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.
THE ENGINEER AND SOCIETY John C. Calhoun, Jr. Gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to be here this after- noon to address you on this important subject. The theme of this meeting, "The Engineer and Society," is a very complex subject. It covers a variety of topics and a wide range of opinions, I am sure. I can hope to touch upon only a few of the factors that enter into a complex discussion like this in the time allotted to me. If I were going to choose one characteristic of this age, I think I would say the characteristic is inquiry. Man has always asked questions and he has always sought answers. But today I think we are seeking answers and asking questions on a scale which is unprecedented in history. In many areas these questions deal with scientific and technological advances, and the answers seem to come rather easily. More general and more fundamental questions are being asked and that is the reason for this session today. These other questions deal with relationships, with interactions, with stability, and with change in the age. Answers to these questions come a lot harder than those to technological questions. ~ The subject assigned to me is in the second category. It is not a technical subject. It is a sociological subject, so I should probably start off by disclaiming any expertise. My train- ing and background are not in the area of sociology. I am an engi- neer. On the other hand, I will try to analyze the topic because I think it is something engineers must do. The subject implies a self-analysis-the same kind of se~f-analysis being at- tempted by many these days in seeking the answers to questions of relationship. All of us must ask ourselves this question: Where do we fit, individually and collectively, into today's world? The pressures upon us are so varied to demand an examination of this question and the adoption of a rationale on which way to proceed. So, the role I would play this afternoon is to give you a perspective on the manner in which I see engineering fitting into today's world. This, of course, I do from a background as an engineer and educator. 5
The perspective consists of four parts. First, I think it is pertinent that we have some understanding about the nature of engineering itself. Second, I think we should add some knowledge of the rela- tionship which engineering holds to other professions. Third, I think we need to give some thought to the con- tributions which engineering has made. And fourth, all of this ought to lead us to some con- clusions about responsibility for the engineer. The traditional viewpoint of engineering will not suffice to give the proper perspective for the role of engineering or for its future projection. This is undeniably one of our problems. Engineering is thought of too much in the traditional sense. In a very real sense, engineering has been a scapegoat of our times, more so than science. In turning our thoughts to the deficiencies of our age, we usually criticize the materialistic engineer. The engineer is said to lack training in the humanities and in culture. We do not criticize the scientist in the same way. We do not criticize the managing people. We do not criticize the white collar worker. Generally we criticize those materialistic engineers. In discussions about education, it is generally the engineer who is criticized for not having enough humanities in his curriculum. I think such thoughts as these show a lack of under- standing of the nature of engineering, and I am sure you agree with me, but that does not solve our problem. To arrive at a perspective of engineering today, I am not going to talk about the traditional role of engineering, and I am not going to talk about the ways in which we educate our engi- neers. I want to emphasize that engineering is a dynamic profes- sion and not a static profession. More importantly, I want to stress that engineering is not a profession of uniform practice. I want to talk particularly about the stages of growth in engineer- ing practice. I want to talk about the breadth of the functional spectrum that is encompassed within engineering and the engineer's concern with system problems. Finally, I want to try to give you some appreciation for the evolution of engineering practice from a curative practice to preventative or management practice. Now, some parts of engineering are order historically than other parts. This is the source of some misunderstanding. Even more difficult to understand is that some parts of engineer- ing are more newly arrived historically but are further developed 6
than their older counterparts. In some areas of engineering the process of growth may not be sufficiently advanced to recognize the existence of a separate system of practice. The stage of growth to which a particular system of practice has advanced has a direct bearing on the degree of sophistication attached to the practice. Each engineering development goes through at least three recognizable stages of growth-the stage of empiricism, the stage of measurement, and the stage of analysis and synthesis. Until the analysis and synthesis stage is reached, the particular branch of engineering and its unique characterization generally cannot be fully recognized. The stage of empiricism is one of doing things by a cut- and-try method. New situations are met by reliance upon rules of thumb that are based on experience. During this stage of engineer- ing, concepts are borrowed freely from other fields-from all areas of science and from other engineering practice. At this time the particular practice may often seem to be only an extension of an existing field of engineering. m e second stage of development takes form as the engi- neer starts devising instruments to measure the things his empirical experience has pointed out to be important. Each new system of practice will require its own methods of measurement. Each new engineer must fashion instruments to obtain quantitative facts concerning the situations he is meeting and the practices he is using. In devising measurements and instrumentation, the engi- neer first begins to see the existence of a separate area of engineering practice. Measurement and understanding go together, so observation lead naturally to the evolution of correlations and to the performing of elemental conceptual experiments. The measurements are necessary in order to adequately describe situations, to quantify parameters that are important, and to deduce relationships between operating variables. Thus, concepts are elucidated. The second stage merges into the third in which elemental correlation and concepts are consolidated into operating formulas. This is the stage of simulation, of model creation, and of the establishment of behavioral equations. During this period, the engineer experiments with altered systems in order to bolster his practical experiments with fundamental concepts. Analysis permits him not only to pre- dict the behavior of the system in which he is working, but synthesis then becomes available to modify and control the system according to the needs and demands of society and according to his own wishes. 7
Dean Everett of the University of Illinois has said, 'engineering is a learning profession as well as a learned profes- sion.'t Engineering is not static and new branches of engineering are continuously coming into being simply because man's knowledge and capabilities, his needs and his horizons are continuously ex- panding. We must recognize first that engineering is a developing profession within which the various branches may exist in different stages of growth. A perplexing facet of the nature of engineering is its broad spectrum of functions. Engineering is a many-dimensional activity and even each engineer tends to observe and analyze it from his own point of view. It is said that even the natives living in the shadow of Mt. Everest do not recognize the mountain when they are moved from their own locale to another point of the compass. Within recent years we have been willing to back off and acknowledge that different engineers may view engineering along different dimensions. One dimension covers the kinds of jobs to be done. There may be a dam to be built, a radio to be designed, or oil to he moved from the interior of the earth to its surface. Another dimension recognizes types of work, such as construction, manufacturing operations, design, installation and testing, or other specific jobs. Other familiar dimensions along which engineering can be viewed are the kinds of tools that are used, the types of ideas and knowledge which are invoked, or the economic framework within which the activity fits. One's scope and vision of engineering depends upon his viewing dimension. Unless one exhausts all possible dimension, he still does not have a total view of engi- neering. Engineering encompasses, in fact, the total spectrums of all these functions. The two views which I have given you of engineering stress both its uniformity and its diversity. Unity can be found in terms of common principles and procedures and in recognition of common evolution. Diversity can Le found in terms of range of practice and stage of growth. It is important that as we find a greater unity in engineering we do not lose sight of our diversity. The unity is very satisfying internally, but the diversity gives engineering much of its vitality as a social force. Diversity stems from need and practices that are undertaken to meet the need. I have used the word 'system" a number of times. This is probably the most general word for expressing the nature of engineering practice, and it illustrates the diversity of which I speak. We recognize now that there are systems of engineering practice, i.e., systems with whose welfare the engineer deals and is concerned. 8
I can illustrate with an analogy. All doctors deal with biological sciences, with physiological concepts and with medical principles, but in the final analysis, the doctor practices upon one particular kind of system, namely, the human individual. Other kinds of doctors choose to practice on other kinds of biological systems, i.e., various animals. The same thing is true of the legal profession. All lawyers are versed in political science, in psychology and in human relations. Furthermore, they are versed in jurisprudence, an] in the relationships between the enactment of law, the con- tinuation of law, and the enforcement of law. But in the final analysis, each individual lawyer operates within a particular legal system. It may be the legal system of the United States or the legal system of Mexico, but it will be some bounded system. This same sort of concept can be seen in the practice of engineering, namely each engineer is identified with a system of practice. I do not use "system,' here in the narrow sense by which it was first recognized, namely, as a system of mechanical and electrical devices that were used in defense programs. I use the term in more general sense of a unified, organized activity, whose components function together for a purpose in order to achieve a goal. Every engineer who has been involved in creative engineer- ing practice knows what I am talking about. As an example, in the aeronautical field, an aircraft is a particular system. Not all the engineering problems encountered in this system are assignable to the aeronautical engineer. All kinds of engineers work in this system, because in it one deals with aircraft structures, with aerodynamic properties, with control mechanisms, with the major function of the aircraft, and with the human elements that are involved in flying and operating it. The aircraft as a whole different from any other system. number of behavioral elements. behavioral characteristics much as a series of simultaneous equations and aeronautical engineer is responsible as a whole and for its performance. has properties which make it It is a unique composite, with a One must seek some solution to the mathematician would take a solve for the variables. The for the welfare of the system In discussing this view, we need to recognize that if the engineer does deal with systems, we must take into account the possibility that he can create new systems. This is why we have different branches of engineering. As we learn to operate within a slightly different environment, with a slightly different set of parameters and boundary values, we create new systems which have characteristics different from systems we have experienced before. 9
The new system is experimental. It must be studied, understood and controlled. Again, let me draw an analogy. If the medical profession had the capability of taking one type of neurological component, another type of anatomical component and a food-consuming and work- producing capability of another type, and of putting them all to- gether to make new animals, the medical profession would be doing the counterpart of the job the engineer performs by putting the components of our physical and economical world together to create new systems. The concern of the engineer for systems and his ability to create new systems illustrates another way the stages of growth which I first mentioned. As the new system is being learned, the engineering jobs are of a corrective nature. They later become managerial. One might say that engineering is always evolving from a curative practice to a preventive practice. Indeed, one could generalize that all system affairs proceed in this manner. This is most familiar to us, probably, in the field of medicine. The jobs of the doctor at one time were setting a bone, prescribing for measles, or otherwise taking some action that would counteract a disease or a disturbance within the human system. Medicine has now evolved to a different stage, wherein the job is to maintain health and prevent disorder. The whole emphasis is upon preserving the organism and continuing it in a healthy state. It seems to me that engineering has grown up in this same way. No longer do we look at engineering practice as discreet jobs which correct disorders in a system. Instead we look at engi- neering actions as those which will continue the healthful existence of the system and which will allow the engineer not only to pre- dict its future, but also to control its future. All branches of engineering have this view, but some are further advanced in it than are others. Just as soon as we recognize the interest and concern of the engineer for a total system or for a complex of behavioral mechanisms, it is necessary to see relationships with other profes- sionals that were not apparent before. So long as the engineer may be dealing with a specific technique or tool, or so long as he may be correcting a specific disorder, his is a relatively isolated activity which may not involve others to a great degree. As soon as the engineer assumes a concern for prediction and control, for total system behavior or for the creation of new systems, then, on the one hand he must turn to science for under 10 74
standing, and, on the other hand he must examine more fully the use and function of the system as it takes its place in our social world. The relationship of engineers to other professions has been dramatized mostly by an increased dependency upon the scien- tific community. Although engineering has always been dependent in one way or another upon science, it is not equivalent to science. As science has grown, and as man has learned more about his universe and the way in which changes can be produced, the engineer has been forced to become more knowledgeable about the basic behavior of the universe and the behavioral laws pertaining to those things which he is dealing. This has produced a situation in which society has tended to look upon engineering and science as being identical. However, the engineering function is distinct from all other functions in society, and I think it is pertinent for us to discuss the relation- ship so that we can see it more fully. The job of the engineer is confused not only with that of the scientist at times, but also with that of the manager. These three-the scientist, the manager, and the engineer-make up the team which, in my view, is responsible for man's technological evolution and progress. And I think America has made a rather unique contribution by finding ways and means for this teamwork to function at its best. I do not want to give the impression that the progress man has made through science is not very important. To the con- trary, it is important but it will be to our disadvantage if we adopt the position that progress in science is the entire answer. Nor, on the other hand, do I want to give you the im- pression that I think the engineer is the leader on this team. No one of the three parts of this team is more important than either of the others. It is imperative that all be recognized equally. I think we are lagging in engineering with respect to science, but I think we are lagging in management even more. We must try to bring these three elements into better balance. Let me be a little more specific about these relation- ships. It seems to me that the scientist always has the job of seeking out the laws of the physical universe and understanding why they operate as they do. The scientist looks for facts and for correlations between facts, but in the final analysis he is concerned with general laws and with general situations more than he is with specifics In fact, his end goal is to generalize as much as possible. If the scientist can get everything into one equation, 11
he has reached the epitome of his activity because from this single equation he can deduce everything that he wants to know about why things are the way they are. By contrast, the engineer is not concerned with under- standing why, just for the sake of knowing. The engineer is con- cerned with how things are done and how a given objective can be achieved. He has a need to know why things behave as they do, but this need goes only to the extent that it helps him to learn to manage and control. The engineer's main concern is with specific cases. He analyzes a particular need at a particular time within a particular set of circumstances and he arrives at a particular solution to fill that need. Sometimes, as I have indicated, this is the cor- rection of a specific disorder. In a more general sense, the need is to provide general direction for healthful existence. In either event, the engineer is always looking for a better solution than the one he has previously found, and he has to do this with · . Speck: .1C cases. The member of this three-part team at the other end of the spectrum is the manager. He is responsible for the organiza- tiona~ structure and the conditions under which both the scientist and the engineer can do their work. He is concerned with the needs that exist in society. He must have an awareness of current needs and needs that are developing. The manager's job is to know what resources are avail able to meet these needs at a given time and who is going to foot the bill. Furthermore, his rode is to decide between several possible solutions when the decision involves non-technical factors. In perspective it seems to me that the scientist deals with physical laws and fundamental concepts that are no respecter of time and place. The manager deals with social and economic factors that are always specific in time and place. The engineer bridges the gap between these two. His jot is to show how the timeless knowledge of science can be put to work in a given situation to meet a specific need at a specific time. to recognize this teamwork and these relationships. In fact, I do not think they are fully recognized today. It is because of the existence of this relat~on- ship, however, that we are becoming impressed with the changing nature of engineering. We see this teamwork happening and do not realize what the game is. In a sense, we confuse the lineman with the quarterback and the end with the tackle. Have you ever seen It has taken us some time 12
a TV football game watched by a person who did not know anything about the game? If so, you will know what I am talking about. In all areas of mants endeavor there exists the same three-part teamwork I have described. In these other areas, the counterpart of the engineer is given a different name. In medicine he is called a doctor. In education, a teacher. In the atmos- pheric environment, a meteorologist. Whatever the name, the functional role parallels that of the engineer and there exists a common bond of interest and the possibility for transference of knowledge among these parallel functions. Other professions are finding that they can adopt engineering talents and engineering is also being enriched by the knowledge gained. This functional role of the engineer has also produced other relationships of importance. In the first place, other professions need our instruments. The oceanographers and the atmospheric scientists are in this position right now. In order to explore any new environment on this globe or in order to explore any new system of activity one needs to make measurements. Ultimately, most other professionals will come to the engineer ~ ~ . _ ~ ~ . _ ~ ~ =1~ =~- ~ ~ =~= Id WE c~ ~:a~ur Ably .y~:~. The medical people are doing quite a lot of this these days. Other professions are also interested in engineering methodology and techniques. The techniques of operation research, the techniques of programming' and the techniques of change which the engineer has worked on and has been able to evolve in rather simplified systems are now becoming extended to more complex systems. You see, the engineer has had an advantage. He has been able to deal with artificial systems that he has created, and these artificial systems have very few components. Consequently, the relationship can be simple compared to many of our natural systems. By study of these simple systems, we can evolve relationships which lead to generalizations. These have possible application to more complex systems. Thus, hopefully, relationships of transfers and transport of materials worked out in a rather simplified way can ultimately be applied to the very complex problem of transporting people within urban communities. But, I would give you still a broader perspective on engineering. This picture contains not only the fruits of engineer- ing but also their accompanying problems. One need be only an alert observer to appreciate the pervasiveness of the fruits of engineering in our society. Recently Mr. A. V. Tunison, Associate Director of Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, wrote to me, and I quote, ''The role of engineering is unique in its impact on the everyday life of all of us. There is no other field that exerts such a strong influence 13
on our relations with each other and on our environment. Seldom do we stop to appreciate the fantastic engineering technology that supports our way of life. The electric alarm buzzer that awakens us, our morning shower, the highways, skyscrapers, protection from floods and hurricanes, airplanes in the sky, and the ship at sea are all possible because of an incredible complex whose heart is the engineering sciences." Such improved comforts and advantages and the standards of living are not, however, without their dark side. As we learn to control our environment, we create new problems. We have the problems of overproduction. We have the adverse problems produced from automation. We have side-effects on our environment, both from defense and non-defense applications. Alert observers of our society have pinpointed some of the disadvantages and have used them in arguing against taking advantage of the fruits of our engineering. Mr. J. O'Brien, recent Director of the Office of Oil and Gas in the Department of the Interior, wrote to me not long ago on this subject. In part he said, '7Not infrequently engineering projects or resource development produces adverse cultural condi- tions. These are usually long-term effects which may be difficult to foresee, but there are also short-term side-effects which care- ful engineering appraisal should reveal. An obvious one is un- employment of workers displaced by mechanization, but there are less obvious but equally injurious effects, such as the disruption of the ecological balance of a region by large engineering projects. 'tAir and water pollution are the direct results of a variety of engineering advances and technological progress through the years. Engineers are now called upon to remedy these condi- tions which in some regions border on disaster. Undoubtedly, there are other adverse conditions resulting from our highly mechanized economy, which engineers will have to correct." So, it is generally recognized that engineering is an activity which produces physical change, advances our comfort, im- proves our standard of living, and, at the same time, creates new problems. What is generally not seen, however, is that engineering, because of these things, has a much more fundamental role to play. Basically, and fundamentally, engineering is a force that produces social change. Let me elaborate a little because this is probably the most important thing I have to say. We talk about man going into outer space, and we recognize that he will face many obstacles in so doing. Outer space is a hostile environment to man. He will need to take his own food. He will need to take his own atmosphere. He will need to carry h world with him. 1' 4
What we do not recognize is that the same situations face us here on earth. Man does not live any more in the natural world of the ancients. Man is even now living in a world to which he is not native. Certainly man is not native to a world of tele- vision and detergents and fast automobiles and jet travel. Man has created this world. He has created a world into which his newborn are almost as foreign as would be a child of Mars if he came to earth. A good Lit of our problem these days lies in acclimating our young to the world which we have created. I am not going to argue whether this world is good or bad. The fact remains that it exists. Man has created it, and much of that which has been created is the work of engineers The history of man is a record of learning to use nature, learning to reduce the resources and forces of nature to maximum potential and use. In the process of doing this, we have abandoned the concepts of fortuity and chance. We have substituted in their place the methods of design and analysis. It is still possible, to a degree, to enjoy the gifts of nature on a happenstance basis, but the chances of so doing are becoming less and less, particularly as our population grows. The number of individuals who can be served in a chance way is a mere handful compared to the population. The needs of man are far too great to be met any longer on a happen- stance basis. They can be met only by design and analysis. My basic point is this: That we live in a world where man, a creature of nature, has made use of the forces of nature to superimpose upon what nature has provided. Man has devised machines, systems of machines, processes, superstructures, and combinations thereof, through which man controls and directs nature. Engineering is central to this activity. Engineering not only a process that produces physical changes. It is also force that directs social change by virtue of the way in which makes our world different than it was before. IS a it I am sure this group realizes the impact of my statements. If we had never even invented or developed the automobile, and if we had never built highways, this would be a different world than it is. Suppose our system of transportation had taken some other form. The act of bringing into being the creations with which the engineer works also sets into motion changes in the form of our living and in the environment which controls our destiny. I think, in fact, that engineering is one of the most important evolutionary forces existing in the civilization that we know today.
Not that I claim engineering provides or has provided the motivating influence for this. In fact, I do not think it has. It is not the engineering profession particularly that wants a new road, a method of transmitting pictures from place to place, or a convenient set of structures with which to play recorded voices. I think the engineer may be intrigued with these possibilities, he may be challenged to provide the system to do these things, or he may be fired with a certain zeal that the lot of mankind will be easier if these things exist. But, by and large, the impetus for providing such devices comes from outside the engineering profes- sion. The engineer provides the implementation. He undertakes the activity that fills these needs. It seems to me that of all the changes that have taken place, it is the change itself that contributes most to the role of the engineer. The engineer has already created many new systems that control our life and some, such as computers and automation, will be just as important in determing our future culture as was the hand axe for early man. The computer in the hands of man today is as much a device for changing man's culture as was the first stone hammer. Tools and machines today differ from early cultural tools in that they are more complex and more massive and in that they deal more with the elemental forces of nature, but they represent the same kind of influence. So, it seems to me that the engineer has within his power the capability of directing the future of society in terms of the things he creates and the systems he is willing to work on and control. This type of activity and knowledge carries with it certain responsibilities. In this respect engineering occupies a different place in society than has been recognized in the past. The engineer Is first responsibility today, taking into account all these changes, is, of course, the same as that of any profes- sional, namely, to use his tools with wisdom, to use them with a concern for the total welfare of mankind and with a view toward the grand design rather than toward the specific job. In this sense, the engineer has always had a responsi- bility. There are, however, two other responsibilities worthy of mention. As the engineer carries on he will create new problems. He will set in motion new forces. He will not only alter the landscape of our country, but he will alter the landscape of our culture. So it is necessary for the engineer to accept responsi- bilities for bringing his knowledge and understanding to bear on the processes of decision-making, not only within the confines of his employment, but also within the context of our forum of public discussions and governmental procedures. 16
Part of this knowledge and understanding can be translated into advice and counsel through the actions of individual engineers. Part of it can be brought to bear by engineers being more active in public affairs or by leaving engineering as a profession and going into service as public officials. The third responsibility for engineering is that it must be willing to disseminate and interpret its knowledge and to share it in depth with the public as a whole. Let me use another analogy. We have a system of self-government that works, but not because we had a few dreamers and experts who laid down on paper a grand Constitution, a Declaration of Independence, a M)gna Charta, or any other document. We don't have the system merely because our leaders understand it. The reason we have a workable system of self-government, it seems to me, is that we, as a people, under- stand it. We will continue to have it to the degree that we understand it, to the degree that we practice it in our homes, to the degree that we practice it in our schools, and practice it in our work. This is a way of life with us. It seems to me that there are similar reasons why we en- joy good public health in this country. We have become health conscious. We listen to our doctor not only when we are sick, and we go to him for more than a cure. We participate in mass inocula- tions. We carry on broad health research projects. We do every- thing that we can to instill in our children the importance of personal health and sanitation. We have signs upon our highways that specify fines for littering. We all understand these things and take them as a way of life. Now, we do not have a similar broad understanding of the importance of technology and its role in our society. There are very few people who understand the true directing force of tech- nology. There are few people who stop or pause at all to consider what a decision today to engage in a certain engineering activity may mean to them five or ten years from now. We need a broad dissemination throughout the public mind of the importance of technologies as modifying forces in our culture and in our life. It is up to the engineer, who is the dominant architect of the force, to tell the story. In summary, then, the thing I have to bring you today is this. The role of the engineer today is somewhat different than it has been in the past. Engineering has grown up and has de- veloped in a major sense. It is becoming more mature. It is concerned with systems. It is dealing with preventive subjects. It is dealing with control rather than correction. Its relation- ship to other professions is changing. The engineer Is job must be 17
viewed in perspective with the jobs that both the scientist, on the one hand, and the manager, on the other, have to do. Engineering has an opportunity to make a great contri- bution to other professions in terms of transfer of concepts, of instrumentation and of methods and techniques. There is, more importantly, however, the fact that engineering plays a role in directing the manner in which our society will live and the form which our culture will take tomorrow. From this, it seems to me, the engineer must not only be a better specialist and a better professional, doing his job where he does it, with a view toward the broad picture, but he ought to make his impact felt wherever decisions are made. He ought to take a more active part in disseminating an understanding of this whole picture throughout the spectrum of public life. ~8
