DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

When criticizing the opposing engineer's analysis before the legislative committee, should the engineer confine criticism to technical substance and data, or extend it to characterizations of the opposing engineer's professional competence or motivations?

During legislative testimony, each engineer must decide how to address the opposing engineer's analysis and conclusions. The engineers may criticize the opposing technical work — which is permissible and expected in this adversarial legislative forum — but must choose whether that criticism remains grounded in engineering data and professional deportment or extends into characterizations of the opposing engineer's competence, integrity, or professional judgment.

Limit all criticism of the opposing engineer's work to specific engineering findings, data interpretations, cost methodology, and technical conclusions, offering the committee an alternative analysis rather than characterizing the opposing engineer's competence, motives, or professional integrity — fully satisfying Canon 24's due-restraint requirement.

Go beyond technical disagreement to suggest that the opposing engineer's conclusions reflect incompetence, bias toward the retaining client, or professional failure, framing the disagreement as a question of the opposing engineer's fitness rather than a legitimate difference in engineering judgment.

Criticize the opposing engineer's specific technical methodology and conclusions on engineering grounds while affirmatively acknowledging to the committee that the opposing approach is a technically defensible alternative grounded in sound engineering principles, satisfying both Canon 24 restraint and the multiple-sound-approaches recognition obligation.

Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (State Power Commission PE or Private Power Company PE)