Since then, that budding engineer has watched 30-odd years go by, an amazing third of a century that whizzed by as if on fast forward. I’ve had the pleasure to count among my friends a handful of people who have walked on the moon, a Nobel laureate and a couple of individuals who revolutionized the world with the invention of something called the integrated circuit (aptly known in Japan as “industrial rice”), to mention but a few.
I am very proud to be an engineer-or, as I suspect others might say of me, to have been an engineer before I descended into management. But that sense of pride is not without an ample portion of frustration. That’s because engineering-which produced the stealth fighter-is itself a stealth profession, voiceless and invisible when important matters of public policy are debated.
Perhaps our lot and our influence could be improved by the ultimate visibility gambit: an exciting new TV program called “L.A. Engineer.” Arnold Schwarzenegger could star, or better yet, Brooke Shields.
Pretty implausible, right? But why should it be?
A news article once described the visit of a bright young student to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Thrilled by the excitement that surrounded him as millions of dollars exchanged hands every few seconds, he exclaimed: “This is where it’s at.”
I would submit “this” is not where it’s at. Not even close. Where “it’s at” is in the laboratories, the engineering facilities, on the factory floors-right where it has been for decade after decade. But we engineers have abjectly failed to convince large numbers of young people that there just might be something exciting about building great dams, designing a telephone you can carry in your pocket or developing a backpack that can be used by an astronaut flying 25,000 miles an hour through space.
Yet, Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz” could not conceal her disappointment when she found out that the Wizard was a mere … inventor. The bad rep goes back to ancient Greece: Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato, argued in the fourth century B.C. that “what are called the mechanical arts carry a social stigma and are rightly dishonored in our cities.” Less typical, regrettably, is the story of Imhotep, the fellow who is believed to have designed the first of Egypt’s great pyramids. Like modern tourists, ancient Egyptians marveled at his work and ingenuity; so much so that he was deified and worshiped as a god. Now that’s how engineers ought to be treated. Unfortunately, not too many of us can look forward to such hero worship.
Nor, in the absence of strong engineering counsel, can the world look forward to solving some of the most demanding problems confounding our planet-from repairing the environment to providing clean, affordable energy; from fueling economic growth and its companion standard of living to helping assure freedom and security; from improving health care to building civilization’s infrastructure.
To a considerable segment of the public, the word “technology” conjures up images of Chernobyl, Bhopal and the Challenger. Too often technology is perceived as the problem rather than the solution; as something to be avoided rather than embraced. This is about as logical as the wry claim made by my daughter many years ago, who observed while our family was driving through an unfamiliar city, “Trying to read a map while driving causes all the traffic lights to turn green.”
Some years ago, Sen. Clinton Anderson, long an advocate of the supersonic transport-the SST-switched his position at the last minute and cast what roved to be one of the decisive votes leading to the project’s demise. Later, when asked why, he replied, “I read my mail.”
He had received 86 letters and telegrams on the morning of the Senate roll call-almost all were in opposition-and none were from anyone in the engineering profession.
I suspect most legislators would offer similar conclusions today regarding the advice they receive on significant technical issues. Less than 2 percent of our Congress, only eight out of 535 members of the House and Senate, list their occupation as engineer. Yet we live in an era when the impact of technology will continue to be profound. If technology issues are improperly decided, that impact will be extremely negative. Making the right choices will help to ensure that our world does indeed become a better place.
Of course, speaking out entails a considerable standard of responsibility on the part of the professional doing so. But engineers over the centuries have become accustomed to accepting heavy responsibilities. According to the Babylonians’ ancient Code of Hammurabi, if a builder made a house and the house collapsed and caused the death of the owner of the house, the builder was put to death.
While I would not propose quite so harsh a measure, I would nonetheless assert that our profession must accept the risk of participation in any public debate involving technological issues. It would even seem we have an obligation in this regard if we are to fulfill our potential to be among the guardians of the world’s highest quality of life.
Only then will we have earned our rightful place of honor-the opportunity to tune in one evening a week to watch Arnold and Brooke put their heads and computer terminals together–once again saving the world with not a nanosecond to spare.
