The NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X’s product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X. If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.

This case presents an example of one of the more salient ethical dilemmas faced by professional engineers in their professional practice. Engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation reaches in recommending corrective action. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma on several occasions, and the Board’s decision in each of these situations depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved. There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases. For example, in BER Case No. 76-4, the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ Corporation was also advised of the minimum standard that must be met. To convince the authority that the receiving body of water would still meet established environmental standards after receiving the manufacturing wastes, the corporation employed Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. After completing his studies but before completing a written report, Engineer Doe concluded that the plant’s discharge would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concluded that corrective action would be very costly. Engineer Doe verbally advised the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation. Thereafter, Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards. In concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his fin...

Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product. During and following the company’s standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A’s opinion raise unique safety concerns. Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers. Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety. Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures. Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A’s recommendation that it perform additional safety testing. Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X. One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors. Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.

Would it be ethical for Engineer A to participate as a witness at the public safety standard hearings?