The practice of organizing the design, production and operation of devices, systems, or processes to meet recognized needs. The engineering profession is typically characterized as applied science. Though engineers do apply scientific knowledge when necessary the technological artifacts they produce are not derived from science in any straight-forward manner. Engineering knowledge is autonomous and identifiably different from scientific knowledge. Consequently engineering is not merely applied science.

Congruent with the “applied science” myth is the equally misguided belief that technical applications emerge naturally from basic research in the pure sciences. This has led to an emphasis on funding for basic research and an attendant failure to champion support for applications research. The gradual weakening of US industrial hegemony over the last fifty years and its shift from trade surpluses to chronic deficits is partly due to ineffective application of scientific knowledge.

The technological knowledge and artifacts produced by engineers affect virtually every aspect of society Technological determinism embodies the widely held belief that such technology is the driving force behind social change. However, while the impact of airplanes, automobiles, computers, mega-cities, telecommunications, and more all bear witness to the social transformations made possible by engineering technology technological determinism trades on a misrepresentation of engineering practice and its relationship to society Much of the force of technological determinism derives from histories of technology which focus explicitly on scientific and technical details. These “internal approaches” portray the emergence of technological systems as essentially value neutral. This purported neutrality insulates from criticism the social factors driving technological advances and masks the symbiotic relationship between engineering and society The deficiencies of such analyses are nowhere more evident than when considering engineering design.

Since the Second World War, engineering design has increasingly been accepted as the defining characteristic of true engineering practice. It distinguishes the engineer, qua engineer, from the engineering technician or mechanic who merely produces or operates technological artifacts. The design process encompasses everything from initial conceptualization to production of artifacts. Various non-technical factors influence and constrain the design process, including engineering styles, social determination of engineering goals and the need to optimize designs.

Optimization is essential to engineering design. It seeks to adapt engineering artifacts to particular goals and values, maximizing intended benefits and minimizing undesirable consequences. Prior to the Second World War, optimization was often confused with efficiency—the maximization of output with respect to input—and treated as an inevitable consequence of proper application of the design process. Methods were developed and deployed for maximizing efficiency but optimization was not treated explicitly. After the Second World War it became clear that optimal designs were not necessarily the most efficient, and engineers searched for mathematical methods to objectively establish optimal systems.

It was discovered that mathematical models of engineering systems could not ignore values. Engineering designs can be expressed as “criterion functions.” These functions represent design parameters as variables multiplied by weighing coefficients. The coefficients provide quantitative measures of the value of each design parameter, thus revealing the extent to which engineering artifacts and systems are shaped by and explicitly incorporate human values.

Value judgments permeate every branch of engineering. Civil engineers design roads, bridges, dams, airports and more. Though concerned more with utility and efficiency than aesthetic or symbolic expression, civil-engineering designs are still imbued with social values. For instance, early waste-disposal systems were almost solely concerned with quick and efficient removal of refuse from population centers. In designing wastedisposal systems today civil engineers must consider environmental impacts. This is a clear reflection of society’s growing anxieties over environmental pollution. The work of mechanical engineers, who design dynamic systems like machines and engines, has been similarly affected. With the increasing complexity of specialized machines and their integrated utilization in manufacturing processes, various physical and mental health problems have arisen for operating personnel. US Government health and safety standards respond to public concerns over such issues by in effect, legislating incorporation of certain values into engineering designs. Nuclear engineering is likewise affected. US nuclear power plants are optimized with human and environmental safety considerations in mind. Such designs may not be the most efficient in terms of energy output, but they do reflect the importance society places on safety.

Awareness of the “value-ladenness” of engineering design is particularly evident in the impact women have had on the marketplace over the last few decades of the twentieth century As women have acquired financial power, industry has been made to realize that designs optimized for males cannot be expected to serve best all consumers. As one of the major industrial forces in the US economy automotive engineering illustrates this shift. Automobiles were traditionally designed for males. However, women tend to be shorter than men and thus had trouble reaching steering wheels and brake pedals and seeing over instrument control panels. Automobile designs have been altered to address these issues. Women are also more concerned with functional safety features such as delayed interior lighting, airbags and anti-lock brakes, and they have led the drive to make such features standard on all cars.

Nevertheless, US engineering remains dominated by a rigorous professionalism that emphasizes the purely technical. US engineers are trained and generally function as specialists who provide solutions to technological and commercial problems which emerge out of existing social systems. Though responding well to such challenges, US engineers are not trained to place society’s needs in broader contexts. This serves to buttress fundamentally flawed systems. Despite curriculum reform efforts to raise awareness of their social responsibilities, young engineers remain illprepared to address the most pernicious problems facing contemporary American society, such as poverty environmental degradation and the impact of consumerism on energy and environmental resources.