Dyson Discussion
I wish to submit a commentary on Henry Petroski’s article “Engineering Reputations” (Refractions, October 2021 Prism). Petroski reviewed James Dyson’s book Invention: A Life. I feel three points need to be made about the article:
First, he quotes and agrees with Dyson’s characterization of engineering and its industries as “somehow grubby … uncultured, and even anti-intellectual.” Petroski appears to fixate on the word “grubby.” My experience is different. I am very old and have participated in organizations in and out of engineering and academia. I have never heard the word “grubby” or its analogues used about engineering.
Secondly, Petroski expresses the view that the achievements in space flight made by the engineers at Virgin Galactic and SpaceX, and on the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, might cause the status of engineering to soar once again. Given the vast range of engineering, I am incredulous that one field—space flight—should define the status of engineering.
A third point: Dyson uses the words “uncultured and even anti-intellectual” to characterize engineering. Petroski chimed in that he was treated with “disdain” by his humanities and social science colleagues. Indeed, there is a huge gap. In the November 2021 Financial Times article “We Need to Talk About Techie Tunnel Vision,” US Editor-at-Large Gillian Tett makes an excellent point: “Engineers may be blind to the social context because they see life through the rigid lens of tech.” Indeed, given the growing pervasiveness of technology in the lives of people, new challenges and opportunities are created for all of us, including engineers.
Walter Giger Jr., P.E.
Wethersfield, CT
Henry Petroski responds:
1. “Grubby” is Dyson’s word. It is not one I would normally use, but in this column I did refer back to Dyson’s thoughts and experiences across the pond. I don’t know that I have ever heard the word associated with engineering in America, but Dyson lives, works, speaks, and writes in British English.
2. I believe the American response to Sputnik, President Kennedy’s challenge to put men on the moon, and the accomplishment of doing so did a lot to call attention to the value and importance of engineering to national and human goals. NASA’s efforts to keep the public informed of its missions were also positive developments. Just recently, Elon Musk’s private space company brought astronauts back from the International Space Station and took others up to it. The brief excursions into space in craft carrying civilians promoted by Branson and Bezos may also bring fresh interest in, and respect for, engineering. [Editor’s note: See “The Flight of the Billionaires,” Last Word, October 2021 Prism.] Such ventures can be seen and comprehended by the layperson and nonengineering scientist as works of engineering to be admired. This is not to say that they should define engineering, but they may epitomize it to some people. The fixed number of words allocated to any column does limit how many examples can be given.
3. I agree that the pervasiveness of technology throughout society presents new challenges and opportunities for engineers and nonengineers alike. The National Academy of Engineering recognizes this in stating that the problems of the twenty-first century must be looked at through more than a hard technological lens, something that is an important aspect of the NAE’s Grand Challenges program. But I don’t think it does any harm to remind nonengineers that, by analogy, they should not view our increasingly technology-intensive world through a soft lens only.