A Proposal to Amplify Youth Voices in STEM
Summary
A robust STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) ecosystem is imperative to our country’s national security, international leadership, and economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Insights into youths’ daily lives, ambitions, and concerns for the future are paramount to developing effective and diverse policies that strengthen STEM education, career pathways, and public engagement. Unfortunately, youth voice is too often absent from STEM initiatives and policymaking processes in the United States today.
This memo proposes a joint initiative led by the White House and its Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Education, and other federal agencies to amplify youth voices in STEM. The goals of this initiative are to (1) foster active youth participation in STEM policymaking, (2) position youth to provide critical insights into the future of STEM work, (3) champion youth STEM ambassadors in schools across America, and (4) promote youth engagement in STEM more broadly. Leveraging existing programs such as Jason Learning’s Argonaut, Rutgers 4-H STEM Ambassadors, Youth and Educators Succeeding/GenYES, and the Chief Science Officer (CSO) initiatives, this initiative would enable youth to participate in meaningful dialogues with the Biden administration and other federal decisionmakers. The proposed initiative aligns with the National Science and Technology Council’s goals of building strong foundations for STEM literacy; increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM; and preparing the STEM workforce for the future.
With thoughtful policy action, it is still possible to build systems that are fair, transparent, and accountable, and to earn the public trust that will ultimately determine AI’s future. We hope policymakers are ready to act.
Procurement is not merely an administrative function—it is how AI enters government and the first line of defense for responsible AI in the public sector.
Responsible AI starts with who is in the data, who is at the table, whose needs shape the outcome, and who is responsible when it falls short.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.