A course for 4th year UMIST students in the Mechanical Engineering Department

S F Bush

Aims and Objectives

The broad aim of this course is to expose the students to a range of the scientific and societal influences which will help shape mechanical engineering over the next 30 years. Specific objectives will be to draw conclusions about:

• what new goals for mechanical engineering are likely to arise from the demands of developing technologies, e.g. bio-technology
• what new goals for mechanical engineering are likely to arise from further shifts in society’s priorities (e.g. recycling, quality of life factors, ageing of the population, environment, fuel saving in transport)
• what new means are likely to arise for achieving those goals by developments in the physical sciences (e.g. optical, electronics), in computation, and within mechanical engineering itself (e.g. surface treatments, bespoke-CAM, rapid prototyping).

Subject Philosophy

The course will be delivered by a combination of lectures and small group seminars. The philosophy will be to provoke ideas and encourage initiative in following up ideas. Lecturers will be drawn from the physical, biological and social sciences, as well as from the main engineering disciplines. Besides providing students with an authoritative awareness of developments in other fields, the course will aim to extend their ability to form judgements, handle a wide range of concepts, to express these in coherent written form, and to defend them in verbal discussion. It is intended to develop this course as a distinctive feature of the M.Eng degree.

Syllabus

The course is divided into six subject elements, each given by a different lecturer. The topics against each element are suggestions: ultimately it will be for each lecturer to determine their content. However, the intention is not to provide solely an overview of each subject, but where possible to highlight the linkages with, and probable influence on, the goals/practice of mechanical engineering.

Group A Subjects (Technology Push) – each one three lectures:

• Biology and Biotechnology: Manufacturing demands (e.g. ultrahygenic engineering, genetic engineering, Biocomputing
• Electronics and Computing: New forms of information storage, optoelectronics, high/low temperature solid state physics
• Materials and Interfaces: New alloys, whiskers, smart composites, self-organising polymers, ceramics processing, colloids and interfacial phenomena
• Nanotechnology: Molecular surface, micro moulding and cutting, microflows, microrobotics

Group B Subjects (Market Pull) – each one three lectures

• Health Care: Efficient drug delivery, microsurgery, spare part surgery, national demographics
• Environmental Care: Recycle and reuse of materials and parts, exploration and exploitation of natural resources, appropriate technology, economic and demographic linkages

Seminars – Three Sessions

Students will select three subject elements from six – at least one from each Group.
Final Lecture – the National Foresight Programme: Subjects, priorities, data.

Course Projects

Students will prepare one essay for each of the three seminars they attend. Timetabled hours: three hours for each essay.

Assessment

Written examination 40% and coursework 60%.

A letter to the Daily Telegraph which was published on 28th August 2000.

Steve Norris repeats the myth that one in 10 of the population is homosexual.  This proportion may apply to media circles in London, but in this matter as in so many others, central London is completely untypical of the country as a whole.

The authoritative study of nearly 19,000 randomly selected adults across the country published in Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994) showed the proportion of male homosexuals was about 1.3 per cent and the proportion of female homosexuals about 0.6 per cent, which together make about one in 100, not one in 10 of the population.

Contrary to Mr Norris’s other mantra, a political party does not need to be “inclusive” of every self-defining minority in order to win a general election.  In the past three elections the winning party secured 44 per cent, 42 per cent and 43 per cent of the votes cast, or an average of just 31 per cent of the electorate.

The problem for the Conservative Party is not its supposed lack of “inclusiveness” but its real lack of articulated policies which make sense to the main body of its potential support.  On taxation, immigration and asylum seeking, healthcare, roads, most European matters other than the euro, on industry, crime and social security, it is difficult to see what (if anything) the Conservative Party intend to do in these key fields should they be elected next year.