In a conversation with a fellow engineer, I remarked that our profession was critical to meeting societal needs in a range of fields.

"All we do is things like lower the price of oil," he said.

"Yes. And people go to war over such matters."

For these fields are not without enemies, even (especially, perhaps) in the technologically advanced era of the late twentieth century. As a college student during the early 1990s, I observed the emergence of an effete class of aspiring politicians, lawyers, and entertainers, most of whom disdained scientific enterprise with all the arrogance of a lord for his serfs. I have probed some of the roots of this intellectual bias, this disdain for utility, in "The Persistent Misdirection," but far more understanding is needed of the subtle influences which have brought about this ugly state of affairs, which so endangers the economic future of this country.

From the first chapter of this book, it has been shown how science and technology have represented critical influences on history from the dawn of civilization to the present day. Engineers and scientists, though less voluble than court scribes, have transformed the human experience at least as much as have princes and potentates. Given the rapidly increasing pace of scientific understanding and technological development, it is almost impossible to envision that future history will not be strongly influenced by such advances. Though cynics, such as John Horgan (author of "The End of Science") claim that the end of scientific progress is in sight, nothing could be further from the truth. Though a great number of scientific problems appear to have been solved or to be unsolvable, it is precisely at such times that scientific revolutions begin. Fin de siecle mutterings about the end of science are nothing new; as noted in an earlier chapter, A.A. Michelson, a future Nobel prize-winner in physics, proclaimed in 1894 that all the great discoveries had already been made. The fact that the vast majority of the world's scientists who have ever lived are alive today makes rapid scientific progress a near-certainty, though the form of that progress is, by its very nature, unpredictable. It is fashionable today to lament the end of science, just as a few years ago, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed "the end of history" in an article, and subsequently a book, by the same name. The end of the international order which had existed throughout Fukuyama's lifetime did not, of course, herald the end of history, any more than did the Congress of Vienna in 1815. If, as Elie Wiesel writes, "To learn means to accept the postulate that life did not begin at my birth," both Horgan and Fukuyama have a great deal of learning to do.

Despite the obvious importance of science and technology to future history, however, a number of barriers circumscribe the growth of professional scientific and engineering circles. Clearly, working to reduce and eliminate these previously enumerated obstacles would be of considerable benefit.

But it is not enough merely to have a greater number of people enter science and engineering professionally. For one, greater scientific knowledge on the part of the non-professional is called for. Particularly in a democratic society, it is of high importance that the citizenry have an understanding of actions involving technology and their possible consequences. It is also growing increasingly necessary for people in most professional fields to be comfortable with quantitative information and some basic science.

In an increasingly technical world, there is an ever-greater need for leadership in every field by those with technical backgrounds. In business and education, in government and even in the arts community, those who understand technology and its uses are in a position to shape the character of their professions in the next century. A technically advanced elite is useful, but what are needed are multi-faceted, globally minded scientists and engineers-- individuals who are able to interface effectively between complex technologies and even more complex societies. These engineers and scientists, in today's highly knowledge-intensive and international environment, must be have good interpersonal skills and be articulate communicators in several languages. They require a sound understanding of the broader implications of technology, in the context of economic, political, historical, and cultural issues.

Science and engineering emphasize problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. Moreover, both entail a degree of creativity which surprises non-practitioners. Engineering and the applied sciences have the additional virtue of emphasizing synthetic as well as analytic approaches. Speaking from personal experience, one of the principal motivations behind my choice to study chemical engineering was that practitioners of that field appeared to be highly diversified intellectually, and extensive links existed between their various areas of expertise. A corporate recruiter mentioned to me that a reason for his seeking out engineers for non-technical positions was that engineers were systemic thinkers--they tend to think about processes in their totality, from beginning to end.

Intellectuals have long advocated the merits of liberal-arts educations, whereby students will acquire the broad thinking skills and exposure to ideas that will enable them to resolve problems throughout their lives. Scientists and engineers, given the vocational utility of their degrees, are perceived as lacking the varied insights and perspectives of liberal-arts students. Such analyses ignore the fact that the scientifically educated have mastered that most difficult of foreign languages, mathematics. Scientists and engineers are challenged to understand counterintuitive and abstract concepts, and then to relate these to the world of experience. They are the consummate liberal artists of an age which not only exalts in rapid technological advance, but also one which understands that scientific concepts are relevant to non-engineering problems. The original Renaissance thinkers pursued studies in medicine, mathematics, engineering design, and the sciences, together with their studies in the humanities. A truly liberal education, particularly in an age of rapid scientific advance, should likewise include a firm grounding in the methods and approaches of science. Individuals, firms, and nations which neglect this element of education, preferring to leave scientific knowledge in the hands of a technical elite or to ignore it altogether, do so at their own peril.

Technology is the study of how to mold the world around us to satisfy our needs--economic, ideological, environmental, military, or otherwise. Superior science and technology can be the only bases for sustained economic growth. The engines of power are driven, not by redistributive politicians or lawyers, but by the scientists and engineers who create wealth. If the United States--or any other nation, for that matter--is to remain a great power, its citizens must learn to command technologies. A nation which denudes itself of technical expertise becomes weak. No amount of legal sophistry will change that.

History belongs to those who make themselves the masters of technology.