The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee of the U.K. Parliament recently released a report calling for a Chief Engineer (H/T Times Higher Education).  That is just one of the recommendations in the report Engineering: Turning Ideas into Reality, which is the output of a yearlong examination of engineering in the U.K. and how U.K. engineering is considered around the world.  The methodology:

We decided to take a case study approach, exploring key themes through the lenses of nuclear engineering, plastic electronics engineering, geo-engineering and engineering in Government.

The last case study grabbed my attention, as it is another opportunity to learn more about the scientific advisory structure in the U.K. government, which has more differences with the U.S. than the contrast of parliamentary and presidential systems.  The key conclusion in this area:

Our final case study went further and demonstrated that engineering advice and scientific advice offer different things, and that this should be recognised in the policy process.

Looking at the American example and how it deals with science and technology advice (where engineering advice fits in here in America is a separate issue – poke around this website for evidence), making this recognition happen may be a bit more difficult that anticipated.  Generally speaking, the science and technology advisory structures in the U.S. operate generally separate from each other.  The same is also true of academic research in this area.  Now, it’s possible that a U.K. approach to engineering will be different enough than an approach to technology to make this easier, but there’s an easy stretch to conflate engineering and technology.

The Committee concluded that while there is some engineering advisory capacity in the government, it is neither standardized nor at sufficient levels.  Additionally, there is insufficient numbers of engineers in the government to be intelligent customers of the advice it receives.  As part of addressing those concerns, the report recommendations include changing the Government Chief Science Adviser position into a Government Chief Science and Engineering Adviser position.  Two new positions – Chief Scientist and Chief Engineer, would be created, and join the Chief Social Scientist (!) in the Government Office of Science.  Chief engineering advisers would join chief science advisers in many government offices.

This is, as you might expect, not up to the Committee.  It requires the approval of the Government, and it’s unclear whether it will happen.  A perpetual request of committee to elevate the Office of Science to the Cabinet Office has received no response.  I would expect the Royal Academy of Engineering to be supportive of the effort, and perhaps they can campaign for its implementation.