TECHNOLOGY POLICY
NAE's White Seeks To Strengthen Engineering Academy's Impact human resources. Playing a central role in this new thrust is the academy's new president, Robert M. White. In an interview with C&EN's Richard J. Seltzer, White emphasizes that the academy seeks to become "a catalyst" and "an intellectual focus" for dealing with problems of technology and society. The composition of NAE's membership uniquely equips it to deal with these issues, he stresses, in a way that the predominantly academic NAS cannot. He describes programs to achieve this goal and to increase NAE's visibility and impact. A recognized authority in meteorology and oceanography, White brings to pursuit of NAE's new goals rich and diverse experience in government, industry, and academia dealing with science and technology policy. Born in Boston, he earned a B.A. degree in geology at Harvard University and a doctorate in geophysical fluid dynamics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. White was cofounder and president of Travelers Research Center Inc., a nonprofit subsidiary of Travelers Insurance Co. and one of the first private firms to undertake environmental research and services. This led to his appointment in 1963 as chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau. In 1970 he was appointed first adminNext year, the National Academy of Engineering will istrator of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adcelebrate its 20th anniversary. For much of its existence,ministration (NO A A). White left NOAA in 1977 and joined NRC, serving NAE has led the life of a kind of poor relation comin 1979-80 as its administrator. From 1980 to 1983, he pared to the vastly greater visibility, activity, and was president of University Corporation for Atmoresources of the National Academy of Sciences, its elder sibling in the academy-National Research Coun- spheric Research, a consortium of 50 U.S. and Canadian universities that operates the National Center for cil complex in Washington, D.C. Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. He has reNow, however, NAE is embarked on an intensive ceived many honors, including the French Legion of effort to strengthen its separate identity and visibility, Honor in 1980 for his international contributions. expand its programs, and increase its financial and
C&EN: What do you see as the major goals of NAE? What is the main thrust of the academy's activities? White: First of all, of course, the academy is honorific. It is an honor to be elected a member. One of our goals is to make sure we have as distinguished a membership as we can make it. That is an internal objective, but it's a very important one, because the credibility of the National Academy of Engineering and the work it does depend fundamentally upon the quality of its membership.
C&EN: I understand that you are planning to broaden the membership —selecting members in some fields that you haven't covered until now, new fields that cross traditional disciplines —and perhaps give better representation to some fields that are underrepresented. I understand you also may add members who aren't engineers, such as management types or economists. White: Engineering is a rapidly changing field. We want to make sure that the membership reflects, in a November 21, 1983 C&EN
17
Technology Policy representative way, the various fields of engineering as the whole character of engineering activitieschanges. So we wish to make sure that we have in our membership people in fields like agricultural engineering or genetic engineering. The second thing is to ask the questions, What is the purpose of the membership? and Is the membership adequate to meet the purposes of the organization? The purpose is to advise federal agencies on matters in which engineering and technology are significant factors. It's hard to find an engineering and technological issue of major national import that doesn't carry with it some requirement for understanding: for example, economics. The questions of technology and employment, technology and industrial competitiveness, technology and almost any major issue involve questions of economics. A number of years ago, NAS went through a broadening process in which it brought into the membership economists and sociologists. I think we need to take a hard look at the membership of our academy to see whether there are some fields that are directly related and intertwined with engineering. Economics is an obvious one. I think we ought to be interested in people who have achievements in industrial economics, resource economics, and economics and technological impact. C&EN: What other goals would you set for NAE? White: Our second goal is directed toward the various ways in which we can effectively advise the federal government, which is, after all, the principal function of the academy. We do that principally through the National Research Council. NAE is a partner with the National Academy of Sciences in the oversight and operation of NRC. NRC is the operating arm of both academies. It spends $70 million a year supporting
We would like to become an intellectual focus for problems of technology and society. There are few national policy issues that do not involve engineering and technology
18
November 21,1983 C&EN
about 800 projects, and has a staff of about 900. As NAE president, I serve as vice chairman of NRC. One of our functions as an academy of engineering is to make sure that in the conduct of the studies there are the proper kinds of engineers and technologists involved. We also want to act as a catalyst, to stimulate studies within NRC. Let me give a good example of the catalytic role. There have been a number of comprehensive studies of various fields of science, which have had a significant impact on thinking within the government and ultimately on the allocation of resources and priorities— in astronomy, physics, and chemistry, for instance. And the Pimentel report in chemistry is now underway. But comprehensive studies of this kind have never been undertaken in engineering. We have suggested to NRC that such a series of studies be undertaken. They would look at various fields of engineering and try to come up with some assessment as to where investments should be made by the federal government, in light of the status of the engineering, the knowledge of the science that lies behind it, the capabilities of the nation, the urgency of national problems, and so forth. A working group will get together to examine how one could go about such studies, because they're enormously complex. Unlike science—where most of the research is done in the university community—in engineering almost all of the practice and a good chunk of the R&D take place in industry. So to look comprehensively at various fields of engineering, it's going to be necessary to understand what goes on in the private sector, the industrial sector, as well as in the universities. Another example of the catalytic role that we're trying to play in NRC is the area of technology and its effect on employment. We had a symposium on that subject at the end of June, and are following up with a two-year study by the Committee on Science, Engineering & Public Policy, which is sponsored jointly by NAE, NAS, and the Institute of Medicine. C&EN: What about separate activities of NAE, independent of its relation to NRC and NAS? Do you see NAE as having special or unique capabilities for doing certain things? White: Well, we are a separate and independent academy. We have other things that we're very much interested in doing. We're deeply concerned, for example, about the state of engineering education. That is one of our goals, to try to strengthen engineering education and research in the U.S. Just recently, at the request of the National Science Board, NAE sent its views to NSB and the National Science Foundation on what it thinks needs to be done to strengthen engineering in NSF, the foundation being the principal supporter of educational activities and engineering research at universities. We've also set up an Educational Advisory Board to our council for continuing oversight over engineering education. We see NAE as having a really unique kind of membership. We're quite different from NAS. Its mem-
bership is drawn, I'd say, 95% from academic institutions. NAE's membership is roughly 50% from industry and 50% from universities, nonprofit organizations, and government. We want to capitalize on that unique membership distribution. No other institution exists like NAE, representing all fields of engineering— cutting across the board—and drawing its membership from both the academic and industrial communities. About 150 of NAE's 1244 members are in the chemical and petroleum areas, incidentally. We would like to become an intellectual focus for problems of technology and society. Engineering and technology have moved front and center on the national stage. They now rival—or perhaps surpass— science in the attention they receive. There are few national policy issues that do not involve engineering and technology. Whether you deal with the environment, natural resources, employment, the elderly, or foreign policy, there is hardly any activity that does not have an engineering or technological dimension. One of the things NAE will be doing, with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is organizing a major symposia series on questions at the interface of technology and society. In addition, NAE, NAS, and the Council on Foreign Relations will jointly convene a symposium on technology and foreign affairs next spring. C&EN: The relations of NAE with NAS have in the past been somewhat problematical. NAE has been something of a poor relation in terms of visibility, resources, and recognition. In fact, you recently wrote that the academy "is not as well known in this country as one might expect or wish/' You cited, for example, the lack of familiarity with NAE you found in a key staff member of the House Science & Technology Committee and in senior executives of a major U.S. firm. And when the media deal with an NRC report, they usually call it "an NAS report." I'm afraid C&EN is sometimes guilty of that, too. What will you do to strengthen the identity and visibility of NAE, and give it more impact?
No other institution exists like NAE, representing all kinds of engineering...
and
drawing its membership from both the academic and industrial communities
call our shots and decide where we're going to put our efforts, our time, and our resources. There are many things that we would like to do, but it's going to take time. But we have come a long, long way in 20 years. Our membership has reached a level of maturity in terms of numbers, distribution, and distinction. It's taken us 20 years to build from the original founders to a level of 1244 members [including emeritus members and foreign associates; NAS has 1661 members]. While we were young and our membership was small, it was not possible to cover all the fields in depth and to have our members participate in all the studies we thought appropriate. But now we are taking our full role in the joint governance of NRC. In fact, about 30% of our members now participate in the boards and committees of NRC, about the same percentage as for NAS.
C&EN: In the 1960s, there was talk in NAE of splitting off completely from NAS, wasn't there?
C&EN: You've spoken about a balance between independence and cooperation that NAE should maintain with NAS. There is discussion of acquiring a separate headquarters building for NAE, establishing separate publications and projects, organizing your own symposia, developing your own public relations mechanisms, and so on. So it certainly appears you are trying to establish more of an independent identity.
White: There was at that time, that's right. That's all gone now. The relationship between the two academies is a very comfortable one now. We understand each other. I think NAS understands what our aspirations are; we know what their aspirations are. But we'll be only 20 years old next year. NAS is 120 years old. We're a young organization. We do not have all the resources that we'd like. We have a staff of only about 10 people, for example. So we have to
White: Identity is important because the degree of weight that will be given to the deliberations and views of NAE will be dependent upon the degree to which people can identify the organization for what it is: a remarkable group of distinguished engineers, applied scientists, and other specialists. You gain identity in many ways; one is by doing some things on your own hook. But the things we're talking about doing on our
White: One of my goals is to improve the identity of NAE. This has been a problem from the beginning. I think that the basic decision to do all of our advisory work through NRC along with NAS was a sound decision, because science and engineering are so intertwined.
November 21, 1983 C&EN
19
Technology Policy
We 7/ be only 20 years old next year. NAS is 120 years old. We do not have all the resources we 'd like. So we have to call our shots and decide where to put our efforts
own are things that we have agreed with NAS are appropriate for us to do on our own. None of this should be taken as attempting to compete with NAS. We're partners. We're not [NAS's] competitor. All of the things that we do independently we hope will be catalytic in nature and stimulate longer-term, more in-depth studies by NRC. C&EN: As NAE president, will you also speak out more, testify at Congressional hearings, and do things to make NAE more visible? White: There are two reasons why you do it. One is you have something to say, hopefully. If you do have something to say, you obviously get some identity. I've made speeches this fall in Texas, Wyoming, and Georgia. The president of NAE ought to step out, if he has something to say—internally, to strengthen the field of engineering, or externally, on problems of technology and society. We can speak out in a way other institutions cannot, on behalf of engineering as a whole. C&EN: There's also a proposal to prepare a roster of experts willing to testify on technological issues. White: We think it's a good idea to try. One of the things that I find—and I've been around Washington for many years—is that when there are hearings up on [Capitol] Hill, there's always a search for people who have something relevant to say. We have in our membership people who are very knowledgeable on most topics that come up. Another idea is briefings for members of Congress and the executive branch on matters with high engineering and technological content. For example, when William Ruckelshaus took over the Environmental Protection Agency, Frank Press [NAS president] and I 20
November 21. 1983 C&EN
talked to him about how we might help. At his request, we arranged for a group of scientists with views all across the spectrum to discuss acid rain with him. It illuminated a problem—gave him a feel for how certain or uncertain the authorities are in that area. C&EN: Your budget is now about $1 million. Do you plan to step up fund raising? White: The operating budget is about $1 million. Of that, about 70% comes from the indirect costs of the studies that NRC does, and about 30% from income from our independent funds. We have a small endowment fund of about $5 million. [NAS has about $40 million.] We have been unable to carry our fair share for support of NRC study expenses not covered by government funds. We need independent funds to enable us to discharge our obligations. Also, in NRC we are trying to make sure that we are not totally in a responsive mode to government requests, but also can conduct studies where we think there's an important problem, and for some reason it's not possible to obtain support from a federal agency. Frank Press has been very successful in obtaining independent funds from foundations and corporations for independent studies. NAS is contributing about $400,000 a year to that fund. We are not in a position to make any contribution. So we need to build up our endowment. C&EN: NAE has published a series of studies on the impact of technology on U.S. industrial competitiveness in the world. What else will you do in this area? White: We're very much interested in strengthening the whole engineering and technological enterprise in the U.S. That involves a lot of things I've already mentioned. We've also set up an Industrial Advisory Board to the NAE council to maintain an overview of these complex issues and advise on actions NAE can take. And we have a power to convene—the remarkable ability to bring together—on a voluntary basis, very distinguished people with different points of view, from different disciplines and sectors of the economy, to consider significant problems. This is a very important power. C&EN: How do you see the overall status of U.S. science and technology? White: Science and technology are in a very healthy state. There are areas of concern, where we see relative standings change as other countries quite naturally build up their capabilities. But I think we are strong and we have to remain that way. That will take efforts by the government and educational system to make sure we are scientifically and industrially competitive. The general welfare of the U.S. depends on our being competitive in all respects. I am confident that we're going to manage it. D
