|
Does the IEEE’s Code of Ethics Meet Today’s Needs?
by
George F. McClure
The IEEE and its predecessors have established codes
of ethics to guide members’ interactions with clients,
employers, the public and the profession. Other professional
societies have adopted codes of ethics for the same purposes.
Today’s engineers are concerned both with the tenets contained
in their code of engineering ethics, and with the mechanism for
enforcement in confirmed ethics violations cases.
Today’s IEEE Code of Ethics, while modified several times over
the years, has retained the fundamental principles detailed in
the Code first adopted by the American Institute of Electrical
Engineers (AIEE) in 1912. Meanwhile, society's needs have changed,
business practices have changed, and engineers’ roles in business
have changed. Could it be time to consider
modifications, in light of the world in which we live and work
today?
Where It All Began
IEEE’s Code of Ethics originated from the “Code of Principles of
Professional Conduct,” adopted by the American Institute of
Electrical Engineers in 1912, a month before the Titanic sank. That code contained 22 tenets in four parts.
Client and Employer Relations
Seven tenets dealt with engineers’ relations to clients
and employers. The Code obligated engineers to protect clients' interests and
to disclose any matters that interfered with that duty. In
addition, engineers could
not accept commissions from parties that had dealings with those
clients. Engineers who consulted
for several clients could not do so in conflict of interest and
had to gain an understanding with all clients that they were
free to carry out other engagements. Finally, the code specified
that engineers should bring dangerous defects in equipment,
design or operation to their clients’ or employers’ attention.
Record and Data Ownership
Eight tenets covered the matter of engineering records and data
ownership, including ownership of improvements, inventions,
plans or designs; protection of proprietary materials engineers
have access to from their clients; engineers’ retention of
rights to designs for other applications apart from the one for
which they performed specific work for a client; and ownership
of data and other work apart from that commissioned by the
client. Further, the code established that engineers must
protect clients’ proprietary intellectual property and must not
publish it or use it for the benefit of other clients. Engineers should not sell
the work they do for one client to another without the original client's
consent. Finally, clients do not acquire any rights to
plans made by a consulting engineer except for the specific case
for which they were made.
Engineers and the Public
Four tenets covered engineers’ relations
with the public.
Specifically, they should promote a general understanding of
engineering. In addition,
technical discussions should be carried out before engineering
societies or in the technical press, not in the public press.
Further, engineers should not express their opinions without
being fully informed of all the facts, and opinions given should
include a statement of the conditions where they apply.
Engineers and the Engineering Community
AIEE’s code included three tenets that dealt with engineers’
relationship to the engineering fraternity. First, they should
assist fellow
engineers by exchanging information and experience through instruction and engineering societies. The
second and third tenets resonate today:
- Engineers should take care that credit for engineering work
is attributed to those who, so far as their knowledge of the
matter goes, are the real authors of such work.
- Engineers
for work should not permit
non-technical persons to overrule engineering judgments on
purely engineering grounds.
IEEE Code of Ethics Adopted
The merger of AIEE and the Institute of Radio Engineers in 1963
led to the IEEE Board of Directors adopting the three
fundamental principles of professional engineering ethics from
the Canons of Ethics of Engineers, developed by the Engineers
Council for Professional Development:
“The Engineer, to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the
engineering profession and in keeping with high standards of
ethical conduct:
- Will be honest and impartial, and will serve with devotion
his employer, his clients and the public;
- Will strive to increase the competence and prestige of the
engineering profession; and
- Will use his knowledge and skill for the advancement of
human welfare.”
Past IEEE President John J. Guarrera and the
IEEE Board of
Directors approved the IEEE Code of Ethics in 1974. Developed by
volunteer committees and boards within the IEEE — specifically the
United States Activities Board (USAB), USAB’s Ethics and
Employment Practices Committee, the Executive Committee, its
ad hoc Committee on Ethics, and the IEEE Board of Directors — the Code
was publicized as a “living document” via IEEE Spectrum
(February 1975).
In 1977, the IEEE Board of Directors decided that, because ethics
issues are transnational issues, it would be more appropriate
for the Institute to take responsibility for implementing
procedures, rather than keeping that responsibility with the
United States Activities Board. Then, in 1979, an editorial
revision clarified that the Code applies to all IEEE members and
not just to engineers, since some IEEE members are not
engineers. In 1987, the Board expanded the preamble and added a
new article to protect and enhance
the image of the IEEE and its members: “Engineers should not make false statements
concerning the IEEE or another member or employee, and should avoid
injury to the professional reputation of another member or
employee.” The next major change came in 1990, when the Board
adopted the present, simplified IEEE Code of Ethics.
IEEE’s Ethics Organization Today
Today’s IEEE Code of Ethics provides professional practice
guidelines to protect both engineers acting ethically, and the
public, which includes the engineers’ clients, employers and
customers. Further, the Institute has a policy for supporting
members who, as a result of conforming to the Code, are placed
at risk. Through this policy, the IEEE Ethics & Member Conduct
Committee (EMCC) — the committee responsible for overseeing
application of the Code — may develop and file a supporting
amicus curiae with a court, confirming the Institute’s support
for the code. On its own behalf, IEEE-USA also has the authority
to submit statements to U.S. federal and state courts and
related judicial bodies.
In addition, when one member accuses another of violating a
tenet of the Code, EMCC investigates the complaint and makes
recommendations to the IEEE President. After a hearing, the
IEEE's Board of Directors approves the disposition. In these
cases, one of several outcomes emerges: the IEEE may dismiss the
complaint or may censure, suspend or even expel the member.
Are EMCC Policies and Procedures Sufficient?
Currently, EMCC requires that IEEE members file all complaints.
As a result, engineers who may be in a position to know of
possible violations, but who are not IEEE members, cannot file a
complaint. Other organizations have established procedures that
close this gap. The American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, for example, has a procedure that allows
non-members to file charges against members. It also operates an
ethics hotline and publishes disciplined members’ names, along
with the charges found to be valid (www.aipa.org/members/div/ethics/index.htm).
Common Ethics Issues in Today’s Environment
Engineers work in a dynamic environment, and ethics issues arise
in myriad situations. Often, engineering decisions and business
practices conflict. What happens, for example, when an engineer
insists on including safety features in a product design but the
employer, being mindful of production cost, wants to eliminate
some of those features?
IEEE’s Code of Ethics specifically proscribes bribery. A major
bribery incident occurred in 1972, when a former prime minister
of Japan was arrested for accepting fees from Lockheed Aircraft
in connection with the sale of L-1011 aircraft to a Japanese
airline. While some companies may still offer financial incentives to
officials to "win" business, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of
1977 (FCPA) makes it illegal for U.S. companies or individuals to offer
bribes to foreign officials. Congress passed the FCPA after Securities and Exchange Commission
investigations found that
more than 400 U.S.
companies had made such illegal payments.
Energy Practices Shed Light on Ethics Issues
Perhaps one of the most public ethics-related issues of late
comes from the energy industry. Many have discussed the extent to which
engineers may be involved in activities that are inconsistent
with public safety or welfare. One such activity involves
trading electric power blocks in ways designed to boost the
price (“daisy-chaining”) by repeated sales and buybacks. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigated several
actions in connection with the California rolling blackouts of
2001 and the Enron collapse
(www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wem/pa02-2/info-release.asp).
For example, FERC investigated whether power plants were held
back from production for longer periods than they needed for
maintenance to reduce supply and increase bid prices.
The Commission also looked into arrangements made for purchasing power that had to flow through congested nodes and
therefore could not actually be delivered, forcing the seller to
pay a premium for release from the delivery contract.
Selling power to customers at fixed rates while buying at
market rates in a deregulated environment bankrupted privately held power companies operating in California.
This strategy left
the state in debt from having to guarantee power purchases
from outside California by the power companies that lacked
credit of their own. Dividends were cut and retirees counting on
dependable income from their shares in investor-owned California
utilities found their incomes drastically reduced. Meanwhile,
the Public Utilities Commission increased electric rates and
state legislators proposed increasing taxes to generate other
state revenue. Some consider this the catalyst that led to
the recall of Gov. Davis, who managed to take the state from a $12 billion
state surplus in 2000 to a large deficit
(www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/
california_recall_election.html ).
In the aftermath last March, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
arranged a $15 million bond issue, part of which will go to
funding that debt
(www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget9jul09,1,7100910.story).
Engineers’ Role
Could engineers have made a difference in the energy debacle? To
what extent were engineers involved in price gouging? They
undoubtedly made the node congestion studies, but what was their
intent: to consciously overload a node or to plan for capital
improvements that could ease the congestion? A study would
provide data for both, but traders, not engineers, determined
the trading patterns.
Would efficiency-concerned
engineers have held power plants out of service for longer than
was required to perform required maintenance safely? Were these
management decisions made deliberately to override
engineers’ pleas to put the plants back online to
maximize profits? Finally, it appeared that consultants who
worked for both the buyers and sellers might have developed
software used for energy trading. In that case, the algorithms
that could have provided an advantage to one side may have been
known by both sides, putting the consultants in ethical
violation for not disclosing all of their customers to each of
them.
George F. McClure is chair of the IEEE-USA Communications
Committee and a past chair of the IEEE Member Conduct Committee.
He can be contacted at
todaysengineer@ieee.org. Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s.
|
E-mail
this page