Last Monday I had a pleasure to talk with Professor Jose L. Torero, who just received the SFPE David A. Lucht Lamp of Knowledge Award this year. We had conversations about fire safety engineering education, the idea behind IMFSE, why competence is very crucial for fire engineers, and the importance of our network and relationship. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I do with the interview.
Hi Prof. Torero, Congratulations on receiving the SFPE David A. Lucht Lamp of Knowledge Award. And thank you so much for sparing some time for this interview. Before we talked about the award, let us go backward a little bit. I am curious of how did you get into fire safety engineering in the first place? Because I know you are graduated as a mechanical engineer.
Yeah, so look. Technically speaking I got into fire safety when I was doing my PhD and the way it happened was, I got involved in a research project that was dealing with the fire safety of the International Space Station. This was a NASA sponsored project, and the person that became my supervisor had this project and he needed somebody to work with him and this is how I got involved and that ended up becoming my PhD research project and that’s where technically speaking, I got into fire safety. But the way in which the problem was approached was more the way in which mechanical engineer will approach it. It was pretty much dealt as a combustion problem, and all that we were concerned about was the way in which these plastic foams burnt. So, I had really not much understanding of fire safety as a broad discipline.
When I really started getting interested in fire safety as a broad discipline was after I finished my PhD. I went to do a postdoc in France that was also by the European Space Agency, and I was working in a in a laboratory that was dedicated to fire research, and while my project was again had to do with combustion in space facilities. They have projects in smoke management, in things like industrial fire safety, boil over, tunnels, and all sorts of things. And I started realizing how diverse the field was.
And rapidly I start recognizing the thing that really interested me about the field itself. You know, looking at the problem as a combustion researcher was interesting for a while, but it became a bit boring and then eventually I started getting much more interested in the sense that I realized that that this [fire safety engineering] problem was more of a social problem. So, it had a lot of aspects that had to deal with people. And that point is when I decided that I really needed a little bit more of the true fire safety and I went to University of Maryland. And there, I got the full dose because then you realize, not only people, but there is regulation, government, local governments, building certifiers, authorities. And all these other aspects that were way beyond the technical aspects and the combination of the two, I actually found fascinating.
And how does it lead in into you creating and promoting higher education program for fire safety engineers? Because this is what the SFPE David A. Lucht award is about, right?
I mean, I think in essence that it [higher education in fire engineering] is born in Maryland. The program in Maryland was founded by John Bryan. And John Bryan was an exceptional individual with incredible human qualities that recognized very very rapidly that the real issue in fire safety was to have the right people in the right place. And not only he recognized that, but he had literally been the man who created the profession. I mean, if you look at people that are my age or a little bit older in the profession that are practicing engineers, a very large number of them, were educated by John Bryan. So, John Bryan was the chair of the department in Maryland, and he had just retired when I arrived. But I had the opportunity to interact with him quite a bit. And he was a man who really saw that invest in a discipline like this. It was about the people, he recognized that the skill sets that these people needed had changed dramatically.
Part of me being appointed to Maryland was part of an idea that he pushed off a change in the direction of the program from being your typical code consultant program, you know, where you are taught how to use the codes into being a program that embedded science into education. And this had already started with the development of WPI (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) who was created by David Lucht, whose name of the award.
He [David Lucht] was also recognising that science had to be brought into this program. At the onset of the program, they had invited Dougal Drysdale, who was in Edinburgh, who was working in Edinburgh with David Rasbash, who basically had come to Edinburgh, again, with this idea that science had to be brought into fire safety engineering and develop this MSc in fire safety engineering in Edinburgh. And Dougal was part of that whole development. So David Lucht brings Dougal Drysdale into WPI, and John Bryan brings Jim Quintiere into Maryland to try to bring the science. And then I just came after.
I was sort of at the beginning of this movement that education had to bring science into fire safety engineering, and very rapidly I realize how important this was. When I was asked, if I wanted to come to Edinburgh, which was the birthplace of science in fire safety engineering, I could not say no. Unfortunately, when I go to Edinburgh, because this sort of more internal politics and other things; David Rasbash had died by then, Dougal Drysdale was very close to retirement. They had pretty much decided that fire safety as a discipline was going to end.
The MSc had stopped being delivered, and the laboratory had been closed. Basically, I was brought in because the people in civil engineering realized that one of the things that distinguished civil engineering in Edinburgh was the fact that there was still this module in fire safety, that Dougal Drysdale used to teach. They wanted to continue, so they wanted that flavour of fire to remain as an elective, or an optional for people to take. Needlessly they know that my interest was in redeveloping all the educational programs, so it [the MSc of fire safety engineering program] started all over again. And that’s how I got into education.
Because to be honest with you, I still believe that this [fire safety engineering education] is the crux of our discipline. We have never been able to attain sufficient critical mass of educated people to influence the field sufficiently, so the things are done in a way that is not only adequate but is progressive. So that we are driving the field in the direction of technology, science, and knowledge. As opposed to in the direction of tradition and history, which is what is generally codes tend to bring to the table.
I still believe that this [fire safety engineering education] is the crux of our discipline. We have never been able to attain sufficient critical mass of educated people to influence the field sufficiently, so the things are done in a way that is not only adequate but is progressive.
That is very exceptional. And because of that, you are also one of the people who created the IMFSE program. What was your idea behind it, joining with other institutions?
Yeah, so the idea behind it was when I arrived in Edinburgh, or after we managed to get the facilities and everything going back again. We developed an undergraduate program. We developed an MSc program in Fire Safety. And we basically try to put a lot of effort in trying to create a very large group of PhD students so that we could develop the educators of the future.
One of the things that very rapidly became obvious is that the impact that you can have from a local perspective is not sufficient because fire safety is a global discipline, and the people that were working in London were working in projects in Denmark, in Germany, and in all other places, like in the Middle East, or in Australia. So, we needed to have something that actually managed to amalgamate all the knowledge base globally. And experiences from different places could be put in place together in the education, so people could become global professionals. Now you know I had the American experience, and then I had the British experience, and so this call came up.
At the beginning it was a bit difficult because the UK was a bit reluctant because of very practical reasons like fees, to enter into that space. I really had seen the call, [but] I had not really considered it as a possibility. It caught my attention, but I realized it was going to be too big of a battle uphill. And this is when Professor [Bart] Merci approached me.
He said, well, what do you think if we try to go together. And I thought, well, maybe this is the way to do it, not me driving it, but actually having Ghent driving it. Because that way we can smoothen a little bit of the problems. I mean, University of Edinburgh had never had an Erasmus Mundus project. They had always said no to them, and so maybe if this was more based in continental Europe and we were just contributors to it, then it might be something that is acceptable.
Very rapidly we went to Lund because Lund have the other very significant group. I mean, needless to say, Lund was founded on the basis of the WPI program that David Lucht had developed on with the advice of Dougal Drysdale. So it was, again, the same movement that founded Lund. So Lund was the right partner for this.
It was the same philosophy, the same idea and, and that’s how we decided that this was going to happen. To be honest it was an enormous battle. Uphill there were fights left and right. The concessions and the capability that Professor Merci had, to be able to broker everything that we had to do to satisfy Lund, to satisfy Edinburgh, was extraordinary. But at the end you know it worked.
It is! Personally, I came from a Indonesia, where most of the public does not know fire safety engineering. One of the great things from IMFSE is that it gives opportunity for people like me who came from a place where fire safety engineering experts are very few. And I think that there are still so many people that doesn’t know fire safety engineers or what we really do. What do you think about it?
I mean this is why I keep insisting that this is about people you know, because we are so below critical mass. That we need to continue to educate individuals and I think when I say educate individuals, it is much more than just giving technical classes. I think people have to recognize the social aspect of fire safety, and what does it mean to exist in a community that is way below critical mass. You know the importance of the personal relationships, the importance of maintaining a network and basically continuing to interact, is absolutely fascinating.
I remember once I was in Singapore. I sat in the meeting, regarding some sort of activity, and then all of a sudden somebody approaches me and said “Oh, you know, you taught me in the IMFSE.” And sometimes I have a hard time recognizing people which I’m ashamed of because you know people like John Bryan. John Bryan was the type of person that will [recognize people]. He didn’t even teach anymore. He was retired. He will come to the meetings at Maryland and approach students that he had met maybe once and start having a conversation asking them about their partners, their children. He knew everything about them here and this memory that he remembered everything about people. And I think those kinds of relationships, those networks, and that level of trust that is developed among people is essential when you’re trying to develop a discipline that actually is not above critical mass.
Because at the end you have to trust the people around you, because you’re not going to be able to do everything alone. You’re not going to be able to be in a situation in which you are on your own and everyone respect you for what you’re doing. You’re going to always have to demonstrate that you would, that your knowledge you know is there, and for that you know you have to be surrounded by people that actually trust you, so that requires personal relationships, all these things.
Both David Lucht and John Bryan were extraordinary in doing that. And I think it was in many ways is a lesson that I learned very early on. So even when I started in Edinburgh and we develop our first program, I develop an Advisory Board—by that time John Bryan was completely retired at that point—and the first person that I brought to that Advisory Board was David Lucht. David was at the first meeting of all the Advisory Board and as I say, we shared a lot of these ideals, and this real focus on making sure that you know we had developed a group of people that are tight enough that they will always stick together.
I think when I say educate individuals, it is much more than just giving technical classes. I think people have to recognize the social aspect of fire safety, and what does it mean to exist in a community that is way below critical mass.
You talked a bit about competence early on and the importance of it in fire safety engineering. I would like to know if you think there should be any improvement in the way that fire safety engineering is taught.
I think that is a very good question, because one of the biggest problems with fire safety engineering today and one of the reasons why we don’t have that critical mass is a relationship that was built very long time ago in regard to the evolution of technology, and the evolution of fire safety engineering.
Okay, now if you think of a system or a product, you know when it’s developed, built, or put in the market. In principle, people should have done the work to make sure that it’s safe. People won’t be selling apartment or building products that were going to put in the market if it’s unsafe. So in principle, the work has to be done before the product is marketed.
Now, unfortunately, fire is a complex field and to a level of complexity that has always kept us behind. So instead of things being demonstrated to be safe and then put in the market, then the way we do it is things get put in the market, and then we have to prove that they are safe. So in other words, we’re always catching up, because we’re always behind. Technology always takes one step. A new thing always comes in; Like one time you think of a facade system, another time you think, then comes in timber construction. All these things are coming in before we can ascertain if they are actually safe, and we need to catch up. Okay, so we’re constantly catching up and constantly catching up and constantly catching up.
Now the way in which we manage to exist was by creating, you know, very simple tests like sort of compliance tests or codes that set up certain rules. Those rules are not necessarily based in our full understanding of the technology. They are set generally in a very conservative way, but normally they’re based on understanding that is less than what you really need. So, in a way, you compensate by making them too conservative. You compensate in many ways, but at the end they’re based on less knowledge. So, if you think about it, fire safety competency is paramount because you’re always learning because you’re always behind, and if you fall too behind then you create a big hole and then all of a sudden you get a disaster
Okay, now what we need to be able to do is we need to be able to change the way in which people think, in such a way that we turn it around. And our competency goes ahead of the product in such a way that then products get scrutinized in a manner such, in which they actually delivered to market in a way that they are already intrinsically safe. But for that you need a critical mass of people. You know you need the competency; you need to be able to be at the state of the art. So that you can actually then tell the industry and whoever is producing the things that they’re developing, that they have to fix them before they enter the market. So competency is absolutely core and that’s why this education mission is so important. You need as many people as possible to be educated as much as possible.
Fire safety competency is paramount because you’re always learning because you’re always behind, and if you fall too behind then you create a big hole and then all of a sudden you get a disaster.
Amazing. Thank you very much for that. I am sorry if I came out too nervous because this is my first time meeting you and it is through a video call. On the topic of that, I hope we can revert back to the time where education is not done online, may I know what is your opinion on this?
I think I do agree with you. I mean it’s it is a difficult time and unfortunately you know no matter how efficient distance learning can be in a way it defeats the purpose of creating this solid network of people with sort of common interests and so forth.
You can give all the technical common basis to everybody and, look, even the laboratories aspects and everything, all that stuff in one way or another, we can substitute. And people can acquire the knowledge that they need. But one thing that we realized very rapidly is the coexistence of individuals is what fosters trust. And trust is an essential aspect of this network of people. And that doing it online is not as easy as much, [it’s] much more difficult. And I think that is something that at some point, we need to revert back into allowing people to exist together so that they can develop these links and these personal relationships that allow them to trust each other in the manner that is necessary. So yeah, I mean, I think it’s difficult times and I think the only thing that I can tell you is that… that you know, even if at the end you don’t manage you to join the group physically, that you still think of yourself as part of this community and you seek people you know within the community of the IMFSE. See in a way such that you start building those relationships, personal relationships, with the people around you. Because at the end, you’re going to realize that they are your support structure.
Probably, if you go back and work in Indonesia, you will find that there’s probably very few people that understand what you know. You need that support structure to tell you you’re not crazy when you’re telling everybody in the room, 60 years old men, and you’re telling them something and they’re looking at you like you’re pure insane, you know you have this sort of backup that tells you “Look, I’m not insane! This is it! This is correct.” You know this is correct and you have to change the way in which people are doing things.
The last thing that I would like to ask you is; I know it’s a little bit off topic from the award and from the fire safety engineering education, but you’re in this field for more than 30 years, What is it in this field that still fascinates you? That keeps you going.
Uh, it goes back to exactly the same thing. I mean at the end you know the product of what we do is the safety of people. So in a way, you are supporting the wellbeing of society.
The way in which you do it is by enabling people to have the skills, knowledge, and competency to be able to support you know the wellbeing of society. In many ways it doesn’t really matter how difficult it is, it doesn’t really matter how many obstacles you go, you know the one thing that keeps you going is you know that what you’re doing, is the right thing.
And so, so at the end, you know I never have to wake up in the morning and ask, “Is it what I’m doing a good thing or no?” No, I mean, uh, it’s almost by default, so you know the fact that I don’t have to ask myself the question and I just have to keep going is extremely motivating.
I have to say, you know when you work in a particular space like this, where you don’t have that critical mass where the trust has not been built in aware. Many times, you’re facing people that don’t have the competency, and you’re looking at the damage that is being made when people don’t want to support the activities that are appropriate. It’s a difficult field and you know it’s a complicated process and it’s a constant battle to try to change the inertia of a system that we inherit it. And I think this is one of the reasons why I think this is really, really fundamental. And this is key to the IMFSE, that this sort of network of people you know must remain together and has to remain very tight, and it has to remain on the basis that we trust each other that we’re all pushing in the same direction.
Thank you so much for that. We’re about to end it here, but do you have any words for your colleague and the IMFSE students?
I think the IMFSE is probably one of the most important initiatives that has happened in the last 30 years in this field, and I think people like Bart Merci and so forth have done an absolutely Titanic job at keeping this thing going and thriving in and expanding. And all I can tell the students is that they have to recognize that if we’re going to continue to make this successful, we have to stick together.
IMFSE 