Teaching Ethics Through Examples

Teaching Ethics through Examples

David Meredith, P.E. Penn State Fayette, the Eberly campus, Uniontown, PA 15401 Email: [email protected]

Abstract All four ABET Commissions include a student learning outcome related to “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.” Over the past decade, there have been numerous papers and sessions at ASEE meetings devoted to how, where and when to teach this topic. This paper will discuss the approach taken for an associate degree program in Engineering Technology that is accredited by TAC of ABET. To respond to the last two issues first, we believe it is important to incorporate ethics into a number of technical courses throughout the curriculum. As students mature, their ability to perceive ideas at a deeper level grows. By revisiting the tenants of the Engineering Code of Ethics several times, we think the students are more likely to retain the lesson.

This paper will discuss three specific activities that can each be incorporated in a single lecture and distributed to core courses across the curriculum. First is an introduction that uses a Venn diagram of “Cultural Ethics”, “Legal Ethics” and “Moral Ethics” to discuss a variety of societal problems from teenage drinking and premarital sex to plagiarism and copying homework. The goal is to have students recognize that they make ethical decisions every day and to give them a method to process their thoughts. The second session is to play an “ethics game” by using a series of mini-cases located at this URL: http://temp.onlineethics.org/corp/graymatters/martin.html. These could be taken individually followed by team discussion to prove the wisdom of group thinking as a secondary objective. The third session was presented to us just recently by a guest speaker and was too good of a topic to not be included here. Introduce the Code of Ethics for Engineers and compare the key phrases with the Code of Ethics for Doctors, Lawyers and Politicians. The basic premise is that Engineers are held to the highest level of ethics. That discussion was followed by several classic engineering disasters, which could now include the BP oil spill and the Japanese nuclear disasters of 2011.

Ethics: A matter of perspective

There are at least three perspectives on ethics. The first is the legal perspective. Certain activities (speed limits, drinking, marriage, drug use) have legal rules with associated punishments for violators. The second viewpoint is morality, generally guided by religious principles (abortion, premarital sex). The third perspective is the cultural – what peers feel is acceptable behavior. The behavior that is most acceptable is at the intersection of the three circles. But to find that “sweet spot,” students need to raise their awareness of all three viewpoints. This exercise does that.

To get students thinking about the issue of ethics from all three perspectives, I start with some general examples (under-age drinking, abortion, drug use) that have clear boundaries that most

Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 1 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education students will agree with. Then I redirect the discussion into more academic areas (copying homework, internet plagiarism). That discussion provides an opportunity for me to discuss University policy and sanctions for violators. Most students are surprised to learn that students who are dismissed for academic integrity issues have a hard time getting admitted to other institutions.

LEGAL MORAL

CULTURAL

Typical issues discussed using the Venn Diagram above A =Under-aged drinking B = Abortion C = Pre-marital sex D = Marijuana use E = Exceeding the speed limit F = Keeping extra change when shopping clerk makes mistake in your favor G = Studying last year’s exam to practice solving that type of problems H = Studying last year’s exam because you know the professor will use it again I = Submitting a paper that you have downloaded from the web for a grade J = “Adjusting” laboratory data so your results appear to be better than they are K = Copying homework problems and turning them in for a grade

The Ethics Game About 1993, George Sammet at Martin Marietta invented “Gray Matters,” an ethics game with up to 55 scenarios related to ethics. Today 22 of these scenarios are available on line at http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/workplace/workcases/Lockheed.aspx In each scenario students must choose among four possible solutions. Each solution has a predetermined point score ranging from –10 to +10. By breaking the class into teams, it becomes a competition to see which team has the best understanding of ethics. Combining these two activities together provides enough material to fill one classroom period, but we seldom get through all 22 scenarios. The most important aspect of the game is not the final score. It is the discussion that students have while arriving at their decisions. Engineering students seldom “let down their guard” and open up about social issues in technical classes. This is an opportunity for that to happen without the students realizing it.

By walking around the room while these 2-5 minute discussion are happening, it is often possible to find a teaching moment that transcends just an ethics discussion. For example, in one scenario, my only female in the class disagreed with her male peers (and happened to have the better answer). That provided an opportunity for me to emphasize why diversity is so important to the engineering profession. While a similar opportunity might arise related to race, religion or ethnicity, I have not experienced that opening yet.

Another experiential activity that this game can provide is for each student to record their personal response before discussing the options with teammates. In most instances, the decision of the team will yield more points than the average of the individual selections. This provides real-time data that supports the value of team decisions – another teaching moment. It also provides a starting point for discussion on why it is important to discuss ethical choices with others before making a final decision. Students – especially engineering students – tend to not want to discuss personal choice matters. But once they find out that their peers are dealing with similar issues, it becomes easier for them to “open up.”

From a faculty member’s perspective, it is sometimes difficult for those of us who spend most of our time with equations, simulations and spreadsheets to feel comfortable discussing these “soft” skills with students. All of us have “war stories” that we tell in class. If you can think of a couple that relate to ethics, share them (in general) with the students. That openness demonstrates that ethics is a topic that all engineers think about and have experienced. It makes students more receptive to broadening their viewpoint and considering how decisions might appear from other perspectives.

Comparing Codes of Ethics

Last semester, one of our part-time engineering instructors brought a retired former colleague to the campus to discuss engineering ethics. His presentation focused on two interesting topics. His first premise was that by their Code of Ethics, engineers are held to a higher standard than any other profession. His second topic focused on some examples where failures to practice by the Engineering Code of Ethics lead to disasters.

As shown in the table below, the Code of Ethics for NSPE and each of the professional engineering societies shown specifically state our professional concern for the “safety, health and welfare of the public.”

NSPE, ASCE, ASME, AAES: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. (Fundamental Canon)

<> AIChE: Members shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public . . .

<> IEEE: We, the members of the IEEE . . . , do hereby . . . agree to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public . . .

<> AIAA: The AIAA member will have proper regard for the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties.

If we compare the intensity of those words with the word selection in the Code of Ethics for other professions, the impact in other professions is not as definitive. In Canon 1 of the 2004 Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct1, the AIA asks that its members to “thoughtfully consider the social and environmental the impact of their professional activities.” One can thoughtfully consider the impact of their actions, but then choose a path that might put the public in danger or at least at risk.

AIA: “Members should . . . thoughtfully consider the social and environmental impact of their professional activities…”

The speaker’s data for the American Bar Association (ABA) is shown in the box below. This data is from the previous ABA Model Code of Professional Ethics, most recently published in 1980. The current ABA publication is a Model Rules of Professional Conduct2 most recently updated in 2004 and is 32 pages long. Generally the word “shall” has been replaced by “shall,” which does strengthen the intent of the directive. But the words “reasonable” or “reasonably” appear 95 times. So it appears that as long as a lawyer makes a claim that is “reasonably” accurate, they are within the bounds of their profession. Translated into an engineering scenario, we should not get sued if an airplane we design is “reasonably” safe. Fortunately, that will never happen in a profession that takes public safety as paramount.

<>ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility: Canons:

1. A lawyer should assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of the legal profession. 2. A lawyer should assist the legal profession in its duty to make legal counsel available. 3. A lawyer should assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law. 4. A lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of a client. 5. A lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client. 6. A lawyer should represent a client competently. 7. A lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law. 8. A lawyer should assist in improving the legal system. 9. A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety.

The American Medical Association most recently revised their Principles of Medical Ethics3 in 2001 which includes the following Principle related to public safety, health and welfare:

“VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.”

Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 4 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education So a physician is only required to “recognize a responsibility” to help the community and improve public health. That language is not as focused as holding those issues “paramount.” To recognize that you have a responsibility is weaker language that stating that you “shall hold paramount” language in the Engineering Code of Ethics.

Next we examine the Code of Conduct for Certified Public Accountants4 as published by the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA). Their statement is the most recently revised, being issued in November, 2011. Again the word “should” appears instead of “shall,” implying that members are not obligated to accept a duty to serve the public; the professional organization only hopes that the members agree with that responsibility.

AICPA: ET Section 53 - Article II The Public Interest Members should accept the obligation to act in a way that will serve the public interest, honor the public trust, and demonstrate commitment to professionalism.

The National Education Associate5 (NEA) includes one statement regarding health and safety in its code of ethics shown below. Again I would contend that to “hold paramount” trumps making “a reasonable effort” to protect the public.

NEA Code of Ethics Principle I: 4. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety.

Finally, we turn our attention to elected officials. The Presidential Oath of Office is defined in the U.S. constitution as shown in the table below. As long as a president performs “to the best of my ability” he has met his ethical obligation. Members of Congress also take an oath to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Obviously the quality of service provided by that elected official is dependent on his or her definition of what constitutes “faithful discharge.”

To get closer to home, we examine the Legislative Code of Ethics for the Ohio General Assembly. There is no reference to the terms “health, safety and welfare.” But in the box below is the Oath of office that all members of the Ohio General Assembly are required to take. The wording is almost identical to that of Congress.

6 <> US Constitution (Article II Section I) Presidential Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

6 <> US Constitution (Article VI) requires an oath binding all members of Congress to support the Constitution, but the form of the oath is not prescribed. The currently prevailing form is: "I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true

Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 5 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

<> Oath of Office for Ohio House of Representatives7: “I solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and faithfully to discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives.”

In my investigation of Codes of Ethics for various professions, I did find one that rivals the wording of the Code of Ethics for Engineers. The American Dental Association (ADA) published a 20-page Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct8 most recently in 2009. As demonstrated in the two extracted quotes below, the ADA expresses a concern for the welfare of both the patient and the general public. What is not quoted below is that the word “shall” appears 34 times in the document. Unfortunately, in the Preamble to this Code of Professional Conduct is a “should” sentence: “…these high ethical standards should be adopted and practiced…”

ADA: III. PRINCIPLES, CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ADVISORY OPINIONS

Section 2 PRINCIPLE: NONMALEFICENCE (“do no harm”). The dentist has a duty to refrain from harming the patient.

Section 3.A. COMMUNITY SERVICE. Since dentists have an obligation to use their skills, knowledge and experience for the improvement of the dental health of the public and are encouraged to be leaders in their community, dentists in such service shall conduct themselves in such a manner as to maintain or elevate the esteem of the profession.

Therefore based on this limited survey of the Codes of Conducts for most of the recognized professions, it appears that engineers are held to the highest standard. In fact no other profession requires the professional to stand behind their work until death like Professional Engineers and Registered Architects must do. To quote Frank Lloyd Wright, "A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines."

It is incumbent on us as Engineering and Technology faculty to ensure that our graduates understand this obligation to the profession. In a 2009 Gallup poll, engineers rank 5th out of 22 professions for the percentage of Americans giving a “high” or “very high” rating for honesty and ethical standards9. In the same poll, engineers were second from the bottom for the percentage of Americans giving a “low” or “very low” rating. The public’s faith in engineers has eroded in more recent polls, presumably due to events like the BP oil spill and Japan’s nuclear disaster.

Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 6 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education Examples of Engineering Disasters The final section is perhaps the most memorable for students, because it involves catastrophic failure of engineering designs. But the main lesson to be learned is that each of these failures can be linked back to a failure to follow the Code of Ethics in the practice of Engineering. Below I will outline some examples and offer references that can help build a more complete picture of each event.

Tacoma Narrows Bridge (11/7/1940) failed when a mid-span hanger cable slipped out of position. This allowed torsional vibration that was not analyzed prior to the installation. “Both flexural rigidity and torsional rigidity were substantially lower than prior art, because plate girders were used rather than stiffening trusses to reduce cost.” The bridge design was verbally criticized by David Steinman, a prominent bridge designer of that era, at a 1938 meeting of the ASCE Structural Division. But apparently the eminence of the designer, Leon Moisseiff, played a role in suppressing criticism of the design. The lesson learned by this event is that extrapolating designs too far beyond proven experience is risky. “If errors or failures occur, we must accept them as a price for human progress.” The ethical question that remains open is: Did Steinman have an ethical responsibility to continue to criticize what he considered a flawed design?

Silver Bridge (12/15/1967) across the Ohio River between Point Pleasant, WV and Kanauga, OH and a suspension system modeled after the Hercilio Luz Bridge near Florianopolis, Brazil. David Steinman was also initially involved with this design, but withdrew from the project when high strength (brittle) steel was substituted proposed by the contractor for the commonly-used 1020 steel to save cost. Steinman knew that cold weather aggravates brittleness, and considered the 60°F winter temperature as too cold. (Ohio often experiences sub zero conditions.) Today we also know that even though the high strength steel had twice the strength of 1020 steel, the brittle fracture energy provided was only 20% of the minimum value currently accepted for bridge designs.

Since the center span of the Silver Bridge was only 2/3 the length, designers scaled the forces as half those in the original design (a reasonable assumption). Since the Florianopolis Bridge had four eyebars in each bay, the designers concluded that two eyebars would be sufficient for the Silver bridge. These would be connected as shown at right below.

Hercilio Luz Bridge, Brazil Silver Bridge, Ohio

Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 7 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education In a perfect world, the design would have worked. But if one end connection failed in the original design, the vertical pin joint would be weaker but stable. In the new design, if an outer end connection fails, the pin joint becomes unstable. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. The outer eye was weakened due to a small stress crack about 0.1 inch deep went critical in the brittle, high strength steel. The cold weather (not a problem in Brazil) aggravated the problem and the complete bridge dropped within a few minutes. The initial crack would have been difficult to see during a bridge inspection. The failure was the design change that did not allow failure of individual eyebars. The ethical issue in this case is: Should more analysis have been done on the material properties? And who should have recognized the “single point of failure” caused by the design alternative used in the Silver Bridge?

Space Shuttle Challenger (1/28/1986) involved failure of an O-ring seal on the Solid Rocket Booster (SRB). The NASA design specification required that performance be demonstrated between 40°F and 90°F. The lowest temperature of a full-scale static test demo occurred at 53°F, and under those conditions, blow-by was observed. The thermal transfer effects caused by being mounted adjacent to the liquid hydrogen tank (–423°F) often caused the casing surface temperature to drop below 40°F. After casing fabrication was well under way, NASA initiated a weight reduction activity to reduce the wall thickness between SRB clevis joints. Engineers knew that would result in less O-ring squeeze as the internal pressure increased. Calculations showed that the artificial rubber material would be adequate at 40°F, but the lowest actual temperature experienced in-flight was 53°F on an early 1985 flight. The morning of the launch, the ambient temperature was +26°F, well below specification. Icicles were hanging from the aft section of the stiffening rings. Temperature readings using an infrared pyranometer near the aft field joint were 9°F and 7°F was recorded on the aft skirt. Launch was at 11:38 AM.

Deepwater Horizon and the BP Gulf Oil Spill (4/20/2010) Given enough safety short cuts, Murphy’s Law will sometimes catch up to you. The Deepwater Horizon crew knew the gasket on the Blow Out Preventer was damaged a month prior to the explosion. But the project was two months behind schedule and $29 million over budget. In early April, Halliburton reported to BP managers that the nitrogen foam cement planned for the well completion had failed two performance tests. On April 9, BP overruled Halliburton’s recommendation for a 5” production pipe with four redundant barriers to prevent unexpected flows and a 1-½” annulus for a good cement job. BP proposed a 7” production pipe with no redundancy and a ¾” cement seal. Computer simulations by Halliburton indicated 21 centralizers were needed to keep the final 1192 feet of production pipe centered to ensure a strong cement job. BP chose to only use the six centralizers on the rig – it would take too long to fly more out from shore. Standard practice was to pump at least 10 changes of mud through the final production pipe to ensure all rock chips and debris were removed before the final cement job. BP decided to stop after the first change of mud and make the final cement pour. They also decided to fill the 5000 feet of pipe between the rig on the surface and the hole at the bottom of the ocean with seawater instead of mud immediately after the cement job. That would make it easier to pull the drill stack from the ocean floor. While all this was going on, they knew there were continuing natural gas issues with this well. The final BP decision was to cancel the cement bond log test the next morning, even though it is a safety step required by Minerals Management Service (MMS), the federal agency responsible for well safety. The explosion occurred at 9:45 PM CDT.

Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE North Central Section Conference 8 Copyright © 2012, American Society for Engineering Education There are numerous other failures available on the internet. Making the connection back to ethics requires some open discussion. In the box below are some questions that might help start the conversation.

1. Under what cericumstances is an engineer required to protect somebody who chooses to mis-apply a product or design? Does it matter if they know that they are doing something stupid? 2. Are there relevant ethical issues in these disaster examples? 3. How can we design to prevent accidents? How far should the “what-if” questions go?

Conclusion Teaching ethics to students in their first few years of college requires more than a single lecture. Repetition is needed to ensure that the students get the message. Making learning about ethics more interactive by using games like Gray Matters also helps improve the retention of the lesson. Finally, use of examples of engineering failures provides opportunities for students to experience the consequences of not following the Engineering Code of Ethics in all matters of design.

References 1. http://archrecord.construction.com/practice/pdfs/04aia_ethics.pdf 2. 1http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional _conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html 3. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles- medical-ethics.page? 4. http://www.aicpa.org/Research/Standards/CodeofConduct/Pages/et_section_53__article_ii_the_public_inte rest.aspx 5. 1http://www.nea.org/home/30442.htm 6. 1http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html 7. 1http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/03/30/state-reps-voting-for-heartbeat-bill-broke-their-oath-of-office/ 8. 1http://www.specdental.org/SPEC_Website/SPEC_Home_files/2.%20ADA%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf 9. 1http://www.sodahead.com/fun/gallup-poll-shows-congress-to-be-least-trusted-occupation/blog-212277/ 10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw 11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) 12. Singer, Victor. Private correspondence 13. Othmar H. Ammann, Theodore von Kármán and Glenn B. Woodruff. The Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, a report to the administrator. Report ot the Federal Works Agency, Washingthon, 1941