It was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer’s proposal. Engineer A should have included it in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.

In January 2006, the NSPE Board of Directors approved a change to the NSPE Code of Ethics to add Section III.2.d. to the NSPE Code. The new section stated that “engineers shall strive to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” A footnote (Footnote 1) was also included at the end of the NSPE Code of Ethics. The footnote further clarified and defined the term “sustainable development.” It stated that “sustainable development” is “the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resources base essential for future development.” Thereafter, in July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates voted to modify the language in NSPE Code Section III.2.d. to state that “engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations. With this added language a further clarification, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review will review this language as a matter of first impression and in the context of other language in the NSPE Code and earlier NSPE Board of Ethical Review Opinions. Not unlike earlier NSPE Board of Ethical Review cases of this type, the facts in this case present a situation that often raises very difficult issues for engineers in dealing with clients. Engineering practice sometimes places the engineer in the position where the interests of a client and the interests of the public are in open and serious conflict. As this Board has noted on several occasions, engineers play an essential role in society by taking steps and actions to see that products, systems, facilities, structures, and the land surrounding them are reasonably safe. Sometimes engineers are placed in situations where they must balance the extent of their obligations to their employer or client ...

Engineer A is a principal in an environmental engineering firm and is requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium. During the firm’s analysis, one of the engineering firm’s biologists reports to Engineer A that in his opinion, the condominium project could threaten a bird species that inhabits the adjacent protected wetlands area. The bird species in not an “endangered species,” but it is considered a “threatened species” by federal and state environmental regulators.In subsequent discussions with the developer client, Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer’s proposal.

Was it ethical for Engineer A not to include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer’s proposal?