Question from audience: Is there something about the way you teach science and engineering that can promote good science? What are the best ways to promote the kinds of creativity you associate with good science? What are some of the things that work against it?...

Sid Guralnick: The question you've raised is a good one, an important one, and one which, as educators, we must continually ask ourselves, "Are we doing the right things for the next generation?" I don't have any great words to offer here, only a personal viewpoint. It seems to me that some of the most important things to emphasize in engineering education are knowledge of fundamentals and the necessary bases for engineering practice. Let me give you a specific example.

In much of what we teach undergraduates about my field we use what is known as linear theory. We "linearize" mathematical models of reality because that makes them far easier to deal with. Unfortunately, the real world is not linear. The real world is highly non-linear. It wasn't until recently, as Professor Arastoopour has indicated, that we could deal with the multiplicity of non-linearities that really affect that various systems and processes that engineers encounter. We simply couldn't deal with these non-linearities earlier. S0. we had to linearize intrinsically non-linear processes and systems. Some researchers have attained reputations for the linearizations that they made. For example, Professor Donnell (at IIT for many years) was able to demonstrate that a clever linearization could be made in the solution of a certain eighth-order partial differential equation which permits an analysis of stresses in cylindrical shell structures. Thereafter, that approach was called Donnellization. Today, we don't have to make such linearizations because we can treat many problems as they really are. They are non-linear. So, we must, as educators, impress upon our students that sometimes approximations have to be made because of existing limitations in human capability or understanding. We must emphasize that what we know today and what we do today often rests upon approximations to reality. In the future, many of the approximations we are forced to make today, won't have to be made. We will get closer to reality as human knowledge expands.

I believe that we are obligated not only to teach our students to do the best science and engineering of their own day but also continuously and critically to examine their practices -knowing that 100 years hence people may well look back and say that much of what was done before was trivial.

Hamid Arastoopour: This is probably the key question. How can we make the students listen? I always try to connect what I'm teaching to fundamentals. It’s very important to stick to fundamentals… If students can understand the basics, they can apply them later. I also try to tell them the application. For example, if I'm talking about the processes of non-Newtonian flow of polymers, I can point out-here is the polymer. My example is ketchup or mayonnaise. They could see why, when they put the ketchup upside down, the properties are a function of time. I can teach them, what impact this knowledge is going to have on solving the real problems of society. I think that's very important for students.

Porter Johnson: I think that one thing that we can do to encourage people to go into science and engineering is to inspire them by great models. I grew up during the Sputnik era. I was in high school and college during that period. We were certainly inspired to achieve greater knowledge to help mankind as a result of great ideas and projects. It's somewhat disappointing that the ideas and projects of today don't seem so inspirational. There is a failure to get the message across to our society and a failure of segments of our society to emphasize this message.