BEM GUIDELINES FOR CODE OF

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Five (5) Main SECTIONS for CODE of ETHICS
(27 Sub-Sections)
1. A Registered Engineer shall at all times hold paramount the safety,
health and welfare of the public.
2. A Registered Engineer shall undertake assignments only if he is qualified
by education & experience in the specific technical fields in which he is
involved.
3. A Registered Engineer shall issue public statements only in an objective
and truthful manner.
4. A Registered Engineer shall act for each employer or clients as faithful
agent or trustee.
5. A Registered Engineer shall conduct himself honourably, responsibly,
ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honour, reputation and
usefulness of the profession.
 Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics
State the Problem

Get the Facts

Defend Viewpoints

Formulate Opinion

Qualify
Recommendation
 State the Problem

 Clearly define exact nature of ethical problem or

dilemma
 Need to be clear so that we can anticipate the kind
of solution that is required
 Want to provide an answer that is relevant to the
interests at stake.
 Get the Facts

 Want to make an informed decision.

 Must have and understand the relevant facts
 Must make clear any interpretations of actual
matters or the values than underlie conflicting
moral viewpoints.
 Identify & Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints

 Begin by identifying what we believe to be the

most compelling reason for the course of action
 We must be able to justify the course of action
 Formulate an Opinion

 As engineers we do not have the luxury of

postponing questions or leaving a question
unresolved
 Decide which of the compelling viewpoints is the
most compelling
 The committee approach (voting) is advantageous
because the decision is representative of the
general public
 Qualify the Opinions or Recommendation

 Committees must qualify the recommendations they

make by describing the level of agreement that was
received
 Should include the voting distribution and any
dissenting opinions
 Case study 1-Inez Austin

Inez Austin was one of the few female

engineers at the company Westinghouse
Hanford, when in 1989 she became senior
process engineer for that company at the
Hanford Nuclear Site, a former plutonium
production facility in the state of Washington
in US.
• In June 1990, she refused to approve a plan to
pump radioactive waste from an old
underground single-shell tank to a double-
shell tank due to safety reasons.
• Her refusal lead to several retaliatory actions
from her employer.
• In 1990, received the lowest employee ratings
in all her 11 years at the company.
 Doubts were raised about the state of her
mental health and she was advised to see a
psychiatrist.
 In 1992, Austin received the Scientific Freedom
and Responsibility Award from the American
Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) “for her courageous and persistent
efforts to prevent potential safety hazards
involving nuclear waste contamination”.
Inez Austin stands in the face of harassment
and intimidation reflects the paramount
professional duty of engineers-to protect
the public’s health and safety- and has
served as an inspiration to her co-workers.
Nevertheless, after a second whistle
blowing incident, relating to the safety and
legality of untrained workers, her job was
terminated in 1992.
Task:
Understand Inez Austin’s case
Suggest the action that Inez supposed to
take
Suggest this case can be related to which
code of ethics (BEM).
Answer:
2. Related with code of ethics 1.
3. Reasons: because registered
engineers should prioritize the safety
and health of public and co-workers in
decision-making situations.