Last week, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Committee published the results of a yearlong inquiry into the state of the UK engineering sector. The 140-page report, Engineering: Turning Ideas into Reality, at last appears to recognise the fundamental differences between engineering and science – an aspect not lost on IET president, Chris Earnshaw, whose organisation has been drumming on for years to get engineering representation established within government policy-making departments.
Engineering advice and scientific advice offer different things, the report asserts, and it urges recognition of this in the policy process. In certain key policy areas, government does not have sufficient in-house engineering expertise to act as an ‘intelligent customer’, and engineering advice is frequently not sought early enough during policy formulation. Indeed, the Committee expressed ‘shock’ at the discovery that engineering advice had been lacking in the formulation of policies as important and diverse as eco-towns, renewable energy and large IT projects. Making the distinction between scientists and engineers, the report states:
“Science and engineering are disciplines that differ fundamentally, particularly in their goals: scientists set out to find out how things work whereas engineers typically are more interested in whether they can turn ideas into reality. In a policy situation the distinction is obvious. For example, in setting carbon emissions targets one might turn to scientists to gain an understanding of what impact carbon emissions have on the climate and to engineers to identify what is possible in terms of practical actions. Only with both strands of advice is it possible to set meaningful targets and develop a strategy for meeting them.”
Quite so, but where are the government’s engineering advisers, and is there sufficient will within government to create such posts?
In his evidence to the Committee, former president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Professor Lord Broers (who, having worked for many years in the United States, confessed to having undertaken the roles of both engineer and scientist in the course of his career) expressed agreement that there should be a government Chief Engineer. Asked if he would settle for a Chief Scientific and Engineering Adviser, he quipped that he would settle for a Chief Engineering and Scientific Adviser.
Other providers of evidence to the Committee were more forthcoming. Bob Dover, former chairman and CEO of Jaguar Land Rover, when asked if the government would benefit from having a Chief Engineer, believed that the post was “much more important” than a Chief Scientist. Professor Dame Wendy Hall was equally emphatic about the appointment of a Chief Engineering Adviser, noting that just as Chief Scientific Advisers set best practice for science policy in a department, you need the engineering expertise to set best practice for engineering policy.
In its own submission, the Royal Academy of Engineering pointed out that there is growing support for the appointment of a Chief Engineer, distinct from the Government Chief Scientist. Engineers, it said, have particular skill in the deployment of resources to meet national goals and measures, the management of risk and the assessment of technological solutions to problems like climate change and security of energy supply - all of which are essential to good policy making. Such an appointment would also go a substantial way to ensure that engineering is appropriately represented in government.
A problem that we face in the UK is creating a large enough engineering skills base in the first place, and then keeping and maintaining it. There is undoubtedly a great pool of potential engineering talent in our schools, but the fundamental building blocks of engineering – maths, physics and chemistry – seem not to be taught with the rigour and methodology of past decades. Last week’s broadside by Ofqual, which deemed GCSE science standards as “clearly a cause for concern”, does rather prove the point. The danger is that we are simply not stretching the most talented pupils with ‘tick-box’ examination papers and we possibly risk losing a generation of engineers to other professions.
Quite apart from this, the engineering profession has a seemingly insurmountable image problem here in the UK. And for professionals held in such low esteem, the temptation to move to places where their skills are more highly appreciated and rewarded is great indeed.
In assessing the UK’s engineering skills needs, it is important that the government should not ‘navel gaze’ but keep one eye on the competition, warns the IUSS Committee. Monitoring the extent to which the activities of other nation states are likely to compete for the indigenous skills base is particularly important in the current economic climate.
The controversial $787billion US economic stimulus package, for example, will create opportunities for engineers to work on projects including upgrading the electric grid ($11 billion), kick-starting the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ($400 million), and battery research ($2 billion). It also proposes $1 billion be given to NASA ($400 million of which could be spent on rocket development). The Committee concedes that these opportunities are unlikely to appeal only to the US’s domestic engineering population.
The report of the Committee acknowledges the current urgency in its conclusion:
“We are convinced that the considerable strength of the UK’s engineering base makes it both this nation’s responsibility and in its economic interest to play a major part, through our engineering base, in solving global problems such as climate change, food and water supply, energy security and economic instability. The recent economic crisis has presented the government with a once-in-generation opportunity to restructure the economy by building on the existing substantial strengths of UK engineering.”
Les Hunt
Editor