Advisory Committee for Engineering

## Draft Minutes of Meeting

## June 5-6, 2002

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
June 5-6 at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia, in room 1235. A copy of the agenda (*Appendix A*)
is attached and these minutes follow the agenda sequence of events.

Members of the Committee who attended were: Evelyn Hu (Chair), Kevin
Kahn (Vice Chair), Harry Armen, Chris Busch, Costel Denson, Pius Egbelu,
G. David Forney, Mario Gonzalez, Sarah Hood, Kristina Johnson,
Georgia-Ann Klutke, Oliver McGee, Thomas O'Rourke, Gustavo Roig, and
Timothy Tong. A complete list of members is attached (*Appendix B*). NSF
participants from ENG and other NSF organizations also attended the
meeting. The Engineering Management Group (EMG) was represented by E.
Gulari (Office of the Assistant Director (OAD)), E. Marsh (OAD), J.
Culbertson (OAD), D. Young (OAD), B. Kramer (Engineering Education and
Centers (EEC)), T. Chapman (Chemical and Transport Systems (CTS)), V.
Varadan (Electrical and Communications Systems (ECS)), K. Narayanan
(Design, Manufacture and Industrial Innovation (DMII)), B. Hamilton
(Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES)), and P. Nelson (Civil
and Mechanical Systems (CMS)).

### 

### Welcome and introduction of adcom members, approval of october 2001 minutes

E. Hu opened the meeting and welcomed attendees. The minutes from the
spring meeting were approved and the chair reviewed the agenda, noting
that some changes may occur. She indicated that D. Radzanowski of OMB is
serving on jury duty and his availability and scheduled time for the
meeting are unclear. She also requested that the Committee think about
issues to discuss with the Deputy Director. Part of the lunch hour will
be devoted to refining that list of issues. Finally, the Chair noted
that the 4:30 agenda discussion on Preparation for Engineering
Priorities Discussion with DD's will be a preliminary discussion on how
the Adcom can help ENG as it looks to the year 2020. A more in depth
discussion on the topic will occur tomorrow morning. The chair then
requested the Directorate update from E. Gulari.

**[POSITIONING ENGINEERING FOR TAKE-OFF]{.underline}**

E. Gulari introduced new ENG program officer staff, including Vasundara
Varadan, Division Director for ECS, Duane Abata, Program Officer for the
Industry University Cooperative Research Centers program, Rosemarie
Wesson, Program Officer for the Small Business and Innovation Research
(SBIR) program, Darren Dutterer, ENG Staff Associate for Budget, Dennis
Wenger, Program Officer for the Infrastructure Systems Management and
Hazard Response program in CMS, and Permalsamy Balaguru, Program Officer
for the Infrastructure Materials and Structural Mechanics program in
CMS. V. Varadan, D. Abata, D. Wenger, and P. Balaguru are rotators from
Penn State, Michigan Tech, Texas A&M and Rutgers Universities
respectively. E. Gulari also commented that D. Abata is incoming
president of The American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE). She
also congratulated several ENG personnel for recently received NSF
awards. These include K. Narayanan for the Director's Distinguished
Service Award, J. Pauschke for the Director's Superior Accomplishment
Award, G. Prentice for the Program Management Excellence Award, M.
Johnson for the Staff Excellence Award, B. Person for the Administrative
Excellence Award, D. Durham for the Management Excellence Award, and S.
Kemnitzer for the Director's Equal Opportunity Achievement Award.

The Acting Assistant Director's Directorate presentation is available in
*Appendix C*. Her remarks focused primarily on post 9/11 activities, and
the recent ENG retreat and planning sessions. Several workshops and
conferences since 9/11 have focused, in part or completely, on
engineering and homeland defense. These will assist in better
positioning the Directorate in homeland defense issues. In addition, the
Directorate responded immediately to the World Trade Center event by
supporting related research. Of the total \$5.3M NSF post 9/11
investments in homeland security, ENG provided the largest component,
\$2.5M.

The Engineering Leadership Retreat was held on April 24. It had
participants from all divisions, the Office of the Assistant Director
(OAD), the Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE), Nanoscale Science and
Engineering (NSE), and the Information Technology Research (ITR) ENG
leaders, and an additional person from each division. The retreat
facilitator was Robert Crangle, who is familiar with NSF and facilitates
many other activities for the Foundation.

Discussion opened with specifying the three primary ENG research themes,
materials, processing, and design. Further discussion identified several
cross- cutting themes comprising manufacturing, the environment,
security, hazard reduction, infrastructure development, energy and
health. E. Gulari subsequently assigned working groups to assess ENG's
research status in each of these cross- cutting themes. The groups have
also been directed to assess what other agencies are doing in a research
sense for each theme. A separate theme on sensing has also been the
subject of intense scrutiny by a working group led by A. Flatau. All
groups will complete their assessments by September, in time to provide
detailed input for the FY04 ENG budget. The sensors team has already
made significant progress, and E. Gulari summarized the research
opportunities identified by the team on sensor informatics, on power and
data input and output. Pursuit of these opportunities will also involve
partnerships both within and outside the Foundation.

Another planning session on May 23 was devoted to Engineering Education
Pathways. Context for the discussion was the need to replenish and
sustain the U.S. domestic engineering workforce. Currently, domestic
engineering workforce growth is stagnant, and much of the needed supply
comes from overseas, via H1B workers. Although U.S. engineering has
benefited from the contributions of foreign workers for many years, the
country should not have to depend on foreign sources for its engineering
workforce. The Assistant Director itemized several warning signs showing
that that not enough women are being retained through the engineering
education process, and the reasons for that trend. ENG needs to play a
more aggressive role in reversing this trend and, in general, finding
better ways of educating all engineers and enhancing the diversity of
the engineering labor pool. It's strategy must be to attract more
students into engineering, and with a curriculum which will retain them
through the education process and make them well prepared for a career
in engineering. ENG's current strategy involves four steps; building
bridges between engineering and education faculty at all levels;
developing the current and future faculty; revitalizing and updating
engineering curricula; and integrating research and education. The AD
also discussed engineering education pathways, from BS degree programs
through graduate school, thence to postdoctoral fellowship, and finally
on to faculty careers. Furthermore, she commented on the variety of NSF
mechanisms currently used to facilitate passage along these pathways
(i.e., REU's ERC's, CAREER).

Building bridges will be implemented through the existing Research
Experiences for Teachers (RET) program, and the new initiative
Collaborations Between Schools of Engineering and Education (NSF 02-092)
developed in EEC. This is a partnership to develop technology-focused
curricula for in service and pre-service teachers, and to improve
pedagogy in engineering schools. Exploratory research proposals in this
area will be evaluated in the near future, as the submittal deadline was
June 4. These exploratory activities could be precursors and good
feeders to the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) initiative managed in
the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate, and to the
President's No Child Left Behind priority. A pre-service component has
been added to the RET initiative. The bridges component will also be
enhanced through the use of regional workshops to enable PIs and
teachers to meet.

EEC has developed another initiative to implement its faculty
development goal, the Planning Grants for Department Level Reform of the
Undergraduate Engineering Curricula initiative (NSF 02-091). It supports
exploratory awards (\$100K each) to investigate ways to adjust the
engineering curriculum to meet 21^st^ century engineers' needs. Thirty
planning grants are expected this year. As with the bridges concept,
this initiative is planned as preliminary to a larger curriculum reform
effort in the future. This initiative compliments the existing Combined
Research-Curriculum Development (CRCR) and Course, Curriculum and
Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) programs.

E. Gulari's last overview topic addressed Tools for Engineering, a
subject which has taken on higher visibility recently at NSF with the
appointment of an NSB task force to assess current national
infrastructure needs. ENG is developing its first major facilities
infrastructure, the National Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES),
comprising distributed earthquake research facilities around the
country. Investment in NEES is \$82M.

ENG is developing ideas for a Nanotechnology Research and Education
Infrastructure Network. The intent is to insure the availability of a
broad set of research and workforce training facilities for reaching the
promise of nanotechnology. Some NSF sponsored experiment infrastructure
already exists at ERCs, MRSECs, STCs, IUCRCs, the National
Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN), and Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers. Other facilities are in place in academe, federal
labs and in the private sector. Community input on the matter was
obtained from recent workshops and public events. It substantiated the
need to enhance the existing infrastructure. Using this input, E. Gulari
then outlined a vision for building a Nanotechnology Research and
Education Infrastructure Network. It would comprise a distributed
nationwide array of facilities capable of addressing research needs in
all facets of nanotechnology research, including biodevices and systems,
electronic and magnetic systems, processing and integration, building
blocks and more.

The AD invited comments and questions on her overview. K. Johnson
requested more information on the education pipeline warning signs, and
proposed the idea of an REU like program for high school students. More
concerns were expressed on the matter of retaining students in
engineering. The issue of how to accommodate non-engineer degreed people
who wish to obtain engineering degrees was raised (P. Egbelu). K. Kahn
noted the communication problem encountered with teaching staff
(particularly teaching assistants) from other cultures, and how it has
discouraged some undergraduates from continuing engineering studies. D.
Forney noted that traditionally, EHR looks at education while ENG
addresses research, but sensed that ENG was becoming more education
focused. E. Gulari indicated that education is being more broadly
disseminated and integrated into all ENG areas.

T. Tong wanted to know the outcomes of the 9/11 related workshops, to
which E. Gulari replied that they would help to structure the future ENG
research agenda on security. She also reiterated that ENG is well
positioned to respond to security issues, but that NSF should not become
the homeland defense agency. Further clarification on the Nanotechnology
Research and Education Infrastructure Network was also provided.

**[BIOENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS (BES) DIVISION
REPORT]{.underline}**

B. Hamilton, Division Director for BES, provided an overview of BES
activity. His presentation is available in *Appendix D*. BES, funded at
\$42M this year, comprises three clusters, including Biochemical
Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, and Environmental Engineering.
Program officers in the clusters were identified. C. Eckstein handles
cross-disciplinary activity. BES has several priority areas, including
tissue engineering, metabolic engineering, post genomic quantitative
systems biology, nanobiotechnology, and biophotoniocs. It is also the
lead organization for Materials Use: Science, Engineering & Society
(MUSES) research. Three ERCs are active in tissue engineering, and a
multi- agency committee coordinates tissue engineering government wide.
A WTECH study was recently completed on tissue engineering. BES is
partnering with BIO and other agencies on metabolic engineering. The
priority areas are not necessarily confined to a single cluster and
areas of overlap were indicated. For example, nanobiotechnology research
is sponsored in all three clusters. Key BES features include cutting
edge science and engineering, leadership of multi-agency cooperation, a
global perspective, and diverse and young PIs. Indeed, 20% of BES'
budget is invested in CAREER awardees, and many of its PECASE awardees
are from underrepresented groups. BES has a major presence in
nanotechnology related research. Its nano investment has grown from
\$1.89M in 2000 to \$6.67M this year. Much of this occurs in the
nano/bio area, a topic of increasing importance and which may see
increased emphasis in future NSF budgets. MUSES is a new component of
the BE priority and provides an opportunity to play a bigger role in
environment related research at NSF. D. Durham is the cognizant PI for
the effort that engages several ENG divisions. MUSES covers both
technological and behavioral factors. Approximately eleven planning
grants are envisioned for this year, and larger group research and
education grants are planned for the future. BES funding modalities
include unsolicited proposals, ERCs, CRCDs, IGERTs, SGERs and NSE
awards. B. Hamilton then went on to describe several typical current
awards in BES.

The division director commented on growing proposal pressure in BES
without comparable growth in the BES budget. The division budget is
smallest of the entire disciplinary division budget, but has the
strongest increase in the number of proposals, a reflection of growing
interest in the field. For example the

Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities program received 158 proposals
last year. Yet while 30 of them warranted funding, resources were
available for only nine, a success level of only 6%.

The division director briefly discussed BES operations and strategy,
focusing on proposal review statistics, PI multitasking, and GPRA
statistics. The division overview concluded with discussion on BES
strategies for the future, and on environmental research. Community
input was solicited at several workshops and meetings in recent years
and have helped to develop the BES environmental research agenda for now
and the immediate future. Included among these activities was the WTEC
EBM study in 2001 which resulted in the MUSES component of BE. More
recent efforts on the Collaborative Large Scale Engineering Assessment
Network for Environmental Research (CLEANER) concept, which envisions
establishing a cyber network of environmental field facilities that
enables formulation and development of engineering and policy options
for the restoration and protection of environmental resources. Committee
discussion of the overview was deferred until after the BES COV
discussion.

**[BES COV REPORT, BES COV DISCUSSION]{.underline}**

C. Denson chaired the COV and presented the committee's findings, which
are available in *Appendices E and F*. Over four hundred jackets were
prepared for the committee, which examined 100 of them. Although not
called for, a thousand jackets from the last three years were available
for perusal. Generally, BES's preparation for the exercise was
outstanding. The committee was asked to provide assessments of outcomes
and outputs of NSF investments, and to provide advice on program areas
in need of improvement, on program performance in meeting program
objectives and goals, and on improving the COV review process.

C. Denson commented on the committee's conclusions, noting that BES does
an extraordinary job, both process wise and intellectually, given the
scarcity of division funding resources (only 10% of the ENG budget). He
lauded the division director's leadership and the program officers'
creativity. Support staff were complimented as well, especially for
their contributions in bringing the division's six months processing
statistic from 39% to 72% in one year.

-   The COV recommendations are summarized in the third page of
    *Appendix F*. They include:

-   The intellectual and broader impact criteria should have equal
    weight

-   Continue leveraging with other organizations (i.e., BIO and CISE)

-   Provide more guidance on CAREER proposal education component
    expectations

-   More balance in research portfolio (more high risk awards)

-   Not enough COV time is devoted to intellectual content and strategy.
    A permanent subcommittee strategy council is recommended to
    alleviate the problem.

Discussion ensued with K. Kahn complimenting the COV revised format but
agreed that too much time is spent on process matters. T. O'Rourke asked
the division director to explain the surge of proposals since 9/11, and
did he expect that trend to continue. B. Hamilton ascribed the increase
to the explosive number of students entering the field, as well as to
the termination of Whitaker Foundation research support. He expects the
trend to continue, implying the need for additional BES resources to
meet research proposal demand. He proposed that the strategy council
recommended by the COV take up this rapid growth issue. In response to
T. O'Rourke's query about partners both within and outside of NSF, he
mentioned other ENG divisions, BIO, and NIH, particularly the new
institute the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and
Bioengineering (NIBIB). BES is also a standing member of the NIH
Bioengineering Consortium (BECON). C. Denson also mentioned the NSF
partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency. T. Tong
acknowledged termination of Whitaker Foundation support but noted that
the Hughes Foundation may be a good future partner, and dialog to that
end should be initiated.

Several Committee members requested clarification on the COV proposed
strategy subcommittee, but E. Gulari noted that COV guidelines under
preparation suggest that future COV activity will be redirected to the
traditional process focus, and that the COV strategy subcommittee option
will not be entertained. Furthermore, the changes envisioned for the
GPRA process will not engage the Advisory Committee, but will rather be
based on an NSF-wide committee that will meet for three days in the fall
to develop the NSF GPRA report. One Advisory Committee member will
represent each directorate.

E. Hu found it worrisome that only nine BES proposals were funded in one
solicitation. Solutions for minimizing the implied high workload on PIs
included pre proposals (H. Armen). B. Hamilton reiterated that the only
real solution is a significant increase in BES funding.

Discussion concluded and a motion to accept the report was made,
seconded, and the Committee voted unanimously to accept the BES COV
report.

**[SBIR PROGRAMS]{.underline}**

C. Busch, who is the Chair of the NSF Small Business (SBIR)/Small
Business Technology Transfer Advisory Committee (STTR) as well as a
member of the ENG Advisory Committee, described the SBIR/STTR program.
His remarks are summarized in *Appendix G*. The initiator of the
SBIR/STTR program, NSF is well known for its innovative approaches to
supporting the U.S. small business community (up to 300 employees). The
program intent is to support the small business community in the
development of new commercial products. It offers excellent partnership
opportunities for the academic and small business communities. The small
business community is extremely important as indicated by the fact that
36% of engineers and scientists work in small firms. Large business
employs 33%, academe employs 18.5%, and large business employs 13%. Ten
agencies participate in the SBIR and STTR programs, and NSF's
innovativeness has tended to drive other agency programs. Current
legislation authorizes the program through 2009, and at 2.5% of an
agency's extramural budget. For NSF, that implies an FY02 budget of
\$80.5M for SBIR/STTR. At \$737M, the Department of Defense has the
largest SBIR/STTR program. Although housed in the DMII division, NSF's
SBIR/STTR program serves all NSF discipline communities with four
market-oriented topics comprising advanced materials and manufacturing
systems, information based technologies, biotechnology, and electronics.

SBIR functions in a three phases, phase 1 for feasibility demonstration,
phase 2 for prototype development, and phase 3 for commercialization. A
recent program innovation is the Phase 2B concept whereby the Foundation
provides match funding for private investment at the rate of one federal
dollar for every two private sector dollar. Maximum funding is \$250K
per award, and there are 40 Phase 2B awards currently in place
representing an NSF investment of \$11M that is matched by \$30M from
the private sector.

In summary, the NSF SBIR/STTR program has been highly effective,
innovative and managed in a very efficient manner. C. Busch recommended
that it be given higher visibility within the larger NSF portfolio.

Discussion followed on SBIR activity, award size, showcasing
(publicizing) of Phase 2 and Phase 3 activity. R. Coryell is conducting
a showcase exercise via a retrospective of awards dating back to 1996.
The National Academy of Engineering is also conducting a retrospective
study on the effectiveness of the SBIR/STTR programs. There was
speculation on the next "bubble" topic following the dot COM demise.
Candidates included biotechnology and information technology. Discussion
ended with E. Gulari touting the SBIR and its leader, K. Narayanan, for
their extraordinary successes in recent time. C. Busch and the Committee
concurred on that assessment.

**[DAVE RADZANOWSKI, OMB AND THE BUDGET PROCESS]{.underline}**

E. Gulari announced that D. Radzanowski has been delayed and indeed may
not be able to attend the meeting as anticipated. In his place, she
commented on recent budget hearings. There have been several
congressional budget hearings since the President presented his budget
in February. The House Science Committee, the Senate Appropriations
Committee, and its Science Subcommittee have held hearings. In them,
much discussion has focused on the imbalance between support for the
physical sciences and the life sciences. NIH's most recent increase is
equal in size to the total NSF budget. The President's Science Advisor,
J. Marburger, recognized the imbalance, but asserted that large
increases in other agencies science budgets would not occur without
sound justification. Instead, agencies will be tasked to interact more
on the President's priorities, especially in the area of education. The
Foundation's math and science partnership activity will be the core of
NSF's participation in this priority area. An NSF/Department of
Education interagency team functions to insure that the two agencies
coordinate and avoid overlap. The Acting AD also mentioned a grant size
study being finalized, but provided no details.

The AD entertained questions and discussion at this point. In response
to

K. Kahn's request for a comparison of FY02 and FY03 budgets, E. Gulari
noted that the final FY03 number is not yet available. Last year, even
though the President's request was for a 1% increase, the final approved
budget called for an 8% increase. She provided further elaboration on
the FY04 budget process from the initial guidance to submission of the
NSF request in September, the subsequent OMB pass back, and the
president's budget submission for FY04. P. Egbelu asked about the
process for the large recent NIH budget increases. Congress and the
President both agreed several years ago to double the NIH budget as a
way of enhancing the nation's health profile. E. Gulari discussed the
Director's strategy for increasing the NSF budget by focusing on award
size and duration. This was followed by a number of suggestions for
increasing the ENG budget including stressing NSF's role in the health
fields, getting professional societies involved in selling engineering
to the public, and completing the 21^st^ Century Engineer document.

# 

# PRIORITY AREAS UPDATE

**[Information Technology Research (ITR)]{.underline}**

R. Rardin, the ENG representative to ITR presented the update, which can
be found in *Appendix H*. He discussed the program since its inception
but focused on FY01 and FY02 activity and specifically on ENG's
participation in the program. ITR has grown, Foundation wide, from \$90M
in FY00 to more than \$240M in FY02. The CISE Directorate manages most
of these resources. For example, in FY02, CISE's investment was \$173M
whereas ENG's was \$10M. ITR comprises three themes, including software
and hardware systems, augmenting individuals and transforming society,
and scientific frontiers and information technology. Resources are
distributed in three modes, ITR Large (\<\$15M, \$3M per year), ITR
Medium (\<\$5M, \$1M per year), and ITR Small (\<\$500M). The first two
categories are managed by CISE whereas divisions receiving the proposals
manage the third. ENG's share of the overall budget is quite small
(4-5%) and involving 10-12% of the proposals. Interest in the initiative
has never been high in the engineering community, and it is waning. The
Committee was distressed to see the small role played by ENG (and the
other directorates) and the dominance of CISE in this priority.

**[Biocomplexity in the Environment]{.underline}**

B. Hamilton, the ENG BE representative presented the status report (see
*Appendix I*). He provided a brief history of the priority since its
inception in 1998 and then focused on the current announcement for FY02
which comprises five themes, Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human
Systems, Coupled Biogeochemical Cycles, Genome Enabled Environmental
Science and Engineering, Instrumentation Development for Environmental
Activities, and Materials Use: Science, Engineering, & Society (MUSES).
The latter theme was suggested by Louis Martin-Vega last year and
accepted as a new FY02 theme. ENG is the primary directorate in this
area and has thereby gained a higher profile in BE. Total BE investment
for FY02 is \$37.8M, whereas the MUSES investment is \$1.8M. B. Hamilton
also described some BE projects being funded by ENG. There was also
brief discussion of CLEANER's relevance to BE.

**[Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)]{.underline}**

J. Pauschke presented a status report on NEES (*Appendix J*). She noted
that NEES' intent is to upgrade earthquake experimental equipment
facilities in the US, comprising shake tables, centrifuges, large scale
testing facilities, and tsunami wave tanks. It provides for both
teleobservation and teleoperation capabilities. She described the budget
allocations between FY00 and FY04, totaling \$81.8M, and the components
provided by the awards made to date. She also discussed the NEES
oversight both during construction and operation, and the construction
schedule. Two groups have been funded to develop a potential research
agenda for NEES following its completion. Earthquake engineering
research funding is expected to increase from \$6M in FY05 to \$35M per
year upon initiation of NEES. The remainder of the presentation focused
on specific NEES component detail, and anticipated NEES PIT challenges.

Committee discussion focused on more NEES funding detail and how NEES
could address the research needs of other hazards (wind, floods, terror,
etc). P. Nelson noted that NEES evolved in the National Earthquake
Hazard Research Program (NEHRP) (a multi-agency activity), and as such
must maintain an earthquake research focus. However, she noted that NEES
can be used for multi-hazard research, and may be used in that regard in
the future. T. O'Rourke complained that hazards research in the U.S. is
Balkanized, and that we need to harmonize the various research groups
and facilities under the larger umbrella of Extreme Events. K. Kahn
noted the opportunity to engage the CISE community in the NEES project
and J. Pauschke reiterated that has been done already through the NEES
systems integrator project. E. Gulari commented that NEES is having
quite an impact on other distributed facilities projects, particularly
the cyber infrastructure and terrascale facilities.

# MEETING WITH DEPUTY DIRECTOR

The Committee requested an update on the search for an ENG Assistant
Director. J. Bordogna commented that the announcement for the position
was released last fall, and that a search committee has been appointed
to implement the search process. M. Gonzalez and C. Johnson represent
the Advisory Committee on the search committee. Other committee members
are J. Fouke, D. Wormley, D. Hampton and J. Slaughter.

The Deputy Director indicated that the FY03 budget is still being
debated in congress and cautioned that it may not be signed into law at
the beginning of the fiscal year in October. A continuing resolution
would enable the Foundation to continue to function under these
circumstances. The FY04 budget exercise is starting and will continue
until the President releases his FY04 budget request next winter. The
current administration has developed a performance-based management
structure for agencies to follow. NSF is working to develop
compatibility of its People, Ideas and Tools strategic outcomes
structure with the performance based management concept. A difficulty
with the latter approach is that it calls for more quantitative measures
of performance, like specifying when a goal has reached a midway point.
This approach is difficult to implement for research since it is
difficult to say when "you're half way to discovery". Performance-based
management present other obstacles, which must be overcome to resolve
differences between the two approaches.

The Deputy Director reiterated the reality that NSF people are working
much harder to carry out its mission, and in response, the Foundation
has requested fifty additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions to
relieve that stress. He also commented that the Foundation is placing
stronger emphasis on recruiting domestic (U.S. citizens) into the
science, engineering and technology workforce, with a renewed emphasis
on outreach and diversity. This is being done broadly across all of NSF,
and he cited the example of the Director's Review Board looking at large
awards periodically to insure that this goal is being implemented.
Furthermore, stipends are being increased for U.S. graduate students to
enhance growth of the domestic science and engineering workforce.

Finally, the Assistant Director reviewed infrastructure matters, noting
that good research and discovery require access to the best tools and
instrumentation. He commented on NEES, NEON, and terrascale facilities,
and how such distributed facilities will establish the model for next
generation facilities. More resources are needed to accommodate the
growing infrastructure need and both the White House and congress are
debating the issue of increased resources for science and engineering
research. That debate has not yet manifested itself at the
appropriations level, although there is growing support (through new
authorization legislation) in congress for significantly increasing the
NSF budget.

In summary, the Assistant Director designated three overarching themes
as NSF plans for the future, diversity, infrastructure, and grant size
and duration.

Committee discussion ensued at this point on budget constraints versus
getting the research job done. P. Egbelu commented on the atrocious
situation recently encountered by a BES solicitation with a 6% success
rate because of budget constraints. Other examples were cited, and the
Assistant Director agreed that the present budget environment needs to
be fixed by a budget increase to the 12-15 billion dollar level. Many
excellent proposals are being declined with a resultant decline in
community morale. Although more resources are needed, other steps must
be taken as well, including phasing out investments in old areas.
Resources need to be used to fill in the knowledge base while making
breakthrough discoveries at the frontiers of science and engineering.

H. Armen was concerned that ENG's under funding is more serious than
that for other directorates and wondered if budget growth in ENG could
be accommodated before an NSF budget-doubling scenario is developed. J.
Bordogna agreed that something has to be done for both ENG and MPS in
the near term.

**[PRIORITY AREA UPDATE (cont)]{.underline}**

**[Nanotechnology]{.underline}**

M. Roco presented the nano update and his remarks are detailed in
*Appendix* *K*. He defined nanotechnology and commented on the history
of the US research endeavors in the area. The nano vision is captured in
an array of documents including some developed through WTEC assessments
and others focusing on converging technologies for improving human
performance. U.S. government investments in nano R&D has grown from
\$270M in FY02 to an anticipated \$710M in FY03. This represents 0.6% of
the total U.S. Federal R&D, and 30% of the global nanotechnology
investment. Several state governments are investing in nanotechnology
and M. Roco expects that all 50 states will eventually develop formal
R&D activities in this area. Currently, there are also ten regional
research alliances, and that number is expected to grow in the future.
Internationally, both Japan and Western Europe have strong nano research
and development activities. The Japanese government would like to expand
its annual investment to \$5B by 2005.

M. Roco expanded on the current Nanoscale Science and Engineering
solicitation and described its seven themes. Fifteen large centers and
five user facilities serving multidisciplinary teams in over 1000
projects while training 6000 students and teachers are in place. There
are four modes of support available for the research community.
Nanomanufacturing was added as a separate theme in FY02, while a Nano
Infrastructure Network comprising a broad array of nano research
facilities will be a priority in the FY04 solicitation. M. Roco
commented on follow-up on the Societal Implications Workshop held last
year. The National Research Council has recently completed a draft
report on the status of the U.S. nano R&D effort, and the final version
will be available in the not too distant future. Generally, the NRC is
pleased with the effort, as is U.S. industry.

Committee discussion ensued. H. Armen and E. Hu asked about DOE
endeavors and NSF's connections to them. M. Roco noted good DOE/NSF
connections and commented briefly on the five DOE centers at Sandia, Oak
Ridge (material simulation), Argonne, Brookhaven (visualization and
materials concentration), and Berkeley (molecular foundry). E. Gulari
complimented M. Roco on the great job M. Roco is doing for
nanotechnology.

# PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING PRIORITIES DISCUSSION WITH DD'S

E. Hu asked E. Gulari to brief the Committee on the status of the 21^st^
Century Engineering document and asked the Committee to begin thinking
about document topics, and long (assignments for the next meeting) and
short-term (immediate Committee assignments) strategies. E. Gulari
commented that J. Culbertson is using the ENG annual report as a model
to develop a publicity document. It will be supplemented with a second
document focusing on engineering disciplines. The Advisory Committee's
assistance is needed to develop this second document. The issue of who
will be the audience (public, the Hill, the broad community, etc.) has
not yet been settled.

The Committee and ENG provided several suggestions on document purpose
and audience. E. Hu agreed with P. Nelson's assertion that the document
challenge is to capture the "engineeringness" of the field and show how
engineering differs from science. The perception that engineers do dull
work while scientists make important discoveries has to be changed. K.
Kahn suggested the theme that "scientists understand the world whereas
engineers change the world."

Further discussion focused on pipeline issues. M. Gonzalez felt that the
document should focus on pipeline issues, especially on middle and high
school students and on teachers. V. Varadan agreed and suggested
developing posters demonstrating the excitement of engineering. T. Tong
noted that younger children are curious generally, and the challenge is
primarily to stimulate that curiosity and sustain it through higher
grades through high-energy public relations and other approaches. Since
children's first contacts are with parents and teachers, according to P.
Egbelu, and both parents and teachers have so little understanding of
engineering, it is imperative to enhance their understanding of
engineering. Designing engineering understanding courses for teacher
training can solve part of the problem. E. Gulari asserted that RET and
BEE both speak to this training issue. G. Roig cautioned that in
developing these outreach approaches, we must remember that many poor
children do not have access to the web, and that hence we must look at
dissemination in the broadest possible ways.

Several other points were made, including; consider the communications
forum model used at Duke University as a mechanism for increasing
student retention (K. Johnson); tie engineering to history, as was done
in the movie Gladiator (O. McGee); stress that engineers [make
things]{.underline} (K. Johnson); take maximum advantage of outreach
tools such as Intel's Teach to the Future which has reached 5000
students so far (K. Kahn). T. O'Rourke summarized noting that we face
two key issues, how to improve the perception of engineering in society,
and how to improve the perception of engineering at NSF.

# DISCUSSION/BREAKOUT SESSIONS ON ENGINEERING PRIORITIES

The session on engineering priorities produced the following actions:

1.  Committee agreement that an engineering document be prepared.

2.  The Directorate will do document preparation.

3.  OLPA will participate in planning and drafting the document.

4.  A draft will be available by the end of August.

5.  A revised draft will be available for the next Committee meeting.

6.  The audience will comprise constituencies, which can help in growing
    ENG's budget.

7.  E. Hu will prepare a meeting report with Committee input.

8.  The meeting report will be made available to the Committee for
    comment.

More explicit detail on the breakout sessions appears below in the
sequel:

The Chair continued the discussion from the last meeting on assisting
ENG in developing its priorities and disseminating them. She displayed
several viewgraphs (*Appendix L*), which summarized her thoughts and
posed two questions: how can the Advisory Committee help, and what
should be done next. Two key goals are an increased appreciation of
engineering as a discipline, and increased recruitment of talent. E. Hu
proposed using the GEO Sciences Directorate documents as a guideline for
developing an ENG document to achieving these goals. Interesting
retrospective (going from the transistor to the computer) and
prospective (the ingestible camera with sensor and transmitter
capabilities) examples were proposed to show the excitement and
potential of engineering. She proposed additional document ideas
addressing goals, objectives, and research agenda. Service to society is
an overarching theme. She concluded and posed the questions; what would
be the purpose of an ENG document; who should be the document audience;
what should be the breadth of involvement of the Advisory Committee, and
of ENG, and of the broader community. Finally, action items for
proceeding need to be developed. She asked for Committee discussion at
this point.

D. Forney thought E. Hu's proposal was a good start and suggested that
the document should be analogous to an industry annual report.
Furthermore, it should not be too narrow, recognizing that engineering
is substantially "in" science, computers, and cognitive science. On the
matter of increased recruitment of talent, he asserted that Americans
need "a more quantitative education." He also recommended that we get
professional report writers to assist in generating the document.

T. O'Rourke also liked the chair's approach and suggested a document
slogan, "a decade of innovation." He proposed congress, other agencies,
teachers, and the population at large as the document target audiences.
But, K. Kahn noted that the document should have maximum benefit for ENG
and its immediate needs, and therefore, we need the Foundation's help in
identifying the audience. E. Gulari emphasized that the document should
be visionary in character and clearly show how engineering has benefited
society. It should demonstrate both what engineering has done and what
it can do in the future. T. Tong suggested that it have two primary
purposes, securing better funding for ENG (and NSF), and addressing
pipeline issues. K. Johnson and H. Armen strongly concurred that the
document should be an agent for increased ENG funding, and they also
noted that the GEO document was targeted to constituencies, which can
help in enhancing research funding. But, K. Johnson also recommended an
expanded audience, which includes children. P. Nelson asserted that the
general public does not understand what engineers do, and stressed the
need to find effective ways of communicating engineering's message.
Perhaps Disney approaches could be used to do that. E. Hu liked the idea
of getting Disney, or an equivalent, to develop an exciting engineering
video.

P. Egbelu worried that in trying to reach a multitude of audiences, we
may not reach any of them effectively. Furthermore, in order to tell the
engineering story, it has to be put in the listener's words, i.e., tell
the listener what a sensor is in their language and tell them what it
can do for them or their congressional district. The document should
create a passion for engineering and show what it means for society. D.
Forney supported targeting congress and not children and agreed with P.
Egbelu that it should be crafted in the target audience's language. P.
Herer cautioned that the document should have a well-defined purpose,
and that purpose can only evolve from an engineering vision, which has
not yet been developed. He recommended that ENG and the Committee
establish its vision as a first step in producing a document.

Following a few more comments from G. Klutke who did not support
including children in the target audience, and G. Roig who suggested
that the document be developed in conjunction with EHR to address
pipeline issues, the chairman called for a straw vote on whether or not
an engineering document should be developed for ENG. With two exceptions
(K. Kahn and C. Busch), the Committee agreed that an ENG document should
be developed.

K. Kahn favored development of the document but worried about the
Committee's time commitment in that process. H. Armen recommended that
ENG prepare the document and that the Committee fine-tune it. E. Hu
suggested that OLPA be tasked with writing the rough draft and that the
Committee serve as a sounding board for optimizing it. K. Johnson
appealed to E. Gulari for guidance on the target audience. E. Gulari
called for a broad audience comprising the congressional, NSF and other
agencies communities, but not children.

The result of the preceding discussion was Committee consensus that an
Engineering Document should be prepared and for an audience which can
have impact on ENG's future budget (Congress and NSF). E. Gulari
resolved to follow up by interacting with OLPA and designating a person
or entity to begin a draft. She agreed to have a draft by the end of
August. An updated draft will be available for Committee discussion at
the next advisory committee meeting.

E. Hu will prepare a reaction report for this Committee meeting. She
displayed a report format, and agreed to flesh it out using Committee
input. Key issues will be discussed (budget issues like the BES funding
problem, the ENG AD Selection, etc.). She requested that Committee
members submit input to her in the very near future. The report will be
circulated to the Committee for comment and revisions.

Before adjournment, K. Narayanan revisited the vision issue raised
earlier by

P. Herer. He agreed that a fresh vision is needed and recommended that
we stress integration across many disciplines as a key-defining theme
for engineering's vision. The issue was not resolved and in the interest
of time (the Environmental Research and Education discussion was
scheduled at this time) the discussion ended.

TEN-YEAR AGENDA FOR NSF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

M. Cavanaugh provided an overview of the Advisory Committee for
Environmental Research and Education (AC/ERE) activity, and the related
evolving environmental decadal plan. Her remarks are captured in
*Appendix M*. The decadal plan is being developed by the AC/ERE and with
input and advice from the research community. The draft will be on the
NSF web page for community exposure for sixty days (June 10-August 10).
It should be published this fall following the fall AC/ERE meeting. M.
Cavanaugh went over the plan outline and pointed out some engineering
relevant research areas. She then invited discussion and questions.

B. Hamilton reemphasized the importance of providing feedback on the
draft plan and encouraged Committee members to make their views about
the draft known. In response to D. Forney's inquiry, M. Cavanaugh noted
that the plan contains no specific recommendations and that a detailed
strategic agenda and implementation plan will be developed later. G.
Roig commented on the importance of including an international dimension
in the plan to enable U.S. researchers to build connections with
developing countries.

GPRA PROCESS UPDATE -- NEW ACGPA

J. Culbertson detailed changes in the GPRA process which have resulted
in the creation of the Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance
Assessment (ACGPA), a thirty-person committee drawn from directorate
advisory committee members, which will prepare input for the agency GPRA
performance report. T. Tong will represent ENG on ACGPA. The ENG
Advisory Committee will no longer play a role in the GPRA process.
Directorates will continue to develop directorate self-assessments,
which will be provided to the ACGPA.

J. Culbertson also indicated that the COV process would revert to the
old approach of having COVs address process only and not research
outcomes. K. Kahn expressed concern over the change. E. Gulari suggested
that a subcommittee of the COV might want to look strategically at
division activity and provide that input to the Advisory Committee. She
and B. Hamilton said that discussions held with OGC on the advisability
and appropriateness of such strategic exercises indicated potential
problems in doing this. P. Egbelu, who is chairing a COV for the Office
of International Programs will take up the issue with that committee
later today.

MEETING WRAPUP, IDENTIFY ACTION ITEMS

E. Gulari thanked retiring Committee members for their service to ENG
and NSF. She noted that K. Kahn would move from the Vice Chair to become
Chair of the Engineering Advisory Committee at the fall meeting. She
also expressed appreciation for T. Tong's agreement to serve on the
ACGPA. And she indicated that fall meeting dates would be suggested
soon.

E. Hu commented on moving forward with the Engineering document. E.
Gulari is working with C. Supplee to find a contractor to assist in the
document drafting. E. Hu invited Committee members to provide input for
the document by the end of August and requested a document draft for the
fall meeting.

E. Hu will write the Advisory Committee report and include a
recommendation for a COV strategy council. She will also follow-up with
a letter to J. Bordogna to reiterate the importance of appointing a
permanent ENG AD in a timely way. She then asked for final Committee
comments.

G. Roig reiterated the importance of addressing pipeline issues, and
suggested inviting FIRST and JETS representatives to the next meeting to
discuss their approaches for engineering outreach to the K-12 community.
M. Gonzalez also suggested inviting Workforce Commission
representatives.

K. Kahn asked that the next meeting include some discussion on COV
strategy activity, the Engineering Document, pipeline issues, input from
OMB (D. Radzanowski, input from Peter Freeman from CISE, and input from
Susan Hackwood on pipeline issues.

E. Gulari provided plaques for retiring Committee members, H. Armen
thanked E. Hu for her Committee leadership over the last year, and E. Hu
adjourned the meeting.