Engineer A has a responsibility to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team, clearly and unambiguously express any and all concerns he has regarding the safety of the proposed autonomous vehicle operation system, and explore additional potential technical options that could mitigate the risks identified in the proposed system. In light of the fact that engineers should strive to do no harm in the performance of their professional services, if necessary, Engineer A should propose that further study be undertaken by the company before the autonomous vehicle operating system is utilized. That being said, to address the specific question posed in the case, Engineer A has an obligation to state that the prime ethical obligation of the vehicle operation is to minimize harm to affect the least number of persons.

Over the years, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has sought to examine and address emerging engineering issues and their ethical implications and consequences. New engineering breakthroughs frequently introduce different ways of thinking about engineering ethics. One example of this was BER Case 96-4, which involved software design testing. In that case, Engineer A was employed by a software company and was involved in the design of specialized software in connection with the operations of facilities affecting the public health and safety (i.e., nuclear, air quality control, water quality control). As part of the design of a particular software system, Engineer A conducted extensive testing. Although the tests demonstrated that the software was safe to use under existing standards, Engineer A was aware of new draft standards that were about to be released by a standard setting organization—standards that the newly designed software might not meet. Testing was extremely costly and the company’s clients were eager to move forward. The software company was eager to satisfy its clients; but, at the same time, management wanted to be sure that the software was safe to use. A series of tests proposed by Engineer A would likely result in a decision whether to move forward with the use of the software. The tests were expensive and would delay the use of the software for at least six months, which would put the client company at a competitive disadvantage and cost it a significant amount of money. Also, delaying implementation would mean the state’s public service commission utility rates would rise significantly during this time. The software company requested Engineer A’s recommendation on the need for additional testing. In deciding that Engineer A had a professional obligation under the Code of Ethics to explain why additional testing was required and to recommend to his company that it be undertaken, the Board noted that if he did so, the company could make an informe...

Engineer A is a professional engineer working as a consultant to an automobile manufacturer that is considering the development of a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system. Engineer A is assigned to an engineering risk assessment team whose members are being asked to make a recommendation relating to potential situations that could arise in connection with the operation of driverless/autonomous vehicles. The following scenario is among the situations that are being considered by the engineering risk assessment team: In the event of an unavoidable crash, does the vehicle’s system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle’s passengers or does the vehicle’s software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident, such as having the car crash into a stationary object (e.g., telephone pole, etc.) with the probability of causing some passengers serious but non-life-threatening injuries instead of striking and potentially causing a fatal injury to a pedestrian, cyclist, or motorcycle rider?

What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations?