5/1/01

Advisory Committee for Engineering

## Draft Minutes of Meeting

## November 1-2, 2000

The Engineering Advisory Committee\'s semi-annual meeting to discuss NSF
and Engineering (ENG) Directorate policy, program plans, investment
strategies, and reports from Committees of Visitors (COVs) was held on
November 1-2 at the Hilton Arlington & Towers, 950 North Stafford
Street, Arlington, Virginia, in Gallery 3 (Nov 1) and Masters Ballroom
(Nov 2). A copy of the agenda (*Appendix A*) is attached and the minutes
follow the agenda sequence of events.

Members of the Committee who attended were: Stephen W. Drew (Chair),
Evelyn L. Hu (Vice Chair), Harry Armen, April Brown, Chris Busch, Morris
Cohen, Costel Denson, Pius Egbelu, Mario Gonzalez, Sarah Hood, Kristina
Johnson, Kevin Kahn, Georgia-Ann Klutke, Oliver McGee, Henry Riggs,
Gustavo Roig, Leonard Silverman, and Timothy Tong. A complete list of
members is attached (*Appendix B*). NSF participants from ENG and other
NSF organizations also attended the meeting.

### Welcome

S. Drew opened the meeting, welcomed attendees and identified new
committee members. He reminded the committee of its GPRA
responsibilities and noted that GPRA would be addressed more fully in
the afternoon. A draft of the Executive Committee's GPRA Performance
Report was distributed for further review at the afternoon session. S.
Drew summarized events from the Advisory Committee Chairs meeting
earlier in the fall, which focused on ways to increase support for
science and engineering research, and on other issues. He also commented
on the RISE document and noted that it needed revision to speak more
explicitly to engineering needs. The chairman then asked each person at
the meeting table (both Committee members and NSF staff) to introduce
her/himself. Others attending the meeting were also asked to introduce
her/himself. S. Drew then asked L. Martin-Vega to update the Committee
on ENG and NSF activity since the last meeting.

### Engineering Directorate Update

L. Martin-Vega reiterated the NSF vision to enable the nation's future
through discovery, learning and innovation and identified the
Foundation's strategic goals regarding People, Ideas and Tools
(*Appendix C*). He commented briefly on current NSF themes on
Information Technology, Nanotechnology, Biocomplexity in the
Environment, and 21^st^ Century Workforce. The Workforce initiative is
not fully developed, but J. Sunley, Interim Assistant Director for the
Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) will participate in the
advisory committee meeting later today and apprise the Committee of
progress associated with this initiative. L. Martin-Vega also commented
on initiatives in the planning stage, including Mathematics and
Statistics, and the Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences. ENG is
playing a key role in the nanotechnology initiative and special
appreciation was extended to Mike Roco of CTS for his pivotal role in
developing and popularizing the idea across several agencies and at the
congressional and executive branches of government. An ENG staff update
identified recent staff appointments. The AD commented briefly on
ongoing initiatives, noting that the FY01 National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) comprises a \$423M investment across several government
agencies, whereas the NSF Nano Science and Engineering (NSE) initiative
investment is for \$74M. The initiative comprises three classes of
proposals.

L. Martin-Vega then summarized ENG activity in FY2000. He lauded former
ENG AD E. Wong's accomplishments in developing the current ENG research
agenda. He also complimented E. Wong's leadership and ultimate success
in establishing the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
facility, ENG's first Major Research Equipment (MRE) endeavor. Updates
were provided on other ENG activity, including the recently concluded
Combined Research and Curriculum Development grantees meeting, several
ongoing ENG initiatives, the CAREER program, and the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research (IGERT) program. L. Martin-Vega also
commented on a variety of partnerships between ENG and other entities.
The Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) typically leverage at the rate
of two to one, whereas the Industry University Cooperative Research
Centers (IUCRCs) typically are leveraged at the rate of ten to one.
Interagency partnerships were also discussed, including the long term
NSF/EPA Environmental Research partnership, the NSF/HUD partnership for
Advancing Technology in Housing, the NSF/DOE Plasma Science and
Engineering partnership, and the Metabolic Engineering partnership
involving several federal agencies. International activity was also
highlighted with brief comments on the World Technology Evaluation
Center (WTEC) studies, the US/Japan Optoelectronics Project, Earthquake
Mitigation collaboration with Japan, and the emerging international
dimension of the annual Design Manufacture and Industrial Innovation
grantees conference.

Dr. Martin-Vega also discussed ENG planning undertaken in July when the
Engineering Management Group engaged in a "Taking Stock" exercise to
better understand current commitments and to develop ideas and
strategies for the future ENG research and education portfolio. In that
context, he emphasized ENG's continuing commitment to nanotechnology. He
also commented that ENG is looking for ways to amplify its profile in
the environmental technology area and to that end, he has appointed a
working group under B. Hamilton (Bioengineering and Environmental
Systems division director) to develop strategies to meet this goal.
Fiscal Year 2001 budget information was also presented. The approved NSF
budget calls for a 13.5% increase (\$540M), but it is not yet clear how
this increase will manifest itself at the directorate level. Looking to
the future, L. Martin--Vega resolved to follow through with its current
vision with special emphasis on a few high priority initiatives,
including Quantitative Systems Biology, Wireless Technology, and others.
In the area of 21^st^ Century Workforce, ENG will continue to look for
ways to make a real difference in developing the country's engineering
workforce for the immediate future. On that point, it was noted that ENG
has only recently announced grant supplement opportunities to engage
K-12 teachers in the research process through a Research Experiences for
Teachers (RET) initiative, developed by R. Baheti of the Electrical and
Communications Systems Division. This program will provide \$10K
supplements to current ENG grantees to expose teachers to research
activity. The initiative will strengthen connections between
universities and K-12 schools, and teachers participating in the program
are expected to take their research experience back to the classroom to
assist in enhancing student overall appreciation of engineering and
science. The idea of expanding the concept to include an RET site
component is being considered. ENG also wants to enhance collaboration
between ENG and EHR, and L. Martin-Vega reminded the Committee of the
afternoon session with J. Sunley, which can assist in developing
strategies to implement this need.

L. Martin-Vega reiterated the primary foci of today's meeting including
a discussion of DMII activity, the future of engineering research and
education, an ENG response to ERC issues raised by E. Hu at the last
meeting, the integration of research and education, and a more detailed
overview of nanotechnology research.

As a final thought, the AD emphasized that a key part of the ENG vision
is to "make sure that we are not "under invested" in areas of research
growth or educational need, nor "over invested" in continuing or old
areas". He invited the Committee to comment broadly on the issues to be
covered, and reminded it of the high value that ENG places on its
advice.

Discussion followed the AD presentation. P. Egbelu noted an apparent
disproportionate share of ENG support for the CAREER program and
requested clarification on that imbalance. L. Martin-Vega replied that
ENG's share is about 30% of the NSF CAREER portfolio and that that trend
reflected ENG's early commitment to support of entry level faculty,
preceding CAREER, and he also pointed out that the ENG share has
declined since the inception of CAREER as other directorates have become
more active in the initiative. C. Busch wanted to know if the 21^st^
Century Workforce initiative focused just on graduate students or was
more broad based. The latter applies. K. Kahn asked for clarification on
expectations of teachers in the evolving RET initiative. The
announcement is not specific on that point but makes clear that feedback
in the classroom is expected. H. Armen requested information on how ENG
divisions foster connections between each other and with organizations
outside of ENG. L. Martin-Vega and E. Gulari provided several examples
of such outreach and how that outreach has grown with time. Discussion
ended on that note.

### MANUFACTURE AND INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION (DMII) DIVISION REPORT

In keeping with the tradition of informing the Committee of ENG research
activity, the Division of Manufacture and Industrial Innovation provided
an overview of its research activity in both the academic and small
business communities, (see *Appendix D*). K. Narayanan presented the
overview, starting with a manufacturing historical perspective. This was
followed by a divisional overview, comprising its history which started
in 1985 as the Division of Design and Manufacturing, in response to the
need to enhance US competitiveness. In 1992, the division broadened its
responsibilities by combining with the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program to become the Division of Manufacture and
Industrial Innovation (DMII). The original and current program
structures were presented as was the division budgets for the last three
years. This was followed by a statement on the current division vision,
its research and cross cutting programs, and program and support staff
who implement those programs. DMII subscribes to the manufacturing grand
challenges spelled out in a recent National Research Council (NRC)
report. They comprise concurrent manufacturing, integration of human and
technical resources, conversion of information to knowledge,
environmental compatibility, reconfigurable enterprises, and innovative
processes.

K. Narayanan then described the various DMII programs, focusing
initially on the Materials Processing and Manufacturing (MPM) program
managed by D. Durham. K. Narayanan described research themes in rapid
prototyping, thin films, coatings, additive processes,
nanotechhnologies, beam processes, and electronic packaging and more.
Many examples of MPM research were discussed. He also commented on the
environmentally benign manufacturing technology assessment activity
implemented by the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) at Loyola
College in Baltimore. K. Narayan continued with an overview of the
Manufacturing Machines and Equipment (MME) program managed by K. P.
Rajurkar. The program focuses on low cost high performance machinery
elements, understanding of machine characteristics, monitoring and
control of manufacturing processes, and optimization of manufacturing
equipment operations. Numerous examples of MME research were described.
The Design, Integration and Engineering Design program, managed by G.
Hazelrigg, addresses engineering design comprising all activity related
to the specification of a product, process or service, and it also
addresses all aspects of the integration of engineering design and
manufacture. Several examples of program research were described,
including some high risk Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER)
projects. The Operations Research and Production Systems program is
managed by R. Rardin. It sponsors research in modeling, analysis, design
and operation of natural and man-made systems, and in effective use of
resources under constraints. The program has active ties with the
mathematics and economics communities. K. Narayanan also provided
several examples of program research. DMII also leads or partners with
special initiatives in scalable enterprise systems, engineering
transport systems, and innovation and organizational systems. It
furthermore coordinates, for ENG, the NSF wide program Grant
Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI). The program,
managed by D. Senich, sponsors research with strong university/industry
collaboration. DMII also participates in a variety of other ENG and NSF
special initiatives.

Discussion followed K. Narayanan's DMII overview. In response to H.
Armen's question on collaboration with DARPA, K. Narayanan commented on
research at the University of Texas done by J. Beaman, collaboration in
the STRATMAN initiative, and several other collaborations. G. Hazelrigg
also alluded to the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) which NSF
participated in with DARPA and other agencies in the early 90's. There
was further discussion on mechanisms for engaging DMII in collaboration
with DARPA.

DIVISION OF DESIGN, MANUFACTURE, AND INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION COMMITTEE OF
VISITORS REPORT

G. Klutke chaired the DMII Committee of Visitors (COV) and prepared the
report discussed at the Advisory Committee meeting. The report is
attached as *Appendix E* and her summary comments are captured in
*Appendix F*. She thanked the other members of the COV as well as the
DMII staff for their labor in preparing the COV input. She reiterated
the GPRA assessment outcomes and commented positively on the division's
performance. She also complimented it on its support for cutting edge
research and education in design and manufacturing, and on its
geographic and gender diversity. DMII has implemented proposal
processing with efficiency and integrity. It has also been very
responsive to directorate wide and Foundation wide initiatives. Eight
recommendations for enhancing division performance were made. They
addressed panel size, participation of underrepresented groups, industry
participation, grantees conference changes, award size, and other
topics. The divisions were also advised to improve documentation
addressing the second review criterion and final reports to improve
input for GPRA reports. Another recommendation called for division
organizational restructuring along the lines of evolving technologies in
IT, biotechnology, and microsystems. The Committee concurred in these
recommendations but cautioned that any division restructuring be done
carefully.

K. Narayanan provided a response to the report and its summary, and his
remarks are summarized in *Appendix G.* He thanked the committee for its
diligence and care in reviewing division operations and intellectual
quality. The proposed recommendations were well received and DMII has
already begun to respond to some of them, and is discussing strategies
to respond to others. The Committee also provided additional strategies
for implementing the recommendations. P. Egbelu recommended using
reviewers outside of the traditional DMII community to grow its reviewer
base. K. Narayanan reemphasized the difficulty in getting the reviewing
community to respond more fully to review criterion two and noted that
the Foundation has developed a uniform strategy for improving criterion
two responses. However, this is a cultural change which will take time.
K. Narayanan commented at length on the recommendation to restructure
the division and indicated that internal discussions have taken place,
but full response to the recommendation is not yet complete. It is
looking to "sunset" parts of the division core topics and to enable
other aspects. It intends to focus more on nanomanufacturing and has
received authorization to develop a new emphasis on nanomanufacturing
and to add a program officer to manage its research portfolio. He
commented in more detail on current and anticipated nanomanufacturing
research. He also noted that the Scalable Enterprise System research
thrust initiated in FY2000 will be expanded to a broader Service Sector
emphasis, including health care, finance, hospitality, logistics,
retail, and other aspects.

The Advisory Committee discussed the report and the division response at
length. L. Silverman cautioned that it may be premature to focus on
nanomanufacturing but reversed that position upon further clarification
from E. Hu who cited several examples where nanomanufacturing has
already entered the marketplace (i.e., aerosols). In response to K.
Kahn's question on how DMII would address the broad topic of Service
Sector research, K. Narayanan assured him that NSF's focus would be on
core research. H. Armen worried that with DMII moving into
nanomanufacturing, that conventional manufacturing research may be
viewed by the casual observer as mature and not worthy of continued
support. O. McGee agreed that DMII has to continue to stimulate progress
in core areas while simultaneously building new areas. K. Narayanan
reassured the Committee that the division would continue to sponsor
research in core traditional manufacturing areas. T. Tong and M. Cohen
wanted to know how much money would be invested in nanomanufacturing and
were concerned that incremental funding would not have appropriate
impact. K. Narayanan responded that specific investment levels for
nanomanufacturing are not yet fully planned out. T. Tong reiterated
concern over diversity and reemphasized that DMII needs to continue to
evolve strategies for supporting more people from underrepresented
groups.

The chairman brought the discussion to closure and asked for a motion to
approve the COV report. The Committee approved it.

**[WORKING LUNCH (COMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS)]{.underline}**

The chairman commented on his background and on several important
issues. He summarized his career starting in the life sciences,
transitioning to chemical engineering. He taught at Virginia Polytechnic
and State University until 1980 and then moved to the industry sector,
to Merck. He is currently at Princeton University. He noted the dearth
of engineers at Merck and other biochemical industries. He also
commented that the engineering profession continues to evolve, and that
we may be defining the profession too narrowly. A redefinition is in
order as the profession is impacted more and more by developments in
solid-state physics, biology, and other nontraditional engineering
disciplines. S. Drew invited other Committee members to comment on
issues and interests.

G. Roig, currently at the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), and
previously at the University of Puerto Rico and universities in
Venezuela, sees NSF as a very important part of the overall US science
and engineering infrastructure. He is pleased to see NSF engaged in
education matters as well as research. He is also excited about the
recently initiated Research Experience for Teachers thrust. FIT has a
strong partnership with the Miami K-12 pipeline and would like to use
RET to strengthen that connection.

S. Pancake attended the meeting as an observer from the CISE Advisory
Committee. She recommended that the ENG Committee designate a liaison to
attend CISE meetings.

L. Silverman, retiring dean at the University of Southern California,
supported the idea of more university/community interaction. He also
reiterated his preference for focusing committee attention on a small
set of overarching topics, an approach initiated by E. Wong.

K. Johnson has been dean of engineering at Duke University for a year;
having transferred from the University of Colorado where she managed an
NSF sponsored Optoelectronics ERC. She strongly supports the ERC
emphasis on undergraduate education. Her primary challenge at Duke is
expanding the engineering faculty by 40%.

M. Cohen's Ph.D. is in industrial engineering, but his current
appointment is in the business school at the University of Pennsylvania.
He asserted that quantitative and systems thinking are the hallmark of
engineering thinking and that that model needs to be manifested
elsewhere. He also recommended that the Committee needs to be more
interactive with the directorate.

A. Brown, an electrical engineer at Georgia Tech has assumed a part time
responsibility as an associate dean in addition to her other duties. She
has spent time at the University of Michigan and also at the Hughes
Research Laboratory in Malibu, CA. She also had an assignment at the
Army Research Lab. She is interested both in engineering workforce
issues and in the ability of academic institutions to change.

P. Egbelu, former DMII program director, started his academic career at
Penn State University, and moved to Iowa State University as chairman of
Industrial Engineering after his NSF experience. Currently, he is dean
of engineering at Louisiana State University. He commented on the poor
state of undergraduate instruction laboratories and asked if NSF could
serve as a catalyst to improve the gap between undergraduate labs and
research laboratories. He also noted that NSF should consider ways to
reenergize mid career academicians.

H. Riggs is director of the Keck Graduate Institute at the Claremont
colleges in Southern California. He is an industrial engineer who spent
many years on the Stanford faculty. He was president of the Harvey Mudd
Colleges for twelve years. He went on to describe the Keck Institute and
its vision to bring more of the life sciences to the engineering
curriculum. The institute grants a two-year MS degree.

T. Tong is the Dean of Engineering at the George Washington University.
He also served as a CTS program director at NSF in the mid 90's. He
expressed support for the RET program. He also cautioned NSF and ENG on
requirements for university cost sharing on MRE projects, as such cost
sharing may preclude many institutions from participating in MRE
projects.

G. Klutke, another former DMII PD in 1996 reiterated S. Drew's theme to
revisit our concept and definition of engineering. Service to society is
very important. She is pleased that ENG is beginning to stress the
service sector through its Scalable Enterprise Systems initiative.

C. Busch studied at Gonzaga University and obtained his Ph.D. At UC
Berkeley. He started an optics and optical technology company in 1975.
He left the business in 1991 and now mentors small business
entrepreneurs in the northwest. He acknowledged that the country has a
serious problem of getting the best and brightest into the engineering
profession. Engineers also need improved training in thinking and
management skills. He lives on an Indian Reservation.

O. McGee is Deputy Assistant Director of Technology in the Department of
Transportation. He also served recently at OSTP. He is a former PYI and
is currently on leave from Georgia Tech. He also supports taking up the
issue of the broadening engineering profession.

K. Kahn has been at Intel for more than twenty-four years. He
participated in an NSF program while still in high school. His expertise
is in the area of wireless technology. He described Intel philanthropy
in education and noted that it sponsors the former Westinghouse
Competition. He noted the importance of reaching down into the K-12
pipeline if we are to solve the country's science and engineering needs.

E. Hu from the University of California at Santa Barbara was at Bell
Labs for nine years before moving to academe. She expressed optimistic
views on the engineering profession and on its impact on society.
Engineering has traditionally been at the forefront of professions which
provide service to society. Her NSF connections extend from
participation in NSF programs while in high school. Centers have been
tremendously effective in providing for interdisciplinary cooperation,
in engaging K-12 students in engineering and science, and in growing
connections with industry.

Those Committee members who had not had the opportunity to share their
views were invited to do so at the evening dinner and/or at the
Committee's morning session.

### RESPONSE TO May 9-10 MEETING ACTION ITEMS

The major action item from the last meeting involved the Engineering
Research Centers report by E. Hu (see May meeting minutes). L. Preston
provided the response to her report (see *Appendix H).* She summarized
the program's history and current array of centers. She commented on
program goals and key features. She also highlighted the program's
productivity since inception. Of particular concern is the fact that ERC
budget size has not kept pace with inflation and other growth needs. The
startup level of centers grew from \$2M to \$2.6M in 2000 and the desire
is to further increase that level to \$3.5M in three years. A second
issue posed in the spring meeting dealt with targeting ERC effort on
specific technology areas. The Committee advised, at that time, that
targeting was inappropriate and EEC agreed. E. Hu also posed the issue
of how to support risky new ideas through the ERC program, noting the
tendency by academe and NSF reviewers to discount such proposals. To
address the issue, EEC has initiated the idea of sponsoring Engineering
Research Groups, precursors to possible full ERCs. EEC funded 16 such
centers and expects to hold another competition in FY2002.

L. Preston then addressed other ERC matters, including how to
accommodate the ERC philosophy to changes in academe and industry since
ERC's inception in the early eighties. The concept has Indeed evolved
with time, and community changes will continue to impact program's
future philosophy. She also reiterated the oversight constraints
discussed at the fall meeting and solicited Committee advice thereto. L.
Preston went into considerable detail on reporting requirements and the
rational for them. She concluded in posing several reporting issues for
Committee consideration.

The Committee initiated discussion on the many points raised in the EEC
presentation, but discussion was curtailed upon arrival of NSF Deputy
Director J. Bordogna.

### MEETING WITH NSF DEPUTY DIRECTOR

J. Bordogna reported on NSF's success in securing a significant FY01
increase of 13.5%. A 17.5% increase was requested. NSF was assisted in
the process by support it received from a variety of constituencies,
including Alan Greenspan and Harold Varmus who asserted the importance
of basic research in science and engineering as an economic driver and
workforce developer. NSF has accelerated its focus on workforce
development through its Workforce for the Twenty First-Century
initiative. J. Bordogna emphasized the need to improve math and science
education in K-12, and the Foundation is considering an education
centers concept to address this need. These science of learning centers
would focus on learning by joining cognitive learning specialists with
discipline specialists. He solicited Committee input on how to solve
this critical national problem.

Budget growth will continue to be a special emphasis in the immediate
future. A recent exercise to determine the appropriate budget to fully
enable NSF's mission indicated a budget of about \$12B, still less than
either the NASA or NIH budgets. This support addresses both core
discipline and initiative components. Initiatives are determined, in
part, by looking across community activities and ascertaining where
"bulging" occurs and determining if that corresponds to a national need.
Core disciplines will prosper automatically if we do well with
initiative implementation. Currently, NSF has about a 49/51% balance
between core and initiative activity. The four current initiatives focus
on nantechnology, information technology, biocomplexity and workforce.
Funding levels are associated with each initiative. The nanotechnology
initiative development was a good model for future initiatives. The
Foundation believes that only a limited number of initiatives should be
undertaken at a time to insure that they are done well. Typically, they
will be of three to five year duration. A mathematics initiative is
being proposed for the next fiscal year. The Foundation is also
considering an initiative for the social, behavioral and economic
sciences for FY03. The intent is to develop new tools to make heretofore
intractable social science issues more tractable.

J. Bordogna ended his comments by reiterating the importance of the
three outcome goals relating to People, Ideas, and Tools.

Discussion ensued with H. Armen's comment that at the current 13.5%
growth rate, Foundation budget doubling should occur in six years. J.
Bordogna was confident that the momentum is there to achieve that. L.
Silverman was concerned that initiative dynamics are driving NSF
research to the more applied side, but J. Bordogna reassured him that
that is not the case. H. Riggs wanted to know what effect the upcoming
election would have on NSF and its mission. J. Bordogna noted that
change will occur regardless of who is elected. That change could affect
the Foundation leadership and there may challenges to the issue of
integrating research and education.

K. Johnson wanted to know of any NSF connections with small hi tech
companies. The Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) program provides for an NSF connection.
Opportunities for direct partnering with academe are available in both
program components. J. Bordogna also hopes that the impact of ERC and
STC projects on academe will cause academic culture change and encourage
more university/high tech firm interaction. He also mentioned the H1B
program which provides for scholarships to train US citizens in science
and engineering. Although this resource is funneled through NSF, the
Foundation doesn't control its implementation.

Committee discussion then focused on education. O. McGee was concerned
that evolving engineering curricula have insufficient connections with
liberal arts education. He also recommended establishing a "great ideas"
course in the engineering curricula. But J. Bordogna asserted that that
has been done in some instances but with limited effect, and in his
view, a holistic education should involve connection between all
disciplines and stress working in teams. Much change needs to occur
here. Interdisciplinary connections requires more than just taking a
single course outside of engineering, but education should be a total
experience done within proper context. K. Kahn strongly supported these
views. L. Silverman supports transitioning from reductionist to holistic
education and commented that the former approach may be responsible for
USC losing engineering students after their first year studies. He
asserted that young people see technology as the key to the future, but
they don't opt to train in technology areas. He will look for ways to
bring more holistic education to USC. J. Bordogna followed up that
holism is not just a breadth versus depth issue, but the entire
education system has to change to make holism real. G. Roig amplified on
the point of young Americans being disengaged from technology. J.
Bordogna's response contrasted matters now and twenty-five years ago,
noting that twenty-five years ago, and with minimal education, Americans
still had freedom of professional choice, but that freedom of choice is
possible now only with education.

S. Drew wanted to know how the Advisory Committee could help in the next
year, particularly given that a new administration will soon be in
place. J. Bordogna noted that the major NSF challenge is still to get
the resources to do its job well. The Committee's input is very
important on this matter. It can also help ENG in redefining engineering
in the Twenty First-Century context. The US is a leader in many
dimensions and must continue to redefine itself to maintain and
strengthen that leadership. The meeting with the Deputy Director ended
on this note.

### IGERT/CAREER PRESENTATIONS

L. Goldberg, Senior Engineering Advisor in the Electrical and
Communications Systems (ECS) division, and NSF co-coordinator of the
program made the presentation on the Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship (IGERT) program. IGERT is an experimental program
designed to provide innovative, research based graduate education and
training opportunities. The focus is on emerging multidisciplinary
research themes that are problem centered rather than discipline
focused. Masters degree students are most prevalent, however, there are
also some Ph.D. students in the program. Another key goal is to enhance
diversity in science and engineering through recruitment and mentoring.
IGERT competitions have been held since 1998, and 57 awards have been
made up to this point in time. Awards are for 5 years and range in size
up to \$2.75M. The number of NSF IGERT sites will grow to 100 in the
sixth year of the program (2005), with 600 students being served. The
IGERT program is part of the graduate student portfolio which also
includes graduate student support on research grants and the Graduate
Research Fellowship program. The FY2001 investment is \$31M and the
steady state investment will be approximately \$54M. Most of this is
borne by the EHR Directorate. ENG's FY2001 investment is \$2.8M and that
level will remain steady through FY2005. ENG is involved in 35 of the
centers, and is the primary directorate in 15 of these. L. Goldberg
discussed several IGERTs and their unique features. One of these, the
Washington State University IGERT on Integrative Education of the Next
Generation of Environmental Scientists and Engineers has a successful
diversity component which focuses on Native Americans. Although not yet
assessed, the IGERT program has demonstrated clear successes. Committee
discussion focused on a number of program statistics. L. Goldberg
provided clarification where needed.

A. Flatau, program director in the Civil and Mechanical Systems program
and NSF coordinator of the CAREER program provided an overview of the
program. The program was initiated in 1995, as the successor to the NSF
Young Investigator and other entry-level programs. It differs from its
predecessors which focused on research. CAREER focuses on full career
development, including research and education. The program also seeks to
enhance the presence of groups currently underrepresented in the US
science and engineering enterprise. Award duration is 5 years, and size
ranges upward from a total investment of \$250K. ENG awards are for
\$375K (\$75K per year). Candidates must be in a tenure track position,
but not yet tenured. They must also be within 4 years of initiation of
the tenure track position and 8 years since receipt of the Ph.D. degree.
ENG has awarded more CAREER awards than any other directorate, due, in
part, to its long tradition of investment in young investigators. A
Committee of Visitors will convene in the spring of 2001 to assess
program strengths and weaknesses. A. Flatau answered a number of
Committee questions on program intent and operation. H. Armen asked why
the

matching requirement was dropped to which A. Flatau responded that the
decision was made by NSF management, but with ENG taking exception.

Presentation materials on IGERT and CAREER are attached in *Appendices
I* and *J.*

Meeting with the EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES (EHR) Directorate

In keeping with the Committee's desire to be informed about NSF activity
outside of the Directorate, the EHR Directorate was invited to meet with
the ENG Advisory Committee. L. Martin-Vega introduced Dr. Judy Sunley,
Interim Assistant Director for EHR. J. Sunley focused her comments
(Appendix K) on the evolving 21^st^ Century Workforce initiative. She
reiterated NSF's strategic goals, People, Ideas, and Tools and noted
that EHR's mission speaks most explicitly to the People goal. NSF
sponsors a variety of programs, primarily in EHR, which seek to increase
US citizens understanding and appreciation for science, mathematics,
engineering and technology. These include education and training
programs, human resource development programs, and integration of
research and education activity (i.e., IGERT, REU, CAREER). ENG supports
both NSF wide programs, managed by EHR, and its own local education and
human resources programs. This latter set comprises the Engineering
Education Coalitions, the Action Agenda, and the Combined Research and
Curriculum Development programs. ENG also invests in the Graduate
Research Fellowship through a component addressing women's needs. A new
ENG initiative, Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) engages K-12
teachers in engineering research activity at colleges and universities.

Strategic questions for the The 21^st^ Century Workforce initiative
include initiative focus and NSF niche within the larger 21^st^ century
workforce issue. Planning for the initiative has occurred at the NSF and
EHR management levels. They have identified a number of objectives,
including extensive use of information technology, insuring gender and
ethnic diversity in the science and engineering workforce, and
communicating the process of creating new knowledge and incorporating
and transferring that new knowledge wherever appropriate. The venue for
doing this is expected to be an array of Science of Learning Centers,
involving both cognition and learning specialists, and science and
engineering discipline specialists. All directorates will ultimately be
engaged in the initiative, but details of that engagement have not yet
been clarified. J. Sunley invited comments and questions on EHR, its
programs and the 21^st^ Century Initiative. Putting EHR size in context,
she noted that there is a \$300B K-12 national infrastructure (federal,
state and local), of which there is a \$30B federal K-12 investment, and
a \$300M K-12 NSF investment.

K. Kahn, who attended the CISE Advisory Committee last week, commented
on discussions there on the disconnect between the science and
engineering disciplines on the one hand, and the education community, on
the other. Attempts to make connections between CISE and EHR programs
have been rebuffed with the constraint that proposals submitted to EHR
must have an education co PI to qualify for EHR support. J. Sunley
acknowledged that there is a problem and that it has to be resolved. H.
Armen felt that engineering was not adequately represented in the
proposed Workforce initiative and offered the Committee's help in
developing a stronger engineering presence in it. L. Martin-Vega concurs
that ENG is in an excellent position to play a role in the initiative. S
Pancake recommended that the initiative have an explicit requirement for
collaboration between engineering specialists and education specialists.
L. Preston commented that that requirement is in place at the
Bioengineering Education ERC at Vanderbilt University. The session with
J. Sunley concluded at this point.

**[NANO SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INITIATIVE]{.underline}**

M. Roco presented a very detailed account of nanotechnology research at
NSF and other agencies (see *Appendix L)*. He also discussed the history
of nano research activity from the establishment of the inter agency
nanotechnology working group in 1996 to the White House release of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative in February 2000. NSF's presence in
nanotechnology research extends to earlier time, but establishment of
the nanotechnology group started a government wide coordinated effort in
this topic. M. Roco went on to address the potentially broad
applications of nanotechnology by citing applications in nanostructured
catalysts, drug delivery systems, nanocomposites, water purification and
desalinization, and others. He summarized the US investments during the
last four years and compared them to that of Japan and Western Europe.
He also detailed the evolution of the NNI and described its four
fundamental components, including fundamental research, grand
challenges, research infrastructure, and societal implications. The
distribution of funding over the ten participating agencies was
discussed. M. Roco then focussed on the NSF Nanoscale Science and
Engineering (NSF) component of NNI, and its various themes in ENG.

S. Drew thanked M. Roco for the excellent overview and for his strong
leadership of the nanotechnology endeavor. He noted that NSF has the
national lead and that ENG has the NSF lead in nanotechnology, and that
leadership is due in large measure to M. Roco's enthusiasm and energy in
making nanotechnolgy a popular topic with Congress, OSTP and the
President. K. Johnson noted that current research focuses at the device
or smaller level and asked if NSF will support research at the
interfaces to connect nano pieces. M. Roco responded that the system
integration aspect of NSE will address that issue. M. Cohen was
enthusiastic about the projections and predictions in nanotechnology but
wanted to know about industry's investment. M. Roco commented that
industry's investment is about the same as the federal government's.
Several small startup companies are entering the field. S. Drew was
concerned that the directorates may not be synergizing their efforts,
and that ENG could play a catalytic role in this process. He suggested a
focus on convergent nanofabrication (joining biotic to nonbiotic systems
for example). M. Roco responded that such synergy is built into the NSE
initiative. L. Martin-Vega reminded the Committee that its
recommendations will help NSF fine tune and structure the NSE initiative
for future years. K. Johnson commented on interesting related
microtechnology research on nanobiotics, and the work on
self-replication in this area. In response to T. Tong's query on
creation and management of the new national technology office, M. Roco
said that the office was created by OSTP, will be hosted at NSF, be
funded by participating agencies, and be in operation within a month. A.
Brown emphasized the need to address ethics concerns and thereby protect
the nano investment as well as to learn more about societal impacts. S.
Drew amplified her concerns and asserted that we need to be ready to
leap in and guide the ethics issue. M. Roco assured her that that is the
intent of the recent societal impact workshop and separate NSE focus on
this issue. Finally, O. McGee has convinced DOT of the potential of
nanotechnology in the transportation sector, and DOT is investing in
this area.

COMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS, COMMENTS (CONTINUED FROM NOV 1)

S. Drew asked Committee members who had not introduced themselves to do
so at this time.

M. Gonzalez, University of Texas and a former Advisory Committee member,
commented on a wide array of issues, including global warming, the
digital divide, water supply (particularly in Texas), and the increasing
size of the older population. He discussed further decreases in US
participation in US engineering graduate programs, the need for
universities to partner with community colleges, and the need to promote
information literacy. He also observed that the adult learner market
will soon exceed the traditional learning market. Finally, he expressed
his desire to volunteer to go to Mars when the technology permits.

S. Hood has degrees both in mechanical engineering and in environmental
engineering. Her Ph.D. research focused on bone modeling. Currently she
works for the IBM research laboratory at Hopewell Junction, NY where her
current interest is in manufacturing engineering in the Microelectronics
Division. Her focus is on semiconductor material processing. She has
worked with several NSF grantees over the years, particularly with J.
Beamon at the University of Texas. She interacts frequently with NIST
and Darpa. IBM has invested in education to some extent, especially on
K-12 matters.

C. Denson's career included serving as a manager at GE, as a professor
at the University of Delaware, and as provost for Research at the
University of Delaware. Currently he has returned to his professorship
in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Delaware. He has chaired
the External Executive Committee for the Environmental Protection
Agency. The committee recently appointed five task forces to evaluate
EPA's Research Centers. He has provided Congressional testimony on EPA
research. His is concerned with workforce issues, specifically on
vocational training in the US. He commented on special programs at U
Delaware for low GPA students. He is enthusiastic about the RET
initiative and cautioned that it should be sure to draw in teachers from
urban and minority schools.

H. Armen has been at Northrop Grumann for thirty-six years where his
career started in non-linear behavior in solid mechanics. He has
recently been director of corporate research and technology development.
His company has seen a severe deemphasis in research as the aerospace
industry has declined. He was Senior Vice President for Public Affairs
at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) until last June.
He has held adjunct appointments at several universities. He also served
as a Congressional Fellow in 1991 on Sen. Bingaman's staff (the most
exciting part of his career). He also worked on some aspects of the
Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP).

The first day's Committee activity concluded at this point, but H. Armen
requested that the Committee review both the RISE document developed by
MPS, and the draft GPRA Performance Report developed by the Committee's
Executive Committee.

GPRA FY 2000 PERFORMANCE REPORT AND DIRECTOR'S ISSUES DISCUSSION

S. Drew called attention to the director's issues first. At the last
Advisory Committee chairs meeting with the Director, the idea of having
Committee members attend other directorate's advisory committee meetings
was discussed. K. Kahn has been the ENG Committee liaison to CISE, and
agreed that such sharing is entirely appropriate, useful and provides
great value to ENG. T. Tong agreed and recommended that a linkage
similar to the CISE/ENG one be established between ENG and EHR. S. Drew
reiterated that R. Colwell had encouraged identifying best practices,
and this seems to be one. L. Martin-Vega noted that the ENG/CISE
arrangement was an informal result of agreement between E. Wong and R.
Bajcsy, and the arrangement has worked well. S. Drew proposed that
establishment of additional connections be left in L. Martin-Vegas's
hands.

The RISE document (*Appendix M*), developed in MPS, was also discussed
at the Advisory Committee chairmen meeting. Dr. Colwell would like to
expand the document to reflect the broader NSF vision. The document may
be provided to the science advisor on the new administration\'s
transition committee. S. Hood,

M. Cohen and S. Drew agreed to do this off line and provide revisions by
Dec 15. Revision will comprise word-smithing and development of relevant
engineering vignettes. Committee discussion ensued on specific concerns
and recommendations for the document. H. Armen recommended changes to
address health, prosperity, welfare, and national defense. He suggested
that each division provide three comments for each of these four topics
for inclusion in the RISE document. S. Drew noted T. O\'Rourke\'s
concern on the document\'s focus on technology, not engineering, H.
Riggs found statements about reinvestment to be defensive and at
variance with J. Bordogna\'s optimistic comments earlier. Discussion
ended with an agreement for S. Hood, M. Cohen, and S. Drew to coordinate
development of changes for the RISE document, and that J. Culbertson
coordinate input from the division directors. Paul Herer, representing
the Office of Interdisciplinary Activity (OIA), alerted the Committee to
the availability of in house OIA staff to integrate the ENG ideas into
the RISE document.

The Committee then moved on to discuss GPRA. The Advisory Committee
Executive Committee (S. Drew, E. Hu, and H. Armen) has drafted an
Advisory Committee Performance Report (*Appendix N)* based on recent
COVs and division annual reports. The Performance Report responds to the
four strategic plan goals comprising: (1) Discoveries at and across the
frontier of science and engineering, (2) Connections between discoveries
and their use in service to society, (3) A diverse, globally-oriented
workforce of scientists and engineers, and (4) Improved achievement in
mathematics and science skills by all Americans. The Committee must
provide ratings for these goals. The options are Successful or Not
Successful. S. Drew asked for a motion to accept ENG\'s performance on
goals 1 and 2 as successful. C. Denson objected that no examples were
cited for the goals and with S. Drew's agreement to add some citations,
the Committee concurred in a Successful rating for goals 1 and 2.

The Committee then moved on to the fourth goal, improvement of math and
science skills for all Americans. There was general Committee agreement
that this is a secondary responsibility for ENG, but that we should do
more in pursuit of the goal. C. Denson asserted that we have
insufficient data to determine a response for the goal, and S. Drew
agreed to seek better data to make a more meaningful assessment.
Following more discussion, S. Drew made a motion to accept goal 4 as
having been met successfully, \"but with comments\". The majority
Committee vote sustained the motion, but S. Hood, O. McGee and C. Denson
abstained. S. Drew agreed to include the dissenting comments in the
Performance Report.

S. Drew then initiated discussion on the third goal, a diverse and
globally oriented workforce. The issue of appropriate and sufficient
data for making the assessment came up. The Committee had recommended at
the last meeting that NSF develop useful data for goal 3, and was
disappointed that this had not been done. P. Egbelu noted that whereas
goals 1 and 2 are well stated in a way that enables meaningful
assessments, goals 3 and 4 are not. He suggested that NSF adjust the way
these latter goals are stated, perhaps combining them and phrasing them
in ways that permit more accurate goal assessments. P. Herer commented
that the new Performance Plan for FY01 will combine these goals. P.
Egbelu also observed that whereas goals 3 and 4 infer the need for
quantifiable assessments, goals 1 and 2 do not. L. Hopkins, also from
OIA, reiterated that all four goals are designed to be addressed in a
qualitative way. S. Drew suggested that the Committee respond to goal 4
in a qualitative way, but with a set of hard hitting and cogent
recommendations for enhancing ENG's response to these goals. The
Committee agreed and a subcommittee comprising C. Denson (chair), A.
Brown, G. Roig was assigned to develop an appropriate input by Nov. 15.

The Committee was also required to address Implementation of Merit
Review Criterion 2 (see addendum to Performance Report in *Appendix O)*.
J. Culbertson noted that recent COVs have assessed ENG's performance on
this goal to be unsuccessful. S. Drew asserted that ENG's response is
improving but still less than desirable. He requested Committee thoughts
for adjusting the Performance Report response on this issue. C. Denson
suggested that last year's report's comment on criterion 2 might, with
some updates, serve as a meaningful FY00 response. H. Armen read the
previous response, and the Committee agreed that such an update is
appropriate. It should reflect the most recent COV assessment, and an
overall assessment of unsuccessful is in order.

E. Hu commented further on the matter of gathering data to use in
developing goal assessments. She suggested using longitudinal studies
and distributed copies of a survey form (*Appendix P)* used to capture
similar data at UC Santa Barbara. She also showed some slides (a part of
*Appendix P)* detailing the ARQ program at Santa Barbara.

### MEETING WRAPUP AND ACTION ITEMS

G. Klutke advocated continued subcommittee work both on ERCs and on the
impact of the CAREER program. It was noted that NSF is planning to do a
COV of the CAREER program in the spring of 2001. J. Culbertson suggested
that ENG use the ARQ survey suggested by E. Hu (see *Appendix P)* to
assess the REU program. S. Kemnitzer commented that such a survey is
currently under way by SRI.

L. Martin-Vega thanked J. Culbertson for her efforts in coordinating
GPRA activity in ENG and for coordinating with the Committee on GPRA. He
noted that the GPRA responsibility is evolving into a full time endeavor
and that J. Culbertson has agreed to fill that responsibility. ENG will
conduct a search to find a budget analyst to relieve her of that
responsibility. It is expected that GPRA will be an ongoing process
through the year. O. McGee indicated that DOT's GPRA process has seen
similar growth and that full time positions have been developed there to
accommodate GPRA/strategic planning activity. He suggested that J.
Culbertson contact the GPRA person in his organization to determine how
DOT's GPRA efforts are evolving.

During the course of the Advisory Committee meeting, a number of issues
were raised which were not fully addressed, and S. Drew recommended that
they be used to structure, in part, the upcoming spring meeting. The
issues are attached in *Appendix Q.*

L. Martin-Vega thanked the Committee for its service to ENG and NSF. A
motion to adjourn the meeting was proposed and all were in favor. S.
Drew thanked Committee members for their participation in meeting
activity, both before and during the meeting. He then adjourned the
meeting.