May 2008 Issue
President’s Notebook
Engineers and Geoscientists —Are They Really Different?
BY GORDON WILLIAMS, P.GEOL.
APEGGA President
______________________
From time to time I hear comments that engineers and geoscientists are entirely different species, inhabit different worlds, and really should belong to separate professional associations. But are they really that different?
In APEGGA, engineers and geoscientists have cohabited, arguably to the mutual benefit of both, since the Association was formed in 1920 as APEA, which stood for the Association of Professional Engineers of Alberta. John Allan, P.Eng., the MIT-trained, hardrock geologist who established the University of Alberta Geology Department, was one of the founding members of APEA and became its president in 1930. He was licensed as a professional engineer in mining engineering, was given an Iron Ring and, from all accounts, wore it with pride.
Many other geologists and geophysicists were registered as professional
engineers until separate designations were introduced in the 1950s and the name of the Association was changed in the 1960s. Three other P.Eng. geologists, Pete Sanderson, Joe Irwin and Cam Sproule, became presidents of APEA over that time. In the 89-year history of our Association, there have now been 10 geoscientist presidents.
Clearly, from the very beginning both engineers and geoscientists understood it was important to be licensed and, more to the point, to be licensed in a single association. They recognized that they had similar training, experience and outlook, as well as a common desire to protect the public welfare. 
Just as the situation is today, they worked on projects together, trusted and respected each other, and recognized that together the two professions were stronger than they would be as separate entities.
During my years in the U of A Geology Department, I taught and worked with many engineering colleagues and served on the Faculty of Engineering Council for several years. Differences between engineering and geoscience programs were mostly in the numeric subjects — mathematics, physics and chemistry. These differences were somewhat larger between engineering and geology than between engineering and geophysics.
The major differences between engineers and geoscientists, however, mainly reflect the way their engineering and geoscience knowledge tools are applied.
The underlying theme in engineering education and practice is the concept of engineering design. Typically, an engineer will start with a clean sheet of paper and design an engineering work: a bridge, a dam, a mine, a refinery, an aircraft or an electronic system, for society to use.
Geoscientists, on the other hand, do very little of this. Mother Nature has done the design work, millions or billions of years ago, producing complex and enigmatic features that must be deciphered and interpreted before processes and products can be understood and exploited for the benefit of humanity.
It has been said, with some justification, that geoscientists discover and provide the understanding of Earth’s resources for engineers to use.
Having said that, however, it is abundantly clear that many geoscientists of my acquaintance are as numerically proficient as any engineer and, conversely, many of my engineering colleagues are as capable as any geoscientist in deciphering fragmentary, scattered and oft-times confusing data, and interpreting processes.
Engineering design and geoscientific interpretation are two sides of the same coin, and attempting to draw a boundary between the professions is an unproductive task.
Voting Results
In the recent election, members were asked to vote electronically or by mail on three proposals. These were
-
whether members-in-training (M.I.T.s) should be permitted to vote in Council elections and on issues before the membership
-
whether M.I.T.s should be permitted to stand for election to Council
-
whether our two geoscience designations (P.Geol. and P.Geoph.) should be converted to the single designation of Professional Geoscientist (P.Geo.), with the proviso that holders of existing designations could continue to use them.
The results of the vote are reported elsewhere in this month’s PEGG. Our bylaws specify that, for a mail (or electronic) vote on a proposal before the members to be binding, at least 10 per cent of the members must cast votes. In this most recent case, only 9.2 percent of eligible members voted on the proposals.
With more than 3,000 members voting, however, the information provided by the results is clearly a valid reflection of the will of the membership. Council is obligated to consider the results of mail (or electronic) votes by the membership at its next meeting and, at the April meeting, it did so.
A solid majority of members rejected extending voting rights to members-in-training and allowing them to stand for election to Council. Council considers the matter closed.
As to converting the P.Geol. and P.Geoph. designations to the single P.Geo. designation used in all other Canadian (and many international) jurisdictions, a large majority of voters indicated this was a desirable move. Council has, therefore, decided to prepare the necessary amendments to the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, Regulations and Bylaws, and bring them to the 2009 Annual General Meeting for a final decision.
On a separate but related issue, Council struck a task force to consider ways to increase the declining voter participation. More on that anon.
Please let me have your comments and suggestions by e-mailing me at president@apegga.org.