Employment—Information Gained From ABET Visitation

As with any other professional group, it is not uncommon for engineers to learn about employment opportunities through professional activities such as participation in technical or professional committees and teams. In fact, the Board  has long encouraged engineers to be active in professional and civic activities for the enhancement of the profession and the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. At the same time, where such information is revealed to an engineer, questions may arise as to whether the engineer has some obligation to fully advise or disclose information to other interested parties.

While the Board has not had an opportunity to address a case of a nature as the one before us, an early BER case involved circumstances that have some bearing on the matter at hand. In BER Case No. 65-15, a professor of engineering shared his time at the university between teaching and research projects under contract between the university and a government agency. The professor also owned an interest in a research and development company in the community and devoted evenings and weekend time to the interests of the company. The private R&D company and the university, as well as others, were invited by a federal agency to submit proposals for a project, the technical content of which was based in large part upon the research performed by the university for a different federal agency in which the professor participated.

In deciding that it was ethical for the professor to participate in the preparation of a proposal for the university, the Board noted that the professor is first an employee of the university and, as such, has a primary responsibility to the university. His interest in and work for the private R&D company, while neither necessarily inappropriate nor unethical, must be treated as secondary to his responsibilities to the university.  Under the circumstances described, it was obligatory for the professor to advise both the university and the R&D company of his interest and previous work in connection with the project in behalf of the university and insist that these facts be made known to the government agency requesting the proposal. Based on BER Case No. 65-15, the R&D company could only submit a proposal if the university did not submit a proposal.

BER Case No. 65-15 illustrates that as a general proposition, the NSPE Code recognizes that the first responsibility of engineering educators is to their university.

More recently, in BER Case No. 91-5, Engineer A, a professional engineer on unpaid leave from his employer, was a post-graduate student at a small private university, and was enrolled in a for-credit research class taught by a mechanical engineering professor at the university. The research being performed by Engineer A involved the use of an innovative technology. The university was in the process of enlarging its facilities and the professor, a member of the university’s building committee, was charged with responsibility for developing a request for proposal (RFP) in order to solicit interested engineering firms. The professor planned to incorporate an application of the innovative technology into the RFP.  The professor approached Engineer A and asked if he would personally serve as a paid consultant to the university’s building committee in developing the RFP, reviewing proposals, etc. Engineer A’s employer, ZYX Consultants, previously indicated it would not be submitting a proposal and was not averse to having Engineer A submit a proposal. Engineer A agreed to serve as a paid consultant and subsequently developed the RFP and reviewed submitted proposals.

Although deciding that it was ethical for Engineer A to be enrolled in a class for credit at the university and at the same time agree to serve as a consultant to the university, the Board cautioned that it was necessary to stress the importance for all involved in such actions to carefully delineate the scope of duties and responsibilities for those who serve in the capacity of both student and consultant. The Board said, “We can envision a set of circumstances in which misunderstandings could arise concerning the line of demarcation between student and consultant; therefore, we suggest such arrangements be prudently documented and communicated and that evaluations be made with these considerations in mind.”

Although the two cases cited relate to ethical dilemmas faced in a university setting involving somewhat different fact situations, the Board can glean some basic principles relating to exercising undue influence and gaining access to information, from both cases that are applicable to the case at hand. With these factors in mind, the Board believes that Engineer A’s actions may require scrutiny on a number of points. Among these include the questions of (1) whether Engineer A improperly gained specific information through her ABET visitation that gave her an unfair advantage in seeking the position, and (2) whether such information could have influenced Engineer A’s ABET evaluation of State X University? The Board believes that these are critical questions to examine in this matter. Based upon the facts as presented, the Board must assume that Engineer A did not improperly gain such information and was not influenced in the preparation of the report. Because nothing suggests that Engineer A engaged in any secretive or improper actions or was herself unduly influenced, the Board must conclude that Engineer A’s conduct in and of itself did not violate the NSPE Code. To determine otherwise would be to conclude that engineers in any sphere, who observe business or professional opportunities, must ignore such opportunities or else suffer ethical challenges. The Board does not believe that this is the intent of the NSPE Code. Engineers are professionals involved in business activities and are not and should not be expected to ignore normal opportunities that present themselves in their professional lives.

A related question to examine is whether Engineer A should have resigned from the ABET team or disclosed her interest in the position. The Board believes that under the facts, Engineer A did not have any obligation to resign from the ABET team or disclose her interest in the position. The facts clearly indicate that, although there were statements and comments about Engineer B’s possible departure from State X University, it was not until after Engineer A had completed her evaluation that she formally learned of the chair position opening and thereafter applied for the position. As indicated earlier, the facts do not indicate that Engineer A gained specific information through her ABET visitation that gave her an unfair advantage in seeking the position, or that such information, even if gained, influenced Engineer A’s ABET evaluation of State University X. Under the facts and the timing of events, the Board believes that the possibility that such information would have influenced Engineer A’s ABET evaluation of State X University is extremely remote and not an issue of concern.