Canon #5
Engineers shall respect the proprietary information and intellectual property rights of others, including charitable organizations and professional societies in the engineering field.
Our Interpretations of Canon 5 are as follows:
- Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
- Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.
The ethical considerations of Canon 5 are very similar to those involved in Canon 4, especially interpretation ( j) and the discussions concerning Professional Service and Intellectual Property. As indicated in those prior discussions, professional services are generally part of, and covered by, confidentiality agreements. Violations of such agreements can result in legal action as well as injuring your professional reputation. However, as indicated in the discussion on Intellectual Property, determining what is specific knowledge and what is more general knowledge can often be a difficult decision. As with technical information, business information and business processes should be treated as confidential information even thought they may not be considered intellectual property.
Canon 1 requires that we hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount in the performance of our professional duties. Canon 8 states that environmental impact and sustainable development shall be considered in the performance of our professional duties. You worked with a client on the design of near-shore LNG unloading and transfer station. While the design work was clearly done to current standards, you have gained specific knowledge about the forces of tides and winds and firmly believe that the current design guidelines are insufficient to provide proper, safe operation. You reported your concerns to your supervisor and to the client. The response was that the current design conforms to the all laws and regulations.
Your firm’s design work on the LNG facility is complete and the project has been approved by the various state and federal authorities. As a member of a local environmental organization (which is opposed to the LNG plant on environmental grounds), you have often been asked to join them in their suit against your former client. Until now, you have declined – and Canon 4 supports your position. However, now you believe the design is possibly faulty and the public welfare is endangered. What do you do?
This is a difficult dilemma. Interpretation (b) of this Canon prohibits you from joining the legal action. And while Canon 1 clearly indicates a higher duty to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the current design is not faulty nor has it been shown that the concerns you have about wind and tides are truly valid. There is some probability that you are correct, but that value is unknown. Or, said in another way, are the confluence of events that concern you a 1-in-10 year event, a 1-in-100 year event, a 1- in-1000 year event?
There is no easy, simple answer for this type of question. Adopting a high, rigid moral standard will probably leave you unemployed, while accepting the minimalist model may leave you with a high level of guilt should you be proven correct. Seeking a creative, middle way is often the best, yet most difficult, route