Bill Sourour writes about creating a pharmaceutical website quiz for teen girls in “The Code I’m Still Ashamed Of.” Although the quiz appeared to provide useful information, its results were effectively predetermined to recommend the company’s drug. Sourour later found out the drug could lead to depression and suicidal thoughts and that a young woman who had taken it had committed suicide. Eventually, he realized his code was part of an unethical system and quit the company. The real issue was not just that Sourour was writing code for a pharmaceutical company, but that he helped develop a system that was misleading because it put the interests of the client first, with the users relying on the information coming second. In this Case Analysis, I will make the case that the contractarianism was morally wrong because it was a violation of social expectations that are necessary for trustworthy professional relationships and that Sourour should have questioned the project and refused or reported the unethical work because protecting the public is a fundamental responsibility of computing professionals.
In the ACM, IEEE, and NSPE Codes of Ethics, the professional is required to have obligations other than just to follow instructions of an employer. The ACM Code has a provision that says that computing professionals should “contribute to society and human well-being” and “avoid harm to others.” Honesty and trustworthy conduct is also needed. The principles are directly applicable to Sourour’s situation as the quiz was intended to affect a change in the young user’s attitude to a specific drug, but presented as a fact sheet. The ACM also demands that computer system professionals assess computer systems and the potential risks involved. Sourour had to think about what the quiz might do to users, instead of just writing the code that was requested.
The IEEE Code also demands that professionals prioritize the public safety, health and welfare, be honest in their professional activities, remain competent, and reveal any relevant limitations. The NSPE Code states that: “The safety, health and welfare of the public shall be the first consideration of the professional. It also demands honesty and personal responsibility for professional activities. While the NSPE Code is intended for engineers, the principles are meant to reinforce the professional responsibility in Sourour’s situation.
These codes show the ethical issues with Sourour’s actions. The pharmaceutical company was interested in selling its product while teen users were interested in getting accurate and trustworthy information. Sourour’s code helped to establish a system that would not allow for truly informed choices. The problem was not only the potential bad side effect, but the very structure of the problem was deceptive and created a lack of trust between professionals, organizations and people.
Sourour should have questioned the assignment when he realized that the quiz was not really testing users’ responses. The ACM Code says that when those in charge do not respond to serious dangers, computing professionals should do so. The IEEE and NSPE Codes also emphasize the protection of the public and honesty. Sourour didn’t have to be the first to notice all the potential side effects of the drug, but he did have to be aware that the system was lying. Personal moral responsibility cannot be avoided by doing what an employer tells you.
Contractarianism is a way of judging morality based on the idea of social contract. People agree to follow certain rules and obligations in exchange for the benefits of cooperation under those rules. Individuals rely on others to ensure the overall function of society with trust and protection. In professional relationships, this results in expectations between professionals, employers, clients and the public. According to Armstrong, professions are based on a service ideal and the responsibility to apply specialized knowledge in the service of society. Professional responsibilities can come into conflict, but when serious harm is at stake, the protection of the public may come first.
Sourour’s situation could be seen as a breach of this social contract. He was a programmer and had specialized knowledge that the pharmaceutical company and users did not have. The user could expect that the site would contain accurate information, and his employer could expect him to finish the project. The pharmaceutical company, however, used the system to manipulate the users to its product without presenting the quiz as marketing. This undermined the trust necessary between professionals and the public.
If Sourour had thought about it from a contractarian point of view, he would have realized that the rules people would agree to if they wanted a system in which they could safely interact with professionals and technology would be different. If programmers were permitted to produce misleading medical equipment whenever an employer asked for it, it would cause problems as users would lose faith in professional systems. On the other hand, if professionals are forced to refuse or challenge misleading systems, then all those involved in the social contract are safeguarded. Professionals are trusted, employers have more responsible services, and users are protected from manipulation and harm.
Sourour should have thus acted differently. He could have spoken up with his boss, asked them to reconsider the quiz in an honest manner or simply said no if the dishonest intent was still present. If it was a serious danger and there was no internal solution, it would have been justified to report the issue. This is in line with Armstrong’s belief that professional responsibilities are linked to protecting the public, and with the principles of the ACM, IEEE, and NSPE that professionals should respond to serious risks.
Some would argue that Sourour was a young programmer and didn’t know all the medical risks associated with the drug when he wrote the code. He also relied on his employer, and may not have had the power to object to the project. But he does not have to foresee all the consequences of contractarianism. It was on him to identify the breach of basic rules of trust and cooperation. He knew that the quiz was deliberately deceptive, and he had good reason to doubt his involvement. He may not be as guilty as he could be if he knew more, but he is still responsible as a professional.
Sourour’s case shows that it’s necessary for programmers to work ethically. In the ACM, IEEE and NSPE Codes, the principles of honesty, no harm, professional responsibility, and protection of the public are stated. This is reinforced by contractarianism, which demonstrates that working relationships rely on mutual trust between all parties, not just the employer. The pharmaceutical quiz did not meet those expectations, as it was seen as providing useful information but was actually designed to promote a particular drug.
Sourour should have challenged the assignment and tried to avoid the system being deceptive. The refusal of the work or reporting of the concern would have posed professional and financial challenges, while the operation of deceptive technology would have posed a threat to public trust and safety. The case ultimately demonstrates that the individual professional as well as the organization is ethically responsible. Programmers need to be aware that their expertise can impact real people and that sometimes it’s not sufficient to simply follow instructions to meet their professional responsibilities.