Select Page
  

Read the National Society of Professional Engineers: Code of Ethics for Engineers and thefollowing ethics case study. Based on the code of ethics and your own independentanalysis and consideration, answer the following questions:a. Which, if any, of the elements of the code of ethics were or may have been violated bythe scenario’s principal actors? State each of those rules of practice or professionalobligation by number and summary content, and indicate how it applies to the situationat hand.b. What actions should have been taken? Again, state the elements (by number andsummary content) of the code of ethics that command or suggest to take those actions.
code_of_ethics_for_engineers.pdf

ethics_case_study_.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
National Society of Professional Engineers
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Code of Ethics for Engineers
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members
of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest
standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and
vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the
services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality,
fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection
of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must
perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires
adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically,
and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession.
II. Rules of Practice
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public.
a. If engineers’ judgment is overruled under
circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall
notify their employer or client and such other authority
as may be appropriate.
b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents
that are in conformity with applicable standards.
c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information
without the prior consent of the client or employer except
as authorized or required by law or this Code.
d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or
associate in business ventures with any person or firm
that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest
enterprise.
e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of
engineering by a person or firm.
f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of
this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional
bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and
cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such
information or assistance as may be required.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their
competence.
a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when
qualified by education or experience in the specific
technical fields involved.
b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans
or documents dealing with subject matter in which
they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not
prepared under their direction and control.
c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume
responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign
and seal the engineering documents for the entire project,
provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed
only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective
and truthful manner.
a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional
reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include
all relevant and pertinent information in such reports,
statements, or testimony, which should bear the date
indicating when it was current.
b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions
that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and
competence in the subject matter.
c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or
arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid
for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their
comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties
on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the
existence of any interest the engineers may have in the
matters.
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees.
a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts
of interest that could influence or appear to influence
their judgment or the quality of their services.
b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or
otherwise, from more than one party for services on
the same project, or for services pertaining to the same
project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and
agreed to by all interested parties.
c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other
valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside
agents in connection with the work for which they are
responsible.
d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or
employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental
body or department shall not participate in decisions with
respect to services solicited or provided by them or their
organizations in private or public engineering practice.
e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a
governmental body on which a principal or officer of their
organization serves as a member.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or
permit misrepresentation of their or their associates’
qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate
their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior
assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident
to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent
pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either
directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the
award of a contract by public authority, or which may be
reasonably construed by the public as having the effect
or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They
shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in
order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission,
percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work,
except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established
commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
III. Professional Obligations
1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the
highest standards of honesty and integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not
distort or alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when
they believe a project will not be successful.
c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to
the detriment of their regular work or interest. Before
accepting any outside engineering employment, they will
notify their employers.
d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from
another employer by false or misleading pretenses.
e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the
expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.
2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
a. Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs;
career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement
of the safety, health, and well-being of their community.
b. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or
specifications that are not in conformity with applicable
engineering standards. If the client or employer insists
on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the
proper authorities and withdraw from further service on
the project.
c. Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge
and appreciation of engineering and its achievements.
d. Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles
of sustainable development1 in order to protect the
environment for future generations.
1420 KING STREET • ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314-2794 • 888-285-NSPE (6773) • [email protected] • WWW.NSPE.ORG • PUBLICATION DATE AS REVISED JULY 2007 • PUBLICATION #1102
COPYRIGHT NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that
deceives the public.
a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing
a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a
material fact.
b. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may advertise
for recruitment of personnel.
c. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may prepare
articles for the lay or technical press, but such articles
shall not imply credit to the author for work performed
by others.
4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential
information concerning the business affairs or technical
processes of any present or former client or employer, or
public body on which they serve.
a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, promote or arrange for new
employment or practice in connection with a specific
project for which the engineer has gained particular
and specialized knowledge.
b. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, participate in or represent an
adversary interest in connection with a specific project
or proceeding in which the engineer has gained
particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former
client or employer.
5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional
duties by conflicting interests.
a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other
considerations, including free engineering designs,
from material or equipment suppliers for specifying
their product.
b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances,
directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties
dealing with clients or employers of the engineer
in connection with work for which the engineer is
responsible.
6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or
advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully
criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or
questionable methods.
a. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a
commission on a contingent basis under circumstances
in which their judgment may be compromised.
b. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time
engineering work only to the extent consistent with
policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical
considerations.
c. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment,
supplies, laboratory, or office facilities of an employer
to carry on outside private practice.
7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or
falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation,
prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or
illegal practice shall present such information to the
proper authority for action.
a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work
of another engineer for the same client, except with the
knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of
such engineer with the work has been terminated.
b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational
employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other
engineers when so required by their employment duties.
c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to
make engineering comparisons of represented products
with products of other suppliers.
8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their
professional activities, provided, however, that engineers
may seek indemnification for services arising out of
their practice for other than gross negligence, where the
engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected.
a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in
the practice of engineering.
b. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a
corporation, or partnership as a “cloak” for unethical acts.
9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those
to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary
interests of others.
a. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or
persons who may be individually responsible for designs,
inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
b. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize
that the designs remain the property of the client and
may not be duplicated by the engineer for others without
express permission.
c. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in
connection with which the engineer may make
improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other
records that may justify copyrights or patents, should
enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.
d. Engineers’ designs, data, records, and notes referring
exclusively to an employer’s work are the employer’s
property. The employer should indemnify the engineer
for use of the information for any purpose other than the
original purpose.
e. Engineers shall continue their professional development
throughout their careers and should keep current in their
specialty fields by engaging in professional practice,
participating in continuing education courses, reading
in the technical literature, and attending professional
meetings and seminars.
Footnote 1 “Sustainable development” is the challenge of meeting
human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy,
food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while
conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural
resource base essential for future development.
“By order of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, former Section 11(c) of the NSPE
Code of Ethics prohibiting competitive bidding, and all
policy statements, opinions, rulings or other guidelines
interpreting its scope, have been rescinded as unlawfully
interfering with the legal right of engineers, protected
under the antitrust laws, to provide price information to
prospective clients; accordingly, nothing contained in the
NSPE Code of Ethics, policy statements, opinions, rulings
or other guidelines prohibits the submission of price
quotations or competitive bids for engineering services
at any time or in any amount.”
Statement by NSPE Executive Committee
In order to correct misunderstandings which have been
indicated in some instances since the issuance of the
Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final Judgment,
it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978, the Supreme
Court of the United States declared: “The Sherman Act does
not require competitive bidding.”
It is further noted that as made clear in the Supreme Court
decision:
1. Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for
engineering services.
2. Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering
services.
3. Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures
to procure engineering services are not affected, and
remain in full force and effect.
4. State societies and local chapters are free to actively
and aggressively seek legislation for professional
selection and negotiation procedures by public
agencies.
5. State registration board rules of professional conduct,
including rules prohibiting competitive bidding for
engineering services, are not affected and remain in
full force and effect. State registration boards with
authority to adopt rules of professional conduct may
adopt rules governing procedures to obtain engineering
services.
6. As noted by the Supreme Court, “nothing in the
judgment prevents NSPE and its members from
attempting to influence governmental action . . .”
Note: In regard to the question of application of the Code to
corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should
not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code.
The Code deals with professional services, which services must
be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and
implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly
written to apply to the Engineer, and it is incumbent on members
of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all
pertinent sections of the Code.
1420 KING STREET • ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314-2794 • 888-285-NSPE (6773) • [email protected] • WWW.NSPE.ORG • PUBLICATION DATE AS REVISED JULY 2007 • PUBLICATION #1102
COPYRIGHT NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
EGR 101 – Fall 2018
Ethics Case Studies
Read the National Society of Professional Engineers: Code of Ethics for Engineers and the
following ethics case study. Based on the code of ethics and your own independent
analysis and consideration, answer the following questions:
a. Which, if any, of the elements of the code of ethics were or may have been violated by
the scenario’s principal actors? State each of those rules of practice or professional
obligation by number and summary content, and indicate how it applies to the situation
at hand.
b. What actions should have been taken? Again, state the elements (by number and
summary content) of the code of ethics that command or suggest to take those actions.
Project leader Bruce Barton was being sorely pressed to complete the development of
several engineering prototypes for a field test of a new appliance model for the XYZ
company. One particular plastic component of the new model had given difficulty in
laboratory tests as it failed repeatedly before reaching the stress level necessary for
successful operation. Bruce had directed a redesign of the component using a tough new
engineering plastic recommended by the Research Laboratory’s Material Science
Department. Stress tests needed to be run on the redesigned component, but Bruce was
running short of time and needed to get on with building the prototype.
Bruce sought out the manager of the Material Science Department for help in running
stress tests on samples of the new component. With this assistance he could go ahead with
prototype building and conduct the tests concurrently. The prototypes, of course, would
not be released to field test until the stress tests on the redesigned component proved its
design to be satisfactory.
Tom Mason, manager of the Material Science Department, was willing to assist because he
knew how critical completion of the development was to XYZ’s future appliance plans.
However, this was also a busy time for Tom’s department. So, Tom suggested to Bruce that
he could assign the test work to one of the engineering co-op students. Tom was also
coordinator of engineering co-op students, and he liked to use the co-op students in
demanding situations to give them practical experience.
Tom assigned the test work to Jack Jacobs, an engineering co-op student from the State
University who was completing his second work session at XYZ. Jack was familiar with the
test equipment and previously had done similar test work. Jack was a good student and his
co-op work had been usually well done. Tom commented to Jack that he would need to
work diligently to complete the tests before he had to return to State University.
Jack completed the tests on schedule and turned in a report to Tom indicating the
component had successfully passed the stress tests. Upon completion of the test report Jack
returned to the university for his next school session. Tom gave Bruce the good news. The
prototypes were completed and the field test of these prototypes got underway on
EGR 101 – Fall 2018
Ethics Case Studies
schedule.
A few weeks later, Bruce rushed into Tom’s office to tell him that most of the prototypes
were out of operation because of a catastrophic failure of the component that had been
tested in Tom’s lab. Bruce wanted to discuss the test immediately with Jack; but since Jack
had already returned to the university, he and Tom settled for studying Jack’s lab notebook
in detail.
After review Tom said, “Bruce, I hate to say it but these data look too good. I know the
equipment and there should be more scatter in the measurements Jack took. I think some,
if not all, these measurements are in error or they have been faked! At best, Jack probably
took a few points and ‘extrapolated’ the rest!”
Ethics Assignment Grading Rubric
Knowledge of Code
Excellent: quotes or summarizes numbered elements of codes appropriately
Satisfactory: quotes or summarizes elements of code appropriately
Needs Improvement: doesn’t quote or summarize elements appropriately
Unsatisfactory: Doesn’t mention any code at all
Analysis
Excellent: Accur …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP