Abstract
The list of engineering "Grand Challenges" lately developed by the National Academy of Engineering enters a long historical tradition of such epically scaled to-do lists, dating back to the profession's U.S. origins in the mid-19th century. The mission statements, codes of ethics, and, later, lists of so-called grand challenges that have issued from engineering societies have served the dual function of directing engineers' work and supporting particular cultural roles for these bodies of experts. Almost all such plans, regardless of period or sponsoring body, have also blended highly practical aims of industrial and infrastructural development with more inchoate projects of societal uplift. The Grand Challenges of the NAE, currently playing a formative role in many engineering organizations and research and teaching settings, extend this lineage, working from a selective and self-confirming view of human welfare. We might bring to the Grand Challenges the type of critical, politically informed analysis that historians and STS scholars have brought to other sites of engineering activity and professionalization, to detect the nature of interests that underlay all such projections of engineering’s role in society. Who is served by the development of different technologies, products, and infrastructures? Who might be harmed? Most fundamentally, the Grand Challenges proceed from the premise that engineering research, construction, invention, and production are to take precedence over their absence, as befits a body dedicated not to the contraction of such enterprises but to their extension. Yet the interests of sustainability, global health, and other areas of human well-being might be best served in certain cases by just such a turning away from engineering. Making explicit the social and historical assumptions of the NAE’s Grand Challenges, and probing the implications of those assumptions for a diverse range of actors and communities, may pave the way for more thoughtful engagement with the humanistic and democratic potential of engineering.
Highlights
The Grand Challenges for Engineering1 lately developed by the National Academy of Engineering, with their excited inducements for 21st century engineers to "Reverse-engineer the [human] brain," "Make solar energy economical," "Restore and improve urban infrastructure," "Enhance virtual reality," and undertake ten other tasks, enter a long historical tradition of such epically scaled to-do lists (National Academy of Engineering, 2008)
Engineering Improvement and, later, lists of so-called grand challenges that have issued from engineering societies and other entities have served the dual function of directing engineers' work and supporting particular cultural roles for these bodies of experts (Christie, 1922; Downey & Lucena, 1994; Kline, 1995; Pfatteicher, 2003; Wisnioski, 2009)
Even that sort of critical analysis may not offset one of the most powerfully conservative features of the Grand Challenges and similar prescriptive projects: the foreclosure of the possibility that engineering may not be the answer to a social or material problem. It is the patent function of the Grand Challenges to show the role of engineering in meeting the needs of current and future human societies, but the document's logic is totalizing in claiming that those needs "await engineering solutions." Andrew Abbott has shown that professions routinely undertake such self-justifying activities to persuade their audiences of their particular utility (Abbott, 1988)
Summary
The Grand Challenges for Engineering lately developed by the National Academy of Engineering, with their excited inducements for 21st century engineers to "Reverse-engineer the [human] brain," "Make solar energy economical," "Restore and improve urban infrastructure," "Enhance virtual reality," and undertake ten other tasks, enter a long historical tradition of such epically scaled to-do lists (National Academy of Engineering, 2008). Engineering Improvement and, later, lists of so-called grand challenges that have issued from engineering societies and other entities have served the dual function of directing engineers' work and supporting particular cultural roles for these bodies of experts (Christie, 1922; Downey & Lucena, 1994; Kline, 1995; Pfatteicher, 2003; Wisnioski, 2009) They have spurred countless responses and refinements among engineering subspecialties. The Grand Challenges of the NAE, currently playing a formative role in many engineering organizations and research and teaching settings, extend this lineage (Aronowitz, 2010; Azarin et al, 2008; Taylor, 2007; Zappas, 2008) Their integration of economic and productive goals with explicit ideals of social and cultural welfare derives from historical precedents described in this paper. We can envision a mission statement or list of priorities for engineering that is conducive to self-critique in this influential field, and crucially, free of occupational risk for those who wish to engage in that self-critique
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
