Case Study On

EETHICS
“Gilbane Gold, The Story Behind The
Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster,
TrueSteel Affair, The 59 Story Crisis:
A Lesson in Professional Behavior,
The Insider, A Civil Action, Erin
Brockvich”

Submitted by: Rogelio B. Tinampay II

Course&Sec.: BSCPE-E01
Submitted to: Engr. Charito Rose Ontoria
 “Gilbane Gold”
Summary:
Gilbane Gold is the name given to dried sludge from the city of
Gilbane wastewater treatment plant. It is sold to farmers as a commercial
fertilizer. The annual revenue generated saves the average family about
$300 per year in taxes. Z CORP, a computer components manufacturer,
discharges wastewater containing small amounts of lead and arsenic into
the city sewers. By current city test standards, the discharge meets
allowable levels. Z CORP environmental engineers know of a newer test
which shows that the discharge may still meet the letter of the law, but the
test exceeds the spirit of the law. Protection of the health, safety, and
welfare of the public is a concern.
Question and Answer of Discussion.
1.Does the presentation of the case by Maria Renato affect the decision made by David
Jackson?
Ans.: David must decide whether Z CORP is "poisoning" the sludge or "endangering"
the health of those who
consume the vegetables fertilized by Gilbane Gold. The facts are not completely clear,
but it appears that Z
CORP is violating the strict city regulations by the standards of the newer and more
expensive test.
2. In what ways does the fact that David's boss is not an engineer affect David's actions?
Ans.: There are certain expectations that come with this role as well. As an engineer,
David
is expected to adhere to standards of honesty and integrity. According to professional
engineering codes, he is
also expected to be concerned with the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

3. Does Prof. Massin add any insight into what actions David should perform? That is, would
you look to a former professor to help you deal with an ethical issue.
Ans.: He seems to be aware
of most of the important ethical constraints, but his solution of the problem may not have
been a very good one.
It was made very quickly in the conversation with Prof. Massin and Tom Richards. Let
us attempt to take
David's standpoint (the standpoint of the agent) and determine whether any more
thoughtful resolutions of his
problem are possible.
(1) Probably the most appealing option for David is to attempt an inexpensive technical
solution to the problem.
If the discharge of heavy metals can be reduced to acceptable amounts, even as
measured by the new test, Z
Corp.'s problems would be eliminated. If the amounts of heavy metals discharged with
increased production can
be reduced to a total amount no greater than present allowable discharges, even Z
Corp.'s long-term problem
will be resolved. It is David's responsibility as an employee and a professional engineer,
as well as his
responsibility to himself and his own career, to explore this avenue as thoroughly as
possible.

4. If you were David would you look to your professional society for advice on how to handle the
situation?
Ans. : David must find some way to honor these conflicting moral demands in an
ethically and professionally responsible
manner. It is important for students to understand that the preceding ethical analysis
does not provide a readymade
guideline as to how he should do this. The preceding analysis establishes ethical
constraints, but it does not
tell David precisely how he should solve the problem within the context of these
constraints. As with a problem in
engineering design, it is one thing to supply the constraints in terms of which the
problem must be solved and
another thing entirely to provide a solution to the problem.

5. The plant manager is presented with conflicting reports from her employees. How could
David have presented his concerns more effectively to the plant manager?
Ans.: Another possibility is for David to take his case directly to corporate officers
outside the Gilbane plant. This
is a dangerous tactic in terms of his own career. Since his obligation to his own
professional development is a real
and completely legitimate one, he should not take this option if at all possible .
 ““THE STORY BEHIND THE SPACE SHUTTLE
CHALLENGER”
Summary:
On January 28, 1986, seven astronauts were killed when the space shuttle they were
piloting, the Challenger, exploded at just over a minute into the flight. The failure of the
solid rocket booster O-rings to seal properly allowed hot combustion gases to leak from
the side of the booster and burn through the external fuel tank. The failure of the O-ring
was attributed to several factors, including faulty design of the solid rocket boosters,
insufficient low-temperature testing of the O-ring material and of the joints that the O-
ring sealed, and lack of proper communication between different levels of NASA
Question of Discussion
1. What could NASA management have done differently?
2. What, if anything, could their subordinates have done differently?
3. What do you (the students) see as your future engineering professional
responsibilities in
relation to both being loyal to management and protecting the public welfare?
Answer of Discussion
1. NASA management (at Marshall) should not have launched a shuttle with a
component (O-rings) that had not been tested in the current conditions. It seemed
that Jud Lovingood NASA Senior Manager was bent on launching. For him to make
the statement,
2. The contractor that built the solid fuel engines recommended not to launch after
sub-freezing temps and they had no idea if the o-rings would hold up or not. And
the night before, the director of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor Project
refused to sign off on the launch. But he thought the rockets would explode before
takeoff, and when it happened in flight, and the rockets continued on afterward, he
didn't think it was the o-rings, but something else.
3. A final point is the fact that no matter how far removed from the public an engineer
may think she is, all of her actions have potential impact. ,
"Loyalty and Professional Rights" appended at the end of the case listings in this
report will be found relevant for
instructors preparing to lead class discussion on this case.
 “TRUESTEEL AFFAIR”
Summary:
Engineers, like other professionals, enjoy a high degree of public trust. They are
expected to be guided by a rigorous code of professional ethics. This documentary
looks at the dilemmas faced by a young engineer whose loyalties to family, employer,
and fellow workers come into conflict with his professional judgement. Based on cases
from the files of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, this film will trigger
discussion about ethical responsibilities
Question and Answer of Discussion

1. A number of characteristics are considered significant for a "learned profession".

"Self-imposed standards of qualifications".

A professional organization, made up of members of the profession (not government), decides

what qualifications, including education, members of the profession must have.

Recognition by law"

The profession, in particular its professional association, is recognized in a law of the

jurisdiction (country or province) concerned, and the law gives the association and its
members special status (to regulate the profession and practice it).

2. In "The Truesteel Affair", the engineer, Robert Williams, was deemed by his
professional association to be guilty of professional misconduct and gross negligence. If
the offence had happened at the present time in this Province which specific actions, or
lack of action,by Robert Williams would have led to this judgement? State, concisely, for
each item what he did or did not do, and the basis for the judgement.

There are three major items in the APEGN Code of Ethics which clearly apply in the
case and a fourth which follows from the three other points.

 Williams did not put safety of the public first. (Item 2 in the Code of Ethics)
 He did not make it clear to his boss (Carter) what the likely consequences were
of overruling Williams' professional judgment. Williams should have done this first
verbally, and then in writing if Carter had ignored the verbal information. (Item 14
in the Code) Having warned Carter in both ways, Williams should have reported
the problem. He could have gone to his professional association for advice on
where and how to report it.
 “THE 59 STORY CRISIS: A LESSON IN
PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR”
Summary:
The practice of architecture can be extremely rewarding. But like any profession, the
practice of architecture must include attention to a host of various business and legal
issues. For many architects, dealing with the myriad of requirements and the
complexities they impose can be challenging, and there is a related subject that is often
overlooked—ethics. In most instances, sound business or legal decisions will also serve
to fulfill one’s ethical obligations. However, there are times when general business
acumen will not serve to fully address ethical responsibilities or when ethical obligations
dictate choices that are completely different than those from the business or legal
perspective. It is in these situations that architects will be challenged to identify issues
and formulate important yet difficult decisions that may serve to define one’s practice.
The design of the Citicorp Center in New York City provides an excellent case study to
analyze the competing demands placed on design professionals and to examine how
business, legal and ethical responsibilities must be carefully considered and balanced.
Question for discussion.
 “THE INSIDER”
Summary:
The Insider is a movie about the controversy that evolved from Jeffery Wigand, a man
fired from the head of development position at Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co.,
revealing inside information about the addiction and harmful effects of tobacco on a
segment of the CBS program, “60 Minutes.” Lowell Burgman is the producer of “60
Minutes,” and he is concerned about the CBS’s image and the ethical elements of
journalism. In the movie, several crisis situations appear that Lowell Burgman and CBS
are forced to respond to.
The beginning scenes of the movie show an interview that “60 Minutes” is
doing with The Sheikh. The Sheikh is concerned about the content of the interview and
makes the comment to Lowell, “Perhaps you prove journalism objectivity and I see the
questions first. Then I decide if I grant the interview.” Lowell refutes the statement by
saying very bluntly, “No. We don't do that. You've seen "60 Minutes" and Mike Wallace.
So you know our reputation for integrity and objectivity. You also know we are the
highest-rated, most-respected, TV-magazine news show in America.” This is a forward
statement that reveals the values of “60 Minutes” and the CBS organization. This is the
foundation of the organization’s image; this is the reputation that Lowell is trying to
maintain for his TV program and CBS as a whole all throughout the movie. When
Jeffery Wigand is being questioned about his knowledge of the tobacco industry, he is
skeptical and makes the comment, "I'm just a commodity to you, aren't I? I could be
anything. Right? Anything worth putting on between commercials...” Lowell defends
himself at that point by saying, “...to a network, probably, we're all commodities. To me?
You are not a commodity. What you are is important.”
The crisis situations begin when Lowell contacts Jeffery Wigand to translate
some documents that he has received about another tobacco company. Wigand initially
agrees to only translate those documents, but reveals that he is held under a
confidentiality agreement, and must restrict any information about Brown and
Williamson. Lowell sees the potential of Jeffery Wigand’s inside information and
convinces him that his information is valuable and should be shared with the public.
Mike Wallace comments, “He's got a corporate secrecy agreement? Give me a break.
This is a public-health issue, like an unsafe airframe on a passenger jet or...some
company dumping cyanide into the East River. Issues like that? He can talk, we can
air it. They've got no right to hide behind a corporate agreement.” Lowell agrees. He
feels that, “[If Wigand] go[s] public and thirty-million people hear what you got to say,
nothing, I mean nothing, will ever be the same again.” Wigand feels compelled to share
his information of air, and the nature that information endangers himself and his family
through different threats from Brown and Williamson. Now, Lowell is concerned for the
Wigand family’s safety.
 CBS becomes paranoid about potential lawsuits from Brown and Williamson.
They feel a great threat of being sued because the confidentiality agreement was
broken. Moreover, they feel that Lowell will get sued because he acted as a third party
that interfered with that contractual agreement. They are obviously concerned for
holding up the image of the company, but corporate CBS doesn’t feel that those values
are worth a billion dollar lawsuit. The company is fully aware of the financial power of
tobacco companies and they are not willing to take the chance of getting into a “no-win”
situation. Lowell, however, feels differently, and risks losing his job by fighting for the
integrity of himself and “60 Minutes”.
Lastly, a 500 page document comes out about Jeffery Wigand in attempts to
discredit him as a source. The document pulls out every negative aspect of Wigand’s
life, and Lowell takes the responsibility onto himself to regain that credit and defend
Wigand in any way that he can.
Lowell and CBS were forced to respond to these crisis situations. In regards to
the safety of the Wigand family, they hired agents to live in with them and watch out all
throughout the day and night. In response to the threat of being sued, CBS came up
with an alternate version of the segment that did not show Wigand’s face and cut out
the controversial interview statements. However, they did make a public statement that
the reason they could not show the clip was because of the confidentiality agreement.
To correct the discredit of Wigand’s reputation, Lowell contacted his connection at the
Wall Street Journal and convinced his fellow journalist that the story was important and
that Wigand was necessary and reliable component to the story. After that, the Wall
Street Journal came out with an article about the “leaked” information about Wigand’s
testimony. Because the information was already out, “60 Minutes” was able to air the full
interview and original segment on the effects of tobacco and what the tobacco
companies were trying to cover up.
Although, there was many unfortunate incidents, like Wigand’s family leaving him
and Lowell being threatened to lose his job, all in all I think the responses were
effective. Lowell stood up for the values of journalism and the foundations of “60
Minutes” the entire time, and it won in the end. The information was presented to the
public, and the case was set to rest. The results of Lowell’s responses in regards to “60
Minutes” were effective because they were consistent. Every procedure and action on
his part, coordinated with his statement about “60 Minutes” in the very beginning of the
movie. Even though they had to take the long way around the issue, no one was sued
and the information got to the public. Therefore, it was effective.
 “A CIVIL ACTION”
Summary:
In 1976, at the age of four, Robbie Robbins was diagnosed with acute lymphocytic
leukemia. He became one 28 children who contracted the disease between 1964 and
1986 in Woburn, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb of 35,000 people. Learning that two
nearby municipal wells were contaminated with toxic chemicals, Donna Robbins and
Anne Anderson with other concerned residents formed a citizens group 'For A Cleaner
Environment.
Jan Schlichtmann, a tenacious lawyer, is addressed by a group of families. When
investigating the seemingly non-profiting case, he finds it to be a major environmental
issue that has a lot of impact potential. A leather production company could be
responsible for several deadly cases of leukemia, but also is the main employer for the
area. Schlichtmann and his three colleagues set out to have the company forced to
decontaminate the affected areas, and of course to sue for a major sum of
compensation. But the lawyers of the leather company's mother company are not easy
to get to, and soon Schlichtmann and his friends find themselves in a battle of mere
survival.

Question and Answer of Discussion.

1. How would the case have turned out differently if the plaintiffs had a better expert
witness (geologist) or if the EPA had been involved earlier in the case. Clearly state
your opinion on on of these, and support it with 2 examples from the book.
Ans.: Protection Agency and its potential consequences that might have allowed
Schlictmann another trial against Beatrice, and which did ultimately lead to a conviction
of perjury against John Riley, and improper conduct for Mary Ryan are absent
1.1 When did Rev. Bruce Young arrive in Woburn to be the minister of Woburn Trinity
Episcopal Church?
1966.
2. How far away from Boston is Woburn located?
12 miles.
3. What river runs through Woburn?
Aberjone River.
4. When is Woburn's first commercial enterprise built?
1648.
5. In the late 1800's wh
 “ERIN BROCKOVICH”
Summary:
Erin Brockovich-Ellis is an unemployed single mother, desperate to find a job, but is
having no luck. This losing streak even extends to a failed lawsuit against a doctor in a
car accident she was in. With no alternative, she successfully browbeats her lawyer to
give her a job in compensation for the loss. While no one takes her seriously, with her
trashy clothes and earthy manners, that soon changes when she begins to investigate a
suspicious real estate case involving the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. What she
discovers is that the company is trying quietly to buy land that was contaminated by
hexavalent chromium, a deadly toxic waste that the company is improperly and illegally
dumping and, in turn, poisoning the residents in the area. As she digs deeper, Erin finds
herself leading point in a series of events that would involve her law firm in one of the
biggest class action lawsuits in American history against a multi-billion dollar corporation

Question and Answer of Discussion.

1. What effect do dress and demeanor have on a person’s ability to perform well on the
job? What qualifies someone to do a job? Does society have any particular
responsibility to single women raising a family?
Ans,: Erin Brokovich, a provocatively dressed, attractive young woman interviews
unsuccessfully for a job as a medical assistant.
2. In the film, PG&E headquarters in San Francisco makes decisions affecting company
operations in Hinkley, California, more than 300 miles away. Speculate upon the size
and nature of huge companies. How many levels of management do you suppose there
are? Who deals with the money? Who deals with the customers? Who deals with local,
state, and federal regulations? How might the organization of such a company breed a
lack of concern for people — both employees of the company and customers?
Ans. After Masry faxes the first of his claims to the PG&E legal department, PG&E sends a lawyer
to make an offer on the Jensen’s property near the PG&E plant in Hinkley. The $28 billion
corporation offers the Jensen’s $250,000. The Jensens learn Donna’s cancer is malignant.
PG&E lawyers offer Hinkley residents $20 million to settle out of court. Erin is enraged
and tells them off.
3. Notice how preconceived notions based upon appearance and behavior affect the
characters’ attitudes and actions toward one another. Is this interpretation valid? How
have you seen prejudices and preconceived ideas about people influence behavior?
Ans.: The problem of holding preconceived notions as being true is that they can lead
us to very negative and critical beliefs about others and that can affect our behaviors
toward others.