BEM GUIDELINES FOR CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Five

BEM GUIDELINES FOR CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Five (5) Main SECTIONS for CODE of ETHICS (27 Sub-Sections) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A Registered Engineer shall at all times hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. A Registered Engineer shall undertake assignments only if he is qualified by education & experience in the specific technical fields in which he is involved. A Registered Engineer shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. A Registered Engineer shall act for each employer or clients as faithful agent or trustee. A Registered Engineer shall conduct himself honourably, responsibly, ethically and lawfully so as to enhance the honour, reputation and usefulness of the profession.

State the Problem Get the Facts Defend Viewpoints Formulate Opinion Qualify Recommendation

State the Problem § Clearly define exact nature of ethical problem or dilemma § Need to be clear so that we can anticipate the kind of solution that is required § Want to provide an answer that is relevant to the interests at stake.

Get the Facts § Want to make an informed decision. § Must have and understand the relevant facts § Must make clear any interpretations of actual matters or the values than underlie conflicting moral viewpoints.

Identify & Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints § Begin by identifying what we believe to be the most compelling reason for the course of action § We must be able to justify the course of action

Formulate an Opinion § As engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing questions or leaving a question unresolved § Decide which of the compelling viewpoints is the most compelling § The committee approach (voting) is advantageous because the decision is representative of the general public

Qualify the Opinions or Recommendation § Committees must qualify the recommendations they make by describing the level of agreement that was received § Should include the voting distribution and any dissenting opinions

§Inez Austin was one of the few female engineers at the company Westinghouse Hanford, when in 1989 she became senior process engineer for that company at the Hanford Nuclear Site, a former plutonium production facility in the state of Washington in US.

• In June 1990, she refused to approve a plan to pump radioactive waste from an old underground single-shell tank to a doubleshell tank due to safety reasons. • Her refusal lead to several retaliatory actions from her employer. • In 1990, received the lowest employee ratings in all her 11 years at the company.

§ Doubts were raised about the state of her mental health and she was advised to see a psychiatrist. § In 1992, Austin received the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) “for her courageous and persistent efforts to prevent potential safety hazards involving nuclear waste contamination”.

§Inez Austin stands in the face of harassment and intimidation reflects the paramount professional duty of engineers-to protect the public’s health and safety- and has served as an inspiration to her co-workers. §Nevertheless, after a second whistle blowing incident, relating to the safety and legality of untrained workers, her job was terminated in 1992.

§Task: §Understand Inez Austin’s case §Suggest the action that Inez supposed to take §Suggest this case can be related to which code of ethics (BEM).

§Answer: § 2. Related with code of ethics 1. § 3. Reasons: because registered engineers should prioritize the safety and health of public and co-workers in decision-making situations.