December 2006

students' voice

Engineering a Communication Bridge (Part 4)

By Patrick E. Meyer

Over the course of the past year, I have written three articles on the topic of communication between engineers and policy-makers. In these articles, selected professionals explained their viewpoints on this complex issue. In this fourth and final installment of the series, I divulge my lessons-learned and offer some insight as to what can be done on both sides of the gap to manufacture a communication bridge.

Keep in mind that it is not my intention to fix the problem at hand. In fact, it is not even my intention to provide substantial new revelations on the issues or methods to address those issues. Indeed, much of what I have discussed thus far this year — and much of what you will read here — is certainly not breaking news. But, that does not make the topic any less important or less worthy of discussing. Discussion is the reason I am writing this column. It is my opinion that the gap between engineers and policy-makers will only widen, if the issues are not laid out in the open and some action is taken. Discussion allows for an opening of windows and a shedding of light.

The first way to help bridge the communication gap is to get a diverse education. Engineering students: fill those elective slots with classes pertaining to political science; public policy; sociology; decision analysis; economics; and science, technology and society (STS). Policy and political science students: take engineering classes, obtain a strong understanding of math and science, and pick a science-based topic focus in which you can become exceptionally knowledgeable. For example, focus on energy policy and fill your elective slots with environmental science, physics and electrical engineering classes. To formulate effective science policy, you must have an understanding of the science fundamentals.

Having professionals with well-rounded educations on both sides of the gap will tackle one of the fundamental problems. That is, it will allow engineers to speak a common language with policy-makers and vice versa. Each side will be able to find common words and symbols by which to express their ideas meaningfully. It is essential that engineers and policy-makers speak on common ground — in words which can be understood by the other party — or many communication attempts will be in vain.

Secondly, get involved. Engineers must get involved in the policy process; policy-makers must get involved with engineering, science and technology issues. Although step is the second in the process of helping bridge the gap, it is the most basic way to foster communication between people of your own profession and those on the other side of the canyon.

In Part 3 of this series, I named three high-ranking Washington-based engineers; NASA administrator Michael Griffin, Andrew Card Jr. and Congressman Joe Barton. Their presence in the policy process is certainly noteworthy and immensely valuable — but it is simply not enough. Indeed, if you really try to count, you may find hundreds — if not more — technically trained individuals working in the nation's capital. Still, not enough. All engineers should be involved in the policy process in one way or another. Volunteer on a congressional staff, get a Washington-based internship or job, join a lobbying group.

For engineers, getting involved creates a pathway for voicing concerns, thoughts or expectations on current projects — and enables them to take part in formulating what the next project, entrepreneurial activity, or boom will be. Your vocal expression of interest in developing Alcubierre Drive technology, for example, may just lead to a government research grant for which you are assigned as lead researcher five years later. The resulting research could spawn a previously unknown industry. Of course, the development of warp drives might be a bit far fetched, but I think you get the point.

For policy-makers, "getting involved" is second-nature. It is the very essence of their profession. Still, getting involved in engineering issues is not always as intuitive. Many policy-makers trained in the social sciences are venturing into the realms of technology — but not all. There is no excuse for the remaining policy-makers to delay taking the step into the technological realm. Engineering, science and technology mold the very structure of modern society. All policy-makers need be involved in technological processes to understand the impacts those processes have on their own profession.

Finally, be vocal. As an engineer, when you come across something questionable, speak up and make sure the right people hear your concerns. There is never such a thing as "too much" communication. Keep all parties informed of current topics. Inundate decision makers with e-mails. Similarly, as a policy-maker, keep the science and engineering community informed. Make a Web site or start a blog that discusses the major issues you are focusing on and send out e-mails to those parties that need to be kept up-to-date.

It is very important that engineers do not become alienated by the strange workings of the American political system. Understand that government, at times, is highly inefficient — and simply deal with it. Our system has been purposefully developed to be inefficient, to have numerous checks and balances, and to not get things done. There is not much you can do, except to understand the system so you can work within it. Your diverse education will come in handy here. Also, be sure to establish contacts within the policy realm and learn how they go about navigating the political channels.

Everyone must remember that policy-makers and engineers want the same things. As I discussed in Part 2, policy-makers, by definition of their profession, are mandated to create change. Similarly, engineers use their accumulated knowledge to foster change. Both policy-makers and engineers want to build things, be it society or technology. In today's world, many policy-makers are fascinated with the concept of the fusion of society and technology — an event in which engineers can take center stage.

In the end, the bridge over the communication gap will not be built through crafty legislation. The bridge will not be engineered through advanced communication technologies. If left alone, the fissure will only widen — the gap will not fill on its own. The bridge can only be constructed of one material: humans. You, yourself, can serve as the bridge by taking action, by ensuring that you get educated. Get involved. And get talking! In the places where you serve as the initial bridge between engineers and policy-makers, the foundations will remain for others to follow. Create enough bridges and the gap will cease to exist.

Patrick E. Meyer is IEEE-USA Today's Engineer Students' Voice Editor, and a doctoral student at the University of Delaware. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.