Buy Used
CDN$ 0.01
+ CDN$ 6.49 shipping
Used: Very Good | Details
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Ships from the USA. Please allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery. This book shows minor wear and is in very good condition. Blue Cloud Books â€" Hot deals from the land of the sun.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems Hardcover – Deckle Edge, Feb 23 2010

5.0 out of 5 stars 1 customer review

See all 3 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Hardcover, Deckle Edge
"Please retry"
CDN$ 37.46 CDN$ 0.01

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child
click to open popover

No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 288 pages
  • Publisher: Knopf; 1 edition (Feb. 23 2010)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0307272451
  • ISBN-13: 978-0307272454
  • Product Dimensions: 16.7 x 2.8 x 24.4 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 363 g
  • Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars 1 customer review
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #354,822 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  •  Would you like to update product info, give feedback on images, or tell us about a lower price?

  • See Complete Table of Contents

Product Description

About the Author

Henry Petroski is the Aleksandar S. Vesic Professor of Civil Engineering and a professor of history at Duke University. The author of more than a dozen previous books, he lives in Durham, North Carolina, and Arrowsic, Maine.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.


Ubiquitous Risk

Our lives and those of our children and grandchildren are constantly at risk. Hardly a day passes, it seems, when there is not a story on television or in the newspaper about some new threat to our health and safety. If it is not toys decorated with lead- based paint, then it is drugs—not just pharmaceuticals but something as commonplace as toothpaste—containing adulterated ingredients, or even milk contaminated with industrial chemicals that found its way into candy sold around the globe.

Risk and reassurance are two key considerations of the activities of science, engineering, invention, and technology—collectively often referred to simply as “science” or “science and technology.” Whatever they are called, they play a critical role in modern civilization, being essential for the advancement of society and the protection of our quality of life. It is these human disciplines associated with discovery and design that help separate the good from the dangerous on the farm and in the factory, at home and at the office, and on battlefields and frontiers. While science and technology can be misused and become the source of ruin, we would be at even greater risk from tainted products and contagious diseases were it not for the benevolent use of what are among the achievements that make us most distinctly human. If science and technology are two- edged swords, they are also the essential weapons in detecting and managing everyday risk.

The bad milk that caused so much consternation a couple of years ago originated in China, which is among the largest exporters of food and food ingredients in the world. In order to increase quantities and thus realize greater profit, unscrupulous participants in the food supply chain misused chemical engineering to water down and adulterate milk. However, diluted milk, being lower in protein, can easily be detected by standardized testing employing well- established technology. But by adding inexpensive melamine, a chemical rich in nitrogen that is used in producing fertilizer and plastics, the adulterated milk could be made to register a higher protein level. Some of the tainted milk found its way into baby formula, causing tens of thousands of children to become ill, with at least six infants dying. This happened because melamine does not dissolve easily in the body and in higher concentrations can produce kidney stones and lead to kidney failure. The widespread presence of melamine in Chinese food products, including cookies and yogurt, led to worldwide recalls. Melamine had also been used as a cheap filler in pet food, causing many cats and dogs to become seriously ill. The chemical was additionally suspected to have been used in other animal feed, which caused chickens to produce melamine- tainted eggs. China promised to crack down on such practices—going so far as to sentence to death some of those responsible for the criminal activity—but the incident prompted a nagging skepticism that soon there could be some other tainted import that we would have to worry about.

The Chinese milk scandal is a striking example of the use and misuse of science and technology and of the tragic consequences that can result. In themselves, science and technology are neutral tools that help us understand the world and allow us to work with its resources. People, however, are not necessarily neutral participants, and they can use their scientific understanding and technical prowess for good or ill. It may be that those who added melamine to diluted milk thought they were only being clever exploiters of chemistry. The unfortunate consequences of their actions were, of course, beyond mere venality, and ironically, the very same science and technology that served as tools of deception were also used to uncover the plot. Like risk itself, science and technology and their effects are ubiquitous.

It is not just potentially harmful products from abroad that can give us pause. Not long ago E. coli–contaminated spinach from California proved to be the culprit in the deaths of three people and the illnesses of hundreds of Americans who trusted domestically grown and harvested produce. A few years later, salmonella- tainted tomatoes were believed initially to be responsible for causing hundreds of people in dozens of states to become ill. For a while, the root of the problem, which spread through forty- one states and affected more than a thousand people, was believed to be in Florida, or maybe Mexico. When no source was found in either of those agricultural locations, however, the public was told that perhaps tomatoes were not the source after all. Maybe it was fresh jalapeños—or something else. Six weeks after advising people not to eat tomatoes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lifted the advisory without reaching any definite conclusion about the origin of the salmonella. It was not that science and technology were inadequate to the task. It was that there were no reliable data trails pointing to the various hands through which the bad food had passed on its way to the supermarket. When the guilty bacterium was finally found in a Texas distribution plant, its ultimate origin could not be traced. Unfortunately, such elastic and inconclusive warnings inure us to risk.

Not long after the tomato/jalapeño incident, peanut products containing salmonella were traced to a processing plant in Georgia. In the years preceding the discovery, the plant had been cited repeatedly by the state department of agriculture for health violations, ranging from unclean food preparation surfaces to dirty and mildewed walls and ceilings. On numerous occasions, when the company’s own testing detected salmonella in its products, they were retested with negative results and the products were shipped. It was only after a salmonella outbreak was traced to peanut butter from the plant that it was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration and two years’ worth of peanut butter products were recalled—after the company was given an opportunity to approve the wording of the recall statement. A selective interpretation of scientific test results and a casual enforcement of technical regulations can imperil millions of people. Such incidents threaten the reputation that science and technology once held for objectivity and are likely to bring increased calls for tightened regulation.

In the wake of the salmonella scares, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of radiation on fresh vegetables like lettuce and spinach to rid them of bacteria. An editorial in The New York Times praised the move, noting that astronauts have long eaten irradiated meat, and that other treated foods, like poultry and shellfish, had produced no detectable adverse effects on those consumers who had tried them. Of course, there remain a great number of people who cringe at the idea of eating anything that has been exposed to radiation, and it is likely going to be a long time before the practice can be expected to become the norm. Nevertheless, it is such technological advances, which ultimately owe their existence to science and engineering research and development, that can bring an overall reduction in risks of all kinds, including those involved in activities as common and essential as eating. 

In modern times, systems of commercial competitiveness and government regulation have provided a good measure of checks and balances against undue risk, but the failings of human nature can interfere with the proper functioning of those protective social structures. Science and engineering can be called upon to develop new means of defining safe limits of contaminants and toxins and can devise new instruments and methods for detecting unsafe products, but the ultimate reduction in risk from everyday things is more a matter of vigilance and enforcement than of technology. It is imperative that positive results for salmonella and other contaminants be taken seriously and treated responsibly by the private food industry. If there continues to be life- threatening disregard for consumer health and safety, it is likely that increased government oversight will be imposed.

Sometimes new technology—even that encouraged by law— brings with it new risks, and we are forced to confront the unthought of consequences of a seemingly good idea. In recent years, the increased use of crops like corn in the manufacture of biofuels intended to ease our dependence on foreign oil pinched the food supply and caused prices to rise. To avoid this problem, nonfood crops have increasingly been proposed for making second- generation green fuels. But biologists have warned that certain reeds and wild grasses known to botanists as “invasive species” and to gardeners as “weeds” would have a high likelihood of overtaking nearby fields, presenting serious threats to the ecology and economy of a region. Investors in the fast- growing worldwide biofuels industry naturally reject such doomsday scenarios, but the risk is a real one. The European Union has been especially bullish on biofuels, with plans to use them for 10 percent of the fuel needed for transportation by 2020. However, it has become increasingly clear that agricultural efforts undertaken to help meet that goal were leading to deforestation in remote regions, thereby cont...

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Petroski uses this book to both link and differentiate the practices of science and engineering. As someone with degrees in both fields, I found his writing to be very relevant and interesting. Petroski challenges existing beliefs (research and development vs. development and research, for example) and provides numerous stories and historical insights. This is a great book for engineering students and practicing engineers who wish to learn more about their profession but have grown weary of only reading textbooks and formulas.
One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) HASH(0xa22747b0) out of 5 stars 8 reviews
29 of 29 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa22051e0) out of 5 stars An eloquent case for engineering May 17 2010
By Dennis Meredith - Published on
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
In this highly engrossing book, Petroski eloquently challenges a fundamental and profound bias in our society--the relegation of engineers and engineering to second-class status among professions. He traces to roots of the perceived primacy of science over engineering to the Western Platonic bias that "ideas are superior and prerequisite to things" and to the simplistic linear model of research-before-development promulgated by science administrator Vannevar Bush in the 1940s. Petroski uses examples such as the steam engine, powered flight and rocketry, to demonstrate that engineering often leads science, and also that science is a tool of engineering. He also compellingly describes the optimistic, challenging, rewarding nature of engineering, showing its satisfying creativity. And to demonstrate the richness of engineering, he takes the reader through a tour of technologies as seen through the eyes of an engineer, including speed bumps and humps, dams, climate change, "geoengineering" of the earth to combat climate change, renewable energy, nanotechnology, robotics, structural earthquake engineering, hurricane protection, airline accidents, the electric power grid, evolution of the automobile, and "financial engineering." This book is essential reading, not only for engineers and students, but for all of us who benefit from the vast wealth of technology that makes modern life possible.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa2215018) out of 5 stars Science and Engineering Oct. 15 2013
By D. Wayne Dworsky - Published on
Format: Hardcover
Petroski aims to clarify the difference between science and engineering. He professes that, "Engineering and medicine are more like each other than like science." The book's subtitle, Why Science Alone Will not Solve Our Global Problems, focuses Petroski's conviction, drawing upon the support of some of the most creative scientific minds of the 20th Century, including Albert Einstein.

One of the main problems of technological rescue, Petroski purports, is the high cost of technology. He points out how the Europeans are way ahead of the US in the race for renewable energy. The reason for their success is the high cost of petrol-based fuel. When the cost of petrol-energy exceeds renewable energy, technology will grow in that direction.

Petroski explains in clear English how our engineering will garner a new way to harness the vast technology already within our grasp. His ideas bridge the once clear gulf between science and engineering. Engineering has shifted away from mere scientific application. The new technology, he claims, emerges from the amalgamation of different areas. If need is the mother of invention, then technology is the godfather of engineering. The author sees the day when technology will fill niches and support our ingenuity to fabricate a more efficient world.
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa24be234) out of 5 stars And the message is? Feb. 16 2014
By Rudolf Koetter - Published on
Verified Purchase
Not sure what the intent of the book is, other than whining about the lack of recognition for the engineering disciplines.
I am an engineer myself but this was not what I was expecting from this book.
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa242c474) out of 5 stars A worthwhile read for engineers Sept. 27 2012
By Thomas Edward - Published on
Format: Hardcover
While there are many books within the field of engineering (and even some giving career advice to engineers), there are few that look at the profession anecdotally like this book does. It was good to finally get my hands on a book that presented engineering within the context of society - one that that wasn't also an engineering ethics textbook anyway.

The author makes the important point that engineering and science are two distinct professions - something that is rarely acknowledged by the media or culture at-large. I have noticed this many times myself, and far too often the terms are used interchangeably. As an engineer, it's a little unsettling that so many people don't know what engineers do or what they contribute to society. Or, when engineers are mentioned they are portrayed in either a negative light or as being less valuable than scientists. The author presents many good examples of this in the pages of the book.

My only criticism is that some of the historical episodes are presented in a way that is a bit dry. Overall, though, I think that this is a good armchair-type book about engineering and what engineers do for society.
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa266c3cc) out of 5 stars I think like an engineer, not a scientist. That's why they always called me "different". July 18 2014
By Kenneth E. Udut - Published on
I picked up this book from the library yesterday and I couldn't put it down. Having been online since the late 80s (in the form of BBSs' and such) and evolving personally through the evolution of the Internet, I've gotten into many discussions with scientists and people interested in science through the years.

But I would always hit the same stumbling blocks. Their obsession over prediction and single answers drove me nuts - couldn't they see that the world is more complicated than that? That you can't predict everything - which makes attempting to tackle compexity as it stands all the more important?

What I didn't realize in all of this time, is that I think like an Engineer. I don't think like a scientist.

The subtle distinction of the brainstorming and the "how" and the "do we have enough time, money, resources" and "what will its effects be on the environment, people, the future?" are in the realm of the engineer moreso than the scientist.

I've always been the "fix it" guy around here and bold proclamations by scientists about "I know the Universal Truth here", by averaging out reality always felt more religious than 'scentific' in nature.

And now I know why. I think like a hacker, like an engineer, like a technician. But when I am thinking about the science, and the whys of things - I know that I'm delving into an arena less of fact than of fiction, of stories not so different than Noah's Ark; explanatory tales of history that teach basic principles - but may or may not be true to reality.

Engineering takes a more honest approach and creates something out of nothing. Dreaming drawing, planning, doing.

it doesn't predict the future, but tries to anticipate and is always self-conscious that failure is always looming over the shoulder but it makes the pressure to do the best you can with the resources you have at hand a fantastic metaphor for approaching life.

Thanks for a great book, one of only 2 on engineering in my whole library - at least the philosophical side.