What is an Engineer?

Defining the term, it turns out, is a tricky task with far-reaching consequences.

Over the past few days Ontario’s Open for Business Act (Bill 68) has caused scientists across the province distress. Buried within this bill is a proposed revision to the Ontario Professional Engineers Act that would make natural scientists, such as physicists, chemists and biologists, unable to practice their profession without the supervision of an engineer. At the heart of the issue is an “exemption clause” that essentially removes science from the definition of engineering.

In the past week, both the Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP) and the Chemical Society of Canada (CSC) launched campaigns to prevent the bill from passing in its current form. Members were asked to petition the auditor general of Ontario directly. But with the bill almost set to pass, the province has resisted any lobbying to make direct changes to the bill.

However, after 600 letters arrived in the AG’s office, action was taken to contact the Provincial Engineers of Ontario (PEO) and request that they engage in a dialogue to resolve the issue. A CAP-led team of representatives from the natural science societies met with the PEO executives on September 2, and came to an informal agreement to modify the regulations in the Ontario Professional Engineers Act.

The precise details of this agreement are not yet available, and the CAP remains extremely concerned that these legislative revisions did not involve any consultation with the professional societies that could be impacted, despite suggestions that “broad consultation” had occurred.

I want to emphasize that this article is not about the relative value of engineers and scientists. Both play a vital role in society. To understand this regulatory issue we must consider the definitions that are being debated. Provincial engineering acts are vital regulatory frameworks that ensure standards are maintained and provide the means to penalize those that seek to circumvent them. By their very nature, these acts must define what engineering is. This is where the problem begins and ends.

Where does the boundary between science and engineering fall? Engineering relies on scientific principles, and quite often scientists find themselves performing tasks that some might consider engineering – anything involving design for example.

Aware of the challenges faced in defining engineering, the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE) has suggested the following definition be used in provincial acts:

The "practice of professional engineering" means any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising, or managing any of the foregoing, that requires the application of engineering principles,

that concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment.

This definition casts a wide sphere of influence. As it stands health sciences and any profession related to economics or the environment seem to fall under the realm of engineering. Indeed emails sent out to CAP members included a long list of professional situations that could be impacted, from drug design to wind energy research.

Aware that the above definition is particularly wide, the CCPE has a long history of cooperation with the CAP and CSC over the inclusion of the exemption clause that removes the practice of natural science from the above definition:

Nothing in this Act shall prevent an individual who either holds a recognized honours or higher degree in one or more of the physical, chemical, life, computer, or mathematical sciences, or who possesses an equivalent combination of education, training and experience, or is acting under the direct supervision and control of an individual described in the preceding paragraph from practising natural science which, for the purposes of this Act, means any act (including management) requiring the application of scientific principles, competently performed.

This is the exemption that the Open for Business Act omits. The PEO suggest that it is too vague, but then so is the division between science and engineering.

This exemption clause is already omitted in Alberta, BC, and Nova Scotia – though the latter two provinces have indicated they will include it in the next provincial act updates. According to the CAP Director of Science Policy, Paul Vincett, its absence in these provinces has in some situations stalled research and forced the hiring of engineers to work with scientists. (As a physicist working in Nova Scotia I must be honest and say I have not encountered any problems practicing my theoretical astrophysics research. But I wonder what would happen if I started to pursue one of my other interests, namely energy management in housing.)

Because I haven’t been exposed to the wider problems I see this primarily as a matter of principle. But if we stop and think about the future, without the exemption things could get even more problematic. While science has never been funded solely for the sake of discovery, it is now seen as an economic driver. Pressing societal issues such as climate change are also making science be viewed as a tool for social change.

In this light, it’s easy to see that removing the exemption plots a frightening collision course for science and engineering.