||      print this page

Take The Professional Ethics Challenge for March! Ethics Case No. 3 - The Professional Nightmare -Making a Mistake

By Anonymous


Background/Preamble
Sometimes professionals make a mistake. Hopefully, the following case is somewhat useful by helping you think of yourself in this position, how easily it can happen to you, how can mistakes be found before publication and what ways would be ethical to solve the problem. Although the case is geared towards environmental consulting, we hope those from other sectors of geoscience will also extract some value from the following case. We appreciate any feedback or comments - anonymous or not.

Statement of the Situation
A drill-testing program was completed to study a toxic plume adjacent to an industrial site. Flow rates were estimated and the results were compiled in a report that was submitted to a municipal government client. Subsequent to the release of the report, the author discovered a critical mistake was made in estimating the permeability of the aquifer resulting in a significant underestimation of flow rates of contaminants. Test results were mixed up with tests having similar sample numbers taken from an adjacent area. The report had significant implications as several potable water wells were in close proximity to the plume. The report had contained cautionary language regarding the limited accuracy of the estimate based on the low number of monitoring wells and had recommended a significant increase in the number of drill holes required to properly assess the plume.

The geoscientist raised the issue with his supervisor, who responded that the disclaimer and lack of bore hole data didn't warrant raising the alarm as the corrected results were still within the margin of error quoted in the report. Additional drill holes would soon render the report obsolete anyways.

Question
What would you do?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened? Actual outcome will appear in Field Notes-April, 2006 issue.
Wanted: Ethical cases regarding incomplete disclosure, problems with conflicting test data results, insufficient information with which to draw stated conclusions, pressure to rewrite conclusions or any others that you can think of that affect geoscientists. Authors will remain anonymous. Articles to be published in future issues of Field Notes.

For more information on APGO, please contact info@apgo.net

Delivery Notice: This newsletter is issued 10 times per year to all APGO members. Non-members may also subscribe and receive the newsletter with access to non-member-only content. For more information, please see www.apgo.net.

Field Notes is published by APGO and is edited by Wendy Diaz, P.Geo. If you have comments or wish to contribute material to this newsletter, please contact Wendy Diaz, P.Geo., or Norman Williams, P.Eng., Executive Director/Registar.

Copyright 2006, Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (APGO)