Category: Featured Articles

This perspective was originally published in Science & Diplomacy, available here.

New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy was written during a “golden age” of science diplomacy that lasted almost four decades following the US-China Science and Technology Agreement in 1979. That era has ended abruptly, and we are now witnessing dramatic changes in geopolitics combined with disruptions from the pandemic, rapid technological change, economic competition with tariffs and sanctions, climate change, uncontrolled migration, political polarization, and wars. For science diplomacy practitioners in the United States to contribute to overcoming these enormous challenges will require persistent effort, new strategies, and clear priorities.

My priorities for science diplomacy focus on advancing the US national interest, but many also serve the global interest and the worldwide advancement of science and technology (S&T). In attending to these priorities, American governmental and non-governmental organizations can play a critical role in restoring public trust in S&T as enablers of peace, prosperity, and security.

Advise on nuclear weapons arms control

Nuclear weapons are an existential threat for humanity and the planet. This new era with nuclear saber rattling and rejection of arms control treaties is as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It is highly likely that nuclear weapon states, including the United States, will modernize and strengthen their nuclear arsenals and other advanced weapons to deter nuclear attack given new alliances of hostile nuclear states, the aggressive behavior of autocratic leaders, and the growth in the number of countries seeking nuclear weapons. Non-governmental security dialogues between American scientific experts and those in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea should be encouraged. They can help inform diplomatic negotiations as has occurred in the past.

Accelerate international scientific collaboration in fundamental research and attract STEM talent from around the world

If the United States is to remain the world leader in science, technology, and innovation, it must robustly fund its own research enterprise, collaborate internationally in fundamental scientific research, and attract smart, creative people for education, research, and innovation in the US. These attributes can be sustained with policies that set the right balance between openness and security in research.

Increase collaboration with allied nations on emerging technology

One benefit of this new era is greater political support among allied democracies for increased funding of collaboration and joint research in scientific fields relevant for emerging technologies. Specific areas for emphasis include AI for advancing fundamental science, joint research and development on critical technologies, science and security dialogues, and “tech-diplomacy.” While there are limits to cooperation even among allies due to economic competition and domestic political concerns, the emphasis on moving faster together to enhance collective security and diplomacy is a powerful stimulus for democratic governments.

Increase foresight analysis and dialogue

Discussions with many nations on the implications of rapid scientific and technological developments is vital to help realize potential benefits as well as to help mitigate potential threats coming from their applications, including misinformation, disruption, and warfare. Scientific communities can collaborate bilaterally and multilaterally on foresight analysis to better understand potential threats and benefits of advanced technologies. These collaborations can augment similar work carried out by government intelligence, security, and research funding agencies. While scientists cannot predict the future, the top experts in a field have a head start on envisioning what the future might bring.

Expand engagement with states in competition and conflict with the United States

It is necessary to engage scientific leaders in nations viewed as being in competition or conflict with the United States to advance areas of mutual benefit and to serve as important channels of communication. Maintaining ongoing dialogue between scientific leaders in the United States and China is especially important. Bilateral engagements by scientific, engineering, and medical academies and professional societies are now occurring. They address global challenges as well as the latest advances in scientific knowledge. Programs that enable future scientific leaders to interact are equally valuable.

Lead on science and technology for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The United States should increase support for national and international action plans and roadmaps to use science, technology, and innovation to accelerate progress on all seventeen of the SDGs. Special attention should be given to those that have the greatest potential in the near-term to mitigate existential threats and reduce human suffering.  These include climate action, affordable clean energy, pandemic preparedness, and peace negotiations to aid civilians affected by conflicts and natural disasters. The national STI for SDGs roadmaps proposed by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) and under development by six pilot countries illustrate how roadmaps can stimulate action to realize aspirational goals. Other governmental and non-governmental organizations can use roadmaps to help develop consensus and make progress through concrete actions.

Increase support for emerging countries

US diplomacy would significantly benefit with more government funding to help emerging countries strengthen their national ecosystems for science, technology, innovation, science policy, science advising, and science diplomacy. Work carried out by international non-governmental organizations, like the International Network for Governmental Science Advice, the InterAcademy Partnership, and the International Science Council, as well as by some national governments, scientific institutions, and philanthropies, are making real contributions. The United States’ non-governmental scientific organizations are eager to do more. They are contributing as much as they can using mostly their own funds and fund-raising, as is the case with assisting Ukraine. More US government funding to support the US scientific community to strengthen science-policy-society interfaces around the world could help restore the reputation of US science diplomacy to the prominent level it achieved during the golden era.

Protect the global commons

Increasing global dialogues on the peaceful uses and management of increasingly contested international commons, including the atmosphere, outer space, polar regions, and oceans, are key areas for science diplomacy in the new era. More engagement of foreign ministries with scientific experts is necessary to build consensus on how to manage these areas for the benefit of all.

Empower diverse actors

The United States should encourage its scientific and engineering societies, non-governmental organizations, universities, civil society groups, subnational governments, and private companies to develop their own roadmaps and partnerships using science diplomacy to help advance their goals. International partnerships and roadmaps are an effective approach to stimulate public and private institutions to learn from similar institutions in other countries and to take actions together.

Epilogue

An important task for the future is how to empower the next generation of scientists and science diplomats with the tools of science diplomacy to help overcome the challenges of this new era. Increasing the collaboration of science communities with government actors and the number of scientifically trained people working in government is critical.

To learn more about my work, click here.

Humboldtians and the Changing Arctic

Betsy Baker (BUKA 1991)

Humboldtians work across diverse disciplines and geographies on cutting edge scientific and policy matters. Combining these varied approaches is precisely what will help expand our understanding of the multiple changes facing the Arctic in 2024 and beyond. Arctic amplification, which tops the list of those changes, refers to the Arctic warming three to four times faster than the rest of the world in recent decades. Arctic or polar amplification is a “robust fact” supported by observed measurements, climate models, and paleoclimate proxy records.

This essay aspires simply to 1) introduce a small number of issues associated with Arctic change and 2) prompt you to consider and share whether and how your work relates to it. Input from beyond the circle of Arctic science is especially welcome, as the field would benefit from viewing these challenges from a fresh perspective.

The cascading changes associated with Arctic warming have serious consequences for the world’s oceans, atmosphere, and ecosystems: from slowing ocean circulation and thawing permafrost to changed hydrology, terrestrial landscapes, and species habitats, to precarious energy and food security and increased access to an ice-diminished Arctic and its resources. The implications of these changes are not only scientific but cultural, socioeconomic, and geopolitical.

Over decades as a professor of international ocean and environmental law, I have been fortunate to work closely with natural and social scientists from around the world in seeking solutions to environmental and cultural challenges arising from Arctic change. On any given day, my inbox here in Alaska includes reports and inquiries ranging from indigenous knowledge and ecosystem expertise, to how changes in lipid content up and down the marine food web affect fish and marine mammal abundance, movement, and vitality, to diplomatic discussions on maritime boundaries in the Arctic, to the reduction of sulfur content in shipping fuel for improved air quality in coastal Arctic villages that abut increasingly busy shipping lanes. We worry about the breakdown in pan-Arctic scientific collaboration with—and the safety of—our Russian colleagues since Russia’s unprovoked further invasion of Ukraine, and the growing data gaps resulting from the inability to work across terrestrial borders and maritime boundaries in the Arctic. These are just a few of the many interconnected issues my colleagues and I work on.

In the dozen years that my own work has focused on the Arctic, the biggest and most promising change in the broader research community relates to Indigenous Knowledge. What began as a gradual shift from outright skepticism in the Western scientific community a decade ago is now widespread acknowledgment that Indigenous Knowledge provides essential insights and expertise for addressing Arctic issues. Indigenous colleagues and organizations have led the way with persistent advocacy and relationship building, consistently participating in scientific meetings and using platforms such as the Arctic Council, where they have formal participation rights, to demonstrate how critical their input is to informed Arctic policy. Today, most pan-Arctic research organizations and many governmental bodies have official policies to promote co-produced research that draws on Indigenous and other knowledge. A concrete and legally binding example from international law is the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement. Groundbreaking in many other ways, it also includes Indigenous Knowledge holders in the body charged with developing the scientific program for the parties to the agreement.

To assist in preparing this essay, American Friends of AvH helped me identify fellow US-based Humboldtians who work on Arctic issues, including Dr. Julie Brigham-Grette, a distinguished arctic marine and terrestrial paleoclimatologist—and skilled climate communicator—who chaired the US National Academies Polar Research Board for many years. Piper Foster Wilder, a sister German Chancellor Fellowship alumna, is founder and CEO of 60Hertz, whose software streamlines the maintenance of energy assets, especially for the microgrids that are essential in a state like Alaska that has no centralized power grid, let alone roads to connect most of our villages. Several other Humboldtians working on issues relevant to, even if not directly based in the Arctic, are associated with one of the world’s premier polar research institutes known as AWI: the Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung in Potsdam, Germany. AWI’s now aging research icebreaker, the R/V Polarstern was the backbone of MOSAiC, a historic multi-year research program in the Arctic Ocean that for the first time gathered ship-borne observations year-round, even in the relentlessly dark polar winter.  The work of Humboldtian Dr. Alexandra Jahn, who directs the Polar and Paleoclimate modeling group at the University of Colorado, and participates in the multinational ship based Synoptic Arctic Survey, returns us to the starting point of this essay: both modeling and paleoclimatology confirm the existence of Arctic amplification.

If this short excursion through a sampling of challenges arising from Arctic change taps into your interests, or omits you or other Humboldtians in the field, please contact me to consider how we might amplify our knowledge in service of addressing those challenges.

My name is Sandra Rebok. I am a historian and began my career with my research on Alexander von Humboldt almost 30 years ago. My long experience in Humboldtian scholarship started as a student in Paris; from there I followed Humboldt’s path to Madrid, while drawing my attention to his ties to Spain. This research then took me to many of the places Humboldt himself visited on his American expedition (1799-1804), from the Canary Islands to Washington and Philadelphia, where he ended his five-year expedition, and where the focus of my work now turned to his connection to the young republic of the United States, and its third President, Thomas Jefferson, in particular. During all these years I have been fascinated by Humboldt’s thoughtful, balanced, and knowledgeable analysis of the different worlds he experienced, even if this included a critical eye, based on both his own observations and the readings of the work of others. It is his ability to describe the causes and consequences of the situations he observed in a rather scientific manner, beyond dogmata or the ideological currents of his time, and to foresee future developments, along with recommendations know how to promote or else mitigate them. Currently, I continue my research in California—the place where Humboldt never actually happened to set foot on, although he expressed this desire to do so from the very beginning of his expedition.

Today, however, our approaches to Humboldt do not seem to always follow his own example—they sometimes relate more to what we want to see in the famous Prussian. A rather delicate topic where this can be observed is Humboldt’s nearness to political circles, which has indeed led to an array of criticism and misinterpretations: while some saw him as ideological leader of the independence movement in Spanish America, others took him as being yet another colonial explorer; while some interpretations saw in him an agent for the Spanish Crown, others criticize him for acting as a spy for Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet. If we like to better understand the ways he navigated through the rough seas of diplomacy and strategy though, it might be helpful to look at it through the lenses of science diplomacy, a concept that recently is getting much attention: Humboldt knew that he needed to go beyond discussions within scholarly circles, if he sought to turn his science into applicable knowledge and connect with the needs of society. To this aim he had to reach out to the political power and further scientific and technological progress through a skillful connection of both worlds. And vice versa, Humboldt needed to be willing to advance diplomatic objectives through the universal world of science. In doing so he served as a science adviser for foreign policy objectives to the Prussian crown, he actively established contact with politicians to facilitate international scientific cooperation and create large-scale science projects. In other words, Humboldt was in a position to passionately make things happen, by connecting people, ideas, and nations.

With his outstanding social skills, Humboldt was indeed the ideal science diplomat: he was frequently described as extremely charismatic, a blessed character with great charm. He tended to be at the center of all social gatherings he attended, where he entertained other guests with his wealth of knowledge and his farsighted analysis. This is where he was at his best: as a catalyst for developments, as a source of inspiration or model to follow for others, and in a position that connected the concerns of different worlds. This is a point where he can serve as a source of inspiration for us today.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had been in office just short of three months when he called for a fundamental shift in German foreign and security policy, a change that would move Germany away from its post-World War II pacifistic leanings. This Zeitenwende* was prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with Germany adopting a more realistic approach to the Russian threat, reinforcing its allied institutions and relationships, and reconstructing the Bundeswehr to meet the new threats to the democratic order in Ukraine and Europe.

The ramifications of the Zeitenwende are substantial and move Germany away from the “structural pacifism” that had been a key component of German political culture—in its approach to military decisions, political positions, and budget/economic allocation across traditional parties. Pacifism permeated German society until the pivotal 1994 major decision by the Karlsruhe Constitutional Court to lift the German interpretation on the use the armed forces beyond NATO boundaries. The first conflict outside of NATO Europe that Germany participated in was when Tornados flew in support of Kosovo independence. The Green Party, in particular Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, made this possible by declaring that a lesson from World War II is not “Nie wieder Krieg” but “Nie wieder Auschwitz.” [Not “never again war,” but “never again Auschwitz.”] In 2003 Germany stepped outside European territorial borders for the first time and joined the international coalition in Afghanistan in the War on Terror against the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and caused a third plane to crash in Pennsylvania. With annual Parliamentary approval, the German Bundeswehr remained in Afghanistan throughout the conflict and until 2015 when coalition forces assumed an advisory role. Those forces remained even as many others departed until the mass evacuation of all remaining forces began in August 2021.

This is not to ignore earlier shifts at official levels. For example, the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 signaled a turn in official attitudes toward Putin. German President Joachim Gauck and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen gave speeches at the Munich Security Conference calling for Germany to assume greater responsibility internationally. Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier reached out domestically using the web to reach the younger generations and broad public. Although Chancellor Merkel did not publicly echo their remarks, the general tenor of official sentiment had begun to shift, albeit often unexpectedly. While participating in Afghanistan, Germany did not participate with the US force in Iraq in 2003 or in NATO’s operation in Libya 2011.

The Zeitenwende represents a number of challenges for Germany—three of the most pressing are global, regional, and operational. Whether Scholz would have given his February speech to the Bundestag without Putin’s invasion of Ukraine three days earlier is debatable, but the speech was crystal clear—Germany would support Ukraine and those NATO members and allies in defending against an invasion. There was no question about his conviction that the attack by Russia on Ukraine required Germany to reconfigure its relations with Russia, particularly in the energy sector, where the Germans were in danger of becoming energy dependent on the Nord Stream pipelines, including after the Nord Stream 1 “repair” that began in mid-July. In spite of many who insisted that Nord Stream 1 might not even resume deliveries thereafter, it did so, albeit at only 40% and at this point has dropped to a mere 20% of past capacity. As of this writing, it remains highly unlikely also that Nord Stream 2 will even be activated. The public debate over the impact for the coming German winter has been considerable across family dinner tables and has even grown fierce among experts and professionals over the expected economic costs by winter. Only days after Nord Stream 1 reopened, Russia’s Gazprom announced the need for additional technical repairs to one or more turbines.

A Black Sea grain agreement, negotiated in Istanbul by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with the assistance of Turkey, appeared to offer relief from the Russian Black Sea blockade on shipments of globally needed Ukrainian grain, particularly to regions in the Middle East and Africa. The agreement appeared to be a successful step forward in reversing dwindling grain supplies. But unexpectedly thereafter, Odesa was presumably hit with Russian missiles, an action indicating the difficulties of dealing with Russia. In this time frame, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov joined President Putin and others in underlining Russian intentions to annex larger areas in the war. Germany is now resolved to wean itself off Russian gas/energy resources, enforce existing sanctions, ban many Russian natural resources and steel trade, and even take sharp measures that could impact populations, not only in Germany but around the globe.

Second, while former finance minister Scholz’s demeanor is typically cautious—often raising criticism from the German and European publics—his decisions and follow-up have become significant in German contributions to Ukraine’s defense against Russia. Germany is solidly behind the NATO decision not to introduce troops on the ground given the chance of heightening the conflict with Russia. Furthermore, the Chancellor has made clear the importance of assisting the NATO alliance in its efforts to halt Russian attacks and reassure Ukraine of allied unity with equipment and funding assistance. In addition, Scholz joined the French, Italian, and Romanian heads of state to support Ukrainian (and Moldovan) candidacy for EU membership. This would begin the EU accession process and subsequent long-term benefits that come with membership. Most recently, at the conclusion of the G7 summit in southern Germany, host Olaf Scholz announced plans for the group to explore with the European Commission a future Marshall Plan similar to the successful plan provided to Germany after World War II, a move that could unify international as well as European institutions after the conflict.

In a third shift, the increasingly poor quality of the Bundeswehr has underscored a growing threat to Germany’s ability to defend itself and its allies if attacked (NATO, Article 5). As the conflict in Ukraine has intensified a sense of threat from the East, Scholz has—despite being seen to be slow to act, but determined—fulfilled his promises to Ukraine. As Russia has moved into the Donbas and Odesa regions (potentially even broaching Moldova), threatened nuclear use, and strengthened Russian forces on the ground and in the Black Sea, the Chancellor asserted that the military equipment Germany is sending would be able to “to protect an entire major city from Russian air attacks.” 

In accordance with this newly announced Zeitenwende for Germany, Scholz has pledged Euro 100B ($106B—in the form of a special investment fund specifically for a modernization of the Bundeswehr) and will now meet the NATO 2014 summit pledge in Wales of a 2% or higher percent of GDP allocated to defense spending. The short-term financial consequences have raised sharp public debate over moving from light to “heavy” weapons and equipment, including 15+ million rounds of ammunition, 100,000 grenades, and over 5,000 anti-tank mines. Initial Panzerhaubitze 2000 (“heavy” equipment) arrived the end of June, as Germany announced it would supply Ukraine with IRIS-T air defense systems as well as tracking radar that can detect mortars and Howitzers. The latter have proven highly lethal to Ukrainian civilians as well as the military. HIMARS—High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems—are planned by German defense for Ukraine to reinforce these earlier deliveries. On July 18, Germany delivered the first three Gepard (“Cheetah”) anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine—three months after they were promised—and was encouraged to accelerate future deliveries despite worries about Putin’s reaction. Scholz was criticized for the long delay. At its recent summit, the Alliance expanded the NATO Response Force (NRF) from 40,000 to 300,000, to which the Bundeswehr will contribute 15,000 (with 3-5000 German troops stationed in Lithuania). These force increases are expected to be difficult to raise and train in the necessary time frame, not to mention equipping the expanded force to meet the even short-term, not to mention long-term needs.

In sum, over the past five months, Chancellor Scholz has demonstrated the gradual, but new direction on which he has embarked. His efforts not only reflect a dramatic shift in German-Russian security, economic, and political relations, but they also have potential impact on the stability of democratic regimes in Europe and beyond. The challenge will be substantial, but as he commented in his Bundestag speech held in special session last February: “We will have to invest more in the security of our country to protect our freedom and democracy. This is a major national undertaking.” 

* Zeitenwende has been variously translated as “watershed,” “historical turning point,” and numerous other terms in the literature.

 Gale A. Mattox is a member of the Board of Directors of American Friends of AvH and directs the Foreign & Security Policy Program at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. This essay does not reflect the views of any governmental or organizational affiliation held by the author.

The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is known for its generous support for research, undertaken by scholars at the very pinnacle of their disciplines, at top universities and research institutes across the globe. Such research has led to treatments for deadly diseases, methods to address climate change, policies to combat social inequality, as well as interventions in many other acute problems facing humanity. Research at this level is of great value to society, and the Foundation’s resources are wisely spent. But it is also worth stepping back to think about the value of research conducted at the lowest levels of the university hierarchy: undergraduate research.

At Amherst College, where I serve as Provost and Dean of the Faculty, promoting undergraduate research is one of our top priorities. Amherst College, one of the premier liberal arts colleges in the United States, enrolls approximately 1850 undergraduates. We do not have graduate students. We have almost no post- doctoral researchers (a few science professors use external funding to hire post- docs), and only a very few lab or other technicians. Put otherwise, there is virtually none of the personnel associated with big science or other teams working on large- scale, cutting-edge research questions. Similarly, with one small exception, the college has no research centers focused on social policy or area studies characteristic of research universities. And yet we invest millions of dollars every year into funding undergraduate research opportunities. Moreover, many faculty members devote considerable time to mentoring research students. Why, you might ask, is an undergraduate institution providing so many resources to research experiences for its students?

While pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake is an excellent educational ideal, most research on campus has more practical purposes. Undergraduate research supports professors’ projects; many of the papers published by our science faculty include student co-authors. Similarly, faculty-led undergraduate research in the humanities and social sciences has resulted in co-authored books and articles published in peer-reviewed venues. The college also provides funding to small numbers of recent graduates so that they can revise their senior honors work for submission to scholarly publications. For students planning to pursue an academic career, research experiences—especially peer-reviewed scholarly publications—are invaluable in the graduate school application process. Moreover, two decades ago, the chemist and Nobel Prize laureate Thomas R. Cech showed that the research training received at liberal arts colleges led to an overrepresentation of such students in the ranks of research scientists. These are all terrific outcomes for students doing undergraduate research. But they are not the primary reason for why we focus so heavily on supporting it.

Instead, we believe that research experience offers unparalleled educational benefits: skills developed in the research process are precisely those skills that will benefit students in any line of work. Research begins with identifying a worthy problem. There are so many topics than can be researched, but why is one issue more important, more pressing than another? How does one know why one research project is more important than another? Researchers must be discerning— and then must be persuasive about why their topics should be addressed.

Research also involves posing open-ended questions. A good research problem has no potted or clear-cut “right” answer. Student researchers, like their older counterparts, can easily find themselves pursuing lines of inquiry that turn out to be dead ends. When that happens, they must come up with alternative paths of inquiry; this process takes grit, determination, patience, and creativity. Research also often fosters interdisciplinary thinking. Good researchers do not place boundaries on inquiry; drawing from different perspectives may illuminate a problem in ways not seen previously. Research fosters flexible, critical thinking skills, as well as personal qualities needed for problem solving.

Beyond critical thinking, student researchers hone their presentation skills. Like more seasoned researchers, undergraduates in every discipline have to write about what they find precisely and persuasively, and often even eloquently. At Amherst College, research students are trained in public speaking so that they can orally present their research findings at student conferences or poster sessions. Students also learn to present their research in visually attractive ways; they thus learn computer design and other visual tools so that their research can better capture an audience’s attention.

Research may involve working in teams. While this is particularly true in the sciences, at Amherst we have had student research teams in the humanities and social science disciplines. Ideally, those teams are a heterogeneous group with regard to identities—race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and so on. In science labs, students across class years also work together; more advanced students train younger students in lab techniques. It is often said that the best, most productive teams involve individuals with different identities who thus each bring different lenses to a problem. Listening, understanding, and questioning respectfully are skills that must be learned. So, too, is negotiation around who will do what for the team. In our world, students who have developed the skills of working across differences will be that much more valuable in the workplace.

There are a number of other, less tangible but exceedingly important benefits of undergraduate student research. The literature on student success in college suggests the importance of “belonging,” especially for low-income, first-generation, or otherwise often marginalized communities of students. Even one strong relationship with a faculty or staff member can have an immeasurable impact on their success in college. How better to foster this result than to have students working directly with a faculty member on research, the heart of the academic mission? Similarly, forging friendships with other students greatly improves the college experience. Friendships developed during shared research experiences— just as those that occur through participation in sports teams or volunteer activities —often endure. Indeed, bonding over shared intellectual passions provides a strong basis for continuing friendship, especially in cases when there are otherwise overt identity differences.

And finally, when students do research, they own it. No one else knows the subject as they do, no one else can speak about it the way they can. Engaging in research makes students “experts.” The confidence and self-knowledge gained from achieving this is often palpable; students mature through the research process. That, in turn, leads to all sorts of benefits, not the least of which is that students always have a ready-made topic for conversation or for a job interview. “So tell me,” the interviewer asks, “about this research that you have listed on your CV….”

Faculty and others who are in a position to offer undergraduate research opportunities should consider how they can strengthen those experiences. You might assign a research project in a regular undergraduate course, or offer a research methods course. You might encourage senior thesis writing. Hire undergraduates—or more undergraduates—to work in your lab or join your research team. Work with your administration to create cohort-based programs that prepare students for research. Advocate for more funding for research opportunities, not least by offering to speak with donors about the importance of undergraduate research.

Most of all, we should all take pride in leading efforts to support undergraduate research. No doubt it has its challenges—it demands a special kind of teaching and commitment. But its rewards are great. By investing in undergraduate research we are strengthening the capacity of the next generation to be effective problem solvers in society.