Engineering ethos in environmental public policy deliberation

Public policy deliberations are often informed by expert testimony. We explore the role of engineering judgment in the 2013 Congressional hearing on regulating the disposal of coal ash waste. We conclude that engineering testimony in a public policy debate suffers from a reductive, dichotomous distinction between technical judgment and policy ideas-a distinction based on the false assumption that engineers deliver professional verdicts that transcend economic and political interests. We propose that the most credible technical expert in a public policy deliberation is the engineer capable of acknowledging that technical expertise is not disinterested-that complicated interests and incommensurable goals are unavoidable. Consequently, educators preparing student engineers for professional practice are obliged to teach the rhetorical tools enabling students to recognize the interaction of engineering judgment and public policy and the myth of technical objectivity.