It was not unethical for Engineer X to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.

Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers bring an important perspective to such discussions, offering technical insights into issues that have a significant effect upon people’s lives. Because of the effect that their testimony may have on public policy discussions of this type, engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has had occasion to consider earlier cases relating to the role and obligation of engineers testifying before public agencies or making public statements affecting public policy issues. One early example is BER Case No. 65-9. In that case, a state highway department had prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a bypass of part of the interstate highway system in the state, including cost estimates for three possible routes. The highway department indicated that 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 bypass 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...

Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X. As part of the process for approving Developer F’s project, Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board. Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board. Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland. But it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution. Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact. Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues. Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could significantly increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution?