Ethics.
This course is about making management decisions based upon the science of toxicology. If you are involved, or likely to become involved, in a public controversy, you need the risk communication tools just described. While there is nothing on my pages or the linked web pages that suggest not telling the truth, they certainly encourage you to be careful what you say and how you say it, and also to plan your communications. That all sounds a little like "managing the news" or "putting a spin" on what you throw. While that's not the intent, I think this is a good place to review ethics. If you want a philosophy lesson you'll be disappointed, but not nearly as disappointed as you would be if I tried to teach philosophy. I'm convinced there's no idea so stupid a philosopher can't make it sound reasonable. So without any attempt at explore the ether or explain the true meaning of life, here are three codes of ethics that are completely practical. They say what is right and what is not right for the professionals that subscribe to them.
First is the code of ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). Other engineering societies, ASCE, IEEE, ASME, have similar codes. Just read the preamble and the Fundamental Canons. (The next major section, Rules of Practice, expands each of the Fundamental Canons.). NSPE Code. Engineers by and large design things.
Next go to the ABIH . The American Board of Industrial Hygiene is the independent board that certifies industrial hygienists. IH's are experts in the recognition, evaluation, and control of workplace health hazards. The ABIH has copyrighted the terms "CIH" and "Certified Industrial Hygienist." IH's typically investigate workplaces and write reports that recommend practices or certify compliance with regulations. The organization of the code is similar to the NSPE. The ABIH has, in interpretations of the code, stated that if there are conflicts between sections of the code, "the interpretation that is most protective of worker health shall be used."
The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the science of toxicology. SOT's two main scientific journals are considered the benchmark journals in toxicology. The SOT annual convention is by far the largest gathering devoted to toxicology. Toxicologists investigate the human health effects of chemicals. (There's a different organization SETAC, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, that is devoted to effects on the environment.) There is a different organization, the American Board of Toxicology, that issues a certification to practice toxicology, in the sense of evaluating chemicals and reporting on them. The SOT code is considerably shorter and more general, but much more emphatic in requiring one to "Present their scientific statements or endorsements with full disclosure of whether or not factual supportive data are available." Which could be read that you can state or endorse something that you do not have any factual support for, as long as you disclose the lack of factual support. For any science other than toxicology, that would be silly, but as you are finding out, toxicologists are not allowed to test the one species were are interested in, and are constantly making assumptions for which there is really no firm scientific basis.
The Situation
Engineer A is a graduate engineer / company industrial hygienist / a toxicologist
who works in consumer products (not the processing operation) in a company's
manufacturing facility that uses toxic chemicals in its processing operations.
A's job has nothing to do with the use and control of these materials.
A chemical called "MegaX" is used at the site. Recent stories in the news have reported alleged immediate and long-term human genetic hazards from inhalation of or other contact with MegaX. The news items are based on findings from laboratory experiments, which were done on mice, by a graduate student at a well-respected university's physiology department. Other scientists have neither confirmed nor refuted the experimental findings. Federal and local governments have not made official pronouncements on the subject.
Several colleagues outside of the company have approached A on the subject and ask A to "do something" to eliminate the use of MegaX at the processing facility. A mentions this concern to her manager who tells A, "Don't worry, we have an Industrial Safety Specialist who handles that."
Two months elapse and MegaX is still used in the factory. The controversy in the press continues, but since there is no further scientific evidence, pro or con, in the matter, the issues remain unresolved. The use of the chemical in the processing facility has increased, exposing more workers to the substance each day than it did two months ago.
What Do You Think?
Does A have an obligation to take further action under the facts and circumstances?
Who, if anyone, should she talk to.
Discussion
In your group, you should come up with at least two reasons, based on the codes,
why A should say something, and at least two why she should not. You must link
one of the facts given above to one (or more) of the code sections. So individually
give it some thought and post some reasons. Then the self-appointed leader (who
will get an extra credit point) cut and paste the responses, giving credit as
appropriate, organize it a little, and label the subject, Group's Opinion.
End of Submodule
http://www.nspe.org/membonly/mo2-eth5.asp