Joseph Ellin's Commentary: Teaching Engineering Ethics- Testing by a CO-OP Student
Author(s):
Joseph Ellin
I
Co-op student Jack is given an important test to do and
produces results that are too good to be believable; evidently
he has faked the data. XYZ relies on Jack's results without
confirming them and the consequence is that the tested
component fails in operation, bringing down the units with it.
Apart from the obvious point about faking data, the only
ethical issue I see in this case is the questionable decision
to assign an important test to a co-op student, and then to
accept his results unconfirmed; but given the constraints on
time in the department, this seems like a decision within
management competence, and doesn't necessarily raise any
ethical problem, even if it turns out to have been a mistake.
No health or safety problems occur as a result of the units'
failure, so the company is harming only itself by its loose
supervision. Perhaps co-op student Jack ought to have been
supervised more closely (especially in view of the importance
of the project), but this too is judgment rather than ethics,
and Jack's good record does not indicate supervision is
required.
Back to Top
II
Jack's supervisor relates his worry about Jack to Jack's
professor. In general, before an accusation is made against
someone to a third party, that person ought to be confronted
with the charges and have an opportunity to explain himself.
However the conversation with Dr. Thompson was presumably
strictly confidential, and nothing is said to indicate that the
questions asked by Tom were out of line. Tom is unsure of how
to proceed and wants to discuss the question with someone who
knows Jack better; also, Jack is no longer under Tom's
jurisdiction. So if something is to be done, the ball has to be
passed to the University. Further Tom's interest seems to be
not punitive but correctional, since he puts his inquiries
about Tom into a context of ethical training at the University
(this could be a smoke screen of course). Since Jack has no
current association with XYZ, the company is in the position of
a victim of Jack's wrongdoing, not a prosecutor entrusted with
dispensing justice.
For these reasons, Tom's move in talking to Dr. Thompson
seems warranted. It's not clear what purpose would be served if
Tom were to talk to Jack. Jack is now the University's problem.
However if Dr. Thompson subsequently talks to Jack, Tom might
be called in to produce the dubious data and explain his
suspicions. What else happens depends on what comes before.
First it's necessary to understand why Jack faked the data (if
he did), and to make sure that Jack understands that doing so
was wrong. Based on the information in the case, there's no
reason to exclude Jack from XYZ in the future, assuming this
problem gets cleared up and Jack's future trustworthiness is
established, though such a reason might emerge after discussion
with him.
Back to Top
III
In hindsight, supervision of students is obviously not too
satisfactory.
On the other hand, the department was busy and supervising a
student whose previous work had been well done might not have
seemed the best way to use time. Perhaps all co-op students
should be closely supervised as a matter of course; I don't
know enough about what they know or what they're supposed to
do. Or perhaps Tom's initial response, to suggest that all
students take ethics and be made to understand the importance
of honest data, is the best solution.
Back to Top
IV
So should State put in an ethics course? Yes. See this case
for a reason why.