BER-Case-61-10
Rs · Resource
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#BER-Case-61-10
Properties
Instance of
Confidence
0.97
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Document title
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 61-10: Engineer Assigned to Redesign of Lower-Quality Commercial Product
Importance
high
Used by
Board of Ethical Review
Used in context
Cited as analogical precedent distinguishing the present case: in Case 61-10, a lower-quality redesign did not raise public health/safety concerns, whereas the present case does; used to establish the boundary of when engineers must refuse vs. merely advise
Version
1961
Source Evidence
Source text
In Case 61-10, we held that engineers assigned to the redesign of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but had an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design.
Text references
In Case 61-10, we held that engineers assigned to the redesign of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but had an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design.
In that case, however, the redesign of the product involved only a question of a lower quality product and did not raise the problem of the product endangering public health or safety.
TTL
@prefix case160: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case160:BER-Case-61-10 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER-Case-61-10" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ;
proeth:confidence "0.97" ;
proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 61-10: Engineer Assigned to Redesign of Lower-Quality Commercial Product" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:25:52.616593+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:25:52.616593+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In Case 61-10, we held that engineers assigned to the redesign of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but had an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design." ;
proeth:textreferences "In Case 61-10, we held that engineers assigned to the redesign of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but had an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design.",
"In that case, however, the redesign of the product involved only a question of a lower quality product and did not raise the problem of the product endangering public health or safety." ;
proeth:usedby "Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:usedincontext "Cited as analogical precedent distinguishing the present case: in Case 61-10, a lower-quality redesign did not raise public health/safety concerns, whereas the present case does; used to establish the boundary of when engineers must refuse vs. merely advise" ;
proeth:version "1961" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 160 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:53:00.985649"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 160 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
160
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:25:52.616593+00:00
First case
160
Generated
2026-03-02T14:25:52.616593+00:00
Attributed to
Case 160 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:53:00.985649
Generated by
ProEthica Case 160 Extraction