Often lost in analysis and discussion of "participation in science" is a key outcome of preparation, competition, accretion of experiences, and accomplishments — leadership. Who leads communities — academic, corporate, professional — depends at least as much on the culture of institutions and individual opportunity as the talent and achievements that become recognized as aggregate merit-based performance over a career.

Motivated by concern for future leadership, a "summit" of alarmed leaders, drawn largely from within science, engineering, and higher education, was held on October 18-19 at Rice University ^§. Unlike the typical focus on "minority participation in science and engineering" and the prerequisites for participation, the Summit addressed the pinnacle of status within the career — leadership. Specifically, what does it take to create, from among members of ethnic or racial minority groups, leaders with scientific, mathematical, and engineering skills and credentials?

The reason for this focus is clear to all who monitor trends in participation in science and engineering education and employment. Minority group members of interest — those categorized and reported as African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians — are underrepresented in science, mathematics, and engineering relative to their numbers in the U.S. population, among high school graduates, and among those earning a baccalaureate degree. These "denominators" also indicate corollary trends: minorities do not advance to successive stages of degree preparation in the same proportion as majority students.

Because there is a disproportionate attrition of minorities through the transitions of education and employment, retention strategies may take many forms ^§§. Some may be directed to individuals who would benefit from information that can inform interests and choices in careers; others may seek to change organizational culture — the climate of the training site and the workplace — that welcomes some students and faculty, but deters others. While the goal of change may be increasing the numbers of minorities who choose to pursue a career in science or engineering, there is equal concern to change the quality of their experiences, of the environments that reward and punish, of the recognition that ethnic and racial diversity represents the strength of individual differences in talent to be nurtured and utilized. The ultimate benefit to the nation is a richer pool of science, mathematics, and engineering leaders.

Representation and Leadership

The interdependencies between "representation" and "leadership" are unmistakable. But they raise a host of questions: Must we solve the underrepresentation problem before we tackle the leadership problem? How can we cultivate leadership while restocking the meager pool of minority scientists and engineers? Do we celebrate or discourage these talented young professionals who become administrators rather than researchers and educators? How important is it that they develop and sustain a credible research reputation?

Does research alone confer credence as a leader in science and engineering? Are leaders college and university Deans? Prize winners for research excellence? Presidential Mentoring Award recipients? Members of the National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Engineering? Chairs of national committees? Members of policy boards such as the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology or the National Science Board? Officers of professional societies? Directors of large research centers? The answer is all of the above and more.

In all of these cases, individuals have been elected or appointed to prestigious, visible positions that give them the opportunity to influence decisions and the flow of resources within or across institutions. Leaders are gatekeepers who shape opinions. Their sphere of influence may transcend disciplines and communities, span generations of students and professional peers, and give meaning to the terms "role model" and "mentor."

The Pool

From where do leaders come? What are their career paths? What are characteristics of the pool of potential leaders? There are at least two aspects to these questions. One is a matter of culture or climate: how do we nurture future leaders? The other recognizes the power of individual differences: some scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are more predisposed to becoming leaders — embodying the "right" qualities — than others.

Surely the interaction of the individual and the learning environment can promote or inhibit leadership. For this reason, it is important to focus on organizations as well as individuals when considering ways of stocking the pool. Indeed, some institutions excel at preparing leaders. Bowen and Bok’s The Shape of the River is a ringing testament to the success of selective institutions of higher education in producing professionals — members of both majority and minority groups — who go on in their career to lead. However, those same institutions lose so many of the "precious few" science and engineering minority potential leaders to other fields that the success-story numbers are insubstantial. At the same time, minority-serving colleges and universities succeed in producing — at least at the undergraduate level — significant numbers of scientists and engineers. A nagging question remains: how well prepared are they to excel at the institutions from which leaders are sought?

The dimensionality of the problem is revealed by the pool of scientists and engineers available to advance through the academic ranks or up the corporate ladder. For the last 30 years, the annual number of baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degrees awarded to U.S. minorities has remained a modest fraction of the total degrees conferred. The pool’s minority composition is thus diminished long before opportunities for leadership appear. Instead, there is intense competition for the modest number of accomplished minority scientists and engineers by all sectors and organizations. The energy devoted to locating and wooing potential leaders must be seen as integral to expanding the pool, thus creating more potential candidates.

Put another way, with limited resources, is it better to increase the number of minority leaders in science, mathematics, and engineering by 5 percent or increase the overall pool by 20 percent? The former would emphasize strategies that impart skills and experiences to advanced graduate students and new Ph.D.s, even senior scientists and engineers who seek to compete for leadership positions. To increase participation, there is an array of programs, already operating through numerous partnerships across the U.S. to spur interest, recruitment, and retention in science, mathematics, and engineering. However, the Summit at Rice University was conceived as a forum for hard thinking on how to augment the considerable technical skills of a nearly-fully-formed scientist or engineer to enhance leadership qualities and expand the roles he/she could play.

^§ NSF Summit Meeting: Promoting National Minority Leadership in Science and Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, Oct. 18-19, 1999. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Board or the National Science Foundation.   

^§§ For a select bibliography and data sources that speak to differences and similarities in preparation and participation in science and engineering, see Appendix A of this report.