1) provide an engineering opinion on whether
further changes are needed for the public policy
2) DIscuss the technical and ethical lessons may
be learned by engineers from this case
Halting a Dangerous Project In the mid 1980s, Sam was Alpha Electronics' project leader on a new contract to produce manufactured weaponry devices for companies doing business with NATO government agencies." The devices were advanced technology land mines with electronic con- trols that could be triggered with capacitor circuits to go off only at specified times, rather than years later when children might be playing in old minefields. NATO provided all the technical specifications and Alpha Electronics fulfilled the contract without prob- lems. However, Sam was concerned that one new end user of this device could negate the safety aspects of the trigger and make the land mines more danger- ous than any others on the market. After the NATO contract was completed, Sam was dismayed to learn that Alpha Electronics had signed another contract with an Eastern European firm that had a reputation of stealing patented devices and also of doing business with terrorist organizations. Sam halted the production of the devices. He then sought advice from some of his colleagues and contacted the U.S. State Department's Office of Muni- tions Controls. In retrospect, he wishes he had also viewed by his company's upper management, board of directors, or fellow workers, many of whom were also company stockholders. Happily, Sam was never punished for his unilateral action of halting production. He recently retired from Alpha Electron- ics as a corporate-level vice president. He was espe- cially gratified by the number of Alpha employees contacted the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration, as well as the Defense Depart- ment. He ruefully acknowledges that the issue would have been brought to a close much more quickly. The contract that Sam unilaterally voided by his action was for nearly $2 million over 15 years. Sam noted that no further hiring or equipment would have been needed, so the contract promised to be highly profitable. There was a $15,000 penalty for breaking the contract. On the basis of global corporate citizenship, it was clear that Alpha Electronics could legally produce the devices for the NATO countries but not for the Eastern European company. The Cold War was in full swing at that time. On the basis of local corporate citizenship, it was clear that Alpha Electronics had to consider the expected impact on local communities. In particular, there was no guarantee regarding to whom the Eastern European company would be selling the devices and how they would end up being used. Sam took matters into his own hands without any foreknowledge of how his decision would be CASE 15 Highway Safety Improvements 249 who were veterans of World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War who thanked him for his action. Sam strongly believed his action was the right thing to do, both for his company and for the public welfare. What ideas typically covered in an engineer- ing ethics course might support that conviction
