September 25, 2003

Dr. Kristina M. Johnson

Dean

Pratt School of Engineering

305 Teer Building

Box 90271

Duke University

Durham, NC 27708

Dear Dr. Johnson:

Attached please find a Committee of Visitors (COV) report for the
Chemical and Transport Systems (CTS) Division in the Directorate of
Engineering at the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The report was prepared based on a COV visit that took place on June
12-13, 2003 at NSF. Members of the COV received briefings by the
Division Director and all the Program Directors. Various documents
concerning the review process and the funding portfolio were reviewed.
In addition, a total of 133 randomly selected jackets were examined.

Overall, the COV found the CTS Division doing a good job in managing its
programs. The Division was successful in helping the Foundation to
achieve desirable outcomes in its investments in people, ideas, and
tools. In the spirit of continuous improvement, the COV identified
several areas for future improvement.

On behalf of the COV, I would like to thank the Division Director, Dr.
Esin Gulari, and the Program Directors, Drs. Glenn Schrader, Maria
Burka, Cyrus Aidun, Mike Plesniak, Robert Wellek, Tom Chapman, Farley
Fisher, and Geoff Prentice, and the CTS staff for their preparation of
the documents and support during the visit.

Please feel free to contact me should you have questions concerning the
report.

Sincerely,

Timothy W. Tong, Ph.D.

Dean

Cc Dr. Esin Gulari, Division Director, CTS, NSF

Dr. John A. Brighton, Assistant Director, Engineering Directorate, NSF

Enc Report

Report

Committee of Visitors

Chemical and Transport Systems Division

Directorate of Engineering

National Science Foundation

June 12 and 13, 2003

Submitted to

Dr. Kristina M. Johnson

Chair

Engineering Advisory Committee

National Science Foundation

# Committee Members

> Timothy W. Tong (Chair), George Washington University
>
> Linda J. Broadbelt, Northwestern University
>
> Juan J de Pablo, University of Wisconsin, Madison
>
> John K. Eaton, Stanford University
>
> Henry C. Foley, Pennsylvania State University
>
> Brian Higgins, University of California, Davis
>
> John R. Howell, University of Texas, Austin
>
> Vijay T. John, Tulane University
>
> Lawrence A. Kennedy, University of Illinois, Chicago
>
> Babatunde A. Ogunnaike, University of Delaware
>
> Levi A. Thompson, University of Michigan

Executive Summary

The Committee of Visitors (COV) for the Chemical and Transport Systems
(CTS) Division met on June 12-13, 2003 to review its programs for fiscal
years 2000, 2001, and 2002. The charge to the COV included a review of
the integrity and efficiency of the program's processes and management,
the program's progress in meeting the Foundation's outcome goals in
people, ideas, and tools, and comments on any other topics that the
Committee deemed helpful to the Division.

The visit began with oral briefings by the Assistant Director of
Engineering, the Deputy Assistant Director of Engineering, the Division
Director of CTS, and all the Program Directors in the division. The
Committee then spent much of the remaining time reviewing proposal
actions and funding statistics documented by the various reports
prepared by the CTS technical and support staff. In addition, a total of
133 randomly selected jackets were examined.

The COV found the Division effective in assuring integrity and achieving
efficiency in the program's processes and management. Proposals selected
for funding are of high quality. The proposal decisions that met the
6-month dwell time requirement had been increased significantly. For the
three fiscal years reviewed, proposal decisions meeting this requirement
increased from about 50% to over 80%. Although the mix of mail and panel
reviews employed in the Division seems to have worked well, the Division
is encouraged to find ways to increase the number of mail reviews
completed and returned. Suggestions made include giving longer duration
grants, requiring one-page white papers for pre-selection, and using
some form of pre-selection triage.

Concerning the broader impact criterion used in the review process, the
COV found that in some cases it was not addressed to the same extent as
the technical merit criterion. The COV believes NSF should work to
educate the principal investigators and the reviewers about what is
expected under this criterion. In terms of the balance among reviewers,
the Committee believes more women and minorities would be involved if
the Division expands its reviewer pool by drawing more researchers from
national laboratories and industry. Mentoring programs to assist
minority applicants to prepare more competitive proposals should be
organized.

The COV judged that CTS has been successful in meeting the outcome goals
in people, idea, and tools. Specific examples illustrating the
Division's success in each of these areas are given in the report. The
Program Directors are to be commended for their strong commitment in
supporting the CAREER program as evidenced by the large number of CAREER
awards made in the three-year period reviewed. In order to maintain
intellectual leadership and leverage its resources, the Division is
encouraged to participate actively in the development and implementation
of present and future multidisciplinary initiatives. A crosscutting CTS
summit workshop may help the Division identify areas that are not in its
current portfolio and possibly realign its programs.

The COV strongly recommends that funding for the Division be
significantly increased in order to enable it to increase the average
award size of \$80,000 per year to a more appropriate level. Additional
funding is also needed for CTS to increase its CAREER award success rate
(16%) to match the average success rate (24%) in the Foundation.

**PART A. INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAM'S PROCESSES AND
MANAGEMENT**

Briefly discuss and provide comments for *each* relevant aspect of the
program\'s review process and management. Comments should be based on a
review of proposal actions (awards, declinations, and withdrawals) that
were *completed within the past three fiscal years*. Provide comments
for *each* program being reviewed and for those questions that are
relevant to the program under review. Quantitative information may be
required for some questions. Constructive comments noting areas in need
of improvement are encouraged. Please do not take time to answer
questions if they do not apply to the program.

A.1 Questions about the quality and effectiveness of the program's use
of merit review procedures. Provide comments in the space below the
question. Discuss areas of concern in the space provided.

+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| **QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF MERIT REVIEW PROCEDURES**  | **YES,   |
|                                                           | NO,**    |
|                                                           |          |
|                                                           | **DATA   |
|                                                           | NOT      |
|                                                           | AV       |
|                                                           | AILABLE, |
|                                                           | or NOT   |
|                                                           | APPL     |
|                                                           | ICABLE** |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the review mechanism appropriate? (panels, ad hoc      | **YES**  |
| reviews, site visits)                                     |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Comments:                                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Mail and panel reviews are proven methods that appear to  |          |
| work well for NSF programs. The mix between panel,        |          |
| individual and other forms of review seems appropriate.   |          |
| The technical component is the principle emphasis with a  |          |
| secondary emphasis on broad societal issues. The latter   |          |
| covers the broad subsequent applications and issues of    |          |
| education, gender, race and other outreach activities;    |          |
| these appear not to be heavily stressed in the reviews.   |          |
| About half the jackets reviewed did not address the       |          |
| second criteria.                                          |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the review process efficient and effective?            | **YES**  |
|                                                           |          |
| Comments:                                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The efficiency, defined as the effort expended to yield   |          |
| the required number of quality reviews, is good but could |          |
| be improved. On average it takes 8 requests to get        |          |
| approximately 4 reviews. There is some concern that the   |          |
| mail review system is overburdened and may not be         |          |
| sustainable. Adding more panels and contacting candidates |          |
| to determine the prospect of getting the review in a      |          |
| timely fashion could increase both the efficiency and     |          |
| effectiveness. The balance between junior and senior      |          |
| faculty should also be addressed; senior faculty seem to  |          |
| decline invitations to review or simply do not return the |          |
| reviews. In this regard there is also some question about |          |
| self-selection in that the PDs request reviews from those |          |
| who have a good record of returning reviews. Other        |          |
| suggestions discussed by the COV include: giving 4-5 year |          |
| grants as opposed to an average funding period of 3       |          |
| years; requiring a one-page white paper for               |          |
| pre-selection; and some form of pre-selection triage.     |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The process is effective in that it identifies high       |          |
| quality research and individuals. Most of the rejected    |          |
| proposals are of a lesser quality than those awarded. On  |          |
| occasion some highly rated proposals cannot be funded,    |          |
| presumably due to a lack of resources.                    |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Are reviews consistent with priorities and criteria       | **YES**  |
| stated in the program's solicitations, announcements, and |          |
| guidelines?                                               |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Comments:                                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Most of the proposals are unsolicited. Of the responses   |          |
| to solicitations, the reviews are consistent with         |          |
| priorities and criteria stated in the program's           |          |
| solicitations, etc.                                       |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Do the individual reviews (either mail or panel) provide  | # YES    |
| sufficient information for the principal investigator(s)  |          |
| to understand the basis for the reviewer's                |          |
| recommendation?                                           |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Comments:                                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| For the most part the individual reviews provide          |          |
| sufficient information for the PI to understand the basis |          |
| for the recommendation. Typically the reviews are         |          |
| consistent with the recommendations. Further, the PIs     |          |
| benefit substantially from the reviews because the        |          |
| feedback can be used to refine the program.               |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Do the panel summaries provide sufficient information for | ### YES  |
| the principal investigator(s) to understand the basis for |          |
| the panel recommendation?                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Comments:                                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| There is some question about the length of the panel      |          |
| summaries; however, the summaries seem appropriate given  |          |
| that the PIs receive the individual reviews. It would be  |          |
| helpful if the panel summaries reflected more of the      |          |
| actual discussion that occurred during the panel.         |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the documentation for recommendations complete, and    | **YES**  |
| does the program officer provide sufficient information   |          |
| and justification for her/his recommendation?             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Comments:                                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| In a random sample of 133 jackets reviewed, the PDs       |          |
| provided detailed and sufficient information for their    |          |
| recommendations.                                          |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the time to decision appropriate?                      | **YES**  |
|                                                           |          |
| Comments:                                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The PDs should be applauded for reducing the dwell time.  |          |
| A decision is generally reached within 6 months of        |          |
| proposal submission. The 2002 data is impressive in that  |          |
| close to 80% of the proposals were processed within 6     |          |
| months as opposed to only about 50% in 2000. When a       |          |
| decision was not made within 6 months it was generally    |          |
| made within 6 to 9 months.                                |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The limiting step for the time to decision is receipt of  |          |
| the individual reviews. To improve the time to decision,  |          |
| strategies should be developed to decrease the time and   |          |
| effort required to get reviews returned. Using more panel |          |
| reviews could further improve the dwell time.             |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Discuss issues identified by the COV concerning the       |          |
| quality and effectiveness of the program's use of merit   |          |
| review procedures:                                        |          |
|                                                           |          |
| One of the problems in effectiveness is the response rate |          |
| by external reviewers. It appears to be only 50-60%. This |          |
| is a perennial problem for all mail reviews. The          |          |
| Foundation should explore ways to improve the response.   |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+

A.2 Questions concerning the implementation of the NSF Merit Review
Criteria (intellectual merit and broader impacts) by reviewers and
program officers. Provide comments in the space below the question.
Discuss issues or concerns in the space provided.

+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| **IMPLEMENTATION OF NSF MERIT REVIEW CRITERIA**          | **YES,    |
|                                                          | NO,**     |
|                                                          |           |
|                                                          | **DATA    |
|                                                          | NOT       |
|                                                          | A         |
|                                                          | VAILABLE, |
|                                                          | or NOT    |
|                                                          | APP       |
|                                                          | LICABLE** |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Have the individual reviews (either mail or panel)       | ## YES    |
| addressed whether the proposal contributes to both merit |           |
| review criteria?                                         |           |
|                                                          |           |
| Comments:                                                |           |
|                                                          |           |
| For the most part both criteria are addressed; however,  |           |
| the amount of detail is greater for the                  |           |
| technical/intellectual merit criterion. In some cases    |           |
| the scientific portion receives a much greater emphasis. |           |
| In other cases, such as for panel reviews, the PDs       |           |
| request that the reviewers use technical merit and       |           |
| broader impact merit headings, that is, the review       |           |
| criteria in this case are more explicit. There is some   |           |
| question about redundancy of the broader impact          |           |
| question. There are widely different interpretations,    |           |
| and many reviewers suggest that this issue is adequately |           |
| addressed in connection with the technical merit. NSF    |           |
| should work to better define the term "broader impact."  |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Have the panel summary reviews addressed whether the     | **YES**   |
| proposal contributes to both merit review criteria?      |           |
|                                                          |           |
| Comments:                                                |           |
|                                                          |           |
| The previous answer applies to this question, as well.   |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Have the *review analyses* (Form 7s) addressed whether   | #### YES  |
| the proposal contributes to both merit review criteria?  |           |
|                                                          |           |
| Comments:                                                |           |
|                                                          |           |
| Form 7s are fairly explicit in this regard. However,     |           |
| there are some cases where the reviewers are not         |           |
| providing sufficient information, leaving the PD to fill |           |
| in.                                                      |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Discuss any issues or concerns the COV has identified    |           |
| with respect to NSF's merit review system.               |           |
|                                                          |           |
| NSF should work to educate the PIs and review            |           |
| communities about the broader impact review criterion,   |           |
| and carefully define what is expected under this         |           |
| criterion.                                               |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+

A.3 Questions concerning the selection of reviewers. Provide comments in
the space below the question. Discuss areas of concern in the space
provided.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Selection of Reviewers                                  | YES, NO,   |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | DATA NOT   |
|                                                         | AVAILABLE, |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | or NOT     |
|                                                         | APPLICABLE |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program make use of an adequate number of       | YES        |
| reviewers for a balanced review?                        |            |
|                                                         |            |
| Comments:                                               |            |
|                                                         |            |
| > The PDs made significant efforts to get sufficient    |            |
| > numbers of reviews, but in most cases only 4 to 5     |            |
| > reviews were received out of 7 to 8 requested.        |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program make use of reviewers having            | YES        |
| appropriate expertise and/or qualifications?            |            |
|                                                         |            |
| Comments:                                               |            |
|                                                         |            |
| > For the most part the reviewers were experts in the   |            |
| > field. In some cases reviewers from tangential areas  |            |
| > provided very useful input. The PDs have obtained     |            |
| > additional reviews when necessary.                    |            |
| >                                                       |            |
| > In addition to the reviewers selected by them, the    |            |
| > PDs sometimes used reviewers suggested by the PI.     |            |
| > This practice contributed to a balanced selection of  |            |
| > reviewers.                                            |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program make appropriate use of reviewers to    | Mostly     |
| reflect balance among characteristics such as           |            |
| geography, type of institution, and underrepresented    |            |
| groups?                                                 |            |
|                                                         |            |
| Comments:                                               |            |
|                                                         |            |
| > For mail reviews, the PDs seemed to rely mostly on    |            |
| > the technical qualifications of the reviewers. It     |            |
| > appeared that the geographical distribution was       |            |
| > fairly diverse.                                       |            |
| >                                                       |            |
| > The composition of panels was generally balanced and  |            |
| > included women, minorities, and a wide distribution   |            |
| > of institutions from all over the country. However,   |            |
| > there were more East Coast or Midwest panelists, and  |            |
| > when panelists from the West Coast were included they |            |
| > were typically from the larger institutions. This     |            |
| > could be a reflection of the difficulty in getting    |            |
| > reviewers from the West Coast to participate on       |            |
| > panels. There appeared to be a stronger               |            |
| > representation of white males than could be accounted |            |
| > for on the basis of demographics.                     |            |
| >                                                       |            |
| > To remedy the situation, the PDs should consider      |            |
| > using more reviewers from national laboratories and   |            |
| > industry. They should, however, be careful to factor  |            |
| > in the bias and intentions of industrial and national |            |
| > laboratory participants. Involvement of PIs who have  |            |
| > not been successful would help to enhance their       |            |
| > understanding of what makes a proposal successful.    |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program recognize and resolve conflicts of      | YES        |
| interest when appropriate?                              |            |
|                                                         |            |
| Comments:                                               |            |
|                                                         |            |
| > No irregularity was observed by the COV.              |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Discuss any concerns identified that are relevant to    |            |
| selection of reviewers.                                 |            |
|                                                         |            |
| > The PDs should expand the reviewer pool by drawing    |            |
| > more researchers from industry and national           |            |
| > laboratories. This would certainly increase the       |            |
| > involvement of women and minorities. The Foundation   |            |
| > should work to reduce the dwell time even further; a  |            |
| > suggestion would be to get 75% of the reviews         |            |
| > returned in 3 months.                                 |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

A.4 Questions concerning the resulting portfolio of awards under review.
Provide comments in the space below the question. Discuss areas of
concern in the space provided.

+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| **RESULTING PORTFOLIO OF AWARDS**                    | **A           |
|                                                      | PPROPRIATE,** |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | **NOT         |
|                                                      | A             |
|                                                      | PPROPRIATE,** |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | **OR DATA NOT |
|                                                      | AVAILABLE**   |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Overall quality of the research and/or education     | #####         |
| projects supported by the program.                   | # Appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > The quality of the supported work is high. Many of |               |
| > the rejected proposals also appear to be of high   |               |
| > quality.                                           |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Are awards appropriate in size and duration for the  | ###### No     |
| scope of the projects?                               | t appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > The average duration for grants awarded in         |               |
| > 2000-2002 is between 2 and 3 years. The COV        |               |
| > believes that a grant duration of four years would |               |
| > map better to the length of time required to       |               |
| > complete a doctoral degree in CTS disciplines.     |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > The average award size is \$80,000 per year. This  |               |
| > funding level is barely sufficient to support 1.5  |               |
| > students and certainly insufficient to support     |               |
| > large-scale experiments. The PDs sometimes need to |               |
| > decide between adequate funding for a few          |               |
| > proposals and miserly funding to spread the        |               |
| > available resources to broader deserving           |               |
| > communities.                                       |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > It is difficult to conduct experimental research   |               |
| > under NSF funding because a typical grant cannot   |               |
| > accommodate the budget needed to acquire the       |               |
| > equipment. Principal investigators sometimes try   |               |
| > to couple research proposals with MRI proposals to |               |
| > get the needed equipment. At large research        |               |
| > universities, the competition for the two MRI      |               |
| > slots can be very intense. At smaller universities |               |
| > where resources are more limited, the cost-share   |               |
| > requirement often becomes an obstacle for PIs to   |               |
| > submit MRI proposals.                              |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > It would be useful to have statistics that break   |               |
| > out program budget and duration for single         |               |
| > investigator grants, multiple investigator grants, |               |
| > equipment grants, travel grants, workshops and     |               |
| > meetings, SGERs, etc. Also, the number and         |               |
| > percentage of funded proposals and the total       |               |
| > number reviewed by the Division in the             |               |
| > crosscutting initiatives should be reported. The   |               |
| > statistics should also include the number of       |               |
| > students supported and equipment acquired.         |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | ######        |
| balance of:                                          | # Appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| -   High Risk Proposals?                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > The peer review process imposes some conservatism, |               |
| > but the PDs seem to be giving high-risk proposals  |               |
| > a chance. Twenty three of the 650 awards in CTS    |               |
| > were NERs. A higher number would be more           |               |
| > appropriate. There is a wide disparity between the |               |
| > programs in the use of SGERs. Thirty-eight SGER    |               |
| > grants were awarded over the 3-year period, but    |               |
| > some programs had between 0 and 3, and one had as  |               |
| > many as 10.                                        |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > Several of the proposals reviewed could be         |               |
| > regarded as risky and innovative. The quality of   |               |
| > those proposals and the stature of the PIs are     |               |
| > particularly high, which is also reassuring.       |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | **CTS could   |
| balance of:                                          | play a        |
|                                                      | leadership    |
| -   Multidisciplinary Proposals?                     | role**        |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > Multidisciplinary proposals appear to be at a      |               |
| > disadvantage. This is true even in                 |               |
| > multidisciplinary initiatives like sensors. CTS    |               |
| > should be more aggressive at working to get        |               |
| > funding from multiple divisions for quality        |               |
| > multidisciplinary proposals. CTS should take a     |               |
| > leadership role in building more multidisciplinary |               |
| > programs.                                          |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > The nanoscale program was initiated in CTS, yet a  |               |
| > relatively small fraction of the NNI projects are  |               |
| > now in CTS. This should be rectified because CTS   |               |
| > disciplines are central to nanoscale technology.   |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > Multiscale modeling is a field that has been       |               |
| > pioneered by mechanical and chemical engineers in  |               |
| > the fluid dynamics community. This field has       |               |
| > enormous potential and should be exploited to grow |               |
| > multidisciplinary activities in CTS.               |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > Data for small group proposals, which often        |               |
| > involve PIs from different disciplines, is needed  |               |
| > in order to better assess the extent of funding    |               |
| > for multidisciplinary research.                    |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | #####         |
| balance of:                                          | # Appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Innovative Proposals?                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > The review process appears to place a heavy weight |               |
| > on innovation, resulting in many awards that       |               |
| > support innovative research.                       |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > There is a close relationship between the          |               |
| > disciplines in CTS and research areas such as      |               |
| > molecular science and technology, hydrogen         |               |
| > economy, bioprocesses, and energy conversion. By   |               |
| > providing intellectual leadership, CTS could       |               |
| > potentially expand its programs and gain resources |               |
| > to support more innovative research.               |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | #####         |
| balance of:                                          | # Appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Funding for centers, groups and awards to        |               |
|     individuals?                                     |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > Most of the awards are to individuals or small     |               |
| > groups. There is only one national center managed  |               |
| > from within CTS. More national centers could fit   |               |
| > under the CTS umbrella.                            |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | ######        |
| balance of:                                          | # Appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Awards to new investigators?                     |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > The Division is doing a good job of getting awards |               |
| > to the best young investigators. Some programs     |               |
| > devote a large fraction of their resources to      |               |
| > CAREER awards, but there are very high quality     |               |
| > CAREER proposals that are not funded. The success  |               |
| > rate for CAREER awards in CTS is approximately     |               |
| > 16%, substantially below other areas. The COV      |               |
| > believes that the amount of funding to CTS needs   |               |
| > to be increased to get the CAREER success rate up  |               |
| > to 24%.                                            |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | ######        |
| balance of:                                          | # Appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Geographical distribution of Principal           |               |
|     Investigators?                                   |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > There was no bias detected. The geographical       |               |
| > distribution of the PIs is relatively wide and     |               |
| > uniform.                                           |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | ######        |
| balance of:                                          | # Appropriate |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Institutional types?                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > No comments.                                       |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | **            |
| balance of:                                          | Appropriate** |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Projects that integrate research and education?  |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > All the CAREER grants have stated educational      |               |
| > objectives and they constitute a reasonable        |               |
| > fraction of the division's funds. Additionally,    |               |
| > many awards include undergraduate participation    |               |
| > that has an educational emphasis. Further, many    |               |
| > grants have added REU supplements that target      |               |
| > undergraduate participation.                       |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | **CTS could   |
| balance:                                             | play a        |
|                                                      | leadership    |
| -   Across disciplines and subdisciplines of the     | role**        |
|     activity and of emerging opportunities?          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > As a division, there appears to be a need for more |               |
| > multidisciplinary projects that cross disciplines  |               |
| > within CTS and with other divisions.               |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have appropriate          | **Not         |
| participation of underrepresented groups?            | appropriate** |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > The success rate across CTS appears to be about    |               |
| > the same for men and women. The proposal success   |               |
| > rates for both genders were in the low 30          |               |
| > percentile. However, both the absolute number of   |               |
| > proposals and the proposal success rate were low   |               |
| > for minority applicants in most of the programs.   |               |
| > Proposals submitted by minority applicants         |               |
| > accounted for only several percent of the total    |               |
| > number of proposals received, whereas the proposal |               |
| > success rate across the division was only 20       |               |
| > percent.                                           |               |
| >                                                    |               |
| > The COV believes the workshops organized by 1403   |               |
| > to encourage and assist minority PIs to submit     |               |
| > more competitive proposals could effect positive   |               |
| > changes and recommends similar workshops be        |               |
| > offered across the division.                       |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Is the program relevant to national priorities,      | **            |
| agency mission, relevant fields and other customer   | Appropriate** |
| needs? Include citations of relevant external        |               |
| reports.                                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Comments:                                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| > Most aspects seem relevant to national priorities. |               |
| > The disciplines in the division are central to the |               |
| > advancement of nanotechnology, development of new  |               |
| > sensors, and improvement of manufacturing and      |               |
| > transport processes. The division should continue  |               |
| > leadership in these areas.                         |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Discuss any concerns identified that are relevant to |               |
| the quality of the projects or the balance of the    |               |
| portfolio.                                           |               |
|                                                      |               |
| It was surprising to find that funding for the Fluid |               |
| Dynamics and Hydraulics Program (1443) was flat      |               |
| despite the fact that it plays such an important     |               |
| role in emerging CTS technology areas. Success rates |               |
| in this program were very low.                       |               |
|                                                      |               |
| The COV believes the PDs should encourage higher     |               |
| minority success rates by helping to arrange         |               |
| mentoring, or by other means.                        |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

A.5 Management of the program under review. Please comment on:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Management of the program.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Comments:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| > In general, the PDs have done a good job of managing the programs.  |
| > However, some programs have been run by a succession of IPAs, which |
| > makes it difficult to grow those programs into emerging areas. The  |
| > flat budget in Fluid Dynamics and Hydraulics may be a symptom of    |
| > this, although the current PD seems excellent.                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Responsiveness of the program to emerging research and education      |
| trends.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Comments:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| > The Division is generally doing a good job in this area. Although   |
| > not distributed uniformly across the programs, there is a good      |
| > number of NIRTs, SGERs, and NERs, particularly in 1414.             |
| >                                                                     |
| > The COV believes that a cross-cutting CTS division "summit"         |
| > workshop may help the division attack emerging research and         |
| > education areas that may fall between existing programs. The        |
| > division should aggressively pursue adequate representation on all  |
| > NNI and ITR panels to insure that division research areas are       |
| > represented adequately.                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Program planning and prioritization process (internal and external)   |
| that guided the development of the portfolio under review.            |
|                                                                       |
| Comments:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| This program seems to be largely driven by proposal pressure. The     |
| substantial mortgaging in previous years has left little flexibility  |
| for the current PDs in a couple of programs. The division should move |
| towards an appropriate level of mortgaging to give maximum            |
| flexibility to pursue new opportunities.                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Discuss any concerns identified that are relevant to the management   |
| of the program.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| The Division and the Engineering Directorate in general are getting a |
| smaller fraction of IGERT funding than seems appropriate. The PDs     |
| should attempt to rectify this because IGERTs are effective in        |
| generating funding in areas of opportunity.                           |
|                                                                       |
| The division could be reorganized to make a program in                |
| nano-technology stand out as a strong component of the program. A     |
| similar program in biotechnology could also be created. Collaboration |
| with other divisions in the area of nanoscale processes and           |
| manufacturing could open up new opportunities.                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B.1 [NSF OUTCOME GOAL for PEOPLE]{.underline}: Developing "a        |
| diverse, internationally competitive and globally engaged workforce   |
| of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens."**              |
|                                                                       |
| Comments:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| > The broad funding of CAREER, GOALI and REU awards in this division  |
| > presents compelling evidence that support for developing a diverse  |
| > and globally oriented workforce is strong. Over the three-year      |
| > period examined, 63 CAREER, 29 GOALI and 117 REU awards were made.  |
| > These awards impact many more individuals than the number of awards |
| > might indicate, because each award supports multiple students. In   |
| > addition, the Division is involved in the review process for the    |
| > IGERT program.                                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > On the average, it appears that two graduate students per year are  |
| > supported on each grant. Research grants support many additional    |
| > students, training them for careers in engineering. The Division    |
| > committed about \$350,000 per year for undergraduate support within |
| > research grants funded by the Division. Over the three years        |
| > reviewed, 223 postdoctoral students, 1742 graduate students and 315 |
| > undergraduate students were supported under CTS research grants.    |
| > This strongly reflects the shared research and education            |
| > objectives/tools in NSF-supported projects. They provide invaluable |
| > experiences to develop the capabilities of young individuals to     |
| > explore cutting edge science/technology and address the nation's    |
| > need for a highly qualified technological workforce.                |
| >                                                                     |
| > National and international workshops and conferences were sponsored |
| > or supported by various programs, and these support the continuing  |
| > education of the engineering workforce. A partial list includes     |
| > Gordon Conferences on Granular and Granular-Fluid Flow, on          |
| > Colloidal, Macromolecular and Polyelectrolyte Solutions, on         |
| > Hydrocarbon Resources, and on Plasma Processing; the Fourth World   |
| > Conference on Particle Technology; the Nanokids Education Outreach  |
| > Conference; The International Conference on Computational           |
| > Nanoscience; Nanotechnology: Bridging Nanoscience to the            |
| > Marketplace; NANO 2000: the Sixth International Conference on       |
| > Nanostructured Material; Nano-Aerosol Workshop; Cyberinfrastructure |
| > Workshop; Diagnostic Needs in Thermal Plasmas; Minority ChE         |
| > Workshop; AIChE Women's Initiative Workshop; Microgravity Processes |
| > in Thermal and Fluid Systems; Thermal Plasma Characterization       |
| > Workshop; 13^th^ International Symposium on Surfactants in          |
| > Solution; International Conference On Energy Systems; Third Israeli |
| > Conference on Handling of Particulates; Particle Technology Short   |
| > Course; NATO ARW on Green Technologies; Advanced Membrane           |
| > Technology; Fifth Annual Green Technology Conference; and NSF       |
| > Workshop on CO~2~ Capture and Sequestration.                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > International cooperation included research collaboration with the  |
| > Eastern Mediterranean, the EC, Egypt, Jordan, and South Africa;     |
| > meeting support was provided to Greece, Mexico, the EC, and France. |
| >                                                                     |
| > The CAREER proposals are funded at a high level given program       |
| > resources, but the proposal pressure in this division is very high. |
| > Additional funding is needed in order to support more quality       |
| > proposals. CTS should also be strongly represented in the IGERT     |
| > program review process.                                             |
| >                                                                     |
| > One area of concern is the relatively disappointing number and rate |
| > of funding of minority proposals. The number of submissions         |
| > probably reflects the still small number of minority applicants in  |
| > the research community. However, the low rate of funding may need   |
| > to be addressed by NSF and CTS by increasing mentoring programs.    |
| >                                                                     |
| > The CTS Division is clearly committed to supporting this outcome    |
| > goal.                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B.2 [NSF OUTCOME GOAL for IDEAS]{.underline}: Enabling "discovery   |
| across the frontier of science and engineering, connected to          |
| learning, innovation, and service to society."**                      |
|                                                                       |
| Comments:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Much of the research in this program is occurring at the frontier     |
| between core engineering subjects (thermodynamics, interfacial        |
| sciences, fluid mechanics) and a diverse range of emerging            |
| application areas, ranging from single-molecule processing, to        |
| biotechnology, to environmentally benign chemical processing.         |
|                                                                       |
| > In one sense, CTS has been the origin of many of the novel ideas    |
| > that are leading to new materials, processes, and devices. The NNI  |
| > was an innovative idea that grew out of CTS-funded research.        |
| > Specific examples are provided by work related to development of    |
| > novel, enzyme-like catalysts designed at the nanoscale, and         |
| > theoretical and experimental atomistic-level research related to    |
| > development of novel bimetallic catalysts and catalyst supports.    |
| > This research will result in efficient, environmentally benign      |
| > chemical processes. Work on DNA and macromolecule transport in      |
| > nanopores, funded throughout CTS, will undoubtedly lead to devices  |
| > for rapid and effective sequencing of DNA and separation of complex |
| > fluids, including solutions of proteins and enzymes. Research       |
| > related to characterization and modeling of fluid and materials     |
| > behavior and properties over multiple length and time scales (from  |
| > atomistic to continuum) is producing essential tools for discovery. |
| >                                                                     |
| > In another sense, CTS is enabling many of the more exciting new     |
| > initiatives that continue to emerge out of NSF. CTS is providing    |
| > the crucial link between ideas and viable applications. This comes  |
| > in the form of fundamental knowledge, data, predictive models,      |
| > materials, and devices. CTS-funded experimental and theoretical     |
| > research on nano- and micro-fluidic flows is helping everyone       |
| > capitalize on the promise of nanotechnology. CTS-funded             |
| > experimental and theoretical work on surface-property modification  |
| > and on amplification of surface phenomena is providing key tools    |
| > and ideas for development of new nanofabrication strategies and     |
| > processes, and for conception of novel biosensors. CTS-funded       |
| > theoretical work on thermophysical and thermochemical property      |
| > prediction is providing an essential ingredient for interpretation  |
| > of CTS-funded and foundation-wide work on characterization of       |
| > systems at the nanoscale. Some examples of ideas developed from CTS |
| > funding include the following:                                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > CTS 9812905 - A novel method was developed to produce carbon nano   |
| > structures in an inexpensive atmospheric flame which can be         |
| > commercialized.                                                     |
| >                                                                     |
| > CTS 0230191 - A process was developed to fabricate an array of      |
| > miniature chemical detectors. Applications include chemical         |
| > processes, industrial health and homeland security.                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > CTS 9710413 - Theoretical work has shown that leaking oxygen        |
| > through the reaction zone can decouple the gas phase combustion     |
| > from the surface. It is likely to reorient the thinking relating to |
| > the evaluation of flammability of materials.                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > CTS 09703357 - A combustion technique was developed that avoids the |
| > agglomeration of industrial quantities of nano-powders. It is       |
| > expected to speed the development of new products based on oxide    |
| > nano-powders.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| One of the dangers of the nanotechnology initiative is that the       |
| "technology" component will be ignored or forgotten. CTS continues to |
| be an important part of the NIRTs program, and the COV encourages     |
| that commitment to continue. CTS has to continue to remind the rest   |
| of NSF that without this technology component the NNI will be of      |
| limited service to society. Some of the upcoming new initiatives will |
| follow the theme of "Molecular Science and Technology." CTS must      |
| position itself strategically to benefit from such initiatives.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> There are tremendous opportunities for new initiatives that should
> originate out of CTS-funded research. Three specific examples are:
>
> Fuels cells and the production of ultra-pure hydrogen from renewable
> resources: The hydrogen economy will not be realized unless fuel cells
> can operate efficiently and at reasonable temperatures, or unless pure
> hydrogen is produced from sources other than oil (e.g. via discovery
> of new catalysts or new synthetic routes).
>
> Modeling and control over multiple length and time scales: This
> continues to be a source of pride and opportunity for engineering and
> for CTS in particular. Modeling and control is crucial for design and
> operation of all emerging technologies, be they at the nanoscale (as
> in nanofluidic devices) or at macroscopic length scales (as in living
> organisms or microchip manufacturing). One of the central challenges
> of multiscale modeling is to bridge the gap between atomistic
> (angstrom) and micro- or macro-scopic (micron to meter) length scales.
> In design of microfluidic devices or microreactors (e.g. fuel cells),
> thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, transport phenomena, and continuum
> mechanics must be used to arrive at working processes. Yet these
> systems capitalize on molecular-level events (and models) to give rise
> to remarkable and unique phenomena. How can an effective device be
> developed without combining all these elements?
>
> Biosensors and bioremediation: The detection of pathogens and their
> cleanup in case of civil disaster must be achieved in fast and
> effective devices. Interfacial aspects, thermodynamics, kinetics,
> fluid mechanics, and transport phenomena constitute key aspects of
> these devices.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **B.3 [OUTCOME GOAL for TOOLS:]{.underline} Providing "broadly        |
| accessible, state-of-the-art and shared research and education        |
| tools."**                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Comments:                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| > The awards of this division have broadly demonstrated               |
| > state-of-the-art and shared research and educational tools. A large |
| > portion of completed awards have shown implementation into new      |
| > technology in industry. Examples of tools developed include:        |
|                                                                       |
| CTS 9625365 - Discotic carbon, a form of carbon with the properties   |
| of a liquid crystal, was developed. While not yet well characterized, |
| they have well defined nanostructures possessing unusual mechanical   |
| and electronic properties. They can be easily and economically        |
| produced from inexpensive raw materials.                              |
|                                                                       |
| > CTS 0074428 - The findings on the effects of H~2~ on methane        |
| > combustion was explored with two gas turbine manufacturers to       |
| > determine its feasibility for improving lean premixed combustor     |
| > operability.                                                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > CTS 0078902 (an equipment grant) -- The PI constructed a high       |
| > temperature photolysis flow reactor/time of flight mass             |
| > spectrometer system for elementary kinetics studies.                |
| >                                                                     |
| > CTS 0113985 -- A method was being developed to determine in a       |
| > formalized way how uncertainty propagate through a modeling         |
| > process.                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##### PART C. OTHER TOPICS

C.1 Please comment on any program areas in need of improvement or gaps
(if any) within program areas.

The amount of CAREER funding should follow the number of proposals. Very
high quality CAREER proposals are going unfunded. The CTS receives over
700 submissions but has only a 16% success rate. This is much lower than
other divisions that receive substantially fewer proposals. The COV
believes that the dollars should follow the proposal pressure to get the
CTS success rate up to 24%.

One of the problems in effectiveness is the response rate by external
reviewers. It appears to be only 50-60%. This is a perennial problem for
all review processes. The Foundation should explore ways to improve the
response.

Reviewers often give cursory remarks in the societal impact part of the
peer review forms. Does the PD give these comments any weighting in the
funding decision? How is this quantified, and is this justified as part
of a technical review? If the reviewers and PDs do not consider it as
important, perhaps it should be rethought as part of the review process.
An unenforceable requirement is not really a requirement! Conversely, if
NSF feels the societal impact portion of the review and proposal content
is critical to the NSF mission in supporting basic research, then
clearly a better way must be found to transmit this message to the
reviewers, proposers, and the PDs.

Award size is often reduced by the PD due to the small budget available,
and this creates a hardship for the PIs in carrying out the research in
some cases. The PD is forced to decide between adequate funding for a
few proposals and miserly funding to spread the research effort to a
broader deserving community.

Nanoscale research makes up a good portion of the CTS funding, and will
probably continue to do so. Should CTS consider a reorganization that
makes nanoscale research a separate identifiable and high-profile
program element (Nanoscale Transport and Chemical Processes)? Would this
help increase the CTS profile? Are there other possible areas for
reorganization of the programs to better reflect the research mission of
CTS (Transport Processes in Bioengineering Systems; Chemical Processes
in Bioengineering Systems)?

The programs in the Division seem to be largely driven by proposal
pressure. The substantial mortgaging in previous years has left little
flexibility for the current PDs in a couple of programs. The Division
should move towards an appropriate level of mortgaging to give maximum
flexibility to pursue new opportunities.

C.2 Please provide comments as appropriate on the program's performance
in meeting program-specific goals and objectives that are not covered by
the above questions.

The documentation provided to the COV is very thorough and appears to be
expertly assembled. The inclusion of background information, especially
reviewer and PI history, is particularly helpful.

It might be useful to break down the proposals submitted to a particular
program into categories of unsolicited proposals, proposals responding
to RFPs and cross-cutting initiatives, small groups, SGERs, CAREER,
REUs, Workshops/Conferences, etc. so that funding rates for each
category can be established. It appears that funding rates for
unsolicited standard proposals (not counting SGERs, workshops, travel,
etc.) are funded at a much lower rate than might be inferred from the
overall statistics. If this impression is true, it would be worth
exploring. If funding rates are closer to 10% than to the higher rates
quoted in the statistics, it would help in understanding whether the
programs and the Division are reaching their goals in funding
fundamental research in Division programs.

The CAREER proposals are funded at a high level given program resources,
but the pressure in this division is very high. The number of quality
proposals should be expanded by providing additional funding support.

One area of concern is the disappointing number and rate of funding of
minority proposals. The number of submissions probably reflects the
still small number of minority applicants in the research community;
however, the low rate of funding must be addressed by NSF and CTS. One
possibility is to increase mentoring programs. The COV believes the PDs
should encourage higher minority success rates by helping to arrange
mentoring, or by other means. There have been successful models within
the division, notably project CTS 0090083: Workshop to Develop Minority
Faculty Leaders in Chemical Engineering. The Division should consider
offering similar workshops across all programs.

Multiscale modeling is a field that has been pioneered by mechanical and
chemical engineers in the fluid dynamics community. This field has
enormous potential and should be exploited to grow multidisciplinary
activities in CTS.

Most of the awards are to individuals or small groups. There is only one
center in CTS. The number of NIRTs and the dollars spent on them is flat
and inadequate. There are no NSECs in CTS, which seems inappropriate.
The topical content of CTS programs is appropriate for national centers.
More supervisory responsibility for some centers should come to CTS with
a corresponding increase in staff.

**C.3 Please identify agency-wide issues that should be addressed by NSF
to help improve the program\'s performance.**

The review system is overburdening the community when one takes into
account the large other types of review demands on individuals. The
Foundation should explore more use of white papers, etc. to reduce the
need for full proposals review.

The crosscutting initiatives continue to draw funding from the programs.
This stifles the ability to fund innovative proposals and channels
funding instead into programs that are management priorities. The
funding in the cross-cutting initiatives is certainly successful,
drawing many proposals and investigators into these programs. However,
it is not clear that this approach generates innovation and creativity;
and it certainly reduces the incentive to target such innovation and
creativity into other areas supported by the traditional programs.
Funding for the traditional areas should be augmented, not held level,
so that opportunities in new research areas (which may well be as
important in the future as those now heavily supported by the
cross-cutting programs) can be supported as they emerge.

C.4 Please provide comments on any other issues the COV feels are
relevant.

Expanded activities in molecular processes will have broad contributions
across engineering applications and should, therefore, be a future
thrust of CTS.

One potential problem is the continuing flat funding of individual
investigator awards in the division. New funding is almost exclusively
in broad Foundation initiatives, which comes at the expense of
discretionary funding at the PD level.

The PD of Combustion and Plasma Processes will retire at the end of
August 2003, and it appears that there are no plans regarding how the
activities will be handled. This needs to be addressed.

The COV believes that a crosscutting CTS division "summit" workshop may
help the division attack emerging research and education areas that may
fall between existing programs.

The Division has not maintained a leadership role in nano-technology as
might be expected. CTS should aggressively pursue adequate
representation on all NNI and ITR panels to insure that CTS research
areas are represented adequately. The amount of ITR funding going into
CTS is essentially non-existent. This situation must be rectified.

The PDs are doing a good job at seeking innovative proposals, but there
could still be improvement in this regard. Only 23 of the 650 awards in
CTS were NERs, and 38 were SGERs. Some programs use very few SGERs. The
PDs should be encouraged to make additional use of these grants.

CTS should be aggressive at working to get funding from multiple
divisions for quality multidisciplinary proposals. CTS should take a
leadership role in building more multidisciplinary programs. The
nanoscale program was initiated in CTS, yet a relatively small fraction
of the NNI projects are now in the Division. CTS must seek to capture a
larger fraction of the NNI projects.

**C.5 NSF would appreciate your comments on how to improve the COV
review process, format and report template.**

To allow future COVs to better assess proposal trends and success rates
in different programs, statistics should be compiled separating standard
grants to single investigators from shorter-term activities like SGERs,
MRIs, conferences, etc. The more detailed breakdown would allow the true
average award amounts and average durations of the different programs to
be determined.

The Foundation should give more emphasis to identifying important
problems and success areas, and less emphasis on a template that simply
reflects fairly well-know facts.

**SIGNATURE BLOCK:**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

For the \[Replace with Name of COV\]

\[Name of Chair of COV\]

Chair

**DIVISION OF CHEMICAL & TRANSPORT SYSTEMS**

**COMMITTEE OF VISITORS**

**June 12-13, 2003**

Dr. Linda J. Broadbelt

Department of Chemical Engineering

Northwestern University

2145 Sheridan Road

Evanston, IL 60208-3120

E-Mail: <broadbelt@northwestern.edu>

Phone : (847) 491-5351 Fax : (847) 491-3728

Dr. Juan J. DePablo

Department of Chemical Engineering

University of Wisconsin, Madison

2014 Engineering Hall

1415 Engineering Drive

Madison, WI 53706

E-Mail: <depablo@engr.wisc.edu>

Phone : (608) 262-7727 Fax : (608) 262-5434

Dr. John K. Eaton

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Stanford University

440 Escondido Mall, Building 530

Stanford, CA 94305-3030

E-Mail: <eaton@vonkarman.stanford.edu>

Phone : (650) 723-1971 Fax : (650) 723-4548

Dr. Henry C. Foley

Head and Robb Chair

Department of Chemical Engineering

The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16801

E-Mail: <hcf2@psu.edu>

Phone : (814) 865-2574 Fax : (814) 865-7846

Dr. Brian G. Higgins

Department of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science

University of California, Davis

1 Shields Avenue, 3012 Bainer Hall

Davis, CA 95616-5294

E-Mail: <bghiggins@ucdavis.edu>

Phone : (530) 752-8780 Fax : (530) 752-1031

Dr. John R. Howell

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Texas @ Austin

1 University Station C2200

Austin, TX 78712-0292

E-Mail: <jhowell@mail.utexas.edu>

Phone : (512) 471-3095 Fax : (512) 471-1045

Dr. Vijay T. John

Department of Chemical Engineering

Tulane University

Room 331, Lindy Boggs Center

New Orleans, LA 70118

E-Mail: <vijay.john@tulane.edu>

Phone : (504) 865-5883 Fax : (504) 865-6744

Dr. Lawrence A. Kennedy

Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering

University of Illinois @ Chicago

2039 Engineering Research Facility

842 W. Taylor Street

Chicago, IL 60607

E-Mail: <Lkennedy@uic.edu>

Phone : (312) 996-3440 Fax : (312) 996-8664

Dr. Babatunde A. Ogunnaike

Department of Chemical Engineering

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716

E-Mail: <ogunnaik@che.udel.edu>

Phone : (302) 831-4504 Fax : (302) 831-1048

Dr. Levi T. Thompson

Department of Chemical Engineering

University of Michigan

3074 H.H. Dow Building

2300 Hayward Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136

E-Mail: <ltt@umich.edu>

Phone : (734) 936-2015 Fax : (734) 763-0459

Dr. Timothy W. Tong (Chair)

Dean, School of Engineering & Applied Science

George Washington University

725 23^rd^ Street, N.W., Tompkins Hall

Washington, DC 20052

Mail: <tong@gwu.edu>

Phone : (202) 994-6080 Fax : (202) 994-3394

DRAFT Agenda (6/3/03)

2003 CTS Committee of Visitors

Rooms 530-580

June 12 & 13

# Thursday, June 12

+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| **W   | *        | **What**                    | **Who**            |
| hen** | *Where** |                             |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 7:30  | Room 530 | Continental Breakfast       | All                |
| am    |          |                             |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 8:00  | Room 530 | Welcome, Introductions,     | **John Brighton**, |
| am    |          | Agenda                      | Assistant Director |
|       |          |                             | for Engineering    |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          |                             | **Esin Gulari**,   |
|       |          |                             | Division Director  |
|       |          |                             | for CTS            |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          |                             | **Tim Tong**, COV  |
|       |          |                             | Chair              |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 8:30  | Room 530 | GPRA Orientation and        | **Bert Marsh,**    |
| am    |          | Conflict-of-interest        | ENG Deputy         |
|       |          | Briefing                    | Assistant          |
|       |          |                             | Director,          |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          |                             | **Bob Wellek**,    |
|       |          |                             | CTS Deputy         |
|       |          |                             | Division Director  |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 8:45  | Room 530 | Overview of CTS Programs    | **Esin Gulari**    |
| am    |          |                             |                    |
|       |          | Division Overview           | **Glenn Schrader   |
|       |          |                             | &**                |
|       |          | Chemical Reaction Processes |                    |
|       |          |                             | # Maria Burka      |
|       |          | Fluid and Particle          |                    |
|       |          | Processes                   | **Cyrus Aidun &**  |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          | Interfacial, Transport, &   | **Mike Plesniak**  |
|       |          | Separation Processes        |                    |
|       |          |                             | **Bob Wellek &**   |
|       |          | Thermal Systems             |                    |
|       |          |                             | **Tom Chapman**    |
|       |          | CTS Participation in        |                    |
|       |          | CAREER, NSE, and IGERT      | **Farley Fisher    |
|       |          |                             | &**                |
|       |          | CTS Participation in MRI    |                    |
|       |          | and TSE                     | **Richard Smith**  |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          |                             | **Geoff Prentice** |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          |                             | **Bob Wellek**     |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 10:00 |          | Break                       |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 10:15 | Room 530 | What's in a "Jacket" and    | **Tom Chapman**    |
|       |          | Where                       |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 10:30 | Room 530 | COV Team Assignments and    | **Tim Tong,** COV  |
|       |          | COV Report Plan             | Chair              |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 11:00 | Room 530 | Jacket Review               | COV team members   |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 11:00 | Room 580 | Jacket Review               | COV team members   |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 4:00  | Room 530 | COV Executive Session       | Tim Tong, COV      |
|       |          |                             | Chair and COV      |
|       |          |                             | members            |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 6:00  |          | COV Dinner at Matsutake     |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+

**Friday, June 13**

+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| **W   | *        | **What**                    | **Who**            |
| hen** | *Where** |                             |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 7:30  | Room 530 | Continental Breakfast       | All COV            |
| am    |          |                             |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 8:00  | Room 530 | Discussion and Goals for    | All COV            |
|       |          | the Day                     |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 10:00 | Room 530 | Additional Jacket Review    | COV team members   |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 10:00 | Room 580 | Additional Jacket Review    | COV team members   |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 11:00 | Room 530 | Discussion of Draft COV     | COV chair and      |
|       |          | Report                      | members            |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 12:00 | Room 530 | Working Lunch               |                    |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 2:00  | Room 530 | Presentation of COV         | COV chair and      |
|       |          | Findings to the CTS         | members            |
|       |          | Division Director and       |                    |
|       |          | Program Directors           | CTS DD and PDs     |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| 3:00  | Room 530 | Feedback from COV to ENG AD | COV Chair and      |
|       |          | and DAD                     | Members            |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          |                             | John Brighton, ENG |
|       |          |                             | AD                 |
|       |          |                             |                    |
|       |          |                             | Bert Marsh, ENG    |
|       |          |                             | DAD                |
+-------+----------+-----------------------------+--------------------+