Case 07-6: Sustainable Development Threatened Species

The case 07-6 deals with Engineer !rom an environmental engineering that was
hired b" a developer client# Engineer $s %ob was to do an anal"sis o! a piece o! land that
the client wanted to build residential condominiums on& ne't to a wetland area# During
the anal"sis o! the potential development area& one o! the engineering !irm$s biologists
reported to Engineer that in his opinion& the potential development could threaten a bird
species# This bird species inhabited the ad%acent and protected wetland area# The bird
species that was said to be threatened was not an (endangered species)& but is considered
a (threatened species) b" !ederal and state laws# !ter !inding out this in!ormation&
Engineer verball" mentioned the concern to the developer client& but does not include
the in!ormation in the written report that was submitted to the public authorit" that was
considering the developer$s proposal#
The *S+E Code o! Ethics sections that appl" are: Sections ,#-& ,#.& ,,#-#a&
,,,#/#d#& and ,,,#0# Section ,#-& (Engineers& in the !ul!illment o! their pro!essional
duties& shall issue public statements onl" in an ob%ective and truth!ul manner)# Section
,#.& (Engineers& in the !ul!illment o! their pro!essional duties& shall avoid deceptive acts#)
Section ,,#-#a& (Engineers shall be ob%ective and truth!ul in pro!essional reports&
statements& or testimon"#) The" shall include all relevant and pertinent in!ormation in
such reports& statements& or testimon"& which should bear the date indicating when it was
current#) Section ,,,#/#d& (Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles o!
sustainable development 1the challenge o! meeting human needs !or natural resources&
industrial products& energ"& !ood& transportation& shelter& and e!!ective waste management
while conserving and protecting environmental 2ualit" and the natural resource base
essential !or !uture development3 in order to protect the environment !or !uture
generations#) Section ,,,#0& (Engineers shall not disclose& without consent& con!idential
in!ormation concerning the business a!!airs or technical processes o! an" present o!
!ormal client or emplo"er& or public bod" on which the" serve#)
The real ethical dilemma in this case is that Engineer has been presented with
this in!ormation and has shared it with his client& but chooses not to include it in his
report he will submit to the public authorities# Engineer has an obligation to do what
his emplo"er has hired him to do& but also has an ethical obligation to protect this bird
species& especiall" i! !ederal and state laws sa" that this species is a (threatened species)#
4" choosing to omitted this in!ormation& Engineer is choosing to hold his ethical
obligation with is emplo"er higher than his ethical obligation to not hold bac5
in!ormation to public authorities& and his ethical obligation to protect the environment#
The decision o! the 4oard o! Ethical 6eview was that it was unethical !or
Engineer to not include the in!ormation about the threat to the bird species# Their
decision that was Engineer should have included it in the written report and advised the
client o! its inclusion in said report# The" made this decision based on a couple !acts
!rom the case# The client never told Engineer to treat the in!ormation as con!idential
and the in!ormation was not based on speculation but b" an actual 2uali!ied biologist#
lso Engineer has an obligation to be ob%ective and truth!ul in pro!essional reports and
must include all relevant and pertinent in!ormation# 7n!ormation about a possible threat
to a threatened bird species is something one could reasonable assume that a public
authorit" would want to consider when considering approving the developer$s plan !or
residential living#
7 also agree with the 4oard o! Ethical 6eview on their decision in this case&
Engineer was holding bac5 in!ormation that was e'tremel" important in the public
authorities$ decision in approving the client$s development plans# Engineer ignored his
ethical obligation to include all relevant in!ormation in his report& and also ignored his
ethical obligation to protect the threatened bird species#