THE RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES OF
ENGINEERS

HAFIZ TALHA (TS-19037).

MUHAMMAD ZEESHAN (TS-19038).

COURSE CODE : HS-304.

 PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS
The rights that engineers have as professionals are called Professional Rights. These professional
rights include −
 The basic right of professional conscience.
 The right of conscientious refusal.
 The right of professional recognition.
 PROFESSIONAL RIGHTS OF ENGINEERS
 Rights Of Professional Conscience : the right to autonomous judgment in morally complex
decision.

 Rights Of Conscientious Refusal : the right to refuse to engage in unethical behavior. May be
limited in borderline cases.

 Rights Of Recognition : the right to monetary and nonmonetary forms of recognition for their
accomplishments. (important in promoting skill development)
 ENGINEER AND THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
 Since fundamentally, weapons are designed for one purpose—to kill human beings—it seems
important to look at this type of engineering work in the context of engineering ethics and the rights
of engineers.
 An engineer may choose either to work or not to work in defense-related industries and be ethically
justified in either position.
 Even if an engineer finds defense work ethically acceptable, there might be uses of these weapons or
certain projects that he considers questionable.
 Given the issues that surround defense work, what is an engineer to do when asked to work on a
weapons project he considers questionable?
 As with many of the ethical dilemmas that we have discussed in this presentation, there is no simple
solution, but rather the answer must be determined by each individual after examination of his
values and personal feelings about the ethics of defense work.
 WHISTLE BLOWING
 The act by an employee which informs the public or higher management of unethical or illegal
behavior by an employer or supervisor . Often seen as an act of extreme disloyalty to the
company and to the co workers.
OR
 Calling attention to wrongdoing that is occurring within an organization.
 TYPES OF WHISTLE BLOWING
There are two types of whistle blowing :

 Internal Whistle Blowing : internal occurs when an employee goes over the heads of an
immediate supervisor to report a problem to a higher level management.
 External Whistle Blowing : internal occurs when an employee goes outside the company and
reports wrongdoing to the media or law enforcement authorities.
 WHEN SHOULD WHISTLE BLOWING BE
ATTEMPTED
 Whenever and wherever the product/service of the firm will cause considerable harm to the
public.
 Whenever an employee feels serious threat or harm to him or anybody he should report to the
firm.
 Before reporting any subject an employee should have documental evidence which should
convince on impartial observer about the necessity of whistle blowing.
 If an immediate boss does not care for report (whistle blowing) the employee should go up to
highest level to present his case.
 There is always some risk involved in whistle blowing. If the employee is fully convinced of his
good intentions and serves good cause for society he should go ahead with whistle blowing.
 PREVENTING WHISTLE BLOWING
Whistle can be prevented by the following methods.
 Conduct focus groups & surveys.
 Create and widely disseminate whistleblower protection policies with multiple avenues for
reporting.
 Conduct whistleblower-specific training for managers.
 Break down corporate silos so that HR, legal (employment counsel in particular) and
compliance work together.
 Oversee the evaluations of whistleblowers who remain employed, with an emphasis on
objective metrics.
 Promptly conduct a thorough investigation, and report back to the extent practicable.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE I-35W BRIDGE IN MINNEAPOLIS

 The I-35W Bridge was one of the main crossings of the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, used
by over 140,000 commuters each day.
 on August 1, 2007, during the evening rush hour, the bridge suddenly collapsed and fell into the
river below.
 The investigators found that 16 of these gusset plates had fractured when the bridge collapsed.
 The design of the bridge was also found to be "fracture-critical," meaning that there were no
redundant load-bearing paths designed into the structure, so a failure of any one of several
critical structural elements would inevitably lead to a collapse of the entire structure.
 Construction on the bridge at the time of the collapse was also cited as an important factor in
the accident.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE I-35W BRIDGE IN MINNEAPOLIS
 Although there were numerous subsequent recalculations for maintenance, load rating, or
inspections, these calculations are not necessarily expected to uncover original mistakes in the
gusset plate designs or calculations.
 Nevertheless, it is easy to wonder if this accident could have been avoided had someone noticed
the inadequate gusset plates during an inspection or while recalculating loads for planned
maintenance.
 In 2010, a lawsuit related to this accident was settled for $52.4 million in damages to the
victims of the accident, to be paid by San Francisco-based URS Corp . URS is an engineering
firm that had been hired by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 2003 to evaluate
fatigue of structural members and also to analyze the redundancy issues related to the structure.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE I-35W BRIDGE IN MINNEAPOLIS

 URS was not involved in the original design of the bridge nor were they involved in the
maintenance that was taking place when the bridge collapsed and denied having any
responsibility for the collapse.
 Planning for the replacement of the collapsed I-35W bridge began immediately after the
accident, culminating on September 18, 2008, when the new I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge
was opened to cross-river traffic.
 THE GODRICH A7-D BRAKE CASE
 This case is one that is very often used as an example in engineering ethics texts , especially to
study whistle-blowing.
 Little is publicly known about what Goodrich management thought about this case.
 In the 1960s, the B. F. Goodrich Corporation was a major defense contractor.
 However, none of these suggestions worked and the brakes still failed to pass the initial tests.
 Kermit Vandivier was a technical writer for Goodrich who was responsible for writing test
reports and was assigned to write the report for the new A7-D brakes.
 THE GODRICH A7-D BRAKE CASE
 Apparently, Lawson had impressed LTV because after the flight testing was over, LTV offered
him a job.
 With the only other person who really knew about the test procedures gone , Vandivier also
decided to resign from Goodrich.
 In his letter of resignation, he included a series of accusations of wrongdoing against Goodrich
regarding the brake tests.
 In May of 1969, Proxmire requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the
issue of the qualification testing of the A7-D brakes.
 By then, the new five-rotor brake had been tested and qualified for use on the A7-D. At the
hearing, Vandivier's concerns and the GAO findings were publicly aired.
SUDDEN ACCELERATION IN TOYOTA AUTOMOBILES
 Sudden Acceleration in Toyota Automobiles Beginning in late 2009 and early 2010, there were
numerous reports in the media of problems related to sudden acceleration in various models of
Toyota and Lexus automobiles.
 These problems went back many years.
 For example, in 1996, Toyota engineers discovered a problem in the steering mechanism of the
4Runner and immediately made changes in the design to solve the problem.
 However, they waited eight years to recall vehicles that had already been sold that contained the
defect.
 Due to the negative media reports and pressure from regulators in the United States and elsewhere,
Akio Toyoda, the head of the Toyota company, formally apologized on February 5, 2010, for the
company's safety problems and pledged that the company would do a better job in the future of
responding to safety issues and protecting the public.