I found this writer's perspective to be valuable--made me think that he's right about engineering being slighted. You can read the full article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02351.html

Want to Engineer Real Change? Don't Ask a Scientist. By Henry Petroski
Sunday, January 25, 2009; Page B04

"We will restore science to its rightful place," President Obama declared in his inaugural address. That certainly sounds like a worthy goal. But frankly, it has me worried. If we want to "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories," as Obama has decreed, we shouldn't look to science. What we need is engineering.

To be fair, Obama's misconception is a common one. Most people who aren't scientists or engineers seem to think that science and engineering are the same. They're not. Science seeks to understand the world as it is; only engineering can change it.

That's not what most high-school teachers or even college professors tell their science students. But the truth is that full scientific understanding isn't always necessary for technological advancement. Take steam engines: They were pumping water out of mines long before a science of thermodynamics was developed to explain how they worked. The engines were what prompted researchers to look into the nature of steam power in the first place.......

Petroski's point is well taken, but I wonder whether he missed Obama's point.

The Bush administration was notoriously hostile to science, from ignoring research on climate change, to squelching studies that exploded mythology about a link between abortion and cancer, to firing environmentalists who questioned corporate plans, to watering down biology education with concessions to the religous right. Read Chris Mooney's "The Republican war on science" for many ugly details.

Of course you need engineers to solve problems. But you need scientists to tell you whether there is a problem in the first place. And the Bush administration consistently fired, intimidated, or edited any government scientist whose study disagreed with neocon ideology.

That's what I thought Obama was talking about, and I cheered when he said it because he's absolutely right, and Petroski hasn't changed my mind about it. I'm still cheering. Just not out loud anymore. Well, not so much anyway.

Billy C wrote:Petroski's point is well taken, but I wonder whether he missed Obama's point.

The Bush administration was notoriously hostile to science, from ignoring research on climate change, to squelching studies that exploded mythology about a link between abortion and cancer, to firing environmentalists who questioned corporate plans, to watering down biology education with concessions to the religous right. Read Chris Mooney's "The Republican war on science" for many ugly details.

Of course you need engineers to solve problems. But you need scientists to tell you whether there is a problem in the first place. And the Bush administration consistently fired, intimidated, or edited any government scientist whose study disagreed with neocon ideology.

That's what I thought Obama was talking about, and I cheered when he said it because he's absolutely right, and Petroski hasn't changed my mind about it. I'm still cheering. Just not out loud anymore. Well, not so much anyway.

Yeah...I think the captioned article missed it as well. Anyway...is not Engineering dependant on Physics and other sciences to have the ability to....Engineer? Materials, motion, stability...all depend on solid math and science.

C'mon, guys, Petroski is glad Obama is featuring science once again. He's just taking an opportunity to do a little Rodney Dangerfield thing about engineering--but legitimately, in my view.

DWill wrote:C'mon, guys, Petroski is glad Obama is featuring science once again. He's just taking an opportunity to do a little Rodney Dangerfield thing about engineering--but legitimately, in my view.

I am all for science and engineering! Anything but blind faith....or just blindness like we had the past 8 years.

DWill wrote:Science seeks to understand the world as it is; only engineering can change it.

Similar to Karl Marx's comment about philosophy and politics. My opinion, having just today got my copy of the Australian edition of Bad Money, is that the old American can-do attitude has been destroyed by the finance pea-and-thimble industry. The lack of progress of my friend Terry Spragg at www.waterbag.com shows the lack of interest in the necessary transformative large scale engineering projects which will be needed to save America. He could have saved New Orleans from the flood, and California might yet face a levee disaster which his technology could avert. Shame no one talks to him. Engineering is definitely unpopular in America.