Draft version 1.6 beta — Revised September 13, 2026

A Geoethics Primer for Geoscientists

This is a work in progress—an incomplete draft subject to revision.

Chapter 6. A Few Practical Considerations

Incomplete Draft — Subject to Revision

6.1 Professional Perspective as an Employee

We work within an economic system in which many, if not all, of our essential material needs are met by purchasing goods and services from someone else. You need food, water, shelter, electrical and other forms of energy, transportation, clothing, healthcare, and so on. Without sufficient income from clients if you are self-employed, or a steady job supplied by an employer, you must rely on your personal wealth, private charity, or government subsidy to survive. If you have responsibility for dependents, the need to provide for your family makes it essential to get and keep a job that is sufficient to cover your basic needs.

6.1.1 Cultivating and Maintaining Your Positive Professional Self-Image

As you move through your career from one geoscience job to another, remember that you are an autonomous moral agent with integrity, in command of valuable knowledge and skills. You are not merely an employee — you are a positive asset. You come to the new job with knowledge, skills, and ethical commitments that already have value. At every stage of your career, you carry a strong commitment to personal and scientific integrity, common morality, science ethics, and the geoethics standards of your professional societies. You are a valuable asset whose value will increase with time and experience.

Remaining an asset and not a liability (that is, remaining employed and not unemployed for cause) depends on your integrity, the habit of seeking new knowledge and skills — learning best practices — and the quality of your work. Maintaining active membership in local, regional, and national professional organizations helps you retain access to their networks, meetings, publications, and other assets throughout your career. By participating in the meetings of your professional societies, you can meet new friends, colleagues, clients, employers, and employees while remaining current with technical and scientific advances in your field.

Cultivating personal and professional networks in which you are an active participant has many benefits. I am not a psychologist, but it is my understanding that heightened levels of engagement with other personal and professional friends tends to correlate with greater happiness, ability to cope with job-related stress, and even longevity (when coupled with other elements of a healthy lifestyle). You do not have to be a psychologist to know that cultivating an awareness of, and openness to, other employment opportunities can enable you to move efficiently to another role or employer if your work environment degrades to a point where it is no longer positive or productive for you. Always do your professional work well, but try to keep your options open for an employment "plan B."

6.1.2 Power and Confronting Some Ethical Dilemmas

In many states within the US, employee-protection laws are weak and "right-to-work" laws prevail. These laws allow employers to fire their employees for any reason or for no reason whatsoever, with few exceptions. Company policies are promulgated from the top down, often without input from the employees affected. Employers expect their employees to work with integrity; however, it can be difficult for a professional geoscientist employed by a company (or university or governmental agency) to exercise autonomous moral agency in full accord with their moral and ethical obligations. Those obligations tend to be invisible to an employer, and have no legal power to constrain an employer's decisions. An individual geoscientist who asserts an ethical obligation that is contrary to the mandate of their supervisor might discover that they are just a replaceable part of the organization.

In his inaugural address as U.S. President on January 20, 1989, George H.W. Bush offered a prayer in which he said, "we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people."1 In most, if not all, companies, power is used to advance the financial interests of the company and its owners and investors. On the business side of universities, power is used to balance budgets, build endowments, maintain and improve facilities, and enhance prestige (that is, to improve rankings). Most of the employees are vulnerable to replacement.

We do not have much power as individuals within a large organization. An ethicist might say that we experience bounded ethicality2 that constrains our autonomous moral agency. Others might call this common situation a structural ethical constraint that can limit our options and ability to fulfill our ethical duties.

Hypothetical General Scenarios

Workplaces can be prolific generators of moral dilemmas, in which two choices with moral importance conflict with one another. Each of the following scenarios occur within a particular employment framework (for example, in a particular company, government agency, or university) that we will call "the institution."

Scenario 1. You are directed to do something that violates moral, ethical, or legal (MEL) constraints in a significant way. A likely consequence of complying with that directive is some form of punishment, and the moral injury of having violated the behavioral boundaries that you committed to honor. The consequence of refusing to do so might include loss or diminishment of your employment. What should you do?

Scenario 2. You are the object of another employee's immoral, unethical, or illegal action, whether actual or threatened. That person holds some sort of power (authority, seniority, etc.) over you within the institution. The consequence of inaction would be to be harmed as they intend. The consequence of using the established institutional protocols to report this threat or action might include loss or diminishment of your employment. What should you do?

Scenario 3. You become aware that another employee or group of employees is involved in immoral, unethical, or illegal actions within the institution, or that the institution itself is involved in such activities. You know the rest of the question. 

There is a real tension between a professional obligation to report unethical or illegal plans or actions, and the distinct possibility of significant retaliation.

Here are some suggestions that might help you to resolve the dilemma you face in these scenarios.
• Recall Stephen Carter's three-step process for acting with integrity, namely to discern what is right and wrong, to act on what you believe is right even at personal cost, and to openly declare that you are acting on what you believe is right. Use common morality, science ethics, and the ethical codes you are bound by to discern right from wrong.
• If you are directed to violate MEL constraints, identify the MEL rule(s) this directive would violate, and state the problem plainly to the person who ordered the action.
— Propose an alternative action that does not violate MEL constraints.
• Discuss the situation with a trusted senior geoscientist who is not employed by your employer. This is a clear example of why professional mentors who can help you make better decisions are important.
• Retain a competent lawyer with relevant experience in employment law, discuss the situation with them, and solicit their advice.
— Acting consistent with legal advice from a lawyer that you have retained (that is, not from a lawyer employed by your institution because of the likelihood of conflicting interests), follow the established institutional protocol and report the problem.

If the source of the problem is a single person or a group within a particular department of the institution, perhaps you can seek transfer within the institution to a different department or location where you can continue your career, perhaps in a different role. But if you find that you are not able to function as an ethical professional within that institution, you should consider resigning and resuming your career with a different employer.

The Whistleblower's Dilemma

Finally, you might have heard about "whistleblowers" and be tempted to address your scenario by becoming one yourself. Here is a useful definition of whistleblowing -— a slightly edited compilation by a group of business-management professors.3

Organizational wrongdoing is defined as conduct that "ranges from serious illegality to unprofessional or improper behavior in the workplace"4 and "places a firm's stakeholders at risk and violates stakeholders' expectations of societal norms and general standards of conduct."5 In the face of this organizational wrongdoing, individuals often voice concerns via formal and informal channels, either individually or collectively.6 However, when constructive avenues for voicing fail, a final option they may opt for is whistleblowing.7
Whistleblowing is an intended, voluntary, deliberate, and non-obligatory form of disclosure8 defined as the act of organization members (former or current) disclosing "illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action."9

Even a modest bit of research into "the whistleblower's dilemma" will indicate that this path is difficult, frequently damaging to the whistleblower, and frequently unsuccessful in producing just or effective change.10-17

The actions of a whistleblower, even if successful in exacting some form of justice on wrong-doers, often result in strongly negative consequences for the whistleblower and their families. Many lose their job. If they keep their employment, they commonly encounter other forms of retaliation within the institution: reassignment to meaningless roles, a hard ceiling on their wages and advancement, and constant harassment below the threshold of illegality. Their mistreatment might constitute a deliberate effort by the institution's management to discourage other employees from protesting actions or conditions within the institution. A private geoscience consultant tagged as a whistleblower might find it difficult or impossible to attract clients.

6.2 Employer's Perspective

Companies, universities, and government agencies are complex structures that, like you and me, exist within an economic system fueled by revenue. In general, an employee must contribute enough value to the revenue stream to justify their continued employment. Employer financial stability is not solely dependent on employee productivity, but also on external conditions that can cause revenue to increase or decrease. Sales, costs, liabilities, depreciation, cost of borrowing, inflation, legal challenges, marketing, healthcare, salaries, retirement contributions, accounting costs, and so on — the economics of successful businesses involves many variables. Employers demand the flexibility to deal with these challenges as they deem necessary, within legal bounds.

6.3 Incompetence, Negligence, and Standards of Care and Practice

We looked at a table of ethical issues in Section 4.6. Many of them involved violations of rules of common morality against deception, promise-keeping, cheating, law-breaking, and doing your duty that we encountered in Section 2.2. Here, I want to highlight and expand upon two of the twenty-four types of ethical breach in Section 4.6.

Incompetent practice occurs when a professional geoscientist accepts paid employment to do a task that they do not know how to do. They are not competent to do the task. Perhaps they have justified the deception of letting the client or their boss think that they are capable of completing the task by meditating on the quip, "fake it till you make it." If a failure occurs that causes tangible harm because of incompetent practice, the unethical geoscientist will be responsible — morally and legally/financially liable — for the damages.

Negligent practice occurs when a professional geoscientist agrees to do a task that they know how to do, doing the task poorly and causing harm. Negligence is more than a moral or ethical breach; it can also be grounds for legal action. Black's Law Dictionary18 devotes five columns to negligence and negligent acts, with side references to practice, malpractice, tort law (e.g., involving civil lawsuits), and criminal law. Here is the core of Black's definition of negligence:

negligence, noun, (14c) 1. The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly, or willfully disregardful of others' rights; the doing of what a reasonable and prudent person would not do under the particular circumstances, or the failure to do what such a person would do under the circumstances... 2. A tort grounded in this failure, usu[ally] expressed in terms of the following elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.19

Standard of care. Geoscientists are legally obligated to, at a minimum, meet the standard of care in their professional work. Several legal terms inform our understanding of "standard of care" as we use the term in professional geoscience and related law.

Dr. James E. Slosson, who was the State Geologist of California in the mid-1970s, and engineer Gerard Shuirman shared their understanding of standards of practice and care in their book, Forensic Engineering — Environmental Case Histories for Civil Engineers and Geologists (1992)25. The standard of practice is the typical level of professional work done in a given situation, area (jurisdiction), and time period. If the relevant codes are weak, outdated, or unenforced, the standard of practice in one place can be significantly lower than it is in other places, and lower even than the relevant code requires.

Slosson's Law states, "The quality of professional work will sink to the lowest level that government will accept."26 Jim Slosson would be quick to add that one antidote to this situation is for every geoscience professional to fully commit to ethical practice and the pursuit of excellence in their work. Professionals should be motivated by the question "What is the highest quality of work I can achieve?" rather than "What is the least work I can get away with?"

Shuirman and Slosson wrote of their understanding of standards of practice and care,27 ...

Civil engineers and geologists must realize that they have an assigned responsibility to function with competence and integrity as well as assuming the attendant legal liability for their work. Code requirements and enforcement may differ from one jurisdiction to another, but in recognizing that natural hazards are not constrained by political boundaries, courts are now tending to hold professionals accountable to a higher standard of care than the "standard practice" or "we met the code" concepts.

In many jurisdictions, codes and especially code enforcement may not meet current responsible professional standards; thus, the civil, geologic, and geotechnical professionals cannot rely on code standards to immunize them or their clients from liability...

There is a clear ethical and professional responsibility to maintain a high professional standard of care without regard to whether the codes within a particular jurisdiction are law or are adequately enforced. Further, one should not rely on codes as a standard inasmuch as upgrading of codes usually follows professional knowledge by about 10 [years].

My understanding is that standard of care is a legal doctrine established in case law, describing the level of skill and diligence that a reasonably prudent professional would exercise in similar circumstances.28 Standard of practice is a professional term that is not legally defined. It refers to customary or accepted methods within a discipline at a given time and location. Evidence of local custom may be introduced to help a court determine the standard of care, but custom is not necessary or sufficient to determine the standard of care by itself.29

6.4 Notes and References

1 Bush, George H.W., 1989, Presidential Inaugural Address, accessible via https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-20-1989-inaugural-address.

2 Bounded ethicality: Ethics Unwrapped, McCombs School of Business, University of Texas–Austin, accessed 20251203 via ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/bounded-ethicality

3 Edirisinghe, C.L., Vleugels, W., Flatau-Harrison, H., and Noblet, A., 2026, What Happens After Whistleblowing? A Systematic Literature Review of the Post-whistleblowing Phase: Journal of Business Ethics v. 207, no. 3, p. 457–484, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-025-06214-3.

4 Teo, H., and Caspersz, D., 2011, Dissenting discourse: Exploring alternatives to the whistleblowing/silence dichotomy: Journal of Business Ethics, v. 104, no. 2, p. 237–249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/s10551- 011- 0906-x.

5 Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., and Shapiro, D. L., 2012, Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing: Academy of Management Journal, v. 55, no. 5, p. 1079–1101. https:// doi. org/ 10.5465/ amj. 2010. 0608.

6 Wilkinson, A., Barry, M., and Morrison, E. 2020, Toward an integration of research on employee voice: Human Resource Management Review, v. 30, no. 1, Article 100677. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.hrmr. 2018. 12. 001.

7 Kenny, K., Vandekerckhove, W., and Irfan, M., 2020, Whistleblowing as escalating voice, In A. Wilkinson, J. Donaghey, T. Dundon, & R. B. Freeman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Employee Voice: Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 437–454, ISBN: 978 1 78897 117 1.

8 Jubb, P. B., 1999, Whistleblowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation: Journal of Business Ethicsv. 21, no. 1, p. 77–94. https:// doi.org/ 10. 1023/A: 10059 22701 763.

9 Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P., 1985, Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing: Journal of Business Ethics, v. 4, no. 1, p. 1–16, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF003 82668.

10 De George, R.T., 1981, Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations: The Pinto Case:  Business & Professional Ethics Journal, v. 1, no. 1, p. 1–14.

11 Davis, M., 1996, Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing: Business and Professional Ethics Journal, v. 15, no. 1, p. 3–19.

12 Martin, M.W., 2000, Meaningful Work: Rethinking Professional Ethics: New York, Oxford University Press, 272 p., ISBN 978-0-19-513325-7.

13 Alford, C.F., 2001, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power: Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 170 p., ISBN 0-8014-3841-1.

14 Kumagai, J., 2004, The Whistle-Blower's Dilemma: IEEE Spectrum, April 2004, p. 53-55; accessed Sept 13, 2026 via https://onlineethics.org/cases/whistle-blowers-dilemma

15 Boot, E.R., 2018, The Ethics of Whistleblowing: Abingdon, UK, Routledge, 110 p., ISBN 978-1-138-34369-6.

16 Sakellariou, N., and Milleron, R., 2018, Ethics, Politics, and Whistleblowing in Engineering: Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press/Routledge, 260 p., ISBN 978-1-138-56265-3.

17 Harris, C.E., Jr., Pritchard, M.S., Rabins, M.J., James, R., and Englehardt, E.,2018, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases [6th ed]: Boston, MA, Cengage Learning, 336 p., ISBN 978-1-337-55450-3.

18 Garner, B.A. [editor], 2024, Black's Law Dictionary [12th edition]: St. Paul, MN, Thompson Reuters, ISBN 979-8-350-29089-9, 2071 p.

19 Negligence, Ibid., p. 1241.

20 Care, Ibid., p. 262.

21 Duty, Ibid., p. 636.

22 Duty of care, Ibid., p. 636.

23 Breach of duty of care, Ibid., p. 233.

24 Standard of care, Ibid., p. 1699.

25 Shuirman, G., and Slosson, J.E., 1992, Forensic Engineering — Environmental Case Histories for Civil Engineers and Geologists: San Diego, California, Academic Press, ISBN 0-12-640740-1, 296 p.

26 Ibid., p. 5.

27 Ibid., p. 269.

28 Prosser, W.L., Keeton, W.P., Dobbs, D.B., Keeton, R.E., and Owen, D.G., (editors), 1984, The Reasonable Person, in Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts [5th ed.]:  West Publishing Co., section 32, p. 173-193, ISBN-10: 0314748806; ISBN-13: 978-0314748805.

29 TJ Hooper case, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932), accessed 20251203 via https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/60/737/1542549