What do you think?
Rate this book
The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems
From the acclaimed author of The Pencil and To Engineer Is Human , The Essential Engineer is an eye-opening exploration of the ways in which science and engineering must work together to address our world’s most pressing issues, from dealing with climate change and the prevention of natural disasters to the development of efficient automobiles and the search for renewable energy sources. While the scientist may identify problems, it falls to the engineer to solve them. It is the inherent practicality of engineering, which takes into account structural, economic, environmental, and other factors that science often does not consider, that makes engineering vital to answering our most urgent concerns.
Henry Petroski takes us inside the research, development, and debates surrounding the most critical challenges of our time, exploring the feasibility of biofuels, the progress of battery-operated cars, and the question of nuclear power. He gives us an in-depth investigation of the various options for renewable energy—among them solar, wind, tidal, and ethanol—explaining the benefits and risks of each. Will windmills soon populate our landscape the way they did in previous centuries? Will synthetic trees, said to be more efficient at absorbing harmful carbon dioxide than real trees, soon dot our prairies? Will we construct a “sunshade” in outer space to protect ourselves from dangerous rays? In many cases, the technology already exists. What’s needed is not so much invention as engineering.
Just as the great achievements of centuries past—the steamship, the airplane, the moon landing—once seemed beyond reach, the solutions to the twenty-first century’s problems await only a similar coordination of science and engineering. Eloquently reasoned and written, The Essential Engineer identifies and illuminates these problems—and, above all, sets out a course for putting ideas into action.
Henry Petroski takes us inside the research, development, and debates surrounding the most critical challenges of our time, exploring the feasibility of biofuels, the progress of battery-operated cars, and the question of nuclear power. He gives us an in-depth investigation of the various options for renewable energy—among them solar, wind, tidal, and ethanol—explaining the benefits and risks of each. Will windmills soon populate our landscape the way they did in previous centuries? Will synthetic trees, said to be more efficient at absorbing harmful carbon dioxide than real trees, soon dot our prairies? Will we construct a “sunshade” in outer space to protect ourselves from dangerous rays? In many cases, the technology already exists. What’s needed is not so much invention as engineering.
Just as the great achievements of centuries past—the steamship, the airplane, the moon landing—once seemed beyond reach, the solutions to the twenty-first century’s problems await only a similar coordination of science and engineering. Eloquently reasoned and written, The Essential Engineer identifies and illuminates these problems—and, above all, sets out a course for putting ideas into action.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
26 people are currently reading
472 people want to read
About the author
Henry Petroski
35 books261 followersHenry Petroski was an American engineer specializing in failure analysis. A professor both of civil engineering and history at Duke University, he was also a prolific author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
June 30, 2010
"What is engineered may, momentarily, be admired for what it is. But the individual components of engineering achievements are like leaves that have fallen into a stream, where they are carried by swift waters from the fresh springs of the past to the still lakes of the future. There, they precipitate into the silt of technology, perhaps someday to be unearthed by an industrial archaeologist." (199-200)
This is the best quote from this book ever. The book is mostly fact based, but very opinionated in favor of engineers (as the title may imply). Though I think he does exaggerate some of his points, this book is very interesting especially while learning about the development of engineering throughout time.
This is the best quote from this book ever. The book is mostly fact based, but very opinionated in favor of engineers (as the title may imply). Though I think he does exaggerate some of his points, this book is very interesting especially while learning about the development of engineering throughout time.
November 5, 2010
Not sure what the point is and who his audience is. Is he writing to the general public to show the essential role engineers play in society? Or to policymakers to show how they can better utilize engineers? Or to engineers to take upon themselves more responsibility to solve society's problems? I guess the stereotype is true: engineers can't write.
June 22, 2019
Brilliant. Made me realise I'm an engineer at heart, not a scientist.
October 31, 2011
I tend to finish whatever books I start, but this one challenged my resolve. The beginning sections seemed to dwell on distinctions between scientists and engineers, and how unfairly engineers tend to be treated by society as a whole. He seemed to be the Rodney Dangerfield of engineers, e.g., "we don't get any respect". I stayed with the book, wondering where Petroski was leading me, and what point, beyond the differences between "thinkers" and "doers" he was going to make. While he made some nice points about the value of engineers in society, it didn't seem to be worthy of a book, nor a worthy endeavor for my time.
November 11, 2012
"Science is about knowing, engineering is about doing."
I meant to get one of this author's other books called, "To Engineer is Human". I don't know how I ended up with this one.
I'm liking it so far. I am learning the difference between scientists and engineers. I think I've never really understood that difference.
Hedy LaMar and Paul Winchell (famous ventriloquist) weren't engineers but they were both responsible for important inventions. Hedy LaMar by figuring out how to guide missiles by changing radio frequencies and Paul Winchell invented and started developing the artificial heart before he donated the patent to the U of U who came up with the Jarvick Heart.
I finished the book today and found it very worthwhile. He talks about Buckminster Fuller, a strange character who had very interesting ideas that he developed into inventions. I'd like to read more about him. That is one of the great things about reading, you're always finding more you want to read about.
He discusses many of the different ways to make energy like wind, solar, water, etc. and the problems inherent with each one. At the end, he discusses how prizes, like the Nobel Prize (although this prize is never meant for engineers!) have helped encourage research and development of new ideas. Throughout the book he reiterates the issue of unintended consequences and how engineers must foresee those. He also defends the fact that science often follows engineering rather than the other way around. The law of thermodynamics was not developed until after steam engines were crossing the oceans in ships. The law of aerodynamics was not developed until airplanes flew the skies.
I meant to get one of this author's other books called, "To Engineer is Human". I don't know how I ended up with this one.
I'm liking it so far. I am learning the difference between scientists and engineers. I think I've never really understood that difference.
Hedy LaMar and Paul Winchell (famous ventriloquist) weren't engineers but they were both responsible for important inventions. Hedy LaMar by figuring out how to guide missiles by changing radio frequencies and Paul Winchell invented and started developing the artificial heart before he donated the patent to the U of U who came up with the Jarvick Heart.
I finished the book today and found it very worthwhile. He talks about Buckminster Fuller, a strange character who had very interesting ideas that he developed into inventions. I'd like to read more about him. That is one of the great things about reading, you're always finding more you want to read about.
He discusses many of the different ways to make energy like wind, solar, water, etc. and the problems inherent with each one. At the end, he discusses how prizes, like the Nobel Prize (although this prize is never meant for engineers!) have helped encourage research and development of new ideas. Throughout the book he reiterates the issue of unintended consequences and how engineers must foresee those. He also defends the fact that science often follows engineering rather than the other way around. The law of thermodynamics was not developed until after steam engines were crossing the oceans in ships. The law of aerodynamics was not developed until airplanes flew the skies.
May 19, 2013
Fairly good book. Just longer than it needed to be. What to take away from this book is that, if you are an engineer, you don't necessarily need to have a whole bunch of scientific knowledge. Many things have been invented throughout history where the inventors simply succeeded by trial and error and/or common sense. The science was discovered later.
August 5, 2020
Did not finish.
Why did I pick this book?
I was looking for more books for Industrial Designers/Engineers. Got the recommendation to read any work by Petroski and was able to pick this one up from the library.
The book
This is really an essay on the difference between Scientist and Engineers. At the start there's quite an entertaining discourse on how Scientists and Engineers are mentioned in the media, with Scientists always being the one's to discover new, lifesaving/world-changing discoveries and the Engineers being the ones who make stupid Engineering errors and don't think things true.
Later on the book talks more about famous engineers and scientists and the overlap between the fields. At this point I stopped reading.
My take and recommendation
A few chapters in I noticed myself asking the question why I was reading this book. Although the start was entertaining, though a bit painful being an Engineer, the word use between Scientist/Engineer is not an issue in my language/culture. After that I could not really answer what it was I was expected to take away from this book.
Read if you are a journalist or write articles on Science and Engineering, if you're a scientist/engineer who has time on his/her hands and just wants to read something. Otherwise, for engineers I'd much more recommend biographies by Steve Jobs, James Dyson or even Adrian Newey.
Why did I pick this book?
I was looking for more books for Industrial Designers/Engineers. Got the recommendation to read any work by Petroski and was able to pick this one up from the library.
The book
This is really an essay on the difference between Scientist and Engineers. At the start there's quite an entertaining discourse on how Scientists and Engineers are mentioned in the media, with Scientists always being the one's to discover new, lifesaving/world-changing discoveries and the Engineers being the ones who make stupid Engineering errors and don't think things true.
Later on the book talks more about famous engineers and scientists and the overlap between the fields. At this point I stopped reading.
My take and recommendation
A few chapters in I noticed myself asking the question why I was reading this book. Although the start was entertaining, though a bit painful being an Engineer, the word use between Scientist/Engineer is not an issue in my language/culture. After that I could not really answer what it was I was expected to take away from this book.
Read if you are a journalist or write articles on Science and Engineering, if you're a scientist/engineer who has time on his/her hands and just wants to read something. Otherwise, for engineers I'd much more recommend biographies by Steve Jobs, James Dyson or even Adrian Newey.
September 13, 2018
The Essential Engineer delves into the philosophy of engineering. To help understand engineering, Petroski contrasts it to science. He takes offense at people who praise engineering marvels as successes in "science," and he points out how engineers get none of the glory when they are successful (science is praised) while they get the blame when their designs fail. Although he advocates for respecting both fields, it appears he thinks more highly of engineering. He argues that the two rely on one one another for advancement, but most of his examples highlight how engineering has helped advance the sciences (especially through designing instruments). His most interesting points are how advancements in the field of engineering have created new fields of science. For example, we didn't have rocket science (as we know it today) until we had rockets. Mull that one over for awhile!
His perspective and examples in engineering are very interesting, but his input on science was a bit lackluster. He never discusses the advancement of science for the sake of knowledge and instead argues that both fields strive to improve the human condition.
I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy of engineering.
His perspective and examples in engineering are very interesting, but his input on science was a bit lackluster. He never discusses the advancement of science for the sake of knowledge and instead argues that both fields strive to improve the human condition.
I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy of engineering.
August 30, 2022
Fairly interesting, although a bit 'dry' at times. The basic theme is that engineering and science are two distinct professions - something that is not well understood by the media or wider culture. The terms are too often used interchangeably and he provides some solid example of exactly how this is so in a number of different areas. He also traces the roots and reason for the apparent primacy of science over engineering and how that evolved into our dominant R&D paradigm in the wake of WW2 and the success of the Manhattan Project, which was a feat of both science and engineering. He discusses the interplay of the two disciplines through the prism of several technologies and how they work together but remain distinct undertakings. He provides an interesting look at a range of both small and very large 'scientific' problems and how engineering approaches these issues. They range from speed bumps/humps, dams (and the case for dam removal), climate change ('geoengineering' of the earth), renewable energy, nanotechnology, robotics, earthquake engineering, hurricane protection, airline accidents, the electric power grid, and the automobile. It is a high-level view but he stuffs a lot of information into a small package providing a lot of grist for thought and further reading.
August 21, 2020
I do agree with the many 1* reviews that have been previously written in that the author does not pull together the chapters into a coherent thesis at all. In fact, I feel like the title of the book is only ever addressed indirectly, and the precise case is never made. I did like many of the chapters of this book on their own, I found them very interesting. I learned a lot about the history of engineering, research and development, and our relationship with scientists. I quite liked all of that. At times, the author goes on tangents that I think are superfluous - such as the two paragraphs and a figure spent on the history of the ampersand (sooooo boring). I think everyone should give the "Alternative Energies" chapter a miss. It's mostly an annotated bibliography of each alternative energy source and where it's at in development now - with no tie-in to the theme of the book.
My overall recommendation to anyone interested in this book is to read it one chapter at a time, it doesn't matter in what order, and read other things in between reading these chapters.
My overall recommendation to anyone interested in this book is to read it one chapter at a time, it doesn't matter in what order, and read other things in between reading these chapters.
March 13, 2023
The first half of this book (roughly) is simply dreadful: boring, repetitive and pedantic.
I am a retired engineer, and I usually like books on topics such as this, but not this one.
After its horrendous start, the book almost had to improve, and it did, somewhat. The second half of the book contains some interesting summaries of, for example, how major corporations established their research and development departments about a century ago. Other top-level summaries include lists of factors to be considered in designing an electric vehicle or in attempting to lower carbon emissions or in trying to make cities safer in case of natural disasters. None of this, though, can make up for the first half of this book.
The very best thing I can say is that this author just might be the last person in America who knows how to use the verb "obviate" correctly.
I am a retired engineer, and I usually like books on topics such as this, but not this one.
After its horrendous start, the book almost had to improve, and it did, somewhat. The second half of the book contains some interesting summaries of, for example, how major corporations established their research and development departments about a century ago. Other top-level summaries include lists of factors to be considered in designing an electric vehicle or in attempting to lower carbon emissions or in trying to make cities safer in case of natural disasters. None of this, though, can make up for the first half of this book.
The very best thing I can say is that this author just might be the last person in America who knows how to use the verb "obviate" correctly.
July 23, 2017
Petroski lacked focus and rambled off in various directions in this book. The beginning sections wander around the distinctions between scientists and engineers. Engineers are misrepresented and looked on less favorably than scientists. The final parts of the book discuss the grand challenges and National Academy of Engineers. There are a few good stories in this book, but for the most part the theme fell flat.
February 2, 2018
This is a good read for anyone who wants to understand the relationship between engineering and science, and the current view society has on the disciplines.
It's less of a "how to engineer" textbook, and more of a book which outlines the systems engineering viewpoint of what the next steps are to create a better, safer world.
It's less of a "how to engineer" textbook, and more of a book which outlines the systems engineering viewpoint of what the next steps are to create a better, safer world.
June 30, 2023
Engineer complains that engineers don't toot their own horn and proceeds to toot his own horn until I'm deaf. I'm an engineer and I don't think we're underappreciated and I don't think there's any tension between science and engineering - it's the same process (clearly the book has failed to convince me otherwise).
April 22, 2019
Terrible. Some notable quotes from the book that made it good to write in a personal statement , but other than that , it was all over the place. It got to point where I wondered what I was doing still reading the book. Shame.
December 23, 2019
An interesting book. Made many good points about needing to work across disciplines to solve problems. It promoted engineering and disparaged those who look down on it, without scorning science or any other field of study.
August 4, 2023
I listened to the audiobook version.
Perhaps not the book for everyone, but I was totally absorbed throughout.
BASc naturally refers to a degree in which scientific principles are applied, and Henry Petroski gives many great examples of just that.
Perhaps not the book for everyone, but I was totally absorbed throughout.
BASc naturally refers to a degree in which scientific principles are applied, and Henry Petroski gives many great examples of just that.
December 12, 2019
A good look at the polarization of science/engineering vs philosophy/history and why it will be crucial for the two groups to start talking and working together
January 3, 2023
Petroski is one of my favorite authors, and I have used his ideas in both my own research and in teaching engineering courses. Some of his better-known books include: To Engineer Is Human (1985); The Pencil (1990); The Evolution of Useful Things (1992); Success Through Failure (2006); The Toothpick (2007); The Road Taken (2016). Petroski is also a prolific writer of articles, essays, and columns. Additionally, there are many videos about him on YouTube, including a 29-minute talk entitled "Bridges: Successes and Failures."
In the preface, after observing that "science" is sometimes used as a catchall term that includes medicine, engineering, and high tech, Petroski writes: "This book aims to illuminate the difference between science and engineering and thereby clarify their respective roles in the world of thought and action, of knowing and of doing." The main message of this book is that science and engineering are both distinct in their roots and functions, and significantly overlapping in our modern world. Scientists perform many engineering tasks and engineers hit upon and formulate scientific theories.
This blurring of boundaries is evident if one examines the types of faculty members inhabiting science and engineering departments at universities. From my own experience at UCSB, I see little difference between some members of our bioengineering program and a number of colleagues working in biological science, some physicists and EEs or material engineers, and, most notably, many computer scientists and computer engineers.
Petroski believes that to solve the major problems facing our civilization, we need not only cooperation between scientists and engineers, but also participation from other societal groups. Grand-challenge problems in climate change, energy, medicine, infrastructure improvement, and cybersecurity demand broad participation in formulating appropriate solutions.
I end this review with a chapter-by-chapter summary of the ideas presented by Petroski.
Chapter 1, "Ubiquitous Risk," deals with negative and positive effects of science & technology in creating risks to our well-being and mitigating their effects.
Chapter 2 ("Engineering is Rocket Science") asserts that while scientists may calculate the path of a space mission, building the spacecraft and the rocket that launches it is in the engineering domain.
Chapter 3 ("Doctors and Dilberts") elaborates on the public image of scientists, in white lab coats, and engineers, looking like the cartoon character Dilbert and wearing pocket-protectors.
Chapter 4 ("Which Comes First?") dispels the myth that scientific theories come first and engineers apply those theories in building systems; the truth is that inventions can and do precede the development of associated theories.
Chapter 5 ("Einstein the Inventor") suggests that the line between science and engineering have become blurred, as evidenced by Einstein working on and getting patents for several inventions, including a new refrigeration system.
Chapter 6 ("Speed Bumps") impresses the point that building bridges, skyscrapers, and even a lowly speed bump require inventive designs involving much forethought and analyses of consequences.
Chapter 7 ("Research and Development") presents R&D as combined science and engineering, which allows corporations to benefit from the latest advances in improving their products and services.
Chapter 8 ("Development and Research") informs us that D&R in industrial research centers grew by leaps and bounds, overtaking in quantity and sometimes in quality the work done in academic institutions.
Chapter 9 ("Alternative Energies") focuses on the roles played by science and engineering in the movement toward the use of renewable/alternative energy sources.
Chapter 10 ("Complex Systems") points out that many human-made systems, as well as natural systems such as the Earth's biosphere, are too complex for one person to understand all the consequences of one action or policy.
Chapter 11 ("Two Cultures") elaborates on the distinct cultures of scientific disciplines and the humanities (more recently, science and engineering), not interacting with each other, except in rare circumstances.
Chapter 12 ("Uncertain Science and Engineering") brings to our attention uncertainties in doing science and engineering, arising from lack of knowledge about the world around us, including forces of nature.
Chapter 13 ("Great Achievements and Grand Challenges") reviews some of the major advances in science and engineering, pointing out that there are still important unsolved problems ahead of us.
Chapter 14 ("Prizing Engineering") suggests that recognizing engineering achievements with major awards, a la Nobel Prizes, constitutes an important step in encouraging innovation.
In the preface, after observing that "science" is sometimes used as a catchall term that includes medicine, engineering, and high tech, Petroski writes: "This book aims to illuminate the difference between science and engineering and thereby clarify their respective roles in the world of thought and action, of knowing and of doing." The main message of this book is that science and engineering are both distinct in their roots and functions, and significantly overlapping in our modern world. Scientists perform many engineering tasks and engineers hit upon and formulate scientific theories.
This blurring of boundaries is evident if one examines the types of faculty members inhabiting science and engineering departments at universities. From my own experience at UCSB, I see little difference between some members of our bioengineering program and a number of colleagues working in biological science, some physicists and EEs or material engineers, and, most notably, many computer scientists and computer engineers.
Petroski believes that to solve the major problems facing our civilization, we need not only cooperation between scientists and engineers, but also participation from other societal groups. Grand-challenge problems in climate change, energy, medicine, infrastructure improvement, and cybersecurity demand broad participation in formulating appropriate solutions.
I end this review with a chapter-by-chapter summary of the ideas presented by Petroski.
Chapter 1, "Ubiquitous Risk," deals with negative and positive effects of science & technology in creating risks to our well-being and mitigating their effects.
Chapter 2 ("Engineering is Rocket Science") asserts that while scientists may calculate the path of a space mission, building the spacecraft and the rocket that launches it is in the engineering domain.
Chapter 3 ("Doctors and Dilberts") elaborates on the public image of scientists, in white lab coats, and engineers, looking like the cartoon character Dilbert and wearing pocket-protectors.
Chapter 4 ("Which Comes First?") dispels the myth that scientific theories come first and engineers apply those theories in building systems; the truth is that inventions can and do precede the development of associated theories.
Chapter 5 ("Einstein the Inventor") suggests that the line between science and engineering have become blurred, as evidenced by Einstein working on and getting patents for several inventions, including a new refrigeration system.
Chapter 6 ("Speed Bumps") impresses the point that building bridges, skyscrapers, and even a lowly speed bump require inventive designs involving much forethought and analyses of consequences.
Chapter 7 ("Research and Development") presents R&D as combined science and engineering, which allows corporations to benefit from the latest advances in improving their products and services.
Chapter 8 ("Development and Research") informs us that D&R in industrial research centers grew by leaps and bounds, overtaking in quantity and sometimes in quality the work done in academic institutions.
Chapter 9 ("Alternative Energies") focuses on the roles played by science and engineering in the movement toward the use of renewable/alternative energy sources.
Chapter 10 ("Complex Systems") points out that many human-made systems, as well as natural systems such as the Earth's biosphere, are too complex for one person to understand all the consequences of one action or policy.
Chapter 11 ("Two Cultures") elaborates on the distinct cultures of scientific disciplines and the humanities (more recently, science and engineering), not interacting with each other, except in rare circumstances.
Chapter 12 ("Uncertain Science and Engineering") brings to our attention uncertainties in doing science and engineering, arising from lack of knowledge about the world around us, including forces of nature.
Chapter 13 ("Great Achievements and Grand Challenges") reviews some of the major advances in science and engineering, pointing out that there are still important unsolved problems ahead of us.
Chapter 14 ("Prizing Engineering") suggests that recognizing engineering achievements with major awards, a la Nobel Prizes, constitutes an important step in encouraging innovation.
July 11, 2011
"Science is about knowing, engineering is about doing." The author works, in this book, to explain the difference. Important issues are discussed in this book. Henry Petroski asks how decisions affecting our lives, lifestyles and world are made. How do we gather information, how is the data collected, and then who fixes the problems that have been identified.
I am happy I stumbled upon this book. Think about all the big technical and political problems that face us in the 2010s and begin to think about how we deal with these problems. There are sensible ways to approach technical problems. It does not mean the technical problems can all be fixed or that the right decisions will always be made. But, we do know how to approach technical problems, if we think about it and use the lessons of human life in the last few centuries.
I enjoyed chapter 11, where the author talks about C. P. Snow's lecture "The Two Cultures." This conceptualization of the difference between those who know something about the hard sciences versus those who know about humanities and literature is still relevant today. Although it probably could be updated and modified, we certainly see differences in groups of people who believe in hard sciences and other groups of people. The author and Snow correctly, I believe, point out the similarity in approach that links those separated by this divide and point to possible ways to bridge the gap.
Petroski lists the 14 challenges defined by the National Academy of Engineering. This list addresses some of the big problems we as a civilization should be seeking answers to, and include: restore and improve urban infrastructure, reverse-engineer the brain, and prevent nuclear terror.
The book concludes in chapter 14, titled "Prizing Engineering."
This concluding chapter argues for encouragement of young upcoming and existing engineers. Also the author ends with the obvious, but vitally important conclusion, that the biggest problem for humanity is not the need to improve science and engineering, but the need to improve how humans understand and use technology and each other. (review also posted in LibraryThing)
I am happy I stumbled upon this book. Think about all the big technical and political problems that face us in the 2010s and begin to think about how we deal with these problems. There are sensible ways to approach technical problems. It does not mean the technical problems can all be fixed or that the right decisions will always be made. But, we do know how to approach technical problems, if we think about it and use the lessons of human life in the last few centuries.
I enjoyed chapter 11, where the author talks about C. P. Snow's lecture "The Two Cultures." This conceptualization of the difference between those who know something about the hard sciences versus those who know about humanities and literature is still relevant today. Although it probably could be updated and modified, we certainly see differences in groups of people who believe in hard sciences and other groups of people. The author and Snow correctly, I believe, point out the similarity in approach that links those separated by this divide and point to possible ways to bridge the gap.
Petroski lists the 14 challenges defined by the National Academy of Engineering. This list addresses some of the big problems we as a civilization should be seeking answers to, and include: restore and improve urban infrastructure, reverse-engineer the brain, and prevent nuclear terror.
The book concludes in chapter 14, titled "Prizing Engineering."
This concluding chapter argues for encouragement of young upcoming and existing engineers. Also the author ends with the obvious, but vitally important conclusion, that the biggest problem for humanity is not the need to improve science and engineering, but the need to improve how humans understand and use technology and each other. (review also posted in LibraryThing)
February 1, 2012
This is an interesting book about what it means to be an engineer. Much of the book centers around the dichotomy between science and engineering. It is sometimes difficult to separate science from engineering, as some scientists develop instrumentation, while some engineers do research. Interestingly, Albert Einstein and his former student Szilard jointly invented and patented a refrigerator! It was unique in that it had no moving parts.
Petroski makes an excellent point, that the phrase "research and development" (coined by Vannevar Bush) is not the way things are really done. Usually it starts off with some development, then research, then development, then ... and on and on.
Petroski discusses in some detail many of the issues surrounding the development of alternative energy sources. Much of engineering nowadays centers on a wide range of issues, including economics, practicality, risks vs. benefits, impact on the environment, and so on. Bad engineering is a consequence of ignoring one or more of these issues.
Toward the end of the book, much is made of the complaint that "engineers get no respect", as scientists seem to have grabbed all of the respect. For example, contrary to Nobel's wishes, there is no Nobel prize for engineering. On the other hand, Petroski lists a number of prizes for various engineering achievements, and some of them are for fascinatingly innovative--and even quirky--approaches to engineering problems.
Petroski makes an excellent point, that the phrase "research and development" (coined by Vannevar Bush) is not the way things are really done. Usually it starts off with some development, then research, then development, then ... and on and on.
Petroski discusses in some detail many of the issues surrounding the development of alternative energy sources. Much of engineering nowadays centers on a wide range of issues, including economics, practicality, risks vs. benefits, impact on the environment, and so on. Bad engineering is a consequence of ignoring one or more of these issues.
Toward the end of the book, much is made of the complaint that "engineers get no respect", as scientists seem to have grabbed all of the respect. For example, contrary to Nobel's wishes, there is no Nobel prize for engineering. On the other hand, Petroski lists a number of prizes for various engineering achievements, and some of them are for fascinatingly innovative--and even quirky--approaches to engineering problems.
September 22, 2014
You have to give the author credit. He does a very good job writing about technical issues in a way that everybody can understand. He doesn't use difficult to understand jargon. And when he brings up a complex issue, he describes it from the ground up - in other words, he doesn't expect the reader to have prior knowledge to fill in the blanks. The effort to make the book accessible to all makes a lot of sense. And, like I said, he did a very good job.
However, the subject matter of the book is...nerdy...to say the least. In fact, the only people I can think of who are nerdy enough to think these topics are interesting are...ENGINEERS! And scientists of course...they are nerdy too.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are non-technical people out there who think reading about bridges, circuit breakers, internal combustion engines and wastewater is fascinating. But assuming I'm right, it means catering to non-technical people is a fruitless exercise.
I'm sort of off in a tangent now, but I compare this book to books by author Malcom Gladwell. It's sort of unfair to compare anyone to a best-selling author but...Gladwell is able to take technical subjects and present them in a way that is compelling to people of all backgrounds.
I liked this book, but I'm an engineer. So
However, the subject matter of the book is...nerdy...to say the least. In fact, the only people I can think of who are nerdy enough to think these topics are interesting are...ENGINEERS! And scientists of course...they are nerdy too.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are non-technical people out there who think reading about bridges, circuit breakers, internal combustion engines and wastewater is fascinating. But assuming I'm right, it means catering to non-technical people is a fruitless exercise.
I'm sort of off in a tangent now, but I compare this book to books by author Malcom Gladwell. It's sort of unfair to compare anyone to a best-selling author but...Gladwell is able to take technical subjects and present them in a way that is compelling to people of all backgrounds.
I liked this book, but I'm an engineer. So
April 16, 2015
Hmmm... Good but not great. After getting through the first few chapters and understanding the main points that the author was making much of the later chapters seemed to simply repeat the main points just in a different context. For example, the author makes the point that development almost always occurs at some level before research in the 4th or 5th chapter on a general level. This point is then further illustrated in slightly more specific examples in the chapters about alternative energies and complex systems. I don't suppose this is bad, but by the time I got to these chapters I began to feel like I was reading the same thing over and over.
The author did have some interesting facts in the book, and I enjoyed this discussion about Einstein and Szilard. I also liked that he mentioned the prize for finding longitude after recently watching a nova DVD from at least 10 years ago on the same competition. Overall, this was a quick read and I would probably read another book by the same author.
The author did have some interesting facts in the book, and I enjoyed this discussion about Einstein and Szilard. I also liked that he mentioned the prize for finding longitude after recently watching a nova DVD from at least 10 years ago on the same competition. Overall, this was a quick read and I would probably read another book by the same author.
September 9, 2015
I liked the book, but I had expected something more focused from the title. This is one of his that is adapted from a series of articles published elsewhere, and while there was a progression of ideas, it just wasn't as strong as I think it would have been if he'd started from scratch.
I certainly agree with his premise - that solving problems takes more than understanding problems, it takes creating solutions, often by trial and error instead of theory, typically done by engineers (with various blurring and switching roles back and forth with scientists).
I always enjoy Petroski's writing. It's clear and he does a great job and putting forth this piece or that which you might not have thought of before. This is for a more narrow audience than something like "The Pencil", primarily for people already in technical fields. But it could certainly be understood by someone non-technical who picked it up.
I certainly agree with his premise - that solving problems takes more than understanding problems, it takes creating solutions, often by trial and error instead of theory, typically done by engineers (with various blurring and switching roles back and forth with scientists).
I always enjoy Petroski's writing. It's clear and he does a great job and putting forth this piece or that which you might not have thought of before. This is for a more narrow audience than something like "The Pencil", primarily for people already in technical fields. But it could certainly be understood by someone non-technical who picked it up.
November 11, 2012
When this book talked about engineering feats and collaboration with science, it was interesting. When it whined about how engineering is the red-headed stepchild, it was a slog. I am a trained scientist, but I have a great deal of respect for my engineering brothers and sisters. Indeed I nearly went back to school for it, but I was told by the chair of the engineering department that the way engineering school works would be hard for my learning style to work with, thus I saw his complaints as unnecessary.
Overall the whining outweighed the information, so I can't say I recommend it. I was bored senseless 75% of the time, which makes me sad since the title interested me greatly.
Overall the whining outweighed the information, so I can't say I recommend it. I was bored senseless 75% of the time, which makes me sad since the title interested me greatly.
June 24, 2022
I feel like this book was a bit of a missed opportunity. I'd give several chapters or parts of chapters a 5* as they focused in on the contrast (real or imagined by society) between the engineering world and approach vs that of science. Unfortunately, at other times Petroski wanders off on long rambles about topics of science ... or engineering ... or technology ... or ... The topics are often interesting enough, but we lose the critical thread of contrasting and comparing engineering and science.
Fine writing, excellent where it stays with the topic promised in the book's title, but ultimately needed of editing to keep to that focus.
Fine writing, excellent where it stays with the topic promised in the book's title, but ultimately needed of editing to keep to that focus.
July 23, 2016
Really cool. This book is written in a way that highlights the importance of engineering and engineers. I'm kind of reminded of Big bang theory series, where noone acknowledges Howard as having a serious job, because he is "just an engineer" as opposed to the other scientists. I never realized how slighted engineers must feel in todays society...
I feel I know much more on the topic of inventions and development of technology. Everything was explained on specific examples and the writing was pretty good.
I must say....this book was highly illuminating. I liked it :)
I feel I know much more on the topic of inventions and development of technology. Everything was explained on specific examples and the writing was pretty good.
I must say....this book was highly illuminating. I liked it :)
November 4, 2010
Excellent book. Discusses quite a few topics that need to be considered in real engineering but the primary theme through the book is the differences between science and technology. The book provides a seemingly endless series of examples to support the authors ideas. This is good but does seem to get a bit tiring at times. Overall, however, a worthwhile read with useful examples.
Currently reading
April 25, 2010while science and technology have both been the causes of advances in civilization Petroski feels that the engineers have often been treated as second-rate to the scientists; we need engineers to make science usable; science is about knowing, engineering about doing
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews