With recent incidents involving bridge safety and related issues on the minds of structural engineers, it is useful to review case studies from the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Board of Ethical Review (BER) involving structural engineering and design issues.

NSPE’s BER has been issuing opinions involving the broad range of engineering ethics issues for more than 50 years and has developed what is generally acknowledged as the most authoritative and extensive body of engineering ethics case studies currently available. I can assure you that getting from “the facts” to “the opinion” is a most fascinating process.

The facts — Let’s take a look at a case where the facts were fairly simple: Engineer A, a renowned structural engineer, is hired for a nominal sum by a large city newspaper to visit the site of a state bridge construction project, which has had a troubled history of construction delays, cost increases, and litigation primarily as a result of several well-publicized, on-site accidents. Recently the state highway department announced the opening date for the bridge. State engineers have been proceeding with repairs based upon a specific schedule.

Engineer A visits the bridge and performs a one-day visual observation. Her report identifies, in very general terms, potential problems and it also proposes additional testing and other possible engineering solutions. Thereafter, in a series of feature articles based upon information gleaned from Engineer A’s report, the newspaper alleges that the bridge has major safety problems that jeopardize its successful completion date. Allegations of misconduct and incompetence are made against the project engineers and the contractors as well as the state highway department. During an investigation by the state, Engineer A states that her report was intended merely to identify what she viewed and was not intended to be conclusive as to the safety of the bridge.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the manner stated?

The opinion — The BER reviewed four earlier BER opinions relating to a similar issue as well as several provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics, including Section II.3.a (which states, “Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements or testimony.”), Section II.3.b (which states, “Engineers may express publicly a professional opinion on technical subjects only when that opinion is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.”), and Section II.3.c (which states “Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters which are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.”). Additionally, the BER reviewed Section III.2.a and Section III.3.a.

Following careful deliberation, the BER concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer A to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the manner stated, but Engineer A has an obligation to require the newspaper to state in the article that Engineer A had been retained for a fee by the newspaper to provide her professional opinion.

Further, the BER, noted that under the facts of this case, “we are dealing with an engineer who was retained by a newspaper to provide her professional opinion with the understanding that the opinion could serve as the basis for news articles concerning the safety of the bridge.” This fact gave an added ethical dimension to the case and required the BER’s additional analysis. In this regard, it was the BER’s view that as a condition of her retention by the newspaper involved, Engineer A had an ethical obligation to require that the newspaper clearly state in the articles that Engineer A had been retained for a fee by the newspaper in question to perform the one-day observation of the bridge site. The BER added that in circumstances such as this where an engineer was being retained by a newspaper to offer a professional opinion concerning a matter of public concern, the engineer must act with particular care, should exercise the utmost integrity and dignity, and should take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to enhance the probability that the engineer’s professional opinions are reported completely, accurately, and not out of context.

Do you agree with the BER? Send me your thoughts.

Arthur E. Schwartz serves as a deputy executive director and general counsel for the National Society of Professional Engineers. He provides individualized ethics training programs to engineering companies and organizations of all sizes and areas of practice. For more information on the scope of services and costs, contact him at 703-684-2845 or at aschwartz@nspe.org. Visit www.nspe.org for more information on this or other ethical matters.