top of page

I think technologists need to be asking, "should we", as often as we ask "could we". My Ph.D. training has given me a strong technical skillset and curiosity that sparks the "could we" questions. In order to push towards being an ethical technologist and educator of technologists, I found myself needing to develop a new set of skills to best tackle the "should we" questions. By enrolling in the M.A. in Tech Ethics and Science Policy program at Duke University, I am learning how to better

  • communicate science

  • ask tough ethical technology questions

  • understand the dynamics between policy makers scientists, and the public

  • propose and communicate society-focused informed solutions to all technology stakeholders

 

We cannot keep saying things like, "if we don't, they will, so we might as well", or "we will worry about that when we get there". We live in a time where vehicles are beginning to drive themselves, search engines can personalize your online experience based on your previous searches, and a simple glance can open up your smartphone. The flip side of those coins, however, is that we also live in a time where an autonomous vehicle may find itself in a Trolley Problem-type scenario, the personalization of an online experience could lead to an even more attention driven economy, and facial recognition technology could be the reason a police force wrongfully convicts certain people.

​

The moral of my story here is that the technologies that I and others in my field work on are impactful. We like to focus on the good impacts but sometimes there are bad. Technologists more broadly need to be trained in ways to maximize the good while minimizing the bad. Though I've written it as a simple optimization problem, it is not.  Furthermore, my description suggests a very utilitarian approach, which may not always be best. Regardless, I aim to be someone who helps solve this problem rather than ignores it.

M.A. Thesis Topic

Summer 2023

During the summer of 2023, I completed a capstone project for my M.A. in Technology Ethics and Science Policy. In this project, I worked with a team at MITRE  to conduct a comprehensive review of the various Federal STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education development efforts and policies that currently existed. The goal of this review was to develop a clearer understanding of what pre-existing programs exist, what they consist of , as well as what the sources of motivation for these operations are. Ultimately, this project aimed to address how collaborative, efficient, and effective Federal STEM education efforts currently are and identify ways in which they can improve.

 

The current state of this work is complex. After having read Federal progress reports, talked to multiple stakeholders and subject matter experts, and wrestled with data from the inventory of government-funded STEM programs, my handful of key observations include:

  1. The available data suggests that only a handful of government entities/agencies are sufficiently intentional in their reporting and evaluation of their STEM programs.

  2. The STEM education councils and committees in place appear to be making undoubtedly wonderful progress in providing more funding, support, and oversight in STEM education, but they lack any true power. Rather, they are a source of influence. However, this influence appears to only be successful when these councils and committees' recommendations conveniently line up with a government agency's mission.

    • For instance, the DOD employs 47% of the Federal government's STEM workforce but invests only about 0.03% of its discretionary funds toward STEM.​

    • Meanwhile, the NSF (whose mission is to promote the progress of science) invests nearly 16% of its discretionary funds toward STEM.

  3. The NSTC's Committee on STEM Education describes a desire to evaluate progress in STEM education thanks to Federal investments, but their progress reports lack metrics directly related to the goals they outline - (1) establishing a STEM literate nation, (2) improving DEI in STEM, and (3) preparing a competitive, innovative, and ethical STEM workforce.

  4. Inspiration towards a more effective and well-evaluated Federal STEM education framework exists by:

    • Looking at STEM-focused legislation that exists at the state level in the states of Washington and Massachusetts.​

    • Framing STEM education as the national security issue that it truly will become if current trends in STEM education prevail. (This stance argues that there is going to be a shortage in the STEM workforce that will likely cause it very difficult for the United States to maintain its technological competitive edge over adversaries.)

    • Utilizing independent, trusted organizations to evaluate and provide recommendations to the existing framework so that an unbiased whole-of-government approach can be optimized to achieve the nation's STEM education goals.

​

​

bottom of page