Conflict? 3

[XR250]

I finished our basement off 5 years ago without a permit. I did the plumbing and electrical work (this is allowed). No other mechanical or structural work was performed. We are trying to get a permit after-the-fact. The inspections department needs a letter from a PE or a plumber and electrician stating that the work meets current code. Is it a conflict of interest for me to write the letter stating that? I have a PE in mechanical and structural.
I had a plumber and electrician come out to verify that it does meet today's code.

 

[Rabbit12]

"Its obvious some have little or no experience conducting peer reviews and are simply ranting against that which they dont know."


Pot, meet kettle.

 

[TheDW]

Giving formal opinions and recommendations on foundation issues and sagging floors are absolutely engineering...

I am open to having my mind changed on the ethics of required peer reviews, and I have worked at companies where everything was looked at by minimum 3 sets of eyes. And I've worked at companies where that was not the policy. When reviews have been required, it has always been treated as a QA item, and this is the first time I've ever heard of it being an ethical violation to not do it.

 

[jmec87]

The NSPE article that CWB1 quoted was for an NSPE policy position supporting uniform peer review legislation to limit liability for peer reviewers who act in good faith. It recommends this liability limitation for the following scenario: "peer review must be done before substantial completion of the project and the peer reviewer must not be an employee, coworker, partner or sub-consultant of the professional engineer whose design is being peer reviewed." It makes no reference to ethics or any ethical requirement for peer review.

If there is an ethical requirement for peer review of all professional engineering (either in the ethics courses that we all take or the ethical standards we are held to), it should be published somewhere. I haven't found it, even after looking in the ethical guidelines from my jurisdiction's engineering regulator, but maybe I missed it.

Where does NSPE (or any other ethical authority) state that peer review is an ethical requirement for all professional engineering?

 

[IRstuff]

The only ethics issue is the "standard of care" and "due diligence" in verification of the engineering work, since it's primarily for catching mistakes and "iforgots."

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

Here in Ontario a P.Eng. can sign off on the plans for his/her own house, and everyone seems relaxed about it. Electrical and gas work must be performed by a licensed technician, or if not performed, signed off on.
Engineers by their nature are inclined to want their house to be better than code, or they may wish to creatively improve on a few stupid prescriptive rules.
I would not do it myself because I do not possess the appropriate design expertise and construction knowledge, but I would have no qualms using my license to sign off, if it was based on input from a knowledgeable fellow professional.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[Settingsun]

"We all take the same ethics courses"
Evidently not, or at least don't take the same things away.

The code of practice that applies to my registration talks about reasonable steps to safeguard health and safety without mentioning peer reviews. I also note that it doesn't say 'all' reasonable steps. Seems eminently... reasonable - take measures appropriate to the task. If someone decides a structure is clearly dangerous, what value is a peer review?

 

The first obligation of the engineer is to ensure public safety which as ethics courses teach

Mandated employee ethics courses are more about covering the sorry legal a$$es of corporate executives than they are about actual honest behaviour.

It is my firm and evidence-based conviction that if one does not learn ethical precepts from one's parents by the age of 7, that it is probably too late. Aristotle said something along similar lines.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[phamENG]

ironic - In CWB1's defense I believe he was speaking of the University ethics courses, not those mandated by an employer. As engineers we should all have been exposed to ethical training in one form or another that goes to the heart of appropriate practice and professional behavior (not just CYA attempts by an employer).

As I've thought about it more, I think I agree with CWB1 in principle, though we may disagree somewhat in application. Perhaps I was taking too narrow a view of "peer review." If we soften the definition there a bit to something closer to "somebody who has knowledge of the practices/procedures being applied" I think it makes sense. Am I going to tell a client that I have to increase the fee by 15% or 20% to get another engineer to review the design? No, I'm not. But I also know that the city will review the design for code acceptance, and then a licensed contractor will take the plans and implement them. Are they licensed engineers? No? Do they know how a house is supposed to be built? In most cases, yes. I think this was alluded to previously.

Looking at it from a building structures viewpoint, I would not be at all opposed to instituting a requirement like this on, say, Risk Category 3 and 4 buildings. These buildings are usually of an importance, complexity, and/or size that puts a competent review beyond the reach of most city reviewers and contractors. RC 1 and 2, on the other hand - I think a softer view of "peer" is needed to really understand the true nature of what is being applied, how it's applied, and who is applying it.

I will argue the home inspections and headers don't constitute professional engineering, though I think it comes from a misunderstanding about what's being said. By home inspections, we don't mean the guy who shows up and measures the insulation, looks for cracks, and puts a ground detector in the outlet. We're talking about the inspection that comes after - when that guy finds the cracks or some form of apparent structural damage and says "have a structural engineer investigate the cause and develop repair recommendations." And by header we don't mean a double 2x8 over a 3' window in a bungalow. We mean the header over a 12' entry supporting 3 floors and 4 point loads. It's pretty basic engineering to be sure, but it's still engineering and requires a license in every state I'm aware of.

 

phamENG,

I would include university ethics courses in my criticism, since these are generally taken by people well past aged 7.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[phamENG]

Basic ethical precepts and refined ethical philosophy are two very different things. I agree that a failure to instill an understanding of right and wrong during childhood constitutes a a profound failure of parenting and also creates a significant handicap for the child that may be irreversible. But, as can be seen here, application of that root understanding is a matter for debate. We all agree that we should put the safety of the public first. But what exactly does that look like in the context of peer reviews of engineering work product?

To say that we have the answers by the time we're 7 makes the next 70 years kind of...worthless? At least from a philosophical standpoint.

 

I appreciate you not mischaracterizing my post or playing with semantics, and your last statement is pure interweb BTL.

Just as with the ASME B&PV Code, if you do not understand the logic behind it you are left with only the mechanism. That is error-prone in both cases.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[IRstuff]

Robert Fulghum thinks 7 is about the right age to have learned the most important things:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/b...arten-by-robert-fulghum/9780345466396/excerpt

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[phamENG]

ironic - I have no idea what BTL means. Wikipedia says it stands for Bachelor of Talmudic Law, but I don't think you're calling me a Jewish Scholar.

IRstuff - I've never ready the book, but have always enjoyed the credo. I'll add it to my ever growing list of books to read.

 

[IRstuff]

Well, it's not bacon tomato lettuce, so must be below the line

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[phamENG]

Hmm...well I don't know what that's supposed to mean, either, but I can guess. And it's not how it was intended. A little hyperbole, perhaps. Something to spur the conversation.

If your stance is that there's no value in considering ethics beyond the understanding of a 7th grader, then what are the valuable philosophical pursuits? I agree that the foundations need to be firmly in place by then, and that many people are probably well equipped and satisfied with that level understanding. But I disagree that it's pointless to carry on from there, which is it what the argument seems to be. Or did I misunderstand the argument?

 

BTL = Below The Line, the space for comments on online news articles. A very fraught place that often requires policing.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."