Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ethical for an engineer to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route.

Probably no engineering activity excites as much interest, comment, and criticism from members of the public as that related to the location of proposed highway systems. This is understandable and even welcome because the whole purpose of engineering is to serve the public interest. When an engineering project has such a direct and substantial impact on the daily life of the citizenry as the location of a highway it is desirable that there be public discussion. The Code does not preclude engineers, as citizens, from participating in such public discussion. Those engineers who have a particular qualification in the field of engineering involved may be said to even have a responsibility to present public comment and suggestions in line with the philosophy expressed in Section 2(b) of the Code. This type of comment by engineers, however, is restricted in certain respects, as indicated by other provisions of the Code. In paraphrase, these restrictions are that his public comment may not be on behalf of an undisclosed private interest (Section 4 (a)) ; the comment must be based on sound engineering knowledge and judgment (Section 5); the comment must be in accord with the facts of the situation (Section 5(a)); and the criticism or comment by the engineer must not be malicious, unjust, or intended to injure another engineer (Section 12). We find no violation of any of these restrictions in the facts presented. There is no indication that the consulting engineer was representing any client or that he was using his criticism as a means to advance his own personal interests. Inasmuch as the consulting engineer's firm had participated in the design of a related portion of the highway system it is reasonable to assume that he did have adequate professional knowledge of the facts. Nor is there any ground to indicate or imply that the criticism was malicious or unfair in any respect. This is not to say that the alternate route proposed by the consulting engineer was in fact s...

A state highway department prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a by-pass of part of the interstate highway system in the state, including cost estimates for three possible routes. The highway department indicated it favored route "B". An official of a city located close to the proposed route publicly criticized the proposed route "B" because he felt it would endanger the city's water supply and be a detriment to the development of a lake as a proposed recreation area.A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the by-pass would connect, issued a public letter, "To Whom Concerned," which was published in the local press, discussing the alternative routes. His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route. The letter then suggested a fourth route ("D") which, it was claimed, would be superior to those previously suggested. The newspaper story containing the full text of the letter from the consulting engineer also quoted the city official as favoring route "D" proposed by the consulting engineer.

Is it ethical for a consulting engineer to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department and to propose an alternative route?