Statement of the Case: Engineer A, an experienced civil engineer, was engaged by an
environmental advocacy organization to provide a report on past road-building practice by a
major forest company, in a forested area where cutting ceased in the late 1970s. He found many
examples of road-building practice that, over the past 25 years, had led to serious erosion.
Engineer A photographed and described these obsolete practices in his report, to illustrate what
damage they can cause and why they must be avoided. The environmental advocacy organization
used the report in a submission to government, urging tighter enforcement of road-building
regulations.
Engineer A then wrote an article for a national magazine in which he castigated the government
and the forest company and called on readers to mount a “write-in” campaign. He also implied
that the forest company might still be using these poor road-building practices. Engineer A later
stated that he believed that this “hard-hitting” approach would help to get the article published.
In the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance he received from the logging superintendent of the forest company, but did not mention that the environmental advocacy
organization had financed his study.
A reporter on a local weekly newspaper read the magazine article and wrote a “rehash” of the
article. That is, the reporter wrote a newspaper story, based on the article, but implying that the
story was the result of a personal interview—a questionable journalistic practice. In the
newspaper story, the facts were simplified and made even a little more “hard-hitting.” The
reporter pretended to quote Engineer A as saying that the forest company’s unacceptable roadbuilding
practice was “still widespread throughout the province.” Before publication, the reporter
phoned Engineer A, to justify the claim that the story was an interview. The reporter explained
that she had written the story from the magazine article, but it was too long to read over the
telephone. She gave a rough verbal outline. Engineer A said he was satisfied with the story,
which then appeared in the next issue of the newspaper.
The forest company, after reading the magazine article and the newspaper story, felt that they cooperated
with a constructive attempt to study and improve road-building practices, but they had,
instead, been misled and defamed. They complained to the provincial Association and asked the
Association to discipline Engineer A.
Question: Should Engineer A be disciplined? If so, on what basis?
Outcome: The Association investigated and charged Engineer A with unprofessional conduct on the basis that he had expressed an opinion on a professional subject not founded upon “adequate
knowledge and honest conviction.” This is contrary to the provincial Association’s Code of
Ethics. In a disciplinary hearing, Engineer A was found guilty of unprofessional conduct and
given a reprimand.
Authors’ Comments: Clearly, the actions of Engineer A were less than professional.
His first
report, funded by the environmental advocacy organization, was an objective study of roadbuilding
practices; however, he was later guilty of three unprofessional acts:
First, in the magazine article, he negligently (or deliberately) stated that the poor roadbuilding
methods he had observed were still in use by the forest company—a professional
opinion not founded upon “adequate knowledge and honest conviction.”
Second, in the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance of the logging
superintendent, but omitted to say that the environmental organization provided the funding.
This omission could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal a potential bias.
Finally, he permitted the newspaper reporter to produce an inaccurate story. He should have
insisted on more than just a telephone interview; in fact, since the reporter had already
written the story, Engineer A should have insisted on reading it (easily sent by fax or
Internet). Although professional journalists hate delays, they usually want to get the facts
correct.
Engineer A’s actions showed a disregard for the damage (or potential damage) that his public
pronouncements might have caused to the forest company, and he failed to mitigate the damage
by retracting or correcting erroneous statements.
[Note: Explain: In the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance of the logging
superintendent, but omitted to say that the environmental organization provided the funding.
This omission could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal a potential bias.
The paragraph is pointing out a potential ethical concern about incomplete disclosure.
Here’s the breakdown:
Engineer A did acknowledge one contributor (the logging superintendent), which shows some level of transparency.
However, Engineer A did not disclose that an environmental organization funded the work.
Funding sources are important because they can influence (or appear to influence) the conclusions or tone of an article.
Why this matters:
If readers knew the environmental organization funded the work, they might interpret the article differently (e.g., suspecting bias toward environmental protection).
By omitting that funding source, Engineer A may appear to be hiding a conflict of interest.
Key idea:
Even if the work itself is technically sound, failing to disclose relevant financial support can undermine credibility.
In simple terms:
The paragraph is saying:
Engineer A mentioned some help, but left out who paid for the work—and that makes it look like they might be hiding bias.
Ethical principle involved:
This relates to transparency and conflict of interest disclosure, which are core obligations in engineering ethics (e.g., under Professional Engineers Ontario or similar bodies).]
