scenario
9.) Second Installment

Tom was named the department manager of a large new chemical process unit which was to be designed and then constructed. Tom's responsibilities were to form the proc ess unit staff, look over the designer's shoulders to
assure the plant was designed to be safe, operable, and maintainable, and then start up the plant after construction.

During his previous experience, Tom had noticed that a new type of valve and valve operator could often be used in place of more common gate valves and their operators. In every case the new valve was less expensive
and often gave a tighter shutoff than the gate valve. Tom convinced the project designer to add even more of these valves a nd operators to the design. The result was an improvement in safety, because more flows could be
shut off more quickly in an emergency.

First scenario
After a large number of values have been specified and purchased, the salesman for the valves (Jim) v isits Tom and gives him a plastic pen with the name of Jim's company stamped in gold. The pen is worth about $5.

Should Tom accept the pen?

Second scenario
After a large number of valves had been specified and purchased, Jim invites Tom to play golf w ith him at the local country club. Tom is an avid golfer and has wanted to play golf at the country club for some time since it is
the best course in town.

Should Tom accept the invitation?

Third scenario
After a large number of valves have been speci fied and purchased, Jim offers to sponsor Tom for membership in the local country club.

Tom is an avid golfer and has wanted to be a member of the club for some time, but has not found a sponsor.

Should Tom accept Jim's offer?

Fourth scenario
After a large number of valves have been specified and purchased, Jim invites Tom to a seminar on valves to be held in South America. there will also be opportunities for fishing and recreation. Tom's company would have
to pay for transportation, but Jim's compan y will cover all the expenses in South America. Tom is sure his manager will authorize the trip if asked, but other managers in the firm, when placed in an equivalent situation, feel
uneasy about these types of offers.

Should Tom ask his manager for the a uthorization to take this trip?

Fifth scenario
After a large number of valves have been specified and purchased, Jim invites Tom on a very nice fishing trip to South America. Jim's company will cover all the expenses. Tom is sure his manager will autho rize the trip if
asked, but other managers in the firm, when placed in an equivalent situation, feel uneasy about these types of offers.

Should Tom ask his manager for authorization to take the trip?

Sixth scenario
Before Tom's decision to recommend a ny type of valve, Jim visits and offers Tom a very nice fishing trip to South America if Tom will recommend Jim's company's valves. Jim's valves are the safest and least expensive.
What should Tom do?

Seventh scenario
Before Tom's decision to recommen d any type of valve, Jim visits Tom and offers him a very nice fishing trip to South America, if Tom will recommend the valve produced by Jim's company. Jim's valves are less safe and
more expensive than other types of valves.

What should Tom do?

Accepting Gifts And Ammenities

>Student Handout
As engineers, you can expect to be given responsibilities that exceed those of non -professionals. This reflects the respect which your professional knowledge commands in the workplace. It also means that your fa vor will be
courted by vendors and others who can benefit from your good will.

This good will is often sought by means of gifts and amenities of various sorts. For, while you have been studying engineering, those who study marketing have been learning how to increase sales and curry the good will of
those who make purchasing decisions.

Sometimes accepting these gifts and amenities may be a proper part of a business relationship. In some situations, however, accepting them may be a serious breach of busine ss and professional ethics, and perhaps even a
violation of the law. Drawing the line between proper and improper acceptance of gifts and amenities may be the first issue in professional ethics that you will face.

The issue of gift giving is troublesome b ecause the line between the legitimate acceptance of a gift or amenity and taking a bribe is often not easy to draw. It is for this reason that many companies and governmental
agencies have come up with rules to guide employees in the treacherous terrain o f accepting gifts and amenities.

For example, this is a partial list of gifts which a large electronics firm considers it improper for engineers to accept:

- door prizes at a conference;

- raffle prize by a supplier or distributor;

- any gift of excessive value (supervisor must be notified);

- fare lower than commercially available;

- cash rebates;

- tickets to sporting events or other entertainment given as an outright gift where the supplier does not intend to accompany the employee;

- sports team sponsorship by supplier;

- extravagant dinner or entertainment; and

- any gift, favor, hospitality or entertainment that could in any way create a feeling of obligation or could compromise professional judgement.1

The mere fact that a corporation makes the effort to construct such a list indicates the importance that it ascribes to proper conduct in this area.

The codes of many large corporations also furnish policies for accepting favors. Here are a few examples:

It is a serious violation of our Stan dards for anyone to seek a competitive advantage through the use of gifts, gratuities, entertainment or other favors. Under no circumstances may we offer or give anything to a customer or
a customer's representative in an effort to influence a contract awa rd or other favorable customer action. It has been and will continue to be General Dynamics policy to compete solely on the merits of its products and
services. [General Dynamics standards of conduct]

Staff members and their families may not solicit or ac cept any gifts of significant value, lavish entertainment or other valuable benefits intended to influence Chase's business. Staff members may not solicit or accept
personal fees, commissions or other forms of remuneration because of any transactions or bu siness involving Chase. [Chase Manhattan Corp.]

Employees will give no gifts to customers except items of nominal value which fit the legal, normal, and customary pattern of the Corporation's sales efforts for a particular market. [R. J. Reynolds Industri es]

With the exception of reasonable business entertainment and other activities permitted in accordance with the following paragraph, no employee of the Company shall give or transfer anything of value to or for the benefit,
directly or indirectly, of th e employee or agent of another person, including any customer, union representative or supplier....Reasonable business entertainment would cover, for example, a lunch, dinner, or occasional
athletic or cultural event; gifts of nominal value ($25 or less); entertainment at Pleasantdale Farm or other Company facilities; or authorized transportation in Company vehicles or aircraft. In addition, reasonable business
entertainment covers traditional Company -sponsored promotional events. [Allied Chemical Corp.]

No IBM employee, or any member of his or her immediate family, can accept gratuities or gifts of money from a supplier, customer or anyone in a business relationship. Nor can they accept a gift or consideration that could
be perceived as having been offered because of the business relationship. "Perceived" simply means this: If you read about it in your local newspaper, would you wonder whether the gift just might have something to do with
a business relationship? No IBM employee can give money or a gift of significant value to a supplier if it could reasonably be viewed as being done to gain a business advantage. If you are offered money or a gift of some
value by a supplier or if one arrives at your home or office, let your manager know about it immediately . If the gift is perishable, your manager will arrange to donate it to a local charitable organization. Otherwise, it should
be returned to the supplier. Whatever the circumstances, you or your manager should write the supplier a letter, explaining IBM's g uidelines on the subject of gifts and gratuities. Of course, it is an accepted practice to talk
business over a meal. So it is perfectly all right to occasionally allow a supplier or customer to pick up the check. Similarly, it frequently is necessary for a supplier, including IBM, to provide education and executive briefings
for customers. It's all right to accept or provide some services in connection with this kind of activity --services such as transportation, food or lodging. For instance, transportatio n in IBM or supplier planes to and from
company locations, and lodging and food at company facilities are all right. [IBM]

It is TI policy that TIers may not give or accept any gift that might appear to improperly influence a business relationship or deci sion. If we receive any substantial gift or favor, it must be returned and our supervisor notified.
This policy does not apply to items of small value commonly exchanged in business relationships, but even here, discretion and common sense should be our gu ide. In commercial business, the exchange of social amenities
between suppliers, customers and TIers is acceptable when reasonably based on a clear business purpose and within the bounds of good taste. Excessive entertainment of any sort is not acceptable. Conferences
accompanied by a meal with suppliers or customers are often necessary and desirable. Whenever appropriate, these meals should be on a reciprocal basis. [Texas Instruments]

In spite of the attempts of many companies to provide rules in this ar ea, you will find that there are many situations which are not covered by the rules. The set of cases presented in class illustrates the transition from a
case of accepting a favor that almost anyone would find permissible to a case of accepting a favor th at almost anyone would find impermissible. In between are cases which will provoke more thought and discussion. In
considering these cases, ask yourself what principles you use to differentiate the permissible from the impermissible cases of accepting favo rs. Notice that there is not a single principle (such as the monetary value of the
gift) that will provide the basis of an acceptable answer in every case. Try using some of the guidelines suggested in the various corporate policy statements presented abov e. Ask yourself which guidelines seem most
workable and fair.

In leading the discussion, your instructor will be guided in part by some insights gained through the use of a method of analyzing moral cases which has a history traceable to the Romans. This method goes by the name of
"casuistry". By using series of cases from the clearly acceptable to the clearly unacceptable, casuistry invites us to isolate the similarities between permissible and impermissible actions. The method does not, however, give
automatic answers to difficult cases, so it is important to keep in mind that sometimes drawing the line between proper and improper acceptance of gifts and amenities has an element of arbitrariness. This is the reason that
it is helpful to have corporate gui delines, such as the ones provided earlier.

Don't let the fact that some decisions are arbitrary obscure the fact that some cases of accepting favors are clearly permissible and others are clearly impermissible. There is a clear difference between night a nd day, even
though there may not be any non -arbitrary way to determine the precise point at which night turns into day. But don't conclude that a decision on accepting a gift is arbitrary until you have examined all of the similarities
and differences between the case in question and the more clear -cut cases.

Annotated Bibliography

Carson, Thomas L., "Bribery and Implicit Arguments", Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 6, pp. 123-125, pp. 361-364.

A philosophical discussion of the moral status of bribes and bribery.

Christiansen, Donald, "Spectral Lines: Ethical Judgements", IEEE Spectrum , 26:2, Feb. 1989, p. 25.

Christiansen, Donald, "Spectral Lines: Ethical Dilemmas Revisited", IEEE Spectrum, 26:4, April 1989, p 21.

A series of gift-giving cases which asked the readers of IEEE Spectrum to reply with their solutions. An interesting interplay between professional engineers.

"Cornerstone 1: Understanding Ethics in the Business of TI," Dallas, Texas: Texas Instruments Ethics Office, n.d.

"Cornerstone 2: Gifts, Travel, Entertainment...and TI Ethics," Dallas, Texas: Texas Instruments Ethics Office, 1989.

Both of the previous references are taken from pamphlets given to every TI employee. They serve as quick references on ethical issues. These two deal wit h the employee/vendor relationship.

"Ethics in the Business of TI," Dallas, Texas: Texas Instruments Publishers, 1990 rev.

The TI employee manual describing the corporate ethical policies.

"Forum: Letters to the Editor: Getting Down to Cases," IEEE Spectrum, 26:5, May 1989, p. 10.

A series of gift-giving cases which were made up by the editors. The editors then asked for feedback from their readers on what they would do in the given situations.

Jonsen, Albert R. and Toulmin, Stephen, The Abuse of Casui stry, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

A philosophical study of the method of casuistry.

Longnecker, Justin C., "The Ethical Issues of International Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 7, 1988, pp. 341 -346.

Argues that the maxim, " Do as the Romans do," is not a good guide in the area of international bribery.

Noonan, John T., Jr., Bribes, New York: MacMillan, 1984.

A masterly historical survey of bribery.

Skooglund, Carl, "Unacceptable Gifts and Favors," News.Archives, a TI online system, Dallas, Texas: Oct. 16, 1989.

The Texas Instruments corporate ethicist discusses TI policy regarding gift -giving.

Authors: Joseph Wujek

Suggested Courses: All Design

Level: Junior and Senior

I. Narrative

"Let's test the software to be SURE it works!"

You are an engineer employed by Wondrous Avionics, Inc. (WA, Inc.). You are working on the project team developing the Mark -5, a new device in the prototype stage. The Mark -5 is a system for airplane attitude control
combined with navigation. It h as 116 input variables: X1, X2, ... X116. Each Xi can take on any of the values permitted by a 32 -bit word. Each Xi is sampled simultaneously for 20 nanoseconds every 1.30 milliseconds.
Sampling at 1.30 milliseconds is the fastest possible due to the actua tion and settling time of the electro -hydraulic mechanisms controlled by the Mark -5. Each of the possible totality of states of the Xi corresponds to one,
and only one, configuration of aircraft control surfaces and resultant aircraft attitude, Yj . Thus, Yj = f[X1, X2, ... X116] in one -to-one correspondence. The Mark -5 outputs one value of Yj in each 1.30 ms interval.

The output variable Yj is generated by software, using a program which resides in firmware in the Mark -5. The software result actuates appro priate hardware drivers to actuate the hydraulic mechanisms.

In response to concerns from potential users of the Mark -5 regarding the use of software in safety -critical systems, the CEO of WA raises an issue at a project meeting. The CEO tells the project team, "The Mark-5 must be
tested in all possible states to be sure that the software always works! Our customers are nervous about using software this way. I want us to answer their concerns by demonstrating, by test, that the Mark -5 gives the right
output for each combination of inputs. After all, under some conditions the wrong output could cause a plane to crash!"

II. Numerical Problems

Problem 1. Assuming that the test speed is limited only by the 1.30 millisecond cycle time of the Mark -5, how long in hours would it take to perform the test desired by the CEO? Assume the test proceeds as fast as possible
and without interruption, 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.

Problem 2. Same as (1), but assume three bugs were found, and each took two days to find and fix. Assume that the bugs were found at the 1/3, 2/3 and 99% complete points. The test must be run in its entirety after each
bug fix.

Problem 3. WA estimates that it will cost $700/hour to run the test. Compute the cost of the test in part (a) and part(b).

Problem 4. Suppose it is decided that an 8 -bit word is sufficient, instead of a 32 -bit word. Also, make the robust(!) assumption that since itís only the software being tested, not the integrated system(!), the test cycle time
can be reduced from 1.30 millisecond to 130 nanosecond. Rework part (1) with these design/test changes.

Problem 5. In your view, what would be a ìreasonableî test to run on the Mark -5 system?

III. Solutions to the Numerical Problems

1. This problem is intended to show the folly of attem pting a deterministic approach to software testing. A ìbrute forceî analysis of all permutations of states yields an absurdly long test time. Therefore, a probabilistic
approach must be employed, coupled with careful estimates of state -occupancies determin ed by detailed analyses of the input/output states and the software coding. (Doing so is beyond the scope here, but is extremely
important in software engineering.) Even with these modern methods, test times are exceedingly long; and the process is expensi ve and complicated. In the end, one must accept a bounded risk, itself a risk!

A 32 bit word can take on 232 = 4.295E9 states (rounding to four SF). Each of the 116 variables may take on any of these values. So, the number of distinct states is: S = (4.295 E9)116. Logarithms may be used to find: S
= 2.653(E1117) possible states.

The interval between sampling is 1.30 ms, so the test -time is:

T = (2.653)(E1117)(1.30E -3) = 3.449(E1114) seconds, or 9.6(E1110) hours.

Based on 24 hours/day, 365 days/year testing i t would thus require a minimum (no restart from zero after bug fixes) of 1.1(E1107) years to perform the 100% test! For perspective(?), the age of the universe is
estimated to be of the order of E10 years.

2. The 2 days/bug to fix bugs is negligible compar ed to the test time, to say the least! Thus the accumulated test time is: T = [9.6(E1110)hours][(1/3) + (2/3) + (0.99) + (1)] = 2.9(E1111) hours.

3. 2.9(E1111 h)($700/h) = $2.0E1114.

4. An 8-bit word has 28 = 256 states. Then (256)116 = 2.27E279 possible s tates exist. Test time is:

T = (1.30E-7)(2.27E279) = 2.95E272 seconds, or 8.2E268 hours, still an impossible test!

5. From what is given in the problem statement, no ìreasonableî test exists. If it is technically possible to test each word in parallel, th en somehow combine results in some manageable form, a test may be possible. But such
artifices are dependent upon engineering judgment and may not yield a thorough test and reliable test..

IV. Ethics Problem

Should the Mark-5 be built and offered for sale without any software testing? What ethical principles are involved in your evaluation?

V. Solutions to Ethical Problems

Based on the results of the above analyses, particularly part 5, the Mark -5 should not be sold without some software testing. To deploy the Mark-5 without some form of software testing, when failure endangers human lives,
violates several moral principles.

First, it violates the principle of informed consent, which says that people should be allowed to give their informed consent to dange rs, especially when there is a danger of death. Many of the users of the aircraft would
probably be unaware of the problems of the Mark -5 or incapable of evaluating the technical issues and so not understand the seriousness of the problem. Thus, they would not be giving informed consent to an unusual
danger. Even if they were aware of the danger, they would probably have no choice but to use the Mark -5, if was installed on their aircraft. Thus, they would not be giving consent to the unusual danger.
Second, selling the Mark-5 without testing violates the Golden Rule, which requires that if others perform an action like our own, we must be willing to accept the consequences of the action. The manufacturers would
probably not want to fly in an aircraft equippe d with the untested Mark -5, knowing what they know about its problems. Given this, they should not impose this danger on others.

Third, deploying the untested Mark -5 would violate what some have called the "New York Times Test." Ask yourself whether you, a s the CEO of Wondrous Avionics, would be willing to have it generally known that your
company sold the Mark -5, knowing the answers to questions 1 -5. Your answer would probably be that you would not. Therefore, you have no right to impose this risk on other s.

Fourth, selling the untested Mark -5 would probably violate the test of Rule Utilitarianism. Would it maximize utility or general well -being if every manufacturer sold items with as much potential for disaster as the Mark -5?
The answer is almost certainl y that it would not. If manufacturers did this as a general rule, many accidents would result and the confidence of air flight and probably in technology generally would be eroded. This would not
lead to general well -being or welfare, but in fact would be socially harmful.

Computer Encryption Software

Authors: Jeremy Hanzlik

Suggested Courses: Computer Science

Level: All

I. Narrative

Greg is a recently hired software engineer who has been recruited fresh out of college. For his first assignment, Greg's b oss asked him to write a piece of software to provide some sort of security from "prying eyes" over e -
mailed documents; these documents would be used internally by the company. This software will subsequently be distributed to different departments.

Upon completion of his software project, he saw a program on the local news about an individual in California who has made similar software available overseas. This individual is currently under prosecution in a federal
courts for the distribution of algorithms and information which (by law) must remain within the United States for purposes of national security.

It occurs to Greg that his company is a multinational corporation (MNC) and that the software might have been distributed overseas.

Greg discovers that the software has indeed been sent overseas to other offices within the corporation. Greg goes before his boss and informs his boss of the news program he has seen. Greg's boss shrugs off the topic and
states, " The company is based in the United States and we are certainly no threat to national security in any way. There are just too many legislators and lawyers in the world. Besides, there's no way outsiders will find out
about software we use internally."

Greg agreed with his boss, and let it go. Later on however, Greg received a letter from a gentleman working as a contractor for his company overseas complimenting him on the software he wrote. Through some
correspondence regarding the functionality of the software and technical matters, Greg learned the m iddle eastern office of his company has been supplying his software outside the company to contractors and clients so that
they could exchange secure e -mailed documents.

II. Numerical/Design Problem

Question 1: Design and write a program to encrypt/decryp t a text file. (Additional specifications to be added by instructor dependent upon course level --e.g. language, level of encryption)

III. Questions on Ethics and Professionalism

Question 1: What are Greg's ethical responsibilities as the designer of the so ftware? To his company? To himself? As a citizen of the United States?

Question 2: Rank these responsibilities along with a brief explanation as to why you made your decision.

Question 3: Write a proposal which can satisfy as many of Greg's obligations as possible. Explain why this is his best course of action.

Class Discussion Question: Should a software engineer think about the implication of the material he/she is developing?

Problem Variation II:

I. Narrative

Greg is a recently hired computer programme r who has been recruited fresh out of college. For his first assignment, Greg's boss asked him to write a piece of software to provide some sort of security from "prying eyes" over
e-mailed documents for internal use by the American division of his company .

Greg's boss was very pleased with his work and with the performance of Greg's software. He has sent letters to friends and managers within the company describing Greg's project. Some of the managers wanted to "borrow"
Greg's time in order to customize so ftware overseas at locations including Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Thailand. Since business had slowed at the American offices, Greg's boss gave the O.K. and recommended that Greg
perform some software coding for the other divisions.

Later that evening, G reg saw a program on the local news about an individual in California who has made similar software available overseas. This individual is currently under prosecution in a federal court for the distribution
of algorithms and information which (by law) must remain within the United States for purposes of national security.

The next morning Greg mentioned the television program to his boss. His boss told Greg, "Oh, don't worry about those muckraking reporters; always trying to dig up dirt. By the way, did I m ention that on your way to
Thailand I planned for you to have a weekend layover at a nearby resort?"

II. Numerical/Design Problem

Question 1: Design and write a program to encrypt/decrypt a text file. (Additional specifications to be added by instructor de pendent upon course level --e.g. language, level of encryption)
III. Questions on Ethics and Professionalism

Question 1: Define a bribe. Is Greg's boss offering him a bribe?

Question 2: What are Greg's ethical responsibilities as the designer of the softwar e? To his company? To himself? As a citizen of the United States?

Question 3: Write a solution which can satisfy as many of Greg's obligations as possible. Explain why this is his best course of action.

Class Discussion Question: Can a promotion or a perk be a bribe?

IV. Solutions for Numerical/Design Problem

The solution to this problem greatly depends upon additional specifications imposed by the instructions.

An example of a problem for the freshman/sophomore level would be to construct a program which o pens a file, reads one character at a time, increments the ASCII value by an arbitrary number, writes the character in a
new file, and repeats.

In a higher level course, the instructor could require the development of a more complex algorithm for the encry ption process. (It might be interesting to introduce code breaking topics as well).

V. Solutions for Ethics and Professionalism Questions

Version I

Question 1: (The following serve merely as examples; many more responsibilities can be asserted) Greg's resp onsibilities as a software engineer:

 provide code as free of bugs as possible

 meet the design specifications for the software

 Greg's responsibilities to his company:

 remain loyal (perhaps the student will define loyalty in answering these questions)

 keep proprietary information secret

Greg's responsibilities to himself:

 not to compromise his ethics for the sake of others

Greg's responsibilities as a citizen of the United States of America:

 promote the well -being of his country

 adhere to U.S. laws and regulations at all governmental levels.

Question 2: There is no right or wrong answer to this question in so far as the student has provided justification for is answer. The following is an example:

1. Greg's responsibilities to himself --because I believe one is compelled to follow one's own conscience in order to function as a happy and productive individual.
2. Greg's responsibilities as a citizen --I have a duty to my fellow countrymen to ensure a certain standard of living by adhering to the law.
3. Greg's responsibilities to his company and as a software engineer --These two tie because neither has a pressing issue to trump the other.

Question 3: In a large company, as an MNC clearly is, there should be a legal department which employees can consult regar ding legal questions. Greg has the option of speaking with a lawyer within that company, thus
satisfying his loyalty to the company. However, in doing this, Greg must not forget about his responsibilities to himself and his family. Therefore it would not b e appropriate to go behind his supervisor's back on the first go -
round of the disagreement. Greg must avoid a messy confrontation with his boss if he is to continue to function well in his department. He could attempt to persuade his supervisor that he sho uld check with the legal
department before he even speaks with the lawyers, to ensure that both men are legally covered in what they do. In talking with the lawyers, Greg can develop allies to help convince his boss that the software must not be
sent across international boarders. Therefore Greg presents as a helpful employee rather than a confrontional troublemaker. This would satisfy all three obligations mentioned in the answer to question 3.

Version II

Question 1: The definition of a bribe should not be taken from a dictionary. The purpose of this question is to help the student develop his own thoughts on the concept.

A bribe could be loosely defined as anything of value given with intent to extract a favorable action from an individual.

Is there a bribe involved in the promise of the layover stay in Thailand? This should probably be classified as a bribe for the following reasons. First, the layover is significant in value and has been introduced at a time when
Greg must make an ethical decision. Second , there is a great possibility that the supervisor intends this to influence Greg's action. Third, even if it is not intended to be a bribe (and the supervisor is merely downplaying
Greg's concerns), it still has the appearance of a bribe. In today's world of media, something not intended to function as a bribe, but having the appearance of a bribe, can greatly damage an individual's reputation.

Question 2: There is no right or wrong answer to this question as long as the student has provided justification for his answer. The following is an example:

1. Greg's responsibilities to himself --I believe one is compelled to follow one's own conscience in order to function as a happy and productive individual.
2. Greg's responsibilities as a citizen --I have a duty to my fellow citizens to ensure a certain standard of living by adhering to the law.
 3. Greg's responsibilities to his company and as a software engineer --These two tie because neither trumps the other in this situation.

Question 3: The answer to question 3 fro m version I is appropriate here also. In addition, Greg should start sending out his resume, if he believes that he has indeed been offered a bribe. Certainly when a bribe has been
offered, an individual is in a bad situation, and it would be better to fin d another position, where he will not be tempted to compromise his integrity.

*From NSF Engineering Ethics with Numerical Problems.

Light Duty Step Ladder

Author: D.Y. Yannitell

Suggested Courses: Mechanics of Materials

Level: Sophomore & Junior

I. Narrative

You are a newly licensed engineer with a company that makes a variety of consumer products. A newly -designed light duty step ladder has been proposed which can be marketed very competitively, and you are asked to
evaluate the design. The design is sh own in the drawings below. The back legs are made of 0.10" aluminum sheet bent into a "C" shape cross section. The brace between the legs is made of 0.75" od aluminum tube with a
wall thickness of 0.05". Your first step is to consult the relevant governmen t standards, where you find that for light duty ladders that the following test is prescribed:

The ladder is tested while lying on its side on a flat, level surface. A weight of fifty pounds is hung on the end of the back leg (the one which is above the s urface in the test position). To pass specifications the deflection of
the end of that leg must not exceed 0.25 inches. In addition, when the weight is removed the ladder leg must return to its original position with "no apparent permanent distortion" You find no other regulations that seem to
apply.

II. Questions

1. To perform a very conservative prediction of the probability of the design meeting the requirements, you decide to treat the effect of the lower brace as merely a very stiff (rigid) support at the position of the cross piece,
15" from the end of the leg. Perform this analysis. What deflection of the leg end is predicted? Do you expect any permanent deformation? Why or why not? Assume a yield stress of 15,000 psi..

2. Is this indeed a conservativ e analysis? What additional stiffening effect can you really expect from the brace?

3. You express your safety concerns, and the boss says that your concern is not really a problem and that the design more than meets specs. He says that the government kno ws what it's doing , so the failure mode
addressed by the specs must be the critical one. He insists that the design is fine. And besides, the plant is already tooled up for production. Given that there are the following models of engineering: Malpractice -a minimalist
approach to cover yourself leagaly, Due Care -to take reasonable precautions in your designs, and Good Works -to go beyond the call of duty and work extra nights to meet higher standards than required in order to produce
the safest product avail able. What model of engineering is espoused by your employer? How could you meet the other models of engineering?

4. Thought provoking question: Assuming all internal company issues can be resolved, do you have any professional responsibility to try to get the government to adopt more meaningful test specifications?

III. Numerical Solutions

Section modulus for leg: I = .036 in **4 for tube I = .0599 in **4

For cantilever beam with end load: defl = (P*L**3)/3*E*I max bending stress = P*L*c/I

For leg cantilevered at lower crossbrace: equiv. spring constant = 320 lb/in, deflect at 50# load = 0.156", and max stress = 14,850 psi. These values are below the allowable .25" and 15,000 psi, and, since the analysis is
conservative, we expect the ladder to pass the pr escribed test.

To model the lower brace as a spring, assume 15" cantilevers attached with rigid corners to 22" simple beam with end moments. This is NOT conservative since the corners will not be rigid. Equivalent spring constant = 83
lb/in. Leg as cantil ever 55" long with this equivalent spring supporting it has total equivalent spring constant 89.5 lb/ in. Thus the ladder is much more flexible in the outward bending mode. A fifty pound load in the outward
direction will produce a deflection of over half an inch, and a maximum stress at the upper brace attachment point of 50,000 psi. This will yield the aluminum, result in permanent deformation, and weaken the ladder.

IV. Sample Solutions to Ethical Question 3

The employer in this case seems to be supporti ng the malpractice model of engineering. All the manager is concerned with is meeting the specifications set forth by the government. This is a fairly minimalist approach which
will cover the company legally. A due care model might be implemented if the ma nager were to realize that the government's specifications are not the safest available, and it would not be too difficult to produce the ladder
under tougher specifications which would provide a safer product. A good works example would require more than simply producing a safe product. This is to go above and beyond the call of duty. An example would be to
work on your own time as an engineer to raise the legal standards so that they will provide a safer product overall.

* From NSF Engineering Ethics wit h Numerical Problems.

Smoking

The Philip Morris Companies has been testing a microelectronic cigarette holder that eliminates all smoke except that exhaled by the smoker. Battery powered, it is expected to cost about $50. The result of years of research,
it cost approximately $200 to develop.

Tentatively called the Accord, the device uses cigarettes that are 62 millimeters long (compared with the standard 85 millimeters). Users will have to remember to recharge the Accord’s battery (a 30 minute process, but
extra batteries can be purchased). A cigarette is inserted into the 4 -inch long, 1 ½-inch wide device. A microchip senses when the cigarette is puffed and transmits powers to eight heating blades. A display shows the
remaining battery charge and indicates how many puffs are left in the eight -puff cigarette. The device also contains a catalytic converter that burns off residues.
Supporters of this product say it will be welcomed by smokers who currently refrain from smoking in their homes or cars for the sa ke of non-smoking family members, guests, and passengers. Although smokers will inhale
the same amount of tar and nicotine as from conventional "ultralight" cigarettes, 90 percent of second -hand smoke will be eliminated. Furthermore, the same smoking restr iction rules in public places will apply to the device.

Critics claim that the Accord will simply reinforce addition to cigarettes. Richard A. Daynard, chair of the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Boston’s Northeastern University School of Law, an an ti-tobacco organization,
asks: "Who would use an expensive and cumbersome thing like this if they weren’t hooked? There is something grim and desperate about it. This is hardly the Marlboro Man, getting on his horse and checking the battery."
He also expresses concern that children might be encouraged to smoke, since the Accord would enable them to hide smoking from their parents. However, Philip Morris replies that the device has a locking device for parents.

Questions:

1. Imagine that it is several year s ago and you have just received your engineering degree. You are in search of your first job. You are invited to interview with a research division of Philip Morris that is about to begin
research to develop the Accord. Would you have any reservations abo ut accepting such a position? Discuss.

2. If you would have some reservations, would the fact that this job pays $10,000 more a year than any other offer you have convince you to take the Philip Morris offer?

3. Assuming you took the job, what kinds of eth ical concerns might you have about how the device should be designed? (E.g., would you agree that it should have a locking device?)

Dissent or Not Dissent

I
Alison Turner is a department manager at a large commerical nuclear generating plant. She is also a member of the Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee (PNSRC). The committee's responsibilities include reviewing and
approving design changes, procedural changes, and submittals to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Today Alison finds herself in a d ifficult situation. PNSRC is meeting to decide what to do about a heat exchanger problem. Routine testing on the previous morning revealed degraded cooling water flow and high differential
pressure in one of the containment spray heat exchangers of one of the two generating units. This unit has just returned to service after two months of repairs. Test results on the second heat exchanger were similar.
Although the other generating unit has been in continuous service, testing reveals that its two heat excha ngers are operating at less than full capacity. The most likely cause of the problem is sand blockage on the lake water
side of the four heat exchangers.

After extensive analysis by engineers in the Mechanical Engineering and Nuclear Safety & Licensing Dep artments, it has been concluded that the cooling water flow falls slightly below the minimum requirement set by the
technical specifications under which the plant is licensed. Nevertheless, based on Mechanical Engineering's analysis, Nuclear Safety & Licen sing has prepared a Justification for Continued Operation (JCO) for submission to
NRC. PNSRC is now meeting to decide whether to approve the JCO and forward it to NRC.

As Alison reviews the JCO she is uncomfortable with one assumption made in the analysis. The analysis assumes that the heat exchangers still have 95% of their original heat transfer capability. It is concluded that this
would be satisfactory. However, in anticipating possible accidents, Single Failure Criteria require the plant to assume the loss of one heat exchanger. Alison wonders if, under those conditions, the heat transfer problem would
be manageable. The JCO does not discuss what might happen under that contingency.

Seven members of PNSRC are present, enough for a quorum. Alison is the least senior member present. From the outset of the meeting, committee chair Rich Robinson has made it clear that it is important to act quickly,
since any shutdown will cost the company, and ultimately the rate payers, a lot of money in additional fuel co sts. "Repairs," he says, "might take a couple of weeks. If we don't approve this, we may be facing a multi -million
dollar proposition. Fortunately, the JCO seems fine. What do you think?" Brad Louks and Joe Carpello immediately concur. Rich then says, "Wel l, if no one sees any problems here, let's go with it." There is a moment of
silence. Should Alison express her reservations?

II
Alison Turner expresses her reservations. Brad Louks replies, "We're talking about containment heat exchangers. It's an Acciden t Mitigation System, and it's never had to be used here --or at any other commercial nuclear
plant that we know of, for that matter. In fact, lots of plants don't even have containment spray systems." "Right," adds Joe Carpello, "we're ahead of the game on this one. I don't see any problem here. Nothing's totally risk
free, but we've always been leaders in safety. Let's not get carried away with 'possibilities'."

"I don't think Alison meant to have us get carried away with anything," Mark Reynolds interject s. "She's just wondering if the JCO should address the question of how things would look if we lost one of the heat exchangers.
How much time would it take the Nuclear Safety and Licensing Department to make a calculation for us --another 3 hours? It's only 1:30pm, you know." "What's the point, Mark?" asks Joe. "Our track record is excellent, and
the system is optional. It's not as though we're taking any extraordinary risks."

Nothing further is said, and Rich Robinson calls for the vote. Though not a commit tee requirement, PNSRC has always acted unanimously. It often rejects, sometimes approves, but always unanimously. As the call goes
around the room, each member approves. The last member called on to vote is Alison. She still has serious reservations about approving the JCO without the Nuclear Safety and Licensing Department making further
calculations. How should she vote?

III
Suppose Alison casts a negative vote and subsequent calculations show that her worries were unfounded -- in the event of an acciden t, a single heat exchanger would be adequate to manage any likely heat transfer
problems. Would it follow that it was wrong for her to cast a dissenting vote? [Recall that a single dissenting vote would not defeat approval. It would only set a precedent of proceeding without unanimity.]

*From NSF Engineering Ethics Case Report.

Innocent Comment

Jack Strong is seated between Tom Evans and Judy Hanson at a dinner meeting of a local industrial engineering society. Jack and Judy have an extended discussion of a variety of concerns, many of which are related to their
common engineering interest. At the conclusion of the dinner, Jack turns to Tom, smiles and says, "I’m sorry not have talked with you more tonight, Tom, but Judy’s better looking than you."

Judy is taken aback by Jack’s comment. A recent graduate from a school in which more than 20 percent of her classmates were women, she been led to believe that finally the stereotypical view that women are not as well
suited for engineering as men was finally going away. However, matters quickly changed on her first job. She found that she was the only woman engineer in her division. Now, even after nearly a year on the job, she has to
struggle to get others to take her ideas seriously. She wants to be recognized fi rst and foremost as a good engineer. So, she had enjoyed "talking shop" with Jack. But she was stunned by his remark to Tom, however
innocently it might have been intended. Suddenly she saw the conversation in a very different light. Once again she sensed that she was not being taken seriously enough as an engineer.

How should Judy respond to Jack’s remark? Should she say anything? Assuming Tom understands her perspective, what, if anything, should Tom say or do? Do Tom and other male engineers have special responsibilities to
help women engineers feel they are as well qualified as men for engineering?

Pulverizer
Fred is a mechanical engineer who works for Super Mulcher Corporation. It manufactures the Model 1 Pulverizer, a 10 -hp chipper/shredder that grinds yard waste into small particles that can be composted and blended into
the soil. The device is particularly popular with homeowners who are interested in reducing the amount of garden waste deposited in landfills.

The chipper/shredder has a powerful engin e and a rapidly rotating blade that can easily injure operators if they are not careful. During the five years the Model 1 Pulverizer has been sold, there have been 300 reported
accidents with operators. The most common accident occurs when the discharge c hute gets plugged with shredded yard waste, prompting the operator to reach into the chute to unplug it. When operators reach in too far,
the rotating blades can cut off or badly injure their fingers.

Charlie Burns, president of Super Mulcher, calls a meet ing of the engineers and legal staff to discuss ways to reduce legal liability associated with the sale of the Model 1 Pulverizer. The legal staff suggest several ways of
reducing legal liability:

 Put bright yellow warning signs on the Model 1 Pulverizer that say, "Danger! Rapidly rotating blades. Keep hands out when machine is running!"

 Include the following warner in the owner’s manual: "Operators must keep hands away from the rotating blades when machine is in operation."

 State in the owner’s manual t hat safe operation of the Model 1 Pulverizer requires a debris collection bag placed over the discharge chute. State that operators are not to remove the debris collection bag
while the Model 1 Pulverizing is running. If the discharge chute plugs, the owne r is instructed to turn off the Model 1 Pulverizer, remove the debris collection bag, replace the debris collection bag, and
restart the engine.

From operating the Model 1 Pulverizer, Fred knows the discharge chute has a tendency to plug. Because the mach ine is hard to restart, there is a great temptation to run the unit without the debris collection bag --and to
unplug the discharge chute while the unit is still running.

Questions: In each of the following scenarios discuss the various ways Fred attempts t o resolve the problem.

Scenario 1: Fred suggests to his engineering colleagues that the Model 1 Pulverizer should be redesigned so it does not plug. His colleagues reply that the company probably cannot afford the expense of re -engineering the
Model 1, and they conclude that the legal staff’s recommendations should be sufficient. Dissatisfied, in his spare time Fred redesigns the Model 1 Pulverizer and solves the plugging problem in an affordable way.

Scenario 2: Fred says nothing to his colleagues about th e impracticality of requiring the machine to be run with the debris collection bag. He accepts the legal staff’s advice and adds the warning signs and owner’s manual
instructions. No changes are made in the design of the Model 1 Pulverizer.

Scenario 3: Fred suggests to his engineering colleagues that they try to convince management that the Model 1 Pulverizer should be redesigned so that it does not plug. They agree and prepare a redesign plan that will cost
$50,000 to implement. Then they take their plan t o management.

Waste Disposal

ABC's chemical waste is stored in a warehouse at an off -site location. While inspecting the warehouse, engineer Scott Lewis notices several leaking drums. He calls Tom Treehorn, head of ABC's Division of Chemical Waste.
Tom responds, "I'll be right over with a crew to bring the leaking drums over here." Scott points out that the law forbids returning chemical waste to the "home" site. Tom replies, "I know, but I don't have any confidence in
the off-site folks handling this. We k now how to handle this best. It might not be the letter of the law, but our handling it captures its spirit."

Scott believes that Tom Treehorn is serious about preventing environmental problems -- especially those that might be caused by ABC. Still, he kno ws that the Environmental Protection Agency will be upset if it finds out
about Tom's way of dealing with the problem; and if anything goes wrong, ABC could get into serious legal difficulties. After all, he thinks, ABC is not a waste disposal facility.

What should Scott do at this point?

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 reporte d 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 cr acks 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 ca rds 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 fatigu e, 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.

Near Accident
One of your coworkers, a close friend, almost had an ac cident on the factory floor that would have slowed down production and possibly injured some of the operators. Over the years you have noticed that your friend has
been consuming more and more alcohol after work and on the weekends. You suspect that alcoho l may have been involved in the near accident. When confronted, your friend denies any alcohol problem. The company has a
strict policy against drinking or being under the influence of alcohol during working hours. The penalty for violating the policy is d ismissal. Jobs are hard to find. Your concern for your friend’s family makes the decision to
inform management even more difficult.

Questions:
1. From a utilitarian perspective, what do you think you should do? Explain.
2. From a respect for persons persp ective what do you think you should do? Explain.
3. All things considered, what do you think you should do? Explain (especially insofar as your answer differs from the two previous answers).

Corrected Estmiate

I
Several people were seriously injured by fl ying glass resulting from the explosion of a glass tank of water. Attorney Robert Raft represented two of the injured parties. He hired engineer Victor Swift to investigate the cause of
the accident. Victor's preliminary determination was that the explosio n most likely resulted from the presence of natural gas in the water. If Victor was right, this would support a finding against Cooler, Inc. However, the
data did not warrant certainty. In court all Victor could testify is that the hypothesis that natural gas was the culprit was probably true. Robert Raft lost the case but decided he would appeal on behalf of his client.

Later Victor Swift recalculated and discovered he had been in error. The natural gas hypothesis, he concluded, was highly improbable. He a lso learned that another engineer, Sandra Burton, was hired by Robert Raft as he
was preparing his appeal. Victor wondered if he should volunteer his new analysis to either Robert or Sandra.

What do you think Victor should do? Explain. What relevant facts are presented? Discuss any factual, conceptual, or application issues.

II
Victor Swift wrote to Robert Raft, explaining in detail his corrected estimate. Several days later Victor received a phone call from Robert. "I can't believe you'd send me a letter l ike this," Robert angrily shouted. "You took
away my opportunity to appeal! You could at least have had the decency to call me about this first. That would have given me a chance to talk you out of it."

What should Victor say in reply? Does this angry call provide him with a good reason to change his mind about whether he acted appropriately in sending the letter to Robert?