Whistleblowing: Ethics in Engineering

Santanu Borah

B.Tech, 7th semester, Mechanical Engineering

GIMT-Guwahati

email id: santanu986@gmail.com

Abstract- A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has the duty to report to the appropriate
authority a possible risk to others from a client or employer failing to follow the engineer's
directions. According to first principles, this duty overrides the duty to a client and/or
employer.An engineer may be disciplined, or have their license revoked, even if the failure to
report such a danger does not result in the loss of life or health.

In many cases, this duty can be discharged by advising the client of the consequences in a
forthright matter, and ensuring the client takes the engineer's advice. In very rare cases, where
even a governmental authority may not take appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge
the duty by making the situation public. As a result, whistleblowing by professional engineers is
not an unusual event, and courts have often sided with engineers in such cases, overruling duties
to employers and confidentiality considerations that otherwise would have prevented the
engineer from speaking out.

Keywords- whistle, organization, attitude.

INTRODUCTION

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)is a person who exposes any kind of

information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that
is either private or public. The information of alleged wrongdoing can be classified in many
ways: violation of company policy/rules, law, regulation, or threat to public interest/national
security, as well as fraud, and corruption. Those who become whistleblowers can choose to bring
information or allegations to surface either internally or externally. Internally, a whistleblower
can bring his/her accusations to the attention of other people within the accused organization.
Externally, a whistleblower can bring allegations to light by contacting a third party outside of an
accused organization. Whistleblowers can reach out to the media, government, law enforcement,
or those who are concerned but also face stiff reprisal and retaliation from those who are accused
or alleged of wrongdoing.

Benefits of Whistle Blowing

Every organization desires honesty from and among its employees. The presence of honesty
allows for complete dedication to the organizations mission and success. By encouraging a
whistle blowing culture, the organization promotes transparent structure and effective, clear
communication. More importantly, whistle blowing can protect the organizations clients. For
example, if a hospital employs a number of negligent staff members, other, more ethically
inclined, employees would need to bring such issues to the hospitals attention, protecting the
organization from possible lawsuits or severe mishaps resulting in a patients demise.

Drawbacks of Whistle Blowing

As with most matters, there are positives and negatives. Whistle blowing, too, has some negative
aspects. For instance, in a 1972 case, an arbitrator told a whistle-blowing employee that the
employee could not, Bite the hand that feeds you and insist on staying on the banquet. If the
entire organization does not have the same positive attitude in regards to whistle blowing,
employees may fear speaking up.

A second consideration includes employees taking advantage of whistle blowing. Forbes.com

cites an example of Douglas Durand. As vice president of sales at TAP Pharmaceutical Products,
Durand suspected the company was conspiring with doctors in overcharging Medicare. Instead
of gathering evidence and blowing the whistle, Durand spent 7 months gathering information,
quit, and then filed a lawsuit against TAP. Durand spent the next 8 years in cooperation with the
government in order to build the case. Durand received $126 million in the case settlement.
Trouble surfaced after the settlement, when prosecutors filed criminal fraud charges against TAP
executives. Durands story fell apart as defense attorneys poked holes in his claims. Durands
example shows the ugly side of whistle blowing resulting from greed.

Although these two negative aspects of whistle blowing can be quiet unsettling, both can be
curbed. By promoting a whistle blowing culture within the organization, employees will feel
comfortable speaking up when necessary. Here are some tips for promoting a whistle blowing
culture:

Create and publicize a whistle blowing policy.

Emphasize communications about bans on retaliation for whistle blowing activities.

Top Management must demonstrate the inclusion of whistle blowing in the culture.

The organizations commitment to whistle blowing must be emphasized and promoted.

Follow through with a complete investigation after a whistle blowing event.

Discuss with employees their personal thoughts on topics to make sure everyone has a
similar mindset.
 Clear communication is key to building an organization where employees feel
comfortable raising their concerns. In the resulting positive work environment,
organization goals are foremost, allowing employees to focus on the success of the
organization and its members.

Whistle blowing is an essential tool for an organization. Without it, fraud, misconduct, and
failure may dominate an organization. By promoting clear communication and keeping the
organizations goals in focus for everyone, one can minimize their chances of being the next
Enron.

Whistleblowing & the Challenger disaster in January of 1996

The tenth anniversary of the Challenger disaster in January of 1996 brought renewed attention to
Roger Boisjoly, the engineer who is perhaps the most widely known whistleblower. Many people
are now familiar with details about how the launch went forward in unusually cold temperatures
against the recommendation of the engineers. Going over the events again, we look for lessons or
at least points that deserve more emphasis. One such point is that it is difficult to say what
defines an action as whistleblowing. A second is that whistleblowing is not only excruciatingly
difficult, from a practical point of view; it is also morally complex. One modest guideline
emerges from exploring these points.

The word whistleblowing carries strong images -- the sharp sound of a whistle giving a warning
of harm or calling a halt to actions that have gone out of bounds. Yet, those are not apt images for
Roger Boisjoly's heroic action. What he did that branded him as a whistleblower was to tell a
Presidential Commission after the disaster his story of the events that had led to the disaster. The
tragedy he had warned against had already occurred. In the face of strong opposing pressure
from top officials of his company, he gave the commission his history of the O-ring problems
and the decision to launch. Generally, the whistleblower's action is forward looking. While
Boisjoly's account had implications for the redesign of the shuttle in the future, it served chiefly
to explain how the terrible failure, both technical and moral, had occurred. It seems that the high
visibility of that very serious failure and of Boisjoly's disclosure helped to put his report in the
category of whistleblowing.

The warning whistle which Boisjoly and some of his colleagues sounded in the off-line caucus
during the teleconference before the launch does not count as whistleblowing. Why is that? It
may be because the term whistleblowing is reserved for actions of disclosure when the
whistleblower steps outside of approved organizational channels to reveal a significant moral
problem. Warning against the launch in the off-line caucus during the teleconference was acting
within approved channels. This interpretation is confirmed by Boisjoly's later comment that once
the decision to launch had been made, he and the other engineers in Utah fell into line, as
expected, and accepted the decision. It would have been a violation of accepted procedures to
continue to oppose the launch. Should we say then that his testifying later before the Presidential
Commission was stepping outside of approved channels? Through outside company channels,
Boisjoly spoke up in a legally legitimate, appropriate forum. He did not go outside approved
channels; rather, the account he gave was not the approved account.

Why has whistleblowing drawn so much attention in engineering?

Part of the answer is that it dramatizes the moral situation of many engineers. Built into codes of
ethics, engineering education, and technical practice is an orientation toward safety. The
technical knowledge and organizational positions of engineers enable them to detect serious
moral problems that affect the public welfare. Yet, engineers' organizational positions are such
that they cannot bring appropriate attention to serious problems they detect unless they can
convince others to react. Whistleblowing so naturally comes up as an option that instructors of
engineering ethics pay careful attention to fostering in students the skills of persuading,
negotiating, and allying with colleagues that support other options.

REFERENCES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

http://www.astronsolutions.net/the-importance-of-whistle-blowing/

https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/other-resources/whistleblowing-what-
have-we-learned-challenger