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.

In the beginning...

Hello everyone, welcome to Engineering Science. 14 years ago, a young scientists named Kevin Aylesworth started a listserve called the Young Scientist’s Network to open up a dialog among young scientists concerned about the science job market. Kevin was frustrated and angry with a system of PhD production that seemed not only to be totally decoupled with the demand for PhD scientists and engineers but also promulgated a (convenient) idea that there was a looming wave of retirements that would pave the way for new employment opportunities for young scientists. Kevin’s voice was joined by thousands of others and a grassroots internet-based movement among young scientists began. The bi-weekly communications allowed thousands of graduate students, post-docs and adjunct faculty – the sherpas of the scientific system – to not only voice their own frustrations but to directly challenge the scientific establishment. Out of this movement came a new recognition on the part of funding agencies and universities of the need for better management of the process of graduate education (and, later, the post-doc experience) and the need to align science funding, and science education with the demands for technical workers in the new economy.

Fast forward to today. Some of the changes promoted by young scientists back then have become established in the ivy-encrusted halls of academia. There is an acknowledgment on the part of many professors that most of their graduate students will not end up in jobs like theirs. There is an increased awareness of non-traditional career pathways for PhDs. Post-docs, once a shadowy and ill-defined employment status at most institutions, are now a formally recognized employment category – and many institutions have formalized training, mentorship and career development for them. Funding agencies such as the NSF have set up new programs to support scientists at the early stages of their careers.

This is all good stuff, and, considering how slow academia is to change, quite remarkable. But the Young Scientist’s Network has long since ceased operation, and many of the issues that young scientists and engineers were concerned about back then remain today. And, with the rising politicization of science itself (think: Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Teaching Evolution) scientists and engineers of all ages are confronted with policy decisions made in their state legislatures and on Capitol Hill that have a direct and immediate effect on their lives and their livelihoods.

As you can see from our bios, Geoff and I have long ago graduated from being “young” scientists. But we have remained active in this area and, along with a number of remarkable thinkers, economists and policy wonks, we have continued to explore these issues and, occasionally, stir up “trouble”. With support from the Sloan Foundation we are at it again with “Engineering Science”

So, tune in, turn on and speak up – we’re going live NOW.