Directorate for Engineering (ENG) Advisory Committee Meeting

**November 3-4, 2004**

#### Holiday Inn

**Arlington, VA**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

**[Members Present:]{.underline}**

**Professor Linda P.B. Katehi, Chair**, School of Engineering, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN

**Professor Lisa Alvarez-Cohen**, Dept. of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA

**Dr. Francine Berman**, Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering,
Univ. of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA

**Dr. James E. Bernard**, Virtual Reality Applications Center, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa

**Dr. Joan F. Brenneke**, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Notre Dame
University, Notre Dame, IN

**Dr. Legand Burge, Jr.** College of Engineering, Architecture &
Physical Sciences, Tuskegee Univ., Tuskegee, AL

**Dr. Chris Busch,** Consultant, Ronan, MT

**Professor Lesia Crumpton-Young**, Industrial Engineering & Management
Systems, Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL

**Dr. Henry C. Foley,** Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA

**Dr. Janie M Fouke**, College of Engineering, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI

**Dr. Sarah J. Hood,** Woodbury, CT

**Professor Kristina M. Johnson**, School of Engineering, Duke
University, Durham, NC

**Dr, Marshall Jones,** GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY,

**Dr. Debra S. Knopman,** RAND Science and Technology, Arlington, VA

**Dr. Enrique J. Lavernia,** College of Engineering, University of
California, Davis, CA

**Dr. Gary S. May, Vice Chair,** Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA

**Dr. Larry V. McIntire,** Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

**Dr. Susan Staffin Metz,** Lore-El Center for Women in Engineering and
Science, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ

**Dr. Richard K. Miller,** Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering,
Needham, MA

**Dr. Cherri M. Pancake,** School of Electrical Engineering & Computer
Science, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR

**Dr. Winfred Phillips,** University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

**Dr. Jacquelyn Sullivan**, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

**Dr. Alan I. Taub,** GM Research and Development, Warren, MI

**[Members Absent:]{.underline}**

**Dr. Denice Denton,** College of Engineering, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA

**Dr. Patricia Galloway,** The Nielsen-Wurster Group, Inc, Seattle, WA

**[ENG Senior Staff Present]{.underline}**

**John A. Brighton, A**ssistant Director for Engineering

**Michael Reischman**, Deputy Assistant Director for Engineering

**Warren DeVries**, Division Director, Design, Manufacturing, Industrial
Innovation (DMII)

**Gary Gabriele**, Division Director, Engineering Education and Centers
(EEC)

**Galip Ulsoy**, Division Director, Civil and Mechanical Systems (CMS)

**Richard Buckius**, Division Director, Chemical Transport Systems (CTS)

**Usha Varshney**, Acting Division Director, Electrical and
Communication Systems (ECS)

**Bruce Hamilton**, Acting Division Director, Bioengineering and
Environmental Systems (BES)

**Jo Culbertson**, Staff Associate for Planning and Evaluation

**Darren Dutterer**, Staff Associate for Budget

**Deborah Young**, Administrative Officer

**Priscilla Nelson**, Senior Advisor for Engineering

**Mihail Roco**, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology

**Glenn Larsen**, Systems Engineer

**Garie Fordyce**, Computer Specialist

The fall meeting of the Directorate for Engineering's Advisory Committee
(ENG AdCom) was held at the Holiday Inn in Arlington, VA on November
3-4, 2004.

*November 3, 2004*

## Introductory Remarks and Approval of May 2004 Minutes

Dr. Linda Katehi, AdCom Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
and welcomed the attendees. She introduced the following new members:
Dr. Cherri Pancake, Dr. Winfred M. Phillips, Dr. Francine Berman, Dr.
Jacquelyn Sullivan, Dr. Judy Vance, Dr. Marshall Jones, and Dr. Lesia L.
Crumpton-Young. Dr. Katehi asked the group to prepare questions for Dr.
Arden Bement, Director, NSF. The minutes of the May 2004 meeting were
approved without change.

## Update and Activities Overview

Dr. John Brighton, Assistant Director, ENG, introduced new ENG staff:
Gary Gabriele, Director, Division of Engineering Education and Centers
(EEC); Richard Buckius, Director, Division of Chemical Transport Systems
(CTS); Abhijit Deshmukh and Kevin Lyons, Division of Design,
Manufacturing and Industrial Innovation, (DMII); Parveen F.Wahid,
Division of Electrical and Communication Systems (ECS); and Patrick
Carriere, Torin Edwards, and Shalika Walton, (EEC) and Garie Fordyce,
EPSCoR.

Dr. Brighton said the meeting would focus on topics suggested at the
last meeting, a discussion on current ENG activities, task group
activities, and plans for the future. He stated that the purpose of the
Directorate is to provide leadership and support for the engineering and
scientific communities to advance the frontiers of engineering research,
innovation, and education. He stressed that proposals submitted to ENG
should integrate research and education and diversity.

At a recent meeting with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the following topics
were suggested for emphasis in FY 2006:

-   Homeland Security R&D

-   Networking and Information Technology R&D

-   Nanotechnology

-   Priorities of the Physical Sciences

-   Biology of Complex Systems

-   Climate, Water, and Hydrogen R&D.

    [New activities in ENG.]{.underline} Dr. Brighton reported on the
    new activities in ENG: the Network for Earthquake Engineering
    Simulation (NEES) has become operational; there is a call for
    proposals in sensors; and the cyberinfrastructure theme. The Small
    Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program has been reorganized and
    will operate as a separate office within ENG. There are now 15 NEES
    project sites in the U.S., with awards totaling \$30 M in FY 2004,
    and another \$10 M expected for FY 2005. There are partnerships
    underway with the Japan E-Defense shake table facility and with the
    Directorate for Computer Information in Science and Engineering
    (CISE). CISE is directing the cyberinfrastructure theme within the
    Foundation and ENG is working with them to determine engineering
    needs in that area.

    [ENG Task Groups.]{.underline} Dr. Brighton reviewed the charges to
    the ENG Task Groups: Strategic Thinking Group; Awards Impact and
    Assessment; Awards and Solicitations; Making the Case for
    Engineering; Engineering Organization and Structure; and Engineering
    Workforce. The Strategic Thinking Group has prepared a draft summary
    report of the task groups' progress to date. Their objectives are to
    strengthen ENG to make the case within NSF to provide necessary
    funds, and to prioritize proposals and make them more focused. AdCom
    members are assigned to each task group. Critical issues for
    discussion among the task groups are diversity and the workforce.
    There is much work to do to improve the number of underrepresented
    minorities and women in the field of engineering. The number of
    doctoral candidates in engineering has been reduced by 24 percent
    because of the difficulties foreign nationals are having obtaining
    visas. China is now producing engineers by a factor of 10 to 1 over
    the U.S.

    NSF's FY 2005 funding request to Congress was for a 3 percent
    increase to \$5.7 B; however ENG will see a 2.2 percent increase.
    There will probably be no increases in the budget over the next 5
    years. ENG funding trends show a modest decline over the last 5
    years for funding the core disciplines with a slight increase in the
    priority areas.

## Overview of the Nanotechnology Science and Engineering Program (NS&E) {#overview-of-the-nanotechnology-science-and-engineering-program-nse .unnumbered}

Dr. M.C. Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology, NSF, reported on the
major changes in the first 3 years of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI), and the plans for the next 5 years. He noted that
nanotechnology is reaching at the foundation of matter and has long-term
societal implications to improve knowledge, the quality of life, and the
environment; and to create a foundation for a new industrial revolution.

The first generation focused on passive nanostructures such as coatings,
nanoparticles, nanostructured metals, polymers, and ceramics. The second
generation (FY 2005) will produce active nanostructures such as
transistors, amplifiers, targeted drugs, actuators and adaptive
structures. The third and fourth generations (FY 2010-FY 2020) will
focus on nanosystems. The U.S. has contributed approximately one-fourth
of the total funds spent worldwide on nanotechnology to date. NSF has
been the largest contributor of all of the government agencies involved.
An interagency group coordinates all agency activities.

There are currently 2,000 projects, 14 large centers, 2 user facilities,
and multidisciplinary teams working in nanotechnology. ENG has had a
leading role because nanotechnology deals with systems at the nanoscale,
is integrative and interdisciplinary, and is a transforming tool. ENG
also collaborates with other NSF directorates. At present, there are 270
courses in nanotechnology offered at universities. The trend is to
introduce nanotechnology earlier. In 2003, nanotechnology was introduced
at the high school level and plans are to introduce it at the K-12 level
in 2004 and 2005. The announcement currently being prepared will target
informal education such as museums, as well.

The Nanoscale Science and Engineering Program had a 10 percent success
rate for proposal awards for FY 2001, FY 2002, and FY 2003. The FY 2003
budget was \$221 M with \$71 M for the solicitation and \$150 M for the
core. The research has produced a Network for Computational
Nanotechnology (NCN); a National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
(NNIN); and the Oklahoma NanoNet (an EPSCoR award). The first three
years of NNI have caused major effects on industry, innovation and
venture funding; revenues from nanotechnology; states and regional
alliances; professional societies; and government investment. There have
also been broad societal implications.

Follow up activities resulting from the Workshop on Societal
Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology held in 2000 includes:

-   Making support for social, ethical, and economic research studies a
    priority (NNI);

-   The establishment of National Nanotechnology Coordination (NNCO)
    which communicates with the public and addresses environmental,
    health, and safety issues;

-   Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET's)
    Nanostructures Environmental and Health Issues Working Group (12
    agencies involved).

-   A workshop with NSF and the European Commission (EC) in 2002.

## Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NS&E) Committee of Visitors (COV) Report {#nanoscale-science-and-engineering-nse-committee-of-visitors-cov-report .unnumbered}

Dr. Lynn W. Jelinski, Committee of Visitors (COV) Chair, Nanoscale
Science and Engineering (NS&E) Program, provided a summary of the
committee's activities and recommendations prepared by the group at May
2004 meeting. The COV worked with SRI to coordinate success rates and
review the program.

The COV overall found all aspects of NSF's performance to be of
exceptionally high performance and graded the activity as excellent in
terms of Organizational Excellence, People, Ideas, and Outcomes; however
they thought there is room for improvement in Tools. The quality of the
reviewers was rated as "excellent", but a more comprehensive and/or
tailored reviewer's form would be beneficial. They also felt that
research at the intersection between biology and nanoscience is not
being sufficiently explored by the program. Although the award rate was
good for new Principal Investigators (PIs) and for women PIs, it is
still not high enough for underrepresented minorities. A specific
concern was that there are gaps in our knowledge such as: What are the
societal implications of nanotechnology? How do we manufacture
nanostructures? Do we understand the toxicity? How do we integrate
nanoscale devices? The Committee learned, however, that steps have
already been taken to address these gaps.

After 3 years of investment, a Nanotechnology community of researchers
and educators has been created. NSF has provided excellent leadership in
this multi-agency effort.

Dr. Katehi asked for a motion to approve the COV. The report was
accepted with a minor revision on page 16: changing the numbers on the
graph from 00 to N/A. Dr. Katehi also asked that future COV reports
include a list of abbreviations.

## Status of the NAE Study "Assessing the Capacity of the US Engineering Research Enterprise" {#status-of-the-nae-study-assessing-the-capacity-of-the-us-engineering-research-enterprise .unnumbered}

Dr. James Duderstadt noted that the National Academy of Engineering
(NAE) was charged with conducting a fast track evaluation of the
capacity of US engineering and assessing the adequacy of public and
private investment.

The National Innovation Initiative (NII) was created to set in place
policies to insure preeminence of innovation in the US. The NAE focused
their discussions on ways to work with the NII. In order to capture the
attention of industry, they stressed that the key to success in business
is innovation, particularly technological innovation, in which
engineering research is the bridge. There are opportunities in economic
competitiveness and global challenges. Also there is a growing concern
related to national security. The intent was to synthesize the
information and make recommendations. Threats to technological
innovation are budget constraints, a weak domestic student pool, and not
enough underrepresented or women in the field.

The study recommended the creation of *Discovery/Innovation Institutes*
to be supported by Federal and State Government, industry,
entrepreneurs, and universities. Their purpose would be to link science
disciplines with societal application, produce innovations, retrain
engineers, and build infrastructure; work with agriculture, academic,
and medical centers; and use campus, private and public sector linkages.
The study recognized ENG's ability to bring interested groups together
and play a leadership role in recognizing the need for increased support
for engineering education and the changing nature of the discipline.

Responses to the groups' recommendations were:

-   Technological innovation is important for economic prosperity and
    the well being of the nation.

-   Engineering needs public investment.

-   ENG should play a leadership role.

-   Support for engineering education should be increased.

-   The changing nature of the science disciplines should be recognized.

-   More global involvement is required since other nations are making
    those investments.

    The challenge is to think in terms of huge financial investments
    (multi-billion dollar range), to think of new paradigms and devices,
    to make a compelling case to work interactively with engineers and
    the stakeholders, and to realize that this will be a long-term
    investment in time.

    Dr. Busch asked Dr. Duderstadt to elaborate on the
    industry/university participation. He responded that it would be
    necessary to change the university culture so that their primary
    focus would be to transfer their research into industry. For this it
    will be necessary for universities to simplify their process.

    Dr. Berman noted that although the study recommendations are very
    comprehensive, would they move us from vision to reality and what
    could the AdCom do to help? Dr. Duderstadt said that there has to be
    a sustained effort to build coalitions among the agencies, and a
    global hyper-driven economy. The European Union (EU) has more funds
    but innovation will be the key to our success. He remarked that
    diversity is very important since every state will be involved, but
    it has to be addressed on a national level.

    Dr. Johnson said that the innovation centers that were recommended
    will have a great impact on institutions, including engineering and
    business schools, and suggested that the deans of these schools be
    enlisted to help. Dr. Katehi said the American Society for
    Engineering Education (ASEE) has made a commitment to push the
    report forward. The next step is to give the report to Congress and
    the OSTP.

## Engineer of 2020: A High-Risk, High-Pay-Off Approach {#engineer-of-2020-a-high-risk-high-pay-off-approach .unnumbered}

Dr. Wayne Clough, President, Georgia Institute of Technology, said that
in the past engineering and engineering education were reactive, just
responding to change, but now it is time to reverse the paradigm in
order to shape a significant and dynamic role for the profession. NAE
has produced a report, "The Engineer of 2020", to highlight the future
in four areas: breakthroughs in technology, demographics, challenges,
and economic/societal forces. Our population is more diverse and will
grow by 25 percent by 2020, with a large ratio in Asia. There is
sustained investment in higher education in other countries. The most
important challenges noted are fresh water shortages, aging
infrastructure, energy demands, global warming, new diseases, and
security.

Scenarios that were considered in the planning were: The Next Scientific
Revolution; The Biotechnology Revolution in a Societal Context; and The
Natural World Interrupts the Technology; and Global Conflict/
Globalization.

The hope is to create a public that understand the impact of engineering
on socio-cultural systems and on addressing the world's complex
challenges. The aim is to produce engineers well grounded in the
humanities, social sciences, and economics who will lead the way toward
wise, informed, economical, and sustainable development. Much of this
can be accomplished by changing the engineering curricula and related
educational programs to create an education that prepares the students
for positions of leadership. In order to affect the changes necessary,
educators must provide an education, not just curriculum and coordinate
with industry. Implementation of these goals will require workshops.

Points made in the discussion that followed were:

-   Dr. Johnson noted that 2020 is not far off and asked how we can get
    children to continue studying math beyond the required years so they
    can become engineers. Dr. Clough said needed partnerships in math
    and science should be replicated and standards developed so that all
    children learn math and sciences; however many of the teachers don't
    have the necessary skills. Dr. Metz suggested training engineering
    graduates as teachers.

-   Dr. Knopman suggested analyzing the dynamics of the
    marketplace/labor to see if we're on target for 2020. Dr. Clough
    said the tendency is to look at projections and see that the supply
    is adequate, but we should make young people realize that with an
    engineering degree, the path is wide open. The AdCom agreed that the
    engineering field is not doing enough to attract students in K-12. A
    new model and approach is necessary. Dr. Clough replied that K-12
    education is controlled at the local level; the Federal Government
    only provides 10 percent.

-   Dr. Pancake suggested a systems approach to get engineering courses
    into other programs, such as liberal arts. If we want engineering to
    permeate, can we ask the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
    Technology (ABET) to help effect change? Dr. Clough said that first
    we would need to have pilots to show that this would work.

-   Dr. Wu suggested showing a connection between engineering and
    everyday life and how engineers provide services in which
    engineering principles are required. Dr. Clough said we must educate
    engineering students for careers, and not just jobs. He is concerned
    that in 2020 other countries will have many more engineers. In order
    to attract more people to pursue engineering careers, we must
    motivate them by creating innovative programs.

-   Dr. Katehi said she agrees that the engineering curriculum needs to
    be changed over time. She said that ABET must be included because
    they would impose restrictions. Dr. Clough said we have to change
    industry and academia by experimentation and by using the best
    models and practices.

## Presentation to Dr. Kristina Johnson {#presentation-to-dr.-kristina-johnson .unnumbered}

Dr. Brighton expressed thanks to Dr. Kristina Johnson for her
contribution as former Advisory Committee Chair and presented her with a
crystal gavel in appreciation of her service.

## The ENG Strategic Thinking Group Report and Plenary Discussion {#the-eng-strategic-thinking-group-report-and-plenary-discussion .unnumbered}

Dr. Francine Berman reported on comments gathered from the AdCom
Liaisons to the Strategic Thinking Group (STG). Dr. Berman said the role
of the Strategic Thinking Group AdCom liaisons is to listen, learn, and
develop an understanding of the activities of ENG's Strategic Thinking
Group. AdCom members can provide an outside perspective and serve as a
resource to the group.

The products of the STG effort are to develop a set of priorities for
guidance; to make ENG more visible and more integrated within the larger
science and engineering community; to develop a clearer message of the
contribution of engineering; and to encourage broader participation. The
STG is considering how to best focus ENG efforts and how the AdCom and
the community can best support these efforts. Factors to be included are
the key environmental parameters for ENG; the NSF budget; NSF
leadership, priorities, and culture; engineering community acceptance;
and congressional approval and acceptance. They looked at opportunities
for engineering, e.g. what will science, engineering, and technology
look like in 2020?

The AdCom can assist in these efforts by working with ENG to establish
clear priorities and promote them in the community; help with the
process as well as the goals; help identify long-term trends; provide
engineering grand challenges and emergent opportunities.

Dr. Kesh Narayanan, Chair, STG, said the charge to the STG was to
provide a long-range planning and implementation to ENG; a 5-10-year
roadmap; action plans, performance objectives, and metrics; flexible
strategies within the context of NSF's strategic plan; and a
recommendation to Dr. Brighton. The NSF strategic plan is a good base
for ENG's strategic plan and its shared vision: "Engineering
(Directorate) is the acknowledged leader in advancing the frontiers of
engineering research, innovation and education in partnership with the
engineering community, and in service to society and the Nation."

The STG process outline includes: Situational Analysis; ENG The Long
View; NSF Strategic Plan: High Performance Organization Workshop; PEST
(Political/Economic/Societal/Technological; SWOT
(Strength/Weakness/Opportunity/Threat; and Time-Difficulty Matrix. The
five task groups studied strengths and weaknesses of the ENG program.

The strengths are as follows:

-   Image and reputation (merit review process);

-   High involvement of S&E community;

-   A nimble, not entrenched operating style;

-   Top notch staff (enriched by IPA/rotators); and

-   Rich and diverse partnerships with industry.

    Weaknesses noted are:

-   Frequent leadership changes (AD/DD);

-   Low success rates (of proposals);

-   Narrowly defined and fragmented organizational structure;

-   Insufficient investment in innovation (bridging research and
    applications); and

-   Too many solicitations.

    There are opportunities to:

-   Redefine role in innovation (bridge research, education and
    application);

-   Define the ENG role in engineering linkages into education at all
    levels;

-   Provide ENG leadership in innovation and education to be globally
    competitive;

-   Define the ENG role in building and evolving cyberinfrastructure;
    and

-   Develop a process for setting priorities (seize opportunities).

    Threats and Concerns are:

-   Future budget constraints;

-   Lack of diversity within engineering workforce;

-   Global economy (outsourcing engineering including design R&D);

-   Increasing proposals decreases success rate; and

-   Engineering lost in national discussion (at NSF, OMB, Congress).

    The STG's charge is to aggregate opportunities and identify
    strategic goals by discussions with other working groups to develop
    implementation plans for goals related to their tasks. Future plans
    are to integrate other working groups' goals and plans and develop
    ENG shared values by December 15 with a retreat to discuss STG
    products early in 2005 and finalize the ENG strategy implementation
    plan in April 2005. A final report would be presented to the AdCom
    in May 2005.

    Dr. Katehi said that she is concerned about the stability of the
    group because of NSF's rotating Program Officers. Dr. Narayanan said
    that most of the members of the STG are permanent staff.

## ENG Committee/Task Group Charges and Activities {#eng-committeetask-group-charges-and-activities .unnumbered}

Dr. Priscilla P. Nelson, Senior Advisor, ENG, said that the STG will
break into five task groups: Strategic Thinking Group; Making the Case;
Awards Impact and Assessment: and Organization and Structure. Each group
will include an AdCom lead person, and an ENG lead. A preliminary list
of ENG Opportunities was generated by the STG. Each task group was asked
to identify five opportunities that they consider to be the most
important, and add to the list any opportunities that may be missing.

The ENG AdCom liaison charge is to receive and review reports and draft
documents prepared by the ENG committee or task force; participate in an
open breakout discussion with a focus on the AdCom liaison's thoughts,
reactions and ideas; provide input for a report on the breakout
discussion; and participate in a discussion of the breakout conclusions
with the AdCom.

The AdCom broke for task group discussions at 2:15 p.m. and reconvened
at 4:15 p.m.

## Committee for Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering (CEOSE)  {#committee-for-equal-opportunity-in-science-and-engineering-ceose .unnumbered}

Dr. Lilian Wu, CEOSE liaison, reported on current activities of that
committee. She said its mission is to provide NSF with advice on efforts
to develop a competent and diverse workforce. The committee is preparing
a 10-year historical report on the workforce comprised of three parts:

-   Trends in NSF funding, award rate of proposals, and NSF workforce;

-   NSF diversity policies and programs; and

-   CEOSE recommendations and values.

    The group is evaluating whether there have been any changes in the
    participation of underrepresented groups within the science and
    engineering fields and whether there has been any collaboration
    among minority serving institutions. Also being evaluated is the
    success of Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) and Science and
    Technical Centers (STCs) in implementing the broader impact
    criterion. An initial site visit was conducted to determine whether
    those programs affect the diversity of research participants.

    The ERCs were asked to do the following:

-   Execute a diversity strategic plan;

-   Form sustained partnerships with affiliated deans and department
    chairs;

-   Develop outreach connections with female and underrepresented
    minority institutions as core or outreach partners;

-   Develop outreach with at least one Louis Stokes Alliances for
    Minority Participation (LSAMP) and one or more AGET, Tribal Colleges
    and Universities Program (TCUP), Centers for Research Excellence in
    Science and Technology (CREST) through Research Experience for
    Undergraduates (REU) opportunities;

-   Introduce a diverse cadre of pre-college students to engineering;
    and

-   Operate a diversity-oriented REU and Research Experiences for
    Teachers (RET) program.

Dr. Young asked what type of data they used to determine whether
proposals that don't address the broader impact are being declined. An
ENG program manager said that have been collecting statistics and have
observed a good trend and are following them up. DMII returned 25
proposals that didn't address broader impact. Dr. Young suggested that
all of the ENG program managers collect data on the number of proposals
returned because they didn't address broader impact.

## Diversity in the NSF S&E Workforce Committee Report

Garie Fordyce reported on the plan set forth by the NSF Diversity
Working Group that is currently under review by senior management at
NSF. The biennial report to Congress in FY 2000 made a recommendation
that NSF seek equitable distribution of underrepresented minorities,
women, and persons with disabilities at all staff levels throughout NSF;
continue the policy of embedding diversity at all levels and in all
programs throughout NSF; and delineate strategies for implementing this
policy and establish measures of accountability. Those recommendations
became important drivers to the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) plan for FY 2004.

One of the first challenges was in realizing that diversity had various
definitions, but finally settled on one: differences in race, color,
national origin, religion, gender, and disability. Later, another
dimension was added\--geographic diversity, and diversity of experiences
in academic and professional institutions, such as community colleges as
well as major universities.

There are many challenges in studying the NSF workplace environment in
order to gather statistics because the staff is divided into distinct
categories with little movement between groups; there is a 25 percent
turnover of S&E staff due to temporary appointments and IPAs; and there
has been a high rate of retirement over the last 3 years.

Findings as of January 2004 are that the ratio of male employees over
female is 60 percent male to 40 percent female; and there are 82 percent
white, 7 percent Black, 6.3 percent Asian, 4.3 percent Hispanic, and .6
percent American Indian.

The committee recognized that most of the decisions on hiring are done
at the directorate level so guidelines were prepared for the
directorates to address diversity issues. The guidelines directed that
the directorates develop a baseline diversity plan, submit a diversity
report to the Office of the Director at the end of each year, and the
Office of the Director will provide review results of the plans to the
appropriate Assistant Directors.

The committee recommended that NSF publicize diversity goals and
accomplishments, link diversity plans to NSF-wide performance goals,
recognize and reward successes, and extend S&E diversity plans to
include all of NSF's workforce. Further, the working group recommended
recruitment initiatives and outreach activities, such as conducting
workshops and developing partnerships.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

##### November 4, 2004

Dr. Katehi called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.

## Reconvene in Plenary and Report on Breakout Discussions (Advisory Committee Member Liaisons)

**Making the Case (CASE) Task Group**

Dr. Burge, AdCom lead, said they selected two priorities that they
considered to be the most relevant from the *ENG Opportunities
Preliminary List Generated by the STG* and suggested three new
priorities. Priorities selected from the list are:

-   Develop a process for setting priorities that allows the Directorate
    to seize emerging opportunities, respond to fiscal challenges and to
    build support among ENG staff and managers.

-   Promote global competitiveness by taking on the innovation
    leadership role within ENG and education leadership role for an
    agile engineering workforce;

    New priorities suggested were:

-   Improve continuity in senior leadership in order to better leverage
    experience and institutional memory (like some other directorates).

-   Take advantage of national priorities in innovation and technology
    to rename NSF to reflect engineering contributions.

-   Actively support and embrace K-12 engineering education initiatives.

    The task group felt their charge was too broad and its breadth
    distracts from the key priority. They agreed the targets are NSF,
    OMB, Congress, and the public, but there is a need to redefine what
    they are trying to accomplish. ENG's R&D funding is insufficient to
    ensure homeland security and social and economic development. The
    recommendations should be reframed for each of the target audiences.
    They suggested creating a distinguished lecture series; refining
    their plan to better focus on an engineering portfolio; help NSF,
    OMB, and Congress to develop a long-term strategic vision and
    flexible partnerships to societies; and be a public catalyst to
    develop and nationalize community involvement.

### Organization and Structure (O/S) Task Group  {#organization-and-structure-os-task-group .unnumbered}

Dr. Phillips, AdCom lead, said key themes are to increase innovation,
budget, impact on education, and impact on social welfare and to and
improve management within NSF. The group's charge was to look at what
engineering education and research would be like over the next 30 years,
particularly in multidisciplinary research and in response to emerging
priorities. They discussed what structure or organizational models ENG
could adopt to lead that transformation:

-   A zero base, clean sheet view (budget), aligned by multidisciplinary
    priority areas;

-   Interaction with the rest of NSF;

-   Nurturing the disciplines for multidisciplinary capacity;

-   Remaining responsive to internal and external missions;

-   Using a matrix model (old, well-tried approach);

-   Reducing the number of divisions by consolidation.

    Dr. Brighton commented that ENG is unique at NSF in that whatever
    science is doing, ENG works with that science and carries it to the
    next level. Other sciences do not cross over to the same extent. Dr.
    Brighton said all directorates are involved in the
    cyberinfrastructure theme. CISE takes the lead but all ADs are
    involved and it is structured as a cross cutting program. Dr. Berman
    suggested that ENG become more fully involved and be more proactive
    in the cyberinfrastructure theme. Dr. Pancake suggested a discussion
    with Dr. Bement about ENG taking a leadership role stressing that
    the ENG Directorate is highly organized. Dr. Katehi said she would
    ask a CISE representative to address the AdCom at the next meeting.

    **Awards Impact and Assessment (AIA) Task Group**

    The key themes of this group are education, innovation, risk, and
    interaction within and outside of NSF. Dr. Hood, AdCom lead, said
    that their task group has responsibility to assess what is going on
    in innovation and in new subject areas, and their impact for OMB,
    NSF leadership, and the public. Their source will be GPRA reports,
    COVs, and independent reviews of engineering centers. Activities,
    performance indicators (qualitative and quantitative), methods, and
    scope of projects will be assessed. The group supports what NSF has
    done through FastLane and GPRA nuggets. The assessment is crucial
    for making the case in engineering.

    Dr. Wu noted that another area that needs to be assessed is the US
    in comparison with other countries; however that is already being
    evaluated at NSF. Dr. Lavernia reiterated the importance of
    innovation because there is a risk of viewing engineering as just a
    means of enabling science. Dr. Brighton remarked that ENG does well
    at the front end in assessing proposals but should follow through
    and assess the outcome as well.

### Awards and Solicitations (A/A) Task Group  {#awards-and-solicitations-aa-task-group .unnumbered}

Dr. Foley, AdCom lead, noted that the drivers for the study were:

-   Strategic planning\--for optimal use of limited money, locating the
    source of the funds and finding out whether the money was well
    spent; and

-   To provide accurate answers in real time to inquiries from "on
    high".

    The task group recommended:

-   The development of an investment portfolio for hard to access
    funding information and an extensive study of FastLane award data to
    define the research portfolio;

-   Program managers and division directors organize their portfolios
    heuristically and intuitively and they should be documented every 3
    years across ENG;

-   ENG should investigate investment in and/or design an optimal
    enterprise management system;

-   The Directorate should conduct a review of proposal generating
    mechanisms and hold an annual strategic planning retreat for all of
    ENG; and

-   There should be a proper balance between ENG-driven initiatives and
    the initiatives suggested by the community at large.

    In comparing standard versus continuing grants, the task group noted
    that an increase in continuing grants could have an effect on
    increasing success rates. Success rates are low and are decreasing
    and the cost of proposal preparation and submission is increasing.
    The group suggested limiting the number of proposals per PI or per
    institution; discrete submission windows; and focused interest areas
    in solicitations and announcements. Other possibilities for
    improving success rates are to do only CAREER grants and reinstate
    Principal Young Investigator Awards.

## Discussion and Preparation for Meeting with NSF Leadership {#discussion-and-preparation-for-meeting-with-nsf-leadership .unnumbered}

The AdCom suggested the following items for discussion with Drs. Bement
and Bordogna:

-   How do you respond to the outlook of a flat budget? With this in
    mind, what do you want NSF to be? Is its role to lead, facilitate,
    or enable?

-   Given the projected lack of growth in the NSF budget and in ENG, and
    given the heavy weight of NEES funding on the ENG budget, what
    options are there for funding this off the top of the Foundation's
    budget or by some other creative means?

-   Discuss the ENG role in Cyberinfrastructure.

-   If ENG works hard to change its structure to address national needs
    and impact engineering research, will the agency support and
    accommodate these ideas?

-   Does NSF play a role in effecting engineering research policies?

-   What process does the agency follow to assess success in the
    directorates?

## Meeting with Drs. Bement and Bordogna {#meeting-with-drs.-bement-and-bordogna .unnumbered}

Dr. Bement thanked the AdCom for their service. He commented that he has
been promoting the concepts on leadership in engineering suggested at
the last meeting. He noted the budget situation at NSF and the
continuing resolution for the upcoming year. The FY 2006 budget has been
submitted to OMB and the priority is for broadening participation,
encouraging directorates across NSF to engage undergraduate and graduate
students as well as post docs. The cyberinfrastructure theme has
resulted in a lot of interaction with other agencies. The future will
bring developments in high end computing, data storage, and
cyberinfrastructure, developing networks that will be more adaptable to
science. ENG will be involved in developing the tailored architectures,
middleware, and graphic interfaces for simulation and modeling. Dr.
Bement said he foresees Centers addressing these problems of
engineering. He spoke about increasing exchanges in order to do research
on a global scale as well as institutionally. He visited Mexico recently
and discussed their interest in NEES.

Dr. Katehi remarked that there had been discussions on the important
activities at ENG, and the COV for Nanotechnology revealed new research
directions. She opened the floor to questions for Dr. Bement.

Dr. Thompson noted that over some time the ENG Directorate has been
working with a new vision statement. As you read it, you see terms like
"enabling" and we think we should add "leadership". Does NSF lead,
promote, enable, or facilitate research? Dr. Bement responded that NSF
is a foundation, and not an agency. We take our guidance from the
science and engineering community so our leadership is a mirror image
and is in prioritizing. We are trying to increase our resources but are
about \$18 B short, so we have to make sure that our direction is where
critical mass and success will happen. Dr. Bordogna added that
nanotechnology is big, but is really an enabler and he also thinks of
ENG as an enabler.

Dr. Foley said that the weight of NEES would have an effect on the
success rate falling below 10 percent. What innovations are you
considering to help alleviate the problem? Dr. Bement said if you
promote a program you would have more people applying. He shares the
concern about the success rate; it was caused by increased grant size
and duration. But we are trying to rebuild the core disciplines and we
need to focus our proposals to allow the success rate to rise, hopefully
to 30 percent. Dr. May asked what is the response of ENG to support
broad-based initiatives like NEES? Dr. Bordogna said that NEES is not an
initiative, it is a tool, the first prototype in the world and it is
accessible to more researchers and also available to high school
teachers so it broadens participation.

Dr. Pancake commented that cyberinfrastructure is now part of the
vernacular and everyone is looking at NSF for leadership and for a
highly robust infrastructure that has to be made from scratch. As a
committee we are pleased that the cyberinfrastructure theme exists, but
there is no road map. Shouldn't ENG have a leadership role since it's
infrastructure rather than research? Dr. Bement responded that
cyberinfrastructure is agency-wide. The approach of NSF is that the
science community should determine what the cyberinfrastructure should
be for the science. Within the Foundation, there has to be leadership
within each of the directorates. It will also require leadership through
the Office of the Director, but ENG should play a strong role.

Dr. Crumpton-Young asked what role NSF plays in affecting national
engineering policies. Dr. Bement responded that there are lots of
committees in the world in place to discuss new research and they are
interactive with professional societies and academies. The NSB helps the
Federal Government set science policy and interacts with Congress
through testimony and hearings. Dr. Young asked if he envisions
development of a national engineering research agenda. Dr. Bement said
that engineering is a transition between the science and the public, and
we should be assertive in keeping ENG in research and development
policy.

Dr. Knopman asked how one measures the success of a directorate other
than through GPRA. Dr. Bement answered that COVs, advisory committees,
and other mechanisms evaluate success. If change is suggested, then it
is implemented.

Dr. Katehi said that the AdCom is very excited that NSF is revitalizing
itself because it presents an opportunity for the ENG Directorate to
take a leadership role. She asked him for advice on how the AdCom can
help ENG to become the best directorate at NSF. Dr. Bement responded
that Dr. Brighton has been very proactive and advised the AdCom to work
through him. Dr. Katehi thanked Dr. Bement and Dr. Bordogna for their
visit.

## Summary of Discussions on STG Priorities {#summary-of-discussions-on-stg-priorities .unnumbered}

Dr Berman restated the draft vision statement for the STG document: "The
Engineering Directorate is the acknowledged leader in advancing the
frontiers of engineering research, innovation, and education, in
partnership with the engineering community and in service to society and
the nation." Each task group was provided a list of 20
opportunities/priorities for ENG, and asked to select 5 that they
considered to be the most important.

Dr. Berman tabulated the selections by the task groups and found that
several of the same priorities were chosen by more than one of the
groups:

-   Promote global competitiveness by taking on the innovation
    leadership role within ENG and education leadership role for an
    agile engineering workforce.

-   Develop a process for setting priorities that allows the Directorate
    to seize emerging opportunities, respond to fiscal challenges and to
    build support among ENG staff and manager.

-   Develop a comprehensive strategy for interaction with industry and
    develop HR to implement effectively.

-   Establish stronger linkages to education at all levels to increase
    ENG's contribution to building a 21^st^ engineering workforce.

-   Selling ENG to society: linked to addressing important societal
    problems.

    Each of the following priorities was chosen by only one group:

-   ENG should support the creation of innovation in instrumentation to
    support science and engineering.

-   Develop a process and incentives for supporting high-risk
    opportunities.

-   Capitalizing on Nanotechnology investments.

-   Create a national voice for engineering.

-   Cross agency/foundation/community cooperation to develop "bigger"
    visibility for engineering.

    New priorities proposed by some of the groups are:

-   Seize the interdisciplinary opportunity in ENG of Nano/BIO/Info and
    emerging technologies.

-   Improve continuity in senior leadership in order to better leverage
    experience and institutional memory (like some other directorates).

-   Take advantage of national priorities in innovation and technology
    to rename NSF to reflect engineering contributions.

-   Actively support and embrace K-12 engineering education initiatives.

## Presentation to Dr. Hood and Dr. Busch {#presentation-to-dr.-hood-and-dr.-busch .unnumbered}

Dr. Brighton made presentations to Drs. Hood and Busch who are rotating
off the AdCom. He thanked them both for their service and said that Dr.
Hood has been very instrumental in preparing the STG document. Dr.
Busch's contribution has been in promoting change and working with SBIR
and DMII.

## Review and Reflection {#review-and-reflection .unnumbered}

Dr. Busch, the SBIR AdCom liaison, described SBIR as an interface
between science, engineering, and the public. SBIR encourages
interaction between the university and industry. He asked the group to
consider working with SBIR since they share many of the same challenges
and concerns as ENG.

Dr. Brighton said that Dr. Bement is very supportive of ENG, but
stresses the need for the AdCom to take an important role in ENG's
future, especially in research, but also in education and the workforce.
It was suggested that a representative from EHR make a presentation at
the May meeting. Dr. Sullivan suggested forming a working group on K-12
education to include representatives from other directorates and she
offered to chair the group. Dr. Burge suggested a summer program
activity sponsored by ENG to encourage minority participation into
academia.

Dr. May asked who is really funding NEES and who promoted the concept.
Dr. Brighton said that the idea came partly from the AdCom, but \$81 M
was provided by NSF for administration. Funding for the research comes
from the directorate (ENG) that is promoting it.

The group expressed concern over the low (10 percent) success rate of
proposals and asked how ENG could reach the targeted 30 percent success
rate. Dr. Brighton responded that the only sure way to get there would
be by a tripling of the budget. Since that is not a possibility, their
only alternative is to manage the present budget in the best way
possible. Some AdCom members suggested reducing the magnitude of
proposals and better screening

## Grand Challenges in Cosmology {#grand-challenges-in-cosmology .unnumbered}

Dr. Michael Turner, AD, Directorate for Mathematics and Physical
Sciences (MPS), spoke about a series of discoveries that is being
directed by NASA, DOE, and NSF. His presentation was based on a report,
"Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New
Century". The study was initiated by NAS. The charge is to identify
science opportunities at the intersection of physics and astronomy and
to recommend a prioritized strategy for realizing these opportunities.
The questions raised are:

-   What is dark matter?

-   What is the nature of dark energy?

-   How did the universe begin?

-   Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?

-   What are the masses of the neutrinos, and how have they shaped the
    evolution of the universe?

-   How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating?

-   Are protons unstable?

-   What are the new states of matter at exceedingly high density and
    temperature?

-   Are there additional space-time dimensions?

-   How were the elements from Iron to Uranium made?

-   Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?

    The science was driven by particle physics, dark matter, the
    accelerating universe, evidence for inflation, neutrino mass, and
    extreme objects in the universe. Ordinary matter accounts for only
    one eighth of the dark matter and the theory is that dark matter
    must be made of a new form of matter. It is a swarm of elementary
    particles and neutrinos. We are now able to structure the universe.
    The expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down.
    According to Einstein, the energy of nothing has repulsive gravity
    (Theory of Nothing).

    The report presented in FY 2002 made recommendations to address the
    science questions. Future projects are critical to realizing the
    great opportunities presented. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope,
    the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, and the Constellation-X
    Observatory were previously identified and recommended for priority
    by the 20001 National Research Council decadal survey of astronomy.
    It stated that there is more to be learned from the microwave
    background, but what is needed is a wide-field telescope in space, a
    deep underground laboratory, and a cosmic microwave background
    polarization experiment. Interagency cooperation and coordination,
    as well as international involvement will be required.

    Dr. Nelson asked why so much money should be used to investigate the
    blowup of the universe in 30 B years. Dr. Turner responded that
    people are interested in discovery science, and astronomy is a great
    magnet for the future generation of scientists and engineers.

## Overview of the SBIR/STTR Program {#overview-of-the-sbirsttr-program .unnumbered}

Dr. Kesh Narayanan, Director, Office of Industrial Innovation, said the
SBIR/STTR program, which is led by NSF, is now a separate program office
reporting to the Assistant Director, ENG. The federal SBIR/STTR program
comprises 11 participating government agencies. In FY 2004, 2,598
proposals were submitted to NSF, and 267 awards were given. The mission
is to impact the national economy's investment in applied science and
engineering research, and its focus on technological innovation towards
industrial commercialization. There are partnerships with states
(EPSCoR, STTI), academia (REU/RET, Phase IIA), and investors (Phase IIB,
Matchmaker).

The SBIR/STTR topic portfolio is divided into three areas: Investment
Focused (Biotechnology, Electronics, and Information Based Technology);
Industrial Market Driven (Advanced Materials and Manufacturing and
Chemical Based Technology); and Special Topics in Response to National
Needs (Security Based Technology and Manufacturing Innovation).
SBIR/STTR innovation opportunities are in the private sector
commercialization, in partnership with academia, publicity, and
innovation organization. The SBIR phased project structure includes:

-   Phase I---Feasibility research, 6 months, up to \$100K;

-   Phase II---Principal research stage, 2 years, up to \$500K;

-   Phase IIB\-- Supplemental research to fit the investors' needs, (NSF
    provides \$50 to \$500K; Investor provides \$100K to \$1M);

-   Phase III---Commercial application private funding.

    A program officers' retreat was held on October 1, 2004 to explore
    academic partnership, converge on opportunities and action steps,
    and to seek more value-added time for program officers.

## SBIR/STTR COV Report {#sbirsttr-cov-report .unnumbered}

The COV was held May 4-6, 2004 and was chaired by Dr. Busch. The charge
to the COV was to determine the integrity and efficiency of the
SBIR/STTR program's processes and management and to evaluate outputs and
outcomes of NSF investments in the SBIR/STTR program.

Prior to the COV, planning meetings were held with the NSF Chair, a
catalogue of all proposals was provided, proposals were selected for the
COV review, and the selected proposal jackets were pulled. A sample
selection of proposals was taken for FY 2001-2003 (Phase I, Phase II,
and Phase IIB) and were selected from diverse geographic areas and
underrepresented groups.

Findings and recommendations are:

-   NSF SBIR/STTR Program successfully managed greater than a 100
    percent increase in proposal volume. This was enabled by excellent
    program and contractor personnel, effective use of FastLane, and
    optimal allocation of available resources.

-   Program outcomes commended---several small businesses said success
    was predicated on SBIR/STTR funding

-   Critical resources provided to new and emerging small businesses
    during economic downturn (2000-2003). Many small businesses would
    not exist without support provided.

-   Substantial progress implementing 2001 COV recommendations was
    commended (specifically in the commercial reviews of Phase II
    proposals noted0.

-   Investment community now recognizes successful SBIR/STTR awardees as
    having a technical stamp of approval and increased commercial
    credibility. Attributed to NSF SBIR/STTR program: open solicitation
    and peer review process and well managed programs.

-   Phase II commercialization reviews commended (More consideration for
    commercial potential recommended for Phase I proposals; beneficial
    impact on Phase II proposals expected).

-   Continued growth in SBIR/STTR submissions expected based on economic
    trends. But concern about evaluation process and award outcomes will
    suffer without additional resources for SBIR/STTR program office;
    also that program managers will not have enough time to provide
    guidance.

-   NSF SBIR/STTR topics and awards portfolio reflects the breadth of
    science and engineering across all NSF directorates.

-   The COV strongly supported planned organizational change moving the
    NSF/STTR program from DMII to the Engineering Directorate.

    Dr. Busch commended the COV members and NSF staff for their hard
    work and support in preparing the report.

    In the discussion that followed Dr. Busch's report, questions were
    raised about the cause of the increase in proposal submission, and
    whether it was due to a failing economy in the US. Dr. Katehi stated
    that it is important not to co-invent what universities are doing.
    There may be an issue in university partnerships because the
    university may have to give up ownership of the research. Many small
    businesses capitalize on the REU and RET programs and often teachers
    and students work in the labs during the summer.

## Wrap-Up and Plans for Next Meeting {#wrap-up-and-plans-for-next-meeting .unnumbered}

Dr. Berman commented on the 10 percent success rate of awards and asked
if limiting the number of allowed submissions would have a negative
effect on the science. Dr. Brighton said that would concern him as well.
All agreed that NSF grants are prestigious but hard to come by and they
are not sure if the return is worth the effort of writing the proposals.
Dr. Brighton agrees that NSF has to figure out how to improve the
success rate. Dr. Katehi suggested lowering the award amount to allow
for a greater number of awards. Others suggested reinstating
Presidential Young Investigator (PYI) awards and giving out merit awards
without funds.

Dr. Katehi thanked the ENG staff for their work in preparing the
meeting. She commented on the success of the meeting since many of the
questions posed at the last meeting were addressed. She asked if there
was a way to determine whether suggestions made by the COVs are
implemented. Ms. Culbertson said that NSF does refer to the reports of
previous years to track improvements. Information on this is provided in
annual reports and she will get one to Dr. Katehi.

Dr. Katehi noted possible agenda and action items for the next meeting:

-   Task group liaisons circulate their revised drafts for input by
    other members. Task group reports will be completed by December and
    will be presented at the May 2005 meeting.

-   A presentation on cyberinfrastructure;

-   Formation of two working groups; one on K-12 education and one to
    improve the success rate of awards;

-   Workshop on diversity;

-   COV report;

-   Report on K-12 education;

-   Presentation by OMB Branch Chief Dave Radzanowski or David Trinkle
    on federal funding priorities;

-   Presentation by Margaret Leinen, AD, GEO or Peter Freeman, AD, CISE.

    The next meeting will be held on May 11-12, 2005. The meeting
    adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

#### Additional Action Items Discussed {#additional-action-items-discussed .unnumbered}

-   Dr. Katehi asked that future COV reports include a list of acronyms
    used.

-   Ask Program Directors to collect data on number of proposals
    returned because they didn't address the NSF Broader Impacts
    criteria.

-   Have a presentation by representative of the Education and Human
    Resources Directorate.

-   Dr. Burge suggested a summer program activity sponsored by ENG to
    encourage minority participation.