Cartex

The obvious ethical issue in this case study is that Ben is being dishonest by not letting his
employers know the creative idea of developing a military ultrasound equipment that may
enhance the effectiveness capacity of the military when in war or attacks,
This issue is essentially a form of misusing the truth through withholding information ( Harris,
Pritchard, Rabins, James, & Englehardt, 2013) for the development of the mentioned military
equipment, and it stems from the fact that he signed a contract whose conditions expect him to
reveal any invention he comes up with whilst at work or doing work for the company.
However Ben has personal values against the development of military equipment for attacking
and killing people, he is a pacifist and his bosses know about this. Thus Ben has a moral
obligation not to go against his own moral principles, which in this case implies not telling his
bosses about his idea of developing the military equipment.
Assessing the Da Vinci case, which is a paradigm to Bens case and then applying the linedrawing test ( Harris, Pritchard, Rabins, James, & Englehardt, 2013); Leonardo Da Vinci
conceptualized a way in which to make equipment that could carry people whilst being
submerged underwater. The idea was a brilliant military invention that would give whoever had
it a great advantage against enemies. It might greatly improve the armys war capacity in case
they encounter terrorist or a war in future. However Da Vinci did not believe in the killing of
people by the military. Da Vincis moral values prevented him from carrying out his idea and
actually developing it.
In drawing a parallel between these two cases, I think that Ben owes it to himself more to be
honest to his moral values and not develop the ultrasound equipment that has the potential of
being used in attacking and killing people which is what he does not believe in.
He has an idea, but according to the rule utilitarianism theory ( Harris, Pritchard, Rabins, James,
& Englehardt, 2013) since he has not developed the idea, he cannot afford to compromise his
ethical standards so easily and so choosing the action that is in accord with the best rule and thus
increases the happiness of the majority of people involved ( Harris, Pritchard, Rabins, James, &
Englehardt, 2013) or affected in the case study seems the most appropriate thing for him to do.

Profits and Professors

The first ethical issue observed in this case study is of an apparent conflict of interest ( Harris,
Pritchard, Rabins, James, & Englehardt, 2013), the second professor that the student, Mr. Lewin,
gets to supervise his masters thesis was part of Mr. Lewins initial research work, and moreover
the second professor ends up doing part time research work at Mr. Lewins company after Mr.
Lewin has completed his masters studies.
The second ethical issue is of an actual conflict of interest ( Harris, Pritchard, Rabins, James, &
Englehardt, 2013) that the company, Akamani, creates for the undergraduate students that it
employs. The company work takes the time that students should be using to work on their school
work and as a result they have a conflict of interest, as in the case of one student, Mr. Matkins,
whose school grades are suffering because of the commitment he has to the company.
The third ethical, also a conflict of interest (actual conflict of interest) ( Harris, Pritchard, Rabins,
James, & Englehardt, 2013), is that of Mr. Lewin wanting to use his research work at Akamani as
part of his doctoral studies. The work he wants to use needs to be approved by the directors of
Akamani, his first professor may be part of the directors and also happens to his mentor for his
PhD studies.
This is a huge conflict of interest for the professor because he is too involved in Mr. Lewins
work at the company to an extent that his decisions on the Mr. Lewins PhD will most likely be
always distorted and not independent as it should be the case if he is to be fair and professional.

Aberdeen Three
Three qualified chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz were employed
to play a central role in developing chemical weapons on a U.S Army facility at the Aberdeen
Proving Ground are found guilty by a court of law for letting a disastrous environmental problem
develop under their supervision. According to a periodic inspection done between 1983 and 1986
they failed dismally to carry out their responsibilities, the three engineers were investigated and
found to have been extremely negligent of their duties and responsibilities by illegally handling,
sorting and disposing of hazardous waste which put the environment at risk, for instance an
acid tank leaked into a river close to the facility.
The pilot plant was shut down, and the Aberdeen Three were indicted. They went on trial
which was called the trial of the Aberdeen Three, they were each found guilty for illegal
storage and disposal of waste as well as for violating RCRA. In the end the three engineers were
each sentenced to 1000 hours of community service and three years probation.
Although at first glance it may seem as if the Aberdeen Three were not the people who
actually did all the legally wrong things (that are mentioned as the discussion progresses) it does
not necessarily mean that they cannot be found wrong. In my opinion they were very wrong
(irresponsible) and actually could have prevented the life threatening environmental problem that
started in their plant. The mere fact that they were the managers means that they had the moral
responsibility ( Vesilind & Gunn, 2011) to continuously oversee each and every activity that was
taking place in the plant and ensure that it is of the expected nature and standard.
However they allowed the plant workers to treat, handle, store and dispose of hazardous waste in
an improper way. Had they been responsible managers who carried out their duties as expected,
they could have easily realized the environmental problem that was starting in the plant and
could have easily solved it before it turned so big and hazardous.
Moreover, the fact that the three engineers knew, because they were the chief developers of the
weapons, that the chemicals used to synthesize the weapons were highly hazardous indicates
how little regard they had for the lives of the workers who had to directly come into contact with
the chemicals as they did not put in place measures that would have prevented all of this.
Furthermore, it appears to me that the three engineers were not aware that the workers in the
plant were not properly skilled and did not have the required knowledge to ensure that all that
unfolded in front of their(workers) eyes and through their actions in most instances did not
happen.

Using the social contract model of responsibility ( Vesilind & Gunn, 2011) for professionals to
further look at what was expected from them as professionals by the public.
The social contract model states that the engineers (professionals) are viewed as guardians of
public trust, i.e. have an unwritten (assumed) contract with the public.
The three engineers grossly abused and misused the trust put on them by the public ( Harris,
Pritchard, Rabins, James, & Englehardt, 2013) and put a bad image to the engineering
community at large. And this is further illustrated the following;
According to the ECSA (Engineering council of South Africa) code of conduct for individuals
who are registered as professional engineers:
The one objective that was violated that stands out and mostly addresses the issue in this case
study is that, registered persons are supposed to apply their knowledge and skill in the interest
of humanity and the environment and that registered persons must at all times have due regard
to and priority to public health, safety and interest.
The three engineers in the case study did not act in the best interest of the environment and
humanity; they did not even have the slightest regard for the mentioned principle. None of the
three engineers actually applied or attempted to apply any of the ECSA standards I mentioned
above, there was total disregard for the code of ethics by the entire three and they were all
wrong, just as they were found guilty by a court of law.
I fully agree and support the fact that the engineers were immediately investigated when the
inspections found out damning evidence and that they were set before a court of law were they
were found guilty, as it should because of the nature and seriousness of the wrongdoings.
However what I do not support is the fact that their initial criminal sentences of jail sentences of
approximately 15 years each were reduced to mere 1000 hours of service and three years on
probation.
In my opinion the reduction of their criminal sentences was a slap on the wrist and a strong
example must have been made out of them so as to deter and encourage other engineers from
doing the wrongs that the Aberdeen Three did.
In my opinion this is what I think should have been done differently:
The three engineers should have been aware of what is expected from them as per their job
descriptions and should have carried out their jobs in a professional manner. In essence the three
should have carried out their responsibilities.
The three engineers must have had a system in place through which they could easily make the
workers aware of any immediate or potential safety or health hazards. This could have been done
through verbal communication or through writing.

There should have been a strategy to minimize risks via; training of workers about the correct
ways of handling hazardous material and equipment as well as all safety procedures that are
relevant in the environment in which they were working.
The ECSA code of conduct must have been vigorously implemented, especially in such a place
where there were hazardous materials.
To prevent occurrences of such nature in future, this is what I think should be done:
It should be ensured that engineers who are in supervisory positions are fully aware of the scope
of their responsibilities.
There must be safety inspections on a regular basis on plants that are handling dangerous
materials, to insure that everything is going in a safe and professional manner.
Workers who are to handle hazardous wastes should be equipped with the knowledge of all the
hazardous substances that they are to handle.
In conclusion, the three engineers set a bad example and may have compromised the image of
the engineering profession, chemical engineering in particular, to reiterate(and emphasize) what I
have already mentioned :the three should have not had their sentences reduced and suspended
like they were. I feel that the final sentences just defeated the purpose ( Vesilind & Gunn, 2011)
of the possibility of having used this case as a strong example as to what not to do.
Although the three being brought to book and sitting for trial was a great corrective action. I feel
that a stronger message could have been sent out to others who are in positions like they were, so
as to ensure that all engineers will take responsibility for their jobs, i.e. make the story serve as
an appropriate reminder of what neglecting responsibilities can do. They should have been given
the initial 15 years sentences along with the $750 000 fines so as to discourage all those in
positions similar to theirs from neglecting duties and thus prevent any future cases of such nature
which have massive potential of being disastrous on humanity and the environment.

Bibliography
1. Harris, C., Pritchard, M., Rabins, M. J., James, R., & Englehardt, E. (2013).
Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases.
2.Vesilind, P., & Gunn, A. (2011). Hold Paramount: The Engineers Responsibility to
Society. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
3.Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions Illinois Institute of Technology
Michael Davis Senior Fellow. (1998). Thinking Like an Engineer : Studies in
the Ethics of a Profession: Studies in the ethics of a profession. New York:
Oxford University press.