As science, technology and engineering rapidly evolve, new scopes of practice are emerging, bringing with them many questions: Are these disciplines to be considered engineering? Should they be regulated? Who should regulate them? How to regulate them?
As science, technology and engineering rapidly evolve, new scopes of practice are emerging, bringing with them many questions: Are these disciplines to be considered engineering? Should they be regulated? Who should regulate them? How to regulate them?
At the Engineers Canada’s Board Meeting Open Forum on February 28, 2017, a panel discussion centered around these questions and outlined the objectives, challenges and risks of regulating emerging disciplines. Consensus emerged throughout the discussion that where an emerging scope of practice impacts public safety or the protection of public interest, it is the job of the engineering regulators to regulate them. This must be done proactively and early on in the emergence of the discipline.
Moderated by Engineers Canada’s Practice Lead, Discipline and Enforcement, Beryl Strawczynski, panel speakers included George Comrie, President of Professional Engineers Ontario; Chris Zinck, President of Engineers Nova Scotia; and Dennis Peters, Chair of the Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board.
Peters kicked off the discussion with an overview of the challenges in regulating emerging disciplines, including jurisdiction issues, practitioners who may not have an educational background in engineering, and little to no demand-side legislation that mandates a licensed engineer conduct the work of the emerging discipline.
Zinck followed up these challenges with a discussion of the risks associated with regulating—or not regulating—emerging disciplines. Without regulation of emerging disciplines, he said, there is a potential for accidents and harm to public safety. There is also the risk that a legal challenge in the regulation of an emerging discipline could hamper the regulators’ ability to regulate the other, more traditional, engineering disciplines by creating a precedent that challenges the current definition of engineering. There is also the potential that without regulation, the engineering regulators may lose control over the title ‘engineer’ and the profession may then be diluted.
Comrie concluded the panel’s presentation with suggestions for how to integrate emerging disciplines into theregulators’ domain. These include defining the scope of practice for the emerging discipline; considering broad assessment criteria for licensure; conducting outreach and education with industry and government; creating practice guidelines and standards; establishing a unified position with other engineering regulators; and investigating demand-side legislation.
A spirited discussion with the panel members and the Open Forum participants followed the panellists’ remarks, and most were in agreement that in the case of software engineering, the engineering profession did not act quickly enough in the evolution of the discipline to ensure proper regulation and enforcement.
This example, however, can provide valuable lessons for the profession moving forward, as Comrie pointed out in his panel comments. Where an emerging discipline can impact the protection of public interest, engineering regulators should step in quickly to regulate and enforce the discipline for the benefit and safety of the public.
