Engineer A is requested to review, sign, and seal a set of drawings prepared by another design professional not under the engineer’s direct personal supervision. Should he sign and seal the drawings? Engineer B, pursuing her Ph.D., deliberately omits certain information from her doctoral thesis because it might raise doubts concerning certain conclusions in her theory. Can she ethically do this? These are just a few of the many ethical issues facing engineers on a daily basis.

Why codes of ethics?
As with law or medicine, engineering is a learned profession. As a profession, engineering constantly involves the exercise of expert judgment and discretion in the performance of services. Engineers are expected to use their education, training, and experience in a manner that comports with public health and safety. But where do engineers turn for guidance in determining the most appropriate course of action to follow in the previously cited cases? One possible source is the law. Statutes, regulations, and court decisions certainly provide a basis to make decisions concerning conduct and behavior. However, the law does not address many issues related to appropriate professional conduct. Another possible resource might be colleagues, family members, or friends. While at times these sources may be extremely valuable as a sounding board, in some cases they lack the necessary education and training to provide useful feedback, or the feedback might be biased or prejudiced by some fact or circumstance. For that reason, professional organizations such as the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) develop codes of ethics to assist engineers in making decisions in their everyday practice and employment. Professional codes of ethics reflect basic "norms" of conduct that exist within a particular profession and provide general guidance for a variety of issues.

Except in the most basic circumstances, codes of ethics do not provide "answers" or "solutions" to ethical dilemmas faced by engineers, but they do offer guideposts that can be helpful in evaluating the circumstances encountered, as well as provide possible approaches for addressing ethical issues.

Code changes
The NSPE Code of Ethics has always been viewed as a dynamic document reflecting changes in engineering practice. While some of the modifications to the code have come easily, reflecting a general consensus of opinion within the profession, other changes have come as a result of conflict. For example, during the liability insurance crisis in the mid-1980s, many engineers who had been performing professional services in connection with hazardous waste, pollution, and other related services saw their professional liability insurance policies exclude these areas of practice from policy coverage. Professional liability insurance—to protect against claims related to such risks—became impossible to obtain. In response, many engineers sought to protect their personal and professional resources by employing indemnification provisions in their contracts with clients, whereby clients would agree to "hold the engineer harmless" for the ordinary negligence by the engineer. This approach was in direct conflict with then Section III.9 of the code, which stated: "Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities."

After careful review and deliberation, and in response to the growing need for adequate procedures to safeguard engineers against untoward professional liability exposure, the NSPE Board of Directors agreed to modify code Section III.9 to state: "Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities; provided, however, that Engineers may seek indemnification from professional services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected."

This change reflects the fact that the code is not a static document, but a living document reflecting alterations in circumstances and practice. A code must adapt with the times; otherwise it risks losing its legitimacy and acceptance.

On the other side of the coin, there have been issues addressed by the NSPE code where NSPE was required, as a matter of law, to modify the code to comply with the law. During the 1970s, the codes of ethics of several professions were challenged by the federal government as constituting an "agreement in restraint of trade" and, therefore, violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Following litigation, national architectural and engineering groups—including NSPE, the NSPE code, as well as the codes of other groups—were modified to remove the subsequent provisions: prohibiting competitive bidding for engineering services; and supplanting of one engineer by another. In addition, NSPE agreed with federal antitrust officials to eliminate provisions from the NSPE code that made it unethical to engage in certain types of promotional advertising.

Today there is a question in the minds of some engineers as to whether the issue of "sustainable development" is an "ethical issue" that should be incorporated into the code of ethics or whether instead, it is a "best practice" that is better addressed in another sphere.

Conclusion
Clearly, engineering ethics is an issue that goes to the heart of engineering practice. It reflects the customs, habits, and values of engineering as a profession and reflects the time-tested experience, seasoning, and training of practicing engineers. In some senses, a code is a "timeline" for the profession because it mirrors the conventions, routines, and patterns of the profession, but shifts as those conventions, routines, and patterns change.

As the profession of engineering grows in stature within our society, engineering practice and engineers will be increasingly examined and scrutinized by the public, the media, the government, and the profession itself on moral and ethical questions. Having a thoughtfully developed code of ethics along with members that adhere to that code will be vitally useful in that process.