LESTER SU

ME: You received a physics degree from the University of Chicago before going on to get advanced degrees in mathematics and aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan. Were you ever tempted to go into science rather than engineering?

Su: I knew I was going to go to graduate school to get an advanced degree in engineering, and Chicago at the time was a liberal-arts school—we’re reading a year of philosophy, a year of civilization, all this stuff. I thought if I were going to get a Ph.D. anyway, I should get the fundamentals first. That’s how I ended up as a physics major, even though I knew I was going to be an engineer.

Was I tempted by the dark side of physics and astrophysics? The answer is no for a couple of reasons. First of all, I don’t think that way. I’m definitely an engineer. I like to build things, take things apart, figure out how things work. And to be honest, engineers understand that the way we think is unique, but it’s not necessarily pure intellectual horsepower. We’re open to admitting that physicists are smarter than we are.

ME: Professionally, you have been a top-flight researcher at some of the best universities in the world, but you’ve also received awards for your teaching and mentorship. Where do you see the balance between pushing the frontiers of knowledge and nurturing the next generation of engineers?

Su: That’s always the conundrum. University professors are rewarded for their research productivity, and everyone tacitly acknowledges that at the research universities, the teaching is secondary, right?

Some people can pick up new subjects instinctively, but when learning a new subject, I personally have to work hard to explain things to myself, and I also like to know exactly why I’m learning something. This turns out to be very useful when you’re trying to motivate and teach students. I think engineering instruction needs to set up students not just to understand how things are currently done, but to be able to discover new areas of innovation. With how jam-packed engineering curricula already are, this is always a challenge.

ME: You worked as a Congressional Fellow in the early 2000s. Did serving on Capitol Hill change your perspective on how policy gets made, and on how important it is for engineers to get involved?

Su: My time on Capitol Hill made me more optimistic about policy.

At that time you would turn on the network news and if you saw a lawmaker, it was always some bomb-throwing partisan, because those guys gave the best sound bites. The impression was that Capitol Hill was just full of people arguing with each other over ideology.

When you arrive on Capitol Hill, you realize that that’s just 2 percent of them. Most politicians are not aspiring presidents. A lot are very serious lawmakers, and they work very well across the aisle. Also, if you spend any time on Capitol Hill, you see these 23-year-old staffers running everything. They are also very smart, and they ask a lot of questions.

What is in short supply is real technical knowledge. Engineers and scientists who enter that world find that their expertise is widely appreciated, and there is certainly no shortage of issues where technical professionals can make an important contribution.

ME: What was your introduction to ASME?

Su: I have no ME degree, which is my little secret. Though once you get to a certain level, no one really knows the difference between a mechanical engineer and aerospace engineer, so I do consider myself to be a mechanical engineer. But having not been a student in those departments, I was never a participant in the student sections.

My first real exposure to the ASME culture was as a Congressional Fellow. That’s when I really understood what the volunteer structure looked like. And the Fellows usually get to meet the President of ASME and the Executive Director, so I jumped the line and got to meet all these people that were at the higher levels of volunteering and administration.

I’ve continued to stay involved because the people I’ve met have always been very good representatives of both the Society and the field, the kind of person who’s willing to devote a lot of time to an organization like ASME as a volunteer and as someone who is quite altruistic.

There is a mission aspect to your involvement in ASME, a larger sense of purpose. You pick up on that when you are exposed to these longtime volunteers and staffers. That is why I have remained engaged for the last 25-odd years.

ME: You’ve also served on a number of ASME roles, including Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Outreach and the Board of Governors. Are there particular experiences you’re drawing on as you start off as a president?

Su: I’m trying my best not to have my own experiences color my ability to help make decisions on ASME’s future. If there’s a lesson I’d draw from my volunteer roles, it’s to be willing to acknowledge that the world in which ASME operates is always changing, and that we need to be willing to rethink all aspects of our activities in response to those changes.

I semi-joked at one of my first meetings that I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t the last president of ASME. I’m pretty sure that our staff—who are a terrific group—won’t let that happen. Seriously, though, I want to help ensure that ASME is set up to thrive even as things like AI and information technology, advances in biotechnology, changes in the globalization model, and the ongoing transition in the way we deliver and consume energy upend the engineering and technological enterprise.

Jeffrey Winters is editor in chief.