3938 APEG Mar.Apr Edit.indd - APEGBC

letters
6 MARCH/APRIL 2008 INNOVATION
Letters to the editor containing your views on topics
of interest or concern to members are encouraged.
While we welcome your input, due to space
limitations we may be unable to publish all letters
received. Opinions expressed in letters to the editor
are not necessarily endorsed by APEGBC. Letters
can be e-mailed to mlau@apeg.bc.ca.
Shallow Surveys Are Not Professional
Opinion polls must be properly designed to produce
valid results. Too oft en authors presume certain
conditions, omit some possible actions, and accept
self-selection instead of seeking a representative range
of respondents. If one only asks “Who likes pistachio
ice cream?” they won’t get answers of “Why
not chocolate?”
For example, the lay poll on the “environment”
described in the November/December 2007 issue of
Innovation presumes that “industry” is the only source
of pollution—ignoring that people and animals can
easily contaminate water supplies on their own—and
doesn’t even allow insertion of alternative actions.
It and APEGBC’s member survey on
“sustainability” ignore the respect for individual
freedom supported by a rational justice system that we
enjoy in Canada, which has enabled professionals and
entrepreneurs to produce clean water, solid shelter,
medical care, and devices to maximize the scarce
resource of individual human time.
Terminology must be precise to obtain meaningful
results. But popular uses of the fl oating abstraction
“sustainable” range from the basic engineering
practice of ensuring the design is usable, to
income redistribution based on marxist fi xed-pie
presumptions which deny the effi cacy of that essential
of professional work—the mind.
Professionals use sound epistemology. They
look at all factors, check source, applicability and
sufficiency of data for the purpose of the work,
and test instead of relying on unproven theories
or extrapolating beyond known applicability of a
calculation method. Today in our society many
people use only data supporting what they wish,
make inaccurate measurements, or assume a
cause-effect relationship from a single data point.
Engineering and geoscience professionals should
decide on facts used logically, not on lay opinions.
Keith Sketchley PEng, Saanich, BC
No Need to Force the Issue
When I tell new acquaintances that I am an engineer,
I expect a surprised reaction and the inevitable
questions regarding the number of women in my
graduating class and women in our profession. I
do not expect the same antiquated views from my
professional association.
It is only when we stop singling ourselves out as
female engineers and start viewing ourselves simply
as engineers that we will be equals and truly achieve
parity with our male peers. Publications such as the
January/February issue of Innovation and groups such
as the Division for the Advancement of Women in
Engineering and Geoscience (DAWEG) only serve to
continue to segregate women by advancing a special
status within the workforce. Th is segregation neither
helps women nor does it help our profession.
Given that it is only in the last few decades that
engineering became a widely acceptable career
for women, it is not surprising that only 6.6% of
professional engineers in British Columbia are
women. As a recent graduate, I can attest that the
social barriers to women entering engineering are
now gone, and it is only a matter of time until the
gender distribution becomes more representative of
the general population. We do not need to force the
issue; engineering is a great profession and gender
equality can be reached without the aid of gendertargeted
publications or special interest groups.
If we wish to maintain a profession that we can
be proud of, we must stop asking how we can attract
more women to engineering and start asking how we
can attract well-qualified individuals of all genders
and backgrounds. It is crucial that we discontinue
the sexist practice of isolating women as having
separate needs; equality is protected by law.
Lara Taylor EIT, North Vancouver, BC
Addressing the Concerns of
All Members
I read, with some interest, the “viewpoint” expressed
in the January/February issue of Innovation by our
recently installed president, Janet Benjamin PEng. In
her address to us she expresses her concern for the
relatively few women in our profession.
She states her own view is that women are too
smart to go into engineering and geoscience. Rather,
women are shrewd enough to go into professions
such as accountancy, medicine and law where the
return for their efforts is much better and where
their numbers are equal to, or exceed, those of men.
She further states she believes women will be more
attracted to our profession as the need for public
communication increases and where she has noticed
women tend to get more involved than do men.
Of course, the unspoken corollary to her view is
that men, being less smart than women, do go into
engineering and geoscience and in so doing provide
the infrastructure, production plants, resource
development and engineering services to our
modern society.
It is unfortunate that the president of all our
members, both male and female, has adopted