**[Directorate for Engineering]{.smallcaps}**

# 

**Strategic Planning Overview**

***Strategic Directions for Engineering Research, Innovation, and
Education***

######## 

![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.0in" height="1.9993055555555554in"}

######## 

######## 

**June 6, 2005**

Table of Contents

> **[Acknowledgements]{.smallcaps}**
>
> **[Message from the Assistant Director for Engineering]{.smallcaps}**
>
> **[Executive Summary]{.smallcaps}**
>
> **[Introduction and Background]{.smallcaps}**
>
> About the Directorate for Engineering (ENG)
>
> Role of Engineering in Society
>
> Review of External Environment
>
> Directorate Self-Assessment
>
> **[Mission, Vision, and Goals]{.smallcaps}**
>
> [Goal Implementation]{.smallcaps}
>
> Overarching Frontier Research Goal
>
> Overarching Engineering Innovation Goal
>
> Overarching Education and Workforce Goal
>
> Public Understanding of Engineering Goal
>
> Organizational Excellence Goal
>
> **[Conclusion]{.smallcaps}**
>
> **[Appendices]{.smallcaps}**
>
> **A**: About the National Science Foundation
>
> **B**: Premier ENG Programs
>
> **C**: SWOT Analysis
>
> **D**: ENG Opportunities Identified by the STG and Discussed with the
> Engineering Advisory Committee
>
> **E**: Preliminary List of Candidate Priority Areas
>
> **F**: Detailed Descriptions of Engineering Priority Areas
>
> *Biology in Engineering*
>
> *Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems*
>
> *Critical Infrastructure Systems*
>
> *Manufacturing Frontiers*
>
> *New Frontiers in Nanotechnology*
>
> [Bibliography]{.smallcaps}
>
> [ENG's Values and Guiding Principles (inside back cover)]{.smallcaps}

[Acknowledgements]{.smallcaps}

This strategic planning document is based largely on the report and
input of the Strategic Thinking Group (STG). Directorate for Engineering
(ENG) senior staff reviewed the STG report and made changes to reflect
current ENG priorities. The ENG staff and the ENG Advisory Committee
also provided substantial input to the document.

**Membership of the Strategic Thinking Group**

Kesh Narayanan, OII (Chair)

Charles Blue, OAD

Richard Buckius, CTS

Jo Culbertson, OAD

Delcie Durham, DMI

Darren Dutterer, OAD

Curt Everett, HRM

Larry Goldberg, ECS

Bruce Hamilton, BES

Paul Herer, Consultant

Priscilla Nelson, OAD

Lynn Preston, EEC

Galip Ulsoy, CMS

Saundra Woodard, CTS

The STG's work was greatly assisted by Human Resource Management
facilitator Curt Everett, who helped the STG by bringing in various
facilitation tools and analytical methods.

Several members of the external ENG Advisory Committee were asked to
interact and work with the STG on a continuing basis. These members are:

> Lisa Alvarez-Cohen, University of California, Berkeley
>
> Francine Berman, University of California, San Diego
>
> Gary May, Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Alan Taub, General Motors

[Message from the Assistant Director for Engineering]{.smallcaps}

> *Engineering is often associated with science and understandably so.
> Both make extensive use of mathematics, and engineering requires a
> solid scientific basis. Yet as any scientist or engineer will tell
> you, they are quite different. Science is a quest for "truth for its
> own sake," for an ever more exact understanding of the natural world.
> It explains the change in the viscosity of a liquid as its temperature
> is varied, the release of heat when water vapor condenses, and the
> reproductive process of plants. It determines the speed of light.
> Engineering turns those explanations and understandings into new or
> improved machines, technologies, and processes -- to bring reality to
> ideas and to provide solutions to societal needs.*
>
> *Neil Armstrong, Astronaut*

The Directorate for Engineering (ENG) at the National Science Foundation
(NSF) began a self-assessment study and planning process in July 2004.
The purpose was to revisit and clarify the Directorate's role within
NSF; to assess where appropriate; and to redefine our goals, methods,
and priorities.

The Strategic Thinking Group (STG) led this effort. It looked at
assessments of recent and current activities, the role of engineering
within NSF and in U.S. society, and the external and internal
environment. In the second half of the report, the mission, vision,
goals, and strategies are established or refined. The priorities are
established are consistent with those of the NSF, Congress, the
Administration, and reflect the needs of society. The final part of the
report includes an implementation plan with measures and targets to help
guide the work.

While this report is the centerpiece of the planning activities, two
other major efforts were conducted. First, five studies were carried out
as companion pieces supporting the planning process, including:

-   Awards and Solicitations Portfolio

-   Awards Impact Assessment

-   Engineering Education and Workforce

-   Making the Case for Engineering Research and Education

-   Organizational Structure

Second, seven additional planning activities were carried out at the
division and office level. These provide opportunities for
self-assessment, and planning at the unit level consistent with those at
the Directorate and NSF levels. This report, together with the five
planning studies and seven division level plans, constitute the *ENG
Strategic Plan*.

We are guided in these studies and planning by certain values and
principles, including those stated inside the back cover of this report,
and the criteria used to review proposals and select awards. These
criteria include:

-   Intellectual Merit

-   Broader Impact

-   Integration of Education and Research

-   Potential Impact on Societal Needs

    At NSF, ENG exists as one unit covering most of the engineering
    fields, while there are five directorates largely devoted to
    science. There is a great deal of overlap of engineering with the
    sciences. At the same time, engineering and science are
    fundamentally different as suggested by Commander Neil Armstrong, in
    the opening quote.

    The difference is: science seeks to discover what is not yet known,
    continuously adding to the greater understanding of our world and
    the universe in which it exists. On the other hand, engineering
    seeks to develop and integrate knowledge to create new fundamental
    materials, devices, and systems that have never before existed.

    The mission of ENG is to identify the frontiers of engineering
    research, engineering innovation, and engineering education;
    identify the people who are best prepared to advance the frontier
    and provide the support for making those advancements. Thus, basic
    science and engineering innovation are essential partners in our
    quest to advance the frontiers of discovery through scientific
    research, and create new systems and devices through integration of
    new scientific knowledge*.*

The Strategic Thinking Group was charged with developing a long-range
planning and implementation document that will provide the basis for
Directorate operating practice. This document provides a statement of
what the Directorate seeks to accomplish within a five to ten year time
frame. It also includes appropriate action plans, performance
objectives, milestones, and performance measures.

*Dr. John A. Brighton*

*Assistant Director for Engineering*

*National Science Foundation*

*June 2005*

[Executive Summary]{.smallcaps}

At NSF, Directorate for Engineering (ENG) exists as one unit covering
most of the engineering fields, complementing five other directorates
largely devoted to science. Although science and engineering are
essential partners in research, innovation, and education, they are
fundamentally different. Science seeks to discover what is not yet
known, continuously adding to the greater understanding of our world and
the universe in which it exists. On the other hand, engineering seeks to
develop and integrate knowledge to create new fundamental materials,
devices, and systems that have never before existed.

ENG began a self-assessment study and planning process in July 2004, led
by the Strategic Thinking Group (STG). The purpose was to revisit and
clarify the Directorate's role within NSF; to assess where appropriate;
and to redefine its goals, strategies, and priorities. The STG looked at
assessments of recent and current activities, the role of engineering
within NSF and in U.S. society, and the external and internal
environment.

While this report is the centerpiece of the planning activities two
other major efforts provided an assessment of the Directorate's
activities, strategies, and priorities. First, seven strategic planning
and assessment activities were carried out at the division and office
level. Second, five studies were carried out as companion pieces
supporting the planning process, including:

-   Awards and Solicitations Portfolio

-   Awards Impact Assessment

-   Engineering Education and Workforce

-   Making the Case for Engineering Research and Education

-   Organizational Structure

    This report, together with the five planning studies and seven
    division level plans, constitute the ENG Strategic Plan.

In addition, the following reports helped to frame the external
environment in which ENG currently plans and operates:

-   *Assessing the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research
    Enterprise*, Report of the National Academy of Engineering, January
    2005

-   *Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century*,
    National Academy of Engineering, September 2004

-   *Innovate America: National Innovation Initiative Final Report*,
    Council on Competitiveness, December 2004

Within NSF's enabling legislation (NSF Act of 1950), ENG's mission is:
**to enable the engineering and scientific communities to advance the
frontiers of engineering research, innovation and education, in
partnership with the engineering community, and in service to society
and the nation.** ENG works with the science and engineering communities
(particularly academe) to identify research areas of critical interest
and opportunity. Then ENG supports the most creative ideas for
discovery, innovation and education through funding allocated by a
competitive merit review process.

The Directorate's vision is: **ENG will be the global leader in
advancing the frontiers of fundamental engineering research, stimulating
innovation, and substantially strengthening engineering education.** The
vision reflects what NSF is all about -- making investments in people,
in their ideas, and in the tools they use -- to promote the strong S&E
progress and workforce that is needed to establish and maintain world
leadership and secure the nation's security, prosperity, and well being.

This report identifies four strategic goals for the Directorate. These
goals were developed from a larger group of potential opportunities that
the STG identified and subsequently discussed with the ENG Advisory
Committee. Within each of these goals below, implementation strategies
and performance measures are specified.

***Overarching Frontier Research Goal:* Effectively invest in [frontier
engineering research]{.underline} that has potential for high impact in
meeting national and societal needs.**

1)  Identify 5-10 grand challenges for engineering research.

2)  Identify and nurture 5-6 priority frontier engineering research
    areas.

3)  Substantially increase the number of Small Grants for Exploratory
    Research.

4)  Double the number of small groups of investigators working on
    cutting-edge interdisciplinary research projects.

***Overarching Engineering Innovation Goal:* Effectively invest in
[fundamental engineering innovation]{.underline} that has potential for
high impact in meeting national and societal needs.**

# Expand the number of ENG-supported collaborations between industry and academe by 25 percent.

1)  Increase efforts to catalyze industry and academic partnerships to
    develop a new generation of intellectual property (IP) policies.

***Overarching Engineering Education and Workforce Goal:*
[E]{.smallcaps}ffectively invest in [frontier engineering education and
workforce advancement]{.underline} that has potential for high impact.**

1)  Increase ENG support for K-12 outreach activities by 25 percent in
    order to attract more bright students to the engineering profession.

2)  Support academic and professional organization's efforts to revamp
    undergraduate engineering education and life-long learning (both
    content and practice) through a broad program of research and
    innovation.

3)  Support academic/professional organizations' new and innovative
    approaches to increasing the participation of women and minority
    students in engineering education and research.

***Public Understanding of Engineering Goal:* Effectively invest in and
seek partnerships to educate the public about the value of engineering
research and education.**

1)  Develop and implement a professional marketing strategy that
    communicates engineering's role in addressing "grand challenges,"
    and that fosters broad public support for engineering research and
    education.

***Organizational Excellence Goal***: ***Effectively organize the
Directorate to provide agile, multidisciplinary leadership in
engineering research, innovation, and education.***

1)  Respond proactively to evolving international conditions and the
    demands of the engineering community by reorganizing the Directorate
    for Engineering to effectively address these changes.

In response to the *overarching frontier research goal*, the Assistant
Director for Engineering asked the STG to recommend 5-6 specific
frontier research areas for future support. After discussions with ENG
management and members of the Engineering Advisory Committee, five areas
were recommended, as follows:

> ***Biology in Engineering**:* Research is needed to develop
> engineering principles that are [based in biology]{.underline} in the
> same manner that mechanical and electrical engineering have been based
> in mechanics and electronic/physics principles, and chemical
> engineering on principles of chemistry.
>
> ***New Frontiers in Nanotechnology:*** Challenges and opportunities
> for engineering reside in creating new tools, nanoelectronics,
> nanosystem design, and nanomanufacturing
>
> ***Critical Infrastructure Systems:*** Engineering research is needed
> to develop, sustain, and protect the nation's infrastructure, which
> include human assets and physical, energy and cyber systems that work
> together in processes and networks.
>
> ***Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems:*** Fundamental
> understanding of complex systems -- such as ecosystems, the worldwide
> web, metabolic pathways, and the power grid -- has the potential to
> predict a specific system's behavior, engineer its design, and
> build-in response to arrive at a highly robust system.

# 

# ***Manufacturing Frontiers:*** Engineering research and education opportunities that ENG can lead include: new materials and zero waste use; nano and nano-bio manufacturing; convergence of bio-engineered discoveries, and manufacturing innovations.

ENG support for these areas will depend upon future budget priorities,
as well as the availability of resources.

The goals, strategies, and priorities in this report will provide a road
map for the Directorate over the next 3-5 years. Detailed implementation
plans for each strategic goal will be developed within the next few
months. These plans -- including appropriate action strategies,
performance objectives, milestones, and performance measures -- will be
the basis for Directorate operating practice.

It is expected that this planning activity will increase the
effectiveness of the Engineering Directorate and increase the value of
its research and education investments to the engineering community and
the nation.

[Introduction and Background]{.smallcaps}

In order to think strategically about ENG's future role within the
Foundation, the engineering community, and society, it is necessary to
understand both the internal and external environments in which ENG
operates.

*About the Directorate for Engineering*

The Directorate for Engineering is one of NSF's eight directorates, and
it is the only one that is wholly devoted to supporting engineering
research, innovation, and education. (There are five directorates
largely devoted to funding science.) Among Federal agencies, NSF is the
only agency charged to broadly "promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the
national defense; and for other purposes".[^1] (For more information
about NSF, see Appendix A.)

Within NSF, ENG supports the Administration's R&D Priorities, such as
strengthening the nation's engineering workforce, advancing fundamental
discovery to improve future quality of life, and supporting
technological innovation to enhance economic competitiveness. ENG
supports most of the fields of engineering and many critical areas of
technology. It funds a broad spectrum of activities, including:

-   **Basic Research** (frontier research for discovery of new
    knowledge)

-   **Applied Research** (early stage of fundamental engineering
    innovation)

-   **Innovation** (ways to integrate and construct new devices and
    systems at early stages)

-   **Engineering Education** (knowledge and skills for engineering
    innovation)

-   **Research and Education Infrastructure**

-   **Domestic and International Conferences and Workshops** (bringing
    the engineering community[^2] together to plan and set research and
    education agendas)

-   **Studies and assessments of global technology and engineering
    research**

Except through its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program,
ENG does not support development (i.e. bringing new products and systems
to market). That is the role of industry.

Over 14,000 researchers, educators, and students are supported through
ENG-funded activities each year. ENG cooperates with universities and
professional engineering societies to encourage more students,
especially women and underrepresented minorities, to consider
engineering as a career, ENG also supports academic and professional
organization's efforts to improve the undergraduate engineering
curricula -- both content and the learning process. For example, the ENG
Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER), funded at over \$30
million per year, recognizes and supports the early career-development
activities of those teacher-scholars who are most likely to become the
academic leaders of the 21st century.

![](media/image2.wmf)

The Engineering Directorate is a major source of federal funding for
[university-based]{.underline}, fundamental engineering research,
providing 45 percent of the total federal support in this area. The
fruits of this research yield new technologies and innovative systems
that enhance the way we live, work and play; and the foundation to build
the world's most capable engineering workforce.

As indicated in the following chart, ENG is comprised of six divisions
and one office.

![](media/image1.wmf)

ENG's divisions support a spectrum of important programs focused on
engineering research, innovation, and education. Many of the programs
are defined and coordinated at the directorate and Foundation levels.
(See Appendix B for a brief description of these programs.)

The current ENG staff consists of 135 employees, of which 71 are
professional and 64 are administrative and/or managerial. About 70
percent of the professional staff are permanent NSF employees. The other
30 percent are non-permanent employees (i.e. faculty members and
research managers from the engineering community who serve as Program
Directors, Division Directors, or Assistant Director for typically a
two-to-four year period). They bring transformative knowledge of the
most recent disciplinary and interdisciplinary developments to enhance
NSF's responsiveness and agility.

The Directorate receives advice from the Advisory Committee for
Engineering (AC/ENG) on such issues as: the mission, programs, and goals
that can best serve the engineering community; how ENG can promote
quality engineering education; and priority investment areas in
engineering research. The AC/ENG meets twice a year. Its members
represent a cross section of engineering with representatives from many
different subfields, sectors, and institutions.

> As indicated in the following table, the FY 2006 Budget Request for
> ENG is \$580.68 million, an increase of \$19.38 million, or 3.5
> percent, over the FY 2005 Current Plan of \$561.30 million.

![](media/image2.wmf)

As indicated below, ENG's budget substantially increased from FY 1998 to
FY 2003 - but has leveled off since then. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) projects very modest budget growth for NSF over the next
five years. If this happens, ENG will face a significant fiscal
challenge. The funding of new opportunities will require the termination
or reduction of lower priority activities.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.3069444444444445in"
height="2.4763888888888888in"}

With input from the community, ENG invests in the best ideas from the
most capable people, using a proven competitive merit-based review
process. The percent of research funds that were allocated to projects
that undergo external merit review was 96 percent in FY 2004.

The proposal process starts with electronic receipt of the proposal,
which is then forwarded electronically to the appropriate NSF program
for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist,
engineer, or educator serving as an NSF program officer, and usually by
three or more experts from outside NSF in the particular fields
represented in the proposal. Proposal reviewers are asked to address two
merit review criteria: (1) intellectual merit; and (2) broader societal
impacts. Program officers may obtain comments from assembled review
panels, individual reviewers (usually through FastLane) and/or from site
visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff
further review recommendations for awards and declines.

In FY 2004, 93 percent of ENG proposals received some form of panel
review. The other 7 percent received individual reviews only. There are
a number of reasons for this strong preference. First, the panel review
process permits proposals to be discussed and compared with one another.
Second, the panel review process also has advantages in the evaluation
of multidisciplinary proposals, because viewpoints representing several
disciplines can be openly discussed and integrated.

As indicated below, during FY 2004, ENG made 1,753 awards, resulting in
an overall funding rate of 20 percent, compared to an NSF average
funding rate of 27 percent. The funding rate for research proposals was
only 15 percent, compared to 23 percent in FY 1998. This table also
indicates that the numbers of proposals processed has significantly
increased over this period, while the number of awards increased only
modestly.

![](media/image4.wmf)

The may be several reasons for the increase in proposals received,
including increased use of program solicitations by ENG, decreases in
the research budgets of other federal agencies, and an increased number
of academic institutions initiating research programs.

In FY 2004, 56 percent of the proposals received by ENG were submitted
in response to program solicitations. This sharply contrasts with FY
2000, in which 42 percent were solicited. Program solicitations generate
a large number of proposals and generally have funding rates well below
the Directorate average.

The following chart indicates that ENG has one of the lowest funding
rates in NSF for research proposals.

![](media/image2.wmf)

These trends result from budget constraints at a time when more demands
are being placed on the Directorate. Each year ENG must decline hundreds
meritorious research proposals due to the shortage of funding. These
declined proposals are a rich portfolio of unfunded opportunities to
explore the frontier.

*Role of Engineering in Society*

Engineering involves the manipulation of nature for the benefit of
humankind. Thus, engineering is substantially about how society derives
value from its environment: meets its needs for survival, provides for
its security and defense, and reaches toward higher goals of health,
enjoyment, and self-fulfillment.

Because engineering deals so closely with nature, engineers are clearly
benefited by their understanding of nature. But, whereas scientists seek
to understand nature and, in so doing, contribute knowledge for
engineering application, engineers make decisions about how the
resources of nature might and should be used. Through their decisions,
engineers touch the lives of practically everyone on the planet.

It should come as no surprise that engineers use scientific knowledge in
practically every aspect of their profession. But it would be a mistake
to equate engineers with scientists. Science is about trying to learn
the "whys" of the physical universe and of life in it. Engineering seeks
to imagine, design and construct what has not yet been made. Engineers
must go well beyond scientific knowledge. In their designs they must
account for social and political acceptability, care of and for the
environment, the health and safety of all life on Earth, and they must
find a way to make their designs both economical and capable of creating
wealth. Engineers propel our nation's economic machine. The engineer\'s
ability to be resourceful, creative, and responsive to change is of
paramount importance.

Engineering is second only to teaching as the largest profession in the
United States, with approximately one-and-a-half million people in the
workforce. There has been a rapid growth of the engineering profession
during the latter part of the 20th century, spurred on by major new and
federally supported technologies, such as space and defense, and also by
the addition of entirely new fields, such as bioengineering and
nano-manufacturing. The demand for engineers is driven by the needs of
industry and the opportunity of emerging technologies, together with
public projects aimed at the betterment of society.

As the population and the economy grow, the potential for adverse
environmental impact grows too. Not only must the modern engineer design
a product and its manufacture, he or she must also be concerned with the
end of life of the product, its disposal and reuse, and its ultimate
overall impact on the planet.

Finally, the modern engineer is challenged with both the opportunity and
the competition of the global marketplace. Real-time, broadband
communications and high-speed international travel make it possible to
outsource work to the least costly labor force and to areas of maximum
economic advantage. The modern engineer must know how to compete in this
marketplace in order to maintain an advantage that outweighs any salary
differences and when to engage in international efforts for effective
leveraging of resources through collaboration. The hallmarks of this
competition include educational advantages, superior workplace
infrastructure, flexibility and adaptability to change, and
technological advantages gained through the rapid emergence of new
technologies.

Despite the changing environment of the engineering profession and
competition from abroad, the nation will continue to need a skilled
engineering workforce to ensure national security and economic well
being. How the engineering profession will reshape itself to respond to
the challenges that it faces will depend, in part, on how society and
the nation react to the profession itself, and how the profession
presents itself to society in a global environment.

***Review of External Environment***

The strategic planning process must acknowledge and respond to many
external issues, some of which are concerned with the nature, direction
and process of research and education, and others concerned with their
potential impacts. In implementing its strategic plan, ENG must take
cognizance of these issues, while understanding that they are in flux
and must be continually assessed.

The following three recent reports provide useful material to frame the
external environment in which ENG currently operates:

-   *Assessing the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research
    Enterprise*, Report of the National Academy of Engineering, January
    2005

-   *Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century*,
    National Academy of Engineering, September 2004

-   *Innovate America: National Innovation Initiative Final Report*,
    Council on Competitiveness, December 2004

In the spring of 2004, the ENG Directorate asked the NAE to conduct a
\"fast-track\" evaluation of (1) the past and potential impact of the
U.S. engineering research enterprise on the nation\'s economy, quality
of life, security, and global leadership and (2) whether public and
private investment is adequate to sustain U.S. preeminence in basic
engineering research. To this end, a 15-member NAE committee chaired by
James J. Duderstadt conducted fact-finding activities and prepared a
draft report and recommendations. The NAE draft report documents that
there has been a massive shift of federal R&D toward biomedical sciences
and away from physical sciences and engineering (see AAAS chart below).
Federal support for science and engineering students enhances economic
growth. Yet federal support for graduate students in physical science
and engineering has declined significantly over the past two decades.

![](media/image2.wmf)

The draft report also makes the following points:

-   In a global knowledge-driven economy, technological innovation is
    critical to economic competitiveness, the quality of life, and
    national security. Leadership in engineering research and education
    is a prerequisite to global leadership in innovation. Engineering
    research is essential to the training of engineers, technologists,
    and entrepreneurs capable of sustaining U.S. innovation.

-   U.S. leadership in technological innovation is seriously threatened
    by the accelerating pace of discovery, investments by other nations
    in R&D and technical workforce development, and an increasingly
    competitive global economy.

-   Federal investment in engineering and physical science research has
    been stagnant for three decades. This long-term research is critical
    to sustaining U.S. innovation.

-   A technically skilled workforce is essential to the creation and
    maintenance of an innovation-driven nation. This will likely require
    more U.S. citizens educated in engineering. It will also require
    that the United States retain the capacity to attract talented
    scientists and engineers from throughout the world.

Preliminary recommendations of the draft report include the following:

-   Federal research and mission agencies should increase significantly
    their investments in engineering and physical sciences research.

-   Resources should be invested in upgrading and expanding
    laboratories, equipment, information technologies, and other
    research infrastructure.

-   Steps should be taken to cultivate U.S. student interest in and
    aptitude for careers in science and engineering.

-   Academic institutions and other stakeholders should encourage the
    development and implementation of innovative curricula.

The *Engineer of 2020* report examined how the engineering profession
can better prepare itself for the challenges of the future. It began by
asking a very insightful question, "What will or should engineering be
like in the year 2020?" The report concluded that the engineering
profession needs to adopt a new vision to ensure that engineers are
broadly educated, become leaders in the public and private sectors, and
represent all segments of society. Any current or future efforts to
reform engineering education should strive to produce "world-class
engineers." To do this requires that engineering education synthesize
the mastery of fundamental science, mathematics, and physics -- with
newer fields such as biology; and provide skills, such as
communications, business and management.

The Council on Competitiveness report points out that the United States
currently maintains its lead in the development and export of high
technology products. However, other countries, particularly in Asia, are
investing heavily in research facilities, infrastructure and a strong
technical workforce. Significantly enhanced investments in the U.S.
innovation enterprise will be needed if the nation is to remain
competitive across the broad spectrum of technical activities. To enjoy
the full benefits of innovation, generate the jobs and wealth that flow
from commercialization, and improve the lives of as many Americans as
possible, the United States must remain competitive throughout the value
chain, from research and product/service development through production,
delivery, and maintenance.

The report also states that advances in information technology have made
nations more interdependent and have contributed to the development of a
global economy. Global supply chains have revolutionized the way that
businesses conduct their operations and have changed the dynamics of
demand for U.S. engineering graduates. The career success of engineering
graduates and the long-term economic growth of the United States will
depend on developing the skills to promote rapid, interdisciplinary,
global systemic innovation. To meet these needs, engineering education
must be designed to accommodate both current and future needs. It must
give students an understanding of the business of innovation and the
skills to lead the development of complex technologies.

***Directorate Self-Assessment***

This self-assessment is based on several ENG Task Force reports, recent
Committee of Visitors Reports (COVs) reports, STG review of earlier
strategic plans, and formal assessment techniques. The following ENG
task groups contributed to this document through their completed studies
and detailed reports:

> Awards and Solicitations: charged with providing information and
> making recommendations on the processing and approval of ENG awards
> and proposal generating documents, such as program announcements and
> solicitations.
>
> Awards Impact Assessment: charged with reviewing the current
> assessment techniques being used in ENG and recommending new or
> additional approaches that ENG could use to determine or assess the
> impact of its investments in research, education, and innovation.
>
> **Engineering Education and Workforce:** charged with identifying
> important trends in the engineering workforce and education systems,
> and suggesting strategies for ENG to reach the NSF goal of producing a
> technologically excellent and globally competitive workforce.
>
> Making the Case: charged with strategizing how ENG can better define
> and communicate the importance of engineering innovation, and its role
> and impact on the U.S. economy, national security, and quality of
> life.
>
> Organization Structure: charged with assessing ENG's current
> organizational structure and recommending changes to enable the
> Directorate to perform its mission more effectively and efficiently.

In addition, the STG reviewed the goals in *The Long View*[^3], compared
them to the *NSF Strategic Plan*[^4], and provided an assessment of
Directorate progress over the past 10 years toward these goals.
Independently, this self-assessment was compared with the key findings
and recommendations from recent Committee of Visitors Reports (COVs).
The goals in *The Long View* were found to be similar to those of the
*NSF Strategic Plan*. The Directorate self-assessment is tied to the
major goals from *The Long View*, which is discussed below*.*

> *Foster new paradigms to improve the quality of engineering
> education.* The STG believed that the Directorate had made moderate
> progress toward this goal, with the major contributions coming from
> Engineering Education Coalitions (EECs) and the Engineering Research
> Centers (ERCs). The STG also reinforced the need for greater emphasis
> on activities at the K-12 and community college level to promote
> increased participation in the engineering workforce. The COVs noted
> the important outcomes that had been achieved. However, some COVs
> expressed concern that efforts to develop a diverse, globally oriented
> workforce are fragmented and in need of a clearer vision. Furthermore,
> the COVs reinforced the need for additional focus to be placed on K-12
> activities.
>
> *Enable researchers to conduct leading-edge research.* The STG found
> the Directorate to be successful in this area, but expressed concern
> about low award sizes and success rates. (This has been well
> documented in a previous section.) Furthermore, the group identified
> the need to develop more effective strategies to promote and enhance
> innovation. The COVs commended the high quality of NSF-supported
> research and education activities and the significant contribution
> that they made to the knowledge base. However, the COVs noted the need
> for increased funding to support adequate award sizes and success
> rates and equipment for experimental research.
>
> *Promote interagency initiatives and growth of emerging areas.* The
> STG identified leadership in interagency activities as strength -- but
> cited the need for an improved process for identifying and developing
> new and emerging areas. The Directorate has played a key role in a
> number of areas, including tissue engineering, nanotechnology,
> microelectromechanical engineering (MEMs), metabolic engineering, and
> advanced manufacturing. The COVs noted the need for Directorate
> programs to continually address future goals and objectives and to
> develop new "out-of-the-box" ideas. They recommended that ENG needs to
> undertake "seed activities" to ensure that it is poised for a
> leadership role in emerging areas.
>
> *Encourage mutually beneficial cooperation with other countries.* The
> COVs generally found ENG to be successful in promoting international
> collaboration through the centers and through funding for
> international workshops and projects that involve international
> collaborations. (A recent survey indicated that ENG awarded nearly \$3
> million in FY 2002 to projects with strong international connections.)
> However, with the growing expertise in other regions of the world and
> the shift to a global economy, several COVs recommended that greater
> emphasis be placed upon international collaborations.
>
> *Build stronger bridges between academe and industry.* The STG found
> that moderate progress had been made towards this goal, particularly
> through the ERC, Industry University Cooperative Research Centers
> (I/UCRCs), and SBIR/STTR programs. The table below shows the number of
> firms involved in the ERCs over the period 1994-2004. Industrial
> participation of all size firms has increased dramatically, with
> almost 1000 firms participating in the ERCs in 2004. The ERCs have
> also played an important role in spawning new companies. Over the past
> decade, the ERCs have given rise to 95 spin-off companies with a total
> of almost 1200 employees.

+----------------------+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **ERC Intellectual   |              |       |       |       |       |
| Property Outputs**   |              |       |       |       |       |
|                      |              |       |       |       |       |
| **(10 Year Period -  |              |       |       |       |       |
| 1994 to 2004)**      |              |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                      |              |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                      | **1995 to    | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
|                      | 2000         | 001** | 002** | 003** | 004** |
|                      | Cumulative** |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Number of Spin-off | 59           | 15    | 7     | 9     | 5     |
| Companies**          |              |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Estimated Number   | 749          | 64    | 93    | 136   | 116   |
| of Spin-off Company  |              |       |       |       |       |
| Employees**          |              |       |       |       |       |
+----------------------+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

> Several of the COVs identified the need for greater industrial
> participation (and participation of the right people) on NSF panels.
> The COVs also recommended that NSF make a thorough review of program
> policies to enhance industrial involvement.
>
> *Increase human diversity in engineering education, research and
> practice.* The following chart shows that women and minorities make up
> only 43 percent of the engineering bachelor's degrees in 2003. White
> males account for 57 percent. Within this environment, the STG
> identified diversity as an area of weakness and believes that the
> Directorate has made only low-to-moderate progress in this area. The
> COVs cited significant efforts by many ENG program officers to involve
> underrepresented minorities in Directorate research and education
> activities. They also commended the activities of ENG-supported
> centers and the Directorate's participation in targeted programs, such
> as ADVANCE and REU, which provided access to underrepresented
> minorities.
>
> The COVs suggested that diversity could be enhanced by extending
> outreach efforts to encourage underrepresented minorities to submit
> proposals and to participate in panels.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.1013888888888888in"
height="2.238888888888889in"}

The STG also assessed the Directorate using the PEST and SWOT
techniques. PEST stands for: **P**olitical -- **E**conomic --
**S**ocietal -- **T**echnological. SWOT stands for: **S**trengths --
**W**eaknesses -- **O**pportunities -- **T**hreats. In conducting this
exercise, members were asked to "brainstorm" as many items as possible
that apply to (or influence) the Directorate for Engineering. For
example, seventeen items were identified in the *Economic* category,
such as rising college tuition costs and outsourcing of engineering jobs
to other countries.

PEST was used as a backdrop in developing a detailed SWOT list. STG
members identified 11 directorate strengths, 12 weaknesses, 14
opportunities, and 23 threats/concerns. Next, each member voted for his
or her top five items in each category. The results are presented in
Appendix C. For example, the top strengths included NSF/ENG's image and
reputation building on its merit review process, its relationship with
the academic research community, its nimble and flexible operating
style, and its ability to attract top-notch staff.

Leading weaknesses identified were frequent change in direction
resulting from high turnover in ENG management, low award success rates
in ENG leading to many excellent proposals not getting funded, and ENG's
fragmented organizational structure. The top opportunities included the
need for ENG to redefine its role in the innovation process, establish
greater linkages across the broad span of education programs, and foster
increased international cooperation. The threats that loomed the largest
were anticipated tight budget constraints, the lack of diversity in the
engineering workforce, and globally competent engineering workforce.

The STG presented an expanded list of opportunities to AC/ENG in
November 2004 (See Appendix D). Incorporating AC/ENG inputs, the STG
identified five major goals for the Directorate.

[Mission, Vision, and Goals]{.smallcaps}

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 810507)
authorizes and directs NSF to initiate and support:

-   Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the
    engineering process,

-   Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research
    potential,

-   Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all
    fields of science and engineering, and

-   An information base on science and engineering appropriate for
    development of national and international policy.

**ENG Mission**

Within this Act, ENG's mission **is *to enable the engineering and
scientific communities to advance the frontiers of engineering research,
innovation and education, in partnership with the engineering community,
and in service to society and the nation.***

ENG works with the science and engineering (S&E) communities to identify
research areas of critical interest and opportunity. Then ENG supports
the most creative ideas for discovery, innovation and education through
funding allocated by a competitive merit review process.

**ENG Vision**

***ENG will be the global leader in advancing the frontiers of
fundamental engineering research, stimulating innovation, and
substantially strengthening engineering education.***

This statement embodies what NSF is all about -- making investments in
people, in their ideas, and in the tools they use -- to promote the
strong S&E progress and workforce that is needed to establish and
maintain world leadership and secure the nation's security, prosperity,
and well being.

**ENG Goals**

NSF's long term strategic goals are stated in its strategic plan[^5].
They concern the development of a world-class science and engineering
workforce; new knowledge across the frontiers of science and
engineering; and the tools to get the job done efficiently and
effectively. Within this framework, the STG was charged with developing
a set of priorities that seeks to answer: *What does the Engineering
Directorate want to achieve over the next five to ten years.* The
following five goals were selected from a larger group of potential
opportunities that the STG identified and subsequently discussed with
the Engineering Advisory Committee (See Appendix C).

These goals[^6] are as follows:

-   **Overarching Frontier Research Goal: *Effectively invest in
    frontier engineering research that has potential for high impact in
    meeting national and societal needs.***

-   **Overarching Engineering Innovation Goal: *Effectively invest in
    fundamental engineering innovation that has potential for high
    impact in meeting national and societal needs.***

-   **Overarching Engineering Education and Workforce Goal:
    *[E]{.smallcaps}ffectively invest in frontier engineering education
    and workforce advancement that has potential for high impact.***

-   **Public Understanding of Engineering Goal: *Effectively invest in
    and seek partnerships to educate the public about the value of
    engineering research and education.***

-   **Organizational Excellence Goal*: Effectively organize the
    Directorate to provide agile, multidisciplinary leadership in
    engineering research, innovation, and education. ***

The STG's rationale for selecting these particular goals is discussed in
the next section of this report. Implementation plans for each goal are
also presented.

[ENG Goal Implementation]{.smallcaps}

The Strategic Thinking Group (STG) was charged with developing a set of
priorities that seeks to answer: *What does the Engineering Directorate
want to achieve over the next five years?* In this section, five
overarching goals are described and analyzed. These goals were selected
from a larger group of potential opportunities that the STG identified
and subsequently discussed with the ENG Advisory Committee. This
expanded group of opportunities (See Appendix D) was developed by using
a technique called SWOT, which involved identifying strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats to ENG.

***Overarching Frontier Research Goal:* Effectively invest in [frontier
engineering research]{.underline} that has potential for high impact in
meeting national and societal needs.**

ENG has a three-prong investment strategy for supporting high quality
research proposals.

1.  Support the best ideas generated by researchers working at the
    forefront of a broad array of engineering fields and disciplines.

2.  Identify the most promising research opportunities at the
    engineering frontier and give them increased support.

3.  Identify lower priority research areas and projects for decreased
    funding and/or termination.

The first strategy is carried out by supporting unsolicited
investigator-initiated proposals. This broad and highly flexible support
ensures the vitality of a broad array of scientific and engineering
fields that are needed for the United States to maintain leadership in
science and engineering. The second strategy permits ENG to focus
resources on areas of high priority that accelerate technological
progress and address critical national interests. The third strategy is
very important because it enables ENG to initiate new projects and
research areas.

In supporting these strategies, achieving the right balance in the
research portfolio is very important. For example, ENG nominally seeks
about a 50/50 balance between unsolicited and solicited proposals.[^7]
Other areas where achieving the right balance is critical include the
following:

-   Large and small research projects

-   Disciplinary and interdisciplinary research

-   Targeted and untargeted research

-   Medium and long-term projects

-   Individual projects, research groups, and centers

-   Research, innovation, and education

-   K-12, undergraduate, graduate and life-long education

Balances within the ENG research portfolio are reviewed each year as
part of the long range planning and budget development process.
Throughout the year, advisory committees, Committee of Visitor reports,
and workshops provide external input to this process.

**[Objective 1]{.underline}:  Identify 5-10 grand challenges for
engineering research.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} Grand Challenges have not been identified.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} Working with high-level engineering
> organizations, 5-10 grand challenges are identified.

An *Engineering Grand Challenge* is an *unsolved* large-scale
engineering problem with broad societal impacts whose solution is
advanced only through sustained long-range engineering research. The
chief purpose of a grand challenge is to focus the engineering community
to solve a major research problem. A grand challenge represents a
commitment by the engineering research community to work together
towards a common objective, agreed to be valuable and achievable within
a predicted timescale.

The characteristics of an *Engineering Grand Challenge* include the
following:

-   It will be obvious how far and when the challenge has been met (or
    not met).

-   It is generally comprehensible, and captures the imagination of the
    engineering community and the general public.

-   It promises to go beyond what is initially possible, and requires
    development of understanding, techniques and tools unknown at the
    start of the project.

-   It will lead to great societal benefits.

ENG's role with respect to *Engineering Grand Challenges* is to
facilitate the selection process and invest in selected grand challenges
as appropriate. The process should be managed by an esteemed and
impartial organization and include representatives from all of the major
engineering research communities -- government, industry and academe.

**[Objective 2]{.underline}:  Identify and nurture 5-6 frontier
engineering research areas.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} Of the four NSF priority areas, ENG has a
> leadership role in one: *Nanoscale S&E*. In FY 2004, *Sensors* was an
> ENG-led research area with a directorate-wide solicitation.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} ENG supports 5-6 frontier engineering
> research areas.

                           

The Assistant Director for Engineering asked the STG to recommend 5-6
specific frontier research areas for future support. The STG began by
identifying a broad list of potential frontier research areas (See
Appendix E). After discussions with ENG management and members of the
Engineering Advisory Committee, five areas were selected. Each area had
to meet the following criteria:

-   Provide an opportunity to significantly expand engineering research
    frontiers;

-   Address a significant societal concern, such as the economy, the
    environment, security and safety, health, and energy;

-   Be in an area where ENG can take a leadership role; and

-   Have significant opportunities for partnerships.

The five recommended priority areas are briefly described below. These
areas are described in greater detail in Appendix F.

***Biology in Engineering**:* The goal of this initiative is to develop
engineering principles that are [based in biology]{.underline} in the
same manner that mechanical and electrical engineering have been based
in mechanics and electronic/physics principles, and chemical engineering
on principles of chemistry. Engineers from all disciplines have the
opportunity to integrate and exploit biology in their respective
disciplines and develop new "Biology-based Engineered Systems." These
discoveries and technologies will have tremendous potential application
in healthcare, homeland security, quality of life, and other areas.
Examples of opportunities in this area include: gene therapy, neural
implant acceptance, nanobioelectronics, microbe engineering, and energy
and the environment.

***New Frontiers in Nanotechnology:*** Long-term objectives include
building a foundation of fundamental research for understanding and
applying novel principles and phenomena for nanoscale manufacturing and
other NNI Grand Challenges; ensuring that U.S. institutions will have
access to a full range of nano-facilities; enabling access to
nanotechnology education and catalyzing the creation of new commercial
markets that depend on three-dimensional nanostructures. Challenges and
opportunities for engineering reside in creating new tools, nanosystem
design and nanomanufacturing. The following areas are examples of new
frontiers that need increased research support: nano and nano-bio
manufacturing; and nanoelectronics.

***Critical Infrastructure Systems:*** The nation's infrastructure is
the framework of networks, facilities, and systems that provides a
continual flow of goods and services essential to the welfare and
security of the United States. They include physical, energy, and cyber
systems that work together in processes and networks that are highly
complex and interdependent. Research is needed to enable the integration
of modeling, simulation, and analysis into infrastructure and asset
protection planning and decision support activities. Research is also
needed to develop new devices and sensing systems to detect biological
and chemical threats. A significant additional investment is needed in
widely shared cyberinfrastructure is needed to bring next generation
computer, communications, and database and sensor capabilities to
researchers and students nationwide.

***Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems:*** Examples of
complexity in systems -- both man-made and natural -- include
ecosystems, the worldwide web, metabolic pathways, economic markets,
spread of HIV infections, and the power grid. With such systems,
decomposition and analysis of subsystems, does not necessarily explain
the behavior of the whole. Complex systems can display emergent
behavior, where they provide organization without a central organizing
principle. At this point in time, there is an intellectual opportunity.
There is a maturation and convergence, from many different fields of
inquiry, of ideas relevant to complex systems and system engineering for
natural and engineered systems. We seek common principles, and a
unifying theory, as well as methods to analyze and synthesize such
systems. Fundamental understanding of complex systems has the potential
to predict a specific system's behavior, engineer its design, and
build-in response to arrive at a highly robust system.

***Manufacturing Frontiers:*** Integrated manufacturing -- the
innovative systems and processes for transforming materials and
knowledge to products that have value to society -- remains one of the
major contributors to GDP. NSF is clearly seen as the intellectual
leader on the research and educational agenda at the frontiers. This is
an area where discovery, learning and innovation can create the
transformative manufacturing enterprises of the future. Engineering
research and education opportunities that NSF can lead include: new
materials and zero waste use; nano and nano-bio manufacturing;
convergence of bio-engineered discoveries and manufacturing innovations.

Of these five priority areas, only nanotechnology is currently being
supported as a major focused effort. In FY 2006, ENG will provide
\$127.77 million to support the NSF-wide priority area in Nanoscale
Science and Engineering. ENG leads the Foundation's efforts in the area
of nanotechnology, plays a significant leadership role in the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and works closely with the other NSF
activities and other federal agencies in advancing this exciting field.

ENG support for these areas will depend upon future budget priorities as
well as the availability of resources. Broad-based input will be sought
from the S&E community with the overall strategic direction set by the
Foundation's leadership.

**[Objective 3]{.underline}:  Increase the number of Small Grants for
Exploratory Research (SGER)**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} In FY 2004, ENG support for SGER awards
> totaled \$8,147,351 -- about 1.4 percent of ENG's operating budget for
> research.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} Four to five percent of ENG's annual
> research budget will support SGER awards.

One of the recommendations in *Innovate America*[^8] addresses the need
for 'high risk' research: "Spur radical innovation by reallocating 3
percent of all federal agency R&D budgets toward 'Innovation
Acceleration' grants that invest in novel high-risk and exploratory
research." High-risk/ high-payoff research happens when researchers work
at the frontiers of knowledge, where there is little consensus on
theory, observations, and/or methodology.  Supporting very high risk,
exploratory research can be somewhat difficult within standard NSF
processes.

Currently, there are mechanisms available to fund high-risk/high payoff
research within NSF. The Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER)
option has permitted program officers throughout the Foundation to make
small-scale grants without formal external review. Characteristics of
activities that can be supported by an SGER award include: preliminary
work on untested and novel ideas; ventures into emerging research and
potentially transformative ideas; quick-response research on
unanticipated events, such as natural disasters and infrequent
phenomena; and similar efforts likely to catalyze rapid and innovative
advances.

In addition to SGER awards, Programs and Divisions can support other
high-risk/high-payoff projects if they are willing to justify the
decisions and take the risk. For example, a survey of FY 2002 awards
indicated that 4.3 percent of non-SGER awards made through solicitations
are exploratory.

**[Objective 4]{.underline}:  Double the number of small groups of
investigators working on cutting-edge interdisciplinary research
projects.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} In FY 2004, ENG supported \[*pending details,
> due 5/3*\] of unsolicited small group proposals.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} Double the number of small groups supported
> in FY 2005.

Small groups of engineering investigators can work on cutting-edge
interdisciplinary research projects that would be difficult for the
single investigator grant to address. Some solicitations specify the
multidisciplinary make-up of the teams and allocate funds directly for
this use. However, there is not presently an effective mechanism to
support and encourage interdisciplinary proposals outside of focused
solicitations and centers. Incentives to achieve the target funding can
range from simple encouragement to financial incentives, such as
matching funds.

***Overarching Engineering Innovation Goal:* Effectively invest in
[fundamental engineering innovation]{.underline} that has potential for
high impact in meeting national and societal needs.**

Recent reports discussed in the previous section, such *Innovate
America* and the NAE draft report, *Assessing the Capacity of the U.S.
Engineering Research Enterprise*, present strong evidence that the
United States may be losing its competitive edge. A new report by the
Task Force on the Future of American Innovation[^9] offers some
additional data:

-   Between 1989 and 2001, U.S. patent applications from Asian countries
    grew seven times as fast as those from the United States.

-   From 1995 to 2001, R&D investment by emerging Asian countries[^10]
    grew by about 140 percent, compared to 34 percent faster rate for
    the United States.

-   The U.S. share of high-tech exports has been in a 20-year decline.
    At the same time, emerging Asian countries increase their share from
    7 percent to 25 percent. Since 2001, the U.S. trade balance for
    high-tech has fallen into deficit.

In order for the United States to remain competitive in a global economy
where centers of invention and innovation are now spread around the
world, academe, industry, ENG needs to develop a significantly expanded
base of partnerships for innovation that draw on the broad base of ENG's
investment in research.

# **Objective 1: Increase the number ENG-supported collaborations between industry and academe (that focus on fundamental engineering innovation) by 25 percent.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} ENG invests heavily and broadly in fundamental
> research that fuels invention and innovation. There are several ENG
> programs specifically designed to connect the academic and industrial
> communities to spur innovation. These are: Engineering Research
> Centers (ERC), Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers
> (I/UCRC), the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small
> Business Technology Transfer (STTR), Grants Opportunity for Liaison
> with Industry (GOALI) and Partnerships for Innovation (PFI). The
> success of these programs has been well documented.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} ENG will support 25 percent more successful
> university/industry collaborations than in 2005. Global collaborations
> may be pursued when they are advantageous to the United States.

Suggested action strategies to accomplish this objective include:

-   Significantly increase support for the GOALI program to increase
    meaningful collaborations with industry.

-   Connect single investigator awardees to the innovation process
    through innovation acceleration supplements in collaboration with
    industry that result in new products and processes.

-   Accelerate the role of SBIR and center awards in innovation by
    coupling small firms with universities to strengthen the technology
    base and connect with the early-stage investment funding pool.

**[Objective 2:]{.underline} Expand efforts to catalyze industry and
academic partnerships to develop a new generation of intellectual
property (IP) policies.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} No ENG-sponsored workshops or studies
> concerning IP issues and polices were conducted.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} Based on ENG-sponsored workshops/studies,
> recommendations for collaborative IP policies will be made by a high
> level S&E organization.
>
> There is a desire for both public and private institutions to gear up
> to take advantage of the Baye-Dole act that gives intellectual
> property ownership to research institutions, which pursue innovation
> as a future source of revenue. ENG needs to facilitate a mutually
> beneficial role between the academe and the industry on the return on
> investment of the federal research investment into the academe and
> small business. Engaging the industrial groups and representatives in
> a dialogue resulting in recommendations for collaborative IP policies
> is achievable but adoption of these policies is outside NSF's control.

***Overarching Engineering Education and Workforce Goal:*
[E]{.smallcaps}ffectively invest in [frontier engineering education and
workforce advancement]{.underline} that has potential for high impact.**

It is critical that ENG catalyze the development of a highly trained,
nimble, and diverse engineering workforce who will be global leaders in
innovation. A recent report issued by the NSB's *Task Force on National
Workforce Policies for Science and Engineering* observed that the future
strength of the U.S. S&E workforce is imperiled by two long-term trends:

-   Global competition for S&E talent is intensifying, such that the
    United States may not be able to rely on the international S&E labor
    market to fill unmet skill needs;

-   The number of native-born S&E graduates entering the workforce is
    likely to decline unless the nation intervenes to improve success in
    educating S&E students from all demographic groups, especially those
    from underrepresented groups.

Will there be enough skilled engineers to maintain U.S. engineering and
technology leadership? Despite strong interest in this question, the
answer is not yet clear. But we do know that we will need to recruit
greater numbers of young people into the engineering profession. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that U.S. engineering employment
will grow by 7.3 percent between 2002 and 2012. Furthermore, over the
next twenty years the engineering workforce will be depleted as many of
the so-called "baby boomers" retire. As the following chart shows, many
of these new recruits will have to come from minority groups. Minority
groups are the fastest growing segment of U.S. labor force.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="2.922222222222222in"
height="2.1951388888888888in"}

The report of the Engineering Workforce Task Group[^11] makes a strong
case for the need to increase the participation of women and minority
students in engineering education and research. According to this
report, women and minorities make up more than two-thirds of the U.S.
workforce; yet only represent 23 percent of engineering graduates. Among
the factors contributing to this disparity are: disillusionment with
engineering and the lack of interest in the potential lifestyle, and
lack of role models.[^12]

In light of the NSB report and other data, the STG believes that ENG
current efforts to build the future engineering workforce must be
expanded -- and with a heightened sense of urgency. The following
objectives reflect areas that ENG needs to improve within the next 3-5
years. In no way does it lessen ENG's commitment to its other workforce
priorities, such as supporting aspiring young researchers and faculty
members through programs such as the CAREER program.

**[Objective 1:]{.underline} Increase ENG support for K-12 outreach
activities by 25 percent in order to attract more bright students to the
engineering profession.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} ENG current K-12 outreach activities include:
> Research Experiences for Teachers (RET), NSF Graduate Teaching
> Fellows, outreach activities at ENG Research Centers and major
> facility programs, such as the Network for Earthquake Engineering
> Simulation (NEES).
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} ENG increases its K-12 outreach activities
> by 25 percent.
>
> It is recommended that this objective have a strong tie-in with the
> Public Understanding of Engineering Goal (see next page).

**[Objective 2:]{.underline} Support academic and professional
organization's efforts to revamp undergraduate engineering education and
life-long learning (both content and practice) through a broad program
of research and innovation.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} Evaluations of current and past ENG activities
> should provide this baseline.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} ENG serves as the catalyst for the building
> and strengthening a community of scholars engaged in the scholarship
> of research in engineering education. New curricula and pedagogy begin
> to emerge that are based on this research, and adopted by the academic
> community.

**[Objective 3]{.underline}:** **Support academic/professional
organization's new and innovative approaches to increasing the
participation of women and minority students in engineering education
and research.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} Based on evaluations of current and past ENG
> activities, establish meaningful targets for supporting women and
> minority faculty and students.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} ENG supports major new collaborative
> efforts to increase diversity in the engineering workforce.

By itself, ENG lacks the resources to make a large impact on engineering
workforce diversity. However, through its leadership and judicious use
of its limited resources, ENG can catalyze other engineering
organizations and societies to make a real difference in the readiness
and quality of the engineering workforce.

***Public Understanding of Engineering Goal:* Effectively invest in and
seek partnerships to educate the public about the value of engineering
research and education.**

The national engineering community has been seeking to define and
communicate its role in advancing the quality of life and the security
of its citizens. There is a long history of engineering accomplishments
over the years, and the positive impact of engineering on society.
Unfortunately, the public does not widely recognize engineering as the
driving force for technological change. A recent Harris Poll survey[^13]
indicated that the U.S. public feels uninformed about the engineering
enterprise and betrays a startling lack of knowledge about engineers\'
involvement in key areas of American endeavor. Engineers were frequently
underestimated in their roles as innovators. In areas where there exists
a strong engineering element such as \"working in space,\" \"developing
new forms of energy\" and \"creating new materials,\" scientists were
more often cited than engineers.

In the long term, the engineering communities, including both the
academic and industry leaders, will need to be a part of a dedicated
effort to help make the case for the important role of engineering in
maintaining and advancing the economy, security and quality of life of
U.S. citizens.

**[Objective 1:]{.underline} Develop and implement a marketing strategy
that communicates engineering's role in addressing national and societal
needs, and fosters broad public support for engineering research and
education.**

> [Baseline:]{.underline} ENG engages in various public dissemination
> activities, such as the brochure *Making Imagination Real* and media
> events to highlight important achievements. ENG professional societies
> promote the engineering profession. Still, recent polls indicate that
> the public is largely unaware of engineering's impact on societal
> concerns and the critical need to support research and education.
>
> [2008 Target:]{.underline} ENG market strategy leads to major
> collaborative outreach efforts with engineering societies and academe.
> Polls and surveys indicate a significant increase in public opinion of
> engineering and engineers.
>
> Recommended implementation strategies include the following:

-   Partner with the NAE and engineering professional societies to
    develop and implement a professionally managed campaign (i.e. use
    advertising and marketing professionals.)

-   Use the *grand engineering challenges* (see page 23) to help
    increase the stature of engineering and promote it to the public.

-   Tie in K-12 outreach activities (see previous goal) so that this
    important pipeline will get an early favorable impression of
    engineering.

***Organizational Excellence Goal*: Effectively organize the Directorate
to provide agile, multidisciplinary leadership in engineering research,
innovation, and education.**

The National Science Foundation's Directorate for Engineering (ENG) is
constantly seeking ways to better fulfill its mission of advancing
engineering research, education, and innovation. For the past 15 years,
ENG has been able to fulfill this mission using effectively the same
organizational structure.

During that time, however, new research areas have emerged and advanced
(e.g., nanotechnology, bioengineering). National priorities have changed
(e.g., homeland security, defense). And global competition in innovation
has increased.

With these changing conditions, and new and emerging demands on the
engineering enterprise, ENG must reposition itself to remain at the
frontier of research, education, and innovation.

**[Objective 1]{.underline}: Respond proactively to evolving
international conditions and the demands of the engineering community by
reorganizing the Directorate for Engineering to effectively address
these changes.**

**The new structure must accomplish the following:**

-   Position ENG at the frontiers of engineering research, innovation
    and education;

-   Optimize interdisciplinary research;

-   Position to integrate across priority areas;

-   Organize to integrate research and education;

-   Support the continuum from discovery through early engineering
    innovation;

-   Enhance flexibility for evolutionary change by combining some units;

-   Provide opportunities for exploring new areas not yet recognized in
    their full potential; and,

-   Strategically allocate human and financial resources.

The new structure will enable ENG to pursue emerging priorities, while
fostering crosscutting research through the divisions and centers. It
will entail consolidating ENG's six current divisions and one office
into five divisions -- three of which focus on interdisciplinary
research, one focuses on education and centers programs, and one focuses
on innovation and partnerships. Specifically:

-   The division of ***Bioengineering and Environmental Systems*** will
    merge with the division of ***Chemical and Transport Systems*** to
    become the ***Chemical, Biological, Environmental and Transport
    Systems** division (CBET)*.

-   The division of ***Civil and Mechanical Systems*** will merge with
    the division of ***Design and Manufacturing Innovation*** to become
    the division of ***Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation**
    (CMMI)*.

-   The division of ***Electrical and Communications Systems*** will add
    *Cyber Systems* to its portfolio to become the division of
    ***Electrical, Communications, and Cyber Systems*** (*ECCS*).

-   The ***Office of Industrial Innovation***, which houses SBIR/STTR,
    will be broadened to include new partnerships, and become the
    division of ***Industrial Innovation and Partnerships** (IIP)*.

-   The division of ***Engineering Education and Centers** (EEC)* will
    now provide more emphasis on its role as a crosscutting division
    within the directorate.

-   A crosscutting office of ***Emerging Frontiers in Research and
    Innovation** (EFRI)* will be added to the Office of the Assistant
    Director (OAD).

![](media/image1.wmf)

The resulting organizational structure will have the five divisions
reporting to the OAD. The *Engineering Education and Centers* division
will also report to the OAD, but will also interact more closely with
the other four divisions.

The EFRI Office within the OAD will consider areas of emerging frontiers
of engineering research, innovation, and education. The EFRI Office will
identify and prioritize emerging frontier areas of research and
education, and provide resources for pursing these priorities. EFRI will
serve a critical role of helping the Directorate for Engineering focus
on important new areas. It will consist of a director who will lead a
working group made up of the Deputy Assistant Director and five outside
members (three from the Advisory Committee and two from the engineering
community). Resource allocation recommendations for the new and emerging
frontier areas will be made by EFRI and forwarded to the Engineering
Leadership Team (ELT) -- which is made up of the Assistant Director,
Deputy Assistant Director, and division directors -- for further
discussion, and ultimate recommendation to the Assistant Director.

Finally, ENG will rely on a series of crosscutting working groups
(staffed from the various divisions) to provide the necessary guidance
for certain cross-disciplinary areas. These include Engineering
Education, Engineering Research Centers, Emerging Frontiers in Research
and Innovation, Cyberinfrastructure and Information Technology Research,
Nanotechnology, Critical Infrastructure, and Complex Engineered Systems.
The ELT will oversee these working groups.

The relationship of the Working Groups and the divisions is represented
in the following chart:

![](media/image2.wmf)

The EEC division is shown in the above chart as also containing two the
crosscutting elements in ENG -- Engineering Education and Engineering
Research Centers. The following chart clarifies the relationship among
Engineering Education, Engineering Research Centers, the EEC division,
and the other ENG divisions.

![](media/image1.wmf)

[Conclusion]{.smallcaps}

This report and the other 12 issue-oriented and division-level reports
will provide the directorate with a road map over the next 5 years.
Detailed implementation plans for each strategic goal will be developed
within the next few months. These plans -- including appropriate action
strategies, performance objectives, milestones, and performance measures
-- will be the basis for Directorate operating practice.

ENG's goals, objectives, strategies, and targets will be reviewed each
year as part of the long-range planning and budget development process.
The entire plan will be reviewed every three years and revised
accordingly.

It is expected that this planning activity will increase the
effectiveness of the Engineering Directorate and increase the value of
its research and education investments to the engineering community and
the nation.

[Appendices]{.smallcaps}

**[[Appendix A]{.smallcaps}:]{.underline} About the National Science
Foundation**

**[[Appendix B]{.underline}:]{.smallcaps} Premier Engineering Programs**

**[[Appendix C]{.underline}:]{.smallcaps} SWOT Analysis**

**[[Appendix D:]{.underline}]{.smallcaps} ENG Opportunities Identified
by the STG and Discussed with the Engineering Advisory Committee**

# **[Appendix E:]{.smallcaps} Preliminary list of Candidate Priority Areas**

# 

**[[Appendix F]{.underline}:]{.smallcaps} Descriptions of Selected
Frontier Research Areas**

[Appendix A]{.smallcaps}

*About the National Science Foundation*

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is responsible for advancing the
progress of science and engineering in the United States across a broad
and expanding frontier. It carries out its mission primarily by making
merit-based grants to researchers, educators, and students at more than
2,000 U.S. colleges, universities and other institutions.

NSF supports fundamental research, education and infrastructure at
colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout the country.
Its broad support for research and education, particularly at U.S.
academic institutions, provides funds for discovery in many fields and
for developing the next generation of scientists and engineers.

NSF leads Federal agencies in funding research and education activities
based upon merit review. This year NSF made more than 10,000 new awards
from more than 40,000 competitive proposals submitted. Over 96 percent
of NSF's research and education awards are selected through its
competitive merit review process. All proposals for research and
education projects are evaluated using two criteria: the *intellectual
merit* of the proposed activity and its *broader impacts*, such as
impacts on teaching, training and learning. Reviewers also consider how
well the proposed activity fosters the integration of research and
education and broadens opportunities to include a diversity of
participants, particularly from underrepresented groups. The merit
review system is at the very heart of NSF\'s selection of the projects
through which its mission is achieved. Ensuring a credible, efficient
system requires constant attention and openness to change.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="3.3965277777777776in"
height="2.540277777777778in"}

**[Appendix B]{.smallcaps}**

***Premier ENG Programs***

**CLEANER** (Collaborative Large-scale Engineering Analysis Network for
Environmental Research). The goal of CLEANER is to fundamentally
transform and radically advance the scientific and engineering knowledge
base to address the challenges of large-scale human-dominated complex
environmental systems.

**Engineering Research Centers (ERC)** focus on the definition,
fundamental understanding, development, and validation of the
technologies needed to realize a well-defined class of engineered
systems with the potential to spawn whole new industries or radically
transform the product lines, processing technologies, or service
delivery methodologies of current industries.

**Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER)** offers the NSF's
most prestigious awards in support of the early career-development
activities of those teacher-scholars who most effectively integrate
research and education within the context of the mission of their
organization. Such activities should build a firm foundation for a
lifetime of integrated contributions to research and education.

**Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC)** The
Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRCs) program
develops long-term partnerships among industry, academe, and government.
The centers are catalyzed by a small investment from the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and are primarily supported by industry center
members, with NSF taking a supporting role in their development and
evolution. Each center is established to conduct research that is of
interest to both the industry and the center. An I/UCRC contributes to
the Nation\'s research infrastructure base and enhances the intellectual
capacity of the engineering and science workforce through the
integration of research and education.

**Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)**
program is intended to catalyze a cultural change in graduate education,
for students, faculty, and institutions, by establishing innovative new
models for graduate education and training in a fertile environment for
collaborative research that transcends traditional disciplinary
boundaries.

NSF launched the **National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)** and
provides the largest contribution to this major interagency effort,
Within NSF, the ENG has lead responsibility for nanotechnology. ENG
support for nanotechnology research, education and infrastructure
provides the foundation for a better understanding of nature,
development of a new world of products beyond what it is now possible,
high efficiency in manufacturing, sustainable development, better
healthcare and improved human performance.

**National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN)** is an
integrated partnership of 13 user facilities that serve the needs of the
nanoscale research community. It provides users across the nation with
access to leading-edge tools, state-of-the-art instrumentation, and
capabilities for characterization, design, fabrication, synthesis,
simulation, and integration to enable their individual research
projects.

**Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)** is a national,
shared use experimental resource for advancing knowledge and technology
to improve the design and performance of the Nation\'s civil and
mechanical infrastructure when subjected to earthquake excitation and
tsunamis. NEES equipment sites include shake tables, geotechnical
centrifuges, a tsunami wave basin, unique large-scale testing laboratory
facilities, and mobile and permanently installed field equipment.

**Partnerships for Innovation (PFI)** goals are to: 1) stimulate the
transformation of knowledge created by the national research and
education enterprise into innovations that create new wealth, build
strong local, regional and national economies and improve the national
well-being; 2) broaden the participation of all types of academic
institutions and all citizens in NSF activities to more fully meet the
broad workforce needs of the national innovation enterprise; and 3)
catalyze or enhance enabling infrastructure necessary to foster and
sustain innovation in the long-term.

**Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/ Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR)**: The SBIR/STTR Programs stimulate technological
innovation in the private sector, by strengthening the role of small
business concerns in meeting Federal research and development needs,
increasing the commercial application of federally supported research
results, and fostering and encouraging participation by socially and
economically disadvantaged persons and women-owned small businesses.

**Appendix C**

# **SWOT ANALYSIS**

**[Top Five Identified ENG Strengths]{.smallcaps}**

# 

# NSF/ENG's highly positive image/reputation (largely based on its merit review process).

# 

1.  Degree to which ENG involves the S&E community in its operations
    (e.g. planning workshops, proposal review, and rotator staff).

2.  ENG's top notch staff (continuously enriched through rotator
    system).

3.  ENG's nimble (not entrenched) and innovative operating style (e.g.,
    able to quickly design and start new programs).

4.  ENG's ability to work effectively with industry (e.g. ENG has a
    large number of rich and diverse partnerships with industry -- best
    in the NSF).

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**[Top Five Identified ENG Weaknesses]{.smallcaps}**

1.  Frequent rotation of ENG management (highest in NSF) has caused
    instability and frequent changes in direction.

2.  Low proposal success rates (lower than the NSF average) has resulted
    in many excellent proposals not being funded (and ENG's reputation
    to suffer.)

# ENG Divisions are too rigid and narrowly defined in scope (leads to communication and operational difficulties.)

3.  Bias within NSF against funding applied research restricts ENG's
    ability to bridge the gap between basic research and engineering
    innovation.

4.  ENG develops and supports too many proposal solicitations (results
    in lower success rates, lack of commitment, and confusion within the
    community.)

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**[Top Five Identified ENG Opportunities]{.smallcaps}**

1.  Redefining ENG's role in innovation will enrich its portfolio and
    partnerships, and help bridge the gap between the engineering
    community and society.

2.  Establishing stronger linkages to education (at all levels) will
    increase ENG's contribution to building a 21st century engineering
    workforce.

3.  Increasing international awareness and collaboration with ENG will
    enrich its portfolio, and help it compete on a global basis.

4.  Taking a leading role in NSF's cyberinfrastructure initiative will
    benefit the community in many ways (e.g. more and better
    infrastructure.)

5.  Develop a better process for setting priorities will result in
    better resource decisions, a more motivated staff, and less budget
    strife.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**[Top Five Identified ENG Threats/Concerns]{.smallcaps}**

1.  Concerns about and expectations of future tight budget constrains.

2.  Lack of diversity within the engineering profession and workforce.

3.  Concerns about the global economy and engineering workforce (e.g.,
    companies "outsourcing" routine engineering jobs).

4.  Increased proposal receipts and tight budgets will result in even
    lower proposal success rates (will hurt ability to attract top notch
    researchers.)

5.  ENG is getting "lost" in national discussion. Its "message" is not
    being communicated effectively to NSF, OMB and the Congress.

**[Appendix D]{.smallcaps}**

**ENG Opportunities Identified by the STG and Discussed with the
Engineering Advisory Committee**

-   Redefine ENG's role in innovation will enrich its portfolio and
    partnerships, help bridge the gap between research and application,
    and benefit the engineering community and society.

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

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

-   ENG take on a leading role in building & evolving the Cyber
    infrastructure (enabling technology).

-   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.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Influence future budget process.

-   Enhance outreach to community to involve broader participation of
    underrepresented groups & young investigators in the review process.

-   Create a national voice for engineering.

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use ENG Strategic Plan as a tool for continuity in time during
    changes in leadership across the directorate.

-   "True" reorganization of ENG

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

-   Capitalizing on Nanotechnology investments.

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

-   ENG emphasize and value transformative research in the review
    process and encourage Program Officers to take greater risks.

-   Find ways to foster interdisciplinary research at all funding
    scales.

-   Create "Nobel Prize" like high-level recognition.

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

-   High-level engineering counterpart to PITAC (leverage/influence
    PCAST).

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

\*Preliminary list as of October 21, 2004

**[Appendix E]{.smallcaps}**

# **Preliminary List of Candidate Frontier Research Areas**

A preliminary list (taken from discussions over the last several months
in no special order)

-   Nanotechnology

-   Biology in Engineering

-   Cyberinfrastructure

-   Civil/Critical Infrastructure

-   National Security

-   Sensors

-   Instrument Technology

-   Manufacturing

-   CLEANER

-   Energy

-   Workforce

-   Simulation

-   Complexity

**[Appendix F]{.smallcaps}**

**[Descriptions of Frontier Research Areas]{.smallcaps}**

***Biology in Engineering**:* Biology has become pervasive throughout
engineering in general. This is illustrated by the fact that every one
of ENG's six divisions now supports research and education involving
biology. The goal of this initiative is to develop engineering
principles that are [based in biology]{.underline} in the same manner
that mechanical and electrical engineering have been based in mechanics
and electronic/physics principle and chemical engineering on principles
of chemistry. The challenge will be for the engineer to learn the
necessary biology and/or work in concert with the biologist to develop
phenomenological relations and laws based on which new discoveries and
technologies can be developed. Collaborating biologists will need to
embark in arenas of knowledge that may not be in the mainstream of
biological sciences. Engineers from all disciplines have the opportunity
to integrate and exploit biology in their respective disciplines and
develop new "Biology-based Engineered Systems". These discoveries and
technologies will have tremendous potential application in healthcare,
homeland security, quality of life, and other areas.

The following are examples where the gaps in knowledge and technology
can only be unearthed when engineering and biology are integrated:

[Gene Therapy]{.underline}- Genes are biologically active species that
if successfully and in large numbers transported through cell membranes
(first bottleneck) and have sustained expression (second bottleneck),
and then a myriad of terrible diseases such as liver cancer and sickle
cell anemia may have hope for a true cure. Engineers understand
transport through membranes but to do this for human tissues composed
and connected to a myriad of other genes is huge gap to fill.

[Neural Implant Acceptance]{.underline} - One of the most promising
areas of research is the use of biomimetic microelectronic and/or
chemical devices that are integrated in neural systems for purposes such
as treating deafness, blindness, or paralysis.

[Nanobioelectronics]{.underline} - In the coming together of biological
nanoparticles such proteins and enzymes with metallic or semiconductor
materials new hybrid materials can be and have been developed. These
materials exploit biological characteristics such as self-assembly and
exhibit unique new capabilities for application such as nano-circuitry
and sensing.

[Microbe Engineering]{.underline} - In the human gut, a large number of
'friendly' bacteria work to keep the gastro-intestinal system healthy
and keep unfriendly infectious bacteria in check. Can this concept be
expanded? Can microbes be manipulated and engineered for specific
purposes such as targeted treatment of cancerous tumors?

[Energy and the Environment]{.underline} - The research needs are in
many directions\--from the examination of chemical catalysts and
molecular transformations to the novel ideas of producing hydrogen from
algae or wastewater. Biohydrogen is seen as a potential attractive
\"natural\" source of sustainable, environmentally benign energy.

***New Frontiers in Nanotechnology:*** NSF launched the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and provides the largest contribution to
this major interagency effort, Within NSF, the ENG has lead
responsibility for nanotechnology. ENG support for nanotechnology
research, education and infrastructure provides the foundation for a
better understanding of nature, development of a new world of products
beyond what it is now possible, high efficiency in manufacturing,
sustainable development, better healthcare and improved human
performance. Long-term objectives include building a foundation of
fundamental research for understanding and applying novel principles and
phenomena for nanoscale manufacturing and other NNI Grand Challenges;
ensuring that U.S. institutions will have access to a full range of
nano-facilities; enabling access to nanotechnology education for the
public through informal education, and for students in U.S. middle
schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities; and catalyzing
the creation of new commercial markets that depend on three-dimensional
nanostructures.

A main challenge and opportunity for engineering resides in creating new
tools, nanosystem design and nanomanufacturing. The rudimentary
capabilities of nanotechnology today for systematic control and
manufacture at the nanoscale are envisioned to evolve in four
overlapping generations of new nanotechnology products with different
areas of R&D focus: passive nanostructures, active nanostructures,
systems of nanosystems with three-dimensional features, and
heterogeneous molecular nanosystems. The following areas are examples of
new frontiers that need increased research support:

[Nano And Nano-Bio Manufacturing]{.underline} **-** A completely new
body of manufacturing knowledge is needed to support the advances in
nano and nano-bio science and engineering. It is a simple statement of
fact that in order to make things you must first have available the
necessary designs, fabrication and assembly tools, and systems. Easy
manipulation and large-scale economic production of new products is
required for rapid transfer of research results from the laboratory to
marketplace. In nano-biomanufacturing, the possibility to join living
cells and tissues with materials and fabrication tools provides new
opportunities. *(See also Manufacturing Frontiers for more on
manufacturing research opportunities)*

[Nanoelectronics]{.underline} - Silicon semiconductor electronics is
central to advances in information technology and creation of
high-quality jobs for a growing population, improving healthcare,
increasing the standard of living, and enhancing cultural progress.
Continuous progress in silicon technology has been driven over the past
several decades by CMOS scaling of device structures to ever smaller
feature sizes. However, CMOS scaling will reach fundamental limits at
the nanoscale in the next 15-20 years. To enable discovery and
innovation of new approaches to electronics, beyond the limits of CMOS
technology, the NSF has embarked on collaborative efforts with the
semiconductor industry and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC)
on the theme of *Silicon Nanoelectronics and Beyond (SNB).* Research in
SNB will explore ultimate limits to scaling of features and alternative
physical principles for devices employed in sensing, storage,
communication, and computation, including biological, molecular, and
other emerging areas of electronics/photonics at the nanoscale.

***Critical Infrastructure Systems:*** The Nation's infrastructure is
the framework of networks, and systems that provides a continual flow of
goods and services essential to the defense and economic security of the
United States. These include: agriculture and food, water, public
health, emergency services, the defense industrial base, information and
telecommunications, energy and power; transportation, banking and
finance, etc.

Natural hazards (e.g., the recent Indian Ocean Tsunami), cascading
system failures (e.g., the recent massive power outages in North
America), or terrorist attacks (e.g., those that occurred on 9/11/2001)
on critical infrastructure could disrupt the direct functioning of key
business and government activities, facilities, and systems, as well as
have cascading effects throughout the Nation's economy. The facilities,
systems, and functions that comprise our critical infrastructures are
highly sophisticated, interdependent and complex. They include human
assets and physical and cyber systems that work together in processes
and networks that are highly interdependent. They also consist of key
nodes and the links between them that, in turn, are essential to the
operation of the critical infrastructures in which they function.

Research and development efforts can enable the integration of modeling,
simulation, and analysis into national infrastructure and asset
protection planning and decision support activities; develop economic
models of near- and long-term effects of terrorist attacks; develop
critical node/chokepoint and interdependency analysis capabilities;
model interdependencies across sectors with respect to potential
conflicts between sector alert and warning procedures and actions that
must be initiated; conduct integrated risk modeling of cyber and
physical threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences; develop models to
improve information integration. Research is also needed to develop new
devices and sensing systems to detect biological and chemical threats,
such as "labs on a computer chip," or threats to critical equipment and
infrastructure, such as sensors to detect faulty wiring in airplanes.

Providing cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable energy sources in
the face of growing global demand for energy would be a boon to the
world economy, to local environments worldwide, to the global
environment, and to public health. Moving forward with innovative
research makes good economic sense and contributes to both energy and
environmental security. Fundamental breakthroughs are needed before we
can realistically claim a future of safe, large-scale energy/ hydrogen
production, storage, delivery, and use.

A significant additional investment is needed in widely shared
cyberinfrastructure is needed to bring next generation computer,
communications, and database and sensor capabilities to researchers and
students nationwide. This investment should enable researchers to
explore new experimental vistas, and collaborate more broadly and
effectively. ENG will play a vital role in identifying, designing,
optimizing and developing this infrastructure of the future. ENG's
experience in developing revolutionary cyberinfrastructure for
nanotechnology, earthquake engineering, and environmental engineering
will aid in developing the collaboration, data analysis, and
visualization tools of the future.

***Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems:*** We know quite a bit
about how neurons operate in the human brain, but are far from
understanding consciousness. Other examples of complexity in systems,
both man-made and natural, include ecosystems, the world-wide web,
metabolic pathways, economic markets, spread of HIV infections, and the
power grid. With such systems, decomposition and analysis of subsystems,
does not necessarily explain the behavior of the whole. Complex systems
can display emergent behavior, where they provide organization without a
central organizing principle.

There are many research traditions in science, engineering and
mathematics that are relevant to such systems. Furthermore, we are
increasingly seeing the emergence of institutes, centers, departments,
journals, and books aimed understanding complex systems, and the
fundamental principles that underlie their behavior. The goal is to
provide a unity of approach to many different problems that are
physical, biological, technological, economic and sociological in
nature. This trend builds on many disciplinary foundations, such as
systems theory, including nonlinear systems, chaos, cellular automata,
fractals, evolutionary computation, self-organization, cognitive science
and engineering, systems engineering, systems biology, computational
science and many others.

At this point in time, there is an intellectual opportunity. There is a
maturation and convergence, from many different fields of inquiry, of
ideas relevant to complex systems and system engineering, for natural
and engineered systems. We seek common principles, and a unifying
theory, as well as methods to analyze and synthesize such systems.
Fundamental understanding of complex systems has the potential to
predict specific system's behavior, engineer its design and build-in
response to arrive at a highly robust system.

The need, in many fields from biology to social and engineered systems,
is also abundant. To mention but a few, we must understand how the brain
learns, we must manage our environment for future generations, we must
build infrastructure systems (e.g., power, transportation and
information networks) that are not brittle and prone to collapse, we
must provide abundant and clean energy sources, and we must understand
and manage our vast global financial markets.

Energy research needs to accelerate the development of basic knowledge
that can lead to scientific and technological capabilities of complex
energy systems. Energy is a valuable commodity - one that people
everywhere cannot continue to take for granted. Important research needs
encompasses aspects from the small and the large\--the specifics of fuel
cell interactions and the modeling of widespread distribution systems.

Consequently, the area of Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems
is an ideal topic for a significant NSF research focus, and one where
the Engineering Directorate, with its systems integration expertise, can
provide a leadership role.

***Manufacturing Frontiers:*** Integrated manufacturing, the innovative
systems and processes for transforming materials and knowledge to
products that have value to society, remains one of the major
contributors to GDP. The recently established and NIST-led NSTC
interagency working group on Manufacturing R&D has taken a lead to
address manufacturing innovation. But NSF is clearly seen as the
intellectual leader on the research and educational agenda at the
frontiers, at the intersection of discovery, learning and innovation can
create the transformative manufacturing enterprises of the future.
Engineering research and education opportunities that NSF can lead
include:

[New materials and zero waste use]{.underline} - Today nano-sized
particles molded into automobile bumpers makes them able to absorb more
energy on impact, contributing to the safety of today's vehicles.
Building products molecule by molecule may allow the realization of new
products designed for performance that could not be manufactured through
traditional means. These products of tomorrow may be advantageous in
that there is the potential for materials reuse after the initial life
cycle, if disassembly molecule by molecule can be accomplished as well.

[Nano and nano-bio manufacturing]{.underline} - A completely new body of
manufacturing knowledge is needed to support the advances in nano and
nano-bio science and engineering. It is a simple statement of fact that
in order to make things you must first have available the necessary
designs, fabrication and assembly tools, and systems. Easy manipulation
and large-scale economic production of new products is required for
rapid transfer of research results from the laboratory to marketplace.
In nano-biomanufacturing, the possibility to join living cells and
tissues with materials and fabrication tools provides new opportunities.
*(See also Biology in Engineering for other related research
opportunities)*

# Convergence of Bio-Engineered Discoveries and Manufacturing Innovations

Imagine a future where our individual health care needs are anticipated,
and the best health care alternatives are provided precisely when
needed. These health care alternatives might be custom medications or
minimally intrusive replacement of organs. And above all, these
alternatives are valued by the individual for reliably delivering
quality of life, and are valued by society for their accessibility.

Bibliography

**NSF Sources**

*NSF FY 2006 Budget Request to Congress*, February 2005.

*National Science Foundation Strategic Plan 2003-2008*, October 2003,
[**http://nsf.gov/about/performance/strategic.jsp**](http://nsf.gov/about/performance/strategic.jsp)

*Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, NSF 2004. [NSB
04-01](http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/start.htm)*

*A Report to Congress on the Budgetary and Programmatic Expansion of the
National Science Foundation \"Fulfilling the
Promise\"[NSB-2004-15](http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb03151/coverlink.pdf)*

*Director's Merit Review Report, 2003, [NSB
04-43](http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2004/MRreport_2003_final.pdf)*

*The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America\'s Potential
[NSB 03-69](http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf)*

*\
Science and Engineering Infrastructure Report for the 21st Century\
-The Role of the National Science Foundation, February 8,
2003[NSB-02-190](http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2002/nsb02190/nsb02190.pdf)*

**ENG Sources**

*Awards and Solicitations Task Group Study and Recommendations*, ENG
ASTG Task Group, March 8, 2005 (draft).

*Awards Impact & Assessment Task Group Report*, AIA Task Group, March
2005 (draft).

*Directorate for Engineering, "The Engineering Workforce: Current State,
Issues, and Recommendations*, ENG Workforce Task Group, 2005 (draft).

*Making the case for Engineering: Study and Recommendations*, ENG CASE
Task Group, 2005 (draft).

Brighton, J. A. \"The Role of Engineering in Enabling the Nation\'s
Future: Making the Case;\" ASEE, ERC Meeting March 29, 2004

*Funding High Risk Research*, presentation by Warren R. DeVries
(Division Director, DMII) to the ENG Advisory Committee. May 29, 2003.

*ENG Long View*, ENG Strategic Planning Committee, 1994

*Conference (Workshop) on Research at the Interface of the Life and
Physical Sciences (and Engineering): Bridging the Sciences,* November 9,
2004

Workshop on Emerging Issues in Nano-aerosol Science and Technology,
2003, S. K. Friedlander and D. Y. H. Pui,
<http://dlaton.hosted.ats.ucla.edu/nanoaerosol_workshop/>

Workshop on Future Directions for Hydrogen Energy Research and
Education, 2003, J. Romm

Workshop on Separations Research Needs for the 21st Century, 2005, R. D.
Noble

Workshop on \"Control and System Integration of Micro- and Nano-Scale
Systems.\" Held at NSF on Monday and Tuesday, March 29 and 30, 2004.
More information on the workshop can be found at the workshop website:\
<http://www.isr.umd.edu/CMN-NSFwkshp/>

**External Sources**

*The TechNet Innovation Initiative and 2005 Innovation Policy Agenda:
The technology Network,* March 2005.

*The Knowledge Economy: Is the United States Losing its Competitive
Edge?: Benchmarks of Our Innovation Future. The* Task Force on the
Future of American Innovation, February 2005.

*Assessing the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise*,
Draft Report of the National Academy of Engineering, January 2005.

*Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century*, National
Academy of Engineering, September 2004.

*Innovate America: National Innovation Initiative Final Report*,
(Council on Competitiveness), December 2004.

Duderstadt, J.J. *Making the Case for Enhanced Federal Investment in
Engineering Research and Education*. Presentation NSF ENG AdCom meeting,
May 2004.

National Academy of Engineering, *Greatest Engineering Achievements of
the 20^th^ Century*, 2004.

National Academy of Engineering, *The Impact of Academic Research on
Industrial Performance*, 2004.

National Academy of Engineering, *Developing Effective Messages for
Public Understanding of Engineering Programming*, NAE Draft Concept
Paper," 2004.

*The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic Plan.* National
Science and Technology Council, December 2004.

AAES/Harris Pollzz: *American Perspectives on Engineers and Engineering:
Final Report*, 13 Feb. 2004.

*Sustaining the Nation's Innovation Ecosystems,* President's Council of
Advisors on Science and technology (PCAST), January 2004.

*Preventing Earthquake Disasters: The Grand Challenge in Earthquake
Engineering, A Research Agenda for the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES),* National Research Council, 2003.

*Simulation Based Engineering Scienc*e, Arlington, April 2004.  Focuses
on the use of computational methods for multi-scale, multi-phenomenon
engineering systems.

Davis, L. and Gibbin, R., *Raising Public Awareness of Engineering*,
National Academy of Engineering 2002.

(Inside back cover of report.)

[ENG Values and Guiding Principles]{.smallcaps}

**[Merit Review[:]{.smallcaps}]{.underline}** ENG embraces
competitiveness in all of our programs and activities. We optimize the
efficiency and effectiveness of our investments through the use of the
competitive merit review process and peer evaluation of programs and
activities.

**[Diversity and Broadening Participation:]{.underline}** ENG includes
all citizens, groups and constituencies, and promote equal opportunity
for all. We work to ensure that the scientific and engineering workforce
is as extensive and diverse as possible in order to create a more
inclusive and robust

**[Integration of Research, Innovation and Education]{.underline}[:
]{.smallcaps}**ENG integrates and synergizes the knowledge and skills of
diverse disciplines and constituencies. We integrate the processes of
discovery, innovation and learning, and connect them to societal use.

**[Working at the Frontiers of Research and Innovation:]{.underline}**
In identifying and supporting ideas with the greatest creativity,
embracing new thinking, and using information technologies in innovative
ways, ENG helps chart new frontiers paths for the engineering community.

**[Address Societal Needs:]{.underline}** ENG grants address significant
societal concerns, such as the economy, the environment, security and
safety, health, and energy.

**[Information Sharing and Openness:]{.underline}** ENG is committed to
the sharing of information and a free marketplace of ideas. It
demonstrates an openness and facility for relating to all key
constituents within and outside the organization.

**[Teamwork and Partnerships]{.underline}[:]{.smallcaps}** ENG partners
with a dynamic and diverse education and research community, working in
a close trusting partnership while maintaining an independent
perspective. We encourage partnerships among agencies, industry,
academe, the states, and other nations when collaborative efforts
further our goals.

**[Data Driven Assessment and Objectives:]{.underline}** ENG is
committed to establishing performance-based goals and objectives that
are supported by accurate and reliable data.

[^1]: National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-0507).

[^2]: Basically, the engineering community consists of the following
    segments:

    Engineering colleges and faculty of U.S. universities

    Engineers within U.S. industry, both large and small

    Societies of engineering (30)

    The National Science Foundation

    Government science and engineering agencies and laboratories

[^3]: *The Long View* was ENG's last strategic planning document,
    produced in 1994. It is only available in printed form.

[^4]: *National Science Foundation Strategic Plan 2003-2008*., October
    2003,
    [**http://nsf.gov/about/performance/strategic.jsp**](http://nsf.gov/about/performance/strategic.jsp)

[^5]: *National Science Foundation Strategic Plan 2003-2008*., October
    2003,
    [**http://nsf.gov/about/performance/strategic.jsp**](http://nsf.gov/about/performance/strategic.jsp)

[^6]: These goals are not presented in priority order.

[^7]: In FY 2004, ENG received 10,833 proposals, of which 6,125 or 56
    percent were submitted in response to program solicitations.

[^8]: *Innovate America*, Council on Competitiveness, December 2004,
    www.compete.org

[^9]: *The Knowledge Economy: Is the United States Losing its
    Competitive Edge?: Benchmarks of Our Innovation Future. The* Task
    Force on the Future of American Innovation, February 2005.

[^10]: China, South Korea and Taiwan

[^11]: *Engineering Workforce: Current State, Issues, and
    Recommendations:* A Report to the Assistant Director for
    Engineering, March 2005.

[^12]: Johnson, M. J., and Sheppard, S. D., "Relationships Between
    Engineering Student and Faculty Development Demographics and
    Stakeholders Working to Affect Change,\" *Journal of Engineering
    Education*, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 139-151, 2004.

[^13]: AAES/Harris Poll \"American Perspectives on Engineers and
    Engineering: Final Report.\" 13 Feb. 2004.