NSF 2001 Director's Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars

Thank you, Dr. Colwell, for inviting me to this important ceremony. The Director's Award is yet another example of your deep commitment to excellence in education, and to the notion that research scientists and engineers have an important role to play in every part of the educational process.

The men and women you have chosen to honor in this inaugural round of awards are distinguished by the quality of their scientific work, by their imaginative integration of that work with their educational responsibilities, and by an evident commitment to the students whose lives will be enriched by their efforts.

I have always been puzzled by claims that teaching conflicts with research. My view of research is that it necessarily includes teaching. Science is a deeply social phenomenon, not least because it requires a consensus among observers that what is observed is not simply a figment of someone's imagination. Scientific progress requires communication, and the communication of scientific discovery is necessarily an act of pedagogy. Science has always thrived in academies and communities where like-minded people with different levels of knowledge work together, some teaching, some learning, all contributing to the spirit as well as to the content of the enterprise.

In this respect the modern research environment resembles the great university cities of the late middle ages and the renaissance. Built around centers of social action ? courts or cathedrals ? these communities brought students of diverse ages into contact with people who were leaders and innovators in society. The modern research university similarly insists that its faculty act beyond passive contemplation, and ensure that their ideas reach others through publications and personal interactions with their peers. This environment of engagement and performance is rich with opportunities for students, and it is up to all of us in the business of research to make sure those opportunities are fully exploited. I can think of no experience more likely to encourage a young person to choose a career in science than working with others on an actual project of discovery.

I want to dwell for a moment here on an aspect of universities that needs to be widely understood as our society struggles to respond to the vicious acts of terrorism last September 11: Universities function properly only in an open society. There are three reasons for this.

First, research universities are cultural lodestones. They are not static, self-propagating institutions, but rather magnets for the most talented people, faculty and students alike. They attract a volatile and creative element of society that questions old ways of doing things, and envisions new ones. The energy of these places comes from their dynamic engagement with the real world, not from isolation apart from it. Their transforming value comes from their participation in a cultural free market, free from the stifling agents of ideology or regulation.

Second, the standards for research universities are absolute in that their products compete in the global marketplace of ideas. This is particularly true of the sciences, where Nature herself is the final judge, and all scientists her eager witnesses. When openness prevails, weakness quickly shows itself, and excellence is self-regulating. Students I know who participate in research teams tell me of their trepidation before, and their exhilaration after, delivering a paper at their first international conference. Knowing that your peers are all the world is a sobering, disciplining thought.

Third, the discovery of new things is so difficult as to challenge the cleverness of all humankind. Only the most receptive and open societies can expect to accumulate the collective intelligence required to compete in the grand adventure of discovery. The course of science for two centuries has been fed by contributions from every literate society. "American science" is in large part a product of an army of brilliant immigrants, visitors, and foreign collaborators.

To summarize, the energy, excellence, and success of the research enterprise all depend on openness to people and ideas from every quarter.

Universities are exceptionally important in the cultural and intellectual machinery that makes America a great nation. That is why President Bush's declaration of war on terrorism holds such significance for the university community. Terrorism divides society, and makes us want to exclude those who appear to be different from ourselves. Terrorism breeds distrust, inhibits the commerce of ideas as well as goods, builds barriers that wall out excellence as well as trade.

To counter these evils, universities must heed the call to arms against terrorism, and frame their needs in terms that society can fathom. The very openness required for research carries with it vulnerabilities that terrorists can exploit to choke it off. The public at large is aware of the openness of universities, of the sometimes disturbing consequences of the free clash of ideas there, of the huge presence of foreign students, faculty, and visitors. Congress is becoming aware that universities have hazards, too, that terrorists might exploit, and the logical conclusion is that universities might bear closer attention in a time of heightened terrorism.

Every university needs to work out for itself how it will meet its responsibilities to the larger society during these troubled times, and engage its neighbors and elected representatives in frank discussion of the issues. And the issues are these: What is the university role in enforcing immigration laws? What level of control of access to the material means of terrorism is acceptable? What restrictions on choice of fields of study, of place of work or residence, of research topics, are appropriate, if any? These are only a few of the questions that immediately spring to mind. Once the discussion has begun, many more questions will arise. MIT's President Charles Vest recently forwarded to me a copy of an impressive study of just these issues undertaken by an MIT faculty committee. I commend it to you as an example of what other universities might do. (The report is available at http://web.mit.edu/faculty/reports/publicinterest.pdf)

Let me assure you that the freedom that makes great science and excellent education possible is of the utmost importance to this administration. President Bush has made it very clear that the war against terrorism is a war to preserve the values that make America great, and among these, freedom shines the brightest. He understands that freedom is an ingredient of good science and a strong economy. Furthermore, the President has made education, especially in science and mathematics, a high priority, and has requested funds from Congress to enhance precisely the kind of performance being rewarded here tonight.

In his education blueprint fNo Child Left Behind", President Bush specifically notes the importance of improving teacher quality, improving math and science instruction, and enhancing education through technology. The new Math and Science Partnership program enacts part of the President's vision to strengthen and reform K-12 science and math education. It supports partnerships that unite the efforts of local school districts with science, math, engineering, and education faculties of colleges and universities. In 2002 NSF received $160 million and the Department of Education received $12.5 million to begin this program. The President requests an additional $40 million for NSF for FY2003 for a total of $200 million. Both agencies have been working together to make this program a reality, and I hope that in a few years we will be honoring teaching scholars who have participated in a Math and Science Partnership project.

In closing, I wish to congratulate the awardees and thank them for devoting their talents to an educational mission of great importance to our nation. You well deserve the recognition that these awards will bring. Thank you.