Engineering with Character: Cameron Kim on Intellectual Curiosity and Humility

It’s not often that you hear a professor at an institution like Duke highlight their ignorance, but that’s exactly how Cameron Kim, assistant professor of the practice of biomedical engineering, describes himself on his journey from being an RNA synthetic biologist to researching bioengineering ethics. But that’s okay, because acknowledging your own ignorance is important because it allows you to listen to people.

That’s one of the lessons Kim bakes into his course BME260L: Modeling Cellular and Molecular Systems. Focusing on self-ignorance and humility in a technical class may sound like an odd choice to make, but more faculty at Duke Engineering are following in his footsteps. They’re learning these techniques and applying them to their classes as part of the Character Forward Initiative, which is challenging educators to develop not just skilled engineers, but individuals with strong character and ethical foundations.

“When you teach a foundational course in engineering, there’s the challenge of conveying technical knowledge,” Kim said. “But I also view it as an important part of forming students as engineers—who they are, what they are.”

This integration feels particularly fitting for Kim’s mathematical modeling course, which operates on the principle that “all models are wrong, but some models are useful.” This creates an opportunity to explore important questions about what “wrong” means in engineering and how we as human beings handle being wrong.

“I think it is ignorant to say that success is all going to come down to technical knowledge,” Kim said. “The mindset element is crucial for tackling future engineering challenges.”

Once you open students—who are likely used to being right most all of the time in their classes—to the concept that being wrong is okay, Kim explained, you can begin to engage them on the idea that intellectual curiosity and intellectual humility are complementary virtues. Kim describes them as “a yin-yang pair.”

This pair is especially critical in biomedical engineering, Kim said, because there is so much that people just really can’t see. Unlike civil engineering, where you can physically see your creation, biomedical engineering often deals with invisible processes. This invisibility makes intellectual curiosity essential for filling knowledge gaps.

But this curiosity must be balanced with humility. Kim reminds students that even fundamental scientific knowledge is relatively recent. “The notion that DNA is the genetic material that has formed the building blocks of life is a dogma that’s not been around for a hundred years yet,” he said.

To instill these ideals into his students, Kim begins with modeling them himself. In his teaching, he deliberately positions himself as a co-learner rather than the ultimate authority. “I’m not an expert in these projects that students work on. In my design, I actually don’t want to be the expert,” he said.

Besides modeling the lessons he’s trying to teach, Kim also began using several specific exercises designed to make students think about how they apply to their own work. These include:

• Monte Carlo simulations to better understand uncertainty bounds
• Concept mapping exercises connecting complex topics like “how coffee ‘may’ cause cancer”
• Model exploration and reflection where students identify mathematical models commonly used in biomedical engineering and reflect on questions like, “Are you okay with being wrong?”
• Discussing “The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research” and the productive role of acknowledging ignorance in generating new ideas

After introducing these exercises, Kim said, the most immediate impact he saw in his class was an immediate increase in engagement.

“I had more students talking to me after class and before class,” Kim said. “I had more students sending emails about different thoughts and ideas.”

He attributes this to his explicit focus on curiosity and humility because he evoked them to be curious and humble by saying it out loud. He was, he explained, forthcoming that exploring their curiosities and humilities was an objective of the course.

While other faculty members may not see an obvious path forward to teaching these same ideals in their own technical courses, Kim says he thinks anyone can do it. In fact, they probably already are.

“Whether or not you think you’re building the character of your students, you are,” Kim said, before going on to encourage faculty to shift their perspective. “Reflect on who you want your students to be in five years and not just what technical knowledge they should retain.”

Character development doesn’t require massive curricular overhauls, either. It can be as simple as introducing some new words and concepts along the way.

“You don’t have to move mountains,” Kim said. “It starts with conversation. Simply naming these virtues can spark curiosity. These human dimensions of an engineering education are important, because the future professional executing the technical content of our engineering courses are people. And we must treat them as people.”