What's in a name?

The fact is that the choice to award the so-called 'Nobel Prize for Engineering' to these men has served to open up one of the great fault lines within the profession: namely, how to define an engineer. Certainly, the news was greeted with bemusement by some engineers of my acquaintance, who expressed disappointment that the Prize had not gone to those who might more readily be identified as engineers in a traditional sense. And while this may seem unfair (after all, most of these men do hold engineering qualifications or posts), I attended an event some time ago where a panel of engineers was asked to name a living British engineering hero. Rightly or wrongly, no-one mentioned Sir Tim Berners-Lee (although it should be mentioned that, Sir James Dyson aside, they also struggled to name anyone else). It is vital at this point to make clear that no-one is decrying the achievements of these men, who genuinely can claim to have done more to change the way we live and work than almost anyone else on the planet. The question remains, however, of whether they are readily identifiable as engineers. At the risk of being accused of cowardice, I am reluctant to wade too far into this argument. Such snap definitions are usually invidious, after all. However, I can see merits and downsides to this choice of winners. On the plus side, it is good to remind the world that engineering is a diverse profession that involves a multitude of disciplines. For too long, the misleading images of dirty factories and low pay have obscured the realities of the career. It is perhaps valuable, then, to remind people that something with which they interact every day and which has transformed their lives is a feat of engineering. The fact remains, however, that a Prize whose express purpose was to raise the profile of engineering has gone to individuals whom many outside the profession (and quite a few in it, one suspects) would perhaps more immediately define as computer scientists. The fear must be that this muddying of the waters makes it difficult for the profession to point to these men as unequivocal examples of how engineering positively affects our lives. Given the profession's desperate need for role models, that would seem a shame.