Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
In the broadest sense, engineering is an outgrowth of
rationalism; that is, engineers apply reason to solve
problems. Descartes' observation can be extended to say:
''I think, therefore I design.'' But, on what do we base
such designs, and if these are flawed, what makes an
engineer choose another path? According to physicist-
philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn, there are essentially two
types of paradigm shifts: those that result from a dis-
covery caused by encounters with anomaly and those that
result from the invention of new theories brought about
by failures of existing theories to solve problems the
theory defines. In the case of a paradigm shift brought
about by discovery, the first step in shifting the said
paradigm is the discovery of the anomaly itself.
Engineers are constantly interpreting theory to pro-
vide realistic examples. In this regard, Louis Pasteur can
be considered to be among the first ''modern era engi-
neers.'' He was concerned with advancing the state of the
science of diseases in parallel with practicing private and
public health care. Thus, engineering cannot rely on
a single-minded paradigm - in this case, Pasteur's work
found that the standard medical practice paradigms
would fall short (e.g., in treating anthrax). He also found
that a new foundational paradigm was needed (e.g., an
enhancement of germ theory).
Thus, the good engineer explores the anomalies. Once
the paradigm has been adjusted so that the anomalous
becomes the expected, it is said that the paradigm
change is complete. In the case of a paradigm shift that
results from the invention of new theories caused by the
failure of existing theory, the first step is the failure itself
(when the system in place fails, the creation of a new
system is necessary). Several things can bring about this
failure: observation of discrepancies between the theory
and the fact, changes in the surrounding social or cultural
climate, and academic and practical criticism of the
existing theory. While these problems have generally
been known for a long time, Kuhn noted that on nu-
merous occasions the scientific community has been
highly resistant to change in paradigms. Kuhn also noted
that in the early stages of a paradigm, it is easy to invent
theoretical alternatives that can be placed on a given set
of data. However, once the paradigm is better estab-
lished,
The profession of engineering
23
By Herbert Hoover
It is a great profession. There is the satisfaction of
watching a figment of the imagination emerge through
the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to
realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs
and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of
living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the
engineer's high privilege.
The great liability of the engineer compared to men of
other professions is that his works are out in the open
where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard
substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like
the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame
the judge like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects,
cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the
politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming his
opponents and hope that the people will forget. The
engineer simply cannot deny that he did it. If his works do
not work, he is damned. That is the phantasmagoria that
haunts his nights and dogs his days. He comes from the
job at the end of the day resolved to calculate it again. He
wakes in the night in a cold sweat and puts something on
paper that looks silly in the morning. All day he shivers at
the thought of the bugs which will inevitably appear to jolt
his smooth consummation.
On the other hand, unlike the doctor his is not a life
among the weak. Unlike the soldier, destruction is not his
purpose. Unlike the lawyer, quarrels are not his daily
bread. To the engineer falls the job of clothing the bare
bones of science with life, comfort and hope.
No doubt as years go by people forget which engineer
did it, even if they ever knew. Or some politician puts his
name on it. Or they credit it to some promoter who used
other people's money with which to finance it. But the
engineer himself looks back at the unending stream of
goodness that flows from his successes with
satisfactions that few professions may know. And the
verdict of his fellow professionals is all the accolade he
wants.
these
theoretical
alternatives
are
strongly
resisted.
25
Similarly, the process through which advances are
made, and paradigms developed, may also be examined
through the lens of the social sciences, especially eco-
nomics. Although there are numerous examples of the
differences in thinking between economists and engi-
neers, this is an area of agreement. For example,
economist John Maynard Keynes wanted to understand
the dynamics of economics fundamentally. At the same
time, he wanted to solve the problem of economic
depression. Thus, Keynes was taking the engineering
In addition to the aesthetic aspects of design, it must be
underpinned by sound science. Herbert Hoover, one of
only two US presidents trained as an engineer (the other
is Jimmy Carter), eloquently captured this balance in his
memoirs (see The Profession of Engineering).
Cogito, ergo sum.
(Latin: ''I think, therefore I am.'')
24
Rene´ Descartes (1637)
