Schaub 4:00
R01
ANALYSIS OF AN ETHICAL DILEMMA REGARDING THE PRODUCTION
AND TESTING OF SOLAR CELLS
Isaac Mastalski ([email protected])
INTRODUCTION
As a chemical engineer focusing on the production of
more efficient and more cost-effective photovoltaic (PV)
cells, I frequently work for clients who set unreasonably
high standards; for example, one client asked my company,
Dunder-Mifflin Photovoltaic Enterprises, to create a cell
with 75% efficiency (the current maximum efficiency in lab
tests is approximately 40% [1]) that had no significant
increase in manufacturing costs. Standards like this,
combined with the growing public demand for greater use of
renewable energy like efficient and safe solar power, force
ethical dilemmas on the engineers tasked with creating these
ever-better PV cells. Incentives like big contracts and
notoriety abound for cutting corners during testing and
production in order to make a “better” cell that can make the
client greater profits. In this paper, this ethical dilemma of
cutting corners to please a client will be examined with
respect to the various codes of ethics for professional
engineering fields, and an appropriate response will be
developed.
SPECIFIC ETHICAL DILEMMA
Last year, a client approached Dunder-Mifflin
Photovoltaic Enterprises with the unrealistic request of
making a cell that had 75% efficiency and no significant
increase in production cost, and they wanted it to be ready
for market within a year. Naturally, with the current
maximum laboratory efficiency barely topping 40%, and a
theoretical maximum efficiency between about 60% and
80% as determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
[1], I immediately informed the client that a 75% efficient
cell is impossible. I said we might be able to achieve 50%,
given several years of intensive research and sufficient
resources like funding, lab space, and raw materials.
However, the client insisted on the one-year deadline, and I
didn’t want to lose the major contract for my company, so I
signed with the client, knowing that it would be difficult, if
not impossible.
Cutting corners during development of PV cells risks
introducing toxic chemicals to the environment and/or
allowing improperly tested cells to be sold to the public.
Using the toxic chemicals already established for use in PV
cell production allows engineers to cut corners because these
chemicals are inexpensive and easy to produce. They can,
however, be corrosive and dangerous if used as they are, and
it is costly to encase them to be environmentally friendly.
Serious consequences could potentially arise, including
damage to the environment, detrimental effects on public
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2014-09-30
health, harm to individuals, and destruction of property. For
example, toxic chemicals in these cells could seep out and
pollute the environment, contributing to short or long term
public health problems, or a cell could explode from faulty
wiring or installation errors, damaging property and injuring
installers, users, or anyone who is working directly or
indirectly around them. These are serious problems to which
engineers must be attentive, and they are the reason corners
should never be cut.
A year has passed, and my team has managed to develop
a PV cell that is nearly 50% efficient, per the client’s
request, but it contains several toxic chemicals, including
gallium arsenide (GaAs), cadmium chloride (CdCl2), and
cadmium telluride (CdTe) [1]; additionally, due to the time
restraints, we were forced to use “off-the-shelf” electronics
components inside the cell to turn the solar energy into
usable AC power instead of developing our own components
compatible with the chemicals in the cell, and we have been
unable to fully and properly test the cell. The client is
currently attempting to market the “revolutionary” cell, but
my team and I have concerns and believe this is improper,
given all the negative aspects and uncertainties with it.
Because we are now questioning the ethicality of this
contract, I reviewed the engineering codes of ethics and
other sources, including case studies and articles, to
determine the appropriate action to take.
RELEVANT ETHICAL CODES
In addition to the standard Code of Ethics from the
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), each
engineering discipline has its own code of ethics. As a
chemical engineer, the code specific to my field is the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Code of
Ethics.
NSPE Code of Ethics
In the NSPE Code, there are numerous canons, but the
most relevant ones to my individual dilemma are that
engineers must: “Hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public” (Section I.1.) [2]; and “Not disclose,
without consent, confidential information concerning the
business affairs or technical processes of any present or
former client or employer, or public body on which they
serve” (Section III.4.) [2].
These fundamental canons are further broken down into
rules of practice and obligations, which are very detailed.
For example, Section I.1. is broken down into six rules of
practice, including most relevantly, Section II.1.1. – “If
Isaac Mastalski
engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that
endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or
client and such other authority as may be appropriate,”
Section II.1.3. – “Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or
information without the prior consent of the client or
employer except as authorized or required by law or this
Code,” and Section II.1.6. – “Engineers having knowledge
of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to
appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to
public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities
in furnishing such information or assistance as may be
required” [2]. Section III.4. is broken down similarly into
multiple subsections detailing specific obligations [2], but
just the main canon is primarily what is necessary for this
case.
The rules of practice demonstrate perfectly the dilemma I
have. Under Section I.1., I am required to hold paramount
the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and I must,
under Sections II.1.1. and II.1.6., report safety problems to
proper authorities. I know that the PV cells are not proven
safe yet, as the toxic chemicals could leach into the
environment and hurt people, and the off-the-shelf
electronics might not be compatible with the chemicals,
possibly causing the cell to explode, so I should report this.
However, Sections III.4. and II.1.3. prevent me from
disclosing the details of my work with anyone outside the
client unless I have the client’s consent, which I do not.
Thus, the NSPE Code does not particularly help, and I must
investigate other sources.
In addition to the standardized Codes of Ethics, there are
other sources of information when it comes to resolving
ethical dilemmas, including case studies and other sources
on ethical issues, which will hopefully help me to resolve
my ethical dilemma better than either of the two Codes of
Ethics.
Case Studies
Case studies are a very useful tool when analyzing
ethical dilemmas; experts in ethics usually write them, and
they fully recount past ethical dilemmas in order to analyze
the ideal way to act in future dilemmas. I found several case
studies that can be applied to different aspects of my
situation.
First, I found an NSPE case study in which an engineer
was hired to determine if an apartment building needed to be
renovated. The client was unsure as to whether or not the
building was up to code, and the engineer determined that it
violated the local fire codes. Upon informing the client, the
engineer was told that the building would not be renovated
immediately due to a loss in funding [4]. In this case, the
engineer was working confidentially for the client, so he felt
he was unable to tell anyone about the building’s code
violation. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined
that the engineer was understandably conflicted between two
main duties outlined in the Code of Ethics that I have
already described – Section I.1. and Section III.4. [4]. In the
Board’s analysis, however, they determined that Section I.1.
predominates, due to the fact that engineers must “hold
paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” [4].
The use of the word ‘paramount’ in the Code establishes
Section I.1.’s primacy when it is in conflict with other
Sections. Therefore, the NSPE determined that the engineer
acted wrongly and was obligated to report the code violation
to the proper authorities [4]. This case study applies
perfectly to my dilemma with respect to keeping projects in
confidence with the client and not distributing information to
outside sources, but I will go into more detail on this later.
Another relevant case study was published by the Online
Ethics Center for Engineering and referred to New York’s
Love Canal debacle of the 1960s and 1970s. In that scenario,
a company dumped toxic chemicals into an unfinished canal,
the “Love Canal,” sealed it, and eventually sold the property
to a school and real estate developers. An elementary school
and several hundred houses were constructed directly above
the toxic chemical dump, and within a few years, the
chemicals began seeping up to the surface, causing results
ranging from cancer and chemical burns to birth defects and
miscarriages in the area’s residents. They began seeking
compensation for their health problems and for relocating
their families, but the company that created the dump
refused to get involved. Eventually, the EPA and President
Jimmy Carter had to get involved, and the chemical
company was forced to pay several hundred million dollars
to the families on the site and to the state of New York for
AIChE Code of Ethics
Like the NSPE Code of Ethics, there are several canons
in the AIChE Code of Ethics that are relevant to my
situation; according to the AIChE, chemical engineers must:
“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the
public and protect the environment in performance of their
professional duties” [3]; “Formally advise their employers or
clients (and consider further disclosure, if warranted) if they
perceive that a consequence of their duties will adversely
affect the present or future health or safety of their
colleagues or the public” [3]; and “Act in professional
matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or
trustees, avoiding conflicts of interest and never breaching
confidentiality” [3].
Unlike the NSPE Code, the AIChE Code is not further
broken down into rules of practice and obligations, but these
canons are almost identical to the NSPE ones and perpetuate
the exact same ethical dilemma, so they are not much more
help. Instead, I must continue looking at other sources.
OTHER SOURCES OF ETHICAL
INFORMATION
2
Isaac Mastalski
its cleanup efforts [5]. This case study is related to my
specific dilemma due to that fact that toxic chemicals were
the central issue, and using toxic chemicals (like our cell’s
GaAs, CdCl2, and CdTe) to cut corners when making PV
cells raises the same environmental and public health
concerns as the ones in the Love Canal situation.
Finally, the Stanford Biodesign Lab published a case
study involving a medical company using an off-the-shelf
strap for a medical device they invented that had to be
strapped to a patient’s arm. The company began marketing
the device before testing was complete, and later,
biocompatibility tests revealed that the off-the-shelf strap
would not be compatible with all patients [6]. The ethics
team at Stanford determined that the company should not
have marketed the device until the strap was fully tested and
any problems with it were rectified; furthermore, the team
concluded that “patient safety should always be the first
priority” [6]. This case applies to my PV cell dilemma,
wherein my electronics components are off-the-shelf, just
like the medical device’s strap.
in, and the radiation and poisonous fumes from it made their
way all through the compound, giving several workers minor
doses of radiation [9]. The blog post, in relation to my PV
cells, was about the ethics of using such toxic chemicals,
since they will eventually need to be disposed of, but it is
often very difficult to dispose of such toxic waste.
Finally, I found a YouTube video published by Dr.
Michael C. Loui, professor of engineering at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, about engineers’ role in
public safety [10]. In the video, the professor maintained that
the absolute foremost responsibility of every engineer is to
protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public, just like
the NSPE Code of Ethics states [10][2].
APPLICATION OF FINDINGS TO MY
DILEMMA
Based on my research, I believe I have learned enough to
respond in an appropriate manner to my ethical dilemma.
Both the NSPE and the AIChE Codes of Ethics are in
conflict between confidentiality with the client and safety of
the public, so they alone cannot help me a great deal. Next, I
turned to three separate case studies, each relating to a
different aspect of my dilemma; one regarded threats to
public safety, another regarded toxic chemicals, and the last
regarded the use of potentially unsafe off-the-shelf
components. The public safety case study resulted in the
determination that the safety of the public is “paramount” [4]
in all cases. The toxic chemicals case study resulted in the
determination that the company that put the chemicals into
the environment was wrong and had to pay millions in
reparations [5]. Finally, the off-the-shelf components case
study resulted in the determination that, again, “safety
should always be the first priority” [6]. Based on these three
case studies, I believe that it was wrong for Dunder-Mifflin
Photovoltaic Enterprises to use the off-the-shelf electronics
components in conjunction with the toxic chemicals GaAs,
CdCl2, and CdTe in our cells, and it is now my duty as a
professional engineer either to compel the client to stop
marketing our PV cells or to report the problematic cells to
the proper authorities, such as the EPA or Department of
Energy.
Furthermore, analysis of my secondary resources results
in the same conclusion. The article from Santa Clara
University argued for lessening the costs of solar power to a
point where it was ethically marketable to a more
widespread demographic, but that was under the assumption
that the PV cells would not have detrimental effects on
people or the environment, like mine could have [7]. The
Arizona State University article illustrated the conflict
between Utilitarian Ethics and Duty-Based Ethics, and it was
left up to the individual engineer to determine which
doctrine suited them best [8]; personally, I believe a
combination of the two is best – it is my duty as an engineer
to do what is best for the greatest number of people
Other Sources
In addition to the ethics case studies, I found several
other relevant sources. First is an article from Santa Clara
University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics discussing
the large cost associated with using solar power; the article
was primarily about how the costs are the sole reason that
solar power is not more widely implemented [7]. It argued
that lowering the cost of solar power was all that really had
to be done in order to realize more widespread use [7]. In a
way, this article seemed to reinforce my client’s requests
that the cost of the PV cells not be increased, regardless of
what that meant for the components inside the cell.
Another article I found was from an Arizona State
University conference on the ethical aspects of solar energy
in general [8]. Two conflicting ideas were introduced:
Utilitarian Ethics (doing what is best for the greatest number
of people) and Duty-Based Ethics (doing what duty dictates,
regardless of impacts on people) [8]. Because of these
conflicting ethical doctrines, it is difficult to determine how
much influence should be placed either on the safety of PV
cells or on their positive impacts by creating renewable
energy. Someone who advocates Utilitarian Ethics may
believe that PV cells should only be used if they are entirely
safe, due to the necessity of public and environmental safety,
whereas someone who advocates Duty-Based Ethics may
believe that any PV cells should be used, regardless of
public or environmental health, due to the necessity of
renewable energy. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say
either doctrine is better than the other.
Additionally, I found a blog about engineering ethics,
and one of the posts on it referred to a recent near-disaster at
a nuclear waste storage site called the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico [9]. Apparently, some of the
toxic waste had eaten through the steel barrel it was housed
3
Isaac Mastalski
(including clients) and the environment. The WIPP blog
offered another viewpoint on the use of toxic chemicals (i.e.
that they are extremely hard to store safely once they are
disposed of) [9], so that makes me reconsider using such
chemicals in our PV cells, even if it meant making the
“better” cell the client wanted. Finally, the YouTube video
reinforced the NSPE Code’s emphasis on holding public
safety “paramount” [2][10].
In summary, I now believe that it was wrong for my
company to use toxic chemicals like GaAs, CdCl2, and CdTe
and off-the-shelf electronic components, due to the fact that
my foremost responsibility as an engineer, as determined by
various case studies, is to protect the health and safety of the
public. Furthermore, I am required to clearly notify the client
of the potential problems with the PV cells my company
produced, and if the client refuses to take any action, I am
required to notify proper authorities, like regulatory
agencies. Overall, though the Codes of Ethics were useful
starting points for ethical dilemmas such as mine, they were
not nearly as much help as the case studies, which in this
instance provided all the information I needed to make a
sound decision about my particular dilemma; I would
recommend to any other engineers in similar situations to
look at not only the ethics codes but also explore all
applicable case studies.
[7] Melissa Giorgi. (2013, July). “The Sun and the City:
Making Solar Power More Accessible.” Santa Clara
University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (online
article).
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/environmen
tal_ethics/access.html
[8] Gabrielle Olson. (2013, February 23). “ASU Workshop
Discusses Social and Ethical Considerations of Solar
Energy.”
ASU
Lightworks.
(online
article).
http://asulightworks.com/blog/asu-workshop-discussessocial-and-ethical-considerations-solar-energy
[9] Kaydee. (2014, September 8). “A Close Shave With
Plutonium Foam.” Engineering Ethics Blog. (online blog).
http://engineeringethicsblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-closeshave-with-plutonium-foam.html
[10] “Ethics and the Responsible Engineer.” iFoundry.
(2008,
September
22).
(video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5yGTtKQLco&list=PL
746AE3CCB29B64B8&index=2
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Eric Butterman. (2014, March). “Ethics in Engineering.”
ASME. (online article). https://www.asme.org/engineeringtopics/articles/engineering-ethics/ethics-in-engineering
S. A. Kalogirou. (2014, January). “Solar Energy
Engineering.” Academic Press. (online book). pp. 481-500.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/pitt/reader.action?docID=10791985
G. Knier. (2002). “How Do Photovoltaics Work?” National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. (online article).
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-atnasa/2002/solarcells/
S. Locke. (2011, October). “How Does Solar Power Work?”
Scientific
American.
(online
article).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-solarpower-work/
“Make Solar Energy Economical.” National Academy of
Engineering. (2012). (online article)
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/8996/9082.aspx
“Solar Photovoltaic Roadmap.” International Energy
Agency. (2014, September 1). (online publication).
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication
/pv_roadmap_foldout.pdf
REFERENCES
[1] J. D. Major, R. E. Treharne, L. J. Phillips, K. Durose.
(2014, June 25). “A low-cost non-toxic post-growth
activation step for CdTe solar cells.” Nature. (online
journal).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7509/full/natur
e13435.html
[2] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society
of Professional Engineers. (2014). (online publication).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[3] “Code of Ethics.” American Institute of Chemical
Engineers.
(2014).
(online
publication).
http://www.aiche.org/about/code-ethics
[4] NSPE Board of Ethical Review. (2014, April 30).
“Public Health and Safety – Delay in Addressing Fire Code
Violations.” National Society of Professional Engineers.
(online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
[5] Michael S. Pritchard. (2006, July 20). “Case Study 6:
Love Canal.” Online Ethics Center for Engineering. (online
article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sciencecla
ss/sectone/chapt4/cs6.aspx
[6] “Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign – Adoption of a Safe
Component.” Stanford Biodesign Lab. (2014). (online
article).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/19safecompon
ent.jsp
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank Ms. Nichole Faina for taking
the time to meet with me and review my paper. I would also
like to thank the Writing Center staff and the librarians for
putting together such helpful presentations and helping with
locating appropriate sources. Finally, I would like to thank
my parents for reading my drafts and offering advice and
suggestions.
4