Chapter 25: Ethics and Professionalism

Engineering has been described as “the strategy for causing the best change in a poorly understood or uncertain situation within the available resources” [1]. The realm of ethics and professionalism entails very real, poorly understood problems that are as challenging as any technical problems an engineer will face. This chapter presents heuristics, objective functions (i.e., ways of defining what is best), and constraint identification strategies that are especially useful in solving such problems.

As described in Chapter 11, all heuristics are, in the final analysis, fallible and incapable of justification. They are merely plausible aids or directions toward the solution of a problem [1]. Especially for the heuristics described in this chapter, the four characteristics of any heuristic need to be kept in mind:

1. A heuristic does not guarantee a solution.

2. It may contradict other heuristics.

3. It can reduce the time to solve a problem.

4. Its acceptance depends on the immediate context instead of on an absolute standard.

The fact that all ethical heuristics cannot be followed all of the time is to be expected, as it is with any set of technical heuristics.

The purpose of this chapter is to help develop strategies to make the best choice when faced with an ethical problem. The set of strategies developed will be different for each reader. A general overview of engineering ethics is presented, and a series of ethics scenarios is introduced. The authors have found that the best way to develop the facility to deal with ethical problems is, after reading the overview, to discuss these scenarios in small groups. Each group presents its solution to the class. Even with seemingly straightforward situations, the solutions can be diverse. A class discussion of the different solutions is followed by a reflection on what was discussed. Then the next problem is addressed. Many such scenarios are given at the end of this chapter and in books and articles [2–7].

25.1 Ethics

Whenever chemical engineers develop products, design processes and equipment, manage process operations, communicate with other engineers and nonengineers, develop markets and sell products, lead other engineers, interact with clients, represent their firms to the government or to the public—in short, whenever chemical engineers do anything that impacts the lives of anyone—their choices of action are based on ethics. Even when faced with two different equations, one equation is selected, based in part on ethical values. Does the less-precise equation include a safety factor that lowers the risk to employer, employees, or the public? Should more time be spent doing more rigorous calculations, costing the firm more money but providing a better answer to the client? How is the decision made?

In each of these circumstances, engineers apply their own moral standards, mindful of the legal requirements, using their personal code of ethics to make the decision. To help in the development of a personal code of ethics that will provide a framework for making these decisions, first the three types of reasons for ethical behavior are identified:

• Moral

• Legal

• Ethical

Although nearly all people share some fundamental moral ideals, each engineer has his or her own distinct set of moral principles. Typically, these principles are shaped by religion, conscience, and especially early childhood family experiences. The basic framework by which one decides what is right and what is wrong is generally very well developed by the time one reads an engineering text. Thus, this text will not take up the moral dimensions of engineering ethics other than to stress the importance of continually reminding oneself to be true to one’s moral values as one works through ethical problems.

A few legal aspects of solving ethical problems are covered in Section 25.3, but the full legal consequences of engineering decisions are far beyond the scope of this book. The legal system (which includes government regulations) is a collection of rules of conduct for a society to assist orderly transactions between people. Chemical engineers should seek skilled legal advice whenever these rules, or the consequences for not following them, are unclear.

The aspect of ethical decision making covered here is that commonly referred to as engineering ethics. There are generally accepted codes of conduct for engineers, although, as will become clear, they are too broad to be used alone as prescriptions for engineering choices in difficult situations. Engineering ethics is the system of principles and strategies that engineers use to solve complex problems involving other people’s lives. It includes aspects of moral principles and legal responsibilities, as well as recognized codes of ethics and generally accepted norms of engineering and business behavior.

25.1.1 Moral Autonomy

Inasmuch as all engineers do not share a single set of moral principles by which to make ethical decisions, it is fully expected that different readers will make different decisions, especially in complex situations. The goal of this chapter is not uniformity of decisions by all engineers but autonomy of each engineer to make the right decision. In this context, the right decision can be identified by the use of a heuristic. The right decision is one that is

• Consistent with the engineer’s moral principles

• Consistent with the generally accepted codes of engineering conduct

• Consistent with obligations that the engineer has accepted

• Consistent with the law

• Consistent with the applicable code of ethics

But, most importantly, the right decision is one that the engineer can live with. Of course, it is always possible that one person’s decision would not be acceptable to another person.

Moral autonomy does not require that a person be able to look back and always be confident that the choice made was the best of all possible choices. Although this is the goal, it is a moving target. Rather, by exercising moral autonomy a person is in control of their decision, if the choice is made based on a reasonable analysis of the potential consequences consistent with one’s moral, legal, and ethical beliefs, rights, duties, and obligations. If personal moral principles are not understood, or no strategy for ethically analyzing a situation is made, or if ethical responsibilities are defered to others, then one cannot claim to be exercising moral autonomy.

The goal of this chapter is to help develop moral autonomy. Previewing the kinds of ethical problems that are likely to be resolved is the most powerful tool to learn about and to develop one’s moral autonomy.

25.1.2 Rehearsal

When learning any new skill, one usually practices or rehearses. To learn to apply the ideal gas law in process calculations, end-of-chapter problems in thermodynamics are completed. Understanding the theory behind the ideal gas law is no guarantee of the ability to solve applied problems. Some people can and some people cannot. But few would argue that a problem can be solved as quickly, as easily, or as correctly the first time as the nth time it is solved. Such is the power of rehearsal.

Rehearsal becomes more important when decisions must be made quickly, extremely accurately, or under great stress. And great stress often accompanies ethical problems. Example 25.1 is such an example.

In this simple scenario, there is a great deal of stress. If Jay had never thought about what to do in such a situation, it is highly unlikely that he would make a decision that he could live with. It is much more likely that Jay would look back on the event and wish he could go back and make a different choice. Rehearsal provides the opportunity to do just that. The first time the situation is seen, it is best to be in a low-risk environment. If the wrong decision is made, it does not matter. The second time, a better choice can be made.

In early education and in skills training at any level, the goal of rehearsal is to work through a scenario that is likely to occur in the future and to develop the best response possible. In advanced professional education, and especially in engineering education, the goal of rehearsal is to work through a scenario representative of a broad range of situations that are likely to occur in the future and to develop a strategy for responding to the broad range of problems, many of which cannot be imagined. For ethical decision making, this strategy must be powerful, adaptive, and personal. Throughout a career, new ethical problems will arise. The key is to rehearse frequently, using example and homework problems and conceiving a set of personal, representative scenarios.

25.1.3 Reflection in Action

One of the characteristics of successful professionals in a variety of fields is frequent postmortem analysis. This self-imposed study of events that have occurred in one’s professional life is called “reflection in action” [8]. After an engineering event has occurred in which ethical decisions were made, it is beneficial to sit down (individually or in a small group) and review the case, and analyze the facts, the missing information, the constraints, the unnecessary perceived constraints, the options considered, the options not considered, and the strategy used to arrive at the decision.

As demonstrated in Example 25.2, there are many reasons why reflection in action is so powerful, but the focus here is on two:

• It forces an analysis the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy used.

• It provides continual opportunities and encouragement for rehearsal.

Because the outcome of the “Falsified Data” case is unknown, the Plan and Do It stages cannot yet be fully analyzed. When the full case is reflected upon, the Plan and Do It stages could be completed.

At the end of any rehearsal or reflection, those involved should develop a list of heuristics to use in future ethical problem solving. These could be the heuristics that had been used effectively (in the case of a reflection) or new heuristics that can be used (in the case of a rehearsal). For Example 25.2, the following heuristics might be identified (use the three blank lines to develop your own heuristics):

• Use a traditional problem-solving strategy for solving ethical problems.

• Consider the possibility that inexperienced people can be right.

• Debrief people fully before assuming facts about their actions.

• Consider what will happen if a specific decision is based on a false assumption.

• Be honest.

• Be concerned about the welfare of your company.

• Be concerned about the welfare of your employees.

• Do not let other people make ethical decisions for you.

•  

•  

•  

25.1.4 Mobile Truth

It is quite natural for people to assume that groups to which they belong are right, and other groups are wrong. This basic response gives rise to loyalty, strong familial pride and duty, willful obedience, and leadership. The strength of collective action depends on this response, which, in terms of ethical decision making in engineering, manifests itself in mobile truth.

Assume the AIChE student chapter and the IEEE student chapter are playing volleyball. If the referee makes a difficult call, you are apt to find the call right if it favors your team and wrong if it favors the other. You are not being unethical, but you are perhaps being unreasonable. Similarly, when starting to work for an organization, attitudes toward it are developed that are similar to the bonding that occurs within families, nationalities, and schools. The faster these bonds develop, the faster acceptance by the organization. The stronger these bonds are, loyalty increases. Example 25.3 demonstrates mobile truth.

The point here is to learn to recognize mobile truth and to filter it out of ethical decision making. Obviously, a chemical engineer has ethical duties and obligations to an organization, but vigilance is required to identify the intrusion of mobile truth into the ethical decision-making process. The point is not just to make the process more “objective” or “fair,” but rather to try to see the situation from the point of view of those outside the organization. Here are a few heuristics for avoiding being misled by mobile truth:

• Ask yourself whether your decision would be different if you worked for another part of the company or for another company.

• Imagine that you live just outside the plant fence.

• Imagine that you work for the Environmental Protection Agency.

• Ask for the opinion of someone else in your organization. Explain the situation, suggesting that the facts pertain to a different organization. The response is likely to be less affected by mobile truth.

More heuristics can be developed through rehearsal and reflection.

Related to the concept of mobile truth is the concept of postrationalization. Again, it is quite natural and normal for people to try to justify their actions (and the actions of their colleagues and organizations), whether or not they are defensible. Because complex ethical problems can be analyzed and evaluated in so many different ways, it is often easy to fool oneself into thinking that one has acted ethically. But one must keep in mind the frame of reference or point of view of others (outside your organization). If you want to be sure that what you have done or are about to do is ethical, imagine how someone outside the organization would view the decision. If there is a difference, chances are you were postrationalizing (or prerationalizing).

25.1.5 Nonprofessional Responsibilities

Each chemical engineer has personal responsibilities: to family, to friends, to oneself. These responsibilities, like professional responsibilities, will change dramatically throughout one’s life. The obvious example is one’s family situation, which is likely to grow and change over a 40-year career. In general, it is easier to make ethical choices when they affect only oneself. Choices that affect one’s nuclear family are especially difficult. Some choices might cost you your job, make you a social outcast, compel you to move from your home, even estrange you from your family.

Generally, these consequences can be mitigated by

• Thinking early about the effects of your decisions on your family

• Taking into account likely changes in your family situation

• Most importantly, talking with your family about your decision

The choice of when to discuss a professional ethics problem with one’s family (and with which members of the family) is certainly a difficult one. Considering what a dramatic effect your decisions can have on your family, it would be wise to consider a hypothetical situation before a real ethical problem arises. Think about various options of whom to tell what and when. Rehearsal can be done with one’s family, with a peer group, or by oneself. Whichever you choose, it should make any potential conflict easier to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction.

The crucial impact of ethical decisions on one’s family is generally not fully appreciated until one is married or becomes a parent. In using rehearsal to prepare for difficult ethical situations, anticipate potential changes in one’s family situation that might affect the decision should be anticipated. In a typical senior chemical engineering class, most students are single without children. However, there may be students with a significant range of circumstances. Some might be married without any children; several might be parents. Additionally, some may intend to be the only or the main potential wage earner, whereas others may expect to work or earn less than their husbands or wives. Whenever possible, it is better to form nonhomogeneous groups for rehearsal of ethical scenarios. The addition of a married student to an otherwise single group usually changes the discussion substantially.

While discussing ethical scenarios, financial and other concerns also must be considered. Prospective chemical engineers often say, “I just wouldn’t work for a company that would do that,” or “I’d quit and get another job before I’d agree to that.” But these comments are looked upon as naive by most who have made tough ethical choices, especially whistle-blowers, as is discussed in Section 25.1.8. Often, chemical engineers who no longer have young children or who have saved well for retirement express more willingness to do what they feel is ethically correct. It is unclear whether this expressed willingness translates into action. Some choose to live more frugally, and others choose jobs that require fewer or less difficult ethical choices. Those who become overcommitted—for example, financially—and then feel compelled to make the choice to perform an act that they consider ethically wrong seldom would claim to be morally autonomous, let alone happy, as seen in Example 25.4.

25.1.6 Duties and Obligations

Chemical engineers have certain duties by virtue of their positions, and they acquire other obligations in a number of ways—for example, by accepting assignments, joining professional organizations, and through their family choices. Throughout ethical problem solving, one needs to remind oneself of all of the duties and obligations to which one has agreed.

According to the National Science Foundation, less than 1% of the U.S. population are engineers. Of these, fewer than one in ten are chemical engineers. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers estimates that only 0.05% of U.S. citizens are chemical engineers. Clearly, the vast majority of people are not and do not think like chemical engineers. Few will understand what chemical engineers do, but all will be affected by their actions. Keeping this fact in mind helps to put the awesome responsibilities of chemical engineers in perspective.

An individual’s duties and obligations form the basis for some additional important heuristics in ethical problem solving:

• Remind yourself of relevant duties and obligations that you have accepted.

• Remind yourself of otherwise relevant duties and obligations that you have not accepted.

• When accepted duties and obligations are necessarily in conflict, rank these responsibilities.

• If you choose a solution that violates an obligation, discuss the decision with those to whom the obligation was made and determine the consequences.

25.1.7 Codes of Ethics

Codes of ethics are formal obligations that persons accept when they join organizations or when they are allowed to enter a profession. In chemical engineering, there are three main types of codes of ethics: employer, technical society, and government. The employer-based codes of ethics are usually incorporated into the codes of business conduct that one agrees to upon employment with a particular firm. These are covered in Section 25.4. The government-based codes are the professional engineer rules, regulations, and laws that exist in all states and territories of the United States and their counterparts throughout the world. These are covered in Section 25.2.

The most important technical society code for U.S. chemical engineers is the “Code of Ethics” of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Similar codes have been adopted by other engineering societies. When you sign your application for membership in AIChE, you agree to abide by this code (Figure 25.1).

Figure 25.1 AIChE Code of Ethics (Reprinted with Permission of AIChE, Approved November 2015)

The code can be divided into three parts. The first part identifies to whom the code applies (members of AIChE) and the purpose of the code (to uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the engineering profession). Note that this purpose is based on the historical concept that each member of a group (AIChE in this case) has a responsibility to help maintain the “good name” of all members of the group through professional behaviors that tend to increase the trust that society has in the profession. This is a powerful concept in ethics because it acknowledges that the unethical behavior of one member can create trust issues between the society and each member of the profession. Thus, each member has a vested interest in the ethical behavior of all members.

The second part is the list of three goals that identify the duties that chemical engineers have (being honest, impartial, loyal), to whom (employers, clients, the public, the profession), and why (enhancement of human welfare). It also points out that practicing chemical engineering ethically involves improving the profession (striving to increase competence). This section serves at least two important purposes. First, as a chemical engineer reads the goals, he or she realizes the very broad responsibilities to the society that may not be apparent in day-to-day work. A decision made by a chemical engineer might save thousands of lives by providing fertilizer to grow much-needed food, or a decision might kill scores of people in a catastrophic release of toxic materials. These goals are a powerful tool in helping chemical engineers to do the right thing. Second, the list of goals points out quite clearly that not all goals can be met simultaneously all of the time. In fact, one frequently encounters ethical dilemmas, in which no choice is a perfect choice, completely satisfying all of our moral, legal, and ethical responsibilities.

The third part of the code of ethics concerns 11 relatively specific responsibilities that chemical engineers have. Many ethical problems can be attacked by referring to these responsibilities. While reiterating and clarifying the responsibilities of chemical engineers for the safety and health of the society at large, they speak to the responsibilities to clients, employers, employees, and the profession itself. Of particular note are two principles that are sometimes overlooked by beginning engineers. Both refer to the need for continuing education. The seventh principle states that chemical engineers shall “perform professional services only in their areas of competence.” It may be obvious that a chemical engineer should not be doing electrical engineering work without having had significant education in the relevant area of electrical engineering, but, even within chemical engineering, there are many areas that are not taught in even the most rigorous B.S.Ch.E. program. Therefore, throughout one’s career, one is required by the code to evaluate one’s own chemical engineering capabilities continuously and to acquire any needed education (through reading, working with more experienced engineers, consulting experts, or taking courses) before accepting an assignment in any area of chemical engineering. This principle states that the chemical engineer, not some outside governmental agency, must take final responsibility for professional competence. A governmental agency may certify you as a professional engineer after you pass some day-long examinations and a multiyear internship, but you are still the responsible party for your own chemical engineering competence.

The ninth principle states that chemical engineers shall “continue their professional development throughout their careers, and provide opportunities for the professional development of those under their supervision.” Many young engineers may think that chemical engineering education ends after the B.S., the M.S., or surely after the Ph.D., but the code makes it clear that this is not the case. In the past 50 years, tremendous strides have been made in chemical engineering, and at least as great a change is certainly expected in the next 50 years. Thus, it is both necessary and required to keep up with the latest advances through such activities as participating in in-house (i.e., within the company) training programs, taking continuing education courses offered by AIChE, universities, and other organizations, reading technical journals, consulting with experts, and so on. The facts that are learned during the B.S. experience are overshadowed by the strategies that are learned to attack problems. And some of the greatest of these problems are to evaluate personal knowledge, to decide what new material needs to be learned, and to develop and implement a plan to acquire that new knowledge.

But why are these principles “ethical” considerations? Upon claiming to be a chemical engineer, society in general (and employers, clients, and employees in particular) puts trust in that individual. To earn that trust, competence is required; however, most people do not have the background to judge the competence of a chemical engineer. Therefore, it is an ethical responsibility for the chemical engineer to practice within a scope of competency that can be defined completely only by that chemical engineer. And, as technology expands, a chemical engineer’s capability must expand just to maintain a given scope of competency.

In addition to the AIChE code of ethics, two other codes are frequently used in chemical engineering. One is called the “Engineers’ Creed”:

As a professional engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the advancement and betterment of human welfare. I pledge to give the utmost of performance, to participate in none but honest enterprise, to live and work according to the laws of man and the highest standards of professional conduct, to place service before profit, honor and standing of the profession before personal advantage, and the public welfare above all other considerations. In humility and with need for divine guidance, I make this pledge.

Some states incorporate this creed into the code of ethics for professional engineers, and some engineering colleges ask engineering graduates to recite this creed at the commencement ceremonies. The Engineers’ Creed is a very much more general and “moral” (as opposed to ethical) obligation than is the AIChE code of ethics. The creed can serve as a bonding and an inspirational pledge.

The third common code of ethics is that of the National Society for Professional Engineers (Figure 25.2). This code is more detailed and more specific than is the AIChE code of ethics. It not only includes the canons and principles that are the total of the AIChE code, but it also prescribes rather specific actions to take in specific circumstances. The NSPE code applies to those who join the organization and to those licensed to practice engineering in states where this code is included in the professional engineers’ code. However, it is instructive for any chemical engineer to read the NSPE code periodically, as a reminder of some of the ethical problems that arise in the profession.

Figure 25.2 NSPE Code of Ethics (From The NSPE Ethics Reference Guide [Alexandria: National Society of Professional Engineers, 2011]. Reprinted with Permission of NSPE [11])

25.1.8 Whistle-Blowing [12]

When a chemical engineer notices behavior that is possibly or potentially unethical, the question is: What action should he or she take? As noted in the AIChE and NSPE codes of ethics, there are specific avenues for action in the form of heuristics. For example, the AIChE code requires members to “formally advise their employers or clients (and consider further disclosure, if warranted) if they perceive that a consequence of their duties will adversely affect the present or future health or safety of their colleagues or the public.” The code also requires chemical engineers to “offer objective criticism of the work of others.” The code states that chemical engineers shall “issue statements or present information only in an objective and truthful manner.” It is clear that a chemical engineer has the responsibility to tell those who engage his or her professional services when there is a problem or potential problem. It is clear that the chemical engineer should be truthful. What is not so clear is what a chemical engineer should do if, after such disclosure, the situation persists.

When is further disclosure “warranted”? What is further disclosure? Does a chemical engineer have a responsibility to disclose further, if warranted? What are the likely consequences of further disclosure? These questions are likely to be the most difficult and most important of one’s professional career.

Deciding that further disclosure is warranted and then making that disclosure is called whistle-blowing. Most instances of whistle-blowing share the following characteristics:

1. Whistle-blowing rarely results in correction of the specific situation; however, it sometimes changes the prevailing strategy for decision making and thus reduces the chance of a further occurrence.

2. Whistle-blowing often brings about severe personal and professional problems for the whistle-blower.

Given the above characteristics, why would any chemical engineer be a whistle-blower? All three codes of ethics mentioned in Section 25.1.7 require chemical engineers to dedicate their skills to the public welfare, and whistle-blowing has led to improved automobile safety, safer nuclear and chemical plants, better control of toxic wastes, reduced government waste, safety improvements in NASA launches, and other laudable results. Whistle-blowers themselves have stated that they could not stand the stress of nondisclosure, which they viewed as an abdication of their ethical responsibilities. In other words, they could be morally autonomous only by whistle-blowing.

Many laws have been created that protect some whistle-blowers in some circumstances. Federal employees are probably the most protected. There is a specific conduit for an employee, former employee, or applicant for federal employment to make a whistle-blowing disclosure, with the identity of the whistle-blower protected to some extent. And no federal employee may engage in reprisal for whistle-blowing—“take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; abuse of authority; and substantial and specific danger to public health and safety” (U.S. Code § 2302(b)). Employees in the private sector are protected by other laws and regulations, many of which are summarized on the Department of Labor Web site (https://www.whistleblowers.gov). Many whistle-blower laws and regulations exist in other countries and at state and local levels. In each case, there is a limited period (30 days is not uncommon) during which to file a complaint of retaliation. It should be noted that even though the professional engineers’ code of ethics requires whistle-blowing in some states, protection of the whistle-blower is not ensured. Many states have “employment at will” laws, giving any employer the right to fire an employee for any (or no) reason, and this can make it difficult to prove reprisal. Engineers in private practice (as sole proprietors or partners) may not be protected by many of these laws.

It is possible to go through an entire chemical engineering career without whistle-blowing, but it is unlikely to go through a 40-year career without having to face the question of whether or not to blow the whistle. Thus, to be able to have the moral autonomy to make the decision, what would be done should be considered.

Before deciding to blow the whistle, four key questions need to be examined:

1. What Should Be Done to Solve the Problem without Whistle-Blowing? The assumption here is that a resolution of the problem through normal channels is likely to be more effective, more timely, and less stressful than whistle-blowing would be. The AIChE and NSPE codes require that one attempt these avenues, if they are likely to be successful. Furthermore, most whistle-blowers (successful or not) indicate that whistle-blowing should be a last resort.

2. Is Whistle-Blowing Likely to Solve the Problem? One needs to be reasonably certain that there is a problem and that the disclosure outside normal channels will resolve it. Although merely exposing a problem may make one feel virtuous, such action would not be considered whistle-blowing unless the problem were, in the view of the whistle-blower, serious, and unless the disclosure were likely to effect a change for the better.

3. What Whistle-Blowing Actions Should Be Taken? Some whistle-blowing occurs within an organization, the most common being going over one’s boss’s head. Other whistle-blowing involves disclosures (anonymous or attributed) to the news media. Many levels of action between these two examples are possible. One must consider the action that is most likely to effect the change that one wants, consistent with the risks that one is willing to take. The goal is to change the situation for the better, not just to expose it.

4. What Are the Potential Consequences to One’s Personal and Professional Life? The consequences of disclosure are often serious. Loss of one’s job is a clear possibility. Identification as a whistle-blower can derail or end one’s career; finding another job may be very difficult. If the disclosure results in a plant closing, loss of jobs, or financial loss to the company or to other property owners, those affected may be very angry with the whistle-blower. One’s family may encounter cruel treatment from those who consider the whistle-blower to be the problem. On the other hand, nondisclosure could result in danger to employees or to the general public, financial damage to shareholders or to taxpayers, or charges of a cover-up. Most whistle-blowers recommend early discussion of any potential whistle-blowing action with one’s family. Nearly all wish they had legal protection from retribution. Some of these whistle-blowing issues are demonstrated in Example 25.5.

25.1.9 Ethical Dilemmas

Some ethical problems can be solved easily. In fact, this is done every day. The goal of this chapter is to help the reader to prepare for the difficult choices, the answers to the ethical dilemmas. Some problems (such as the examples in this chapter and the problems at the end) have no “perfect” solution. Whistle-blowing, for example, may satisfy one ethical obligation while violating another. The same can be said of not blowing the whistle. A simple example that many would judge an ethical dilemma is Example 25.6.

At first, many may think the answer is obvious. Some will wonder whether this example is even an ethical dilemma. Yet if five people are asked for their responses, it is likely that there will be more than one answer. What are the student’s obligations to Company X after accepting employment but before becoming an employee? Some companies have rescinded job offers after they have been accepted. Does this fact change Robin’s obligations? Should Robin’s family responsibilities affect the solution?

When faced with an ethical dilemma, ethical obligations should be ranked. This is perhaps the important heuristic in solving ethical dilemmas, but here are others:

• Rank order your ethical obligations again after brainstorming for solutions.

• Admit that you may not be able to satisfy all of your obligations, but then try to satisfy them all.

• Combine the individual actions identified in the brainstorming into action plans. Evaluate each entire plan (rather than individual actions) for its consequences and effectiveness.

• At some point in the decision-making process, involve those who are most affected by the consequences but who are not active participants in the solution (often family, friends, trusted colleagues).

25.1.10 Additional Ethics Heuristics

Many heuristics for the solution of ethical problems have been presented in Section 25.1. A crucial heuristic is always try to develop new heuristics. In this vein, more heuristics are offered:

• Acquire all the information you can about the situation. The problem may be more serious and/or complicated than it first appears, or there may be no real problem at all.

• Be honest and open. This is especially important when dealing with those who are predisposed to distrust you.

• Acknowledge the concerns of others, whether or not you share their concerns.

• Remember that one is only as ethical as one can afford to be. One can enhance one’s ability to afford to do the right thing by knowing the consequences and by balancing the responsibilities that one accepts with the rest of one’s life.

For other heuristics and for cases to use for rehearsal, see the references listed at the end of this chapter and the Internet-based resources given in the following section.

25.1.11 Other Resources

There are a myriad of resources on engineering ethics. The following are a few of the most helpful.

Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society. This center, founded in 2007, incorporates the Online Ethics Center (http://www.onlineethics.org), which has many engineering ethics resources, including the following:

• Ethics Cases: More than 470 engineering ethics cases that have been developed by organizations (such as NSPE), universities, and others can be accessed through this Web site, as well as dozens of essays on engineering ethics. These include famous accidents with significant engineering ethics issues, such as Three-Mile Island and the space shuttle Challenger.

• Moral Exemplars: These are accounts of engineers and scientists showing leadership in very difficult and important ethical situations.

• Ethics Codes and Guidelines: There are links to several dozen engineering and science codes of ethics, both in the United States and in other countries.

• Educational Resources: This section of the Web site provides typical assignments, syllabi, strategies for exploring professional ethics, and assessment procedures.

Engineering Ethics at TAMU. This Web site at http://ethics.tamu.edu was developed at Texas A&M University through a National Science Foundation grant and provides the ethics case studies mentioned above, as well as links to current news media articles on real ethics issues.

National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE). This Web site (http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/center/niee/) is maintained by the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism at Texas Tech University. This institute was initially created by NSPE, and it developed and distributes the excellent engineering ethics videos titled “Gilbane Gold” (1989), “Incident at Morales” (2003), and “Henry’s Daughters” (2010). Additional study materials are available for each. The NSPE ethics cases since 1976 are also available, as is the Ethics Resource Guide, an extensive bibliography of 400 books, articles, and videos on engineering ethics. Additional resources available through this Web site include the following:

• Applied Ethics in Professional Practice Case of the Month. Each month, a new ethics case is presented. One can respond with a suggested action, and the results of these responses are available on the site the next month.

• Ethics Resource Guide. An extensive bibliography of 400 books, articles, and videos on engineering ethics is given.

• NAFTA Ethics. This is a report describing the efforts under the North American Free Trade Agreement to develop a code of ethics for engineering throughout Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The “Principles of Ethical Conduct in Engineering Practice under the North American Free Trade Agreement” are presented. These principles include the aspects of the AIChE code of ethics and go further in two specific areas. The NAFTA principles specifically recognize the responsibility of all engineers to strive for efficient use and conservation of the world’s resources and energy and to examine the environmental impact of their actions. It also specifies that whistle-blowing (although that term is not used) is a responsibility of all engineers and that the order of disclosure should be to employer, client, public agencies, and the public.

American Chemical Society. This technical society is for chemists and chemical engineers, although chemists outnumber chemical engineers by a wide margin. The ACS “Chemical Professional’s Code of Conduct” is given in Figure 25.3. This code is “for the guidance of Society members” and is not a formal agreement when one accepts membership, as is the case for AIChE. It also focuses more on scientific integrity and less on professional responsibility to the public than do the engineering codes of ethics.

Figure 25.3 Chemical Professional’s Code of Conduct (Reprinted with Permission of the American Chemical Society

National Society of Professional Engineers. The Web site of NSPE (http://www.nspe.org) contains one of the most extensive collections of items related to engineering ethics. There are 500 cases (1958–2010) from the Board of Ethical Review, a list of articles, books, Web sites, and the following videos:

• “Henry’s Daughters”: This 32-minute video involves ethical complications when a father consults for a company that is in direct competition with another company employing his daughter. The winner of the competition is to be decided by a Department of Transportation team led by his other daughter. A study guide, script, presentation handout, and suggested assignment can be downloaded from the NIEE Web site. Produced in 2010, with subtitles in 13 languages.

• “Gilbane Gold”: This 24-minute video presents an excellent case study involving a chemical/environmental engineer, an electrical engineer, a manager, a mechanical/industrial engineer, a public agency, two engineering consultants, and the news media. A study guide, PowerPoint presentation, and the script can be downloaded free from the NIEE Web site. Produced in 1989.

• “Incident at Morales”: This 36-minute DVD presents a complex case involving a new chemical product, moving production from the United States to Mexico, environmental, technical, safety, and financial concerns, and the need to make decisions quickly. A study guide, PowerPoint presentation, and the script can be downloaded free from the NIEE Web site. Produced in 2003, rereleased in 2005 with subtitles in 13 languages.

• “Ethics Test”: This 25-item, true-false examination is an excellent way to examine one’s knowledge of the NSPE code of ethics. Answers, with section references, are provided.

25.2 Professional Registration

To be recognized as a chemical engineer and to offer such services to the public, it is necessary to be a licensed (registered) professional engineer. Each state (and other U.S. jurisdictions) has its own Board of Professional Engineers and its own regulations on licensure and practice. However, engineers registered in one state can generally become registered in any other state: the experience must be certified, testing may be required, there may be other requirements to the new state, and a fee must be paid.

Although the professional engineer laws bar those not registered from offering their engineering services to the public, most states have a “corporate exemption.” This exemption excludes from the licensure requirement engineers who offer their engineering services only to their employer and not to any outside firm or individual. If the firm offers engineering services, a licensed professional engineer must still sign, seal, and take responsibility for all such services. Stretched to the limit, this would mean that only the chief engineer of the firm would need to be a professional engineer. However, because the seal of the professional engineer on the engineering report or drawing certifies that the details of work have been checked by that engineer, in practice, all principal engineers in the firm need to be licensed. In the language of the law, anyone in “responsible charge” of engineering work must be licensed.

There are many reasons to become a licensed professional engineer, even though many chemical engineers historically have not been.

1. One cannot be in “responsible charge” of engineering work that will be offered to other firms or to the public (or indeed call oneself an “engineer” in some states) without a PE license. Effectively, this means that chemical engineers who work for engineering design or engineering and construction firms need to be licensed early in their careers. Chemical engineers in many other kinds of firms will need to be licensed before they can rise above a certain technical level. And one cannot be a consultant or an expert witness without a license.

2. The corporate exemption described above is under review in many states and could be eliminated. This is a serious career concern, because most states have already eliminated the “grandfather clauses” that previously allowed someone with many years of significant experience in the field to be granted a PE license without the normal examinations. If the corporate exemption is rescinded, the status of engineers who are licensed will be enhanced, whereas other engineers will need to study for and pass the examinations and to document the appropriate years of engineering experience just to retain their status.

3. In the past, many states exempted their own government employees from PE requirements; however, there is a strong move to eliminate all such exemptions. In fact, many states now require all government employees who have the word engineer in their job title to be PEs. There is also a move to require engineering design professors to be registered, which is already the case in 11 states.

4. Professional engineer registration is an indication to potential employers, as well as to the general public, of one’s competence in the field.

There are two steps to becoming registered: engineer-in-training and professional engineer.

25.2.1 Engineer-in-Training

The first level of certification is as an engineer-in-training (EIT). As an EIT (also known as an engineering intern), one may begin to acquire engineering experience as an employee, but one may not offer services as an engineer directly to the public (or to firms other than one’s employer). To obtain EIT certification, one must take and pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, sometimes referred to as the EIT exam. This is a six-hour, closed-book, largely multiple-choice examination on a wide range of technical subjects typically covered in chemical engineering programs. The exam is given at authorized, computer-based testing centers throughout the year. More information is available at http://www.ncees.org.

To sit for the FE exam, one must have completed or be about to complete a B.S. in an engineering field from a department that is accredited by ABET. Most U.S. chemical engineering departments are so accredited, and an increasing number of programs outside the U.S. are becoming accredited by ABET. Some states still allow a person with a nonengineering degree (or a nonaccredited engineering degree) to take the exam after acquiring substantial experience. Applicants with engineering degrees from other countries can sit for the exam if ABET certifies that the curriculum they followed is “substantially equivalent” to a U.S. ABET-accredited program. All applicants must pay a fee to the state board, and references must be provided to certify that one is of good character. The address of the State Board for Professional Engineers can be obtained from any chemical engineering department or on the Internet at http://www.ncees.org.

The examination is best taken while still an undergraduate. The examination is written by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES, Clemson, SC 29633, http://www.ncees.org), from whom sample examinations and study materials can be obtained. A 260-page NCEES FE Supplied-Reference Handbook is provided at the examination. Applicants cannot bring any materials to the examination except a calculator that meets certain requirements. The FE Supplied-Reference Handbook is available for free downloading from the NCEES Web site, and it should be studied extensively before the examination date.

The FE exam consists of 110 multiple-choice questions (four choices per question) on the specific engineering field chosen, with a few questions that might involve multiple correct choices, point-and-click answers, drag-and-drop answers, or fill in the blank answers. There are separate exams for chemical, civil, electrical and computer, environmental, industrial and systems, and mechanical engineering plus one for other disciplines. Table 25.1 shows the breakdown of topics for the chemical engineering exam.

Over the years, the definitions of these subject categories have changed. The latest information is always available on the NCEES Web site.

Many engineering schools provide refresher courses. In addition to this refresher, or in case no such opportunity is available, a good strategy for preparing for the examination is the following:

1. At least six weeks before the exam, form a study group of people who are planning to take the FE exam on the same day.

2. Study all the chapters of the FE Supplied-Reference Handbook. There are two reasons to do this. First, this is the only reference material available during the exam. Second, it shows the level of depth, breadth, and detail that is involved in the examination questions. Become familiar with the location of the material in the book and the use of the table of contents and the index. If any parts of these chapters are unfamiliar, study those topics using prior course notes, textbooks, and FE study books. This part of the preparation should take about two weeks.

3. If any of the topics covered in the chapters are unfamiliar because they were not covered in your curriculum, consult the course instructor for appropriate introductory textbooks and study guides. The group should study these topics together. In most cases, this should take about a week.

4. Purchase sample exams either through the NCEES Web site or through one of the many commercially available FE study books.

5. Randomly choose 10 questions for each member of the study group. Each member takes one exam in 30 minutes, using only the FE Supplied-Reference Handbook and an approved calculator (see the NCEES Web site). After the exam is taken, look at the correct answers and then share experiences among the group members, in terms of both test-taking strategy and the questions themselves.

6. After studying the topics of the questions answered incorrectly in Step 5, a quarter-scale or half-scale version of the exam should be attempted, about a week later. Again, the experiences of all group members should be shared.

7. After studying any topics related to questions answered incorrectly on this exam, a final, full-length practice exam should be taken under real FE exam conditions. In all of these postexam study sessions, it is important to study the general topic area of concern, and not just the specific question.

8. On the night before the exam, a good night’s rest is essential. On the day of the exam, arrival at the exam site early is a must.

Scores on the FE examination available seven to ten days after the test date. The NCEES recalibrates the passing score because some examinations turn out to be slightly more or less difficult than anticipated. The procedure used to perform this recalibration is standard across nearly all standardized tests; the typical passing score is 70%. For the 2016 FE examinations, 74% of all applicants taking the chemical engineering FE exam for the first time passed. Rules for retaking the exam vary from state to state.

Many engineers who take the FE exam after they graduate wish they had taken it earlier. The examination is geared toward the material covered in B.S. engineering programs, and many engineers become more specialized during their careers. Those engineers would require more preparation for the FE examination. Also, the designation of engineer-in-training on one’s credentials certainly makes a candidate more attractive to a potential employer. Finally, the next step in the registration process requires specific engineering experience, and many states count only experience that is gained after registration as an engineer-in-training. Thus, if one decides to become a PE at a later date, one may have to wait four years more to become registered. Significant opportunities may be lost in the meantime.

25.2.2 Registered Professional Engineer

After becoming an engineer-in-training, one must acquire considerable engineering experience before taking the Principles and Practice examination (often called the PE exam). In most states, four years of responsible work must be certified by engineers for whom the applicant has worked or engineers who have reviewed the applicant’s work in detail and can attest to its quality. Generally, only registered professional engineers may certify experience. Character references are also required.

The Chemical Engineering Principles and Practice exam is an nine-hour, open-book, multiple-choice examination. There are 80 questions, mostly multiple choice; however, there are also alternative item types as in the FE exam. A separate exam is given for each field of engineering. The Chemical Engineering exam is administered electronically and year-round at authorized testing centers. As with the FE exam, recalibration to ensure uniform difficulty in passing the examination is performed. On the April 2017 Chemical Engineering PE exam, 73% of applicants taking the exam for the first time passed. Only 39% of those retaking the exam passed. The results are available seven to ten days after taking the exam.

The difficulty of questions on the PE exam is roughly equivalent to that of the questions on a final exam in the respective course. The questions are design oriented. The topics covered are shown in Table 25.2. Note that thermodynamics questions are included in both the mass and the energy balances subjects and in the mass transfer subject. Preparing for the PE exam generally takes more effort than preparing for the FE exam. Full-length, hard-copy practice exams are available from NCEES and various publishers. Many applicants also take a refresher course, available through AIChE local sections and commercial services. In addition to the national Chemical Engineering PE exam, most states require a short law exam on the legal requirements for engineering practice in that state.

To renew a PE license, continuing professional competency must be demonstrated by documenting 15 professional development hours (PDHs) per year, although some states allow averaging over two years. Typical activities that can count (under specific rules) for PDHs are taking a course, attending seminars, publishing articles or books, and receiving a patent.

A PE license can be revoked by the state board for violation of the engineering code of ethics for that state. Such revocation becomes a matter of public record.

25.3 Legal Liability [13]

Chemical engineers often encounter legal liability for their work. Legal advice cannot be provided in this book, but some of the situations in which a chemical engineer should seek legal counsel are noted. Perhaps the best advice is to take a short course in legal issues for engineers early in your career and seek the advice of a licensed attorney if there are any doubts about your legal rights, obligations, or liabilities.

When applying for registration as an engineer-in-training or a professional engineer, each person is given a copy of the appropriate state laws and regulations and he or she is required to certify that these are understood. These should be studied in detail. Beyond these specific licensing requirements, a chemical engineer must deal with government regulations, contracts, and issues of civil and even criminal liability.

For example, throughout a chemical engineering career, it is necessary to deal with government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and others. Federal and state laws give these agencies authority to regulate industry and commerce by enacting various regulations. For federal agencies, these regulations are first published in the Federal Register and then periodically cataloged in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These documents are available in most large libraries and in all law libraries as well as online (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys). It is worthwhile to look at some of these regulations while you are still in school, to become aware of the scope, detail, and format of these documents. The regulations cover, for example, maximum concentrations for wastewater discharges, approved process safety procedures, and requirements for transportation of hazardous materials. They are generally written by technically trained professionals (often engineers), although the wording will have been checked by the legal staff. Thus, it is expected that competent chemical engineers can and will read, understand, and follow these regulations.

Sometimes the engineer’s responsibilities are greater than they might first appear. For example, OSHA sets maximum permissible employee exposure levels for many substances, but adherence to these may not be enough, because the general duty clause of the OSHA Act of 1970 has been interpreted as requiring an employer to avoid exposing employees to any hazards that are known or that should be known to the employer. If a substance is known to cause harmful effects (e.g., such a study has been published or the company has proprietary knowledge of such effects), the employer must control employee exposure even though OSHA has no standard for that substance.

Contracts are another form of legally binding document, in which two or more parties agree to accept one or more obligations. Before signing any written contract or agreeing to any oral contract, one should understand one’s obligations and what consideration (e.g., payment) is promised in return from the other party. Upon obtaining employment, one may be asked to sign an employment contract in which consideration (salary) is offered in return for certain chemical engineering services to the firm, and for adherence to specific codes of conduct (see Section 25.4). If any aspect of a contract is unclear, one should obtain legal counsel. If one is signing the contract on behalf of the firm, the firm’s attorney is consulted. If one is signing as an individual, a private attorney is consulted. Whenever there is any indication that either party may not live up to its obligations, appropriate counsel should be consulted.

Beyond the legal issues of contracts, civil legal actions (known as torts) sometimes involve engineers. These suits are brought when some action or lack of action by the defendant is alleged to have caused injury (physical, financial, or emotional) to the plaintiff. Both compensatory damages (to pay for correction of the injury) and punitive damages (to punish the party that did the injury) can be recovered by the plaintiff. Again, good advice here is to consult legal counsel whenever such circumstances arise or are anticipated to arise.

Finally, engineers can face criminal prosecution for actions such as falsifying records submitted to federal regulatory agencies or willfully subjecting employees to hazardous environments. Although such actions are rare, the penalties are severe.

25.4 Business Codes of Conduct [14,15]

Most firms have formal codes of conduct that must be adhered to as a condition of employment. Often one is asked to sign these on the first day of work. As with any contract, it is important to read and to understand all of the details and to then fulfill all of the obligations undertaken. If an employee does not adhere to the code, he or she may be fired.

In consideration for employment, a chemical engineer (or any employee) accepts what are called fiduciary responsibilities. This means that trust has been placed in the engineer to act faithfully for the good of the firm. This is a general legal principle and is covered in the AIChE code of ethics.

Related to fiduciary responsibilities is the avoidance of conflicts of interest. The focus here is to avoid circumstances where you have, or appear to have, contradictory obligations. For example, if you own stock in a valve manufacturer, it would be a conflict of interest if you were to order valves from that company for your present employer, if there were another supplier of equal-quality valves at a lower price. In general—and especially in government service, where the regulations are quite strict—not only actual conflicts of interest but also apparent conflicts of interest must be avoided. The test is that, if a reasonable person could reasonably assume there to be a conflict of interest, there is an apparent conflict of interest.

It is assumed that much information about employees will become known to the company. In a typical business code of conduct, personnel information must be kept confidential. That is, such information may not be released to anyone outside the firm and released only to those within the firm who have a clear need to know. Strict adherence to such an agreement is essential.

In the business code of conduct or in a proprietary secrecy or patent agreement, the employee agrees that certain knowledge gained and discoveries made through employment are the property of the firm and may not be divulged to others. It is crucial that engineers read and understand this agreement in detail before signing. Much of the value of a firm resides in proprietary knowledge, that is, knowledge that is not shared with others. Breaching a secrecy agreement can be very costly to a firm, and the engineer could be in serious legal trouble. Similarly, a firm hires a chemical engineer to do work that often results in patentable discoveries. If such discoveries are made on company time, with company property, or with proprietary knowledge, the patent agreement will require disclosure to the firm and assignment of patent rights to the firm. If discoveries are made completely outside the realm of employment, extremely careful and complete notes should be kept to avoid patent ownership difficulties.

If the firm has significant international operations, the code of conduct generally covers the conduct of employees representing the firm abroad. Because business customs vary widely from country to country, this can be an especially important subject. Before leaving the country on assignment, it is crucial to obtain as complete knowledge as possible both about the customs and laws of the other country and about any changes in business procedure that are authorized by the firm. The U.S. government forbids representatives of U.S. corporations from engaging in certain business practices, even if they are customary in that country.

A final aspect of business conduct that must be considered, and that might be included in the code of conduct, is employee relations. Specific guidelines for hiring and firing of employees must be followed to avoid legal difficulties. Whenever you are in a position to hire or fire, you must be proactive to learn the appropriate company procedures. There are specific legal requirements about what information you cannot request from job applicants and what information you can use to make employment decisions. Also, most business codes of conduct include requirements to avoid any discriminatory or harassing behavior. Good advice here, as mentioned above regarding conflicts of interest, is to avoid even the appearance of discrimination or sexual harassment.

25.5 Summary

In this chapter, the role of ethics in the chemical engineering profession was explained and strategies were provided for making ethical decisions. The framework for registration of professional engineers in the United States was also described, including strategies for preparing for the licensing examination.

References

1. Koen, B. V., Discussion of the Method: Conducting the Engineer’s Approach to Problem Solving (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

2. Kohn, P. M., and R. V. Hughson, “Engineering Ethics,” Chem. Eng. (May 5, 1980): 97–103. Responses in Hughson, R. V., and P. M. Kohn, “Ethics,” Chem. Eng. (September 22, 1980): 132–147.

3. Matley, J., and R. Greene, “Ethics of Health, Safety and Environment: What’s ‘Right,’” Chem. Eng. (March 2, 1987): 40–46. Responses in Matley, J., R. Greene, and C. McCauley, “Ethics of Health, Safety, and Environment: CE Readers Say What’s ‘Right,’” Chem. Eng. (September 28, 1987): 108–120.

4. Mascone, C. F., A. G. Santaquilani, and C. Butcher, “Engineering Ethics: What Are the Right Choices?” Chem. Eng. Prog. (April 1991): 61–64. Responses in Mascone, C. F., A. G. Santaquilani, and C. Butcher, “Engineering Ethics: How ChEs Respond,” Chem. Eng. Prog. (October 1991): 73–82.

5. Rosenzweig, M., and C. Butcher, “Can You Use That Knowledge?” Chem. Eng. Prog. (April 1992): 76–80. Responses in Rosenzweig, M., and C. Butcher, “Should You Use That Knowledge?” Chem. Eng. Prog. 7 (October 1992): 85–92.

6. Woods, D. R., Financial Decision Making in the Process Industries (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975).

7. Woods, D. R., “Teaching Professional Ethics,” Chem. Eng. Educ. 18, no. 3 (1984): 106.

8. Schön, D. A., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books, 1983); Schön, D. A., Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987).

9. Fogler, H. S., and S. E. LeBlanc, Strategies for Creative Problem Solving (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).

10. Woods, D. R., A Strategy for Problem Solving, 3rd ed. (Hamilton, Ontario: Department of Chemical Engineering, McMaster University, 1985).

11. The NSPE Ethics Reference Guide (Alexandria, VA: National Society of Professional Engineers, 2011).

12. Martin, M. W., and R. Schinzinger, Ethics in Engineering, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004); Schinzinger, R., and M. W. Martin, Introduction to Engineering Ethics, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010).

13. Heines, M. H., and K. B. Dow, “Proprietary Information: What Are Your Rights and Responsibilities?” Chem. Eng. Prog. (July 1994): 78–84.

14. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 3rd ed. (Washington: National Academy Press, 2009).

15. Unger, S. H., Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994).

Problems

1. Proprietary Information [6]: I am a senior. Last summer, I had an excellent job designing a new type of heat exchanger that the company was developing. When I returned to school, my professor asked me to use my knowledge on a design project, and to explain heat-exchanger design to other seniors in the design group. I really feel that I have something exciting to share with my fellow classmates. Is it ethical for me to share my experiences with my colleagues?

2. Medical School [6]: I am a senior in chemical engineering, but I plan to go to medical school next year. I have not been accepted yet. I want a good summer job, and yet, if my application for medical school is turned down, I would want the job to be permanent. Jobs are hard to get, and the interviewers with whom I have talked so far will offer me permanent employment but not summer employment. I have three interviews left. What do I tell these interviewers?

3. Sophomore [6]: I am a sophomore. None of my classmates has a summer job. Jobs are hard to get, and I need money to pay for school next year. I have been offered a well-paying job with lots of engineering experience to work on the production of propellants/explosives for antipersonnel mines. Personally, I strongly believe that this product should not be manufactured. Should I accept the job? Should I tell the company of my personal beliefs?

4. Not a Hazard as Defined [3, Reprinted by special permission from Chemical Engineering, March 2, 1987, and September 28, 1987, Copyright © 1987 by McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY 10020]: In a unit where grain is steeped, sulfur dioxide is added directly to grain and water. Operators have long complained about sulfur dioxide fumes, citing runny noses, teary eyes, coughing, and headaches. The concentration has been checked many times and has always measured lower than OSHA specifications. Management’s stance has always been, “Don’t spend money to fix something if it isn’t broken.” A few employees have quit, citing allergies and other medical problems. Operators in the area have requested an engineering study to remedy the situation. Chris is given the job of investigating whether the exhaust fan should be replaced with an expensive ventilation system. What are Chris’s obligations? Can they all be met? What creative strategies can you suggest to Chris to deal with this situation?

5. Improving a Reaction [5, Reprinted with permission of AIChE]: Look up this article, and write a one-page response to the case. Then look up the reader responses. Write a one-page reflection on the case.

6. The Falsified Data Strike Back [2, Reprinted by special permission from Chemical Engineering, May 5, 1980, and September 22, 1980, Copyright © 1980 by McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY 10020]: In the case described in Section 25.1.2, Jay has written the report to suit the boss, and the company has gone ahead with an ambitious commercialization program for Catalyst A. Jay has been put in charge of the pilot plant where development work is being done on the project. To allay personal doubts, Jay runs some clandestine tests on the two catalysts. To Jay’s astonishment and dismay, the tests determine that even though Catalyst A works better under most conditions (as everyone had expected), at the operating conditions specified in the firm’s process design, Catalyst B is indeed considerably superior. What should Jay do?

7. Contact the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers in your area. Determine what code of ethics is required and what are the specific requirements for registration.

8. In a small group (approximately four students), obtain examples of codes of conduct from different companies and compare their features.

9. Develop five heuristics (not mentioned in this chapter) for ethical problem solving.

10. Develop a scenario of an ethical dilemma, and, in a small group, use a problem-solving strategy to analyze it.

11. Find the Process Safety Management regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations (29CFR1900.119), and write a two-page synopsis of it.

12. View the (24-minute) video “Gilbane Gold,” National Society for Professional Engineers, 1989. Evaluate the actions taken by the plant manager, the production engineer, the environmental engineer, and the two consulting engineers. Write a group report detailing this evaluation and referring to sections of the NSPE code of ethics where appropriate.

13. View the (two-hour) movie Acceptable Risks, ABC-TV productions, 1986. Evaluate the actions taken by the headquarters management, the plant manager, the production engineer, and the maintenance engineer. Write a group report detailing this evaluation and referring to sections of the AIChE code of ethics where appropriate.

14. Study the student code of conduct (sometimes referred to as the honor code, the definition of academic dishonesty, or the students’ rights and responsibilities) at your institution. Develop a hypothetical (but plausible) case concerning engineering students. Present the case to the class for a 30-minute discussion.

15. The NCEES Rules of Professional Conduct (in the FE Supplied-Reference Handbook) was developed as a model code to be accepted by or modified by the individual state boards of professional engineers. Compare it with the AIChE code of ethics and with the NSPE code of ethics.