Download PDF Fall Bridge on Engineering a Diverse Future September 25, 2024 Volume 54 Issue 3 Guest edited by Wanda Sigur and Percy Pierre, this issue of The Bridge addresses the issues around sustaining a U.S. engineering workforce that builds on and integrates the talents and ideas of our diverse nation. A Word from the NAE Chair Increasing the National Academy of Engineering's Impact on Society Thursday, September 26, 2024 Author: Erroll B. Davis Jr. Having assumed the role of chair of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Council on July 1 of this year, this is, of course, my first opportunity to address the engineering community from this position. Let me start by saying that it was a great honor to be elected but it is also a great challenge to follow in the footsteps of my predecessor, Don Winter. Like him, I am hopeful that I can give back both to the engineering community and to the nation. As has been the normal practice, the NAE’s president, John Anderson, and I will alternate authorship of this quarterly column in The Bridge. As I begin to enumerate my challenges, one, unfortunately, will be helping to find a replacement for John, who is scheduled to retire during my two-year term. There is an old adage that says that you come into the world with nothing, and you will leave with nothing. The only thing you can do while here is to have an impact. When you think about this, it immediately becomes clear that those of us who have been rigorously trained to be problem-solvers have the ability to have a great impact on society. My belief is that if we have been blessed with this capability, then we also have a moral obligation to share our capabilities and expertise. This is what engineers have done by solving many of the world’s problems in a systematic and logical manner. How, where, and when we have an impact are questions the NAE’s membership must deal with on an ongoing basis. My view is that for the NAE to have a greater impact on society, it must do two things simultaneously. First, based on the projected need for talented US engineers in the future, the NAE must work to increase the sheer number of engineers. Historically, the United States has been blessed with access to a high percentage of immigrant engineers. However, this does not change the fact that we absolutely must do a better job of developing and accessing the talent of all US citizens. Secondly, we must amplify the role that the NAE and the National Research Council play with the policymakers of this nation. Producing more highly qualified engineers is a daunting task. Assuming that we can do so by depending upon elite institutions filled with students from elite high schools is, from my estimation, not the best plan. At one point in my career, I had the opportunity to serve as the superintendent of a large urban school system. It was both the hardest and most rewarding job of my career. The challenges were numerous and well known, from funding to teacher quality to the absence of technology to the unequitable distribution of resources, and on and on. The predominant impression that this experience had upon me was that we are wasting and not developing enough talent in our public schools. The problems are there, and engineers must be a part of the solution if we are to develop more effective pathways for students interested in becoming engineers. The potential for impact is massive here, not only on the engineering profession but on society in general, as it welcomes more real problem-solvers into its ranks. Despite its obvious complexity and the sheer number of daunting obstacles, the pathway problem must be solved, and the NAE must play a critical role in that process. Simultaneously, we can work to increase the ongoing impact of the NAE on this nation. In a world of sometimes alternate facts, we can have an impact today by primarily giving sound, objective, and nonpartisan advice when asked. Government agencies and governing bodies have historically sought out and depended upon advice from the National Academies. In many ways, however, this is a reactive role. We must ask ourselves whether this is the best way to maximize the impact of the NAE. As engineers, we are very used to letting the facts speak for themselves. But in a world of alternate facts, we may need to speak a bit more loudly and a bit more frequently. We need to ask if our current processes are the best in today’s world. Do they take too long? Are we spirited advocates of our positions, or are we just putting the well-researched facts out there? Another harsh reality, however, is that serious funding challenges exist, even with the current process, in which our major expenses are not compensation for the pro bono researchers and study participants but merely the funding of their expenses, which continue to increase over time. In short, we must first face the challenges of funding the current model. Secondly, I believe we must challenge ourselves to ask: In an AI world crying out for guidance and responsible direction, is a reactive approach still the answer? And, if we conclude that it isn’t, how can we proactively increase our impact while maintaining both our objectivity and our financial solvency? If we are to have a greater impact, we must increase the number of engineering voices heard over time, both by increasing the number of engineers and by giving more advice in an objective and nonpartisan manner to the policymakers of this nation. In today’s world, standing still or doing the things we have always done will not enable us to remain relevant and is an ineffective formula for increasing our impact. I look forward to discussing these issues and many others further with all members of the NAE. About the Author:Erroll B. Davis Jr. (NAE), chair, the National Academy of Engineering