Joseph R. Sanders, Administrative Officer for Ethics of the American Psychological Association, per- ceived three major areas in which problems arise with regard to attempts by the APA to enforce its ethical code. First, insofar as these attempts aim at least in part to increase public trust in psychologist members, the APA Ethics Committee and Ethics Officer sees a need to do more in the way of communicating with the public about their efforts. Sanders noted that toward this end the APA's 1981 budget includes provision far a consumer version of the 1981 revision of the Ethical Standards for Psychologists. This is to be made available to all APA members along with a poster showing the preamble to the Code's ten principles.

The second problem Sanders enunciated had to do with the individuals who have filed complaints against members of the APA. According to Sanders, ". . .The American Psychological Association's current Bylaws and its Ethics Committee's Rules and Procedures do not permit the Association's Ethics Officer to tell a complainant-the person filing a complaint against a member-exactly what final action the Ethics Committee has taken on a case. The Association's Bylaws do permit the Board of Directors to give out such information, but final action on over 90% of all complaints is taken either by the Chair and Secretary of the Ethics Committee or by the Ethics Committee itself. This means that most complainants remain frustrated in their efforts to find out what final action is taken on their complaints." The matter of just what information should be communicated to complainants is currently under reconsideration by the APA.

Third, Sanders noted that in the final analysis, the APA Ethics Committee can do no more than expel members from the Association. This poses a substantial problem because psychologists can avoid the reach of the Committee simply by resigning from the APA. The Board of Directors may refuse to accept the resignation of a member against whom a charge is pending, but it cannot penalize such an individual if he or she refuses to pay dues. One suggestion put forward to mitigate the above problem has been to amend the by-laws of the APA so that the Board of Directors will be empowered to inform the membership when individuals resign while being investigated for possible violation of one or more principles of the Associations Ethical Standards of Psychologists.

Donald Wilson summarized recent activities by the various engineering professional societies in the area of ethics. Wilson is a member of the National Council of Engineering Examiners, an organization whose members represent the various licensing boards of those states that provide for licensing of engineers. At the outset Wilson pointed out that in the early years of their development professional organizations for engineers tended to be dominated by employers. For this historical reason the codes of ethics for these organizations have tended to emphasize avoiding conduct that might embarrass an industry or employer. The codes have also concentrated extensively on promoting courtesy and gentlemanly conduct among engineers.

Wilson went on to say that the engineering codes of ethics have tended by and large either to ignore the responsibilities of engineers to the public altogether or to treat them in an extremely vague way. All of this he noted, however, began to change significantly in the 1970's. In 1975 eight professional societies held a major conference on engineering ethics where the participants candidly discussed some of the more serious ethical issues for engineers. Another major change in the 1970's was the series of Supreme Court decisions which declared provisions of professional codes of ethics that forbid competitive bidding and advertising to contravene the Sherman Antitrust Act and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Wilson then described a number of other interesting developments in the 1970's. One of these concerned the activities of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). The IEEE created a member conduct committee with authorization not only to investigate alleged infractions of the organization's code of ethics, but also to support members who take stands on behalf of the public interest. The IEEE policy statement was implemented in 1978 by way of a by-law which reads in part:

"IEEE may offer support to any member involved in a matter of ethical principle which stems in whole or in part from such member's adherence to the Code of Ethics and which jeopardizes that member's livelihood, compromises the discharge of such member's professional responsibilities, or which can be detrimental to the interests of IEEE or the engineering profession."

Wilson also discussed the work in late 1978 and early 1979 of a joint task force of engineering societies which convened in order to resolve differences in their codes of ethics and to recommend a common code.

At about the same time the organization of state licensing boards for engineers (NCEE) had a committee at work on developing a model code of ethics. The two groups, although working as separate entities, interacted frequently.

Wilson concluded by noting the emergence during the 1970's of renewed interest in professional ethics issues among educators. He cited in this regard the National Project on Philosophy and Engineering Ethics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Workshops in Ethics in Engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Both of these projects, funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, brought together engineering and humanities faculty to explore a wide range of ethical issues affecting engineers.

Oliver R. Smoot, former Chairperson of the Association for Computing Machinery Professional Standards and Practices Committee, discussed problems connected with promulgating a code of ethics and associated set of enforcement provisions for an evolving profession. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has 45,000 members, most of whom work with some aspect of computer software. Smoot noted that many computer professionals regard their industry as having unique problems which render the general approach underlying codes of ethics in more established areas of engineering and science inapplicable. Those who take this view often cite the comparatively large range of uncertainty with respect to design problems concerning computers and the attendant difficulties involved in framing precise specifications for particular projects. Other computer professionals, however, regard the ethical issues they face as basically similar in kind to those in other scientific and technical fields.

Smoot said that the issue of whether, or to what extent, the computer field presents special problems continually recurred throughout the deliberations of the ACM concerning the adoption of an ethical code over a twelve year period from 1966 to 1978. In 1966 the ACM drafted a set of ethical guidelines. These were general statements relating to ethics rather than a definite ethical code for members of the organization. In 1970, however, a constitutional amendment was adopted that created authority for ACM officers to impose disciplinary sanctions on members. At the same time the promulgation of an ethical code was mandated. As a result, after considerable discussion in 1974 the ACM adopted an ethical code with provisions much more precise and detailed than the ethical guidelines of 1966. Substantial controversy, however, surrounded the issue of enforcement provisions. Some members argued that in the case of almost all the disciplinary rules (i.e. those rules whose violation would make a member subject to disciplinary sanctions) determining infractions would involve difficult questions of intent. More fundamentally, it was also pointed out that AMC members comprise only a small portion of those working in the computer machinery field. Accordingly, even the ultimate threat of expulsion from the organization may not carry much force. Reflecting these concerns, the ACM did not formulate a set of enforcement procedures at the time it adopted its ethical code in 1974. Smoot said, however, that the above objections notwithstanding, such procedures were approved in 1978 thus moving the ACM in the direction of more traditional professional bodies.

In her paper Martha B. Montgomery, Head of the Humanities and Communication Department at Drexel University, cited several innovative activities by professional associations pertaining to ethical concerns. In this regard she began with the following account of a significant step which the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers took in updating its ethical code: "Most codes (of ethics of engineering societies) require the professional whose judgement is overruled under circumstances where the public safety is involved to `inform the proper authorities'.

"The phrase 'proper authority' is one of those too ambiguous to guide members. Consequently, the Delaware Association has constituted itself that authority in Delaware. This relieves the engineer who may wonder whether his own supervisor is `proper authority', whether his obligation is met if he goes one more step in the hierarchy, whether he must persevere until someone answers him, whether in cases in which the public is the client, the 'proper authority' is no one but the public itself. By acting as the 'proper authority', the DAPS both relieves the ambiguity and puts the industry on notice that the informing engineer is acting as required to retain his license and under the protection of his professional society." Montgomery noted that action similar to that of the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers can only be undertaken if a professional association has regulatory power conferred by law. Otherwise only very limited sanctions such as reprimand, disclosure of investigation results. or expulsion are allowed by law. She pointed out, however, that professional organizations without legal regulatory power can pursue other meaningful activities. As an example, Montgomery related efforts of the American Bar Association in drafting a model procurement code as described in an ABA report prepared by F. Trowbridge Von Bear.

"Although sponsored by lawyers' groups, an Advisory Board drew members from civil engineering, state and local government and all interested organizations involved in procurement. Drafting was subdivided. Eight to ten articles were assigned a committee each. Membership of these drafting subcommittees was made up of 60% lawyers and 40% purchasing professionals. Besides the paid staff there were fifteen to twenty-five volunteer professionals working on each article. Two hundred people participated in the drafting process.

"A Pilot jurisdiction program was in place by January, 1975. Each pilot city or state made an intensive comparison of present law with the proposed Model Code and revised the model to meet each jurisdiction's unique circumstances.

"Involved at this stage were the cities of Baltimore, Detroit, San Diego, and Knoxville. Pilot jurisdictions of other sorts involved governments in Utah, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky and California. Participating states and cities helped with the costs-a good investment for them, as each would achieve a proposed purchasing law incorporating a level of research and debate beyond what any local group could afford or achieve on its own, drafted with an eye to general principles. As you know, much legislation is the result of historical accident and 1ocal conditions. A federal agency, the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency contributed funds too.

Montgomery urged that large professional associations, and especially combinations of societies, follow the lead of the American Bar Association. She closed her remarks, however, with the following caveat: "Joint ventures between regulatory and the other professional associations must be wary of Federal Antitrust law which forbids agreements among parties which limit competition even if the purpose of the agreement is to promote high professional standards, as even state regulatory agencies have lost their traditional anti-trust immunity.

"The prime function of the regulatory boards, establishing uniform procedures and standards, must be protected even at the cost of state and national regulatory agencies failing to join in umbrella organizations or desirable actions on behalf of certain ethical goals of the profession. The public must not come to see professional standards as collusion between the regulators and the regulated profession."

University of Minnesota sociologist Paul Davidson Reynolds saw the lead question of the symposium, 'Do engineering and scientific societies have a role in promoting ethical conduct among their members?', as inherently complex. To articulate the complexity he identified five objectives the societies may have with respect to ethical matters, nine means of pursuing them, and ten possible constraints with respect to such pursuit. Reynolds then proposed the accompanying set of tables to depict the relationships between these objectives, means, and constraints.

Reynolds summarized the conclusions represented by the foregoing set of tables thus: "The moral/ethical objectives least likely to be affected by external factors include the provision of personal assistance and public representation of the members. Most of the activities related to the first, formal and informal discussions, development of codes of ethics, and counseling of the members are relatively free of constraint; acting as an intermediary between the members and society appears to be subjected to a minimum of restrictions, with the exception of the tax laws and the status of political lobbying. "Attempts to promote collegial advocacy, either domestic colleagues with a problem or foreign colleagues experiencing abuse, would appear to be slightly mare complicated, subject to more external influence, such as the extent to which general social norms, legal standards for responsibility, specific government controls, employer influences, and legal restraints on association activities may affect efforts to assist a domestic colleague-to say nothing of the money and resources it may require. Advocating the interest of a foreign colleague will be successful only to the extent that the association has an impact upon the other countries-problematic in the best of cases. "But the two areas where the external constraints will be the greatest are in relation to attempts to have a systematic influence over the individual members, either through promoting moral homogeneity or attempting to ensure that all members meet minimal qualifications. This will be particularly complex when government mechanisms take precedence over association efforts (as when government licenses or approval of research involving human subjects is required). Further, if the association is not seen as critical to the career success of members, there is little reason for them to emphasize participation in the association and, in turn, compliance with association standards-regardless of how much the other members consider it a moral obligation."