Are Science and Engineering Enough For Innovation?

Americans are worried about falling behind other countries in math and science and afraid that this will hurt us economically in the future. This is a real issue and there has been much debate about it. Often cited is how many more engineers and computer scientists India and China are producing compared to the U.S.

While this situation should be cause for concern, my sense is that it's a bit overblown. Today, Tom Friedman, NYTimes columnist and author of the best-selling book, "The World is Flat" provides an interesting point of view in his op-ed column, entitled "Worried About India and China's Boom? So Are They".

The piece points out the innovation requires a blend of art and science and that the Indians and Chinese are concerned that they may have mastered rote learning and are producing legions of left-brained programmers and engineers at the cost of art, literature, music and the humanities. They fear that this is the reason they have not yet mastered innovation, as evidenced by the absence of new products and services emerging out of these countries.

The key to innovation is nuturing creativity in people. Math and science tend to encourage rigorous and structured thinking and compliance to logically designed processes. This is valuable but not necessarily the kind of thing that sparks innovation and creativity.

What I take away from Friedman's piece is that the most important task for educators - whether in India, China, here or elsewhere - is educating the population in a balanced and well-rounded way. What good are brilliant engineers and programmers if they can't communicate or envision anything beyond their algorithims? What value are philosophers, artists and political scientists if they can't think rigorously and logically when necessary?