Readers letters
What's in a name? 'A rose may smell as sweet by any other name'; but would an engineer perhaps smell sweeter to the public by some other name? The usage of the name 'Engineer' has been discussed at length, in PE recently and over many years. The English language seems peculiarly unable to convey a consistent, clear and meaningful impression to society in general of what most readers of PE think they are and do. To the public (also the Oxford English Dictionary) it can be a trade or a profession, or indeed both. But no one thinks of a 'brain surgeon' as an extremely gifted and skilled tradesperson even though the manual element rates highly. In the USA (where they speak a form of English!) a locomotive driver is called an engineer so the connection with ingenuity and invention (as suggested in a recent letter) is weakened. In my younger working days (60 years ago) it seemed a little clearer as fitters, maintenance staff, machinists, metalworkers, foundrymen, pattern makers, mechanics, et al were not lumped together as 'engineers' and the 'Chief Engineer' was held in awe. However in later years it became advantageous for both prestigious and financial reasons to swap the title 'engineer' for 'manager' as soon as possible.
Scientists don't have the same problem and are generally held in high esteem by the public. Outstanding technical achievements are frequently related to 'rocket science'. Would not 'rocket engineering' be more appropriate though in most cases. Scientists also get regular, almost daily, coverage in the media. How about the team of scientists who recreated the sound that grasshoppers apparently made at the time of the dinosaurs? Or yet another team who determined that 'T Rex' had a bite as strong as being squashed by an elephant! (radio 4's To-day Programme). All very interesting but I do wonder how large these 'teams' were.
Design forms a large part of engineering but the public is unaware of the finesse required to match such things as product performance, price, manufacturability, life, maintainability, safety, etc. Such designs often require a high degree of knowledge of materials and the academic subjects. To the public a 'designer' is someone with a pencil (or perhaps a computer) who sketches things that look attractive; vital to the success of many products these days but disguising the major engineering work that goes on behind the scenes. Who can blame the public if it is always 'behind the scenes'.
To 'engineer' something can also have sinister connotations, eg: to engineer a plot or someone's downfall. Politicians and journalists are not held in high regard but, at least, the public knows what they get up to. Conversely the 'architect' of some great social scheme is seldom actually an architect. But the usage in this way reflects well on their profession in spite of the monstrosities sometimes produced having no place to hide!.
I used to have a business card with 'EurIng' before my name and it was often thought, even in business circles, to be my first name and sometimes that I was probably Welsh! When filling in a form which offers titles such as Mr, Mrs, Dr, etc with a space for some other title has anyone ever put 'EurIng'? If so was it used thereafter by the recipient? I have mixed feelings about titles as there are so many PhD's and Professors about these days and, typical of the English way, when a Dr becomes a surgeon he reverts to Mr. I've yet to find out what a lady surgeon calls herself! Such is the perversity of the English language in which the top private schools are called public schools, hills are called downs and Captain Mainwaring insists on being called 'Mannering'.
Nothing should stop people from all walks of life inventing things and trying to create businesses from their ideas but they should be able to call upon and rely on qualified engineers as necessary to further their ideas and point out any problems.
There is a need for a protected and well understood profession but I doubt that any legislation could now reverse the tide of the common usage of 'engineer'. 'Technologist' has been debated as an alternative in the past - obviously without success. It is, actually, a very appropriate description of an engineer, meaning as it does an exponent of applied science. It also rates in the public's mind on a par with science. But somehow it doesn't sound right and, after rambling on about the shortcomings of the English language, I wonder in the end whether the only practical way forward is a much greater emphasis on and promotion of the differentiation between qualified Chartered Engineers and other, self styled, engineers.
David J Wickham, Melksham, Wilts
Next letter: Lack of technical and commercial critique