Question
Imagine that you have been asked to write a report for a professional body to offer advice about whistleblowing. In particular:
1. What advice should the professional body give to those who are thinking about whistleblowing, but are not sure what to do?
2. What, if anything, should the professional body itself be doing in relation to whistleblowing, beyond just offering advice?

Notes:
· By “professional body” we do not mean companies, businesses or employees. We mean a professional body like the IMechE.
· Remember that you are writing a report for them. As such, it should be addressed to them, and not be as if you are merely talking about them.
· You are not advising those who are thinking about blowing the whistle. You are advising the professional body, telling them what advice they should be giving to their members. (And they may not accept your advice, so it is up to you not just to state what you advise, but to offer justifications for why they should give that advice and not some other advice.)

Notes:
· Argument and justification:
o The professional body will not simply do whatever you suggest, without thinking about it. If you say, do this, this, and this, without any explanation of why they should do those things, they won’t just think okay, we’ll do that then.
o Therefore, you are expected to give reasons for your recommendations.
· Some issues you may want to consider:
o Loyalty to other engineers and to employers
o The significance of authority (and different types of authority)
o Duties engineers have to other engineers
o Duties engineers have to the public
o Codes of ethics
o The costs involved in whistle blowing
o The benefits of whistle blowing
· Reading:
o Any books or papers used/referred to should be referenced (including the required reading).
o The following is required reading:
Schinzinger and Martin Introduction to Engineering Ethics, (McGrah-Hill 2000), the
section on whistleblowing in chapter 5 (pages 167-184.).

Marking criteria:
1. Knowledge and understanding of required (and other) literature (including the arguments/justifications)
2. Quality and clarity (of the advice and of arguments)
3. Structure (coherence and clarity of structure)
4. Relevance, completeness and consistency

Indicative descriptions:
(First Class) This report demonstrates a very good understanding of the required reading (or readings) and also makes good use of appropriate additional reading. (Note: a report that only used the required reading could get a first, but it would have to show a particularly good understanding of that text, and make very good use of it, possibly also showing good independent thought.) The report is clearly written, and arguments are explained carefully, rather than just hinted at, and the report as a whole is well structured and easy to follow. Everything discussed is relevant, and there are no significant issues left unaddressed. (Note: obviously, the “completeness” should be interpreted as relative to the short length of the report.)