What's with the name "Engineering Science"?
Peter and I (and hopefully you) share a belief that the current manner in which new scientists and engineers are trained leaves room for improvement. But what, exactly, needs to be done? There is no shortage of ideas for ways to “fix” things.
Over the past few years, I have had the privilege of working with a group of economists who study the labor market for scientists and engineers. One of the things I have enjoyed the most about working with economists (I’m a mathematician by training) is their approach. They study the S&E labor market the same way an astrophysicist might a newly discovered comet: here is what it is made of, here is how its trajectory behaves when it is perturbed in various ways, and so on. The more they understand the dynamics of the market, the better they can predict what kinds effects changes might have.
When we apply the scientific method to science, we transform the task of improving the system from an exercise in windmill-tilting to an engineering problem. How can we engineer science so that we produce the best possible researchers? (Or, for you engineers, how can we apply science to engineering to further the same goal?) Engineering Science is about answering these questions.
-
on Sat, Nov 11, 06:11PM
Hello, Geoff! Hello, Peter!
I'm glad to see the blog taking shape. It's been a long time since the YSN conversation faded away. Today, like back in 1992, funding is tight and the future looks perplexing. How will team science play out? How will large-scale data management change the life sciences? What, exactly, has a young person gotten him or herself into nowadays when choosing science as a career and lifestyle? Just like in 1992...1892... 1792....1292... the world is full of such interesting possibilities. Understanding how the scientific enterprise works, and retooling it to work better. What a timely idea!
Victoria
