Environmental Science & Engineering - www.esemag.com - January 2004
Comments? send them to the editor.

Engineering - now it’s time for the write stuff

by Tom Davey, Editor
Some years ago I was taken on a tour of one of our leading environmental consulting companies. Photographs of bridges, treatment plants, highways and other projects adorned the walls, all palpable examples of the consulting engineer’s role in upgrading our standards of living. But I also noted bookshelves which were groaning under the weight of reports, studies and proposals. The noun library at this firm was certainly not an oxymoron.

It was here that my host asked me what I thought of his engineering company. Not entirely seriously I said it was a great publishing enterprise. He was taken aback. I jokingly pointed out that I saw no lathes, milling machines or other appurtenances common to engineering manufacturing, but noted his company had written enough publications to make a publishing house envious.

“But we are engineering designers,” he rejoined, and, of course, he was right. Following innovative engineering, the actual manufacturing is done in factories and on sites, and, even there, engineers are very much in evidence. But the writing of studies, reports and recommendations was, and still is, a major, and vital, function of environmental consulting - yet a subject neglected by many engineering faculties.

I have seen many ingenious examples of engineering projects of palpable value to public health and safety. Instrumentation, disinfection, water analyses and new treatment modes are becoming ever more complex and sophisticated, requiring high standards of both writing and oral presentations to clients and at public meetings. Unquestionably, engineering, as a discipline, has had a more positive impact on public health and increased standards of living than even the medical profession. Regrettably the general public knows little about these values. All too frequently, engineering reticence is the culprit here. But by not writing about the social and health benefits of their profession, engineers have yielded their field to articulate ignoramuses.

Almost every segment of engineering, from proposals, specifications and final reports involves writing - quite a lot of writing in fact - yet, until recently, there has been little emphasis on writing tuition at university engineering schools. In my opinion, writer’s block - common in so-called creative writing - could be expensive in consulting offices. Added to this are the ongoing battles for public opinion. Here, too often, the engineering profession regrettably has played a meager role in the spate of articles bylined by various protest groups who often shape public opinion on emotive reactions rather than scientific realities.

Some years ago the engineering fraternity faced serious challenges in credibility. The result was that project after project was opposed by people possessing theatrical skills in colourful demonstrations rather than in technical and economic realities. The engineering profession, which had been designing treatment plants back in the 1850s, was pushed aside in a mindless rush to environmental puritanism.

In those days it was rare to find engineers represented on any television panels when the latest environmental “horror” stories were debated. Professional engineers, licensed and experienced in the practice and complexities of environmental and chemical engineering, were usually ignored in favour of eloquent protesters. After Walkerton, many protesters, who would be forbidden by law to design, or operate, environmental treatment plants or remediation projects, were often interviewed on TV, or quoted in newspapers, giving a particular spin to complex problems involving hydrology, disinfection, instrumentation, analytical chemistry and public health regulations. Eloquence so often became a veil to cover scientific ignorance.

During conventional television interviews, adjectival designations appeared at the bottom of TV screens which identified the qualifications or professions of participants such as brokers, lawyers, airline pilots and so on. Yet the label environmentalist also became common, adding dignity and credibility to complex debates while giving status to a noun with no legal standing whatsoever.

Years earlier, one uncredentialed protester gained national headlines when he said environmental engineers, in their quest for better treatment modes, had an Iron Ring Mentality. He should have studied environmental history.

Willis Chipman, P. Eng, was an outstanding pioneer environmentalist who developed an international reputation well over a century ago when water-borne diseases ravaged many Canadian communities. This was long before the great, great grandfathers of modern protesters were even conceived. His work surely saved thousands of lives with his water treatment and sewerage schemes. Engineer Chipman was buried with his Iron Ring in Brockville, Ontario after a long and distinguished career. If there is an Iron Ring Mentality, it should be worn as a badge of honour, not as an ill-informed and sneering pejorative.

Coincidently, Consulting Engineers of Ontario recently presented the first Willis Chipman Award to Acres International for the decommissioning, in an environmentally sensitive manner, of the Distress and Finlayson Dams, near Ontario’s huge Algonquin Park. This was the first project of its kind and resulted in the return of trout to the Big East River and other ecological benefits. The Iron Ring Mentality, it seems, is still relevant to the environment some 127 years after Willis Chipman graduated from McGill.

Appropriately, Willis Chipman had many papers published during his career. Today’s young graduates should note that this distinguished engineer was a writer as well as an engineer.

See our home page on how to order your subscription. We regret we can only accept orders from Canada and the United States.