ECELAWS

ETHICS CASES

JULY 2010

Sample cases:
1. An agent is aiming her gun to a public enemy who has just poisoned her Colleague. The
colleague is inside the house only a few meters where the agent is standing. Another
male agent called her on the phone asking her to help him out with the colleague. The
public enemy she is supposed to apprehend told her that she can save her colleague by
giving shots of three vials of substances in correct order within 2 minutes and he will give
the sequence through the phone which means to say, the female agent must let go of
the public enemy. She gave her phone to the public enemy and ran towards the house.
The public enemy while on the run gave her the sequence. She is unhappy about it; she
said I chose my friend over my responsibility. Did she do the right thing?
2.
1. The TV antenna tower
About seven years ago, a TV station in the US decided to strengthen its signal by erecting a
new, taller (1,000 ft) transmission antenna. The station contracted with a TV antenna design firm
to design the tower. The resulting design employed twenty 50-foot segments that would have to
be lifted up into place sequentially by a jib crane that moved up with the tower. Each segment
required a lifting lug to permit that segment to be hoisted off the flatbed delivery truck and then
lifted into place by the crane. The actual construction of the tower was done by a separate
rigging firm that specialized in such tasks.
When the rigging company received the twentieth and last tower segment, it faced a new
problem. While lifting the lug was satisfactory for lifting the segment horizontally off the delivery
truck, it would not enable the segment to be lifted vertically. The jib crane cable interfered with
the antenna baskets at the top of the segment. The riggers asked permission from the design
company to temporarily remove the antenna baskets and were refused. Officials at the design
firm said that the last time they gave permission to make similar changes, they had to pay
hundreds of thousands of pesos to repair the antenna baskets (which had been damaged by the
removal) and to remount and realign them correctly.
The riggers devices a solution that was seriously flawed, They bolted an extension arm to the
tower section and calculated the size of the required bolts based on the model shown in Figure
1. Figure 3.2 shows what was really occurring and indicates what the riggers should have used
as their model. Considering the force, the distance between bolts and the cross-sectional area
of the bolt, the stress on the bolts that an engineering student would compute is twelve times
that computed by the riggers, which simply means that the new lug bolts should have been
twelve times that of the riggers. The riggers, knowing they lacked engineering expertise, asked
the antenna design company engineers to review their proposed solution. The engineers again
refused, having been ordered by the company management not only not to look at the drawings
but also not to visit the construction site during the lifting of the last segment. Management of
the design firm feared that they would be held liable if there were an accident. The designers
also failed to suggest to the riggers that they should hire an engineering consultant to look over
their lifting plans.
When the riggers attempted to lift the top section of the tower with the microwave basket, the
tower fell, killing seven men. The TV company was taping the lift of the last segment for future
TV promotions, and the video-tape shows the riggers falling to their death.
If you were the design engineer, how would you react to watching that tape? What moral
responsibility does the design engineer have? Is the design engineer to blame? Is the rigging
company obligated to hire an engineering consultant? Is it their fault that they did not hire one?
Case 2. Expert Engineers
Engr. Mendoza is a forensic engineer. He is hired as a consultant by Atty. Reyes to provide an
engineering and safety analysis report a courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a
personal injury case. Following Engr. Mendozas review and analysis, Engr. Mendoza
determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the
plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the
defendant was at fault in the case. Engr. Mendozas services are terminated and his fee is paid
in full. Thereafter, Atty. Salas, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the
circumstances relating to Engr. Mendozas unwillingness to provide a report in support of Atty.
Reyes case and seeks to retain Engr. Mendoza to provide an independent and separate
engineering and safety analysis report. Engr. Mendoza agrees to provide the report.

Was it ethical for Engr. Mendoza to agree to provide the result of his investigation? Does he not
have any moral obligation to the plaintiff who first hired him?
Case 3. Whose Property
Derek Evans used to work for a small computer firm that specializes in developing software for
management tasks. Derek was a primary contributor in designing an innovative software system
for customer services. This software system is essentially the lifeblood of the firm. The small
computer firm never asked Derek to sign an agreement that software designed during his
employment there becomes the property of the company. However, his new employer did.
Derek is now working for a much larger computer firm. His job is in the customer service area,
and he spends most of his time on the telephone talking with customers having systems
problems. This requires him to cross-reference large amounts of information. It now occurs to
him that by making a few minor alterations in the innovative software system he helped design
at the small computer firm, cross-referencing can be greatly simplified.
On Friday, Derek decides he will come in early next Monday morning to make the adaptation.
However, on Saturday evening he attends a party with two of his old friends, Dennis Lim and
Horace Jones, Not having seen each other for some time, they talk about what they have been
doing recently. Derek mentions his plan to adapt the software system on Monday. Horace asks,
Isnt that unethical? That system is really the property of your previous employer. But, Derek
replies, Im just trying to make my work more efficient. Im not selling the system to anyone, or
anything like that. Its just for my use- and after all, I did help design it. Besides, its not exactly
the same system- Ive made a few changes.
Derek installs the software on Monday morning. Soon everyone is impressed with his efficiency;
they ask about the secret of his success. Derek begins to realize that the software system might
well have company-wide adaptability. This does not go unnoticed by his superiors either, so he
is offered an opportunity to introduce the system in other parts of the company.
Now Derek recalls the conversation at the party, and he begins to wonder if Horace was right
after all. He suggests that his previous employer be contacted and that the more extended use
of the software system be negotiated with the small firm. His superiors resist this suggestion.
They suggest that the software system is not the property of the larger firm. Derek balks at the
idea of going ahead without talking with the smaller firm. If Derek does not want the new job, his
superiors reply, someone else can be invited to do it; in any case, the adaptation will be made.
What should Derek do now? If you were Dennis/Horace, do you have any responsibility in
alerting the smaller firm about Dereks plan?
Case 4. The Contract
John Wade, quality control engineer at Solid Engineering, has a problem. Solid contracted with
ZEST Airways to supply a product subject to the requirement that all parts are made in the
United States. Although the original design clearly specifies that all parts must satisfy this
requirement, one of Solids suppliers failed to note that one of the components has two special
bolts that are made only in another country not the US. There is not time to design a new bolt if
the terms of the contract are to be met. ZEST is a major customer, and John fears that not
meeting the deadline can result in unfortunate consequences for Solid.
John realizes that the chances of ZEST discovering the problem on its own are slim. The bolts
in question are not visible on the surface of the product. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that
those who work on repairs will notice that the bolts are foreign made. In any case, Solid is under
contract to do any needed repairs. Meanwhile, it can work on a bolt design so that it will be
ready with U.S. bolts when, and if, replacements are needed.
What possible courses of action are available to John Wade? What do you think he should do?
Case 5. Lets be practical not plastics
Ryan Redgrave was young, inexperienced in industry, and nave about industry methods of
operating. He did, however, possess superb qualifications in statistics and in computer
programming and applications. He was hired by Alto Corporation to improve quality control in
plastic parts.
Ryan began implementing elements of statistical process control, steady improvement in the
quality of plastic parts was observed. Ryan noted that one vendor, Topwares, a small company,
produced a high quality raw material that gave a superior part except that frequency, when color
was involved, their batch-to-batch color consistency was not good. He called this to the attention
of Topwares sales representative, Mark, a personable young man about Ryans age. Mark
asked for Ryans help in solving the inconsistency problem, and over dinner one evening Ryan
outlined a series of experiments to get to the root cause of the color inconsistency.

Mark agreed that Topwares would supply the necessary material samples, and Ryan worked
late several nights to conduct the experiments he had devised. As a result of these experiments
Ryan was able to suggest some formulation changes to Mark to improve the color consistency
of their raw material. To show his gratitude, Mark took Ryan and his wife to an expensive
restaurant for dinner. This will make up for some of the late hours you worked trying to solve
our mutual quality problem, Mark exclaimed.
The formulation changes Ryan suggested did work and the color consistency of the Topwares
material improved remarkably. Mark continued to check its performance on frequent sales calls
at Alto. The friendship between Mark and Ryan grew, with Mark frequently taking Ryan to lunch.
On several of these occasions, Mark urged Ryan to recommend that Alto buy more of its plastic
from Topwares.
Ryan did recommend to his procurement department that Alto buy more from Topwares
because of the improved quality of the material. A small increase was put into effect, although
procurement told Ryan that Altos price was the highest of any of the plastics vendors with which
Alto dealt.
Identify the ethical issues in this case. Has Ryan done anything wrong? How about Mark?
Case 6. Considered resigned
Mr. Salas had just received certification of his 20-year term of office as a regular employee at an
early age. His full-term will end in September. Knowing himself as still strong and energetic and
can still perform his task as a clerk, he talked to his superior, Mr. Remillo to recommend him as
contractual before his full term ends in which Mr. Remillo agreed verbally. When September
comes, to Mr. Salas surprise, he received a memo on his table that on that same day his
connection with the company ended and someone will be taking his place right at that very
moment.
If you were Mr. Salas, could you hold on to your superiors verbal agreement? Are there
moral/ethical principles that the superior had missed? What could be some legal/laws that would
address this issue?
Case 7. Where credit is due
Engineer Alaraz used to be an employee at Max Corporation. He was a staff engineer along
with five other staff engineers of equal rank. This team of six was responsible for the design of
certain products. While working for Max, Engineer Alaraz along with five other engineers in his
team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products.
Engr. Alaraz is seeking employment with Limco Industries. He submits his resume to
which implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually
designed through a joint effort of the members of the team.
1. Was it ethical for Engr. Alaraz to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible
for the design of the products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of
the members of the design team?
2. What are the factors that drive engineers like Engr. Alaraz to do this?
3. If this is unethical, how then should Engr. Alaraz state his participation in the design in
his resume?
Case 8. What are friends for?
A software engineer discovers that a colleague has been downloading restricted files that
contain trade secrets about a new product that the colleague is not personally involved with.
The software engineer knows the colleague has been having financial problems, and he fears
the colleague is planning to sell the secrets or perhaps leave the company and use them in
starting up his own company. Company policy requires him to inform his supervisor, but the
colleague is a close friend. Should he first talk with the friend about what he is doing, or should
he immediately inform his supervisor?
Case 9: Weapons For Life
You are a citizen of Southern Antarctica and are employed as an engineer working for a small
company that manufactures a keychip/component/valve for a very lethal, defensive military
weapon. As the only supplier of this device, there is a potential for world-wide sales to over 200
countries and, surprisingly, there is no legal restriction to the export and marketing of this
component to other countries.
The president of your company has asked you to perform a cost-benefit analysis of selling this
component, assuming the following information:

1.

50% of the interested countries will actually purchase this device and pay for it.

2.

Each purchaser will probably buy 500 to 10,000 of the defensive weapons.

3.

Each weapon contains 500 pieces of the component your company makes and sells.

4.

Since this is a complex component, your company will net about $1,000 per component
sold.

5.

Although this weapon is considered unlikely to ever be used in battle ("one chance in a
million"), the expected loss of life is believed to be 50 to 500 lives for each use of the
weapon.

6.

Because this weapon is hoped to be defensive and should discourage an aggressor, it is

assumed that only one or at most two will ever be used.

Questions on Ethics and Professionalism

1. Are you willing to work for a company that makes such a device? Did you know about this
product when you were hired, and did you consider the pros and cons in making your
decision to take this position?
2. What assumptions would you make about countries or governments that might purchase this
device? Also, what assumptions would you make regarding countries most affected by the
weapon's use?
Case 10. Integrity in business
You are a recruiter for an executive recruitment firm that has recently been retained by one of
the largest corporations in the United States to find appropriate candidates for the position of
President of the corporation. If the corporation hires one of the candidates you find then your
firm will receive one third of the Presidents cash compensation salary and bonus, an
amount in excess of $750,000. Several weeks into the recruitment process it becomes clear to
you that the company has gone about the search in a severely flawed way, making it highly
unlikely that it will find the kind of candidates it needs. The Board of Directors, in your judgment,
has allowed the CEO to control the search. It is clear to you that he wants someone who will be
deferential towards him, which, in your judgment, will make it extremely difficult to attract the
most highly qualified candidates. You discuss the issue with your superior. She says that given
the intensely competitive environment for executive search firms, it would seriously
disadvantage your firm to offend the Board of Directors of one of Americas largest corporations.
She reminds you that the Board of Directors is responsible for hiring the President of the
Corporation. A recruitment firm, she says, bears no legal liability if a candidate it presents to a
company is hired and proves unsuccessful in his position.
What should you do in this situation, and why?
Case 11. DAM FOR POWER PLANTs
During Typhoon Ondoy and Peping, several places in Metro Manila and North Luzon were
under water. One factor that caused the flooding was the sudden release of water from several
dams. Some of these dams are for irrigation, some for water supply, and some for hydropower
plant operation. Some senators contemplated the closing of these dams. Is this a wise
proposition? What are the moral responsibilities of the engineers involved in the operation of the
dams?
Case 12. Weapons, weapons
George, who has just taken his Ph.D. in electronics, finds it extremely difficult to get a job. The
companies where he thought he could do the job satisfactorily are now cutting down the number
of jobs. His wife has to work to support them which itself causes a great deal of strain, since
they have small children and there are severe problems looking after them. The results of all
these, especially on the children, are damaging. An older ECE, who knows about Georges
situation, says that he can get George a decently paid job in a certain laboratory, which pursues

research into precise electronics weapons that could annihilate a certain community. What
should George do in order to best preserve his integrity? Is it permissible for him to take the job
and compartmentalize so as to separate his work and his personal commitments?
Case 13. OSHA
Bill, a process engineer, learns from a former classmate who is now a regional compliance
officer with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that there will be an
unannounced inspection of Bills plant. Bill believes that unsafe practices are often tolerated in
the plant, especially in the handling of toxic chemicals. Although there have been small spills, no
serious accidents have occurred in the plant during the past few years. What should Bill do?
Case 14. Choose wisely
Jim Serra, vice president of engineering, must decide who to recommend for a new directorlevel position that was formed by merging the product compliance group with the environmental
testing group. The top inside candidate is Diane Bryant, senior engineering group manager in
charge of the environmental testing group. Bryant is 36, exceptionally intelligent and highly
motivated, and a well-respected leader. She is also five months pregnant and is expected to
take an eight-week maternity leave two months before the first customer ship deadline (six
months away) for a new product. Bryant applies for the job and in a discussion with Serra
assures him that she will be available at all crucial stages of the project. Your colleague David
Moss, who is vice president of product engineering, strongly urges you to find an outside
person, insisting that there is no guarantee that Bryant will be available when needed. Much is
at stake. A schedule delay could cost several million dollars in revenues lost to competitors. At
the same time, offending Bryant could lead her and perhaps other valuable engineers whom
she supervises to leave the company. What procedure would you recommend in reaching a
solution?
Case 15. Authorship rider
You are a senior professor who mentored a younger colleague who is coming up for tenure and
promotion next year. One of the requirements before a faculty can be promoted and/or tenured
is a research paper. The colleague had assisted you with some suggestions on a research
project, but was not sufficiently involved in the project to warrant co-authorship. In your view, the
colleague clearly deserves tenure and promotion, but you know that last year a key committee
turned down an equally deserving candidate because the candidate did not meet the research
paper requirements. Thinking that this deserving candidate might not get the tenure, you offer to
add the colleagues name to yours at the end of two articles about to be submitted for
publications. Is this deception permissible?
Case 16. Dual-roles
Engineer Solis is employed on a full-time basis by a radio broadcast equipment manufacturer as
a sales representative. In addition, Solis performs consulting engineering services to
organizations in the radio broadcast field, including analysis of their technical problems and,
when required, recommendation of certain radio broadcast equipment as may be needed. Solis
engineering reports to his clients are prepared in form for filing with NTC. In some cases, Solis
engineering reports recommend the use of broadcast equipment manufactured by his employer.
May Solis ethically provide consulting services as described?
Case 17. Faulty Heart Valves
Shiley, Inc. a Pfizer subsidiary, was a pioneer in artificial heart valves From 1965 to the late
1970s, Shiley manufactured and sold artificial heart valves that never had a fracturing problem.
In the late 1970s it came up with a new model, the C-C, that allowed better blood flow than
other models, thereby reducing the risk of blood clots. The new valve consisted of a metal ring
through which blood flows, with two wire struts protruding from the ring that hold a small disk in
place. The disk tilts up and down within the struts, opening and closing the valve according to
the natural flow of blood. About 86,000 C-C valves have been implanted in patients.
Unfortunately, about 450 fractured C-C valves have been reported so far, with nearly 300
resulting deaths. Investigators have come up with disturbing findings. Since fractures can be
fatal, Shiley inspectors were told to look very carefully for any evidence of cracks. The
managements order is to do rewelding if cracks were found. Each valve was accompanied by a
card recording dates and the manufacturing operations performed. What investigators
discovered was that many cards indicating rewelding were falsified. The inspector who signed
the cards had left Shiley six months before the valve was first manufactured. The cracks of the

actual valves were only polished instead of rewelded. To make matter worse, an outside
company, Cabot, who specializes in the material used to construct the valves said rewelding is
not recommendatory and was relayed to one of the employee of Shiley. Identify and discuss the
ethical issues here. Who has the biggest obligation here? The company? The engineers who
designed the valves? The inspector? The employee who had contact with the Cabot?
Case 18. Whistleblowing
In 1977, Virginia Edgerton was senior information scientist on a project for New York Citys
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The project was to develop a computer system for use by
New York district attorneys in keeping track of data about court cases. It was to be added to
another computer system, already in operation, which dispatched police cars in response to
emergency calls. Ms. Edgerton who had 13 years of data processing experience, judged that
adding on the new system might result in overloading the existing system in such a way that the
response time for dispatching emergency vehicles might increase. Because it might risk lives to
test the system in operation, she recommended that a study be conducted ahead of time to
estimate the likelihood of such overload.
She made this recommendation to her immediate supervisor, the project director, who refused
to follow it. She then sought advice from the IEEE, of which she was a member. The Institutes
Working Group on Ethics and Employment Practices referred her to the manager of systems
programming at Columbia Universitys computer center, who verified that she was raising a
legitimate issue.
Next she wrote a formal memo to her supervisor, again requesting the study. When her request
was rejected, she sent a revised version of the memo to New Yorks Criminal Justice Steering
Committee, a part of the organization for which she worked. In doing so, she violated the project
directors orders that all communications to the Steering Committee be approved by him in
advance. The project director promptly fired her for insubordination. Later he stated: It is
imperative that an employee who is in a highly professional capacity, and has the exposure that
accompanies a position dealing with top level policy makers, follow expressly given orders and
adhere to established policy. Is the supervisor right? Did Ms. Edgerton have a professional
moral right to act as she did? Was hers a case of legitimate whistleblowing?
Case 19. The last will be first
Mr. Zebra is a consulting engineer whose firm, Zebra Associates, appears last in the telephone
directorys classified listing of engineers. In order to gain a more advantageous position in the
yellow pages and in other directories, he changes the name of his firm to Aardvark and Zebra.
Aardvark is a purely fictitious partner. Is this ethical? Cite Philippine laws regarding trademarks
and company names. Which ethical principle would best support your answer?
Case 20. Specs Impossible
Arthur is a chief engineer in a components house. As such, he sits in meetings concerning
bidding on contracts. At one such meeting between top company executives and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, which is interested in getting a major contract, NASA
presents specifications for components that are to be several orders of magnitude more reliable
than the current state of the art. The components are not part of a life-support system, yet are
critical for the success of several planned experiments. Arthur does not believe such reliability
can be achieved by his company or any other, and he knows the executives in his company feel
the same. Nevertheless, the executives indicate an interest to bid on the contract without
questioning the specifications. Arthur discusses the matter privately with the executives and
recommends that they review the seemingly technical impossibility with NASA and try to amend
the contract. The executives say that they intend, if they win the contract, to argue mid-stream
for a change. They remind Arthur that if they dont win the contract, several engineers in Arthurs
division will have to be laid off. Arthur is well-liked by his employees and fears the lay-offs wold
affect some close friendships. What should Arthur do?
Case 21. Say nothing
During an investigation of a bridge collapse, Engineer Tenorio investigates another similar
bridge, and finds it to be only marginally safe. He contacts the governmental agency responsible
for the bridge and informs them of his concern for the safety of the structure. He is told that the
agency is aware of this situation, and has planned to provide in next years budget for its repair.
Until then, the bridge must remain open to traffic. Without this bridge, emergency vehicles such
as police and fire apparatus would have to use an alternate route which would increase their
response time about twenty minutes. Engineer Tenorio is thanked for his concern and asked to

say nothing about the condition of the bridge. The agency is confident that the bridge will be
safe. What should Engineer Tenorio do? What options do Engineer Tenorio have? Which of
these options are obligatory and morally permissible?
Case 22. Copyright
MP3 audio files enable users to exchange compact disk recordings digitally over the Internet.
Music lovers use MP3's to search for rare recordings. They also can use them to copy an entire
compact disk and transmit it to anyone at no cost. Recently the Recording Industry Association
of America (RIAA) has undertaken a major effort to combat copyright violations. The RIAA sends
letters to colleges and universities whenever its researchers discover on campus servers
offering copyrighted music. According to Frank Creighton, an RIAA Senior Vice President, when
the Association began its monitoring efforts several years ago it discovered that about seventy
per-cent of the infringing sites were on university campuses. "We're willing to give individuals
or students a first pass," said Mr. Creighton. "But if we catch you doing it again," he said, "we
have no alternative but to take the stance that you're thumbing your nose at us, and you don't
take us seriously, and there are potential civil and criminal remedies that we will invoke if we
need to."
In the fall of 1999 network administrators at Carnegie Mellon University, without prior warning,
checked the public folders of two hundred and fifty (250) student computers connected to the
University's network, and found seventy one (71) students whose files contained illegally copied
MP3's. The students lost their in-room Internet connections for the rest of the semester, which
meant they had to use a university computer lab to gain access to the Internet. All the students
were given a right to appeal their penalties, and students who attended a ninety minute class on
copyright had their penalties reduced by one month. Speaking of the investigation, Paul G.
Fowler, Carnegie Mellon's Associate Dean for Student Affairs said, "It wasn't a big caper. All we
did was go in to take a look at the culture of our Internet." Mr. Fowler noted that prior to the
investigation, University officials had discussed whether it would be a good idea to step up
efforts at educating students about copyright violations. "We now know it would be," he said.
Under the Digital Millenium Act, which Congress passed last year, on-line service providers,
such as universities, can avoid liability if they take certain steps specified in the Act. These
include, in cases when the university has been informed of an infringement, shutting off access
to the infringing material, and notifying the user who posted it, so that he or she can take up the
matter with the copyright holder. The user must be given the right by the university to appeal the
shutoff. According to Mr. Arnold Lutzker, an attorney for the American Library Association, if a
university meets the above requirements, in all likelihood, it will avoid liability for any given
infringement.
"I'm no fan of the recording industry," said Mr. Fowler of Carnegie Mellon, "but our students
need to understand they're probably going to be out there creating software some day that's
going to make them a million dollars." If that software winds up in some shared community," Mr.
Fowler observed, "their livelihood is jeopardized." "So why should we not afford the same
opportunities to make a living to other members of our community?", asked Mr. Fowler.
Case 23. To send all to prison or to choose who will go to prison
Suppose that six physicians are discovered by the BIR each to have understated his or her
taxable income by over P1,000,000. As legal advisers to the BIR Jerry and Paul agree that all
six must pay tax on the income they failed to declare at appropriately high rates on that income
and substantial financial penalties. Jerry and Paul disagree, however, concerning the criminal
prosecution of the doctors. Jerry believes that all six should be prosecuted and sent to prison.
Paul, however, believes, that only two of the doctors should be prosecuted on the grounds that
the community cannot afford to lose any more than four doctors at this time (the six doctors all
live in a predominantly rural region with limited resources for medical care). Jerry disagrees
strongly. He views the needs of the community for medical practitioners as irrelevant to the
decision to prosecute. He contends that the evidence of criminal violations of the tax code
against all six doctors is equally strong, and thus they all should be prosecuted.
Who is right, Jerry or Paul? Explain your answer.
Case 24. Court witness

If you are an expert witness for a certain court case, why is it important that you are not
intimately involved with the accused? Why is it considered unethical when you have become
involved?
Case 25. Conflict of interest
In 1962 the Atlantic Cement Company began operating a cement plant outside of Albany, New
York. The Company employed over 300 local residents and by 1970 had invested $45 million in
the plant. The plant emitted large amounts of pollution, however, as well as causing constant
vibrations and loud noise. Local residents filed suit against the Company, claiming that the loud
noise and the vibrations were harming their health and property. The suit asked that the court
issue an injunction that would close down the plant until the pollution and vibrations could be
eliminated. The Company was already using the best available technology, which meant that the
suit was asking that the plant be closed down indefinitely. The court refused to issue the
injunction, reasoning that the costs of closing the plant outweighed the benefits to be gained by
the residents. Instead of closing the plant, the court ruled that the cement company should pay
residents a onetime fee to compensate them for ongoing harms. This fee was calculated to be
a fair market price for what the residents would receive if they were inclined and able to rent
their property.
Was the decision of the court in this case fair? If so, why? If not, why not?
Case 26. You wish to conduct a research that will establish the link of kids violence to what they
watch on TV. How do you carry this out without crossing the line?
Case 27. Product Reliability, Hazard And Risk
You work for Ajax Health Instruments, Inc. Ajax is developing an implantable patient-monitoring
device. The device is implemented on a single-chip: Chip X. The user ("patient") may download
health data by telephone to the hospital. Any mode of failure of this memory chip can be
extremely hazardous to the patient because of incorrect data, data loss, and unknown or
unidentified hazards. Most of the patients using the implant are over 50 years of age.
Field data for Chip X, under environmental stress conditions similar to Ajax's intended use, show
six failures in 1.77 million part-hours. From this, a colleague has computed the point-estimate of
the failure rate:

Under the robust assumption of constant failure rate, the Mean Time To F (m) is the reciprocal
of failure rate, so: m = 2.95 (105) hours.
Upon seeing this result, the Chief Engineer exclaims, "Wow, that's wonderful! The instrument
operates continuously, so that's 8,760 hours per year. So on average we can operate our unit
without failures from the part for 34 years!"
a. The Marketing Department of Ajax wants to run an ad in journals read by physicians. They
intend to show prominently: "Reliability of 34 years!" What if based on your computations
and using the point estimate (50% confidence) for the MTBF (34 years), at 34 years 63% of
the chips will have failed! How should you inform the marketing department about this and
what will be you suggested ad line? Invoke an ethics code of one or more engineering
societies to support your stand.
b. Is Chip X suitable for the intended application? What considerations should be evaluated,
and how?
Case 28. Allowing Defective Chips To Go To Market
A production line engineer, Shane, checks every chip for quality control (QC). His workers find
errors approximately every 150 chips. Either the defective chips must be sent back for repair or

they must be axed (thrown away). The manager, Rob, has mandated that workers must axe all
defective chips. Rob walks over to Shane's line and declares, "Why some lines sink more
dollars into a chip that's failed, I don't understand. We only make 25 cents off of each chip
anyway! Spending an additional $2.00 per chip will only be more money down the drain. Shane,
in our line of work we can't afford to flush money down the toilet."
The following afternoon, Rob calls a meeting in his office. Rob informs Shane, that Shane's line
is axing too many chips. "One chip every hundred and fifty is unacceptable! This is becoming a
substantial cost to the company. I believe that it would be more beneficial to allow defective
chips to go out the door." Shane asks, "What about the defective chips? Won't customers
complain?" Rob replies, "Yeah, yeah, but that's not your problem, the company has a return
department that will replace them as customers complain." Rob further estimates that allowing
defective chips on the market will yield a $416,000 profit for the company.
Facts:

The line produces 100,000 chips per year.

Every chip is purchased.

Chips cost about $9.00 to produce.

Chip testing costs about $4.00 per chip.

Chip repair (manpower and material) is about $2.00 per chip.

This repair cost includes re-testing.

Profit per chip is $0.25 after testing.

There are fifteen full-time employees working under Shane.

Two part-time employees work under Shane's supervision.

Shane's manager, Rob, has been with the company for about 7 years.

Shane has been working under the same manager for several years and has had
relatively good relations with Rob.
Additional information regarding the Shane's line:
The engineer's line consists of the final inspection between the bond wires, which attach the
chips to the prongs and spot plates (the prongs that protrude from the final product), just before
the chips are encased in molding compound for final packaging. You may assume that all
defects are caused by faulty bond wire attachment and not by any problem with the chip itself,
because the chips were tested in the preceding phase before the bond wires were attached.
Numerical and/or Design Problem(s)
1. What percent of the chips may fail if Xanthum Inc. Orders 15,000 chips from Shane's
production line?
2. Do you believe this is an acceptable failure rate? From the perspective of Xanthum? From
the perspective of the manufacturer? Why or why not?
3. If Shane's line produces 100,000 chips per year, how much will it cost to:
4. Test and repair each defective chip?

5. Test all chips and throw away the defective chips?

6. Not to test any chips and to replace customers chips as needed?
7. Is Rob's estimate reasonable? What about his assertion that it is cheaper to axe the chips?
8. An additional problem could be added by incorporating combinatorial mathematics to
compute time required to test each chip.
Questions on Ethics and Professionalism
1.
2.

What issues are involved in following Rob's recommendation?

Is it acceptable to follow Rob's suggested course of action (you must calculate the failure
rate if for instance a company orders 15,000 chips from Shanes line, the cost of testing
and repairing each defective chip, and testing all chips and throw the defective ones)?

If Shane has a differing opinion, how could he present his case to Rob?

Brainstorming
Case 1. CHOOSING WHO WILL SURVIVE BY 2012
In the movie 2012, it had been presented that only those who donated a handsome
amount to build the ark can stay in the ark and hopefully survive. What is your moral
evaluation?
Compare the decision making here with the decision on who will survive in the film
Deep Impact
Case 2. Dark Knight
Is it immoral to intrude the privacy of people in order to find where the criminal could be hiding?
Why do we have laws that protect the privacy of the people?