There are several hundred areas of expertise identified in a survey by one organization in the U.S. – SEAK, Inc. (Ref. 1) I counted 307 in the referenced publication. And there’s a good number of experts within each specialty with slightly different backgrounds. I counted 24 in engineering, 45 in medicine and 8 in law.

SEAK’s guide to experts and their fees is based on 1,030 replies to a detailed, one page questionnaire sent out to about 8,500 experts in the U.S. The survey was carried out in 2003 so it’s dated regarding fees. But I believe it’s a good indication there’s a lot of different experts out there to serve your expert needs – the expert-resource.

How applicable are the survey’s findings as an indication of the expert-resource in Canada? I don’t know in detail but there’s no question the findings are a good indication there’s a lot of different experts in Canada as well.

Most experts will help you find the expert you need if they’re not qualified, or point you in the right direction. A more recent survey in Canada of 151 experts – 101 men and 51 women – found that the majority of experts know they serve the court. (Ref. 2) They also know that most disputes don’t go to court. They get paid to tell the truth, regardless the client – a good expert-resource.

References

1. Babitsky, Alex, Babitsky, Steven and Mangraviti, Jr., James J., National Guide to Expert Witness Fees and Billing Procedures, SEAK, Inc., Falmouth, Mass. 2004
2. Corbin, Ruth M., Breaking the Expert Evidence Logjam: Experts Weigh In, Annual Review Civil Litigation 2016

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, September 29, 2026)   

I’ve thought there’s got to be a book in the 328 blogs I’ve posted in the last 14 years. Blogs that explain forensic engineering investigation for the lay reader. Folk like civil litigation lawyers, insurance claims managers, and property owners.

If a book on How Doctors Think is helpful, I’m sure one on How Forensic Engineers Investigate would be too. (Ref. 1)

I looked at the different topics covered in these blogs for insight on what I would cover in such a book. I also checked my library of books on engineering for ideas on the format – there’s a few books on my shelf as you can imagine on civil, geotechnical and forensic engineering.

KISS jumped out at me – Keep It Simple Stupid. Really, like so much of forensic engineering investigation as I’ve experienced and explained over the years.

The book Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) met the mark for a suggestion on a working Table of Contents for my how-do book. (Ref. 2) A good read by an Association that has been guiding civil engineers for 174 years, since 1852.

The Contents of a how-do book on forensic engineering investigation for lay readers might look like this. Content ideas found in my 328 blogs are in italics:

1. Introduction (see Preface in ASCE too. Bundles of blogs)
2. Decision to take a case. The tyranny of the bottom line. Investigate a problem; see ASCE
3. Qualifications of Forensic Engineers
4. The Standard of Care
5. Investigations (1. Steps; note similarity to science. 2. Examples of different investigations: flying objects, land slides, foundation settlement, shaking buildings, slip and fall accidents, MVA accidents. 3. New methods in forensic investigation: Drones, Google Earth, Hot tubes. 4. Professional Engineer to assess the forensic investigation required and if s/he qualified to do it. 5. Characterize nature of forensic investigation in Atlantic Canada.
6. Reports (Civil procedure rule. Hot tubing. Peer review. Guidelines)
7. Ethics
8. The Legal Forum
9. The Business of Forensic Engineering (The tyranny of the bottom line – there, at the beginning and the end)
10. Summary

References

1. Groopman, M.D., Jerome, How Doctors Think, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 2007
2. Kardon, Joshua B., Ph.D., S.E., Editor, Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice, 2nd edition, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Reston, Virginia 2012

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, September 4, 2026 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

Many forensic investigations are characterized by common sense. The experienced forensic engineer sees the accident or failure site, gets the facts on what happened, and knows the cause. Observation of the site and common sense. Not all investigations but many. Observation is everywhere in forensic investigation and engineering (Refs 1, 2 and 3) and common sense is not far behind. (Appendix)

For example, an unmarked, sloping pedestrian ramp, a stair railing too large to get your hands around, stairs without railings, foundations on fill, deep excavations near foundations, steep soil slopes near roads, and poor surface drainage on bare ground (after the forest has been cut down). I’ll refrain from going on less I bore you to tears.

Well, maybe just one more. The Building Code is a basic standard and not always adequate for the prevention of accidents and failures. (Appendix)

An experienced engineer with common sense would end a forensic investigation – or slow it down – after observations like these.

When common sense in forensic work came to mind, I thought, “Can it be true?”. The penny dropped when I realized that most forensic investigations are based on observation. “… a simple perception of the situation or facts.” (Refs 1, 2 and 3) (Appendix)

A hostile rebuttal review might try to have fun with that statement-of-fact about common sense. But a peer review of a forensic investigation at the completion of the work – like in science – would nip that in the bud before it got off the ground. (Ref. 4)

I’m glad I’ve got that thought out there – the simple truth of common sense in many forensic investigations.

References

1. Is there “super soft” forensic engineering investigation, and if so, why is peer review important? Posted June 24, 2024 at www.ericjorden.com/blog
2. “Soft” forensic engineering investigation and peer review. Posted May 28, 2024
3. Dunnicliff, John and Deere, Don U, Editors, Judgement in Geotechnical Engineering, The Professional Legacy of Ralph B. Peck. John Wiley & Sons, New York 1984
4. A Bundle of Blogs: On the need of peer review in forensic engineering investigation and expert services. Update 1. Posted July 29, 2025

Appendix

1. Common sense: Sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of the situation or facts – Merriam-Webster dictionary. And, Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters; that is, matters concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas – Oxford dictionary
2. Nova Scotia Building Code

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, July 24, 2026 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

Sadly, yet another well qualified engineering academic blew through my town and others in Canada and the U.S. of A., lectured on an important and relevant topic then rode off into the sunset. (Ref. 1)

But, if his dismissive comments at the end of his lecture about cost, and his very long, thick list of credentials and awards are any indication – I got tired of reading them and stopped – he’s had no practical field experience. I mean the kind of experience where you “get your hands dirty and mud on your boots” on one geotechnical site investigation after another. (Ref. 2)

(Academic: Very learned but inexperienced in practical matters. Reference Merriam-Webster dictionary)

His lecture was on a good and relevant topic in foundation engineering – better foundation construction in bad foundation soils – but a bit theoretical, thick and long for an hour. Practical and economic? I don’t know. He was quite dismissive when I asked about the cost of what he was proposing. He didn’t investigate the cost – said quickly and in a way to suggest it wasn’t of interest to him.

There’s no question I will read and study his talk when I get a copy because it was relevant to geotechnical and foundation engineering. I’ll also look at the cost of what he was proposing. But I’m certain he lost a lot of listeners with his talk, and readers with his long CV.

***

So, why is this relevant to the life and practice of civil litigation lawyers and insurance claims’ managers? Because, like I said in a previous blog (Ref. 1), you got to look closely at the practical experience of the expert you retain to investigate the cause of an accident or failure in the built environment. You can’t stop and be happy at their impressive academic qualifications sans practical experience. Rebuttal experts have a field day with this kind of background.

References

1.0 Beware the Expert with a Lot of Degrees and just a little field experience, or none at all. Posted April 29, 2026

2.0 Billam, John, Phd, Lecturer in geotechnical engineering, Birmingham University, England 1974. Dr. Billiam’s comment back then that Canadian engineers are noted for going in the field and getting their hands dirty and mud on their boots.

3.0 The Uncertainty of the Expert. Posted March 31, 2026

Beware the expert with a lot of degrees and just a little field experience, or none at all

Posted on April 29, 2026

I’ve been troubled lately by the impressive academic credentials of some people. And how that’s all that is sometimes seen when an expert is needed to investigate an accident or failure in the built environment. April 29, 2026

Billam, John, Phd, Lecturer in geotechnical engineering, Birmingham University, England 1974. Dr. Billiam’s comment back then that Canadian engineers are noted for going in the field and getting their hands dirty and mud on their boots.

The Uncertainty of the Expert

Posted on March 31, 2026

“The Uncertainty of the Expert”, caught my eye recently. It’s the title of a chapter in a book entitled “How Doctors Think”. (Ref. 1) It reminded me of the blogs I’ve posted on “The softness of science”. (Refs 2 and 3)

I’ve been troubled lately by the impressive academic credentials of some people. And how that’s all that is sometimes seen when an expert is needed to investigate an accident or failure in the built environment.

(Academic: Very learned but inexperienced in practical matters. (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

In some ways, worse still when these folk are the lecturers in continuing education courses in different fields of study and vocation.

For example, in recent years, a couple of cross-Canada lecturers renown in their fields of study but not displaying much experience getting their hands dirty and mud on their boots. (Ref. 1) Also quite heavy talks on their fields of study.

More recently, a series of continuing education courses for professional engineers. The backgrounds of the lecturers were good but no mention of practical experience. Interesting too, that one academic’s background wasn’t that long, for sure not decades; one short decade if that.

For that matter, quite apart from field experience, I wonder how many of our academic lecturers have read literature like in the Appendix? I particularly enjoyed reading about quite humble experts – sans academia – referred to in some of the books.

Back Down East (in Nova Scotia, Canada), I’ve acquired a lot of respect over the years for technologists. Two were key in my investigation of the cause of a large industrial building failure and determining how to fix it. Interesting too, that one technologist had an impressive doctorate in surficial geology but was working as a technologist getting his hands dirty while settling in Canada.

I remember in England when I was preparing to do a master’s degree in geotechnical engineering there were two options: A degree from Imperial College in London that had a theoretical bent and a masters degree from Birmingham University that had a practical bent.

Guess which one I opted for? And why I get cranky today when I read lengthy academic qualifications of people – with clean hands – who are bringing professional people up to date on recent changes in their fields of practice?

References

1. Billam, John, Phd, Lecturer in geotechnical engineering, Birmingham University, England 1974. Dr. Billiam’s comment back then that Canadian engineers are noted for going in the field and getting their hands dirty and mud on their boots.

Appendix

1. A-Z Guide to Expert Witnessing
2. Cross-Examination: The Comprehensive Guide for Experts
3. How to Write An Expert Report

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, April 29, 2026. ejorden@eastlink.ca)  

“The Uncertainty of the Expert”, caught my eye recently. It’s the title of a chapter in a book entitled “How Doctors Think”. (Ref. 1) It reminded me of the blogs I’ve posted on “The softness of science”. (Refs 2 and 3)

The penny dropped when I realized that medicine is also a soft, semi-empirical applied science. For example, soft like the geotechnical, environment and forensic engineering fields. Medicine is based on observation or experience plus laboratory and field testing – think field tests on your body lying on the operating room table.

It’s also susceptible to the same kind of errors arising from subjective conclusions drawn from observation. (Ref. 4) And, if truth be told, subjective conclusions drawn from hard science test results too.

Ego also gets in the way. What medical doc wants to admit standing in front of a patient in their office or over their body during an operation, scapel knife in hand, that they just don’t know? Hmmm?

Happens in soft engineering and also in soft medicine. Don’t believe me? Read the Introduction and also the first few pages of Chapter 6, “The Uncertainty of the Expert”.

A basic, sneaky error that sweeps across all the soft, semi-empirical sciences is confirmation bias. That is, paying more attention to data that supports the presumed conclusion/diagnosis and minimizing data that contradicts it. (Ref. 5)

Nor will you like learning that medical docs diagnose based on subjective, semi-empirical science, as well as a measure of ignorance at times. (Ref. 1)

This book is a good read. A must read for all of us: Lay folk, medical docs, forensic experts, lawyers and insurance claims managers.

I read it some time ago, cover to cover, and studied and underscored comments and passages of interest. I chanced to pick it up again a short time ago and skimmed through it – and that’s when the penny dropped on it’s relevance to expert forensic services.

Peer review will keep your uncertain expert out of trouble, like it does medical docs who get second opinions, sometimes.

References

1. Jerome Groopman, M.D. How Doctors Think, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 2007
2. Is there “super soft” forensic engineering investigation, and if so, why is peer review important? Posted June 24, 2024
3. “Soft” forensic engineering investigation and peer review. Posted May 28, 2024
4. Dunnicliff, John and Deere, Don U, Editors, Judgement in Geotechnical Engineering, The Professional Legacy of Ralph B. Peck. John Wiley & Sons, New York 1984
5. Is sneaky, implicit bias alive and well – in me? Posted September 8, 2025

***

(Blog posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, March 31, 2026 ejorden@eastlink.ca) 

What’s evolving is the difficulty determining the nature and magnitude of the loads on a structure. But design and construction engineers realize this difficulty and are providing for it with higher factors of safety. This is resulting in higher costs, thanks to climate change – the real challenge.

A factor of safety ensures a structure can withstand greater live and dead loads than normal. Live loads are like the weight of a person walking on a floor or the pressure of the wind on a tall chimney. These loads change daily. Dead loads are like the weight of the floor and the weight of the chimney. These loads don’t change.

Someone coined the term resilient design to describe what is taking place. This is good. But the definition on Dr. Google is a lot about process and planning. Not about hard-core engineering design and construction.

The definition has relevance to planning for the effects of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, long, shaking suspension bridge decks, and multi, multi story buildings like in New York that wobble back and forth at the top.

But not so much about the design engineer everywhere in the world slogging away on a daily basis dealing with the effects of climate changes. Nor about the construction engineer out in the field getting his or her hands dirty and mud on their boots building the structure.

Read about resilient design then, next time you’re out for a walk or a drive, look around you at the nature of engineering on a daily basis in the built and natural environments. You’ll see that low-rise buildings and the infra-structure serving these are the structures most often erected in the world, by far. Not shaking suspension bridge decks, wobbling multi, multi story buildings, or big waves crashing on our shores.

Engineers know about climate change. We also know about the difficulty designing for it. And owners are learning about the increased costs.

Engineers get the available data and design for the effects. Wharf decks in the Atlantic provinces are being built higher, based on a lot of data collected over the years on rising sea levels. Existing structures are being raised and new structures built higher because of rising sea levels. Power grids are being designed for greater windfall. Storm water drainage systems are being designed for greater runoff. Building Codes are being revised. You name you the effect, and engineers are having a go at providing for it.

Possibly on an upbeat note, highway pavements are being designed as solar panels because the days are getting hotter – which is an effect of climate change that in some ways is not too hard to take.

***

Blog posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, February 28, 2026 ejorden@eastlink.ca   

I was troubled by the title of a Webinar recently, “Resilient Design and the Evolving Standard of Care”. Phew! That was quite a statement and just not true. The Standard of Care is not evolving.

It’s a serious error. There are now many participants in the Webinar who have gone on their way believing the Standard of Care is evolving. It’s also serious for law firms and insurance firms who have been led to believe this.

To give the Webinar chair person credit the Webinar was detailed and quite well presented. However, mistakes can be well presented. In this case it didn’t reflect input by a suitably experienced design engineer.

The Standard of Care is defined by the reasonable person, a concept recognized in law since 1890. (Ref. 1) The design engineer is the reasonable person in this case. You can read about the concept in layman’s language. (Ref. 2)

I asked the chair person about this. I was referred to a firm who said they reviewed the Webinar. With all due respect, obviously the reviewer was not a suitably qualified engineer. This type of reviewer is out there – well qualified but not qualified to review a Webinar like this. I know two well respected, experienced engineers who when asked didn’t know anything about the Standard of Care.

***

Engineers design structures to stand up to the planned use and the effects of live and dead loads thrown at the structure by Mother Nature, climate change and man. These loads change with time and where you’re at in the world. The design process doesn’t change. (Ref. 3)

(The weight of a person walking across a floor is a live load. It comes and it goes. The weight of the floor is a dead load. It’s always there. The pressure of the wind on the deck of a suspension bridge is a live load. The weight of the deck is a dead load)

Design engineers assess these changes the best they can, like reasonable people do. We’ve been doing this for a long time, all the way back to the pyramids and earlier.

Someone coined the term resilient design to reflect the changes taking place today. That’s great. For example, wharf decks in harbours are now being designed and constructed higher because of rising sea levels. How much higher? The reasonable design engineer with the Department of Public Works assesses this change today the best s/he can based on the available data, just like in the past. Call it resilient design if you like but the design process by the reasonable engineer doesn’t change.

More examples: Sea coasts are being designed to resist greater erosion. Tall chimneys and the decks of suspension bridges are being designed for greater wind loads. Highway cut and fill-slopes are being designed for changes in rainfall and groundwater level. Road pavements are being designed by engineers for heavier traffic – and also to work as solar panels. Roofs in Florida are being designed for snow loads.

I could go on but surely you get the picture. We engineers deal with what Mother Nature throws at us, best we can with the data available, like engineers always have.

***

Nor has the characteristics of a reasonable person changed – the type of person who defines the Standard of Care. And these characteristics don’t change from one profession, vocation and trade to another. It’s the person who exercises the: (Refs 1, 2)

• Degree of attention
• Knowledge
• Intelligence
• Judgement

that society requires of it’s members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests.

The reasonable person:

• Acts sensibly
• Does things without serious delay, and,
• Takes proper but not excessive precautions

These characteristics of a reasonable person and what a reasonable person does are not evolving. Hence nor is the Standard of Care – not in pre-resilient engineering design, not in resilient engineering design now, nor in the future.

I didn’t see any data from hard science in the Webinar that evaluated the characteristics of a reasonable person and what the reasonable person does. Nor any conclusions from empirical science. No data to indicate the characteristics are changing and the reasonable person is doing something different. No data that would support the claim that the Standard of Care is changing.

(Hard science is based on field and laboratory testing. Empirical science is based on subjective observation)

The engineering design process is not changing either. We still assess the loads on a structure based on the data available and design the structure to withstand these loads. Climate change is throwing different loads at our structures but we reasonable design engineers still assess the loads based on the data available.

Reasonable people make mistakes in assessing the loads on structures in the built and natural environments. Mistakes like they did in the past and will today courtesy of Mother Nature and climate change. Making a mistake doesn’t change the characteristics of a reasonable person defining the Standard of Care.

There wasn’t any indication in the outline of the Webinar where it does say how this happens, nor in the review of the planned Webinar by the engineering firm before it went live. It’s a shame this unsubstantiated point of review is out there. Insurance firms and law firms are certain to get in trouble as a result.

References

1. Garner, Bryan E., Editor in Chief, Black’s Law Dictionary, West, 2011
2. A Bundle of Blogs: On Assessing the Standard of Care. A compilation of five blogs on the standard of care. Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. August 12, 2022
3. Everything You Need to Ace Science in One Big Fat Notebook, Workman Publishing, New York 2016

Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, January 29, 2026 ejorden@eastlink.ca    

Does s/he have an Achilles heel? Hmmm?

I thought recently that my Master’s degree in geotechnical and foundation engineering did not include a course in surficial geology. Yet that field of study gives an inexpensive, preliminary indication of the nature of the ground at a failure or accident site. For example, indicating the type of soil beneath our feet and it’s physical properties. Also the presence of surface and groundwater and their effects on the soil.

My degree included a course on bedrock geology but not on surficial geology. Bedrock is the solid rock beneath our feet. Surficial geology is the soil on top of the bedrock. Most structures in the world are supported on soil.

The soil on top of the bedrock in northern climates was left behind by the glaciers after they melted – glacial soil. The soil in southern climates (like warm Australia this bitter-cold day in Halifax – 30/12/2025) was left behind after the bedrock was weathered over many, many 1,000s of years – residual soil.

I’ve learned about glacial soil and surficial geology since my Master’s program – good thing because it’s everywhere beneath our feet. And it’s presence is indicated to some extent by the shape of the landscape, the topography.

For example, the mix of clay, silt, sand and gravel in the vast expanse of glacial till that covers Nova Scotia. The mix of clay, silt and sand forming the long, high drumlins (check out Citadel Hill in Halifax). Gravel in the sinuous, river-like eskers. Also kames – pockets of sand and gravel. And, not to forget, troubling lacustrine deposits adjacent and underlying our lakes and rivers. Not least, tricky marine deposits in our many harbours Down East.

The type of soil at failure and accident sites is there to be seen in the landscape. A course in surficial geology – surface deposits – would help a Masters engineering student see it sooner in their practice rather than in later years.

***

I don’t want to get carried away, but I’ve thought even more recently, why not touch on the environmental sciences, in general, in a Masters geotechnical and foundation engineering program? For example, the science of forestry.

I learned long ago when working one summer as a timber cruiser that hardwood forests – like maple trees – develop on high, dry ground. Soft wood forests – like spruce trees – on low, wet ground. I learned about black-spruce swamps – you walked through a swamp if your compass bearing pointed that way, not around the swamp!

(Timber cruisers survey the type and size of trees in a forest. One person walks on a compass bearing. Two other workers, one on each side of a compass line a set distance, identify and measure the trees within that distance. They call this data out to a forth person who records it)

***

I wonder what is missing in other fields of study underlying an expert’s expertise – like surficial geology in mine long ago? Hmmm? Could this be an expert’s Achilles heel?

(My comments on the location of glacial and residual soils are general. I understand we have some residual soil – like in warm Australia – in bitter cold Nova Scotia but I’ve not seen it)

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, December 30, 2025. ejorden@eastlink.ca)  

The Iron Ring reminds us to do our best in determining why something failed in the built or natural environment, or why an accident happened and someone was injured.

We assist in the settling of a claim or the resolution of a dispute by determining cause, or serve the court if it goes that far. Get the data, analyse it, determine cause, pass it on.

We do this ethically “…to the best of our knowledge and power…” and, “…without passing bad workmanship…”. And, furthermore, “Without refusing our time for any works to which we may be called to set our hand”. But for certain, “Our fair wages we will openly take… and also ask pardon for our assured failures and derelictions.” (Excepts from The Obligation in the the Appendix)

Engineers have been doing this for a long time. We’re reminded during The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer to keep doing it every time we look down at the Iron Ring on our working hand.

But, being human with our frailties we make mistakes and bad workmanship is passed on, some quite serious.

For example, the August, 1907 failure of the Quebec City Bridge due to design flaws and mismanagement during construction resulted in the deaths of 75 workers. There was a further failure in 1916 with additional loss of life for a total of 88 workers lost – “…assured failures and derelictions…” in the extreme.

These failures gave Professor Herbert E. T. Haultain of the University of Toronto in 1922 the idea for the Ritual. He consulted with other engineers and they called on Rudyard Kipling to craft the pledge and the Ritual. Kipling was known for writing on engineering. The first ceremony was held in 1925.

This year, 2025, is the 100th anniversary of the Ritual and the engineer obligating – vowing – to keep doing properly what s/he has done for a long time.

We’re further reminded this year by the beautiful poem, The Hand that Wears the Ring by Gisela Hippolt-Squair.  And, I’m sure, a similarly beautiful poem in French, Horizons by Rejean Plamondon. (See the Appendix and visit www.ironring.ca)

There’s nothing lofty and noble in what we do. We’re just called on to do that which characterizes a community of good, honest, ethical people, including engineers.

The Iron Ring is down there and helping by reminding us to stay-the-course and do our best during design and construction, and during forensic investigation.

For many engineers the Iron Ring is more important than the piece of paper hanging on the wall. My engineering degree is lying on top of a filing cabinet in my office. My iron ring is in plain view on my little finger.

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, November 26, 2025. ejorden@eastlink.ca)  

Appendix

The Obligation in The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer

I (name of the engineer) in the presence of these my betters and equals in my Calling, bind myself upon my Honour and Cold Iron, that, of the best of my knowledge and power, I will not henceforward suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an Engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

MY TIME I will not refuse; my Thought I will not grudge; my Care I will not deny towards the honour, use, stability and perfection of any works to which I may be called to set my hand.

MY FAIR WAGES for that work I will openly take. My Reputation in my Calling I will honourably guard; but I will in no way go about to compass or wrest judgement or gratification from any one with whom I may deal. And further, I will early and warily strive my uttermost against professional jealousy and the belittling of my working-colleagues in any field of their labour.

FOR MY ASSURED FAILURES and derelictions, I ask pardon beforehand of my betters and my equals in my Calling here assembled; praying that in the hour of my temptations, weakness and weariness, the memory of this my Obligation and of the company before whom it was entered into, may return to me to aid, comfort and restrain.

***

Poems Poems that are relevant to the Iron Ring and the Ritual of the Calling of an engineer

The Hand that Wears the Ring by Gisela Hippolt-Squair . Gisela was born and raised in Quebec, her second home. She lives and works in communications for the Alberta professional engineering association APEGA

Your lifelong journey starts today. A shining path reveals the way, laid down by those who came before, from nearby lands and distant shores. Your destiny will now take wing. Proud the hand that wears the Ring. 

With vision bright and thoughts set free, a world awaits where you will see the facets of your labour’s art reflect the dreams within your heart. Through innovation, futures spring. Skillful the hand that wears the Ring.  

Yet lightly step upon this course; speak not with bluster nor with force. Observe with spirit, heart, and mind; all ways of knowing you will find. Authentic words should never sting. Humble the hand that wears the Ring. 

Beware demands that often lead to bridging over want and need. Each compromise a step too far that blurs the line of who you are. Your public duty sets the bearing. True the hand that wears the Ring. 

Integrity must be your guide. Let ethics temper misplaced pride. Dishonour cannot know your face, as deeds shall leave a lasting trace. Uphold the Code—it spans all things. Heavy the hand that wears the Ring. 

For iron binds you to this land, from oceans deep to mountains grand. Make no advance at its expense without a means for recompense. Into your care our world for keeping. Wise the hand that wears the Ring.   

Horizons
par Réjean Plamondon
Réjean is an engineering professor and researcher at Montreal’s Polytechnique University. He is the author of a number of scientific papers, and five books of poetry from 1990 to 2024.

Quête en tête
JE RÊVE
d’imprimer
en quatre dimensions
ma feuille de route
Mon Curriculum Sapiens
Signature de changements
constructifs
Source d’innovations
créatrices
décryptées
dans la simplicité
d’un instant d’inspiration
Un clin d’œil à la sérendipité
JE RÊVE
d’avoir
une influence positive
sur mon époque
et celles des siècles à venir
Laisser des traces tangibles
dans les forêts de l’inexploré
et par ricochet
donner des ailes
au temps
pour qu’il plane
fièrement
sur mes réalisations
scientifiques et sociétales
Cœur en tête … …

(Rejean’s poem continues but I don’t read French and I’m unable to be certain I’m presenting it properly. I thought it better to refer the reader to www.ironring.ca where Rejean’s poem is presented properly, in full)