Professor Donald Parsons wrote an op-ed piece March 25 in The Hatchet that asks a fundamental question of interest to the GW community: Should GW have an engineering program?

At no time in our nation’s history has technology been so deeply connected with our lives. Yet, as many have observed, the supremacy the U.S. has enjoyed in technology is being challenged as never before, challenged in a way that cries out for more, not less investment in engineering research and education. The nation’s great universities are responding by growing their engineering programs, as New York University recently did in acquiring Brooklyn Polytechnic. Harvard has joined in by starting its own engineering school. Notably, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale, Duke, and the University of Southern California also have schools of engineering.

Should GW invest in engineering, or leave engineering to other universities? We believe engineering is critical to GW’s continued growth in stature for several reasons.

First and foremost, the lines between basic science, engineering, and medicine have all but blurred, as underscored by the funding priorities of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies. This is why the proposed Science and Engineering Complex’s architecture, designed to facilitate cross-disciplinary interaction, will capitalize on GW’s unique physical and intellectual landscape, which places engineering, the natural sciences and medicine all in close proximity. We thus envision a strong engineering program that, together with thriving science departments and in collaboration with GW’s other schools, will position GW to best address and prepare its students for the diverse challenges of the 21st century.

Second, a strong engineering school in the nation’s capital will be a valuable complement to the vast array of policy-oriented think tanks that dominate the city. With proper investment to reach critical mass and capitalize on its location, GW’s engineering school will fill a role – and this is a key point – that no other engineering school in the nation can: build a nexus between science, technology and policy that has the potential to shape future leaders. One step in this direction is a new interdisciplinary SEAS undergraduate engineering program focusing on energy and sustainability that is slated to enroll students in 2011.

Third, for those who consider eliminating engineering because of tight resources, consider some practical reasons. Why would you choose to turn away resourceful alumni and federal research dollars that are needed if GW is to grow in research stature? And, as reported in The Hatchet’s March 25th issue, the top 10 jobs nationwide by salary are all in SEAS disciplines. Why reject these kinds of opportunities for GW students?

Finally, in these times of tight budgets, we acknowledge that it is fair and healthy to raise tough questions about resource allocation. Rather than accepting the status quo, SEAS Dean David Dolling should be praised for his use of buyouts as a vehicle for shifting the school’s focus. We are happy to continue the dialogue about priorities, and these conversations would be best initiated cordially in open faculty governance venues, so as not to needlessly alarm parents and alumni.

In closing, we point out that last November, in an address that underscored the importance of science and technology education in society, President Obama described the key to meeting this century’s challenges is through “reaffirming and strengthening America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today, especially in those fields that hold the promise of producing future innovations and innovators.” We embrace the challenge of being a top-tier university, just four blocks from the White House, with the full breadth of intellectual disciplines that can enrich our research, our students’ education and the GW community.

Edward Berkowitz, professor of history and of public policy and public administrtion (ESIA)

Christopher Cahill, associate professor of chemistry (CCAS)

Denis Cioffi, associate professor of decision sciences (GWSB)

Robert Donaldson, professor of biological sciences (CCAS)

Peter Hotez, distinguished research professor and chair of microbiology, immunology & tropical medicine (SMHS)

Forrest Maltzman, professor of political science (CCAS)

Tim McCaffrey, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology (SMHS)

Mark Reeves, professor of physics (CCAS)

Yongwu Rong, professor of mathematics (CCAS)

Rahul Simha, professor of computer science (SEAS)

Bernard Wood, University professor of human origins (CCAS)

Readers can visit the Forum to comment on this op-ed.