Why isn't more engineering input sought for public policy?Lawyers, economists, political analysts including the armchair variety, unionists and "social" activists of all hues, verbally prance on the entire spectrum of media outlets during discussions on the budget, Constitution, environment and the multitude of issues that, from time to time, come to the fore.
Engineers, it would appear, are either quite media-shy or are considered to be rather irrelevant to social debates. Spotting an engineer in the media seems to be as rare as meeting a constructive unionist!I have always found it curious that lawyers and economists feel qualified and confident to talk on the widest range of issues, including engineering, whilst engineers tend to be reticent on public issues to the point of being recalcitrant.
Colleagues, be warned; recalcitrance is the doorway to irrelevance. Engineering input, in the face of accelerating technological penetration in all spheres of activities and global challenges like food security, transnational crime and climate change, is absolutely vital to the well-being and progress of society.
Public order and security is a national and international concern. One element of the plan is the use of high technology like drones and sophisticated ships. And quite rightly so. But was there any engineering advice on the reliability and maintenance of these new technologies and the type of engineering manpower required for cost-effective operations?
Maybe engineers are still seen as narrow technical specialists who only perform specific tasks as directed. Such has no longer been the case, for quite some time now.
The work performed by engineers is intertwined with the development of society and the safety and well-being of citizens. Poorly-designed roads have a negative impact on the pockets of the taxpayer and the treasury. Citizens' cars are more likely to suffer from excessive wear and tear with accidents having a higher likelihood of occurring. Poorly-designed buildings are more likely to collapse during earthquakes.
The impact of the environment and people's lives brought about by engineering projects, especially large infrastructure projects, can be either positive or negative. This is why, in engineering design, the consideration of social impact is included from the initial stages. After all, the projects are for the benefit of the citizens and hence engineers must interface with public officials and the average citizen.
Recognising this, and in an attempt to address this educational lacuna, several universities now offer programmes that address the important questions of critical policy problems in technology and policy in which technical details are important.
These include the Harvard John F Kennedy School of Government and the Carnegie Mellon College of Engineering. The aim is to improve the ways in which engineering and scientific expertise is engaged with public decision-making and policy processes at the local, national and international levels.
One specific outcome of such programmes is to endow engineers and scientists with a vocabulary that can be understood by policy makers. The reverse is also true as a requirement for effective communications between different disciplines is a common vocabulary subset.
Someone has to initiate the change. The onus naturally falls on the Association of Professional Engineers of T&T (APETT). It must become proactive and insist on being invited to participate in public-policy discussions, including discussions on the budget. Its influence can only grow if it lobbies and insists on registration with the Board of Engineering as a necessity to practise.
Further, a robust public education campaign should be embarked upon to highlight the role and functions of engineers in developing a prosperous and developed country.Over to you, APETT.