DP8

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

DP8

Should Engineer A accept the private consulting retainer from the coal bed methane company and serve as expert witness in the State Y regulatory proceeding, or should he abstain from the engagement because his concurrent U.S. DOE employment in the identical technical domain creates an irresolvable conflict of interest?

Engineer A, a U.S. DOE coal bed methane researcher, must decide whether to accept a private consulting retainer from a coal bed methane company and serve as an expert witness in a regulatory proceeding governing coal bed methane discharge permits — a domain identical to his federal duties — or to abstain from the engagement on the ground that the same-domain dual-role conflict is structurally irresolvable regardless of what disclosures he might make.

Decline the coal bed methane company's consulting retainer and refrain from serving as expert witness in the State Y proceeding, recognizing that the same-domain overlap between his DOE coal bed methane research and the subject matter of the testimony creates a structural conflict of interest that no disclosure or authorization framework can fully resolve.

Accept the consulting retainer and serve as expert witness, but affirmatively disclose the retainer relationship, distinguish his consulting capacity from his DOE employment, and remove DOE branding from his presentation — treating enhanced disclosure as sufficient to manage the dual-role conflict without requiring abstention.

Condition acceptance of the retainer on obtaining explicit written authorization from the DOE permitting same-domain private consulting, treating the faithful agent obligation as dischargeable through employer consent and formal procedural compliance rather than as a categorical prohibition on same-domain dual employment.

Engineer A