MRM
Geotechnical
- Jun 13, 2002
- 345
I haven’t seen much discussion on this (if any), which mainly relates to civil engineering practice. Then again, maybe it's also something going on in other engineering disciplines too...
The ASCE 1st fundamental cannon of the code of ethics is written as follows:
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.
The NSPE 1st fundamental cannon of its code of ethics reads:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
It would seem to me and many others, based on recorded discussions about ASCE including sustainability in the fundamental cannons in 1996, that there was a fair amount of discussion at the time, (e.g., ), but what is the current thinking on this?
If there are safety issues/decisions and sustainability issues/decisions on a particular project, under ASCE’s cannon, which would take precedence: safety or sustainability?
It seems that the NSPE code makes the case for safety coming first (i.e., safety, health, and welfare of the public being of paramount importance), with sustainability mentioned later in the code as another consideration.
I wonder if this difference in the codes has added any confusion to what engineers are supposing to be aiming for. And is it so much to ask that the NSPE and ASCE codes should strive to be more unified, especially on something as important as the 1st cannon?
I’d imagine each state’s administrative code would control in some ethical disputes, but I’m ignoring that for the time.
The ASCE 1st fundamental cannon of the code of ethics is written as follows:
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.
The NSPE 1st fundamental cannon of its code of ethics reads:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
It would seem to me and many others, based on recorded discussions about ASCE including sustainability in the fundamental cannons in 1996, that there was a fair amount of discussion at the time, (e.g., ), but what is the current thinking on this?
If there are safety issues/decisions and sustainability issues/decisions on a particular project, under ASCE’s cannon, which would take precedence: safety or sustainability?
It seems that the NSPE code makes the case for safety coming first (i.e., safety, health, and welfare of the public being of paramount importance), with sustainability mentioned later in the code as another consideration.
I wonder if this difference in the codes has added any confusion to what engineers are supposing to be aiming for. And is it so much to ask that the NSPE and ASCE codes should strive to be more unified, especially on something as important as the 1st cannon?
I’d imagine each state’s administrative code would control in some ethical disputes, but I’m ignoring that for the time.