Engineer readers exhibited a range of opinions on genetic technologies as a branch of engineering, with the general opinion in favour of accepting this new discipline into the fold
The results of last week’s poll on the changing face of engineering weren’t quite as clear-cut as we were anticipating. The term ‘genetic engineering’ is so widely used that we were expecting a clear majority of responses accepting genetic manipulation as a branch of engineering, but although that was the largest group, it was by no means overwhelming. Of the 218 respondents, 37 per cent agreed that it should be considered engineering, while 26 per cent thought that the skills needed for genetic tinkering differed too much from the maths-dominated skills needed for other engineering disciplines.
Only slightly fewer – 19 per cent – thought that accepting gene technology as a branch of engineering required a redefinition of the term; while 12 per cent thought that the ethical implications of genetics took it outside the engineering sphere. A further six per cent declined to pick an option.
Please continue to send us your opinions on this topic.
And so what if it is a form of engineering? How would this redefinition change the situation and make this a debate of importance?
There are already many other medical fields that intrinsically incorporate engineering principles. For example, surgery uses it extensively: reconstructive plastic surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and cardiac surgeons. One can even say that the anesthetists involve a branch of “chemical engineering”. But so what?
Do we call surgeons “engineers”? What difference would name-change semantics make to their clients and their profession? Buggerall !
Next!
If surgeons were called “Engineers” then their pay would fall dramatically and almost immediately.
Your argument about the “less certain world of biology” seems to suggest that biology isn’t controlled by physical laws. Biology still follows the laws of physics, there is just an extra layer or more of complexity above other areas of engineering.
That we do not yet fully understand it shouldn’t prevent us from treating it as engineering, as history is full of examples of where practical applications have been developed long before the underlying science has been fully understood.
Also, can I ask, what does a conventional engineers office look like?
(And what does a “conventional engineer” look like?)
I would say that the actual gene manipulation part belongs to the bio-chemists but engineering’s role is significant in designing and building the tools and equipment to allow it to happen. This should not be under-estimated given the requirements for precision, safety, cleanliness etc.
I’m currently doing a software engineering course through the OU. Week 1 started with the following definition by G. F. C. Rogers. Writing in the early 1980s he defined engineering as ‘the practice of organising the design and construction of any artifice which transforms the physical world around us to meet some recognized need’ (Rogers, 1983).
If that definition holds true, and I think it does, then gene editing is engineering.
There is more to engineering than “organising the design and construction of any artifice which transforms the physical world around us to meet some recognized need”, valid though that may be. Engineering is also a way of thinking, and an approach to developing ‘things’, systems and technologies, for example.
If you look at synthetic biology, and area where engineers play a large role, you will see that it takes an engineering approach to the development of the artificial organisms and systrems that it uses in the production of materials, chemicals and so on.
Let me paraphrase the writing of one of the leading lights in synthetic biology in the UK:
Synthetic biology involves systematic design, based on the engineering principles of modularisation, characterisation and standardisation. Modularisation breaks a system down into modules or sub-units. Characterisation, in this context, describes the function of BioParts, components, in a process is similar to defining how a transistor works. Standardisation entails implementing procedures to maximise compatibility, interoperability, safety, repeatability and quality. These principles give us a framework that is familiar to other fields, where engineers build devices and systems from standard components and devices.
This has yet to be published, so I will keep my source anonymous. (Happy to talk about it Stuart.)
I leave it to “real engineers” to decide if this makes genetic technology a branch of engineering.
I have always held the view that engineering is the application of science to create (make) something. That is a somewhat less verbose version of the G. F. C. Rogers definition quoted above by Paul McMahon, but is it on the same lines. Engineering is a transformative process, be that thought or deed, that utilises science as its platform. So I wouldn’t have a problem calling genetic manipulation a form of engineering if it creates something different to that produced by nature.
But that doesn’t mean the practitioners should necessarily be called Engineers – that’s for them to decide. We shouldn’t impose our professional title on others just because we lay claim to parts of their discipline.
Isn´t it also the question how to distinguish between science and engineering? We usually consider engineering rather as the practical application of more or less well known results of sciences (supporting the “correct” theory). Scientist usually deal with a rather low number of examples but at a very high level of profoundness, while engineers with a high number of examples but not at the same level of profoundness of its basic function. Scientists and engineers are usually confronted with different aspects of a certain developement (basic function / safety issues, economic production…).
So, where are we in genetic technology, at the level of science or engineering? (N.b. there are quite different brances of genetic technology!)
Engineering isn’t just the application of the “results of sciences” – it is frequently engineering that is used to prove the “correct theory”. Think of all the engineering that went into the design and production of the LHC which went on to prove the existence of the, up until then, theoretical Higgs particle.
Why am I reminded of the fact that surgeons ‘operate’ on a single human whilst we Engineers mostly work within organisations which offer our skills corporately.