Case 95-2

Code Citations: [C4] [I.4] [II.1.d] [II.2.b] [II.3.a] [II.3.b] [II.3.c] [III.2.b] [III.2.c] [III.3.a]

Case Citations: NONE

Facts:

Engineer A meets with the major commercial sponsor of his transportation research and present the results of his research in a paper, including charts, graphs, and other illustrative material. The commercial sponsor clearly has a significant interest in the research report and its conclusions and, subsequently, the commercial sponsor makes certain changes in the research report bearing Engineer A's name without his knowledge and approval. The changes include altering report text, altering tables and removal of figures. Engineer A files a formal complaint against the sponsor.

Questions:

2. Was the sponsor ethical in altering Engineer A's report?

References:

Code I.4

Act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

Code II.1.d

Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or firm name nor associate in business ventures with any person or firm which they have reason to believe is engaging in fraudulent or dishonest business or professional practices.

Code II.2.b

Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.

Code II.3.a

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.

Code II.3.b

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.

Code II.3.c

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.

Code III.2.b

Engineers shall not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.

Code III.2.c

Engineers shall endeavor to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and its achievements and to protect the engineering profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Code III.3.a

Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact necessary to keep statements from being misleading or intended or likely to create an unjustified expectation, or statements containing prediction of future

Discussion:

One could argue that if the "changed" report is to be used specifically and only by the sponsor in their internal decision making process and if the "certain changes" made by the sponsor did not change the actual conclusions of the engineers report, there might appear to be ethical implications on the part of the sponsor. The sponsor paid for the research and it is theirs to use as they see fit as long as they do not modify the results to serve a purpose not intended by the research engineer. However, the BER believes that the report remains the responsibility of the author and should not be changed. The sponsor could ethically write another report using the information from Engineer A's report with appropriate reference to Engineer A's report. Code II.2.b. requires that the engineer's name not be affixed to any document not prepared under their direction and control.

If the "changed" report is to be published by the sponsor or if the "certain changes" made by the sponsor did change the actual conclusions of the engineers report, there again appears to be ethical questions on the part of the sponsor. The sponsor paid for the research and it is theirs to use but not in a way that modifies the results to serve a purpose not intended by the research engineer. The sponsor is obligated to notify the engineer of the changes and seek his permission before making the changes. Under these circumstances, the engineer should at a minimum request the removal of his name from the changed report and if not granted, never accept a research project from that sponsor and at a maximum, take the sponsor to court. Of course, several actions between these extremes are possible and should be explored.

Referring to Code II.3.a. of the engineer's Code of Ethics, an engineer shall be objective and truthful in reports. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Furthermore, Code II.1.d. states that an engineer must not permit the use of their name in business ventures with any person that they have reason to believe is engaging in fraudulent or dishonest business or professional practice. Fundamental Code C4 of the Code of Ethics states that the engineer shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Assuming that the sponsor involved in this case was an engineer, he should also be aware of and adhere to the profession's ethics code.

Conclusion:

2. The sponsor in this case acted unethically towards Engineer A.

BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW

William A. Cox, Jr., P.E., James G. Fuller, P.E., Donald L. Hiatte, P.E., Robert L. Nichols, P.E., William E. Norris, P.E., Jimmy H. Smith, Ph.D., P.E., William W. Middleton, P.E., Chairman
[Disclaimer]