The Dangers of Confusing Engineering with Science

Illustration: Harry Campbell.

From IEEE Spectrum article "Engineering is not Science."

I'd like to quickly highlight an article that brings us back to a seemingly timeless question: what exactly is an engineer? Henry Petroski, a professor of engineering and history at Duke University, writes about the importance of distinguishing scientists and engineers in this month's IEEE Spectrum. (note: IEEE stands for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and is a non-profit professional association. Spectrum is their monthly magazine.)

In the article, Mr. Petroski argues two key points:

1. Engineering and science are distinct fields. "Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things."
2. The United States government should increase funding for engineering fields. "Scientists might argue that the government needs to invest in basic scientific research that will lead to unspecified discoveries about energy, water, and waste. Although a good deal is already known about those things, it certainly would not hurt to know more, but what would really move things forward would be investments in engineering."

This underfunding and confusion between the fields leads to a dangerous impact: "...it can leave politicians,policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today."

While I agree that it is important to make the distinction between the fields, I was bothered by the article's implication that science and scientists are "higher ranking" than engineering. Upon reflection, that public perception is probably true -- how many times when news broadcasts have discussed solving world issues has a scientist been brought in as the expert vs. an engineer? (Another question to consider is how many times has that technical expert been a woman -- but that's an issue for another post.)

If you take the time to read the article, be sure to check out the comments section. Being engineers, most of the commenters are quick to agree with the "We are definitely NOT scientists! HMPH!" sentiment. Something that struck me, however, was a quip that was being copied over and over again: Engineers learn to build. Scientists build to learn. Really? Engineers = builders? Is anyone else conjuring up images of the children's television show Bob the Builder? I can understand trying to come up with a succinct statement to remember how to differentiate the two fields -- hey, it worked for 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' or the sound of 'a' as in "neighbor" and "weigh". Even if we agree with the statement, then a new question arises -- how are we different from designers? Yikes. We recognize that engineering is a complex intersection of math, science, designing, and a multitude of other fields. I don't think it's wrong to state that fact openly -- we should give the American public more credit for being able to understand fields aren't always black and white.

As a final note, the article highlights the issues that arise when engineering and science are not properly distinguished. However, it fails to mention any solutions for how we can promote engineering and emphasize its differences from science. How do you think this can be accomplished? I'd love to hear your responses in the comments!