Engineering Student Serving As Consultant To University

This case raises for the first time a number of somewhat subtle but nevertheless important ethical considerations involving the activities of engineering students in connection with the work performed for a grade and similar work performed for a fee. These issues arise in the context of the academic setting which, in recent years, has played an increasingly important role in shaping the practice of engineering.

While the Code of Ethics is quite comprehensive and detailed in addressing a variety of ethical matters, the Code does not specifically speak to the ethical obligations of engineering students. Section III.11 of the Code comes closest to addressing the educational obligations of engineers. This provision places the obligation on engineers to promote the widest dissemination of engineering data and material to enhance the educational attainment of other engineers and engineering students. However, this provision does not directly deal with the ethical obligations of engineering students per se.

While we have 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 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 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, BER 91-5 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 is 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 65-15, the R&D company could only submit a proposal if the university did not submit a proposal.

While the facts in BER Case 65-15 is quite different than the present case, it contains a number of important points which are relevant to our consideration. It is clear that as a general proposition, the Code of Ethics recognizes the primarily responsibility of engineering educators to the university. In the present case, the student is acting as a professional engineer in connection with the consulting work for the university and is therefore bound by the Code of Ethics.

Turning to the facts of this case, we believe that the circumstances involved are of a nature which involve a conflict of interest in the review of innovative technologies of competing firms.

The results of this case could easily be somewhat different if Engineer A was an active employee of ZYX Consultants and that firm was interested in submitting a proposal for the enlargement project. But those facts are not before this Board at this time.

Finally, we should add a word of clarification concerning Engineer A's treatment as a student. We recognize the need for universities, their faculties and students to develop new methods of addressing innovative technological questions, and infer an attitude of good faith on the part of all involved. However, it is necessary to stress the importance for all involved in such methods to carefully delineate the scope of duties and responsibilities for those who serve in the capacity of both student and consultant. 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.

Note: Code III.11 no longer exists.