Gerald Wahr should not go to the interview for Pro-Growth Pesticides, Inc., because doing so opposes his personal and family values and violates the first rule in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Code of Ethics. While Pro-Growth Pesticides is financially stimulating, there are several other solutions to cover his father’s medical bills.

We encourage Wahr to adhere to his strong support for organic farming. An interview with Pro-Growth Pesticides poses a threat to his and his family’s values. Wahr’s father is adamantly against the use of pesticides and has always been “outspoken about this among the farmers in the area.” If he discovers that a pesticide company is paying his medical bills, he might not even accept the help and refuse to allow Wahr to continue working at Pro-Growth Pesticides. The interview and the hiring process would ultimately be futile. After all, Wahr’s father inspired him to attend college to “ ‘show those pesticide folks a thing or two’.” Working for a pesticide company revokes the motive of furthering Wahr’s education and contradicts Wahr’s growing advocacy of organic farming. His father might even prefer that his family be in debt than fall into disgrace with his son’s new job. Therefore, Wahr should decline the potential job opportunity at Pro-Growth Pesticides, because the company does not reflect the same beliefs as the Wahr family.

A position at Pro-Growth Pesticides requires that Wahr adjust his opinions about pesticides in correspondence with the AIChE Code of Ethics. The first principle expects engineers to “be honest and impartial and serve with fidelity their employers.” How can we ensure that Wahr remains loyal to a company that harms the farm products that his family grows? If Wahr acquires the supervisory role at Pro-Growth Pesticides, he immediately violates the first principle of impartiality. The college education has solidified Wahr’s strong conviction that organic farming is the best. As a supervisor responsible for the chemical processing of pesticides, Wahr will be challenged to make decisions that either attack his beliefs or weaken the company’s production. Legal complications that arise from this issue are one of the reasons for Wahr not to go to the interview for Pro-Growth Pesticides.

We advise Wahr to seek other job offers, even those that do not require engineering skills. Critics argue that since Wahr already missed many opportunities for job interviews, he must proceed in the hiring process at Pro-Growth Pesticides to escape from mortgage payments. The supporting factor is that Wahr can resign, apply for a different position, or return to the farm once the payments are made. At first glance that may be true, but upon a long-term reflection the decision to work at Pro-Growth Pesticides might hurt his family farm business. Public relations can carelessly reveal that a member of the Wahr farm business works in the pesticide industry without including the important background story. Consumers might then be doubtful of the truth behind the claimed organic farming practices. Consequently, they choose products from a business that has a cleaner reputation in media, and the produce sales of the Wahr farm decreases. Working at Pro-Growth Pesticides poses a threat to both Wahr’s personal values and his family’s business.

Therefore, Wahr should look past the interview opportunity at Pro-Growth Pesticides and search for both engineering and non-engineering job openings. We suggest Wahr to also look for engineering internships as they may develop into full-time job positions.