|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
 |
Interpretations
c) and d) |
|
| |
Interpretations
(c) and (d) describe steps you could take to uphold the
safety, health, and welfare of the public if you believe
Canon 1 is being violated, such as informing your clients
and employers, or the proper authority. This is commonly
called "whistleblowing" and is required, in many cases,
by federal and state law. While interpretation (c) is
not whistleblowing per se, since it requires only that
you inform your clients and employers, it implies that
you must determine whether appropriate corrective action
has been taken. If not, then interpretation (d) becomes
active and whistleblowing is required.
Consider the hypothetical case of an engineer reviewing
plans, which have been approved by her supervising engineer,
for a pedestrian overpass. When the engineer notices that
safety railings are not on the drawings, she has a professional
obligation under Canon 1 to alert her client or supervisor.
She alerts her supervisor by e-mail, and several weeks
later gets a new set of approved plans without the safety
railings. Has the engineer satisfied her professional
obligation to "hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public"?
A classic case, prepared by the National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE), is "Gilbane Gold." This short video
raises a number of Canon 1 (and Canon 8) issues, and is
especially recommended for young engineers.
A real case is that of Inez
Austin, who followed interpretation (c) and raised
her concerns with direct management and, as time went
on, with higher levels of management. When the issue was
not resolved to her satisfaction, she made her concerns
public and was dismissed from her job. |
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
