>> President McNutt: Good evening, everyone.
I, I was getting the evil eye from those who
keep the clock that we are already one minute
past 6:00�p.m., and so it's time to get
the proverbially show on the road here.
I'm Marcia McNutt, I'm president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
And it is my pleasure to welcome you all here
to the home for science in America, The National
Academy, where tonight we are pleased to host
the Arthur M. Sackler colloquium program and
are speaker tonight, Secretary David J. Skorton.
And we have several other these Arthur M.
Sackler colloquia which are scientific meetings
every year.
They bring together researchers, practitioners,
scientific journalists, and today artist and
designers to discuss topics of broad and current
interests that cut across the boundaries of
traditional disciplines.
And that's the hallmark of these Sackler colloquia.
Each year, one of the colloquia includes the
annual Sackler lecturer as part of the program.
And I'm very pleased that Dame Jillian Sackler
could join us for the colloquium today and
for the lecture tonight.
So Jillian, could you please stand up, and
thank you for your support of this.
[ Applause ]
And as president here, I get to pull rank
and introduce our speaker tonight.
Dr.�David Skorton who is a�true renaissance
thinker, internationally recognized as a physician,
researcher, innovator and a supporter of the
arts and humanities and also a�musician.
He's the 13th secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution, a�position he's held since
2015, overseeing its numerous museums, libraries,
research centers and education centers.
When he first took the position, Dr.�Skorton
was quoted as saying he wanted to "shine a�light
more clearly on the people behind the scenes."
And by that, he meant the 6500 employees and
6300 volunteers who share the wonderful collections
and programs of the Smithsonian which welcomes
in millions of visitors per year.
Since Secretary Skorton took the helm, the
Smithsonian has exceeded it's $1.5�billion
national campaign fundraising goal.
It's opened the National Museum of African
American History and Culture which I hope
you've all had a chance to tour because it's
truly amazing.
It's a�mustsee destination for Washington
visitor and it's elevated the arts to a�priority
along with scientific, historical, cultural
research, and programs.
Educational efforts both onsite and through
digital technology have accelerated since
Secretary Skorton's arrival.
Throughout his career, the Secretary has emphasized
the importance of investment in the arts and
humanities and has leveraged the unique power
of the Smithsonian to promote the value of
the arts in American life.
Now, by way of background, he has a�bachelor's
degree in psychology and an M.D. in both from
Northwestern University.
He completed his medical residency and fellowship
in cardiology from the University of California,
Los Angeles.
He's a�boardcertified cardiologist and is
the first physician to lead the Smithsonian.
His contributions in cardiac health extended
to both his clinical work as a�practitioner
and his tireless efforts as a�researcher.
Since 1980, he's been part of a�cohort of
physicians around the world who specialize
in caring for adolescence and adults with
congenital heart disease.
He also helped found the Society for Adult
Congenital Cardiac Disease, now the International
Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease.
Secretary Skorton began his career at the
University of Iowa holing joint appointments
as a�professor of internal medicine and
get this, electrical and computer engineering
and biomedical engineering.
That's why I said, truly a�renaissance man.
He also served as vice president for research
and vice president for external relations
before becoming the 19th president of the
University of Iowa in 2003.
In 2006, he became the 12th president of Cornell
University until he took over the Smithsonian.
He's a�member of the National Academy of
Medicine and a fellow of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences.
He's a�national leader in research ethics
and was the charter president of the Association
for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection
Programs.
The first group organized specifically to
accredit human research protection programs.
He's an avid amateur musician known for his
talent as a�jazz saxophonist.
His passion for the flute and the saxophone
came in handy during a�moving duet performance
with Billy Joel in a�rendition of "She's
Always a Woman."
Please join me in welcoming Secretary David
Skorton.
[ Applause ]
>> Secretary Skorton:��Thank you very
much for that warm welcome and for coming
out tonight.
Wonderful to see everyone.
And I want to thank you, President McNutt
and Professor Ben Shneiderman and everyone
at the National Academy of Sciences for the
opportunity to speak tonight.
For more than 150 years the National Academy
of Sciences has played an increasingly vital
role by providing the nation with objective,
expert advice on a�range of important issues.
Today the three academies remain indispensable
sources of independent and rigorous analysis
on matters related to science, to engineering,
and to medicine.
So it's truly an honor, Dr.�McNutt, and
a�privilege to be here.
As a secretary of the Smithsonian Institution
I'm often reminded of Arthur Sackler's contributions.
In 1982, Dr.�Sackler donated a�thousand
works of Asian art from this personal collection
to the Smithsonian.
There was nowhere to display them at the time,
so on top of the artwork he also donated the
money to help build a new facility on the
National Mall.
In 1987, just a�few months after he passed
away, the Arthur M. Sackler gallery opened
its doors to the public.
But Dr.�Sackler was also a�supporter of
the sciences as well as the arts.
And this was not a contradiction.
For generations, Americans have understood
that the sciences and the arts and humanities
all contribute to a�flourishing society.
In recent years, however, that idea has come
under increasing challenge as I will discuss
this evening.
If you believe, as I do, that society needs
both the sciences and the arts, then we cannot
be partisans of one or the other.
We cannot see understanding and knowledge
acquisition as a�zero-sum game where we
put our efforts, educational and otherwise,
into either the S.T.E.M. disciplines or into
the arts and humanities.
We need to embrace both universes of understanding
and wisdom and I would argue the time has
come to reunite them.
This is what I will talk about with you this
evening.
In 2018 it is such a�clich� to say that
we are living through a�period of rapid,
global transformational change.
It's a�clich�, but I'll say it anyway
because it happens to be true.
Digitization, artificial intelligence, machine
learning, we are watching in realtime as the
science fiction of our past becomes fact in
the present day.
We are watching the nature of work evolve
and are basic expectations of work are evolving
as well.
Today it is typical that people will have
not only multiple jobs, but multiple careers
throughout a�working life.
And as we watch these changes take place daybyday,
we anticipate an even more rapidly changing
future and do so with not a�little apprehension.
We are all grappling as individuals and as
a�society with the challenges and the opportunities
that they may present.
The challenges of course, are immense.
I'm sure that many of you are familiar with
a�study that the McKinsey Global Institute
released a�few months ago.
It estimated that between 400 and 800�million
jobs could be displaced by automation by 2030.
That's up to 10% of the current entire global
population.
At a�moment when deep and persistent economic
inequality is a significant concern in the
United States and around the world, many of
the workers who face the highest risk of displacement
are those on the lower rungs of the income
ladder.
And while some economists believe fervently
that automation will have a�net positive
impact on employment in the longterm, there
is no question that the new jobs created by
emerging technologies will require much different
and much more advance skill sets than the
jobs that disappear.
In fact, according to McKinsey, 40% of U.S.
employers today are struggling to find employees
with requisite skills.
And the demand for workers with S.T.E.M. skills
in particular is rising rapidly.
One recent estimate found that in 2020 a lack
of skilled candidates could result in up to
1�million vacant computing jobs alone in
the U.S. alone.
I don't mean to make this situation sound
worse than it is.
The U.S., of course, remains a�powerful
force for innovation and scientific progress.
We still have one of the most dynamic economies
in the world.
But what these trends suggest is, as the nature
of work changes the nature of education must
also change if we hope to keep pace with an
advancing reality or with other countries.
In the most recent assessment, 15yearold American
students ranked 24th in the world in science
and 38th in math.
I'm sure most of us, after watching a�tough
little league game or a�piano competition
have told our children there's no shame in
coming in second.
But 38th, that's pushing it, kid.
[ Laughter ]
Now, of course, we didn't say that because
we are great parents.
And because the failure really is ours not
theirs.
Many of our children are stuck in a�system
that we and they believe isn't entirely meeting
their needs.
Or preparing them to join a�changing workforce.
A�Gallup survey last year found that barely
half of students at fouryear colleges and
universities believed that their degree would
lead to a�good job after graduation.
And just over a third believed that they would
leave school with the skills and with the
knowledge required for success.
Over the past decade these challenges have
become almost impossible to ignore.
Leaders in business, government, the academic
world, and the philanthropic sector have all
been pushing to ensure that students receive
maximal exposure to S.T.E.M. disciplines from
the moment their schooling begins.
They have also ignited great debates about
the fundamental purpose of higher education
and the value, the very value of a postsecondary
degree.
These discussions are already having a�significant
impact in positive ways on what and how we
are teaching the next generations.
Today, millions of Americans are learning
to code from an early age in the same way
that many of us in days gone by learned a�foreign
language.
When they get a�little older, they competing
in robotics in the same way that previous
generations competed in quiz bowls or spelling
bees.
And when they enroll in higher education,
if they enroll at all, they are increasingly
being encouraged to pursue degrees in S.T.E.M.
fields like computer science and engineering
which are widely seen as it surest paths to
success in the modern economy.
Now, I have spent most of my career in the
sciences.
I certainly support investing more resources
in the sciences and promoting better and more
widespread science education.
In fact, I've pushed hard for that for many
years.
And we at the Smithsonian view the advancement
of science education as a�crucial part of
our mission.
Through the Smithsonian Science Education
Center, which originally operated under the
combined sponsorship of the Smithsonian and
the National Academy of Sciences, we've created
science and technology curricula that are
used in elementary and middle schools in every
state in the union and in over 20 countries
around the world.
When you consider the monumental global challenges
that I haven't even mentioned yet, climate
change, health inequalities, food scarcity,
and many others, it's clear that the world
needs scientists more than ever before.
We need technologists and innovators to develop
new knowledge and to use this knowledge to
invent the solutions that will advance human
progress in this century and long beyond.
So the emphasis on the S.T.E.M. disciplines
is in and of itself a�good thing.
An essential thing.
It is necessary.
But it is not, I would argue, sufficient.
Our emphasis on S.T.E.M. should not come at
the expense and to exclusion of the arts and
the humanities.
Before I go any further I should admit that
I am not exactly a�neutral observer.
I am a physician who is also an avid, if failed
musician.
[ Laughter ]
My first love is and has always been music.
I also lead an institution that is responsible
for preserving some of the most magnificent
artwork that humankind has ever produced.
To be clear, I'm not about to suggest that
we need more artists and humanists and fewer
scientists, in my opinion, we need more of
both.
But the main point I want to make tonight
is that our artists, humanists and scientists
should know something more of one another.
Should understand and appreciate one another's
work.
Should learn as best one can to speak one
another's language.
Both will benefit.
Indeed, all will benefit.
That's a�pretty grand claim so let me explain
further.
We've all come to recognize that silo is a
bad word.
It is in fact a�fourletter word.
[ Laughter ]
I apologize in advance if there are any farmers
or agronomists in the room.
[ Laughter ]
Of course, but it's true.
Walk into any successful company in the world
and people there are talking about breaking
down silos.
Silos between departments, between disciplines,
between geographic locations.
Yet in the academic world we are still pretty
well stuck in our silos.
There is some incredible crossdisciplinary
work being done on campuses across our country
and far beyond.
But in most places and most of the time it
continues to be the case that S.T.E.M. disciplines
and the arts and humanities are being studied
in silos instead of in tandem.
And both suffer as a�result, whether they
realize it or not.
And more important, we are not serving our
students nor our society in the best way.
I deeply believe that when scientists don't
have a grasp of history or literature or philosophy
it causes science itself to surfer.
As one of my favorite authors, Arthur Conan
Doyle wrote in his first Sherlock Holmes novel,
"A Study in Scarlet," "One's ideas must be
as broad as nature if they are to interpret
nature."
And I am not alone in voicing these concerns.
A growing number of leaders from academia
to private sector employers fear that education
is presenting our children with a false choice
today.
These leaders are pushing back against hyperspecialization
and are seeing the virtues of a�broad educational
experience and of cicca that integrate S.T.E.M.
disciplines with the arts and humanities.
For example, Norman Augustine, the former
CEO of LockheedMartin acknowledges that businesses
need more workers with science and engineering
skills, but he also said, "This is only the
beginning.
One cannot live by equations alone."
This is not entirely a�new idea.
In fact, it is a�very old idea.
But our changing world makes the very relevant
again.
The title of this lecture, as you may know,
is "branching from the same tree."
This phrase comes from opening passage of
an essay on moral decay that Albert Einstein
published in 1937.
In the essay Einstein wrote, "All religions,
arts and signs are branches of the same tree.
All these aspirations are directed toward
ennobling man's life, lifting it from the
sphere of near physical existence and leading
individual towards freedom."
In other words, Einstein believed that the
seemingly desperate disciplines ultimately
served the same greater purpose.
He viewed science and the arts as deeply connected
which is why it shouldn't surprise us that
he had a�deep passion for music.
In fact, Einstein often played Mozart�s
sonatas on his violins while he was trying
to work out a�theory.
And he even credited music with contributing
to his most famous accomplishment.
He said, and again I quote "The theory of
relatively�occurred to me by intuition and
music is the driving force behind this intuition."
As for me, I cannot claim that I've transformed
humanity's understanding of a�cosmos by
flying flute, but that won't stop me from
trying.
[ Laughter ]
I said this was a�very old idea and an old
ideal.
It is as old as the enlightenment.
As we know from our own history, Benjamin
Franklin was not just a�statesman, but a�scientist.
Thomas Jefferson was not just a�political
revolutionary, but an architect and an inventor.
They would not have seen these pursuits as
unrelated.
Neither would have Ada Lovelace, the mathematician
and writer now recognized as the world's first
computer programmer who described her own
work as� "poetical science."
This is old as the renaissance, as the example
of Leonardo da Vinci makes clear and certainly
even older than that.
But old understandings don't always continue
of their own accord.
They need sometimes to be relearned and reaffirmed.
I was heartened just like week to read an
interview with Fabiola Gianotti, the Italian
particle physicist and director general of
CERN and an accomplished pianist in her own
right, in which she reaffirmed this view of
the relationship between science and the arts.
"Too often," she said, "people consider science
and the arts completely decoupled, compartmentalized.
To me, they are not different things.
They are both the highest expressions of creativity.
Of curiosity.
Of the ingenuity of humanity."
Now I realized I just told you that everyone
should be more like Einstein, Franklin, Jefferson,
Lovelace, and Leandro.
If I'm going to go that far, I should probably
indicate at least in broad terms how we might
work as a�society to make that happen.
We can't, of course, turn everyone into a
polymath, but there's some concrete steps
that we can take to ensure that more people
with a S.T.E.M. focus also have grounding
in the arts and humanities and very importantly
viceversa.
I don't mean fluency.
That bar might be possibly high in most cases,
but I do mean that at the very least familiarity.
A�basic command of a�common language and
the major concepts behind that common language.
The trend in recent years has been towards
education that is narrower and narrower and
deeper and deeper.
What I believe is needed at every level is
education that is wide and deep.
We should do all we can to ensure that as
students learn new skills they're also learning
new ways of thinking.
New ways of approaching problems.
New ways of understanding what it means to
be fully human.
As Harvard president Drew Faust has said,
"The best education is the one that cultivates
habits of the mind.
An analytic spirit.
A�capacity to judge and to question that
will equip you to adapt to any circumstance
or take any vocational direction."
If we do that, I believe it will have a�most
profound affect.
I mentioned in the outset some of the ways
in which the nature of work is changing, and
technology is only one part of the picture.
For example, as changing careers become more
common, it is becoming even more important
to have at least a�basic understanding of
multiple disciplines.
If you want to be nimble, you have to know
more than one move.
We also know that worked to is increasingly
performed by teams.
And there is a�wealth of evidence suggesting
that one of the keys to successful teams is
diversity.
If you look at the private sector today, however,
you'll find that organizations are not only
interested in racial and ethnic and gender
diversity, although all of these are essential,
but from Silicon Valley to the industrial
heartland, where advanced manufacturers are
developing an array of new technologies, a�growing
number of companies are also bringing together
people not just from different backgrounds,
but with different areas of expertise.
Yet, as this type of team building becomes
more and more common, we have to avoid the
temptation to think that if we give engineers
and artists and say, theoretical physicists
all a�seat at the same table that that alone
will lead to better results.
It went hurt, but what I believe we really
need is not just intellectual breath across
teams, but intellectual breath within the
individuals who make up those teams.
Of course, these things are not mutually exclusive.
But the first approach is not a�substitute
for the second.
The team model is more effective surely when
people who have different areas of expertise
also have the ability to bridge the gaps that
separate them.
To reach a common goal, you have to be able
to speak a common language.
This is part of the reason why in addition
to demand for workers with S.T.E.M. skills,
there is also rising demand for what have
been termed soft skills such as communication
about, openmindedness, and empathy.
This is what people need to be effective members
of a�diverse team.
And it's a�big part of the reason why broad
holistic educational experiences are so very
valuable.
Many colleges have what we used to call breath
requirements.
But what where mean by holistic is something
more than a�sampling of other kinds of courses.
What I mean is an education that integrates
the scientists with the arts and humanities.
That, I believe, is the best way to equip
today's students with the skills to think
more broadly and creatively in their own work
and to engage more fully and effectively with
others.
I have long said that a life in science and
medicine has left me firmly convinced that
science alone is not enough to solve the world's
toughest problems.
We also need critical thinking and perhaps
most of all imagination and curiosity.
These skills, and they are in fact skills,
are strengthened by the arts and humanities.
Einstein, in this sense, is not alone.
Michigan State University professor and former
MacArthur fellow Robert RootBernstein, who
will be appearing on a�panel here tomorrow
morning, has observed that Nobel Prize winners
and members of the national academies are
far more likely than other scientists to engage
in artistic pursuits.
The history of science itself is also full
of breakthroughs from Kepler's third law to
Faraday's law of induction that have been
directly influenced by the arts.
Of course, there are limits to what we can
conclude from these insights, but underlying
them is a powerful and execrable logic.
Scientists may be able to increase their potential
for achievement by nurturing their creativity
and their ability to imagine bold, new possibilities.
As Einstein himself once said, "Imagination
is more important than knowledge.
Knowledge is limited."
"Imagination," he said, "encircles the world."
I probably shouldn't be in the habit of disagreeing
with Einstein, but I would amend this statement
just slightly.
I would argue that imagination and knowledge
are equally important.
They are mutuallyreinforcing.
And because of this, our educational system
should not only cultivate both, but should
strengthen the connection between them.
How can it do these?
Let me make two quick points before I close.
First, there is no one size fits all approach
to realizing this vision of integrated education.
Students have different individual strengths
and will take different paths towards their
goals.
And different institutions are going to have
to get in the game in ways that suit their
different roles.
Much of this work, of course, will happen
at liberal arts colleges and research universities.
In fact, it is already happening at a�number
of these schools through a�variety of programs
such as the science, technology and society
programs that are familiar to many of us.
These interdisciplinary programs give students
an opportunity to become convulsant in multiple
disciplines.
As just one example, Stanford University describes
its STS program as "a�liberal arts education
for the 21st century."
Which is what I believe is exactly what's
needed.
But for many, many students community colleges
are a better option.
Either as a�springboard to a�fouryear
degree program or as a direct path into the
job market.
Given the critical role that community colleges
play for 10s of millions of students, it's
important that we continue to invest in them
and include them in all of our discussions
about the future of education.
This is also true of direct vocational education
programs, whether for young people or for
workers who have been displaced by automation
or by market forces.
But my second point is that these are big
changes and they're going to face some headwinds.
They will no doubt meet with skepticism, even
resistance, from many parents and students
who are understandably worried about job prospects
and who may not believe that a�holistic
approach is the best path to a�successful
career.
There will also be resistance from academic
departments which, as you may have heard,
tend to compete for resources and prestige
and to guard their own turf.
And I expect the faculty members who design
curricula will generate headwinds of their
own.
Having worked for many years at some amazing
universities, I'm firmly of the belief that
faculty should be empowered in that way.
That they are the best judges of their students'
needs and that the curriculum should never
be imposed from the top down.
But to any of you who have had the privilege
of participating in those decisions, I would
ask you this� I urge you to consider the
value of integrating S.T.E.M. with the arts
and humanities.
I urge you to imagine new possibilities and
I urge you to be willing to experiment.
And I would ask you to encourage your colleagues
to do the same.
Now, we have a question and answer session
coming up, and before we begin I'm just going
to get ahead of a�question I expect somebody
to ask me.
David, where's your proof?
This is in part a�scientific audience, of
course, and science values evidence, and science
values facts.
I have great fondness, of course, for these
things myself.
Yet many of the skills and qualities that
I have described may be difficult to quantify.
There is not much data to determine the practical
value of a�music lesson beyond the skills
obtained.
Or the boost of creativity that comes from
reading poetry.
In part for that reason, I am honored to be
chairing a�joint study of the national academies
that examines this proposition in a�rigorous
way.
Specifically the study is working to evaluate
whether educational programs that integrate
S.T.E.M. disciplines with the arts and humanities
will lead to improved educational and career
outcomes.
The study will be publicly released in the
coming weeks and I am hopeful that its findings
will help advance this very important conversation.
In closing, I want to return to Einstein's
idea that the sciences, arts, and humanities
are branches from the same tree.
Why this is not my area of expertise, I want
you to consider the impact that cutting off
major branches has on a�tree's overall health.
According to the U.S. Forest Service�s tree
owner's manual�
[ Laughter ]
Which I would like to tell you I have read
in full?
[ Laughter ]
The indiscriminate removal of large branches,
a�practice commonly known as topping, immediately
injuries a�tree or starts it on a�downward
spiral.
It exposes the tree to decay and decline.
Cutting off the arts and humanities from the
S.T.E.M. disciplines is the intellectual equivalent
of topping.
The consequences may not be fully apparent
right away, but over time it will take a toll.
As I see it, America today face as very important
choice� we can cutoff the branches that
have sustained our national life for so long
or we can work to preserve them, to nurture
them, and to help them grow.
I hope you will join me in that important
work.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
