When I do a Google search for the phrase "scientists have", the top ten results look like this:

- scientists at IBM have captured 330 terabytes of uncompressed data ... into a cartridge that can fit into the palm of your hand
- Scientists Have Found the Oldest Known Human Fossils.
- Scientists have discovered a chemical that causes any skin type to tan
- scientists have revealed the chemical structure of one of the key markers of Alzheimer's disease
- Scientists Have A Dark Warning For You About Sex Robots.
- Scientists have inserted a GIF of a horse into living bacteria
- American scientists have accomplished a major first ... a human embryo has been genetically modified.
- Scientists Have Captured Chimpanzees Performing a Bizarre Ritual
- Scientists have found a way to potentially stop us ageing
- Scientists have cracked Rome's secret to waterproof concrete

That list obviously says more about the state of (clickbait-) journalism in the 21st century than it does about real science, but it does provide very nice evidence for the problem that is exercising Petroski in this book: the majority of the items in the list clearly relates not to scientific discoveries but to engineering achievements, i.e. the application of technology to the solution of specific problems. Apparently, journalists are still as happy as they always were to attribute every step forward to a scientist. In the wonderful world of news, engineers don't seem to exist.

(I did the search for "engineers have" as well - only two out of the first twenty results were from news sites, all the others were from professional associations. But at least I didn't find any evidence for another theory that Petroski quotes from a fifties textbook, that there are only two categories of science & technology stories: "scientific achievements" and "engineering failures"...)

To anyone who's worked in science or engineering, there probably won't be much in this book that seems new or sensational - Petroski explains what it is that engineers do (create, solve) that is different from what scientists do (discover, understand, explain), and points out the fallacy of the old idea that pure science is the necessary precursor for technological achievements. Not only do real scientists usually depend on (engineered) instruments to obtain the data that they use in their analysis, but practical engineering also often runs ahead of theoretical knowledge (e.g. the industrial use of steam engines led to the development of theoretical models of thermodynamics in the 19th century, not vice-versa).

Another important element of Petroski's argument, the basis for the "global problems" bit of the subtitle here, is the idea that engineers who understand about practical manufacturing, costing, regulatory and environmental matters, reliability, risk analysis, etc., are always needed when something has to be taken from a scientific principle that could potentially solve our problem to a practical implementation of that solution that can be marketed and used safely and economically. And that goes for electric cars and CO2 mitigation as much as it does for deflecting the asteroid that is hurtling towards us.

Petroski writes well and articulately, as always, even if one or two of his illustrative anecdotes are a little too well-known. And he makes a good case for his profession, as you would expect him to. But I have a feeling that this is another book that is unlikely ever to reach anyone who doesn't already agree with its arguments before picking it up, but maybe it could come in handy if you have a young niece or nephew wondering about taking engineering courses... ( )

while science and technology have both been the causes of advances in civilization Petroski feels that the engineers have often been treated as second-rate to the scientists; we need engineers to make science usable; science is about knowing, engineering about doing

"Science is about knowing, engineering is about doing." The author works, in this book, to explain the difference. Important issues are discussed in this book. Henry Petroski asks how decisions affecting our lives, lifestyles and world are made. How do we gather information, how is the data collected, and then who fixes the problems that have been identified.

I am happy I stumbled upon this book. Think about all the big technical and political problems that face us in the 2010s and begin to think about how we deal with these problems. There are sensible ways to approach technical problems. It does not mean the technical problems can all be fixed or that the right decisions will always be made. But, we do know how to approach technical problems, if we think about it and use the lessons of human life in the last few centuries.

I enjoyed chapter 11, where the author talks about C. P. Snow's lecture "The Two Cultures." This conceptualization of the difference between those who know something about the hard sciences versus those who know about humanities and literature is still relevant today. Although it probably could be updated and modified, we certainly see differences in groups of people who believe in hard sciences and other groups of people. The author and Snow correctly, I believe, point out the similarity in approach that links those separated by this divide and point to possible ways to bridge the gap.

Petroski lists the 14 challenges defined by the National Academy of Engineering. This list addresses some of the big problems we as a civilization should be seeking answers to, and include: restore and improve urban infrastructure, reverse-engineer the brain, and prevent nuclear terror.

The book concludes in chapter 14, titled "Prizing Engineering."
This concluding chapter argues for encouragement of young upcoming and existing engineers. Also the author ends with the obvious, but vitally important conclusion, that the biggest problem for humanity is not the need to improve science and engineering, but the need to improve how humans understand and use technology and each other. ( )