TALKING Mailbox
POINT
16
June 2020 / www.theengineer.co.uk
THE CASE FOR A
CHIEF ENGINEER
The appointment of such a
person is long overdue; now is the
ideal time whilst the Covid-19
situation is current as the general
public, and government
ministers/civil servant chiefs
have witnessed the effect of Prof.
Whitty’s influence. A dynamic,
engineering person with good
all-round knowledge and strong
links with all disciplines of
engineering for secondment of
specialised knowledge is
essential. Perhaps controversial
projects like HS2 would be better
managed and implemented,
without the London centric
approach that seems so prevalent
these days.
Keith Nuttall
This would be a political role,
how would that really help
engineering ?
Has Chris Whitty really come
out of the CV-19 chaos as a
shining beacon or just as an echo
chamber or patsy for government
(lack of) policy ?
Many engineers don’t support
programmes like HS2, Heathrow
Expansion or F35 purchases, how
would that play out in the light of
current Tory policies ?
What sector would a chief
engineer come from ? Mechanical,
Electrical, Chemical, Biological,
Software, Communications, etc. –
the field is too wide for one person
to have a real grasp of all areas.
So it would appear that a group
would be better placed to advise.
I believe therefore that the
already existing professional
bodies should be the providers
of any ‘engineering’ advice and
these bodies should be guided,
in a democratic way, by their
members.
The bottom line is that politicians
will do whatever serves their
We asked readers whether the challenges posed
by the current crisis have strengthened the case
for a chief government engineer?
purposes irrespective of any
advise, informed or otherwise – as
they say “you can lead a horse to
water but ….”
Another Steve
The work of scientists and
clinicians during this awful
Covid-19 pandemic has been
absolutely crucial to fighting the
virus. Examples include: a)
sequencing the virus’s gene; b)
structure of the virus linked to
ACE-2 receptors in targeted cells;
c) epidemic modelling; etc.
Turning this science rapidly into
robust RNAqPCR, antigen and
IgM& IgG test to diagnose and
screen has needed engineering
skills. The superb work on new
vaccine and antiviral drug
candidates will require
substantial chemical and
biomaterials engineering to get
worldwide availability asap to
save lives and the economy!
Advanced control engineering
will be essential for turning
epidemic forecasting into robust
pandemic modelling. Software
engineering is already proving to
be critical. I could go on . But there
is another reason why we need a
National CEO!
When the pandemic is over, the
great global challenges will still
be there: i.e. global warming,
the circular economy, green
energy, drinking water, rising sea
waters etc. These challenges are
ENGINEERING led!
Terry Wilkins FREng
The government comprises
a debating but non-numerate
class (in 2017 only 26 had science
qualifications) better suited to
analysing the Napoleonic wars
than the modern world.
Engineers would bring two
major attributes that pure
scientists do not have: firstly, a
multidisciplinary approach to
complex problems and secondly
economic awareness of the
consequences of bad decisions,
(again totally lacking in the pure
sciences). We have a power
system that is on the edge of
collapse. Transport systems that
are antique and have off-shored
many key industries to make a
quick buck.
Yes, we need an engineering input
to the policy makers.
Jack Broughton
TTstudio.stock.adobe.com
Simple answer: YES! I
speak as a victim of a certain
Mrs T’s desire to rid the civil
service of technical expertise,
when short term bean counters
came to the fore. And it would
perhaps start the difficult job of
making the country re-value
and recognise the value of our
skills. For far too long we have
suffered from the self assessed
glorious amateur approach to
society arising from the wealthy
Victorian upper classes.
Nick Cole
/www.theengineer.co.uk
/TTstudio.stock.adobe.com