Ethics Handout

By Anthony Gaddini, IPRO 339Case studies by Levi Citrin, edited by Anthony GaddiniFall of 2005

Ethics. What is it?

Ethics has been studied across many cultures throught time. It is a fitting feature

of education, particularly for professionals because they will likely encounter ethical

dilemmas in the course of their careers. In the western tradition, ethics, often called moral

philosophy, is the study of morality—what is right in wrong. In the strictest sense, ethics

is the definition of what is right and wrong. Ethics is not to be confused with law,

which derives it authority from a governing body, ruler, or religious body. Ethics is a

discipline, rather.

Applied ethics, the ethics of most use to professionals, works from a core of

fundamental assumptions that underlie a particular ethical concept, such as s

utilitarianism (J.S. Mill), intent (Kant), virtue (Aristotle), social contract theory (Locke),

etc. and applies its major principles to particular circumstances. Examples include

applications to “fields” such as medicine, business, engineering, science, and computer

technology or applications to concepts like “human rights.” Applied ethics is therefore

broad ranging in its importance, effects, and history.

Civil engineers have been distinguished by civilizations since before 2000 B.C. In

Egypt an elaborate description of the duties of a “chief of works” was found in

hieroglyphics. Many of these Egyptian proto-engineers and architects were sworn to

secrecy of their work to protect the pyramids and tombs they designed and built from

would-be raiders. This is an early example of a trade secret. Since the Middle Ages,

codes of conduct and enumerations of duties have been

created for craft-guilds and their apprentices to protect the

craft or trade. Clearly, applied ethics have been with us for a

long time and is of great importance.

There are several approaches to the study of ethics,

each making different fundamental assumptions about the

relationship between “truth” and “reality.” For example, in

derived ethics a deity hands down a set of ethical principles

(the golden rule) or ethical codes (the ten commandments).

These principles and codes, in theory, are objectively

authentic (provided that the deity is authentic) and

absolutely true. Their relationship to observation and

various forms of measurement is inconsequential. For

example, if one were to perceive with the eye that

something is true, but according to the derived ethical

cannon, it is not true, one would have to attribute the visual

1768 Parchment of the ten com-

mandments in an Amsterdam

synogogue. Photo by Jekuthiel Sofer

perception as being inaccurate—a poor interpretation of reality. The Irish philosopher

Berkley and the German philosopher Kant investigated this situation in great detail. Other

approaches include the rational approach, which is based, in theory, on self-evident

rationality. The social contract theory and utilitarianism stem from this approach. Clearly,

with different assumptions and approaches, there will be different outcomes, and this

leads to ethical and moral disagreements, some of which have led to war and much

human turmoil.

Normalization is the classification of actions as right or wrong without bias and

without reference to the situation—making it more fundamental than highly situational

applied ethics. There are three basic normative ethical theories, and most business-related

ethical cannons derive from all there. The first normative ethical theory is

consquentialism, essentially “the ends justify the means.” There are two major forms of

consquentialism, each with different desired ends. Egotism, a philosophy developed

mainly by Ayn Rand in the 20th

century, aims to produce the greatest personal happiness.

Conversely, Utilitarianism, developed by J. S. Mill in the 19th

century, aims to produce

the greatest good for “society” or a large collection of people. Capitalism and democratic

government derive much of their philosophical foundation from consequentiality

theories.

Another normative category is deontology, which is basically “the means justify

the ends.” Sometimes called “duty-ethics” these principles are based upon doing one’s

duty and ignore outcomes. Immanuel Kant was the deontologist extraordinare and John

Locke’s social contract theory is political deontology. John Lock looked into the duties of

government. He wrote that the government and its citizens enter into a contract with each

other. The citizen relinquishing some rights (he is now taxed and cannot steal) in

exchange for security of the rights he keeps (life, property, etc). This theory is entirely

duty based. The outcomes could be left-wing socialism like the first French republic or

right-wing fascism like the third Reich.

The third normative category is virtue ethics. Virtue

ethics originated with Aristotle. Virtue ethics is based upon

doing what is good for a person. It can be summarized by

the phrase “righteous action.” A person does what is right

because it is good for their soul or character. Virtue ethics

became a cornerstone of Christian ethics (because it works

very well within the religious framework) and has become a

dominant type of social ethics that exists today. Business

and practical ethics tend to not be very conducive to

Aristotelian virtue, this discontinuity may explain why

Aristotle said, “all paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind.”

The greatest problem with applied ethics is that inorder to apply ethical definitions inevitable disagreementarises from the different ethical theories. For example,consequentiality may permit the deception of a patient witha grave illness if it made them happier (ends justify means),

but a deontologist would never permit such a thing (means justify ends). And virtueethics, given their intensely personal and potentially supernatural character are verydifficult to apply and define. Most contemporary ethicists have tried to move away from

Bust of Aristotle by Lysippos.

Photo Eric Gaba

canonical theories and first principles opting instead for “casuistry” which has adistinctly case-based and legalistic flavor. Most business or engineering ethicalapproaches are cased based. The best method for examining ethics for professionaldevelopment is to work with some real life examples.

It is important to keep in mind your conscious. Most people have a good grasp ofintuitive ethics that has been formed thought their life, but lack a way of organizing theirunderstanding. Consequently, ethical decisions become difficult to make since theorganization and relative priority ideas is poor. Cases help strengthen our understandingand awareness of ethics. It helps us not only recognize ethical problems more easily butalso provides us ways to work through ethical problems. Here is a case involvingintellectual property.

An IPRO project involving artificial intelligence comes up with a truly outstanding idea that has

considerable commercial application. The members of the group are very excited about the idea of taking

out a patent and selling the idea to the highest bidder. They see themselves as the next generation of Steve

Jobs or Bill Gates. Someone points out a big problem…The University has a strict intellectual property

policy. Any new invention or innovation that any of its full time faculty produces belongs to the institution.

Faces fall, but then Jessie points out that their project supervisor and professor for the IPRO is not full

time, but is an Adjunct Professor. Turns out he’s not even paid for his time teaching, but volunteers it. He

retired some years ago from industry, and teaches for fun. The group discusses how to proceed; some say

we have to talk to the University, others say lets go for it alone.

All of the following could be reasonable responses to this case:1. Students did all of the work; we have no intellectual property agreement with the

University. Ethically we have no need to even let them know2. All of the work was done at the University. Without the IPRO project we would

never have come up with this idea. Ethically we have to at least talk to theUniversity

3. Screw them, if they get wind of this we won’t see a dime. The University hasenough money of its own.

4. There should be some room for compromise here. We should have an attorneytalk to the University on our behalf

5. The University does not pay our professor a dime, he’s not bound by anyIntellectual Property agreement, and so we aren’t either.

Clearly statement #3 has no ethical basis. Statements #1 and #2 are somewhatsimilar, reflecting different ends of a spectrum of opinions. They both recognize thatalthough the students may have done the work, the University has a significant input.(Statement #1 tacitly accepts this through denial). Statement #4 is the most ethical, andalso suggests a practical solution to the problem. Statement #5 is not as explicit asStatement #3 and hides behind sophistry, but ethically is no different from #3.

Working through additional cases will aid understanding and awareness of ethics.After each question battery, make sure to take some time and reflect on possiblearguments or counter-arguments for each position. For more material, see the end section,which contains links to ethics resources at IIT and on the web.

Another case involves copyright issues.

An IPRO group chooses a project in the field of recombinant DNA. Joan is the group leader. She

alone in the group has plans for medical school after graduation, and believes that a high grade on an

IPRO project that she leads in a biological field will greatly help her chances of medical school admission.

Over the objections of several group members, the project is adopted. It becomes clear that it

requires an enormous amount of literature research. Joan is adamant that the final presentation will have

copies of all of the relevant articles, numbering over 350 in total.

In a group meeting several people point out that there are strict laws regarding copyright laws.

One article for personal use is okay, but 15 copies of each article? No way. Someone points out that simply

the cost of photocopying all these articles will be considerable, as will be the time required. Another

member of the group, a very attractive woman named Jill comes up with a solution. There is a guy she

knows who works part-time in the library, a kind of nerdy fellow who is attracted to her. She doesn’t mind

encouraging him a bit if he’ll turn a blind eye to the copyright laws.

This produces lots of ribald comments from the men in the group. Someone suggests that if she has

a liaison with the nerdy fellow, maybe he’ll do all the copying for them. Jill simply smiles.

Several members of the group express objections to the plan; they are told not to be so prissy. The

school can afford the copying, (look how high their fees are!). If the kid in the library has a good time with

Jill, he’s doing okay. Joan sees this as her ticket to medical school and is very enthusiastic. The plan is

adopted.

One would hope that Joan matures ethically during her medical school years. Itappears that she has pushed her agenda onto the whole group. She wanted a biology-based project, and she got it. She also is insisting on very unrealistic demands for theproject itself. A cardinal rule of group decisions is that the group as a whole should becomfortable with those decisions. It is the leader’s responsibility to ensure that oneperson’s agenda is not followed to the disadvantage of others. Frequently, unrealisticexpectations pressure individuals to make ethically dubious decisions. When Jill comesup with a totally worthless “solution” Joan abdicates any leadership responsibility andagrees with the plan.

Jill’s solution is wrong on many levels. It hurts her admirer, and could cause himserious trouble with the library and may well jeopardize his degree. It sends the wrongmessage to the entire group…copyright laws are not serious, not all stealing is reallystealing, you can bend the rules and get away with it. Finally and perhaps mostimportantly Jill is hurting herself. By using her physical attributes in an insincere way toinfluence another person she is reinforcing a stereotype, which is common insociety…more attractive people are often rewarded excessively compared to others. Ifshe comes to rely on this strategy she may well fail to reach her full potential.

The IPRO group as a whole clearly did not act ethically by accepting Jill’s plan.Acting ethically is not being prissy. Peer pressure can be a major factor in determininghow an individual or a group acts in any particular situation. In fairness to the group itappears that Joan’s poor leadership put the group in a position where it felt pressured toperform, leading to its acceptance of an ethically wrong decision.

Confidentiality is a very important issue that is encountered in medical, legal,academic, scientific and other fields. Here is a case that involves issues that are verylikely to be encountered by IPROs or professionals that deals with issues ofconfidentiality.

An IPRO group has agreed to study a group of patients with severe hearing loss who may be

candidates for a new type of implanted hearing device that his school has developed in conjunction with a

major medical school and hospital in the city.

Steve is one in the IPRO group. As part of the study he has to review the medical records of fifteen

patients. He recognizes one of the names. Patient #12 in the study is engaged to be married to Steve’s best

friend Tom’s sister, Pam.

Steve is disturbed to learn that patient #12 has a history of severe bipolar mood disorder. As long

as he takes his medications he is OK, but he has gone off his drugs several times in the past, and required

hospitalization. He does not believe that Tom, Pam or her family knows of this problem.

Steve realizes that he knows little about this condition. Out of his concern for Pam he confides in

his family doctor. The family doctor soundly scolds Steve. She tells him that this is none of his business,

that patient confidentiality is paramount, and that he must forget about the whole affair.

This case can be deeply troubling because it necessarily causes the ethicist tomake a choice between two undesirable choices and underscores the fact that ethics is nothard because it distinguished bad from good, it is hard because it distinguishes bad fromworse. It also aptly demonstrates the fundamental ends justify means vs. means justifyends predicament. Some questions to ask:

1. Did Steve act ethically?2. Do you agree with the family doctor’s response?3. Did the organizers of the IPRO, and the medical school act ethically?4. Does Patient #12 have any ethical responsibilities here?

Steve’s actions were ethically appropriate. He was clearly motivated by concernsfor his friend Pam. Good intentions alone may not necessarily lead to ethical behavior,however. If, for example, Steve had disclosed the medical information directly to Tom orPam, he would have been acting unethically. He acted appropriately and brought thematter to a physician, thereby preserving medical confidentiality. One could argue thatSteve’s actions were ethically the most appropriate that he could have done. Thealternative of simply doing nothing would perhaps have been less satisfying for Steve,but sometimes no action is the most ethical action.

The family doctor’s response is technically correct according to contemporarymedical ethicists. It sounds, however, as if she was a little harsh in her treatment of Steve.A more positive response would have emphasized that Steve acted appropriately,complimented him on his concern for his friends, and on his choice of approach to theissue, and explained that frequently ethical considerations limit our ability to deal withcertain issues. Of course, if Tom kills Pam during a severe manic episode, Steve may notfeel so satisfied with the physician’s response. It is important to remember that thespeculative future is unpredictable and makes a poor justification for action.

Confidentiality of sensitive personal information, including medical records isessential. Sponsors of and participants in medical research have an ethical obligation toensure that patient confidentiality is maintained at all times. In this case all medicalrecords unrelated to the issues that the IPRO were studying should have been removedfrom the file. Also before starting the study the IPRO students should have been givensome instruction in the issue of confidentiality.

What ethical responsibilities, if any, do patients have? All would agree that apatient who is HIV positive has a responsibility to tell his/her sexual partner beforeputting them at risk. The scenario presented here, however is a difficult one. Fulldisclosure to a potential spouse of such an important illness may be preferable, but one

can certainly understand the patient’s reluctance to do so. This is the kind of situationwhere skilful sympathetic professional input is often helpful.

All ethical models and every major religion have addressed issues of honesty.Here is a case involving honesty problems in an IPRO. It also addresses the need forinstitutions and professional to investigate the honesty of would-be clients.

An IPRO group has decided to explore computer assisted design (CAD) programs in an attempt to

simplify existing software programs. The group leader, Jim is a dynamic, charismatic fellow who relates

well to all members of the team, and to their professor. Another member of the team is John, a quiet

member of the group who says little during group meetings but is expert at debugging software problems.

Late one evening after a group meeting John asks Jim for a few minutes of his time. He shyly tells

Jim that he has been working on a unique algorithm that can greatly improve the performance of many of

the commercially available CAD software programs. He asks Jim for his opinion.

Jim spends a few evenings looking over John’s work. He quickly realizes that John has hit on a

unique innovation that could vastly improve existing CAD programs. Jim tells John, “sorry it’s not

workable,” and that as group leader he will not introduce it to the whole group, hinting that this will avoid

embarrassing John. Despite Jim’s charisma the final IPRO presentation is disappointing and gets a very

average grade.

Jim keeps a copy of the software and logic, and presents it to a major CAD software company,

using the services of his uncle Bob, a well-known intellectual property lawyer. Bob’s expert consultants

confirm the quality of the work. Bob is surprised to learn that his nephew, who has shown little aptitude for

computer programming to date, has come up with such a sophisticated innovation.

He recognizes the commercial value of the idea however, and negotiates a six-figure deal for his

nephew. Jim insists that as part of the deal the origin of the algorithm remains secret. Bob is a little

surprised, as his experience with his nephew has always suggested that Jim was not the shy and retiring

type. He points out to Jim that this work would look very good on his resume, but Jim is adamant. Although

Bob doesn’t understand Jim’s reticence, he presents this to the software companies who are agreeable.

John remains totally unaware of all that has happened with his original idea.

Some questions to ask are:1. What did Jim do that was unethical?2. Did Bob act ethically?3. If not, what should he have done?4. Did the software company act ethically?5. What were Jim’s ethical responsibilities to the IPRO group?

It would be hard to find any thing that Jim did that was not unethical. Plagiarizinganother person’s work and benefiting from it financially is simply theft. Jim cynicallyplayed on John’s shyness to shut him down. Exploiting a colleague’s weakness may begood gamesmanship but is rarely ethical. By denying the IPRO group the benefit of anexcellent idea, Jim ensured that the group received a worse grade than they would haveotherwise received. Using family or other connections to advance a scheme ofquestionable morality or legality is clearly ethically reprehensible.

As a professional, Bob may be held to a higher ethical standard than most. It isclear that if he had doubts about the provenance of Jim’s work, he had an ethical duty toinvestigate. This is also true of the software company. Due diligence requiresinvestigation not only of the quality of any piece of work, but also confirmation of itslegal ownership (It would be unethical of a pawn shop owner to give an obviouslyhomeless person $200 for a solid gold Rolex without careful enquiry as to how he came

to own the watch). Both Bob and the software company could have established that Jimwas the source of the computer algorithm. They had an ethical duty to do so.

Another ever-present project-management related dilemma is the explosivecombination of varying levels of team member competency and deadlines, which canlead to bad decisions and outcomes. Here is a case where a leader made an ethicallyinadequate choice about an overwhelmed team member.

Alex is a member of an IPRO group that has a tough project related to bridge design. The fact is,

he isn’t really that smart about mechanical engineering, and this project is a nightmare for him. He’s

managed to keep up so far, but now it’s crunch time for the group, and they need his piece to complete the

puzzle. He can’t do it. He has been getting increasingly frantic e-mails from several members of the group,

including the team leader. The pressure is too great. Alex talks to the team leader and asks for help. There

are several very bright group members who could certainly help get the project finished on time, but each

member of the group is expected to contribute significantly to the overall project. Peter, the team leader,

insists that Alex does the work himself. The project is not completed on time, and the final presentation was

less than ideal. Everyone gets a C. Afterwards; several group members are angry with Alex and critical of

Peter’s decision.

Some questions to ask include:1. Are the group members right to be critical of Peter? If so, why?2. What options did Peter have when presented with Alex’s problems?

3. Would it have been ethical to have Alex’s work done by the other team memberswithout mentioning this in the presentation?

Good leaders make good decisions. A characteristic of good leaders is flexibility.Ethics often involves gray areas. Excessive rigidity may prevent all options from beingexplored.

As group leader, Peter’s options included: asking several of the more gifted groupmembers to help Alex, explaining the problem to their Faculty Advisor or Professor andasking for advice or suggesting a solution, or presenting the situation to the entire groupand brainstorming a solution.

If the Faculty Advisor or Professor agreed, having another student or studentshelp Alex with appropriate credit being given to them would be a very ethical solution tothe problem.

Peter did not make a good decision here. By refusing to offer help to Alex, whowas obviously struggling, he not only hurt the group’s overall performance (and finalgrade) but also lost an important opportunity for the group to learn how to deal withadversity. The group lost an important opportunity to work as a group, with the strongermembers helping the weaker.

It is hard to imagine Peter making a decision that could have hurt Alex’s self-esteem more. Not only did Alex feel badly that he could not fulfill his obligation to thegroup, but the group openly blamed him for their poor performance.

Other leadership problems can arise. Sometimes the leader is personallyincompetent or indolent. Here is another case involving a loafing leader.

Linda is the leader of an IPRO group. There are several members of the group who really need

good grades from the project. Linda is not one of them. She is only in college because her wealthy father

has insisted on it, and it beats shopping with her mother 24/7. She kind of likes the prestige and power that

she perceives to be part of being group leader, but can’t be bothered with all the work involved. Pam needs

an A from the IPRO, and is very critical of Linda’s performance as group leader. As the weeks go by and

the group struggles with the project, Pam becomes more and more frustrated. Talking with Linda about

ways to improve the project didn’t help. Pam asks for a special crisis meeting of the entire group.

Some questions to ask include:1. How should Pam present the issues to the group?2. How can Linda best fulfill her ethical responsibilities to the group?3. How can this problem be best resolved?4. How do the ethical responsibilities of leaders differ from others in a group?

Frequently what is right ethically is also correct pragmatically, as it is based on anunderstanding of human psychology (strengths and weaknesses).

It is appropriate for Pam to present her concerns to the entire group, as they allhave an interest in ensuring that the project is a successful as possible. They may not allshare her level of anxiety, and she must realize this to avoid sounding shrill, or reactingnegatively if they all do not express the same level of frustration with Linda that shefeels.

To successfully address the issues, Pam must avoid direct criticism of Linda as aperson. That would be ethically wrong (and counter-productive). She should focus on apositive approach, emphasizing what the group has accomplished with Linda as leader,and encouraging those present to build on what has been done so far. By focusing onideas, not personalities, Pam should try to have the group agree on realistic timetables,and have the group set the agenda. Leaders share all of the ethical responsibilities.

Here are some more cases to examine with guiding questions. See the referencespage for tools to help you answer these questions on your own!

An IPRO in Medical School studies 2 drugs in patients with arthritis. The drugs have virtually

identical modes of action. They are simply different commercial preparations of the same type of

medication. The study is sponsored by both pharmaceutical manufacturers. Both companies, the Medical

School IRB and the IPRO Professor, Dr. C, approve protocol design. A considerable amount of money is

paid to the Medical School per patient entered on study. The study is done in a double blind fashion. At the

conclusion of the study, the results are surprising. Drug A is clearly superior to the drug B, much more

effective and safer. Not even close. The students are elated. They anticipate publication in a prestige

medical journal. When they give their presentation to their Dr. C, he is very critical of their study. He

brings up issues that were never deemed important before. He questions the study design, collection of

data, their statistical analysis etc. His final conclusion is that the study is seriously flawed. No way it can

be published. The group is crushed. What they don’t know is that Dr. C is a paid consultant to the makers

of drug B.

1. Is it ethical for academics to have a personal financial interest in research workthat they are doing, or is it inevitable that such an interest would compromise thework?

2. List your criticisms of Dr. C in this case.3. How should Dr. C have conducted himself in this case?4. How can conflicts of interest caused by research sponsorship be avoided or at

least minimized?

A mechanical engineering IPRO group were studying the special glass used in automobile

windshields. They were interested in how actual tests of tensile strength at the automobile plant compared

with their own computer test modeling. During their first visit to the automobile plant they heard a brief

presentation from the plant safety officer. It was impressed on them that they should always wear the

gloves, hard hats and safety goggles that they had been given. Several members of the group were acting a

little goofy, clowning for the group photograph and generally treating the exercise in a light hearted

manner. Later that day while they were doing the actual testing, one of the windshields suddenly and

unexpectedly cracked. At that moment Paul, the group clown, was not wearing his goggles. A tiny splinter

entered his right eye. Fortunately prompt surgery saved his vision in that eye. The automobile company

subsequently settled a law- suit brought by Paul. The settlement was for a relatively small amount, as there

were no permanent damages, and the automobile company argued that Paul was largely responsible as he

had not followed the explicit safety instructions that were given. The University was also sued, as Paul’s

lawyers argued that his very presence in the plant was only because of his involvement in the IPRO. The

University argued that Paul was totally to blame for the accident, had he in fact followed the safety rules

he would have been uninjured. The judge agreed with the University’s argument, and issued summary

judgment in their favor.

Putting aside the legal arguments here,1. What ethical responsibilities did the University have?2. Was it ethical for Paul to sue anybody in this case?3. Was it ethical for Paul’s lawyer to prosecute a case on his behalf?4. When the plant safety officer saw that several members of the IPRO group were

acting inappropriately, what should he have done?

John and Jane are working together on the same IPRO team. They have shared many classes

during the previous 3 years. Jane has never liked John. She has seen him cheat on tests and even on several

finals. She has a very low opinion of him. Just her luck, she’s stuck with him again. It quickly becomes very

obvious to Jane that John is once again cheating on the IPRO project. She talks with Paul, the group

leader. Paul is very reluctant to get involved. His attitude is simply “let’s get the project finished with a

minimum of fuss, and move on.” Jane is incensed. She sends an anonymous letter to the Professor in

charge of the IPRO setting out her charges against John. When that produces no apparent response, she

confronts John in a meeting of the whole group. She points out that the school has a strict honor code, and

that John’s actions in the IPRO are clearly in conflict with that code. She tells John in front of the entire

group that she is e-mailing the Professor that evening with proof of John’s cheating. John angrily calls her

a snitch. The group is divided over how they should proceed. Most students just want the problem to go

away. Several applaud Jane’s stand.

1. Is it every student’s responsibility to ensure that everybody observes at all timesand the school’s honor code?

2. Does a student have an ethical responsibility to report cheating by a fellowstudent?

3. Did Jane have an ethical responsibility to confront John before sending the firstletter to the Professor?

4. What are the arguments for and against whistle blowing always beinganonymous?

5. Should anyone respond to a charge brought by an anonymous whistle blower?6. How could Paul have best defused the situation?

References and study tools

Sources:

1) Ethical Theory and Business, Beauchamp and Bowie.

2) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer3) http://www.ethix.org/4) http://www.ethics.org5) http://www.wipo.int/6) http://www.iit.edu7) http://www.ama-assn.org8) Smith, J. H. and Harper, P. M. Engineering Ethics Concepts, Viewpoints, Cases

and Codes National Institute for Engineering Professionalism, Texas TechUniveristy, August 2004 (available from CESP—IIT’s ethics center)

9) http://www.grad.iit.edu/research/OSRP/research_handbook/chapter10.html (adiscussion of plagiarism, copyrights, and authorships for students at IIT

Articles for personal enrichment:

1) “Conflicts of Interest” from www.ethics.org.2) “Tools for Better Business” from www.ethix.org.3) “Ethical Theory and Business” chapter 1, Tom L. Beachamp and Norman E.

Bowie.4) “Employment at Will and Due Process”, Patricia H. Werhane and Tara J. Radin.

page 266 from “Ethical Theory and Business”5) “In Defense of Contract at Will”, Richard Epstein. page 274 from “Ethical

Theory and Business”6) “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty”, Ronald Duska. Page 305 from “Ethical

Theory and Business”7) “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?”, Albert Z. Carr. Page 443 from “Ethical Theory

and Business”8) “Second Thoughts About Bluffing”, Thomas Carson. Page 448 from “Ethical

Theory and Business”.9) “Intellectual Property and the Information Age”, Richard T. De George. Page

495 from Ethical Theory and Business”.10) Information about Intellectual Property and Patents from http://www.wipo.int/,

the world intellectual property organization.11) http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4610.html information on the

American Medical Association’s website about confidentiality.12) http://www.grad.iit.edu/research/OSRP/research_handbook/chapter10.html The

IIT policies on personal conduct while conduction research.

Some basic guidelines (cheat sheets):

1) on ethics

• Apply to interactions between an individual and...other people, animals, things e.g. theenvironment

• usually applies to interactions between people• differ from legal rules• generally stricter than legal rules

• govern what should be done as opposed to what can be done• by definition are subjective, often gray areas• may have their basis in religion, but not always...atheists can and should be ethical

• ethics apply to actions, behavior• golden rule probably is….don’t hurt other people

• different times…different ethics• different societies…different ethics• many professions have ethical issues that apply specifically to them e.g. medicine, law, priesthood

• application of new technology requires new ethical guidelines• scientists are not intrinsically more ethical than others• from an ethical perspective, best decisions are probably made by a group rather than an individual

2) principles of highly ethical business leaders

• Treat all employees as unique, valuable individuals.

Never treat anyone as though they are dispensable, without value, or "just a number."

• Support each employee's freedom, growth, and development.

Never view anyone through stereotypes and images, or as fixed and unchangeable.

• Communicate to employees by name with respect.

Never use or impose demeaning, trivializing, or derogatory names on others.

• Model and encourage a balanced life of good work and rest.

Do not adopt policies or make demands on employees that undermine balanced lives.

• Honor and respect employee families.

Never undervalue the significance of families and friends of employees.

• Protect employees' life, safety, and health.

Never harm or jeopardize the physical well-being of anyone.

• Create a working environment free of sexual harassment.

Do not allow communication or activity that is sexually inappropriate.

• Be fair and just in financial matters.

Never tolerate unfair wages, prices, or financial practices.

• Communicate honestly and truthfully.

Never mischaracterize people, products, services, or facts.

• Cultivate a positive attitude toward others and their accomplishments.

Do not give in to envy or the temptation to take credit for the work of others.

3) eight traits of a healthy organizational culture

• Openness and humility from top to bottom of the organization

Arrogance kills off learning and growth by blinding us to our own weaknesses. Strength comes

out of receptivity and the willingness to learn from others

• An environment of accountability and personal responsibility

Denial, blame, and excuses harden relationships and intensify conflict. Successful teams hold each

other accountable and willingly accept personal responsibility.

• Freedom for risk-taking within appropriate limits

Both extremes--an excessive, reckless risk-taking and a stifling, fearful control--threaten any

organization. Freedom to risk new ideas flourishes best within appropriate limits.

• A fierce commitment to "do it right"

Mediocrity is easy; excellence is hard work, and there are many temptations for shortcuts. A

search for excellence always inspires both inside and outside an organization.

• A willingness to tolerate and learn from mistakes

Punishing honest mistakes stifles creativity. Learning from mistakes encourages healthy

experimentation and converts negatives into positives.

• Unquestioned integrity and consistency

Dishonesty and inconsistency undermine trust. Organizations and relationships thrive on clarity,

transparency, honesty, and reliable follow-through.

• A pursuit of collaboration, integration, and holistic thinking

Turf wars and narrow thinking are deadly. Drawing together the best ideas and practices,

integrating the best people into collaborative teams, multiplies organizational strength.

• Courage and persistence in the face of difficulty

The playing field is not always level, or life fair, but healthy cultures remain both realistic about

the challenges they face and uninitiated and undeterred by difficulty.

4) nine good reasons to conduct businesses and IPROs in an ethical manner

• Litigation/Indictment Avoidance

Without strong ethical values companies easily drift to the legal edges--dangerous territory where

bending and breaking the law leads to lawsuits and indictments.

• Regulatory Freedom

When citizens and governments are aggravated by irresponsible, unethical business behavior,

greater regulation and bureaucratic red tape is the result.

• Public Acceptance

Companies that tolerate unethical practices in today's transparent era, will almost certainly be

exposed, then boycotted and punished in the marketplace.

• Investor Confidence

Today's investors will avoid a company that is not responsible and ethical. Recent market declines

have partly resulted from concerns about unethical accounting practices.

• Supplier/Partner Trust

In an era of virtual corporations, partnerships, and extended enterprise, no company is self-

sufficient. Successful partnerships are built on trust and trustworthiness.

• Customer Loyalty

Quality, cost, availability, and other factors are not enough to maintain customer loyalty.

Customers are also looking at the reputation of the company.

• Employee Performance

People produce best in an open, creative, ethical environment. Companies that have a poor

reputation have difficulty attracting and retaining top talent.

• Personal Pride

Company leaders and employees can take genuine pride in their accomplishments knowing they

didn't bend rules, cut corners, or hurt people to accomplish their goals.

• It's Right

Most of the great moral teachers and leaders in human history argue that, no matter what the

consequences, it is intrinsically good to do the right thing and be ethical.

5) ethical issues facing IPRO students

• Intellectual property – Working with other peoples’ ideas. Who owns what an IPRO produces?Who owns the ideas of the IPRO students?

• Copyright issues – National and International.• Confidentiality – surveys done on human subjects. Credit work done by students. Working with

medical records

• Honesty – Misleading competitors to get information. Lying to protect trade secrets. Honestyamong the team members.

• Finishing a project – Producing something you know will not work. Responsibility of individualstudents to do the work so the team will succeed.

• Teammates – Treating teammates with respect. Leading other students.• Sponsors – Responsibility and obligations to your sponsors. Sponsors obligations to the students

and group.• Safety – Dealing with dangerous materials. Disposing of dangerous materials. Producing safe

products.

• Whistle blowing – Dealing with a dangerous situation in the IPRO or with the sponsors company.