• Synvisc (a product manufactured by Biomatrix) produces seriously harmful side effects
• Biomatrix has deceived its stockholders by suppressing negative financial and product information
• Biomatrix and its employees have connections to the mafia
• Company public releases that the merger between Biomatrix and Genzyme is friendly are false. In fact, the messages allege that the merger will never take place because of Biomatrix’s terrible financial profile
• Biomatrix CEO is under investigation by famous Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, for crimes he allegedly committed in Germany during the Second World War
• Biomatrix Vice President requires sexual favors from employees under her supervision as a condition for promotion

You have been charged by Balazs and Denlinger, as publicist, with designing a rapid and effective campaign against this cyber-smear. Several issues have arisen that demand your immediate attention:

1. The identity of the cyber-slanderers is unknown. What can you do, if anything, to find out who these individuals are?
2. One of the slanderers claims to have worked for Biomatrix in the past. He/she uses this to lend credence to the attacks made on the company and its managers. If true, is there anything that can be done to prevent future employees from resorting to slander as a way of retaliating against the company?
3. If the real identities of the individuals posting the Yahoo messages are revealed, should they be sued? What are the advantages of defamation lawsuits if those sued do not have the financial resources to compensate the victim for damages suffered?
4. Should the cyber-slanderers be attacked? If so, how? How, in general, should corporations and their managers respond to cyber-slander? By publicly refuting the messages? By ignoring these attacks? By ignoring them until they produce clear damage? Or by responding quickly and proactively before they produce damage?

Biomatrix managers feel that the company has a problem if its former employees find the motivation to behave in this manner. You are a human resource official in the Biomatrix and it has fallen on you to design a strategy and program to prevent a reoccurrence of this cyber-smear disaster. What should you do?

• Bring a defamatory lawsuit against the three? Would this help to recoup damages? What other benefits could a successful defamation lawsuit bring? What would be the downside of such an action?
• Alter the way in which employees are let go. (In other words develop procedures for firing or laying off employees that would defuse the desire to get even.) What could be done to sever a relation with an employee in as good a fashion as possible?
• What steps could be taken to reduce the possibility of a former employee taking a “short selling” strategy? For example, could steps be taken to restrict the ways in which former employees use the confidential information they have about the company? Could risk identification measures be taken to uncover those who could or are benefiting from short selling a company’s stock?
• Could Human Resources develop an effective program to counter cyber smear by effective communication of true and accurate information? How can a good reputation be established that could serve as a basis for counter-acting defamation?
• In short, design a strategy for Biomatrix that could minimize the risk of future cyber-smear attacks and/or minimize the impact of these attacks. Defend your strategy in the Ethics Bowl debate.

The claims made by these individuals in their emails were pretty strong:

• Biomatrix's most popular product, Synvisc, has produced significant harmful side effects and the company has taken wrongful measures to suppress this information. Synvisc is a manufactured substance that resembles the natural fluids that lubricate knee movements. These fluids disappear with age producing a condition called osteoarthritis. Synvisc has been presented as a highly promising treatment for this problem.
• They also accuse Biomatrix of covering up that fact that they are targets of potentially damaging lawsuits.
• These three individuals, who style themselves the BXM Police, also accuse the company of covering up negative, harmful information about their upcoming merger with Genzyme. The messages claim that inside information reveals that the merger will never take place.
• The BXM police also accuse Biomatrix top management of having committed war crimes and acts of sexual harassment.

Important Considerations

• EPIC (Electric Privacy Information Center) and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) present an amici curiae (friend of the court brief) outlining their concerns about the use of John Doe lawsuits to pierce online anonymity. This brief is summarized in the Biomatrix case materials.
• Perhaps the strongest case for Free Speech is made by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Consult this book and find his argument in the first chapter. The summary of this argument in the Biomatrix case materials will help. Do defamation lawsuits suppress free speech. Why does Mill think that it is wrong to suppress even completely false speech?
• Did Biomatrix and its management team suffer damages as a result of the Yahoo messages? What is this damage? What evidence proves that the damage was caused by the negative speech and not something else? Who bore the burden of proof in the summary judgment against the BXM Police?
• What is the strongest argument that Biomatrix made against the speech of the BXM three? How can you and organization counter this argument?
• The strongest argument the BXM Police offer for their actions is that they are not bound by rules of veracity and defamation while operating pseudonymously online. Should we be held responsible for what we say online? In the same way that we are held responsible off line? Doesn't Yahoo's disclaimer to readers that they should not assume that what they read is true suffice to exculpate those who post false speech?
• It has been suggested that the BXM Police were motivated by greed. Their speech was designed to lower the price of Biomatrix stock so they could profit from short selling it. Does this change you defense? There is also inconclusive evidence that they were not acting alone? Does this change your defense?

Instructions for Table 1:

1. Go to http://computingcases.org and review the STS description provided for the Biomatrix case.
2. Pull out the elements of the STS description that are relevant to your decision point. List them under the appropriate STS component in the above table.
3. Think about possible ways in which these components of the Biomatrix STS interact. For example, what kinds of legal restrictions govern the way data is collected, stored, and disseminated?
4. Develop your STS table with an eye to documenting possible ethical conflicts that can arise and are relevant to your decision point.

Instructions for Table 2:

1. This module links to another Connexions module, Socio-Technical Systems in Professional Decision-Making. There you will find short profiles of the values listed in the above table: security, privacy, property, justice, and free speech. These profiles will help you to characterize the values listed in the above table.
2. Look for value conflicts or mismatches. For example, free speech in the Yahoo discussion space could conflict with laws that protect against defamation. How are these laws transferred online?
3. Identify those components of the Biomatrix STS that embody or embed value. For example, list the values realized and frustrated by the software components discussed in the Biomatrix case in the STS description.
4. Look for ways in which different elements of the STS that embed value can interact and produce value conflicts. These conflicts are likely sources for problems that you should discuss in your problem statement and address in your solution.

Generate solutions to the problem(s) you have specified in Exercise 1. This requires that...

• each member of your group develop a list of solutions,
• the group combines these individual lists into a group list, and...
• the group reduces this preliminary list to a manageable number of refined and clarified solutions for testing in the next stage.

2. Problems can be formulated as interest conflicts. In this case different solution options are available.

• Gather Information. Many disagreements can be resolved by gathering more information. Because this is the easiest and least painful way of reaching consensus, it is almost always best to start here. Gathering information may not be possible because of different constraints: there may not be enough time, the facts may be too expensive to gather, or the information required goes beyond scientific or technical knowledge. Sometimes gathering more information does not solve the problem but allows for a new, more fruitful formulation of the problem. Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins in Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases show how solving a factual disagreement allows a more profound conceptual disagreement to emerge.
• Nolo Contendere. Nolo Contendere is latin for not opposing or contending. Your interests may conflict with your supervisor but he or she may be too powerful to reason with or oppose. So your only choice here is to give in to his or her interests. The problem with nolo contendere is that non-opposition is often taken as agreement. You may need to document (e.g., through memos) that you disagree with a course of action and that your choosing not to oppose does not indicate agreement.
• Negotiate. Good communication and diplomatic skills may make it possible to negotiate a solution that respects the different interests. Value integrative solutions are designed to integrate conflicting values. Compromises allow for partial realization of the conflicting interests. (See the module, The Ethics of Team Work, for compromise strategies such as logrolling or bridging.) Sometimes it may be necessary to set aside one's interests for the present with the understanding that these will be taken care of at a later time. This requires trust.
• Oppose. If nolo contendere and negotiation are not possible, then opposition may be necessary. Opposition requires marshalling evidence to document one's position persuasively and impartially. It makes use of strategies such as leading an "organizational charge" or "blowing the whistle." For more on whistle-blowing consult the discussion of whistle blowing in the Hughes case that can be found at computing cases.
• Exit. Opposition may not be possible if one lacks organizational power or documented evidence. Nolo contendere will not suffice if non-opposition implicates one in wrongdoing. Negotiation will not succeed without a necessary basis of trust or a serious value integrative solution. As a last resort, one may have to exit from the situation by asking for reassignment or resigning.

3. Solutions can be generated by readjusting different components of the STS.

• Technical Puzzle. If the problem is framed as a technical puzzle, then solutions would revolve around developing designs that optimize both ethical and technical specifications, that is, resolve the technical issues and realize ethical value. In this instance, the problem-solver must concentrate on the hardware and software components of the STS.
• Social Problem. If the problem is framed as a social problem, then solutions would revolve around changing laws or bringing about systemic reform through political action. This would lead one to focus on the people/groups/roles component (working to social practices) or the legal component.
• Stakeholder Conflict. If the problem is framed as a conflict between different stakeholder interests, then the solution would concentrate on getting stakeholders (both individuals and groups) to agree on integrative or interest compromising solutions. This requires concentrating on the people/group/role component of the STS. (Note: A stakeholder is any group or individual with a vital interest at play in the situation.)
• Management Problem. Finally, if the problem is framed as a management problem, then the solution would revolve around changing an organization's procedures. Along these lines, it would address the (1) fundamental goals, (2) decision recognition procedures, (3) organizational roles, or (4) decision-making hierarchy of the organization. These are the four components of the CID (corporate internal decision) structure described in the “Ethical Reflections” section of the Toysmart case.
• Nota Bene: Financial issues are covered by the feasibility test in the solution implementation stage. As such, they pose side issues or constraints that do not enter into the solution generation phase but the solution implementation phase.

4. Brainstorming. Moral creativity, which involves designing non-obvious solutions, forms an essential part of solution generation. Here are some guidelines to get you started.

• Individually make out a list of solutions before the group meeting. Work quickly to realize a pre-established quota of five to ten solutions. After composing a quick first draft, revise the list for clarity only; make no substantial changes.
• Start the group brainstorming process by having the group review and assemble all the individual solutions. Do this quickly and without criticism. Beginning criticism at this stage will kill the creativity necessary for brainstorming and shut down the more timid (but creative) members of the group.
• Review the list and identify solutions that are identical or overlap. Begin the refining process by combining these solutions.
• Having reviewed all the brainstormed solutions, it is now time to bring in criticism. Begin by eliminating solutions with major ethical problems such as those that violate rights, produce injustices, or cause extensive harm.
• Identify but do not eliminate solutions that are ethical but raise serious practical problems. Do not initially eliminate an ethical solution because there are obstacles standing in the way of its implementation. Be descriptive. Identify and impartially describe the obstacles. Later, in the solution implementation stage, you may be able to design creative responses to these obstacles.
• Identify solutions that do not "fit" your problem statement. These require a decision. You can throw out the solution because it does not solve the problem or you can change the problem. If a solution does not fit the problem but, intuitively, seems good, this is a sign that you need to take another look at your problem statement.
• Don’t automatically reject partial solutions. For example, sending memos through email rather than printing them out and wasting paper may not solve the entire recycling problem for your company. But it represents a good, partial solution that can be combined with other partial solutions to address the bigger problem.
• Through these different measures, you will gradually integrate criticism into your brainstorming process. This will facilitate working toward a manageable, refined list of solutions for testing in the next stage.

Exercise 3: Develop a Solution List

• Have each member of your team prepare a solution list and bring it to the next group meeting. Set a quota for this individual list, say, 5 to 10 solutions.
• Prepare a group list out of the lists of the individual members. Work to combine similar solutions. Be sure to set aside criticism until the preliminary group list is complete.
• Make use of the following table.
• Refine the group list into a manageable number of solutions for testing in the next stage. Combine overlapping solutions. Eliminate solutions that do not respond to the requirements and the problem statement that you prepared in the previous exercise. Eliminate solutions that violate important ethical considerations, i.e., solutions that violate rights, produce harms, etc.
• Check your refined solution list with your problem statement. If they do not match, eliminate the solution or redefine the problem

Setting up for the test.

• Identify the agent perspective from which the decision will be made
• Describe the action as concisely and clearly as possible.
• Identify the stakeholders surrounding the decision, i.e., those who will suffer strong impacts (positively or negatively) from the implementation of your decision. Stakeholders have a vital or essential interest (right, good, money, etc) in play with this decision.
• In the harm/beneficence test, identify the likely results of the action and sort these into harms and benefits.
• For the reversibility test, identify the stakeholders with whom you will reverse positions.
• For the public identification test, identify the values, virtues, or vices your action embodies. Associate these with the character of the agent.

Harm/Beneficence Test

1. What are the harms your solution is likely to produce? What are its benefits? Does this solution produce the least harms and the most benefits when compared to the available alternatives?
2. Pitfall—Too much. In this "Paralysis of Analysis" one factor in too many consequences. To avoid the fallacy restrict the analysis to the most likely consequences with the greatest magnitude (Magnitude indicates the range and severity of impact).
3. Pitfall—Too Little. A biased or incomplete analysis results when significant impacts are overlooked. Take time to uncover all the significant impacts, both in terms of likelihood and in terms of magnitude.
4. Pitfall—Distribution of Impacts. Consider, not only the overall balance of harms and benefits but also how harms and benefits are distributed among the stakeholders. If they are equally or fairly distributed, then this counts in the solution's favor. If they are unequally or unfairly distributed, then this counts against the solution. Be ready to redesign the solution to distribute better (=more equitably or fairly) the harmful and beneficial results.

Reversibility Test

1. Would this solution alternative be acceptable to those who stand to be most affected by it? To answer this question, change places with those who are targeted by the action and ask if from this new perspective whether the action is still acceptable?
2. Pitfall—Too much. When reversing with Hitler, a moral action appears immoral and an immoral action appears moral. The problem here is that the agent who projects into the immoral standpoint loses his or her moral bearings. The reversibility test requires viewing the action from the standpoint of its different targets. But understanding the action from different stakeholder views does not require that one abandon himself or herself to these views.
3. Pitfall—Too little. In this pitfall, moral imagination falls short, and the agent fails to view the action from another stakeholder standpoint. The key in the reversibility test is to find the middle ground between too much immersion in the viewpoint of another and too little.
4. Pitfall—Reducing Reversibility to Harm/Beneficence. The reversibility test requires that one assess the impacts of the action under consideration on others. But it is more than a simple listing of the consequences of the action. These are viewed from the standpoint of different stakeholders. The reversibility test also goes beyond considering impacts to considering whether the action treats different stakeholders respectfully. This especially holds when the agent disagrees with a stakeholder. In these disagreements, it is important to work out what it means to disagree with another respectfully.
5. Pitfall—Incomplete survey of stakeholders. Leaving out significant stakeholder perspectives skews the results of the reversibility test. Building an excellent death chamber works when one considers the action from the standpoint of Hitler; after all, it’s what he wants. But treating an individual with respect does not require capitulating to his or her desires, especially when these are immoral. And considering the action from the standpoint of other stakeholders (say the possible victims of newer, more efficient gas chambers) brings out new and radically different information.
6. Pitfall—Not Weighing and Balancing Stakeholder Positions. This pitfall is continuous with the previous one. Different stakeholders have different interests and view events from unique perspectives. The reversibility test requires reviewing these interests and perspectives, weighing them against one another, and balancing out their differences and conflicts in an overall, global assessment.

Publicity (or Public Identification) Test

1. Would you want to be publicly associated or identified with this action? In other words, assume that you will be judged as a person by others in terms of the moral values expressed in the action under consideration. Does this accord with how you would want to or aspire to be judged?
2. Pitfall—Failure to association action with character of agent. In the publicity test, the spotlight of analysis moves from the action to the agent. Successfully carrying out this test requires identifying the agent, describing the action, and associating the agent with the action. The moral qualities exhibited in the action are seen as expressing the moral character of the agent. The publicity test, thus, rests on the idea that an agent's responsible actions arise from and express his or her character.
3. Pitfall—Failure to appreciate the moral color of the action. The publicity test assumes that actions are colored by the ends or goods they pursue. This means that actions are morally colored. They can express responsibility or irresponsibility, courage or cowardice, reasonableness or unreasonableness, honesty or dishonesty, integrity or corrpution, loyalty or betrayal, and so forth. An analysis can go astray by failing to bring out the moral quality (or qualities) that an action expresses.
4. Pitfall—Reducing Publicity to Harm/Beneficence Test. Instead of asking what the action says about the agent, many reduce this test to considering the consequences of publicizing the action. So one might argue that an action is wrong because it damages the reputation of the agent or some other stakeholder. But this doesn't go deep enough. The publicity test requires, not that one calculate the consequences of wide-spread knowledge of the action under consideration, but that one draws from the action the information it reveals about the character of the agent. The consequences of bad publicity are covered by the harm/beneficence test and do not need to be repeated in the public identification test. The publicity test provides new information by turning from the action to the agent. It focuses on what the action (its moral qualities and the goods it seeks) says about the agent.

Comparing the Test Results: Meta-Tests

1. The ethics tests will not always converge on the same solution because each test (and the ethical theories it encapsulates) covers a different dimension of the action: (1) harm/beneficence looks at the outcomes or consequences of the action, (2) reversibility focuses on the formal characteristics of the action, and (3) publicity zeros in on the moral character of the agent.
2. The meta-tests turn this surface disagreement into an advantage. The convergence or divergence between the ethics tests become indicators of solution strength and weakness.
3. Convergence. When the ethics tests converge on a given solution, this indicates solution strength and robustness.
4. Divergence. When tests diverge on a solution—a solution does well under one test but poorly under another—this signifies that it needs further development and revision. Test divergence is not a sign that one test is relevant while the others are not. Divergence indicates solution weakness and is a call to modify the solution to make it stronger.

Exercise 3: Summarize your results in a Solution Evaluation Matrix

1. Place test results in the appropriate cell.
2. Add a verbal explanation to the SEM table.
3. Conclude with a global feasibility test that asks, simply, whether or not there exist significant obstacles to the implementation of the solution in the real world.
4. Finish by looking at how the tests converge on a given solution. Convergence indicates solution strength; divergence signals solution weakness.

Resource Constraints:

• Does the situation pose limits on resources that could limit the realization of the solution under consideration?
• Time. Is there a deadline within which the solution has to be enacted? Is this deadline fixed or negotiable?
• Financial. Are there cost constraints on implementing the ethical solution? Can these be extended by raising more funds? Can they be extended by cutting existing costs? Can agents negotiate for more money for implementation?
• Resource. Are necessary resources available? Is it necessary to plan ahead to identify and procure resources? If key resources are not available, is it possible to substitute other, more available resources? Would any significant moral or non-moral value be lost in this substitution?

Interest Constraints

• Does the solution threaten stakeholder interests? Could it be perceived as so threatening to a stakeholder’s interests that the stakeholder would oppose its implementation?
• Individual Interests. Does the solution threaten the interests of supervisors? Would they take measures to block its realization? For example, a supervisor might perceive the solution as undermining his or her authority. Or, conflicting sub-group interests could generate opposition to the implementation of the solution even though it would promote broader organizational objectives.
• Organizational Interests. Does the solution go against an organization's SOPs (standard operating procedures), formal objectives, or informal objectives? Could acting on this solution disrupt organization power structures? (Perhaps it is necessary to enlist the support of an individual higher up in the organizational hierarchy in order to realize a solution that threatens a supervisor or a powerful sub-group.)
• Legal Interests. Are there laws, statutes, regulations, or common law traditions that oppose the implementation of the solution? Is it necessary to write an impact statement, develop a legal compliance plan, or receive regulatory approval in order to implement the solution?
• Political/Social/Historical Constraints. Would the solution threaten or appear to threaten the status of a political party? Could it generate social opposition by threatening or appearing to threaten the interests of a public action group such as an environmental group? Are there historical traditions that conflict with the values embedded in the solution?

Technical Constraints

• Technology does not yet exist. Would the implementation of the solution require breaking new technological ground?
• Technology Protected by Patent. The technology exists but is inaccessible because it is still under a patent held by a competitor.
• Technology Requires Modification. The technology required to implement solution exists but needs to be modified to fit the context of the solution. Important considerations to factor in would be the extent of the modification, its cost, and how long it would take to bring about the modification.

In this module, you have…

• studied a real world case that raised serious problems with intellectual property, privacy, security, and free speech. Working with these problems has helped you to develop a better “working” understanding of these key concepts,
• studied and practiced using four decision-making frameworks: (1) using socio-technical analysis to specify the problem in a complex, real world case, (2) practiced brainstorming techniques to develop and refine solutions that respond to your problem, (3) employed three ethics tests to integrate ethical considerations into your solutions and to test these solutions in terms of their ethics, and (4) applied a feasibility analysis to your solutions to identify and trouble-shoot obstacles to the implementation of your ethical solution,
• explored the analogy between solving ethical and design problems,
• practiced the skills of moral imagination, moral creativity, reasonableness, and perseverance, and…
• experienced, through key participant perspectives, the challenges of ethics advocacy “under the gun.”

Debrief on your group work before the rest of the class

1. Provide a concise statement and justification of the problem your group specified
2. Present the refined solution generation list your group developed in exercise 2.
3. Present and provide a quick summary explanation of the results of your group’s solution evaluation matrix.
4. Show your group’s feasibility matrix and summarize your assessment of the feasibility of implementing the solution alternatives you tested in exercise three.

Group Debriefing

1. Were there any problem you group had working together to carry out this case analysis? What were the problems and how did you go about solving them?
2. What problems did you have with understanding and practicing the four frameworks for solving problems? How did you go about solving these problems? Does your group have any outstanding questions or doubts?
3. Now that you have heard the other groups present their results, what differences emerged between your group’s analysis and those of the other groups? Have you modified your analysis in light of the analyses of the other groups? If so how? Do the other groups need to take into account any aspects of your group’s debriefing?

References

1. More references on the Biomatrix case (in addition to the links provided above) will be added at a later date.
2. Brincat, Cynthia A. and Wike, Victoria S. (2000) Morality and the Professional Life: Values at Work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Cruz, J. A., Frey, W. J. (2003) An Effective Strategy for Integration Ethics Across the Curriculum in Engineering: An ABET 2000 Challenge, Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(4): 543-568.
4. Davis, M., Ethics and the University, Routledge, London and New York, 1999: 166-167.
5. Richard T. De George, "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations: The Pinto Case," in Ethical Issues in Engineering, ed. Deborah G. Johnson (1991) New Jersey: Prentice-Hall: 175-186.
6. Charles Harris, Michael Pritchard and Michael Rabins (2005) Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth: 203-206.
7. Huff, Chuck and Jawer, Bruce, "Toward a Design Ethics for Computing Professionals in Social Issues in Computing: Putting Computing in its Place, Huff, Chuck and Finholt, Thomas Eds. (1994) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
8. Solomon, Robert C. (1999) A Better Way to Think About Business: How Personal Intgrity Leads to Corporate Success. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9. Anthony Weston. (2001) A Practical Companion to Ethics, 2nd ed. USA: Oxford University Press, 2001, Chapter 3.
10. Carolyn Whitbeck (1998) Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research. U.K. Cambridge University Press: 55-72 and 176-181.
11. Wike, Victoria S. (2001) "Professional Engineering Ethics Bahavior: A Values-based Approach," Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Session 2461.