Moshe Vardi

Universities should promote the general welfare

Note from the editor: This is a guest opinion provided by a Rice University student. The author’s opinions are presented in this opinion; they do not necessarily reflect or represent those of the Thresher or its editorial board. The Thresher editors thoroughly research all guest opinions before editing them for brevity and clarity.

What serves as Rice University’s mission and the mission of all universities in general? These days, there is a lot of discussion about this. Let me start by providing a disciplinary viewpoint. The oldest and largest professional society devoted to computers, the Association for Computing Machinery, counts me as a contributing member. The actions of computing professionals alter the world, according to the Associations’ Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. They must consider the broader effects of their job and constantly advance the public good if they are to act ethically. Therefore, ethical computing has a duty to promote the common good. Returning to the original query, I think that the primary goal of colleges is to promote the general welfare. What is the general welfare? Nearly 4,000 years ago, Hammurabi gave one of my favourite definitions: “to promote the welfare of mankind.”

Let me provide some more historical context. 2020 marked the 75th anniversary of the publication of “Science, The Endless Frontier,” a study that engineer and science administrator Vannevar Bush, who oversaw the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II, gave to President Truman in 1945. The National Science Foundation was founded as a result of the report’s assertion that scientific advancement is crucial to human progress, including national defence, healthcare advancements, and economic expansion. Bush contended that only fundamental scientific inquiry can produce this crucial, fresh information. He came to the conclusion that the Federal Government’s job was to assist the development of science. One sentence sums up his philosophy: “Science for the public good.”

Bush’s 1945 vision was addressed in an article titled “Science Institutions for a Complex, Fast-Paced World” written in 2020 by Arizona State University president Michael M. Crow and National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt. According to McNutt and Crow, throughout the past 75 years, society has faced issues that science must now actively contribute to resolving. These challenges range from the development of nuclear weapons to climate change, wealth concentration, and the impact of social media on knowledge and truth. They came to the conclusion that the institutions responsible for much of the scientific advancement over the past 75 years needed to reevaluate their goals and make a commitment to both furthering scientific understanding and addressing the societal issues that technology, fueled by scientific knowledge, has produced. In other words, give attention to the greater benefit of society.

According to Rice’s mission statement, the university’s goals are to “conduct ground-breaking research, provide instruction that is unparalleled, and contribute to the development of our world.” This mission is great, however I would have changed it to “pathbreaking research and unequalled instruction for development of our planet.” I think Rice’s ultimate goal must be to improve the world, or to contribute to the common good. Rice is a group… who think that transforming the world requires more than daring thought and fearless action. In fact, even the branding phrase “unconventional wisdom” is part of a longer message. Unconventional wisdom is required. The aim is to make the world better, and the means is unconventional knowledge. The tagline I propose for Rice is “Research and education for the public good.” But I haven’t yet noticed a lot of conversations at Rice that specifically highlight the institution’s dedication to the common good.

Societal advancement does not always follow advances in science and technology. The unanticipated opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines is one illustration of how difficult it is for technology, culture, and society to interact. With the aim of “creating a permanent intellectual and multidisciplinary locus of activities at Rice dedicated to the descriptive and prescriptive study of a socio-technical system — namely, how technology impacts society and culture, and how society responds to those impacts,” Rice University launched the Initiative on Technology, Culture, and Society in 2019.

The COVID-19 outbreak ruined a lot of the Initiative’s scheduled events. Several Initiative activities will happen this fall as life on the Rice campus slowly returns to normal. I’m hoping that these activities will ignite a lively campus debate about society, culture, and technology—but most significantly, about Rice’s dedication to serving the greater good. How should this dedication affect our research and educational endeavours? There is a lot to talk about!

Total
0
Shares