DP3

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

DP3

Should Engineer A keep his Citizens Committee advocacy strictly industry-wide and general, or should he name XYZ Manufacturing's products as specific examples of inferior quality to strengthen his legislative testimony?

Engineer A must decide whether to maintain the industry-wide generality of his Citizens Committee advocacy — never naming XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company's products — or to cite his employer's products as concrete examples of the inferior quality trend he is advocating against, given that naming specific products would make his legislative testimony more persuasive and concrete but would cross from systemic civic advocacy into employer-targeted public criticism.

Keep all public statements, media communications, and legislative testimony focused on the systemic industry-wide trend toward inferior products without identifying XYZ Manufacturing, its products, or any other specific company, relying on general engineering observations rather than insider employer-specific knowledge.

Cite specific XYZ Manufacturing products as concrete examples of the inferior quality trend in legislative testimony, on the grounds that specific evidence is more persuasive to legislators and that the public welfare obligation to advocate effectively outweighs the employer's interest in avoiding named criticism.

Reference specific product categories and verifiable engineering data — such as published failure rates, durability test results, or industry standards comparisons — without naming any specific company, thereby strengthening the factual grounding of testimony while preserving the generality boundary that protects the advocacy.

Engineer A