Norm Augustine on the Nature of Challenges

The nature of challenges is a challenge itself, the challenge of creativity. A good intellectual framework for understanding this connection is the book TURNING POINTS – THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY by Chaomei Chen of Drexel University (Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht, New York, 2011). This book starts with the thematic Ch. 1, “The Gathering Storm,” a title eponymous with the name of a well-known U.S. National Academies report prepared by a committee chaired by NAE member Norm Augustine (whose name is in the title of the blog above), as published by the National Academies Press in 2007. That report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, makes two key points for America confronting a “creeping crisis” in its economic future -- by repairing its K-12 educational system and increasing its federal “investment in basic research.” Accordingly, the report’s Executive Summary states that "The committee identified two key challenges that are tightly coupled to [this] scientific and engineering prowess: creating high-quality jobs for Americans, and responding to the nation’s need for clean, affordable, and reliable energy." Nowhere in the Executive Summary, however, is worker “creativity” mentioned, though the intended effect of implementing its recommendations is of "creating scientists and engineers with the ability to create entire new industries." Indeed, “creativity” is mentioned only four times in the entire 590 page report, such as “Diversity fosters creativity” (p.397), supporting “scientists of exceptional creativity” (p.424), and sponsoring “research into the processes involved in teaching creativity” (p. 470). This Rising Storm report, though, does not take a stand on what creativity is, nor how to identify, foster or use it, for example. However, the book by Prof. Chen mentions “creativity” or “creative” dozens of times, as in its Sec. 1.4, “Transformative Research and the Nature of Creativity” and its Ch. 2, “Creative Thinking.” Accordingly, creativity requires true grit or character, not only in the focus, courage and persistence over the years, even decades, needed to espouse brand new ideas that others tend initially to reject out of hand without examination, but also because of the very great discipline and rigor of propositional or mathematical thinking needed for building up a complex theoretical framework from a number of simple truths, starting with true premises and ending up with not only true conclusions, but definitive, even decisive ones with promise for advancing human knowledge in important ways, that is, in ways that benefit society as a whole. (Even for transformative practical advances of the past, the calculation had to be done first – and correctly – as in the 1970’s by Sir Peter Mansfield of England for the case of NMR for medicine so that he could build and operate successfully his first prototype MRI machine for taking a whole-body scan and then in 2003 share equally the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Paul C. Lauterbur of the USA.) Thus, the nature of a challenge or even a grand challenge is in the thought required. But for a human person to be able to think well while adding innovatively and even importantly to the human store of STEM knowledge, he or she needs to be able to come up with original ideas, and these spring not so much from an impoverished Facebook-like socially-popular avatar of who one wants to be seen or perceived as but instead from a fountain of authentic being, of who one really is. Thus, inclusion of identity diversity in its fullest sense and spectrum is essential. Thus, whenever a teacher or instructor or professor tries to make one’s student into his or her own image, conformity will emerge, not creativity. However, if the intellectual maverick or rebel in one’s student is at least tolerated and supported, then that student’s creativity has a chance to emerge and even bloom and flourish, first in the academic learning environment, but then in the arena of life itself, which includes the workplace whose existence, survival, development and prosperity depend now on the worker’s creative competitiveness in a global marketplace where physical distance between competitors can vanish at the click of a mouse.

Public infrastructure and clean water is very hard to come by in large parts of the world. I would vey hope, that in this century, quality of life will be improved exponentially for two-thirds of the world's population. When I mean public infrastructure, im talking about schools, hospitals, roads, sewage systems, and most of all public roads and highways. I am relying solely on engineers to help with this ever burdening problem. Ethics play a significant role in engineeing and how it revolves around the daily lives of people. If engineers had their way they would want to be fully in charge, instead of having to rely on the government for their plans to be put in place. I too would rely on politicians if they saw what was past their big mouths, and instead would play a greater stance towards the progress of humanity. Ethics or not. Though in my opinion engineering's greatest challenges do reside in ethics. And that is most important of all.

This is a comment that could go on quite a few of the essays - including the one on poverty, on cities and urbanization, bio-fuels etc. but I wanted it placed here because Norm spoke about tearing down barriers between engineering disciplines. What I have to suggest is tearing down the barrier between economics and engineering. Some of the most obvious problems we need to solve are a) The rising income disparity and its consequences b) The lack of basic infrastructure like drinking water in remote parts of this world c) Improving the quality of education all across the world, increasing its reach etc. Any many other such problems ... However for most if not all of these problems there are 2 parts of a solution - -- The Engineering part - that deals with the ability to solve the problem and -- The economic part - that deals with finding the will to implement the solution What do I mean by will? How will such a project be funded? What is in it for the people funding a project? Are they in it for purely altruistic motives? Is there a profit motive? Answers to these questions along with the solution created by engineers will help solve something. Anything less would mean we have a solution but are far away from implementing it.