Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
COMMENTS ON A NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING . . . Frederick Seitz There has been so much discussion about a proposed National Academy of Engineering in the Dressy in correspondence which has , come to my office, and in conversations, that it seemed not out of place to discuss some aspects of such an academy just between us engineers, dwelling particularly on the relationship between science and engineering. Let me emphasize before going on that I have been very close to engineers for the overwhelming fraction of my professional life-as a faculty member within two great engineering colleges, as an employee in industry, and as a member of both the American Society for Metals and the American In- stitute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers. On top of that I have the privilege and pride of carrying an honorary de- gree of Doctor of Engineering from a very distinguished institute of technology in Troy, New York. As you know, the concept of creating a National Academy of Engineering as a counterpart, or cousin, to the National Academy of Sciences is not new at all. It has been discussed several times since the war, and in fact, has been reviewed by at least one Congressional committee. However, the opinion among some groups of engineers favoring such an academy has grown so great in the past five years that one group from the Engineers Joint Council approached the National Academy of Sciences about two years ago to ask if it would cooperate in formulating and launching a new academy. During the ensuing period the National Academy of Sciences has worked in cooperation with a committee of engineers appointed by the EJC to examine the feasibility of the plan and see just how cooperation could be established. The process of deliberation has proceeded to a point where I think it is sufficiently safe to say that it is more probable than not that a National Academy of Engineering will come into existence in the foreseeable future, probably associated in some intimate way with the National Academy of Sciences if all goes well. You undoubtedly will hear more of all this in the coming months. It seems appropriate this evening to review the history of both engineering and science in human experience in order to note some rather obvious trends in the interrelation of the two. Such a discussion may serve to indicate pitfalls which could lie ahead on the road as the scientists and engineers in the two academies work out closer ties. I wish to emphasize at the start that I feel personally that the formation of a National Academy of 47
Engineering could be an excellent step if one does avoid such pitfalls. On the other hand, I also feel that formation of such an academy could turn out to be a disaster for all of us if we do not avoid the most significant dangers. First, let us dwell briefly on the relationship between engineering and technology, taking a broad, historical look that goes far hack into the human past. It should be remembered that our species, Homo sapiens, has been involved in technology for a very long time, something of the order of two million years. The entire course of evolution of our mental capacity in this long period of time has been associated with the evolution both of technology and of our ability to communicate with one another through speech and other means. Initially, technology, as exemplified by the fabrication and utilization of tools, was the business of every man. Most members of society were technologists to some appreciable extent in spite of variations in aptitude. About 5,000 years ago, when our ancestors finally moved into the great rich delta lands of the river valleys, having developed extensive agriculture and elementary metal working, the engineering profession came into existence. As you well know, life in the great delta lands soon became urban not only in the sense that -treat cities arose, but also in the sense that not all the population was needed to tend the land. A substantial fraction was free to enter into many other fields of specialization. It was in such an atmosphere that pro- fessional engineering developed. As a matter of fact, we can easily recognize among the professional groups which did emerge in a country such as Egypt many of the types of engineer who continue to be important in modern society. For example, there were the engineers who designed and maintained the irrigation systems, and those responsible for the public buildings, monuments, and fortifi- cations which were essential to urban life. Then there were the ~ ~ In fact, about two-thlr~s or the retells or engineering Which we recognize today among the traditional disciplines of most engineering schools came into being in a highly sophisticated way in those far-off days when delta-land agriculture was being established. ~J specialists in areas such as metal worn and ceramics. ~. . . ~. ~. ~. . ~ - . . ~. ~ Again, in those days as now, the services which the engineers rendered to technology varied in quality as well as in field. Some engineers were involved in maintenance, others in invention and innovation, whereas some were concerned with the optimization of parameters in order to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. The only major modern fields of engineering which did not exist in some form were electrical and electronic engi- neering, nuclear engineering, and petroleum engineering. It seems safe to say that some professional engineers were involved wholly or partly in the education of new generations. 48
Science in the sense we know it is relatively new on the stage of human affairs. In fact, we can establish its birth at about 500 B. C. in the minds of the great Greek philosophers who lived in the lands bordering the Aegean Sea. As you will recall, the Greeks combined a deep religious sense with a certain attitude of independence toward nature. They found it possible, unlike most of their predecessors, to think of nature in a somewhat mechanistic way, and to speculate on the principles involved in the phenomena they observed in the world about them. They carried on such speculations for about a thousand years, between 500 B. C. and 500 A. D., starting when they were an independent people in their own city-states, and continuing on when they were under Macedonian and Roman rule. Perhaps the most remarkable features of Greek science were its remarkable successes and its colossal failures. In fact, this combination of success and failure is rather difficult for us to comprehend at the present time since science is now taken so much for granted. The successes of Greek science are still very valuable to us. One may mention, for example, the advances in various aspects of mathematics, such as geometry; the appreciation of mechanics which led them to speculate on the origin of inertia and the influence of the medium through which a body moves; the reasoning they applied to astronomy. A small group of Alexandrian Greeks not only appreciated what we call the Copernican model of the solar system, but also determined the diameter of the earth to quite a high degree of accuracy. In fact, their value of the diam- eter of the earth was sufficiently respected that it was used in a practical way by the early Portuguese navigators when they were making basic decisions about the proper route to take to India. One should add that the Greek scientists also contributed much understanding to the life sciences, including botany, anatomy, and medicine. The Romans, who were magnificent engineers, appreciated all aspects of Greek culture including science. However, for some reason not quite clear to us, the two groups never cooperated significantly in the development of technology. Science and engi- neering were never wedded in the world of Greece and Rome. Had such a wedding occurred, say, at the time of Christ, technology might now well be 1,500 years ahead of its present level. Many of the great problems arising from modern technology which we face in our own lifetimes could well have been resolved long before what we call the Middle Ages. The reason this unification of science and engineering did not occur in Roman times is rather obscure. However, it is undoubtedly intimately linked to the atmosphere of social values which prevailed in those days. In any event, after a period of turbulence in which the Germanic tribes upset the Roman World, and the Arabs moved into a large part of the Mediterranean' the great books of the Greek 49
scholars found their way into the universities and monasteries of the Middle Ages. Interestingly enough, this inoculation of Greek culture into northern Europe was one of the consequences of the Christian Crusades which took place at the beginning of the present millenium. For several hundred years the old Greek works were looked on principally as a vehicle for scholarly discussion and debate, often of a theological nature. In the fifteenth century, however, as the northern Europeans began to journey out of their own geographical world and the age of exploration began, science became the subject of new creative life. We moved into the modern world of science. The extraordinary feature of the rebirth of science in northern Europe is the fact that it was viewed not only as a source of critical enlightenment to the human mind, but also as a source of practical knowledge which could have a bearing on technology. It is true that the applications began slowly and in a very modest way. However, the influence could be seen even in the fifteenth century, when discussions of the size and shape of the earth were held for navigational purposes. It went on growing as confidence was gained and more minds turned to science. It should be emphasized that the engineer was almost the exclusive master of technology in the initial period of the rise of technology in northern Europe, as he had been for over 4,000 years previously. Practically all technical innovations were a consequence of his wisdom, judgment, and experience. Moreover, the rise of an experimental science would have been all but impossible without the contributions to technology made by the engineering community both in the past and present. The influence of science upon technology which began about 500 years ago is marked by two significant trends. First, science began to provide new foundations for old fields of engi- neerinq. This occurred slowly at first, _ _ blot with an inevitableness that we experience with very great impact at the present time. Second, science proved to be the source of completely new fields of technology that could hardly have been discovered by the traditional methods of engineering. In other words, one might say that science generated completely new fields of engineering. Let us consider first some of the ways in which science altered traditional fields of engineering. As I commented earlier, the subject of mechanics had been of much interest to the Greeks, although their speculations had little practical consequence in the ancient world. The same situation prevailed early in the Renaissance. After the days of Stevinius, Galileo, and Newton, however, the growing body of sci- entific knowledge slowly imposed itself on wider and wider areas of mechanical engineering. Whether one was dealing with the con- struction of buildings or bridges, or engaged in the field of 50
ballistics, the new knowledge, based on scientific reasoning and discovery, became an indispensable part of technology. The same trend occurred in the field of optics. Lenses for spectacles had been made for several centuries before creative science got underway in western Europe. Once the laws of geomet- rical optics and ultimately of wave optics had been developed, how- ever, the science not only altered the techniques for designing optical systems completely but also permitted an enormous exten- sion of the range of use of optical equipment. Chemical technology was altered in a similar but perhaps even more drastic way. Man had found important use for chemical compounds with special attributes ever since the dawn of civiliza- tion. Before the rise of modern science the individual who guided and inspired much of this productive capacity was the alchemist, an engineer whose basic goal was to serve chemical technology. Once the chemical elements were discovered, and the science of chemistry began to evolve, however, the field of chemical tech- nology had an entirely new basis for development and the alchemist became an anachronism. His disappearance presumably extended over so long a time that he was scarcely conscious of being outmoded. In any event, his contribution to chemical technology has been replaced in modern times by that of the partnership between the scientist-chemist and the chemical engineer. In many respects this is one of the finest and most productive partnerships in modern technology. Let us next turn to consideration of the entirely new fields generated by science. One of the most conspicuous is that associated with electromagnetism. It is difficult to imagine that the intricate relationships contained in Maxwell's equations could ever have been discovered by the traditional techniques of engi- neering in which applications tended to lead innovation. The applications in this field would have been too remote to start a chain of discovery; the unveiling of the area required the somewhat abstract and detached view of the professional scientist. Once the science had developed, however, a whole new vista for applica- tions appeared. Initially, such applications were made to a con- siderable extent by men such as Edison with a distinctly engineer- ing bent; that is, the major contribution of the scientist was to provide a new platform upon which the traditional engineer could erect new scaffolds. In this century, however, the situation has changed a great deal. The advances in electronics and microwave technology which have occurred in this century have depended on the attitudes and methods of the scientist in addition to those of the good engineer. In other words, the most recent advances in the technology centered about electromagnetism have required essentially the same type of working partnership between the scientist and engi- neer that we find in chemical technology. One can see much the same trend in the course of evolution of nuclear technology, and in other science-originated areas-for example, those related to mag- netic resonance and stimulated emission. 51
If we consider aJ1 these trends whereby more and more areas of technology become profoundly influenced by the discoveries of science, and add to them the inevitable effect modern computers will have on the extent to which engineers will be able to use the basic scientific laws, it becomes clear that the union between science and engineering in the advance of technology is certain to become stronger. To me this implies that the basic education of the engineer who expects to be a leader in technology will in- evitably become more sophisticated. Emphasis will focus more and more on work at Ph.D. level or its equivalent, as has been the case for a long time in the fields of science, rather than at the Bachelor's level. This is not to say that there will not be a significant place for Bachelor-trained men, who eventually broaden their base with on-the-job training. But those who assume the leadership in creative engineering in the future will need to have Ph.D. training or its equivalent if they are to do justice to the potentialities for advancing technology which lie in present-day scientific knowledge. As we all know, such knowledge is by no means sufficient for good engineering work. It must be combined with a number of other qualities, including intuition and ex- perience . Let me turn now to the matter of a National Academy of Engineering. It seems safe to say that such an academy will have a successfully enduring position in the fields of technology, if and only if its leaders recognize that science and engineering will be close working partners in the future, exhibiting a symbiotic relationship to one another. Unless such an academy seeks from the beginning to establish close cooperative relationships with the National Academy of Sciences in areas of technology of common inter- est, the new academy could easily find itself working to the detri- ment of both science and engineering. I have frequently heard it said by engineers, both formally and informally, that the National Academy of Sciences has no interest in engineering, and really does not understand it very well. It may be true that the National Academy of Sciences has not consistently paid appropriate homage to al aspects of engineering in a formal way. However, one cannot emphasize too strongly that one of the designated missions of the National Academy of Sciences is to promote technology in our country, and that it has done this both successfully and consistently, using all the help it could muster from engineers as well as scientists. When Congress estab- lished the National Academy of Sciences a century ago, it strongly desired that the new body be prepared to advise the government on matters relating to technology, as well as to promote the welfare of science. In fact the great majority of the issues on which the government has requested the Academy to provide advice have been applied or technological in nature. Moreover, when the National Academy of Sciences proposed the establishment of the National Research Council in 1916 as part of its structure, the goal was to satisfy a request from the government that the Academy help our 52
nation be better prepared to cope within the many complex scientific and technological problems which arose from the existence of World War I in Europe. During this century of endeavor, the Academy has always sought the most intimate possible help from the community of engineers in its efforts to provide the most complete and accurate advice possible. Not only have engineers played an ex- ceedingly important role in many of the most important activities of the National Research Council, but in addition, members of the Engineering Section of the Academy have furnished great leadership in the activities of the Academy itself; for example, Dr. Frank B. Jewett was president of the Academy during the highly critical years of World War II. It is my personal opinion that it would be a very great tragedy if the leaders of the National Academy of Engineering were to press for some form of dismemberment of the National Research Council soon after the new academy is formed, in order to acquire independent advisory activities rapidly on a large scale. At the present time, I am strongly of the opinion that the new academy should begin its life by devoting a great deal of time and energy to purely "internal" problems such as that of deciding the basis on which it will select its own members in the future, and that of determining the goals toward which engineering should strive in the decades ahead. It is my hope that during such a period the two academies could establish relationships which would permit the National Academy of Engineering to participate directly and formally in the National Research Council-for example, on the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Given time and the right aspirations, both academies could then learn to work in tandem in ways that would not only be to their own mutual advantage, but would also provide the maximum benefit to the entire nation. If the National Academy of Engineering is started in the right spirit, its activities can serve to augment and reinforce significantly those functions which the National Academy and the National Research Council are now carrying out. mentation would then presumably take place in a way which would give suitable formal recognition to aspects of the engineering pro- fession related to invention, design, production or construction, and engineering education, which some feel have not been given appropriate formal recognition within the National Academy of Sciences in the past. of Sciences Such au~-
