Case 65-12

Participation in Production of Unsafe Equipment

Code Citations: [1(c)] [2(a)] [2(c)] [2]

Case Citations: [61-10]

Facts:

Engineer X of Company A prepared plans and specifications for machinery to be used in a manufacturing process and Company A turned them over to Company B for production. Engineer Y of Company B, after reviewing the plans and specifications, came to the conclusion that there were certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that the final product might be unsuitable for the purposes of the ultimate users, and that the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it. Engineer Y called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of his employer who, in turn, advised Company A of the concern expressed by Engineer Y. Company A replied that Engineer X believed that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company B should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified. The officials of Company B instructed Engineer Y to proceed with the work. Engineer Y refused to build the equipment.

Question:

Was it ethical for Engineer Y to refuse to build the equipment?

References:

Code 1(c): "He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful."
Code 2: "The Engineer w ill have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering in Production of Unsafe Equipment judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health."
Code 2(a): "He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount."
Code 2(c): "He will not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project."

Discussion:

Engineer Y fulfilled his obligation under Code 1(c) of the Code by notifying his employer that they did not believe the project would be successful as designed by the engineers of Company A. He also met the requirements of Code 2 in pointing out the consequences to be expected from proceeding under the original plans and specifications. By his actions Engineer Y regarded his "duty to the public welfare as paramount," as required by Code 2(a).

The further and more difficult question, however, is whether Engineer Y is required or ethically permitted to refuse to proceed with the production on the basis of plans and specifications which they continue to regard as unsafe.

In Case 61-10, we held that engineers assigned to the redesign of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but had an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design. In that case, however, the redesign of the product involved only a question of a lower quality product and did not raise the problem of the product endangering public health or safety.

Code 2(c) of the Code is specific in holding that engineers will not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare. In this situation Engineer Y has not been requested, or required, to "sign, or seal plans and/or specifications" at all. This has been done by Engineer X. A literal construction of the Code language may, therefore, indicates that Engineer Y may ethically proceed with his role in the production process. But we think that this is too narrow a reading of the Code and that the purpose and force of Code 2(c) is that the engineer will not participate in any way in engineering operations which endanger the public health and safety.

The last sentence of Code 2(c) is likewise clear in requiring engineers not only notify proper authority of the dangers which they believe to exist, but that they also "withdraw from further service on the project." This mandate applies to engineers serving clients or employers.

Where, as in this case, there is an apparent honest difference of opinion as to the safety features of the machinery between Engineer X and Engineer Y it would be appropriate for the question to be referred to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination.

So long as Engineer Y holds to his opinion that the machinery as originally designed and specified would be unsafe to the public he should refuse to participate in its processing or production under the mandate of Code 2(c). While such refusal to comply with the instruction of his employer may cause a most difficult situation, or even lead to the loss of employment, we must conclude that these considerations are subordinate to the requirements of the Code.

Conclusion:

It was ethical for Engineer Y to refuse to build the equipment.

The ethical obligations of Engineer Y are to notify their employer of possible dangers to the public safety and seek to have the design and specifications altered to make the machinery safe in their opinion; if the opinions cannot be reconciled he should propose submission of the problem to an independent and impartial body of experts: unless and until Engineer Y is satisfied that the machinery would not jeopardize the public safety he should refuse to participate in any engineering activity connected with the project.

Board of Ethical Review

T. C. COOKE, P.E., JAMES HALLETT, P.E., W. S. NELSON, P.E., N. O. SAULTER, P.E., K. F. WENDT, P.E., A. C. KIRKWOOD, P.E., Chairman
[Disclaimer]

[Main Page] [Index to Reference Documents] [Index to All Cases]