Public health, safety, and welfare II

Obligations to the public

The social responsibility of engineers

In regard to the social consequences of engineering, the relationship between an engineer and the public is essentially straightforward. Responsibilities to the public demand that the engineer place service to humankind above personal gain.

Furthermore, proper ethical behavior requires that an engineer avoid association with projects that are contrary to public health and welfare or that are of questionable legal character. Engineers should not lend their expertise to endeavors that harm society.

Safety, health, and welfare

Primary consideration: Engineers must consider the safety, health, and welfare of the public in all work performed. This is not merely one consideration among many; it is the paramount consideration that overrides all others.

Proactive responsibility: This obligation is proactive, not merely reactive. Engineers should not wait for problems to arise but should anticipate potential hazards and design them out of systems and structures.

Professional conduct

Honor and dignity: Engineers must uphold the honor and dignity of their profession by refraining from self-laudatory advertising, by explaining (when required) their work to the public, and by expressing opinions only in areas of their knowledge.

Public statements: When engineers issue a public statement, they must clearly indicate if the statement is being made on anyone’s behalf (i.e., if anyone is benefiting from their position). Transparency about interests and affiliations is essential.

Maintaining competence: Engineers must keep their skills at a state-of-the-art level. The public relies on engineers to apply current knowledge and best practices.

Public education

Developing appreciation: Engineers should develop public knowledge and appreciation of the engineering profession and its achievements. Public understanding of engineering contributes to informed decision-making on technical issues.

Explaining technical matters: Engineers have a responsibility to help the public understand complex technical issues, particularly when those issues affect public policy.

Whistle-blowing

Definition: Whistle-blowing is the practice of calling public attention to illegal or unethical behavior by one’s employer or organization.

Obligation to report: Engineers must notify the proper authorities when decisions adversely affecting public safety and welfare are made. This obligation exists even when reporting may have negative consequences for the engineer personally.

Risks and protections: Whistle-blowing jeopardizes the engineer’s own good standing with their employer. However, many jurisdictions have enacted whistle-blower protection laws that provide some legal protection for engineers who report safety violations.

Specific obligations to society

Public welfare primacy

Licensees shall be cognizant that their first and foremost responsibility is to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public when performing services for clients and employers. This principle is the foundation of all engineering ethics.

Document integrity

Licensees shall sign and seal only those plans, surveys, and other documents that conform to accepted engineering and surveying standards and that safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

The engineer’s seal is a certification that the work meets professional standards. Affixing a seal to substandard work is a serious ethical violation.

Reporting overruled judgment

Licensees shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate when their professional judgment is overruled when the health, safety, or welfare of the public is endangered.

This obligation recognizes that engineers may not always have the final decision-making authority. When an engineer’s safety recommendations are overruled, the engineer must escalate the matter to appropriate authorities.

Truthfulness

Licensees shall, to the best of their knowledge, include all relevant and pertinent information in an objective and truthful manner within all professional documents, statements, and testimony.

Selective presentation of information, even if technically accurate, can be misleading and is therefore unethical.

Competent opinion

Licensees shall express a professional opinion publicly only when it is founded upon an adequate knowledge of the facts and a competent evaluation of the subject matter.

Engineers should not speculate or offer opinions outside their areas of expertise. Public statements carry weight because of the engineer’s professional credentials, and this trust must not be abused.

Disclosure of interest

Licensees shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on engineering and surveying matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they explicitly identify the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking and reveal any interest they have in the matters.

Hidden advocacy undermines public trust. When engineers speak on behalf of interested parties, this relationship must be disclosed.

Avoiding fraudulent association

Licensees shall not partner, practice, or offer to practice with any person or firm that they know is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest business or professional practices.

Association with fraudulent enterprises taints the engineer’s reputation and, by extension, the reputation of the profession.

Reporting violations

Licensees who have knowledge or reason to believe that any person or firm has violated any rules or laws applying to the practice of engineering or surveying shall report it to the board, may report it to appropriate legal authorities, and shall cooperate with the board and those authorities as requested.

This obligation extends beyond one’s own organization. Engineers have a duty to report violations by others in the profession.

Honest references

Licensees shall not knowingly provide false or incomplete information regarding an applicant in obtaining licensure.

The integrity of the licensing system depends on honest evaluations of candidates.

Jurisdictional compliance

Licensees shall comply with the licensing laws and rules governing their professional practice in each of the jurisdictions in which they practice.

Engineers who practice in multiple jurisdictions must be aware of and comply with the requirements of each.

Competitive bidding

Historical context

The ethical guidelines for dealing with other engineers presented here and in more detailed codes of ethics no longer include a prohibition on competitive bidding. Until 1971, most codes of ethics for engineers considered competitive bidding detrimental to public welfare, since cost cutting normally results in a lower quality design.

The reasoning was that if engineers competed primarily on price, they would be tempted to reduce the quality of their work to offer lower bids. This could compromise public safety.

The Supreme Court decision

In a 1971 case against the National Society of Professional Engineers that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the prohibition against competitive bidding was determined to be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (i.e., it was an unreasonable restraint of trade).

The Court held that while the engineering profession’s concerns about quality were legitimate, a blanket prohibition on competitive bidding was not the appropriate solution.

Current status

The opinion of the Supreme Court does not require competitive bidding; it merely forbids a prohibition against competitive bidding in NSPE’s code of ethics. The following points must be considered:

Individual choice: Engineers and design firms may individually continue to refuse to bid competitively on engineering services. The decision not to compete on price is a personal or business choice, not an ethical violation.

Client choice: Clients are not required to seek competitive bids for design services. Many clients prefer to select engineers based on qualifications rather than price.

Government procurement: Federal, state, and local statutes governing the procedures for procuring engineering design services, even those statutes that prohibit competitive bidding, are not affected. Many government agencies use qualifications-based selection for engineering services.

State regulations: Any prohibitions against competitive bidding in individual state engineering registration laws remain unaffected.

Advocacy: Engineers and their societies may actively and aggressively lobby for legislation that would prohibit competitive bidding for design services by public agencies.