The code of ethics

Technical skill alone does not make a good engineer. Engineers regularly face situations where doing the right thing costs money, time or goodwill: a schedule that does not allow proper checking, a client who wants a report softened, a supplier offering favors, a manager who says the risk is acceptable when you are not convinced. Most engineering disasters have an ethical failure somewhere in the chain of events, often one that an individual could have stopped.

This chapter covers the codes of ethics that guide American engineers, from the NSPE Code to the rules of professional conduct that state boards enforce, the ideas behind them, and the common ethical problems of practice: competence, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, honesty and when to blow the whistle. It then studies American cases that shaped the profession, and gives a practical method for working through an ethical problem.

Why engineers need a code

Ethics is the study of right and wrong conduct. Professional ethics applies it to the special situation of a profession: engineers hold knowledge the public cannot check, make decisions that affect people who have no say in them, and work for employers and clients whose interests may not match the public's. A code of ethics sets out the duties that follow from that position, and for licensed engineers it is not optional: state boards adopt rules of professional conduct, and breaching them is misconduct, subject to discipline.

Three broad ways of thinking about ethics help when a code does not give a clear answer:

• Duty-based (deontological) ethics asks which obligations apply: honesty, keeping promises, respecting people's rights. Some actions are wrong regardless of the outcome, such as falsifying test results.
• Consequence-based (utilitarian) ethics asks which choice produces the best overall outcome for everyone affected. It underlies cost–benefit and risk analysis, but can overlook the rights of minorities.
• Virtue ethics asks what a person of good character, such as a respected senior engineer, would do. It is useful when rules conflict.

Engineering codes blend all three: they list duties, rank the public good first, and describe the character expected of professionals.

The NSPE Code of Ethics and state rules

The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics is the best-known American code. Its six Fundamental Canons say that engineers, in fulfilling their professional duties, shall:

• 1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
• 2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
• 3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
• 4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
• 5. Avoid deceptive acts.
• 6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

The NSPE Code binds NSPE members, and the discipline societies (ASCE, ASME, IEEE, AIChE and others) have similar codes for their members. What gives ethics the force of law for licensees is each state board's rules of professional conduct, many based on the NCEES Model Rules. They likewise put the public first, limit practice to areas of competence, require honesty and disclosure of conflicts, and prohibit sealing work not done under responsible charge.

The order matters: when duties conflict, the public comes before the employer, the client or the engineer's own interest. NSPE's Board of Ethical Review publishes opinions on real cases that show how the canons apply in practice.

Common ethical issues

Competence

Canon 2 means knowing the limits of your expertise. An engineer qualified in structural design is not automatically competent to design an electrical system, and a recent graduate is not ready to take sole responsibility for a complex pressure vessel. Competence can be built through study, mentoring and supervised work, but you must not take on work beyond it in the meantime.

Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest exists when a personal interest could influence, or could appear to influence, professional judgment. Not every conflict is wrong, but every conflict must be disclosed, and some must be avoided entirely.

Gifts and hospitality raise the same question. A coffee from a supplier is usually harmless; playoff tickets from a vendor whose product you are about to specify are not. Follow your employer's policy, and when in doubt, disclose or decline.

Honesty and objectivity

Engineers must report facts truthfully, state the limits of their data and assumptions, and never let a client's preferences change their technical conclusions. That includes not overstating your qualifications, not taking credit for others' work, and giving opinions only within your competence. With AI tools now common in design and writing, the same rule applies: you remain responsible for checking anything a tool produces, and confidential client information must not be pasted into public tools.

Confidentiality

Clients and employers are entitled to confidentiality about their business. But confidentiality is not absolute: it does not extend to hiding a danger to the public. If you learn of a hazard, the public interest comes first.

Raising concerns and whistleblowing

When an engineer believes work is unsafe or illegal, the usual path is to raise it internally first: with the responsible engineer, then supervisors, then senior management, putting concerns in writing. If that fails and the danger is real, the engineer has a duty to go further, to the regulator, the owner or the authority responsible. The NSPE Code says that if engineers' judgment is overruled where the safety, health, property or welfare of the public are endangered, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. Going outside your organization is a serious step and should be based on facts, not suspicion, but staying silent about a real danger is itself a breach of the code.

Lessons from history

The codes of ethics were written in the aftermath of disasters. Studying them shows how ordinary decisions, made under ordinary pressures, add up to catastrophe.

Upper Big Branch and the law

On April 5, 2010, an explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia killed 29 miners. Investigations found that the company had repeatedly violated ventilation and dust-control rules and had concealed hazards from inspectors. In 2015 the company's former chief executive was convicted of conspiring to willfully violate federal mine safety standards and sentenced to a year in prison. Mine safety is governed by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration; most other workplaces fall under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, whose General Duty Clause requires every employer to keep the workplace free of recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Engineers who direct work share responsibility for meeting that duty.

More recent cases

On August 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed at rush hour, killing 13 people; the National Transportation Safety Board found that gusset plates in the original 1960s design were too thin, a weakness made critical by added weight from earlier modifications and construction materials stored on the deck. In 2014, Flint, Michigan switched its water source without requiring corrosion control, and lead leached from old pipes into drinking water; officials' failures to act on warnings led to criminal charges and a national reckoning with lead service lines. On March 15, 2018, a newly installed pedestrian bridge at Florida International University collapsed onto traffic, killing six; the NTSB found design errors in a critical connection and that cracks seen in the days before were not recognized as a sign of imminent failure. On June 24, 2021, the Champlain Towers South condominium in Surfside, Florida partially collapsed, killing 98 people; an engineer's 2018 report had described major structural damage in the pool deck and garage. Florida then required milestone structural inspections of older condominium buildings. Each case led to changes in regulation and practice.