Whistleblowing and Intellectual Property - Essay Example

Ethics in Engineering: Whistleblowing and Intellectual Property YOUR Ethics in Engineering: Whistleblowing and Intellectual Property Do engineers have a duty to fellow engineers? Does this count for or against whistle-blowing? In addition to their duty to be responsible members of society and their profession, engineers definitely have many duties related to other members of the engineering profession. All duties are not created equal, and there is one duty that supersedes the others; protecting the reputation of the profession as well as the safety of the public. As the engineering profession has a significant role to play in the industrial and technological economy, engineers have the duty to see that the elements of our “human industrial structure are properly designed, properly constructed, and properly adjusted” (Rae & Volti, 2001: 159). The engineering profession makes significant contributions to the everyday work and life of the government, private and public companies, as well as the general public. As Weil, in discussing the types of questions presented to citizens, companies, and policy makers, states: “How should aircraft producers, airlines and the government regulatory agency deal with wiring insulation problems that have surfaced? What will be the consequences of changing our pollution-control strategy? Suppose that instead of attacking outflow of pollutants at the pipe end, we target input at the front end? (Weil, V. 2002: 59). All of these types of questions fall at the feet of the engineering profession. The impact engineers have on safety could not be more dramatically demonstrated than the space shuttle Challenger disaster. It is common knowledge that the engineering staff was against the launch because it feared the effect of cold weather on the O-rings. Every engineer involved knew that if the O-rings failed, there would be an explosion and the mission would be lost. When the engineering staff notified command authorities that they were recommending postponement of the loss, the managers pressured the engineers to change their minds. In the end, the engineers capitulated and the launch went forward as planned—with disastrous results. Why didn’t the command staff listen to the concerns of the engineers? Why did the engineers change their position? If the engineers had such great concerns, why didn’t someone blow the whistle? All of these questions carry ethical implications that cross professional and occupational lines—including the duty of all engineers to preserve the integrity of the profession, the firm or industry for whom they work, and the safety and wellbeing of the individuals who will use their designs. In this case, the very lives of the astronauts were at stake. When that integrity is violated, the engineer has to make a decision; either go along with management that seeks to circumvent proper procedures or codes, or become a whistleblower. One author refers to the term as “any member of a formal organization who takes information out of channels to try to stop the organization from doing something he believes morally wrong (or to force it to do something he believes morally required)” (Davis, M. 1998: 74). The ethical codes of conduct for engineers support the idea of whistleblowing, even though the individual will almost certainly suffer some very negative repercussions. In the right circumstance, whistleblowing gives the profession higher integrity, and makes any particular company or industry stronger. In fact, the very act of whistleblowing—unless it is misdirect, misguided, or malicious—implies a serious weakness in the infrastructure of the agency or company. When the conditions for valid whistleblowing are present, it is often a strong indicator of failure, either systemic or personal. First, the organizational weakness is obvious; for an engineer to violate the chain of command or circumvent the standard reporting process indicates that there is no viable channel within the company for the engineer to communicate the truth—even if the truth is bad news—to the appropriate management staff. Such communications blockages do not facilitate the ethical or efficient execution of the engineering profession and, as demonstrated in the example above, can result in severely negative consequences. This is demonstrative of a systemic failure. There is also a weakness in management if an employee has to go around a supervisor (internal) or to the public or regulatory agency (external) to get resolution to a significant problem. Given the stigma associated with whistleblowing, it is highly likely that the individual has tried to communicate with his or her immediate supervisors or attempted to address the issue in another way. If management has refused to address something that is so serious as to cause an engineer to engage in whistleblowing, there are only two explanations; someone in the information chain is either corrupt or feels a strong need to stay in control. In either case, there is a personal failure on the part of that manager. My position does not condone unnecessary instances of whistleblowing, which amount to gossip or career sabotage. That, however, is rarely the case as whistleblowers tend to get treated very harshly. They are scrutinized, their motives are questioned, the methods or procedures may be audited, and the social stigma can stay with them throughout their careers. That said, however, engineers have an ethical duty to maintain professional integrity and contribute to public safety. They have a duty to their employers to use their best efforts at solving problems and finding solutions. If, in the course of meeting these particular duties the engineer is forced to engage in whistleblowing, so be it. Can intellectual property be justified? How is this relevant to engineering? Intellectual property and the associated case law can be justified completely. If an individual were to steal something from another person—say a watch—there would be no dispute over the fact that a crime had been committed. Taking something valuable from the person who created or owns it is criminal. This applies to things of a less tangible nature, like an innovative process engineering flow, as well. There is no logical reason why the intangible nature of an idea or process that is stolen should be treated any differently than something with the tangible nature of a watch. While this may be an oversimplification, it does serve as a foundational guideline for the argument that intellectual property rights are justifiable. Intellectual property has value, and the theft of processes or proprietary information is stealing. In the U.S., the monetary losses to business are astronomical. “By 2000, U.S. companies had lost over $1 trillion from intellectual property theft, and that number is reportedly growing by $250 billion every year” (Yu, Lehrer, & Roland, 2008: 667). This is why there are laws to prevent such theft, and engineers should consider the ramifications of weakening such laws. The first of these is the principle of motivation. If an engineer develops a novel process and there is adequate protection in place, that engineer will be able to profit—financially, academically, or professionally—from the idea. This is a strong motivator for innovation. In contrast, if there is no protection for that idea and process, the engineer has no incentive to put the time and energy into creative research and development. As a result, the agency, company, or general public would be deprived of innovation and would ultimately have fewer choices in the market. There are those who point to the intrinsic satisfaction of innovation as a reason to mitigate or eliminate intellectual property regulations. This position, quite frankly, is naïve. The profit motive has driven industrial development for centuries and there is no sign that this is going to change in the immediate future. The reason for this is simple; the recognition of colleagues and the pride in a job well done, while being important, will never put food on the family table. Intellectual property rights are designed to protect people with good ideas and processes from theft, just as the laws against stealing are designed to protect manufacturers of goods from pilfering. They are, in essence, the same thing. To illustrate the relevance of this concept on the engineering profession, consider the case of software research, development, and engineering. The software engineer of a creative code process innovates a design that results in a superior product; and it is very valuable to the company for whom the engineer works. Once packaged and marketed, the company will work to ensure that sales will develop momentum, and become a leading product in the industry. Further, the company will realize profits that allow it to pay the engineers, develop new innovations, and offer a return to the people who invested in the company. At this point, all is well. Once the product is on the open market, however, the competition of the company obtains a copy of the product, reverse engineers the process flows and comes out with its own software that is different in name only. Through reverse engineering, in an unethical breach of intellectual property rights, the competitor has stolen something it could not otherwise produce. It is making profits that it doesn’t merit. This very issue has been litigated, and the courts are recognizing the challenges inherent in these types of questions. “There are other important aspects of computer programs that also challenge property boundaries; specifically, what is considered original in the eyes of the court and the role reverse engineering should play in understanding a computer program” (Halbert, 1999: 54). One example of the potential damage this type of “deregulation” could cause is the increase in cost of these types of products; and the courts should be aware of this: A ruling that reverse engineering constitutes fair use, [could be mitigated] by adopting practices that evade condemnation but which raise other costs, such as making their products more difficult to reverse engineer. Ideally, the cost incurred to make the product more difficult to crack, as well as the cost incurred by reverse engineers in response, would be weighed in comparison with whatever cost reductions reverse engineering gives rise to. (Cotter, 2006: 495) Thus, in this case, the intellectual property rights protection afforded to the engineer and his company have allowed consumers to obtain advantageous software at a reasonable price, permitted the company to reap a reasonable reward from its investment, and offered the engineer career recognition and success. Intellectual property rights in the engineering profession are justifiable and necessary. Ideas are abundant, but the process flows and techniques by which an idea becomes a reality are not. Engineers who successfully develop innovation in design and application deserve protection. The engineering industry should have no more tolerance for intellectual property theft than the academic communities’ stance on plagiarism. The stealing of ideas and processes is not distinguishable from the theft of ideas and words. In the engineering profession, as well as the rest of the industrial, governmental, and private sectors, taking someone else’s idea and acting like it is your own for the purposes of making money is unethical, costly, and appropriately illegal. References Cotter, T.F. (2006). The Pro-Competitive Interest in Intellectual Property Law. William and Mary Law Review, 48, 2, 483-518. Davis, M. (1998). Thinking Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. New York: Oxford University Press. 74. Halbert, D.J. (1999). Intellectual Popery in the Information Age: The Politics of Expanding Ownership Rights. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 54. Rae, J., Volti, R. (2001). The Engineer in History. New York: Peter Lang. Weil, V. (2002). Engineering Ethics. In: Spier, R.E. Science and Technology Ethics. London: Routledge. 59. Yu, M.A., Lehrer, R., & Roland, W. (2008). Intellectual Property Crimes. American Criminal Law Review, 45, 2, 665-692. Read More