F-25: Meddling or Extending Public Knowledge?

 Statement of the Case: Geologist A was a groundwater specialist, licensed and employed as a
geological consultant in several provinces. While working on a project to develop safe water
wells in a remote municipality, Geologist A was dismayed by several ignorant comments made
by the political candidate running for election in that riding. The candidate made several rash and

uninformed statements about oil-, gas-, and water-well drilling and criticized the provincial

ministry responsible for monitoring these activities. Among other demands, the candidate called

for the abolition of all regulations on well drilling, claiming that they caused needless delays in

developing the province’s resources.

Geologist A recognized these comments as absurd election

rhetoric, but was amazed by the number of people who called radio talk shows and wrote letters

to the local newspaper supporting this opinion. The editor of the newspaper also wrote a stirring

editorial supporting the candidate’s position.

Geologist A, although very busy with the groundwater development, nevertheless felt a

professional obligation to correct these rash statements. As a professional geoscientist, with

many years in this field, Geologist A wrote a polite but factual letter to the newspaper, with

copies to the candidate and to the party leader, explaining that, unless well drilling is carefully

controlled, dangerous pollution of the water table can occur. Oil and gas can migrate from one

stratum to another, and since drilling operations usually include the injection of various fluids,

such as drilling “mud,” or salt water (to increase pressure and production), these fluids could

migrate to the water table as well. Since the municipality was seeking to develop more

groundwater sources, such pollution was not an idle or academic matter. Moreover, Geologist A

concluded the letter by emphasizing that unless well sites are carefully documented, including

precise locations and the collection of data from well logs, then this lack of information would

impede the search for new resources. To improve resource development, the province should

engage more professionals to examine methods of improving the monitoring process, thus

maintaining control without impeding developers.

The newspaper published the letter, and future editorials did not mention the issue again. The

politicians acknowledged the receipt of Geologist A’s letter, without comment. The candidate

who had proposed the reduction in drilling regulations was narrowly defeated in the election.

Question: Although Geologist A was licensed in the province on a temporary permit, he was a

resident of another province. As a non-resident geoscientist, was it ethical of him to express an

opinion on a technical topic during an election, or was he meddling?

Outcome: A few months later, the ministry responsible for natural resources got in touch with

Geologist A, offering a possible contract to advise the ministry on methods of improving welllogging

regulations.

Authors’ Comments: The actions of Geologist A were ethical and, in fact, exemplary. More

geoscientists and engineers should take part in guiding our elected representatives. (In fact, it

would be beneficial to our country if more engineers and geoscientists were involved in making

political decisions and running for election to public office.) Geologist A responded very positively to protect the public from hazardous professional decisions and to extend the public

knowledge and appreciation of engineering and geoscience (which are duties explicitly stated in

most Codes of Ethics).

[NOTE: This case study is similar to Case Study F-19: Public Letter of Criticism, but the

professional’s actions are significantly different, resulting in a different outcome.]