Michael Davis' Commentary on "Taking a Position of Influence"
Author(s):
Michael Davis
This is a case about conflict of interest in two
professions, engineering and university teaching. Until
recently, only a few professions, most notably law and public
accounting, paid much attention to conflict of interest.
Engineering codes of ethics did not include a general provision
on conflict of interest until the mid-1970s. The NSPE's code
still relies heavily on the older language, grouping most (but
not all) conflict of interest provisions under Rule 3's
"[acting] for each client or employer as faithful agents and
trustees." Colleges and universities only began to worry much
about conflict of interest in the mid-1980s. Even now they seem
to worry about it far less than they should.
The first question, then, is which profession's standards
apply to "you." Will you be serving on the committee
(primarily) as a member of the faculty, as a member of the
engineering faculty, or as a member of the National Society of
Professional Engineers? The answer, it seems, is that
Vice-President Jackson wants you because of your reputation as
a researcher, that is, because you have been a good (academic)
engineer. He probably does not know, and would not care if he
did know, that you are a member of the NSPE. So, it seems, you
must respond to him as an engineer, using the NSPE code or some
other engineering code) as a guide to understanding what your
profession requires of you in these circumstances.
The essence of conflict of interest is the undermining of
independent judgment. Your training and experience as an
engineer give powers of judgment others lack. Part of being a
professional is exercising those powers in a certain way, that
is, according to the (morally permissible) standards your
profession sets. So, for example, people ask engineers to do
certain jobs because they want such jobs done in the way
engineers characteristically do them.
An engineer can fail to meet professional standards either
by failing in competence or by failing in independence. An
engineer fails in competence when she acts without knowing what
members of her profession expect each other to know when they
take on a job of that sort. An engineer fails in independence
if, while competent for the job, she is subject to pressures,
loyalties, commitments, or the like that make her less likely
than otherwise to do the job as a competent member of the
profession would. A conflict of interest makes an engineer less
reliable than she would otherwise be.
Since their usefulness to employer, client, and public
depends in part on their being reliable agents, engineers
should generally avoid conflicts of interest. Sometimes,
however, the conflict is not serious enough and costs of
avoidance are high enough that avoiding the conflict may not
make sense for client, employer, or public. When that is so,
you need not avoid the conflict--provided you meet two
conditions.
First, you must have the informed consent of your employer
or client. Part of being a faithful agent is warning your
principal when your judgment is not as reliable as it would
normally be. Your principal can then decide whether he prefers
to avoid the conflict by replacing you or accept the conflict,
taking the necessary precautions and hoping for the best. That
decision is his, not yours.
Second, you must be satisfied that you can do what is asked
of you in a way that will not bring you or your profession in
disrepute. (Cf. NSPE Code III.3.) Appearances can be as
important as reality. The consent of your employer or client is
part, but only part, of maintaining appearances. The rest is
your responsibility, not your employer's or client's.
You warned the VP of your conflict of interest. He
understood the problem well enough to offer a common means of
avoiding it: don't participate in any decision that directly
affects you. He still wants you to serve on the committee.
Should you? You have much to consider.
One thing you need to consider is whether you can take the
VP's consent as that of your employer, the university. You also
need to decide whether you have a client as well as an employer
(for example, the academic community). For brevity, let's just
assume that you have no client here (the academic community
being more like the public than a client) and that the VP's
consent is your employer's consent (though, in a any large
organization, that assumption is by no means safe).
Next you must consider whether that consent is sufficiently
well informed. Information can seldom be complete. You have,
however, not done all a faithful agent or trustee reasonably
could do under the circumstances. You have not tried to bring
home to the VP all the problems inherent in what he is asking
of you. In particular, you have not pointed out two conflict
problems and one appearance problem his response ignores. These
problems are also reasons for you to reject serving on the
committee even with the VP's informed consent.
One problem you have not pointed out concerns your ability
to judge the proposals competing with yours. Since you are
doling from a limited pot, you have some incentive to judge
other proposals more harshly than you would otherwise. Not only
do you stand to benefit from so judging them, but you may also
compare them to your own, giving your own the benefit of the
doubt while not doing the same for others. We all tend to favor
our own work. You may well not do it deliberately or even
knowingly. You may do it nonetheless. Or you may try to
compensate for that tendency. You may then "bend over backward
to be fair" and, by so doing, judge other proposals less
harshly than you would otherwise. The problem of conflict of
interest is not that you will necessarily serve yourself at the
expense of those you are supposed to serve. Even you cannot
know whose interest you will in fact serve.
Your presence on the committee may produce a similar problem
for other committee members. Leaving the room when your
proposal is discussed reminds everyone else who proposal it is
(or, if reviewing is blind, actually tells them.) Since people
generally favor people they know over people they do not know,
those with whom they work over strangers, and so on, leaving
the room avoids the effect of discussing the proposal with you
present by generating another (though somewhat less serious)
tendency to favor you (or to bend over backward not to favor
you). Has the VP weighed these effects before pressing you to
serve?
That leaves the problem of appearances. The appearance of
wrongdoing is itself something to be avoided. For those who do
not know the truth, the appearance is indistinguishable from
the thing itself. The mere appearance can therefore do as much
harm to cooperation among members of a profession as real
wrongdoing. The message conveyed is that cooperation is falling
apart and everyone would do well to serve herself.
An appearance is something that more information would
dispel. But if you cannot provide enough information to dispel
the appearance before it does harm, you must view serving on
the committee (while applying for a grant from it) as including
the harm.
I believe it was Charles De Gaulle who remarked, "The
indispensable man, the cemeteries are full of them." You might
remind the VP of that when you respectfully, but firmly,
decline to serve--or give up your plan to submit a
proposal.