Engineering Ethics Resource Guide

How to Use the NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case Database

The National Society of Professional Engineers maintains an extensive collection of Board of Ethical Review opinions addressing practical ethical questions encountered in engineering. Professional Engineers can use this valuable resource to study precedents, compare competing duties, and improve their ethical decision-making.

Search the NSPE BER Database Review the NSPE Code of Ethics

What Is the Board of Ethical Review?

The NSPE Board of Ethical Review, commonly called the BER, was established during the 1950s to consider ethical dilemmas involving engineers and engineering practice.

The Board reviews factual situations submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public. These situations may be based on actual events, hypothetical circumstances, or a combination of facts developed to present a professional ethics question.

NSPE reports that the Board consists of seven licensed NSPE members appointed by the NSPE president. The members consider each case by examining the facts, applicable provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics, relevant earlier BER opinions, and their collective professional experience.

What the BER Database Contains

The database contains the published opinions of the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. NSPE describes the collection as containing nearly 600 opinions addressing a broad range of engineering ethics subjects.

Facts

The Professional Situation

Each opinion begins with a description of the circumstances, professional relationships, engineering services, decisions, and conduct necessary to present the ethical issue.

Question

The Ethical Issue

The case ordinarily identifies one or more questions asking whether particular conduct would be consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.

Analysis

The Board’s Reasoning

The discussion considers applicable code provisions, previous opinions, competing obligations, factual distinctions, and the professional consequences of the proposed conduct.

Each opinion concludes with the Board’s determination regarding the question presented. The reasoning is often more educationally valuable than the final answer because it demonstrates how ethical principles are connected to specific facts.

Ethical Subjects That Can Be Researched

The BER collection covers many of the recurring ethical questions encountered by consulting engineers, public employees, corporate engineers, educators, expert witnesses, managers, and engineering firm owners.

Protection of the Public

Unsafe conditions and foreseeable hazards
Public health and environmental concerns
Overruled engineering judgment
Disclosure of safety information
Responses to engineering failures

Responsible Charge and Sealing

Approval of engineering documents
Review of work prepared by others
Delegated engineering services
Supervision and professional control
Electronic signatures and seals

Conflicts of Interest

Multiple professional relationships
Financial interests affecting judgment
Gifts, commissions, and compensation
Public employment and private consulting
Expert services for competing parties

Clients and Employers

Confidential information
Faithful professional service
Ownership and use of engineering documents
Changes in employment
Disputes concerning professional judgment

Truthfulness and Public Statements

Engineering reports and testimony
Omission of material facts
Advertising and professional qualifications
Technical opinions and public advocacy
Accuracy of claims and estimates

Professional Relationships

Professional credit and attribution
Review and criticism of another engineer’s work
Competition for engineering assignments
Reporting suspected ethical violations
Professional reputation and fairness

Procurement and Business Conduct

Competitive bidding and selection procedures
Contingent fees and commissions
Bribery, gifts, and improper influence
Truthful presentation of qualifications
Government and private procurement practices

Emerging Professional Issues

Artificial intelligence in engineering practice
Computer models and automated analysis
Digital information and cybersecurity
Remote practice and multistate services
Changing technologies and standards of care

How to Search the BER Database

NSPE allows users to search BER opinions by subject, keyword, year, and applicable section of the NSPE Code of Ethics.

Define the Ethical Issue

Describe the problem in general professional terms. Examples might include sealing another engineer’s work, undisclosed financial interests, omission of safety information, or pressure to approve a deficient design.

Select Useful Keywords

Begin with short terms describing the duty or relationship involved, such as confidentiality, conflict of interest, responsible charge, public safety, expert witness, procurement, credit, or competence.

Search by Subject

Subject categories can reveal opinions involving the same general ethical principle even when the industries, projects, or factual details are different.

Search by Code Provision

When the relevant NSPE canon or rule is already known, search for opinions interpreting that provision. This can show how the same rule has been applied in different circumstances.

Compare Several Opinions

Avoid relying on the first case that appears similar. Reviewing several opinions helps identify which facts changed the analysis or result.

Verify Current Requirements

Compare the BER discussion with the current NSPE Code, applicable state statutes, licensing-board rules, contracts, and other requirements governing the actual situation.

Open the BER Case Search

Developing Effective Search Terms

An everyday ethical problem may need to be translated into the professional concepts used by an ethics code.

Everyday Description

How the Problem May Initially Appear

My supervisor wants me to sign the drawings
The client wants this finding removed
A contractor gave me an expensive gift
Another engineer copied my design
I found a dangerous condition
I am working for both parties
I am being asked to work outside my experience

Ethics Search Concepts

Terms That May Produce Better Results

Responsible charge, sealing, or approval of documents
Truthful reports or omission of material facts
Gift, gratuity, bribery, or improper influence
Professional credit, attribution, or misappropriation
Public safety, disclosure, or duty to report
Conflict of interest or multiple representation
Competence or acceptance of assignments

Searching by the underlying ethical duty usually produces better results than searching for a highly specific project name, employer type, or technical product.

How to Analyze a BER Opinion

A BER opinion should be studied as an example of ethical reasoning rather than treated as a short answer to be copied into another situation.

A Structured Review Method

Read the facts without assuming the conclusion. Identify the people involved, their professional roles, the engineering services performed, and the decisions being considered.
Identify the affected stakeholders. Consider the public, client, employer, project owner, other engineers, regulators, contractors, employees, and anyone who may experience the consequences.
Identify the competing duties. Determine whether the situation involves public protection, confidentiality, loyalty, competence, truthfulness, conflicts, responsible charge, or another obligation.
Reach a preliminary conclusion. Before reading the Board’s discussion, decide how you believe the applicable code provisions should be applied.
Study the Board’s reasoning. Compare the Board’s treatment of the facts, code provisions, precedents, and competing interests with your preliminary analysis.
Identify the decisive facts. Determine which facts appear to have changed the outcome and whether different facts might reasonably produce a different conclusion.
Compare the opinion with current law. Verify whether the present state statutes, board rules, and NSPE Code contain the same requirements that existed when the opinion was issued.

Using BER Opinions to Examine an Everyday Dilemma

The database can help an engineer organize a problem and identify relevant considerations. It should not be treated as an automated decision system or a source of individualized legal advice.

Example Research Process

Suppose an engineer is asked to approve calculations prepared by someone outside the engineer’s supervision. The engineer could begin by searching for terms such as responsible charge, approval of documents, sealing work, review of another engineer’s work, and supervision.

Several opinions should be compared to determine how the Board considered the engineer’s degree of control, access to supporting information, ability to make revisions, familiarity with the work, and compliance with licensing requirements.

The engineer would then compare those principles with the responsible-charge and sealing rules of the state having jurisdiction. If significant uncertainty remains, the engineer may need guidance from the licensing board, an experienced professional, an ethics adviser, or qualified legal counsel.

Similar Cases Are Not Necessarily Controlling

Two situations may appear similar while differing in a fact that materially changes the ethical analysis.

Differences in Professional Role

The obligations of an engineer of record may differ from those of a peer reviewer, subordinate engineer, public employee, expert witness, or engineer employed by a manufacturer.

Differences in Knowledge

An engineer who knows that a condition is dangerous may have different obligations from an engineer who has only incomplete, indirect, or unverified information.

Differences in Authority

An engineer who controls the design or operation may be able to correct a problem directly, while another engineer may have only the authority to report or recommend action.

Differences in Governing Law

State requirements concerning sealing, confidentiality, reporting, procurement, and professional misconduct may differ from the rules considered in a BER opinion.

Using Historical BER Opinions Carefully

The database includes opinions issued over many decades. Older opinions can provide valuable historical insight, but they require additional caution.

NSPE’s Historical-Cases Notice

NSPE states that opinions issued before 1980 are provided solely for historical purposes and may no longer be valid because the NSPE Code of Ethics and applicable legal and regulatory requirements have changed.

Even a more recent opinion should be compared with the current NSPE Code and the current rules governing the engineer’s practice. Technologies, professional relationships, project-delivery methods, communication systems, and legal requirements continue to evolve.

Historical cases are most useful for examining how ethical reasoning developed, identifying recurring professional problems, and comparing earlier expectations with present standards.

What the BER Database Does Not Do

Understanding the limits of the resource is essential to using it responsibly.

The Database Can

Support Ethical Analysis

Identify potentially relevant code provisions
Provide examples of structured ethical reasoning
Reveal competing professional obligations
Show how factual differences affect conclusions
Support ethics education and professional discussion
Help an engineer prepare better questions

The Database Cannot

Determine an Individual Case

Issue a binding state-board ruling
Replace current statutes or regulations
Establish every fact in an actual dispute
Provide individualized legal advice
Resolve contractual or employment rights
Guarantee that another authority will agree

BER opinions interpret the NSPE Code of Ethics. They are not judicial decisions and ordinarily do not determine whether a PE violated a particular state’s engineering law.

When Additional Guidance May Be Needed

Some concerns can be resolved through careful analysis, internal communication, peer review, or reference to governing rules. Other matters may require assistance beyond the BER database.

Additional Assistance May Be Appropriate When

The condition may present an imminent danger to the public
The engineer’s judgment has been overruled concerning a serious hazard
State law may impose a reporting obligation
Confidentiality conflicts with possible disclosure
The engineer may face licensing-board discipline
Employment retaliation or termination is possible
Criminal conduct, fraud, or falsification may be involved
The matter concerns active litigation or an investigation
The engineer is uncertain which jurisdiction controls

Depending on the circumstances, assistance might come from another qualified engineer, an employer’s ethics or compliance officer, the engineer of record, the authority having jurisdiction, the applicable licensing board, an attorney, or another appropriate professional adviser.

Respecting NSPE Copyright and Attribution

The BER opinions are valuable educational materials published by NSPE. Individual case documents commonly display an NSPE copyright notice and reservation of rights.

Responsible Use of the Resource

Link directly to the official NSPE database or individual NSPE case page
Identify NSPE and the Board of Ethical Review as the source
Use original commentary when discussing the educational value of a case
Use only limited quotations when necessary and properly attribute them
Avoid republishing complete opinions, tables, or substantial portions of cases
Request permission from NSPE before reproducing protected material when required
Review the copyright or permission statement accompanying the particular opinion

This Online-PDH guide does not reproduce the facts, analysis, or conclusion of any individual BER opinion. It directs readers to NSPE’s official resource and explains an independent method for using that resource in professional ethics study.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the BER database available to the public?

NSPE provides an online search page containing its published BER opinions. Access conditions and website features remain subject to NSPE’s current policies.

Are BER opinions legally binding?

BER opinions interpret the NSPE Code of Ethics. They do not replace state law, licensing-board rules, court decisions, or an authority’s determination concerning a particular engineer.

Can an engineer rely on one similar BER case?

A single opinion can provide useful guidance, but the engineer should compare several opinions and carefully evaluate factual and legal differences.

Can the database provide an answer to a current dispute?

The database can assist with research and ethical reasoning, but it cannot investigate the facts, determine governing law, or provide individualized legal advice.

Can BER cases be used for ethics training?

They can be valuable educational resources when used with appropriate attribution and respect for NSPE’s copyright. Permission may be required to reproduce case materials.

Should older BER opinions be disregarded?

Not necessarily. Older opinions may remain educationally valuable, but NSPE specifically cautions that pre-1980 opinions are historical and may no longer reflect the current code or legal requirements.

Explore Applied Engineering Ethics

Visit the Official NSPE BER Case Database

Search published ethics opinions by subject, keyword, year, or applicable section of the NSPE Code of Ethics. Review the original material directly from NSPE.

Search BER Cases

Professional Ethics Education

Continue Your Ethics Education

Online-PDH offers continuing-education courses addressing public protection, professional judgment, responsible charge, conflicts of interest, competence, truthful communication, and other ethical responsibilities encountered in engineering practice.

Browse Ethics Courses