Ethics case study paper example

Writing Assignment 3: Ethical Case Study - Post-Mortem Report

For the second individual writing assignment, we would like you to examine, in detail, an engineering ethics case study. A list of topics is presented below.

The paper should be 1750 words (minimum) in length (about seven pages of text, not counting the bibliography) plus the bibliography, although you are welcome to write more if you wish. Your best beginning sources will probably be the pages of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and news magazines such as The Economist and Time. In some cases, significant papers have appeared in technical journals or books on the older cases. Please see Mr. Browne if you’re having problems finding material.

A postmortem is a common task in engineering. It formalizes the process of learning from past experience. The post-mortem analyzes a project once it has ended and identifies what went well and what went poorly to improve the next project. This writing assignment asks you to write up a post-mortem of a well-known case of engineering failure, including not only the technical details of the failure but the ethical lapses that contributed to the failure.

The Writing Task -

Your post-mortem write up should explain how ethical lapses contributed to the engineering failure. Describe the actions, as an engineer, that should be taken (should have been taken) to come to grips with the failure, utilizing one of the ethical frameworks you have learned about as a guide in influencing or determining your course of action. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the actions you propose and provide justification using one of the ethical frameworks as a guideline in the analysis process.

Audience –

Identify an audience for your post-mortem write up – this can be either a government regulatory agency such as the NTSB or the FDA, the company’s board of directors, etc. – and write your post-mortem analysis to that audience, including information and analysis that would be of most interest and of most use to them. The audience you are addressing must be clearly specified in your paper.

Researching and Analyzing the Case -

Choose one of the cases of engineering failure most related to your future career or professional interests. First, read about the case and understand the complex issues surrounding the case, including the parties in the case (corporate, government, etc.) and the various components including engineering, management, regulatory, socio-technical and ethical. Second, decide what the major issues surrounding the engineering failure are. Also, consider which of the ethical frameworks you have learned best explains the ethical lapses in this engineering failure case.

Your postmortem should follow this structure:

1) Abstract : A short summary of the engineering failure, its consequences, why it happened, and what should be done to prevent future problems. Your abstract should also clearly identify your audience . This can be either a government oversight committee, a company’s board of directors, etc. Be sure that you write your postmortem to that specific audience, including information and analysis that would be of most interest and use to them. DO NOT begin to work on the Abstract until you have finished the first submission of the paper (due next week).

2) Background : The body of your postmortem should begin with a narrative about what happened (the engineering failure) and what its consequences were.

3) The Engineering Failure : This section should explain what technical, engineering, management, regulatory, and/or other socio-technical factors led to the engineering failure.

4) Ethical Analysis : The section should analyze the ethical lapses (i.e. stakeholders’ actions, decisions or interests, principles adopted or flouted, risks ignored and reasons for doing so, etc.) that contributed to the engineering failure. The textbook poses some good ethical questions about the case of the Ford Pinto at the bottom of page 69 and top of page 70. Try to brainstorm similar questions that apply to your own topic, and then answer them using at least one of the ethical frameworks you learned about in class to discuss the engineering failure. Page 95 of the textbook presents an example of how this might be done using Kant’s theories applied to the Ford Pinto case. You might use this model to inspire your own ethical analysis (using duty ethics and/or utilitarianism and/or virtue ethics).

5) Recommendations : Drawing on at least one of the ethical frameworks, this section should first propose general ideas and then proceed to very specific recommendations about how to prevent similar failures from occurring in the future. What should have been done? What needs to be done in the future? Don’t make simple arguments (i.e. there needs to be more or better regulations); instead, specify what regulations should be imposed (and by whom), what the parameters of such regulations should be, and how they might be enforced (and by whom). Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the actions you propose and provide justification, again using at least one of the ethical frameworks.

6) Conclusion : Your conclusion should address what we have learned (or should have learned) from the engineering failure you discuss. What progress, if any, has been made to prevent similar failures in the future? What remains to be done?

Common problems with the Ethical Case Study:

· Application of an Ethical Framework: You must apply a specific ethical framework to your chosen problem. However, before you apply it to your problem, you must give a general explanation of the framework. A good paper will answer the question: Why does this framework apply to the party at fault?

· Ethical Lapses: A listing of the ethical lapses involved in your case study must come after you state your ethical framework. Many students try to get ahead of themselves and start pointing out the ethical lapses early in the paper. You should identify how each ethical lapse violated your chosen ethical framework.

· Solutions – What not to do: Identifying solutions is one of the hardest parts of the essay. What you should not do is simply state what the party “should” or “should not” have done:

Example: The Therac-25 technicians shouldn’t have ignored error messages.

Example: Intel should have recalled the defective processor.

Example: The Teton Dam engineers shouldn’t have built the dam in the first place.

These “solutions” are painfully obvious, but more importantly, they are not helpful. They are simply opinions.

· Solutions – What to do: Propose a concrete, specific solution that will aid adherence to your ethical framework.

Example: Intel should force its employees to attend a seminar highlighting the importance of upholding virtues in the company (Virtue Ethics).

Example: The Hyatt-Regency Kansas City Hotel engineers [or the Teton Dam engineers] should require independent engineers to perform safety inspections at specific stages of design and construction (Duty/Rights Ethics).

Example: The Therac-25 technicians should immediately report error messages and machine malfunctions to AECL authorities, discontinuing treatment until receiving confirmation that the problem has been analyzed and corrected (Duty Ethics).

These examples represent concrete propositions.

Remember, since you proved that violating [ethical framework] ultimately led to failure, then your solution should be aimed at facilitating adherence to [ethical framework].

Logic:

Problem P will occur when X is violated

Stop violating X → Problem P will not occur.

Engineering Ethics Case Study Topics

The following is the list of topics for the Ethical Case Studies essays during Fall Quarter, 2019. Many cases involve more than one discipline.

· Takata Airbags – Takata provided airbags for many of the world’s automobile manufacturers. After a chemical change in the airbag, the chemical had a propensity to deteriorate, especially in warm and humid climates. The deteriorated chemical could explode, throwing pieces of the airbag container into the passenger compartment. There have been at least 11 deaths and 180 injuries. Takata knew, and destroyed engineering results documenting the problem.

· GM Ignition Module – For want of a sufficient spring in a GM ignition module, the key assembly would turn “off” when bumped or when the car hit a bump. When turned off, the driver loses not only power steering and power brakes, but the airbag. GM, its engineers, and its lawyers knew about this problem – which has resulted in about 125 deaths – for at least ten years without fixing the problem.

· Volkswagen Air Pollution Controls – Volkswagen, for many years, had software that activated pollution control equipment on its cars only when the cars were undergoing smog tests.

· Guidant Ventak Prizm 2 DR model defibrillator – The device was a defibrillator intended to restore normal heart rhythm. Guidant knew that the model in question leaked (when in the body), and might not deliver the electrical shock needed by the patient. Guidant knew of the problem, but failed to notify doctors, patients, or the Food and Drug Administration.

· British Petroleum Texas City Explosion (2005) – local engineers wanted money for safety upgrades, and London will not give it to them. Big explosion, with people killed.