Ethics

I. Introduction
One of the difficult moral dilemmas that man has to face is the prospect of turning against another individual without him or her knowing that someone would squeal regarding an issue. Some person might consider the idea that the right thing to do is to at least warn the individual of the intent to report a particular incident or issue to the authorities. Others fear the repercussion of going against an individual or a group of people, fearing being ostracized or worst, experiencing dangerous and even deadly repercussions as a result of squealing to the authorities. This has been the problem regarding whistle blowing. Every day, many people see or experience things which can make them potential whistle blowers, but many of them opt to stay quiet. This condition can be changed if everyone is reminded of the fact that there are ethical implications involved in whistle blowing. The individual has the ethical responsibility to bring something to light, especially when not doing so means the sin of omission implicates the individual with the same ethical sin that the persons who did wrong are burdened with. Similarly, whistle blowing is not as simple as it may seem. Whistle blowing about a wrong or misinformed idea also carries with it ethical implications. What is certain is that in issues of whistle blowing there are always ethical issues at play, either someone has breached ethical protocol or someone is about to. In the workplace, in school, or even at home, there are ethical breaches that people witness and put them in a bind on whether or not they should be whistle blowers. This is a complicated situation especially when they are the ones who are assessing the ethical issue and weighing it based on their own ethics. The focus of this paper is the exploration of the ethical issues involving whistle blowing through the use of a real life experience, using this scenario to look at what ethical issues are present in the part of the whistle blower or the one who was implicated because of the whistle blowing. This depends on who appears to be answerable to possible ethical issues and who violated ethical parameters resulting to or reflective of the whistle blowing incident.

II. Discussion
There is ethics in everything that people do. Ethics is an important driver of the actions of the people. When this is breached and is witnessed by another individual, there is already the personal ethical consideration of the individual, besides the ethical breach per se. Am I going to tell, or not is often the question one asks himself, considering, among others, his or her ethics and sense of ethical obligation. There are times wherein people come forward and become whistle blowers. They believe in the concept of maintaining the ethical practice in the workplace and punishing those who violate the ethical standards and protocol. There are many real life stories involving ethics and whistle blowing. One of these stories is about Frederic Whitehurst and how his expose on the incorrect and unethical practice at FBI made people feel that the forensic science community has been hoodwinking us for years (Ciolino, 2005, p. 107).

A. The Whitehurst Whistle Blowing Case
One of the leading professionals in his field of study and profession, Dr. Whitehurst, whose academic and professional background is impeccable and speaks well of his personal characteristics, rose to superstardom because of a whistle blowing case. It happened in the 1990s, when Dr. Whitehurst informed the public that the government agency that he has been working for several years. The Federal Bureau of Investigation or the FBI was guilty of scientific misconduct in the practices inside the crime lab of the FBI.

After what Dr. Whitehurst let loose to the public via his whistle blowing, there has been a series of serious reforms inside FBI, primarily geared at correcting the problems that Dr. Whitehurst put forward, and in some degree to protect itself from other cases of whistle blowing in the future. If its employees detect some kind of a problem inside the agency, the changes would ensure that (1) this is easily detected (2) the remedy and rectification would come swiftly and efficiently, and (3) if possible, any information regarding such incident is not leaked to the public. This is done to ensure that the trust of the people to the FBI remains in the ideal level and so that it can process its own ranks without bias or prejudice, only the pursuit of correcting errors and wrongdoings without the fanfare brought along by the incidences of whistle blowing.

B. Dr. Whitehurst and ethical considerations
This case may not be as popular as other cases of whistle blowing among government agencies throwing serious allegations and accusations not just to their co-workers but also to the company, agency or entity they work for. The whistle blowing of Dr. Whitehurst has a very serious aspect of ethical issue in it. In the assessment of the ethical issue, many people should be evaluated for possible ethical breaches or ethical course of action. First, it is important to see the ethical merit of Dr. Whitehursts whistle blowing  was it ethical Did Dr. Whitehurst breach any ethical parameters when he blew the whistle on the FBI

Overall, is Dr. Whitehurst guilty of ethical breach or was his course of action the ethical thing to do This is a tricky question that derives its answer from a very complicated condition and situation. Ethics in the workplace is rendered by the complexities of the characteristics and nature of the workplace as different from one another. The FBI is an agency that has very dangerous and complicated tasks compared to other workplace, like typical business offices. In the case of Dr. Whitehursts whistle blowing, Dr. Whitehurst has endangered the agency and national security in some measures when he sought to undermine not just the authority of the FBI to act ethically but also the ability of the FBI to effectively handle internal issues without going public by one of its employees as was the case of Dr. Whitehurst.

Does this make Dr. Whitehurst guilty of acting unethically What he did can be seen as something equal to the endangerment of the Agency because of the ability of the actions and its implications to destabilize FBI and rendered it unable to function as a result of actions stemming form the whistle blowing incident. On the contrary, Dr. Whitehurst can be considered as an individual who understood the true value of ethics. Dr. Whitehurst was willing to take any options possible. The things which he believes are wrong in the place where he worked for are changed once they are noticed by a greater authority and once there is pressure for change and development from other sectors of the society like the public and the government.

If there was any ethical issue that attaches itself to Dr. Whitehurst as a result of his action, it would be about how his actions were ethical. He could have simply gone with the way things are done and no one would notice. In the future, someone might, and Dr. Whitehurst could have easily protected his end if and when the issue is made public by another individual who opts to blow the whistle. However, Dr. Whitehurst did not opt for this particular course of action. Turning his back from this issue and opting to play safe and turn a blind eye on an incorrect and unethical practice makes him just as guilty as those who committed the errors inside the FBI. In this situation, Dr. Whitehurst is absolved of any wrongdoings with ethical implications. The way he acted all throughout the situation allowed him to display his own ethical values and his actions reflect how he as a person is governed by such values.

C. The FBI crime lab and ethical considerations
The question now is this - who (or what) person or entity is answerable to the act of committing an unethical action or practice in this situation In the end, it appears that the FBI was proven guilty of many of the accusations of Dr. Whitehurst. The ethical breach is that the FBI and its workers are expected to conduct themselves morally and ethically, doing the right thing all the time, considering the power and the privilege being extended to them and the office, considering the fact that public trust and public safety is in their hands. The FBI, particularly the crime lab, was guilty of misconduct. This misconduct is equivalent to unethical practice. One innocent wrong doing can be attributed to unintended action. However, the prevalence of scientific misconduct in the FBI crime lab refers to a set of practice done by the people working inside the FBI crime lab system which is wrong but is allowed to continue. This is because either no one before Dr. Whitehurst was smart enough to know that there is a serious scientific misconduct issue or no one was willing to blow the whistle on the FBI in fear of repercussion.

Unfortunately, this belief does not absolve anyone from being accused of acting unethically as well and strengthening the idea that there was an exercise of an unethical conduct pertaining to the individuals and groups inside the FBI crime lab to whom Dr. Whitehurst attributes the accusations of scientific misconduct. This can be considered as something that has merit in it because of the fact that it was a trigger or catalyst for some key changes in the FBI crime lab and the practices inside the FBI crime lab after Dr. Whitehurst blew the whistle regarding this problem. The ethical problem stems from FBI crime labs actions that are not consistent with truth, particularly the production of tainted evidence as well as juicing testimonies from FBI agents involved in cases being investigated and involving the crime lab.

III. Conclusion
What the people should remember is the fact that the recognition of an unethical action should not be met with another unethical action - that is, the unwillingness of the person to report such incident. Unethical practices continue to persist because people are scared to come forward. Thanks to the people who are not afraid to be called whistleblowers, like Frederic Whitehurst, the incorrect practices in the workplace, private or in government, are addressed. Corrective measures are put into place to ensure that this would be prevented from occurring again.