Rachel Teel

STS 589 FA20

11/2/2020

Homework #1
Task 1: Codes of Ethics
1. What similarities do you see in these three Codes?
o There are several similarities between these Codes of Ethics. They are very similar in the
way that each of them starts by emphasizing that the public needs to be held with the
highest regard in all aspects of engineering. They also all call engineers to hold
themselves and other engineers to the highest standard of integrity. Another similarity is
that they all mention that engineers shall only perform services/activities in areas that
they are competent. An important aspect that I found in all three codes is the emphasis
of no discrimination or any type of harassment towards other engineers or the public.
The ACM Ethics code phrases that in an appropriate why by saying “[b]e fair and take
action not to discriminate” (Code of Ethics, 2019). This makes it clear that each engineer
needs to make the cognizant choice to take specific action to ensure no discrimination
occurs.
2. What differences can you find between them?
o One difference is that the ACM COE states “[r]espect the work required to product new
ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts” (Code of Ethics, 2019). The
NSPE and IEEE Codes do not specifically mention respecting innovation, but they do
mention correctly representing the individual who performed the work. The NSPE COE
dedicates a significant section to describing the ethics with conflicts of interest and
bribery situations, while the IEEE and ACM Code only briefly mention these topics as to
point out not to participate in them. The NSPE Code has two sections that explicitly talk
about conflicts of interest and deceptive acts, and they are explicit about the actions that
are unethical. For example, one of the sections states “Engineers shall not accept
compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same
project…and agreed to by all interested parties” (Code of Ethics, n.d.).
o The NSPE Code does not include anything about upholding the code with oneself or
others and what one should do if they see an action against the code. The IEEE Code
Rachel Teel
STS 589 FA20
11/2/2020

includes a statement of ensuring that the code is upheld by colleagues and coworkers.
The ACM Code includes two sections on following the Code and violations of the code,
these sections are titled “Uphold, promote, and respect the principles of the Code” and
“Treat violations of the Code as inconsistent with membership in the ACM” (Code of
Ethics, 2019). The IEEE is a very paired down COE and it is missing many things that the
other two codes cover. It only briefly touches on some topics, while the NSPE and ACM
Code go into detail about how to conduct oneself with specific topics and helps to
provide guidance. One of the important topics it is missing is about the confidentiality
code in the engineering field, which is a significant part of all types of engineering.
3. In your opinion, is there anything missing from any of these Codes?
o I think that the combination of the three codes cover most of the topics that I think
should be in a Code of Ethics for Engineering. Since the NSPE Code of Ethics (COE) is a
general engineering guideline, I think that a section needs to be added explaining the
responsibility to uphold the COE with other engineers and what to do if you observe
someone going against it. I think it is an important point to make about the responsibility
to not only follow the Code yourself but to hold others to the same standard. It helps to
create the engineering community and maintain the sanctity of being part of the
engineering world. The IEEE Code is missing several topics, but it serves as a decent
paired down Code that gives the foundation for ethics in the engineering field.
4. How easy or difficult do you think these Codes would be to interpret and apply?
o I think that on a day-to-day basis the IEEE COE would be easy to interpret and apply. The
statements are simple and provide the ethical foundation for an engineer on a daily
basis. It lists specific actions that should be taken to follow the Code and the majority of
them can be referred to on how to conduct oneself during normal work situations. One
example of a guideline that can be used every day is “to seek, accept, and offer honest
criticism of technical work…and to credit properly the contributions of others” (IEEE Code
of Ethics, n.d.). While this Code is simple to follow, it is also lacking information on a lot
Rachel Teel
STS 589 FA20
11/2/2020

of situations and there is no information as to what to do it a violation of the Code is

observed.
o The ACM Code is lengthy and has some topics that do not apply to daily activities, while
there are certain topics that would be applicable. A COE that is long though, is harder to
interpret and apply as there is a lot more information to synthesize and remember to
apply daily. I think that the “General Ethical Principles” (Code of Ethics, 2019) section is
one that is easier to interpret and apply daily as it is more a guideline of how to always
ethically conduct yourself. That section is less about specific situations and more
guidelines of how to behave in general. I think that the harder section to interpret and
apply is “Professional Leadership Principles” (Code of Ethics, 2019) because it includes
broader ideas for situations that would not come up in daily activities. The ideas are also
harder to interpret; such as, “leaders should encourage and reward compliance with
those policies, and take appropriate action when policies are violated” (Code of Ethics,
2019).
o I think that the NSPE COE encompasses most of the topics that should be followed as an
engineer. A lot of them are not easily applicable on a daily basis because some sections
are general ways of thinking in certain situations. The Code is easily divided into sections
for analysis, which makes interpreting the Code slightly easier. In a given situation it
would be easier to locate the section and review it in order to make the decision
ethically. Due to the length of the Code it would be hard to know directly what the
section advises unless the Code is studied over a long period of time. The verbiage in the
Code is straight forward, which makes interpretation simple. The format of the Code
gives simple statements that are then followed by more detailed examples and
guidelines. For example, one of the simple statements is “Engineers shall at all times
strive to serve the public interest” (Code of Ethics, n.d.), and then it goes further into
specific way to serve the public interest.
Rachel Teel
STS 589 FA20
11/2/2020

Task 2: Case Analysis

The Citicorp case presents a situation where William LeMessurier finds a possible design
flaw in his structural design of the Citicorp building in Manhattan. He found out this information
after learning of the build plan not being followed for the welding of the joints at the
foundation of the building. The structure instead had bolted joints, which still held up to the
New York City building code. He was a Professor at the time, and he presented the case to his
class so they could practice on the calculations for the building stability with high speed winds.
He discovered through completing the calculations that the building with bolted joints would be
vulnerable to a severe storm that could possibly hit Manhattan every sixteen years.
LeMessurier was then in the situation of choosing what to do with the information he had just
discovered.
This case presents examples of both obligation-responsibility and role-responsibility. As
the engineer responsible for the structural design of the building and ensuring that the build
reflects the plans, LeMessurier has role-responsibility. He has the responsibility of alerting the
proper management that the building is not built to the plans and may be susceptible to
collapse if a special severe storm were to hit. LeMessurier also has obligation-responsibility
because per the NSPE Code of Ethics, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public” (Code of Ethics, n.d.). The knowledge that the Citicorp building could
collapse gives him the obligation to fix the issue as the chance of building collapse puts the
public in extreme danger. LeMessurier follows the NSPE guidelines and his responsibility as an
engineer and reports the issue to the management and suggests that the building needs to be
reinforced to mitigate the issue.
One impediment to responsible action that played a role in this case is ignorance.
LeMessurier was ignorant at the time to the fact that the build plans were not executed
properly. This led to him finding out after the fact and then being faced with having to
determine if there was going to be an issue with the building. Once he overcame that ignorance
and understood the implications of the mistake in the building structure, he was ready to take
action. Fear also initially was present when LeMessurier realized the full impact of the mistake.
Rachel Teel
STS 589 FA20
11/2/2020

His fear could have been a major impediment to responsible action, but he was able to
overcome that fear to see what had to be done. If he had allowed the fear to remain and not
informed the Citicorp owners for fear of his job and reputation, the he would also be going
against the NSPE Code of Ethics because the public would be in danger.
One aspect of this case that goes against the NSPE COE is that the public was never
notified that there an issue for the short period of time it existed. The NSPE states, “Engineers
shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner” (Code of Ethics, n.d.).
The Citicorp owners and LeMessurier went against this guideline with the omission of notifying
the public. The self-interest impediment to responsible action is involved in this decision,
because the management did not want to notify the public of a mistake due to unknown
backlash. The information was kept within the needed parties as it was being fixed instead of
alerting the public and advising caution until the repairs were in place.
The idea of Reasonable Care is prominent is this case, because even though the build
plans were not executed properly that building was still to city code. LeMessurier had the
knowledge that even though the building was to code, if an extreme storm hit the building it
could collapse and harm anyone in or around the building. This situation shows how sometimes
the law does not fully encompass the idea of reasonable care, as it can still put many people in
danger. Harris, Pritchard, James, Englehardt, and Rabins state, “[a]lthough the standard of care
plays a prominent role in law, it is important to realize that it encompasses a broader notion of
moral responsibility” (Harris et al., 2019, p.60). Reasonable Care finds the balance between
following the law and following the Code of Ethics for engineers. If the law still allows for the
public to be in some sort of danger, then it is the responsibility of that person to take the
necessary actions.
This Citicorp case is a good example of an engineer and leader taking the appropriate
actions to remedy an issue that was beyond the call of the law. He adhered to many of the
guidelines provided in the NSPE Code of Ethics and was able to ensure that the Citicorp building
was safe for the public and would now cause any known harm. The case did have some flaws in
the ethics; such as, the decision to not inform the public of the danger even with the chance of
Rachel Teel
STS 589 FA20
11/2/2020

a hurricane coming in. The building flaw was swiftly taken care of at a high dollar expense, and
that is what is called upon engineers to do in situations that can harm the public.
Rachel Teel
STS 589 FA20
11/2/2020

References
Code of Ethics. (2019, September 23). Retrieved from https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/
Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
IEEE Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., James, R. W., Englehardt, E. E., & Rabins, M. J. (2019). Engineering
ethics: Concepts and cases (Sixth ed.). Australia: Cengage.