Instructor Interview
Below, Prof. R. Scott Kemp describes various aspects of how he teaches 22.04 Social Problems of Nuclear Energy.
OCW: Who took this course in the fall semester of 2025, and how much background did they have in the topic of the course?
R. Scott Kemp: 22.04 is predominantly taken by students of nuclear engineering. However, we always get a few others from other disciplines. In fall 2025, we had several Sloan students. Nearly all students have a substantive prior interest in nuclear energy; those who don’t usually cannot keep up with all the technology details—though in principle it is possible.
OCW: What preconceptions about nuclear power do students bring to the course? Do you have the sense that the course has changed many minds on the issue?
R. Scott Kemp: Because the students are overwhelmingly nuclear engineers, they come to the course hoping (sometimes “knowing”) that nuclear energy will solve major global energy problems. It’s my job to help ground their perspectives in history and economics so they have a more realistic expectation about what can be done. Some who take the course never change their mind; some are so changed by the course that they change their majors. But I think most people get something out of it. The course became mandatory for Nuclear Science and Engineering majors only because prior students had petitioned the department to make it so; and since we started the course, variants have been created at other universities.
OCW: Please tell us about the seven opt-in homework assignments. What did they consist of?
R. Scott Kemp: The homework consists of writing assignments that respond to the readings. Historically, these were not opt-in and were requested to ensure students did a minimal amount of reading—and it worked and students would often thank me at the end of the semester knowing that without them they would have stopped doing the readings. But given how radically AI has changed things, it makes no sense for me to require students to write summaries when the AI can easily produce those. Thus, the opt-in feature is there for people who are inspired to learn. To my delight, nearly all students opted in, and only a couple still used AI or changed their mind.
OCW: The final paper assignment includes detailed instructions as to what the paper should include and how students should approach it. What kind of guidance do you give to the students for how to do a peer-review referee report and what it should include?
R. Scott Kemp: The peer review instructions are given mostly verbally by me. I explain what counts as constructive feedback and emphasize that this is not about being nice (nor mean) but helping the writer produce the best possible, most accurate piece they can. I give examples of the kinds of things the students should be looking out for.
OCW: You’ve been teaching this subject since 2013. What has changed since then, either in the technology or social context of nuclear energy, that has affected what you teach in the course or how you teach it?
R. Scott Kemp: Since this course is a course about contemporary nuclear energy, it changes a little bit every year. The social context has changed radically; the technology has also changed but less so. Ultimately, when you look hard enough, there is almost nothing new under the sun, just ideas being recycled in various forms. Slowly, slowly the industry rewrites the same history it has been writing for five decades. My work is to find the enduring lessons and reveal them by talking about the parallels between history and the latest technological trends.
OCW: What would you like to share about teaching 22.04 that we haven’t yet addressed?
R. Scott Kemp: This course offers my perspective—a perspective rooted in history and economic analysis, but a perspective nonetheless. The perspectives I share are those of an outside observer, since my training was not in nuclear engineering but in physics and public policy. In the future, if this course were taught by a nuclear engineer, I would expect it to look radically different. Instead of focusing on fundamental issues, it might focus more on immediate political and regulatory hurdles to industry success; it might re-cast problems such as economics as consequences of a biased energy market instead of being a consequence of technology complexity. There is no exact canon of knowledge that should be taught, no particular information that a student must know in order to succeed as a nuclear engineer. This makes 22.04 inherently controversial—but over the years I have had many letters from graduates saying how much they appreciate having had the outside perspective. If one lives in a hall of mirrors, it’s hard to find the path out.
Assessment
Grade Breakdown
- Full participation in the referee report process: 10%
- Final presentations: 10%
- Final paper: 80%
Curriculum Information
Prerequisites
None.
Requirements Satisfied
- Required for a Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Science and Engineering.
- Can be applied toward a Bachelor of Science in Climate System Science and Engineering, but is not required.
- Fulfills the Social Sciences component of the General Institute Requirement (GIR) in Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Fulfills the Communication Intensive in the Major requirement.
Offered
Every year, usually in the fall semester.
Student Information
Enrollment
22 students.
Breakdown by Major
Predominantly nuclear engineering students, with a few others from other disciplines.
How Student Time Was Spent
During an average week, students were expected to spend 12 hours on the course, roughly divided as follows:
Lectures
Met 2 times per week for 80 minutes per session; 26 sessions total; mandatory attendance.
Out of Class
Outside of class, students completed assigned readings, wrote research papers, and prepared presentations.
