7
Introduction to Day 2

The second day of the symposium began with brief remarks from Alton Romig, Jr., the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)’s executive officer, and Deb Niemeier, the Clark Distinguished Chair in Energy and Sustainability at the University of Maryland, College Park and a member of both NAE and the Committee on Human Rights (CHR).

Romig began by noting that engineers have the opportunity to prevent human rights harms from happening and to remedy situations where they do occur. Because their goals overlap, NAE and the CHR (the symposium hosts) can together help ensure a more equitable and just future for all. He expressed the hope that continued dialogue and engagement among participants will result in plans for addressing this issue collectively and individually as we go forward.

Niemeier explained that the CHR is composed of members of the National Academy of Sciences, NAE, and National Academy of Medicine who raise awareness of human rights challenges related to science, engineering, and medicine and advocate on behalf of colleagues suffering human rights abuses across the globe. Often, she said, these individuals suffer human rights abuses as a result of the work they are doing, and she encouraged anyone who knows of such situations to contact the committee at CHR@nas.edu.

Reflecting on her 30-year career, Niemeier remarked that she could not recall a time when any other engineers were present during discussions of human rights in which she took part. She noted that teaching students and practicing engineers to be cognizant of human rights, and have the language to discuss human rights, is critically important. Engineers are the problem-solvers across the built environment and the natural landscape, and they have an important role to play in ensuring fundamental human rights and dignity. We need to think more deeply, she said, about the role of engineers in helping to address society’s problems, including disparities in society. This thought process involves asking questions such as “Who bears the burdens associated with new technologies?” “Who is being left behind?” “How does our position as engineers influence how we look at our work?” and “How do we ensure that we are practicing meaningful engagement with people impacted by products and designs that engineers produce?”

Niemeier observed that it takes only one insightful caution about disparity or human rights at one particular point in time to create generations of benefit. Making that observation, however, requires an engineer to understand, at least, the broad strokes of human rights, including the human rights laws and binding treaties that provide a basic framework for a wide range of rights, which include civil rights, such as the rights to life and privacy, and socioeconomic rights, such as the rights to health, water, and a healthy environment.

Niemeier noted the need for major reform in engineering education to prepare students for the challenges they face, called for companies to understand how their financial incentives should align with human rights norms, and urged engineers to engage with members of the human rights community. She indicated that the Day 2 sessions would build on the previous

day’s discussions by exploring participation and inclusion in engineering decision making, the integration of human rights into systems and product design, and the issue of how to address human rights harms, and would culminate in a practice session on human rights assessments in the context of artificial intelligence. Niemeier said that the symposium’s conversations were designed to challenge preconceptions of how engineers interact with and protect basic rights through their work. “These conversations also show how our profession as engineers can evolve as a result of deeper understanding about how we transect with human rights,” she concluded.