
A depiction of human molecular engineering: the application of the principles of engineering, in particular chemical engineering (right), to design and study of human molecules (left), a CPK human molecule shown, and their social combinations; a subject that tending towards the use of the extrapolate up approach.

A depiction of human molecular engineering: the application of the principles of engineering, in particular chemical engineering (right), to design and study of human molecules (left), a CPK human molecule shown, and their social combinations; a subject that tending towards the use of the extrapolate up approach.

In engineering, human molecular engineering is study and application of the hmolsciences, namely human thermodynamics, human chemistry, human physics, and human mathematics, to the engineered design of human affairs and arrangements, with the implicit assumption that humans are "molecules", which can, in theory, be successfully engineered, or social engineered, similar to that which has been done successfully in molecular engineering at the nanoscale.

The following 1921 view by English radiochemist Frederick Soddy, from the opening of his lecture on Cartesian economics, gives a cogent angle into the ideal nature of human molecular engineering: [1]

“It is just because the application of the every-day principles of engineering to the animate engine [humans] offers such a powerful corrective to the make-believes of the economic systems of society that I have ventured to address you on the subject.”

namely the application of engineering principles—chemical engineering principles in particular—to humans, economically and socially, which he now define as "animate molecules" or human molecules, as opposed to the older animate engine classification scheme, which as of 2011 is now the standard engineering thermodynamics textbook definition of human. [15]

Early views
In human molecular engineering, people are explicitly defined as “molecules” or specifically 26-element, human molecular formula based, reactive-animate "human molecules". Human molecular engineering, as compared to “molecular engineering”, which is the design and manufacture of molecules at the nanoscale, can be qualified as molecular engineering at the human molecular scale. [5] The following 1922 comment by self-defined “human chemist” American editor Thomas Dreier might well capture some of the theme of human molecular engineering, though in rather simple terms: [6]

“It flashed into my mind the other night that an executive is like a chemist. He has a laboratory stocked with seventy-eight elementary chemicals. With that stock he can make absolutely every substance needed in his daily life if he possesses the necessary knowledge to combine the elements.”

Drier here conceiving of people as different types of reactive "chemicals" or “human chemicals” analogous elements of the periodic table; he would later go onto consult with Harvard chemist Gustavus Esselen (We Human Chemicals, 1948) on these theories. This was a common mindset in the early 20th century. The same usage can be found in English-born American chemical engineer and industrial executive William Fairburn, who in his 1910 booklet Human Chemistry, in indoctrinated the science of "human chemistry", which he defined as the analysis and synthesis of the reactions resulting from combinations of human chemical elements (workers), according to which the foreman or manager of a factory is the "chemistry" or human chemist, who must thus study the principles of chemistry, e.g. entropy of people, to intelligently facilitate the reactions of his employees and work groups, according to which he developed the general chemical philosophy outlook:

“No human chemical can ever be truly happy in his work unless he is fitted by nature for the work he is performing.”

In 1919, however, about 81 elements were known, and it was in this year that American physician George Carey, in his Chemistry of Human Life, famous stated, in a rather prophetic manner, that: [2]

“Man's body is a chemical formula in operation.”

Carey, here, is giving deep insight into what would become in the 21st century the subject of human chemical thermodynamics, namely that no longer are humans simply defined as a type of reactive "chemical element", but rather the elements that comprise a person can be written as a formula—a “human chemical formula” to be specific, first calculated in 2002 by American limnologists Robert Sterner and James Elser—but more to the point that a human is molecular formula "in operation" as he says, which a loaded term for the chemical, physical, and thermodynamical "operation" of the dynamics, interactions, and reactions of people defined as human molecules. This is a huge jump in the insight of human thinking, nearly a century ahead of its time.


Pritchett (1857-1939)	son A (small college)	son B (large college)

Pritchett experiment | Human chemical engineering
In 1906, American astronomer and MIT president Henry Pritchett, in his “Large vs. Small Colleges” talk, during the 21st annual meeting of the New England Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools, called for or rather alluded to the desire to have a science able to predict or speculate on the nature of human chemical reactions (see: theory) so as to facilitate the counceled guidance and or placement of students, according to his or her own unique nature, in college, particularly in regards to going to a large or small college, and comments rather tellingly that, because this type of applied engineered science was not yet available to him, he was thus forced to play the role of unguided experimenter and thus conducted an experiment along these lines with his own sons, sending one to a small college, the other to a large college, during the course of which, into the middle of the reaction, he quantified his experiment, by querying each son as to social network count. The full statement of which, after introduction by association president William DeWitt Hyde, is as follows: [1]

The President [William DeWitt Hyde]:

“President Pritchett has assumed a fatherly relation over all institutions, large and small, and from his point of observation we shall be glad to have some contribution to this discussion.”

President Henry S. Pritchett, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

“Mr. President, I had meant to be only a listener here, and I have been much interested in the discussion of this matter which has been had so far. My own correspondence with educational institutions for the last six months has led me to understand that each American college is a peculiar institution. The president of each one of these institutions has carefully explained to me by letter that this was true. As long as this is true, it naturally follows that wherever a man may go he will find a certain environment which has its peculiar advantages and its peculiar opportunities. In the Institute of Technology the matter of numbers does not enter in the same way in which it enters in the ordinary large college. Although it has some 1,500 students, what is called the entering class is thrown much together. After the men begin to differentiate, they separate into 13 courses, so that the men who may take, let us say, marine engineering, are thrown naturally together. In this case we have here a natural grouping of students.

Since you have been so good, however, as to refer to my fatherly relation, I may say that I have as a father tried two practical experiments in this way, which is one of the attractions of being a father. I sent one boy to a small college, one of the old colleges, Hamilton, which I think might well be selected as a type of a small college. I sent a second boy, who was preparing to be an engineer, to take his college course at Harvard.”

In modern human chemical reaction theory formulation, the following might well depict the mechanism of these two separate reaction experiments:

Experiment A
Experiment B
$S_A + C_S \rightarrow S_A \equiv C_S \rightarrow S_{A_m} + C_S \,$
$S_B + C_L \rightarrow S_B \equiv C_L \rightarrow S_{B_m} + C_L \,$

Experiment A		Experiment B
$S_A + C_S \rightarrow S_A \equiv C_S \rightarrow S_{A_m} + C_S \,$		$S_B + C_L \rightarrow S_B \equiv C_L \rightarrow S_{B_m} + C_L \,$

where SA and SB are sons A and B, CS and CL are the small college (Hamilton) and large college (Harvard), SA≡CS and SB≡CL are the encounter complexes (see: collision theory), one might say, and SAm and SBm are the modified "adult" sons after finishing college, respectively. Pritchett continues:

“I was somewhat interested to see how this matter of social relation worked itself out. The result of this practical experiment was this: The boy who went to a small college joined a fraternity, in which he found 12 or 15 men who became his close intimates, and with whom almost all his friendships were contracted. He knew the 100 other men in the college, or the 125 other men, but apparently knew them only as a man knows another student passing him day by day. I had the other boy sit down a few evenings ago, and, taking the Harvard catalogue, make out a statement of the number of men whom he knew intimately, the number of men whom he knew fairly well, and the number of men with whom he had a speaking acquaintance. He made out that he knew 115 men well, that he knew 225 men fairly well, that he had a speaking acquaintance with 300.

The fact is, where you discuss this problem of the relative advantages of a small and a large college, you are making use of that interesting intellectual process which is known in algebra as the solving of indeterminate forms. This does not mean equations that cannot be determined, but equations that have an infinite number of solutions. In a word, you are discussing a question to which there is no definite answer.

There are men who would be better off in a small village than in a large town, if you had some sort of human chemical reaction to determine in advance which man's nature was suited to the smaller place and which to the larger.

There are boys, undoubtedly, who would do better in a small group of men than in the larger college world of a great university or a large college. But there is no human way of finding out that fact, and in the long run the great rewards and the larger opportunities, it seems to me, are very apt to lie just as they lie in the comparison between a small city and a large one. There is added security perhaps, greater safety, greater conservatism in the smaller place. There is a larger opportunity in the larger place, with a larger population. So long as those two conditions hold it will always be impossible to tell whether the boy will do the better in the one place or in the other.

Three claims have been introduced as making strong reasons for choosing smaller colleges. One of these is the argument that the small college is the safer place, because it is usually in a small and isolated community. I do not think there is anything in that argument, because I have always noticed that wherever you locate a college in a small town, in order to free a student from temptation, there is always some wicked place about ten or twenty miles away to which these fellows are very apt to go. In the second place, the argument which is made for a more intimate relation between student and student is one which again, I think, has little significance. A boy in a large college will have also his intimates, and so far as my boy's experience goes, will have more. The third argument which is made is the closer contact between teacher and student. There, I think, is a real point— a real advantage in favor certainly of smaller colleges as against some larger colleges; but that again is a point which is purely a matter of organization. It is just as possible to bring 2,000 students in contact with professors who shall be strong, who shall be influential, who shall be inspiring, as it is to bring 300 students into contact; but in order to do it you must have more professors, you must have a larger faculty, you must have better facilities; and these are not always provided. And so it seems to me that when a small college provides really fine men in a large proportion to its student body, it does offer in that respect certain real advantages. On the other hand, if you contribute a proportionately large number of men to a large student body, you have offered practically the same advantage. And so you find yourself once again, it seems to me, face to face with a problem which is practically insoluble in any particular case.”

In sum, Pritchett, if he were able to come forward in time a century, might well be apt to use or consult a "human molecular engineer", who in turn would use chemical engineering thermodynamics principles, to facilitate or "determine in advance", using chemical reaction prediction methods, the choice or direction as to Pritchett giving counseled engineered guidance as to the question of which college, large or small, to send each of his two sons to, and experiment that he was forced to "conduct" on his own, as he says, because the subject of "human chemical reaction theory" was not yet a central science in his day. Said another way, just as German polyintellect consulted the "affinity tables" to engineer the reactions of the chapters of his novella, via use of human affinity table methods, so to would the modern thinker turn to human free energy theory, and hence free energy tables for human chemical reaction calculations, to engineer reactions of one's children.


James Madison (1751-1836)	John Witherspoon (1723-1794)	Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)	Mehdi Bazargan (1907-1995)	Thomas Wallace (c.1937-)

Social engineering | Leaders
A number of civil leaders, prime ministers, presidents and or legislators have can loosely be classified as physical science based social engineers or human molecular engineers, depending. The foremost of these include Iranian mechanical engineer and thermodynamicist Mehdi Bazargan who became the 75 prime minister of Iran and who in his political reforming efforts and leadership conceived of a society run by thermodynamic principles, such as outlined in his 1956 Thermodynamics of Humans. The following, to exemplify, is a view expressed in his circa 1980 article the 'Cause of Movement and Life': [16]

“In general, an object in a given force field will, of necessity, behave in a calculable and predictable way. For any object, whether a stone, a plant, or a human society, force means movement.”

In modern terms, this "force field", in societal terms, is what American engineer Willard Gibbs classified in the 1870s as the isothermal-isobaric "force function", in other words Gibbs free energy differentials (see: human free energy).

In 1769, American political theorist James Madison (1751-1836), the so-called “father of the constitution” and America’s fourth president, according to John Q. Stewart, was said to be studying a primitive form of social physics a Princeton. [17] Madison, as Stewart points out, was a student of Scottish-born American John Witherspoon (1723-1794) a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and 6th president of Princeton University, who in turn was a noted interpreter of the political philosophy of French theorist Charles Montesquieu, notable for his “hot climates” / “cold climates” theory of human behavior, who in turn had been deeply influenced by the celestial mechanics work of Isaac Newton. Stewart comments on this: [18]

“There can be no question of the fact that, in early Princeton, physics cooperated with politics in a sort of analogical double play, Newton to Witherspoon to Madison.”

Stewart supports this argument with the following quote from Witherspoon:

“The noble and eminent improvements in the natural philosophy, which have been made since the end of the last century, have been far from hurting the interests of religion; on the contrary, they have promoted it. Why should it not be the same with moral philosophy, which is indeed nothing else but the knowledge of human nature? … perhaps a time may come when men, treating moral philosophy as Newton and his successors have done natural, may arrive at greater precision.”

This quote, of course, brings to mind the 1808 "moral symbols" theory work of German polymath Johann Goethe, and also the 1789 "moral movement" theories of British philosopher John Stewart (no relation to John Q. Stewart). Stewart also credits Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), another Princetonian, America’s 28th president, as being an early pioneering thinker in social physics/social mechanics, citing the following quote by Wilson in his writings on the Constitution: [17]

“[The checks and balances between Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are] a sort of unconscious copy of the Newtonian theory of the universe [in which] every free body in the space of the heavens … is kept in its place … by the attraction of bodies that swing with equal order and precision about it.”

A more recent example includes American college president: Thomas Wallace and his 2009 appendix section “The Fundamentals of Thermodynamics Applied to Socioeconomics”.


Dutch industrialist Jacques Marken (1845-1906) coined of the term "social engineering" and "social engineer" in the 1890s, a calling aimed at improving what is amiss in the social world.

Social engineering
In 1894, Dutch industrialist Jacques van Marken (1845-1906), in one of his essays, introduced the term "social engineers" (sociale ingenieurs), based on the idea that modern employers needed the assistance of specialists — "social engineers" — in handling the human problems of the planet, just as they needed technical expertise (ordinary engineers) to deal with the problems of dead matter (materials, machines, processes). [7] An 1897 summary of this call, by English economist Henry Wolff, is as follows: [8]

“M. van Marken perceived that there was much amiss in the social world, which called for amendment. And he became the first avowed "Christian socialist" of his country. The harvest was, however, too great for one husbandman. So he pleaded for a new calling to be taken up by public-spirited men, a calling which ho christened "social engineering." There are some "social engineers" at work now, and they are reaping results.”

There does not, to note, seem to be any sort of physical science theory basis to this term, at this point in history. One of the first hmolscience-based uses of the term comes from American physicist and engineer Arthur Iberall who, in his 1974 book Bridges in Science: from Physics to Social Science, states the following: [3]

“It is the possible development of theory (e.g., kinetic theory or sociophysics) and practice (e.g., social engineering) that may be useful for men.”

Econo-engineering
In 2008, Romanians econphysicist Gheorghe Savoiu and sociophysicist Ion Siman commented the following about a newly emerging field of what they refer to as econo-engineering: [4]

“After 2000, econophysics has matured enough to allow generalized applications, their field being called sometimes econo-engineering.”

This seems similar, in a subdivision sense, i.e. in the sense of Dutch-born American mathematician, theoretical physicist, economist Tjalling Koopmans 1947 definition of an economic agent as a human molecule.

Recent
The following passage from the 2006 edition of Turkish mechanical engineer Yunus Cengel and American mechanical engineer Michael Boles' Thermodynamics: an Engineering Approach (see: Cengel-Boles human thermodynamics):

“The arguments presented here are exploratory in nature, and they are hoped to initiate some interesting discussion and research that may lead into better understanding of performance in various aspects of daily life. The second law may eventually be used to determine quantitatively the most effective way to improve the quality of life and performance in daily life, as it is presently used to improve the performance of engineering systems.”

motivated a third-year Turkish undergraduate mechanical engineer, specifically Hmolpedia member: Turnkey13, into a desire to come to America to complete a master’s degree in on a topic related to thermodynamics of human existence and experience, namely in the field of human thermodynamics.


A "men in bread line" statue, a classic icon of social engineering gone wrong, as typified in the so-called "dark social engineering" that occurred in the post 1917 revolution years in Russia.

A "men in bread line" statue, a classic icon of social engineering gone wrong, as typified in the so-called "dark social engineering" that occurred in the post 1917 revolution years in Russia.

Dark social engineering
The late 19th century Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels theory based communism model, based loosely on a mixture of simple thermodynamics ideas and evolution models, tested in Russia, which in some version employed human atom models, is one example of social engineering gone awry. This is sometimes classified as "communist social engineering".

Canadian foreign affairs scholar Kathleen Csaba, in her 1996 chapter “Pavlik Morozov: A Soviet Case Study of ‘Dark’ Social Engineering”, classifies the engineered solution to the problem of educating and bringing up a new generation of citizens, loyal to the communist party, in the post 1917 revolution years, as an example of “dark social engineering”. [10]

Social engineering | Failures
The early 20th century theories of American engineer Howard Scott and his Technocracy group, based loosely on some of the work of American engineer Willard Gibbs, advocated currently by a small following in America, is another example of a type of social engineering that ended in failure. The general issue with Scott's attempt to engineer bureaucracy based on technology, is that he really didn't have a deep understanding of the thermodynamics, having only a superficial understanding of Willard Gibbs' chemical thermodynamics, but nevertheless was overzealous in his attempts to implement his theories, such as his idea of "energy currency".

Etymology
In 2013, the term “human molecular engineering” began to be used in the University of California, Berkeley article and in the two cultures department article.

Fiction
Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin’s utopian society OneState, a futurism-type engineered society, based partially on notions of entropy and evolution, is classified by Bruce Clarke as a type of social engineering scenario. [14]


The recent books: Social Engineering (1996), Social Engineering: Can Society be Engineered in the Twenty-First Century? (2008), and Social Engineering: the Art of Human Hacking (2010) give a few examples of usage of the term "social engineering", albeit the latter used in a different context, in the "malicious" or deceptive sense of the term. [9]

Social engineering | Information fishing
The term "social engineering", in information technology and security, has come to mean, in certain circles, the art of manipulating people into performing actions or divulging confidential information. [12] This usage, however, seems to be the reverse of the original Marken definition sense of the term. American IT security theorist Christopher Hadnagy’s 2010 Social Engineering: the Art of Human Hacking, gives an overview of elicitation, pretexting, influence and manipulation all aspects of social engineering in regards to the hacking of information from people using ploys and the study of common reaction patterns; Hadnagy defines social engineering as the “art or science of skillfully maneuvering human beings to take action in some aspect of their lives.” [13]

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“Early views of [Bertalanffy] systems approaches saw them as prologue to social engineering where individual choice is abstracted and human beings are relegated to the role of molecules bouncing around in a social petri dish.”
— Debra Straussfogel (2000), “World-Systems Theory in the Context of Systems Theory: An Overview” [11]

See also
● Human engineering thermodynamics

References
1.(a) Soddy, Frederick. (1921). “Cartesian Economics: the Bearing of Physical Science upon Start Stewardship”, Nov. Two Lectures to the Student Unions of Birkbeck College and the London School of Economics.
(b) Soddy, Frederick. (1922). Cartesian Economics. 32-pgs. London: Hendersons.
(c) Thims, Libb. (2012). “Human Thermodynamics: Chemical, Physical, and Engineering”, Bioengineering Thermodynamics; pre-lecture required reading; tentative draft chapter 14 (by suggestion of Potter) for Schaum’s Outlines of Thermodynamics for Engineers, Third Edition (Merle C. Potter and Craig W. Somerton) . McGraw-Hill.


Header to a 2012 lecture handout given to UIC bioengineering thermodynamics students as supplement to a lecture (see: Thims lectures) on human thermodynamics by American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, which may be in the neighborhood of the two cultures department namesake? [2]

Header to a 2012 lecture handout given to UIC bioengineering thermodynamics students as supplement to a lecture (see: Thims lectures) on human thermodynamics by American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, which may be in the neighborhood of the two cultures department namesake? [2]

2. Thims, Libb. (2012). “Human Thermodynamics: Chemical, Physical, and Engineering”, Bioengineering Thermodynamics; pre-lecture required reading; tentative draft chapter 14 (by suggestion of Potter) for Schaum’s Outlines of Thermodynamics for Engineers, Third Edition (Merle C. Potter and Craig W. Somerton) . McGraw-Hill.
3. Iberall, Arthur. (1974). Bridges in Science: from Physics to Social Science (pg. 278). General Technical Services.
4. Savoiu, Gheorghe and Iorga-Siman, Ion. (2008). “Some Relevant Econophysics’ Moments of History, Definitions, Methods, Models and New Trends” (pdf), Romanian Economic and Business Review 3 (3), 29-41.
5. (a) Licker, Mark D. (2003). Dictionary of Engineering (molecular engineering, pg. 361). McGraw-Hill.
(b) Molecular engineering – Wikipedia.
6. Dreier, Thomas. (1922). Silver Lining or Sunshine on the Business Trail (section: Human Chemicals, pgs. 12-22). B.C. Forbes Publishing Co.
7. (a) Social engineering (political science) – Wikipedia.
(b) Jacques van Marken (Dutch → English) – Wikipedia.
8. Wolff, Henry W. (1897). “Article”, The Economic Review (pg. 122), Volume 7.
9. (a) Podgorecki, Adam, Alexander, Joh, and Shields, Rob. (1996). Social Engineering. McGill-Queen’s Press.
(b) Boomkens, Rene, Stiphout, Wouter, Esche, Charles, and Oenen, Gijs. (2008). Social Engineering: Can Society be Engineered in the Twenty-First Century? (abs) NAi Publishers.
(c) Hadnagy, Christopher. (2010). Social Engineering: the Art of Human Hacking. John Wiley & Sons.
10. Csaba, Kathleen. (1994). “Pavlik Morozov: A Soviet Case Study of ‘Dark’ Social Engineering”, in: Social Engineering (editors: Adam Podgórecki, Jon Alexander, and Rob Shields) (§4, pgs. 113-130). McGill-Queen’s Press.
11. Straussfogel, Debra. (2000). “World-Systems Theory in the Context of Systems Theory: An Overview”, in: A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology (§9, pg. 170). Rowman & Littlefield.
12. Social engineering (security) – Wikipedia.
13. Hadnagy, Christopher. (2010). Social Engineering: the Art of Human Hacking. John Wiley & Sons.
14. Clarke, Bruce. (2001). Energy Forms: Allegory and Science in the Era of Classical Thermodynamics (pg. 139). University of Michigan Press.
15. (a) Annamalai, Kalyan, Puri, Ishwar K., and Jog, Milind A. (2011). Advanced Thermodynamics Engineering (§14: Thermodynamics and Biological Systems, pgs. 709-99, contributed by Kalyan Annamalai and Carlos Silva; §14.4.1: Human body | Formulae, pgs. 726-27; Thims, ref. 88). CRC Press.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One), (preview), (ch. 2: "The Human Molecule", pgs. 15-35). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(c) Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (chapter one) (human molecule, empirical formula pg. 3; discussion, pgs. 47, 135). Princeton University Press.
16. Bazargan, Mehdi. (c.1980). “Religion and Liberty” (Section: Opposition: the Cause of Movement and Life, pgs. 81-82, note 23: Thermodynamics of Humanity); originally in Rediscovery of Values (Bazyabi-e Arzeshha); reprinted in Liberal Islam: a Source Book (chapter 7, pgs. 73-84) edited by Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 1998.
17. (a) Lear, John. (1957). “American Newsletter: The Laws of Social Relationship”, New Scientist, Jan 31.
(b) James Madison – Wikipedia.
(c) Woodrow Wilson – Wikipedia.
18. (a) Staff. (1955). “Research in Progress: Social Physics”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 55:17.
(b) John Witherspoon – Wikipedia.
19. Fairburn, William Armstrong. (1914). Human Chemistry. The Nation Valley Press.
20. Carey, George W. (1919). The Chemistry of Human Life. Los Angeles:The Chemistry of Life Co.

Further reading
● Thims, Libb. (2013). “Econoengineering and Economic Behavior: Particle, Atom, Molecule, or Agent Models?” (abs) (main), Keyspeaker at EDEN V workshop: Exploratory Domains of Econophysics News, University of Pitesti, Romania, Jun 29-30.

External links
● Social engineering – Wikipedia.
● Engineers of the human soul – Wikipedia.