Bill Thomasmeyer, President of the National Center for Defense Robotics (NCDR) and executive vice president of The Technology Collaborative, www.techcollaborative.org, was interviewed by Robot editor-in-chief Tom Atwood on the importance of robotics to our future. In his August 2007 remarks, Mr. Thomasmeyer addresses the importance of robotics in education as well as the Bipartisan Robotics Caucus.
Robot Magazine: How important are robots and robotics technologies to our nation’s ability to remain secure and competitive?
Bill Thomasmeyer: I think in the long run robotics technologies and robots are pretty much essential. If you look at the global picture, especially in the long term, and population trends, and combine that with growing concerns, here at home, about our borders and security issues related to that, it pretty much dictates that we need to find ways to automate an ever increasing number of processes. The obvious answer is to continue to develop and find ways to use robotics technology to do that.
RM: How is the U.S. positioned to compete in a world where robotics technologies are expanding into so many spheres of human activity? Will we have enough qualified graduates and technicians to fill engineering and technical positions?
BT: We actually looked at this issue fairly closely at the Alliance. This is about 160 companies and organizations across the United States that are members of what we call our Agile Robotics Alliance (ARA) [editor's note: the NCDR works closely with the ARA, a consortium of companies, universities, research organizations and government agencies working together to facilitate the formation and growth of agile robotics in defense and commercial markets].
“Agile Robotics” is a term we use to define next generation robotics technology. Agile means both intelligent and mobile, if you will. It appears that in the near term we are ok, if you look out over the next couple of years. There does not appear to be any indication that we are looking at any near-term critical shortages.
When we look beyond that, though, it starts to become part of a larger picture. There has been a lot of impetus and focus being put on a growing and broadening concern about the overall lack of engineers and scientists that appears to be a real threat to our country in the longer term. Any potential shortage of robotics engineers is pretty much tied to that overall issue. I think there is something compelling and magical about robotics in a way, and if we can address the broader issue, a disproportionate, growing number of developing engineers will be drawn to robotics.
Looking at the longer term, we are starting to work with high schools, two-year institutions, colleges and universities. The state of PA offers something called the 2+2+2 program that provides funding for and is willing to work with high schools, junior colleges and two-year and four-year institutions to develop curriculum that is consistent and grows upon itself at each different level. People can hop off at any time, and take the training they have and seek employment, or they can go on to the next level educationally and build on what they have learned. We are taking a role in this.
RM: I’m going to digress for a moment and cite the Aviation Week article in early February…this suggests a crisis brewing in the next half decade, a shortage of aerospace defense engineers—do you have any comments on that?
BT: My initial comments were with reference to robotics, we are not seeing any critical issues with respect to robotics—this is still a relatively nascent industry. If you look at aerospace you may have a short term crisis because you have a lot of people retiring who have to be replaced. But if you look at robotics in the next couple of or few years, in this relatively small, nascent industry, the demand is going to be able to be met, but at some point we are going to hit an inflexion point, a knee in the curve, and we are going to see an explosion in demand for products being put into the defense markets and in commercial markets. When we hit that knee in the curve and start to see explosive growth in some of these early stage companies, that’s where we are going to see the crisis. But I don’t see our hitting that knee in the curve in the next couple of years, at least.
I went to a conference earlier this week and someone made reference to the book, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, that’s been written on this. It’s a pretty well quoted reference work on this whole STEM issue.
RM: Are there primary robotics industries or markets in which the country should be spending more of its resources to advance robotics?
BT: In the U.S., the market for next generation robotics is really being driven by defense applications and we will see in the future a steady growth in that area. If you look in Japan, it’s being driven more by quality of life issues. They have an aging population and the number of babies being born is decreasing. Their society and culture does not readily embrace the importation of foreign labor or placing aging parents in a nursing home, so they are looking at how to take care of their senior citizens given these factors.
I think that in the U.S. in the longer term, that is an issue we have to take a more serious look at as well, and especially if border security has the effect of limiting the supply of cheaper labor. Another area in the near term is agriculture. There are concerns there as well regarding the labor supply.
RM: IN the view of the NCDR (or in your view), are educational programs, curriculum and the growing world of robotics contests important for purposes of maintaining and expanding U.S. technological leadership?
BT: Yes, I don’t think there is any question about that. It’s interesting, we’ve talked a little bit about the need to train roboticists in educational programs—people who are qualified and trained in robotics engineering. There is a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence, and I’m not sure if there is quantitative evidence, that robotics is a real enabler, especially at the middle school and high school levels. In terms of getting kids interested in science and engineering, there is really something magical about it. That it’s multi-disciplined and involves teams of people, some interested in the software side and some in engineering and mechanical and electrical side of things—it’s a great educational way of getting kids attention and interest in science, technology and engineering in general.
I know this firsthand; I coach a FIRST Lego League team at my youngest daughters’ middle school. There’s just something about the robots that captures these kids’ attention and imagination.
RM: Many foreign countries are placing emphasis on robotics, as noted in the WTEC report, and in news media across the board. Should the U.S. have a “national robotics policy” initiative as well?
BT: Personal opinion, yes.
RM: How do we get this to happen?
BT: I think the first step was getting the National Bipartisan Robotics Caucus going. This starts to create a forum that allows us to start educating members of Congress on the importance and impact of this technology on our future. This will help us put a bit of a spotlight on the subject so that our Congressional leaders can put that kind of attention on the issue.
RM: What role will the new Bipartisan Caucus play in addressing these kinds of issues?
BT: Educating the Congressional leaders regarding the role of robotics in education is at or near the top of the list. We are trying to support the efforts of Congressmen Doyle and Wamp. We play a background role, and it’s a pretty collective effort; the National Defense Industry Association, the Robotics Industry Association, the AUVSI, together with the NCDR are all involved in helping the Caucus get underway. The mission for the first year will be an educational one. We will hold meetings three or four times a year in one of the Congressional office buildings to bring these issues to the forefront of the members' attention.
RM: If Robot can be of any assistance in this, please let us know.
BT: If you want to run an article that simply suggests that readers send a letter to their Congressmen, asking them to support the Caucus and consider joining it, I could provide a form letter, and if the magazine would consider doing an editorial on this topic (click here for the form letter).
RM: We are onboard. We see this as pro-education, pro-family and pro-America, and we will do that.
BT: This would be a good thing as the Congressmen will respond to the needs of the voters. The Congress is going into recess in August but in September we will start planning out these events, and one will likely occur in the Fall, one in the January – February timeframe and one in the Spring. We will want to identify one or two topics for each, and education is high on that list. We will keep you advised and informed on that, and if you could cover it, that would be great.
RM: Thank you for the opportunity. Do you have any other comments that you’d like to toss into this discussion?
BT: I don’t know if you have talked to Robin Shoop, who runs the Robotics Academy at Carnegie Mellon University. He’s at the forefront of all of this and is doing a phenomenal job.
RM: We are delighted to be working with Robin on articles for our EDU BOTS section in Robot. He is one of several leaders in robotics at Carnegie Mellon that we have had the privilege to work with. Thank you for your time today.
