November/December 2017

On Ethics: You Be The Judge
Competing Values

A professional engineer’s investigative findings lead to conflicting ethical obligations.

What Do You Think?

What are Peterson’s obligations under the circumstances?

What the Board of Ethical Review Said

Conflicts between fundamental provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers are common. Such conflicts include situations involving the public interest and the protection of the public health and safety matched against ethical duties of confidentiality to clients. Both values are vital to engineering ethics and professionalism and need to be maintained to protect the engineering profession’s integrity.

It is the Board’s view that this case is another illustration of the ongoing tensions that often exist between two fundamental ethical principles—duty of confidentiality versus protection of the public health and safety. Peterson should always explore negotiating appropriate language in his agreements with attorneys or clients, recognizing the engineer’s obligations to report safety violations as necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The Board is not willing to go as far as an earlier Board went in BER Case No. 76-4. In that case, the Board concluded that the public health and safety issue superseded an engineer’s confidentiality obligations. Later, in Case No. 07-3, the Board concluded that there was no immediate or imminent danger or threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Instead, the engineer’s belief that his investigation has identified a significant technical issue that, if communicated more broadly in the technical literature, could prevent future structural failures was prospective and speculative.

In the current case, the Board believes that Peterson should explain to the attorney and client his ethical obligation to work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of the community. He also should explore an alternative path to identifying the technical issues involved, including developing a paper or article that explains his technical concerns without revealing specific and identifiable facts and circumstances that would compromise the settlement agreement involving the client.

While this may be difficult because of the possible need to specifically identify the context in which Peterson’s technical issue is based, it is the Board’s view that this would be a reasonable middle ground for Peterson to pursue and would fulfill his ethical responsibilities both to the public and the client. The Board also noted that, although the facts do not clearly indicate whether the technical issue that was discovered during his investigation was of such urgency or hazard that it compromises Peterson’s obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (Section II.1 of the Code), he may in that instance have further ethical obligations to communicate such issues in the broader technical literature.

Conclusion

Peterson should explain to the attorney and her client his ethical obligations as a professional engineer to work for the advancement of the safety, health, and welfare of the public and explore an alternative path to identifying the technical issue, including developing a paper that explains his technical issues without revealing specific and identifiable facts and circumstances that would compromise the settlement agreement involving the client. However, if the client refuses to allow Peterson to disseminate this information, and Peterson is convinced that the matter rises to the level of an imminent or urgent threat to public safety, health, or welfare, he should notify such other authorities as may be appropriate to safeguard the public.

NSPE Code References

Section II.1.: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

Section II.1.a: If engineers’ judgement is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.

Section III.2.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.

Section III.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.

For more information, see Case No. 13-9.