not now interested? For example, should there not be more papers and articles recording experience, which would appeal particularly to the many electrical engineers who use electric power and electrical equipment but are not connected with the manufacture of either—papers that would relate to electrical applications in the textile, the automobile, the oil, the chemical, the mining, and other industries? Might there not be an increased considera­tion of the problems of the profession, such as registration, and an endeavor even more actively to study and assist in their solution? Can there be a movement toward providing meetings and presenting information to those associated with the electrical industry but not eligible for membership in the Institute? Is all possible being done

OF ALL the definitions of engineering that have been propounded, the one that seems to express most clearly and accurately the true function of the engi­

neer is found in the preamble to the constitution of Ameri­can Engineering Council. In that document engineering is defined as the ' 'science of controlling the forces and utiliz­ing the materials of nature for the benefit of man, and the art of organizing and directing human activities in con­nection therewith."

Engineering is, indeed, a science. Without the least fear of successful contradiction, engineering might be called the oldest of the sciences. Far back in the gray dawn of civilization were heard the first awakenings of the engineering consciousness. The savage who first learned to utilize the energy of a distorted elastic system in the contrivance of the bow and arrow was an engineer. The primordial man who recognized the power of fire as a protective agent against the prowling terrors of the night was an engineer, as truly as any graduate of our foremost technical institutions of today. In the field of science, then, is to be found the generally accepted work of the engineer. Yet, in accord with the definition quoted, scientific application of the laws of nature covers only part of the field of engineering. Associated with the pro­fession there is also the art of organizing and directing hu­man activities. Any ordinary layman, if asked to give his interpretation of the term engineering, would no more think of social organization than he would of music. Many engineers even have no awareness of the art in­volved in their profession. Yet that engineering does involve, inherently, the art of directing human activities in connection with the scientific utilization of natural

to encourage and develop the young men in the technical schools?

I suggest one additional committee, a committee to investigate, review, and plan for "the future of the AIEE." Their deliberations should consider the next 5, 10, and even 25 years. Would we, today, be satisfied with the Institute as it was in 1912? Will the members in 1962 be content with the 1937 model? Is it not in accordance with the "engineering method" not to accept things as they are if improvement is possible, but to make no change unless improvement is probable? I further suggest that this proposed committee particularly plan for activity in those fields where there is the greatest need, even though not the greatest interest.

resources, is a fact that upon a little consideration must be accepted by even the most ardently technical man. That the duty of the engineer to society extends specifi­cally into this field of organization must be apparent to all. The engineer can no more expect the products of his work to be used intelligently by uninitiated society than could a child be expected to use matches and debris for anything other than a harmful conflagration. Yet engineers, as a profession, have been consistently neglect­ing this most important side of their work, thus making possible the international conflagration of the years 1914 to 1918. This is discussed more in detail later in this article.

If the engineer is to concern himself with society, what is he to understand in the term? It has had many inter­pretations in the past, but the one that seems to explain it most clearly is the simple term humanity, or human activity, as mentioned in the AEC definition of engineer­ing quoted previously. The engineer's responsibility to society is a humanistic one, involving the understand­ing of humanity and its individual personal problems as well as an understanding of the scientific problem and its stereotyped solution. It is necessary for the professional man to remember that, before any contemplation of engi­neering as a profession occupied his mind, he was an individual in a society of individuals ; and that, as a matter of course, his duty is first to humanity and next to his

A paper presented at a conference of the AIEE Branches at the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Institute of Technology, and University of West Virginia, held at Pittsburgh, Pa., January 12, 1937.

CHAS. W. BLAKER is a student in electrical engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.

The Engineer's Responsibility to Society A student speaks his mind on a subject of importance to engineers

By CHAS. W. BLAKER ENROLLED STUDENT AIEE

AUGUST 1937 Blaker—Engineer's Responsibility 943

profession. One might say of engineering, as Lincoln said of government, that in order to survive it must be a profession for, by, and of the people; otherwise it must pass in the manner of governments and institutions from the beginning of time that have violated that simple code.

In a broad sense, the responsibility of the engineer to society may be divided into 3 major branches: (1) con­servation, (2) production, and (3) distribution. In the last few years, there has been much publicity concerning the conservation problem. The public has been dosed quite efficiently with conservation propaganda; to such an extent has this been carried out that public sentiment has turned conservation conscious, with the result that much work that is good has been accomplished. Yet much of this fervor is but a transient emotion, engendered by a mild hysteria. Hence, it can but pass, leaving a most incomplete work in its wake, for pure sentiment, though a most potent force in mob psychology, is not sufficiently stable to form a basis upon which may be built the super­structure of any enduring principle. If conservation is a necessity, and in our present condition of envisaged power shortage it certainly is, the engineer should carry out a program of public education that will acquaint the public, in general, with the tremendous scope and importance of the problem.

In contrast to the problem of conservation, that formed by production is of a secondary type, being a problem not in the actual processes of production, but in the complica­tions created by our system of mass production and intense specialization. The production lines in our large automo­bile factories are typical of the type of production wherein the individual consciousness is submerged in that of the entire group. The conditions of our mines and factories are all pregnant with social problems—with living-to­gether implications, as one writer has called them. It is to the engineer that the people must look for the con­tinuation of their individuality in the maze of industrial unification and the amalgamation of humanity.

Of the 3 problems, conservation, production, and dis­tribution, the last is perhaps the most widely publicized, not only in the United States, but throughout the world. It has become an international problem, the solution of which will involve an eruption and disturbance of all exist­ing principles. This disturbance will involve not a change or revolution in that sense, but an upheaval and purging of existing principles—this rather than radical change be­cause there appears to be no other working economic sys­tem wherein the individual is permitted to retain his individuality and is as well rewarded, materially, for in­dividual achievement as in the system under which we in the United States of America live. Every economic system has its faults ; but the faults inherent in capitalism, in comparison with those of other working systems are small indeed from a humanistic viewpoint. By that I have no intention of implying that capitalism is nearly fault-free; it is far from that. However, in relation to other economic systems its defects are minor. In the purging mentioned, probably the evils that will be given the most careful attention are those accompanying idle and unmerited wealth. With the disappearance of that

type of wealth-holder, and the removal of profit from war, the government will have made a definite advance to­ward the era of social readjustment and capitalism will be enabled to assume the position it merits. As a clear and analytic thinker is needed, who can be better qualified than the engineer to handle the remedial measures; who more naturally should handle them than the one whose works have created situations necessitating those reme­dies?

All the foregoing discussion might be condensed into a series of 4 * 'shifts in the social consciousness" for which the engineer might be proved responsible :

1. Shift from individualism to interdependence.

2. Shift from competition to co-operation.

3. Shift from scarcity to plenty with the accompanying living-together implications of industrialized society.

4. Shift from stressing rights to stressing duties. 7 7 - ■■> ' ^ j

A sincere consideration of these shifts will clarify the responsible position of the engineer in connection with the problems he has created.

Last of all to be discussed is that scourge of mankind— War. Not long ago a well-known speaker in Pittsburgh placed the responsibility for the Great War at the feet of the engineer. That is a most startling and grave accusa­tion, the most appalling thing about it being its partial truth. None can deny that war would be impossible were all engineers to decree that it should be made so, for with the engineer lies the power to halt the advancing tide of destruction that threatens to tear apart the familiar struc­tures of civilization. The insupportable horrors of war­fare as it is made possible by engineering developments form one of the few immanent causes for the failure of engineering as mentioned earlier in this article. True, he who wages a battle against the protagonists of war fights no puny skirmish, for against his calculation and powers for analytic thinking lies the weight of money, that magic talisman used to open the doors to the material forces of the world. It will be a battle requiring men.

In closing, a few commonplace remedial measures are outlined, in a study of which the engineer might well profit: 1. Legislation for remedy of existing ills.

2. Thoughtful study of governmental alteration without disturbing the fundamentally sound principles of good government.

3. Profit removal from war.

4. Sensible and equitable distribution of national wealth.

Let engineers interest themselves in somethingoutside their narrow technical field for a time—something outside the bounds of science—and become human and humanitarian, for it is only in such an interest that they can possibly find the solution to the myriad problems of adjustment and reparation awaiting them. In the words of Doctor W. F. Durand, president of the Third World Power Conference, held in Washington, D . C , last year: "What we are urging is a quickened sense, on the part of the engineer, of his responsibilities, not alone in a purely professional sense, but as a citizen of his community.. .of the world.''

944 Blaker—Engineer's Responsibility ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING