The Petroleum Engineering Profession A Reality or a Contradiction?
Authors: Harnish Douglas H. 
Published: December 2007

Abstract
The author defines "engineering" and "profession" and then relates his opinions and experiences of how the petroleum industry treats its engineers with respect to these accepted definitions. The real intentof the article is to open to discussion a question as to whether or not petroleum engineering, as presently practiced, warrants the label of "professionalism". In pursuit of this discussion, the author cites examples in which the status and practices of the petroleum engineer may be contradictory to true professionalism. As examples, the author points to training programs conducted on subprofessional levels. These tend to stunt initial enthusiasms of the engineer trainee. Next, the author suggests that salaries of experienced engineers may often be considered as nonprofessional in level. He then points to the tendency toward deference of engineering skills to supervisory talents. Another comparison is made between the real effects of the attitude toward registration. Finally, the author suggests that employers of petroleum engineers may occasionally demand a sacrifice of professional ethics to company loyalty. In conclusion, he affirms his stand that petroleum engineering can he truly professional if satisfactory answers and corrections can be made to the questions he has raised.

Introduction
Obviously, the title of this article asks a question, one which cannot be answered unless the phrase "petroleum engineering profession" is first defined. Since the word "petroleum" simply designates a specific interest in a field of the engineering profession, it can be assumed that if a profession exists in the petroleum industry it is valid to prefix to it the word "petroleum".What, then, is an appropriate definition of the engineering profession? Probably the most widely accepted and most familiar statement of the term "engineering" is the one proffered by the Engineers Council for Professional Development which reads as follows. "Engineering is the Profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and physical sciences gained by study, experience and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the progressive well-being of mankind". Preferred, however, by this author is the more succinct definition suggested by Gilkey. "Engineering is the application of science and art to the economic utilization of materials and forces in conjunction with the organization and direction of essential human skills."

Science vs Engineering
Because engineering is the useful application of science, it would seem advisable here to differentiate between what is thought of as science and that which is engineering. Though varied are the statements concerning the differences, perhaps the most candid difference is stated by Florman. "Here we come to the key difference between the scientist and engineer, who up to this point have been considered together as members of the scientific culture. The pure scientist tries to find out what he can about the world; his aim is to discover rather than to change. Since he strives for absolute objectivity in his work, we must expect and pardon a certain degree of moral and spiritual neutrality in his character. But the engineer, or applied scientist, goes about changing the world as fast and furiously as he can, and in him the absence of a civilized conscience can be catastrophic."

Engineering A Profession
If we can accept the foregoing description of what engineering is, where and/or when does it become a profession-with its tacit, moral, ethical (if not spiritual) responsibilities and commitments? The obvious approach to the foregoing question is to delve into what is totally meant by the term professionalism. However, this short paper can only briefly suggest these abstracts implied in Florman's definition. Again, much has been written upon this subject, but perhaps the best composite of ideas of what a profession is has been compiled by Cogan, in his article entitled "The Problem of Defining a Profession".Cogan states that, although there are many definitions, there is really no general agreement or "authoritative" statement which adds any more to the definition than did Flexner when, in 1915, he stated his six criteria for a profession.
JPT
P. 1195^