This is an open-ended scenario for discussion based on a case from the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. An engineer submits a proposal to a county council, a member of which makes this proposal available to another engineer developing a proposal for a different county project. The second engineer uses the first engineer's information and data without the first engineer's consent.
Wu, an engineer, submitted a project proposal to the City Council. The proposal included technical information and data that the Council had requested. A staff member of the Council made Wu's proposal available to Thornberry, another engineer. Thornberry used Wu's proposal to develop another proposal for a somewhat different project and submitted it to the Council. The amount of Wu's information that Thornberry actually used is disputed between the parties.
Is Thornberry guilty of plagiarism? If not, was this in some other way an unfair use of Wu's information? What was the City Council's responsibility in the handling of Wu's proposal? What further information would you like to have, and what difference would it make to your evaluation?
--adapted from NSPE Case No. 83-3
NSPE Code of Ethics An earlier version may have been used in this case.
Return to Professional Ethics in Engineering Practice: Discussion Cases Based on NSPE BER Cases
This ethical decision-making framework developed by Dr. Michael Davis of the Illinois Institute of Technology is useful in guiding discussions around case studies and other ethics courses and workshop activities.
This bibliography includes examples of different ways instructors have used case studies to introduce ethical topics to their students and resources for finding cases and incorporating them into the classroom.
In this essay, Dr. Whitbeck outlines an 'agent-centered' approach to learning ethics. The central aim is to prepare students to act wisely and responsibly when faced with moral problems. She provides a number of examples and cases with descriptions of questions and directions for promoting student participation and stimulating thought and discussion.