| |
ENGINEERING POLICY:
WALKING
THE TIGHTROPE
Photography By Chuck Zovko
IN 2001, there were only four degree-holding engineers in the United States Senate. Presidents Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter were trained as engineers . . . can you think of another engineer-president? Can you name a governor or mayor who has studied engineering?
Think about the leading issues that politicians at all levels of government are embroiled with: stem-cell research, homeland security, the massive transportation network, energy alternatives, global warming, math and science educational standards, the information superhighway, nanotechnology funding, and the return to the moon are just a few.
Who should be debating these issues and making these decisions?
Keep in mind that policy-makers’ decisions also affect engineers’ jobs in terms of funding, restrictions, labor pool, and on and on. Automobiles,
for example, are affected by hundreds of federal regulations (and international standards) regarding safety, weight, fuel efficiency, emissions, etc. Developers face local zoning and planning restrictions that govern what can be built, noise levels during construction, occupancy, parking, handicap access, greenfields, lighting, and so on. Trade restrictions and labor laws can affect who is designing new technology and where they are located. And professors, including those at Lafayette, continually seek government funding to develop new technologies.
Engineers are indeed affected by government policy at all levels—
local, state, federal, and, increasingly, international. Engineering students are prepared to calculate a force on a beam, or the exothermic energy produced by a manufacturing process, or the pressure a vessel must withstand. But are engineering students here and elsewhere prepared to react to, or, even better, influence, public policy? The National Academy of Science is calling for the engineer of 2020 to be more involved in the setting of public policy and to participate in the civic arena: to be, that is, not only adept at engineering, but also able to negotiate the tightrope of engineering and public policy.
Lafayette offers the sophomore-level Introduction to Engineering and Public Policy course with this in mind. The objective is to introduce students to how technological issues are governed in industrialized and industrializing societies and expose them to the current public policy controversies that involve technology. The course gives students, regardless of their long-term career goals, an understanding of the pervasive role of government in the technical arena and the need to use and manage technology within that context.
The emphasis is on federal policy,
but state, local, and international nuances are discussed.
The only other undergraduate engineering policy courses I know of are at Carnegie Mellon University. At Lafayette, all A.B. engineering students must take EP 251, since many of them will enter management and policy fields where an understanding of the policy arena is valuable. Some B.S. engineering majors elect to take the course as well, recognizing the advantage it provides them in their future careers.
Some of those who take the course expect an easy credit: “No difficult math and equations!” they think. But they soon find out how frustrating it is to predict the outcomes of policy without using equations. And for some, it’s the first time they realize there isn’t just one solution to a problem. (Oh, were it only that easy!)
The course is highly interactive. It “jumps around.” A typical day might go like this. . .
1. PUBLIC POLICY: WHY?
Class begins with a recap of the previous session, to draw connections between what the students debated in that class and the themes we’re discussing throughout the semester. Four issues are scheduled for debate during the term; yesterday’s debate statement was “The state of Pennsylvania should allocate funds for human embryonic stem cell research.” Both the pro and con groups articulated several questions relevant to the discussion of why public policy may or may not be needed in this area, including the following:
- Can we consider embryonic stem cells as public goods given their potential health value? Do they meet the economic criteria of non-rivalry and non-exclusion? Is your opinion affected if we limit the stem cells to discarded embryos from in vitro fertilization?
- Is this a case of preventing such funding to avoid potential negative impacts, i.e., stabilize against extremes? (Remember the term “precautionary principle” and the conflict between stimulating growth while imposing controls to minimize negative impacts.)
- Should this research proceed with government funding in an effort to stimulate technological growth and
thus economic growth?
Most of the class so far focused on public policy as an attempt to address economic failures in the market without causing additional problems. But in this debate students understood that for some issues, there are ethical and political reasons for adopting or rejecting public policy. Some also pointed out, accurately, that a lack of government funding does not necessarily mean the end of stem-cell research (since there is no ban on such research by either private entities, or individual state funds). And they clearly argued the reasons why a state may want to proceed with such funding in an attempt to provide economic opportunities via technology industries. Some additional questions they considered include:
- Which states are funding embryonic stem cell research now?
In terms of jobs in the biomedical area, which states are more attractive?
Is there a relationship? Is this an example of science policy, technology policy, or industrial policy?
- Where is this topic in the four-step public policy process model we’ve discussed—Agenda Setting, Policy Formulation, Policy Adoption,
Policy Implementation?
- Is the current federal debate best described by Elite theory, Group theory, Institutionalism, Rational Choice theory, or Political Systems theory?
- What are the characteristics about this issue that made it “institutional?”
2. POLICY EVALUATION AND CHANGE: FLIGHT-CREW DOORS
Following the recap, the class moves to the topic of the day: the last steps in policy analysis, i.e., policy evaluation and policy change. Today we’re considering the policy governing the design of flight-crew doors on commercial passenger airliners.
The current policy was adopted in January 2002, following the Sept. 11 hijackings. The principal objective of the pre-9/11 policy was to ensure privacy so that pilots can focus on flight duties. Design requirements included the following:
- Pressure differential caused by the door should not compromise the airplane’s basic structure during sudden decompression
- Flight crew needs an alternate escape path in an emergency situation if cockpit window is not usable
- Design allows for adequate venting
- Easily opened in case of emergency for flight crew
An additional requirement was that each crewmember (cabin and flight) have a key readily available to open the door.
The class is asked, “What changed with the new policy?” and a discussion ensues on the requirements added post-9/11, which include:
- Door design improved so
it is hijack-resistant
- Door includes internal
locking mechanisms
- Keys are only possessed by
flight crew (temporary policy)
- Airlines had 18 months to implement
- Evaluation required to determine if unacceptable safety risks
The class also discusses the mission agency responsible for issuing these new regulations and its motivation
in doing so.
Students are reminded that policy evaluation is based on measurable results just as engineering evaluation is based on measurable results. Working in pairs, the students discuss various factors and considerations in evaluating a policy’s success. These include policy output (narrow measures that are easy to quantify and task-specific, but do not necessarily measure success in reaching objective), performance evaluation (impact on target groups who were focus of objective), policy outcomes (indirect effects), and feedback from those affected by the policy.
The students then probe possible factors leading to the policy change with respect to flight-crew doors, discussing the various reasons for policy change generally plus hypothetical examples with greater and lesser degrees of relevance to the policy at hand. These factors include: 1. incremental changes in dynamics of society (e.g., increasing incidents of people going into cockpit without permission), 2. new statutes contradict or invalidate parts of existing policy (e.g., FAA’s new law about design requirements for doors), 3. lawsuits and/or other legal/constitutional challenges to the policy (e.g., flight attendants file suit that not having
key violates their workplace safety),
4. new technology alters feasibility
of policy (e.g., Boeing develops cheaper and more secure door),
5. new discoveries or revelations change public support for a program (e.g., independent investigation shows most pilots are drinking when door is closed . . . don’t worry, this one is not true), 6. political and economic circumstances change, imposing different conditions on an existing policy (e.g., September 11 attacks), 7. elections cause an ideological shift that changes the policy, (e.g, a libertarian is elected president and eases regulations across the board leaving it up to individual airlines).
3. ASSIGNMENTS
Finally, there is a discussion about
two upcoming assignments, one
to be done individually and one
in small groups.
In the first one, the students are asked to refer to a handout pertaining to a policy in Connecticut governing the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers, and, without conducting additional research:
Assume that the original policy in Connecticut was to prohibit drivers from using hand-held cell phones while behind the wheel, with fines of $100 for each incident. Assume the policy described in the handout is an example of a recent change to an existing policy. Answer the following question in no more than two pages:
- Summarize the basic controversy in terms of “precautionary principle”
- Describe four evaluation measures that may have been used
to determine that a policy change was needed; categorize each
measure by type
- What factors led to the
changed policy?
- What type of policy change
does this example represent?
- Justify your answers
In the group project, students are addressing the question, “Does the 2005 Energy Policy Act address the future needs of the United States?” Here’s their assignment:
A Congressional Subcommittee
on Energy has convened a public hearing to discuss if the recently passed 2005 Energy Policy Act is sufficient for the next decade. A bill is not under consideration, but the Subcommittee hopes that the discussions from the hearing will help them decide if amendments are needed to the 2005 Act.
Each group, representing a stake-holder in this controversial discussion, is to make a 10-minute presentation that includes the following:
- A critique of the 2005 Act focusing on any public policy issues
(at the federal level) that still need
to be addressed
- Possible solutions (alternatives) and their pros and cons
- The group’s opinion as to the best solution(s) for the future (next decade), applying evaluation criteria
to prioritize the alternatives
- A statement to the Subcommittee articulating why the selected criteria and prioritization of suggested alternatives are reasonable in consideration of the technical, social, and economic parameters involved in the issue
And with that another class ends, after much debate and questioning, a little humor, and a few speeches. Frustration lingers at the complexity of the policy process. Usually by the end of the semester, most students know how to manage that frustration, and
a few are motivated to continue in
the engineering policy field.
SYLLABUS: EP 251
Introduction to Engineering and Public Policy
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
This course introduces students to the governance of science and engineering. Course topics include the overall context for science and engineering policy, the public policy process and institutions involved in that process, and current science and engineering public policy issues.
It includes a combination of role-playing exercises, debates, field trips,
and traditional lectures.
REQUIRED READING INCLUDES:
Thomas A. Easton, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Science, Technology, and Society, 7th ed.; Michael Kraft and Scott Furlong, Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives
COCURRICULAR ACTIVITIES INCLUDE:
Lectures: “Roberts, Save this Honorable Court,” Bruce Allen Murphy, Kirby Professor of Civil Rights, Lafayette; “Time Discounting of the Brain,” Samuel M. McClure, Center for the Study of Brain, Mind, and Behavior, Princeton University; “Challenges and Solutions of Developing Nations,” Francisco Flores, former president of El Salvador and founder, América Libre Institute; “America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neo-Conservative Legacy,” Frances Fukuyama, Paul Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University;
“End of Foreign Aid,” William Easterly, Development Research Institute, New York University; Lafayette’s annual Judith A. Resnik Memorial Lecture (details TBA)
Meeting: City of Easton Planning Commission
In “From the Classroom,” faculty members give insight into their particular subject, providing a window on the intellectual
rigor that characterizes the environment of academic excellence at Lafayette. In this issue Sharon Jones, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, discusses teaching her course Introduction to Engineering and Public Policy.
|
