***Directorate for Engineering (ENG) Advisory Committee***

**November 16-17, 2006**

**National Science Foundation**

**Stafford II, Room 555**

**Arlington, VA**

***MEETING SUMMARY***

The fall meeting of the Directorate for Engineering's Advisory Committee
(ENG AdCom) was held at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, VA
on November 16-17, 2006. Details on the presentations were provided in
the ENG AdCom meeting materials.

Members Present:

Dr. Richard K. Miller (Chair), Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering,
Needham, MA

Dr. John C. Crittenden, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona
State University, Tempe, AZ

Dr. Lesia Crumpton-Young, Industrial Engineering & Management Systems,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL

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

Dr. Cato Laurencin, Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA

Dr. Arun Majumdar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

Dr. Gary S. May, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, GA

Dr. Alan Needleman, Division of Engineering, Brown University,
Providence, RI

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

Members Absent:

Dr. Francine Berman, San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA

Dr. Margaret Murnane, Electrical & Computer Engineering and Physics,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Dr. Cherri M. Pancake, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR

Dr. Jacquelyn Sullivan, Integrated Teaching & Learning Program/K-12
Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

Dr. E. Jennings Taylor, Faraday Technology, Inc., Troy, OH

Dr. Matthew Tirrell, College of Engineering, University of California
Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA

ENG Senior Staff Present:

Richard Buckius, Assistant Director of Engineering

Michael Reischman, Deputy Assistant Director of Engineering

Adnan Akay, Division Director, Division of Civil, Mechanical &
Manufacturing Innovation (ENG/CMMI)

Jo Culbertson, Staff Associate for Planning and Evaluation

Darren Dutterer, Staff Associate for Budget

Mary Juhas, Program Director of Diversity and Outreach

Bruce Kramer, Sr., Advisor for Engineering, Engineering Education &
Centers (ENG/EEC)

Kesh Narayanan, Division Director, Industrial Innovation & Partnerships
(ENG/IIP)

Judy Raper, Division Director, Division of Chemical, Bioengineering,
Environmental, & Transport Systems (ENG/CBET)

Sohi Rastegar, Acting Division Director, Emerging Frontiers in Research
& Innovation (ENG/EFRI)

Al Soyster, Division Director, Division of Engineering Education and
Centers (EEC)

Usha Varshney, Division Director, Electrical, Communications & Cyber
Systems (ENG/ECCS)

Thursday, November 16, 2006

## Welcome and Introductions

Dr. Richard Miller, ENG AdCom Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:35
a.m. Introductions were made. Dr. Miller reviewed the role of the ENG
AdCom. The minutes from the May 3-4, 2006 minutes were approved with a
minor editorial change. The meeting agenda is attached.

## Directorate Update

Dr. Richard Buckius, Assistant Director for Engineering, provided an
update of the ENG Directorate activities including new staff, ENG
reorganization, the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and
Trends, ENG Education, Research and Education Themes, and Emerging
Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI). Division Directors also
introduced their new staff.

**ENG Reorganization:** The reorganization is complete. Details on the
Programs and Cross-Cutting Areas were provided.

**Diversity and Outreach:** Dr. Mary Juhas, who has been the Sr.
Assistant Dean for Diversity & Outreach at Ohio State University, was
hired for the position of ENG Program Director for Diversity and
Outreach. Dr. Juhas reviewed the goals for ENG's Diversity and Outreach
program.

**ACI and Trends**: Dr. Buckius expects that ACI will have a big impact
on NSF activities. The ACI emphasizes programs in physical sciences and
engineering with NSF, DOE Science, and NIST. NSF is expected to support
more than 500 additional research grants in 2007. Funding amounts for
NSF Research and Related Activities were shown. ENG's budget includes
\$20M for sensor networks that ENG is managing for the entire NSF. Trend
data on funding success rates, number of solicitations, awards per
Principle Investigator and multi-investigator projects, and ENG research
awards was shown.

**ENG Education:** SRI conducted two external evaluations in FY06 on NSF
educational programs. The **Research Experiences for Undergraduates
(REU)** program encourages US citizens to pursue doctoral studies by
engaging them in research as undergraduates. SRI found that
undergraduate research experiences significantly increased students'
graduate school attendance and interest in academic/research careers. A
key recommendation of the study was to include REUs and inquiry-based
activities earlier in students' programs and to actively engage K-12
teachers and community colleges in research. In its review of the
**Research Experiences for Teachers (RET)** program, SRI found that
teachers that participated in the program reported a dramatic increase
in understanding of engineering and were better prepared to counsel
students to pursue engineering. SRI recommended providing continuing
opportunities for teacher-faculty interactions.

**Research and Education Themes FY2007-FY2008:** Dr. Buckius noted that
the themes are not intended to generate solicitations or proposals but
are to guide research directions. They will evolve over time. The themes
were briefly highlighted (for later breakout group
discussions)\--Complex Engineered and Natural Systems, Energy and the
Environment, Innovation, Manufacturing Frontiers, and Nanotechnology.

**Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI)**: Dr. Buckius
reviewed the goals for EFRI and indicated that ENG is seeking AdCom
input on areas of frontier research. Projects that are funded through
EFRI are expected to be transformative, to address national need/grand
challenges, to be beyond one division, and to demonstrate community
response/readiness, and an ENG leadership role. The process for
identifying ideas for EFRI was presented.

Dr. Buckius summarized the ENG updates:

-   ENG will have a significant impact on NSF's ACI activities.

-   ENG's efforts are having the intended impact on funding rates.

-   ENG has a new organization and the EFRI process has been initiated.

-   With these increasing opportunities, there are also increasing
    responsibilities.

-   Clearly defined priorities will be essential for the future of ENG,
    particularly where ENG can take a leadership role.

-   ENG AdCom input is needed on the frontiers of engineering.

Discussion:

-   The ENG AdCom discussed the challenge of balancing award size,
    duration, and success rates. What is the best way to fund
    transformative research? Awards are being declined that should be
    funded based on merit. NSF mainly funds ideas, not people. Should
    NSF be thinking more about funding people (PIs with good track
    records)? This is under discussion at NSF. Another key issue is how
    to balance support for "star researchers" against broad support for
    the community.

-   Concern was expressed about the potential effects of a reduction in
    the number of awards going to minority serving institutions, due to
    increased proposal pressure. This could have long-term consequences
    by inhibiting capacity building activities at these institutions.

-   A question was raised about what it means to "engage engineers in
    diversity". Dr. Buckius noted that ENG receives proposals that
    address different approaches to enhancing diversity.

## Cyberinfrastructure

Dr. Abhijit Deshmukh, Program Manager for OCI and ENG and CI Working
Group member, provided an overview of CI activities at NSF. NSF
established the Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) and created a CI
Vision for the 21^st^ Century with a focus on four areas: 1) High
Performance Computing, 2) Data, Data Analysis and Visualization, 3)
Virtual Organizations, and 4) Learning and Workforce Development. Dr.
Deshmukh said there is a duality that includes both CI for big science
and CI for pervasive use. The issues are quite different in each
scenario. ENG believes that CI will play an essential role in future
engineering-related research. Key topics include: sensor networks and
real-time issues, design and control of complex systems, and multi-scale
phenomena.

Opportunities for ENG community input include the report from the ENG
AdCom Subcommittee on Cyberinfrastructure *A Process-Oriented Approach
to Engineering Cyberinfrastructure* and ENG sponsored community-wide
workshops and reports on CI strategies. Continued input on CI from the
ENG AdCom would be valuable.

Discussion:

-   Many of the CI activities are doing well in industry. What is NSF's
    engagement with industry and what can be done to leverage that? With
    HPC, the universities that are funded have a close relationship with
    vendors that provide the hardware. There are also community forums
    that are linked with NSF.

-   What other agencies fund CI and how does it overlap? OSTP has a
    multi-agency activity with NITRD that coordinates activities in IT
    across the federal agencies. The agencies that invest the most in
    HPC are DOD and DOE. Data activities are spread out across agencies
    with NIH having a huge interest/investment in data. There is a
    coordinating subcommittee on data under OSTP as well.

## ENG Division Research and Education Highlights

Each of the ENG Division Directors presented a summary of the programs
and activities within his/her division.

### Dr. Usha Varshney, Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS)

Dr. Varshney said that key technologies include Integrative and Complex
Systems, Hybrid Communications Systems, and Cyber Systems. Several
emerging research areas were listed and several examples of research
projects from funded awards were highlighted.

### Dr. Judy Raper, Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET)

Dr. Raper described CBET's role in supporting research to enhance and
protect U.S. national health, energy, the environment, security and
wealth. She provided examples of CBET frontier research and highlighted
recent workshops.

### Dr. Adnan Akay, Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI)

Dr. Akay provided an overview of CMMI. Looking to the future, CMMI plans
to support the ACI through research in design and manufacturing,
strengthening the national civil infrastructure, strengthening core
research programs through cross-fertilization, and providing
opportunities for innovation.

### Dr. Al Soyster, Division of Engineering Education and Centers (EEC)

Dr. Soyster provided an overview of the division and highlighted several
key activities, including the new solicitation for the Engineering
Research Centers. The NSB has shown interest in several EEC-related
areas including pre-college programs, retention, the public perception
of Engineering, and the professor pipeline. The division is thinking of
ways to respond to these kinds of challenges.

### Dr. Kesh Narayanan, Division of Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (IIP)

Dr. Narayanan shared the IIP vision, mission, and the organizational
structure/programs within the division. Several IIP funded research
projects were highlighted. Dr. Narayanan showed a slide demonstrating
the economic impact of the program which has drawn follow-on industry
funding and third party investment in SBIR. Innovation research topics
include biotechnology, electronics, information technology, and emerging
opportunities.

## Discussion of Engineering Themes

### Complex Engineered and Natural Systems

Dr. Akay defined complexity and provided examples of complex systems.
The theme focuses on complexity in engineered and natural systems and
the interface between these systems. The challenge is to create common
principles, and unified theories and methods to design, operate, and
protect complex engineered systems. The theme is focusing on the areas
of transportation systems, biological systems, and healthcare delivery.
The outcomes of three recent workshops will be published and the ENG
AdCom will be updated on activities.

### Energy and Environment

Dr. Judy Raper described the global need for research on energy and the
environment. ENG investments in this area have grown from \$20M in FY03
to \$53M in FY05. Areas of emphasis under the theme include alternative
energy, power systems and networks, sustainable energy production, fuel
cells, and a paradigm shift in energy use.

### Engineering Innovation

Dr. Narayanan shared several definitions of Innovation. Areas of
emphasis in engineering innovation include Research in the Science of
Innovation, Education for Innovation, and Partnerships Opportunities.
Dr. Narayanan noted recent workshops and an upcoming solicitation in
this area from the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Sciences. Dr. Narayanan asked for AdCom input on key topics and ENG's
role.

### Manufacturing Frontiers

Dr. Adnan Akay shared data showing the contribution of manufacturing to
the US GDP and total employment. Key issues in the declining share of
manufacturing jobs include competition from emerging economies, the role
of enabling technologies, environment/sustainability and resource
issues, and socioeconomics, and regulations. Key factors in an effective
response include the development of new products and services with high
added value, new business models, and emerging opportunities in
manufacturing sciences and engineering.

### New Frontiers in Nanotechnology

Dr. Bruce Kramer presented background on nanotechnology, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and key activities at NSF. ENG plays a
leading role in nanotechnology and devoted approximately \$128 million
to this activity in FY 06. Areas of emphasis in FY 07 include complex
nanosystems, three-dimensional measurements, integrating nanosystems
into applications, joint research with other agencies on the potential
implications of nanotechnology, education and workforce, and expanding
partnerships with industry, medical facilities, and states.

Discussion:

-   NSF was encouraged to take advantage of the nano-revolution and the
    role it has played in demonstrating NSF's contributions for the
    Nation.

-   Themes are important to be able to demonstrate what ENG does in a
    way that can really have an impact.

-   Could sustainability be an overarching theme? How does the NSF
    discovery process lead to greater sustainability? As leaders in
    innovation, this is something we can do to improve/reduce our
    impacts.

## Future Investments in Neuroscience

Dr. Rae Silver, Senior Advisor, Office of Integrative Activities,
presented an overview of Neuroscience at NSF. The 2006 Office of
Management and Budget-Office of Science Technology Policy memo calls for
more research in complex biological systems, which are non-linear,
multiscale, and difficult to predict. NSF is the one agency that can
bring to bear the scientific, mathematics, and engineering disciplines
to explore this research area. Currently Dr. Silver is working to
identify transformative opportunities in neuroscience research and
education.

A workshop was held in July 2006 funded by BIO/SBE on promising work in
cognition and neuroscience and another joint workshop was held in August
2006 by CISE/ENG/MPS that identified four broad areas of opportunity:
Instrumentation and Measurement, Data Analysis, Statistical Modeling,
Informatics, Conceptual and Theoretical Approaches, and Building
Brain-like Devices and Systems. The reports are available on the NSF web
site. A third workshop is planned for March 5-6 to bring together BIO,
CISE, ENG, MPS, and SBE.

Dr. Silver summarized recent findings on circadian body clocks and key
engineering neuroscience research.

Discussion:

-   A National Academy of Science meeting was just held on Smart
    Prosthetics and some of these individuals might be good candidates
    for the March workshop.

-   When asked if NSF was looking at learning systems related to the
    cognition and neuroscience pairing (human and mechanical), the ENG
    AdCom was told the August workshop report does not include learning
    or memory but it is an obvious way to go. They would like to include
    the topic in the March 2007 workshop.

## Breakout Groups

The ENG AdCom met in breakout groups. Dr. Buckius reviewed the
objectives of the breakouts and noted that each group would report back
to the full ENG AdCom.

## Breakout Group Reports

### Group 1

Richard Miller reported on the discussions for his group. The group
focused on issues of how NSF invests in people and education, and
prioritizes the way that it spends money. One concern is that there is
insufficient funding for young faculty. The group talked about the
demands placed on young faculty and NSF's increased requirements to
demonstrate the broad impact of their proposed work. Is it feasible to
ask young faculty to accommodate all of these things in their proposals?

In its discussion of education and NSF's investments in people, the
group wondered whether NSF makes deliberate investments to support
people or whether such investments are a natural outcome of NSF's
investments in ideas. Programs like REUs appear to be a deliberate
effort to invest in people. At this time, NSF does not have a program
like the Research Initiation Grants to cultivate young faculty.

Prioritization of funding is critical in times of budget constraints.
The group asked how decisions are made about how to allocate funds. Is a
higher priority placed on funding graduate students vs. educational
projects? What is the proper balance between the two?

How can research improve the way people learn? How can we train better
educators and is there a role for NSF to help motivate colleges and
universities to encourage faculty to be better educators? What can and
should be done?

The ENG reorganization was discussed. There was some concern about
whether this new structure was leading to a proper balance between
incremental and transformational research.

*Group 2*

Gary May summarized the group discussions on general themes in
engineering.

Energy generation was discussed as well as conservation and
distribution. The group talked about energy as a product life cycle. How
far out is research in energy? Is it short term or are long-term
investments being made? China and India may be the largest consumers of
energy in 10 years. Fuel cells are not necessarily efficient and the
future will require more energy efficient sources. A full array of many
components is needed.

What are the outcomes of what NSF does? Do we address what we are giving
back to the American people when they provide NSF funding (via
Congress)?

Manufacturing is an important area with the increased sharing of
laboratories and nanotechnology. Self-assembly of tissues and
electronics are now feasible. Cyberinfrastructure provides gateways,
connections, and access. There is ultra-fast and reliable communications
with backup needed for new technologies, products, and services. There
are nano-environmental concerns.

Industry needs more and better trained engineers. Industry needs to
support and share the costs of NSF investments that benefit them.
Globalization, competitiveness, and the service industries are
increasingly important and need attention (i.e. telemedicine, distance
learning, telesurgery). Operations management is globally dispersed but
integrates supply, research, development, manufacturing, and
distribution. Emerging dynamic, large companies buy their research by
acquiring small companies. Intellectual property is becoming a problem
for innovation. Uniformity in intellectual property is needed to develop
and grow innovation.

Engineered medical devices may have potential as an NSF initiative.
Biomedical engineering is important, as shown by the examples cited by
the division directors. Potential areas of opportunity for EFRI include
devices, services, and product design (ease of use) for the aging or
those in assisted living. Better control and sensor systems are needed
to make a real engineered finger or arm. Smart prosthetics/implants are
needed (with requisite advances in nerve regeneration and efficient
power supplies) and NSF is in a good position to tackle these issues.

Today technologies are produced much faster. There is a shift from an
agrarian economy around the world to one that tends to be technical. A
typical planning period used to be 1-year; this is now shortened by
expectations. This may have undermined the process of learning to some
extent. Educational systems may have to do things to put a longer
time-frame for planning back into people's consciousness. How does this
affect expectations? Has technology changed planning cycles? How does
this impact our expectations for R&D?

### Group 3

Dr. Phillips summarized his group's discussion which focused on earth
systems engineering and a new IED system, in collaboration with Homeland
Security and others.

Sustainability Statement in Proposals: If appropriate, PIs should
discuss how their research will lead to more sustainable technologies.
For example, if they propose a new catalytic process for the energy
supply problem, they would provide a lifecycle assessment that this is
more beneficial than current technology in terms of resource depletion.

Bioengineering provides opportunities for NSF research at the systems
level and in a quantitative area. NSF needs to be discovery driven and
to focus on transformative opportunities. Earth Systems Engineering
should be supported more by increased funding in the environmental
engineering program. ENG should be encouraged to partner with GEO and
other directorates. The IED System is an opportunity for NSF to partner
with DHS and other agencies.

Energy CO~2~ Initiative: ENG should catalyze research on
transformational energy technologies and partner, when appropriate, with
other federal agencies to develop efficient energy conservation
processes that reduce atmospheric CO~2~ emissions, and investigate CO~2~
(bio) chemistry and physics and their translation into scalable and
sustainable systems and processes for large-scale CO~2~ capture and
storage.

## Preparation for Discussion with Director

Dr. May stepped in as chair as Dr. Miller had to leave. The ENG AdCom
formulated questions to pose to Drs. Bement and Olsen.

The ENG AdCom expressed concern that not enough young faculty members
are being funded. They talked about ways to encourage funding earlier in
the young PI's career. They discussed ways to fund more CAREER grants.
ENG is the only directorate that limits CAREER funding to \$400K for 5
years but ENG funds more CAREER grants overall than other directorates.
In summary, the ENG AdCom members felt that CAREER is an important
program but that the probability of success should be increased. They
recommended that ENG determine how to do this.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

Friday, November 17, 2006

The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 a.m. Dr. Gary May, ENG AdCom Past
Chair, filled in for Dr. Miller as Chair.

## NSF's Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms (IPAMM) Committee Report

Dr. Akay, ENG IPAMM representative, updated the ENG AdCom on the
activities of the NSF IPAMM Working Group. The charge of the working
group was to identify best practices to achieve an appropriate balance
between proposal success rates, award sizes, and award duration. The
issue of concern was that NSF was seeing a significant decrease in the
success rate for awards but increased workloads for NSF staff and the
reviewer community. Data were shown on success rates, proposal
submissions, award size, and award duration. Dr. Akay observed that
there has been an increase in the number of PIs submitting proposals to
NSF with a 29% increase in first-time submitters and a 38% increase
overall. There is also an increase in the average number of proposals
submitted before an award (from 1.7 per PI to 2.2 per PI). Potential
drivers included the increased use of focused solicitations, limits on
submissions in specific cases, the potential for increased budgets in
2002 and 2007 and a flat or decreasing budget in 2005. NSF is developing
case studies, gathering additional data for analysis, and obtaining
external input through a focus group and an applicant survey.

Discussion:

-   The decrease in the success rate in ENG is greater than other NSF
    directorates. Is there directorate specific information about why
    the rates dropped? For ENG, the award size and funding rates both
    decreased.

-   What are GEO and other directorates doing that is different from
    ENG? (These directorates have higher success rates). Dr. Buckius
    said ENG has about 12-13% of the NSF budget and receives more
    proposals than any other directorate. Other directorates have larger
    budgets (i.e. MPS) but receive fewer proposals.

-   It seems that NSF has not recognized the impact of the technological
    revolution and the increased pressure that has been put on
    engineering. The NSF budget has not been reflective of this. The
    relevant statistic is the total amount of funding vs. the total
    number of investigators; and whether they are in proportion. Unless
    funds increase, NSF will have to be in the business of discouraging
    investigators or shaving grants. Internally the decisions are fairly
    difficult. Externally the only solution is to increase funding.

-   The closing of the Whitaker Foundation and cutbacks in other federal
    agencies may have contributed to the strain as well. There is
    concern that investigators are frustrated and there is a need to
    remedy this and to increase success rates. Some divisions have
    already lowered funding amounts and durations. Data showing
    increased numbers of applications should be used to argue for more
    funding rather than taking action to cut back.

-   What is the total amount of funding for new things after funds are
    allocated to Centers, mortgages and restricted funds? Dr. Buckius
    said that about 50% of the budget is unrestricted. There are some
    restrictions within a division (i.e. Nano).

-   Is it a fair argument to say "we are at the bottom and we want to
    move up"? Or should we come up with initiatives that capture the
    attention of the NSF Director? Dr. Buckius said that it is not
    sufficient to just highlight the number of proposals that have been
    submitted. ENG also has to demonstrate that they have their house in
    order. Proposal pressure is important, but intellectual drive and
    goals and energy will put ENG out there as leaders. With ACI, ENG is
    a likely leader. An AdCom member noted that it is important for ENG
    to define creative program initiatives that will capture the
    imagination of the NSF Director.

-   ENG faculty numbers have been increasing over time (compared to MPS
    or other disciplines). More data are needed to determine if the new
    faculty members who are replacing retiring faculty are more
    research-focused.

-   The bottom line is that the engineering community has increased. ENG
    issues within NSF are very important, and the community needs to
    make a strong case to support ACI. Unless the ENG budget increases,
    there is no acceptable solution to this problem. NSF needs to be
    supporting these scientific endeavors.

## Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA) Activities

Jeff Nesbit, Director, OLPA, gave a presentation on NSF and the New
Media Age. OLPA is trying lots of strategies to reach more people
through non-traditional media. About 30% of the people in the United
States say they get information mainly from the Internet, yet only 3% of
ad dollars go into the Internet. In this changing media landscape,
people are figuring out ways to create their own media. The down side of
this development is that consumers don't know where to turn for
information.

To demonstrate the need for change in the way that NSF promotes its
science, Mr. Nesbit showed the top 20 science sites on the Internet. NSF
comes in at number 13 for science information using the Google search
engine. NSF is working hard to change this. The Public Broadcasting
System radio network and NSF are doing science coverage. NSF is building
other new partnerships and new products that speak directly to
consumers. One of the more successful efforts was the redesign of the
NSF web site, which won the Webby Awards as People's Choice Winner for
the best government web site. A new feature NSF will add soon is a
dynamic multi-media loop.

Examples of new NSF products were shared with the ENG AdCom including
NSF radio, NSF video clips, a children's web site, and "The Discovery
Files" broadcasts on iTunes. NSF is creating a media briefing room that
will allow NSF to produce live briefings and connect video casts very
easily. They are filming lecture series that take place at NSF and
starting a "Nobel Prize Lecture Series" with a cable network research
channel. NSF is creating "NSF TV" to include programming from partner
universities. They are also working with professional associations, with
public film presentations at universities, and with on-line science
journals. Other activities include discussions with Marvel about a
special comic book, a short film for the International Polar Year, and
providing footage of science and engineering for ABC News.

Discussion:

-   The ENG AdCom noted that there were a lot of references to science,
    but references to engineering seemed to be lacking. Mr. Nesbit said
    they will make sure that this phrase is included everywhere as
    quickly as possible.

-   Mr. Nesbit said NSF is stuck in some respects because the national
    media have already grouped their information in terms of science and
    technology.

-   The National Academy of Engineering has a large effort in the public
    arena and NSF should explore partnering with them. Mr. Nesbit said
    they will be looking for as many partners as possible for content
    and distribution for the *Engineering without Borders* film.

-   Parents are the biggest influence on children. Has NSF thought about
    promoting science and engineering through a character in a popular
    adult medium such as a soap opera? It may also be helpful to recruit
    individuals such as Tom Friedman to write about key topics. Mr.
    Nesbit said the health industry has promoted itself through meetings
    with Hollywood where they provide ideas to directors and producers.
    NSF has been talking about a similar approach for introduce science
    and engineering.

-   Science Magazine did a profile of Robert Langer's lab and it was one
    of the most popular issues. Mr. Nesbit said OLPA is looking at all
    of S&T Centers and will create 17 stories from that.

Mr. Nesbit concluded that it will take all who care about science and
engineering to work together to turn the tide. The ENG AdCom thanked Mr.
Nesbit for presenting to them.

## Potential Research Collaboration with France

Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, Deputy Director, Office of International Science
and Engineering (OISE), discussed NSF-supported international research
collaborations, with a special focus on France. She shared the
objectives of NSF's International Research program.

Dr. Sullivan provided highlights on the science and technology landscape
for France which is highly centralized with scientists and engineers in
public research organization as civil servants. She listed key public
research institutes in France that are of interest to NSF. There are
also several French-sponsored activities for participation by US
scientists. Possible future activities include a Franco-American
Doctoral College and a US-France Symposium, which would be an
opportunity to network and would provide the basis for future
engagements.

Dr. May thanked Dr. Sullivan for presenting to the ENG AdCom.

## Final Preparations for Discussions with the Director

The ENG AdCom summarized the topics for discussion with the NSF
Director:

-   Compliment them on the NSF Strategic Plan

-   Provide positive feedback on the restructuring of ENG and the
    Emerging Frontiers program.

-   What are Dr. Bement's thoughts on the impact of the ACI at NSF and
    the opportunity for ENG to play a bigger role with ACI?

-   There may be unintended consequences of cost sharing being
    eliminated.

-   What are Dr. Bement's goals during the remainder of his tenure with
    NSF?

-   Sustainability.

-   What can NSF do to encourage young new investigators?

## Meeting with NSF Director and Deputy Director

Dr. May welcomed Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., Director, and Dr. Kathie Olsen,
Deputy Director, of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Bement noted
that these are changing times with new leadership in the House and
Senate and new freshman in Congress to be educated about NSF. The FY07
budget is on hold until the Lame Duck Congress acts.

The ACI is dramatic and the role of NSF in that initiative has three
components: 1) pay attention to frontier research (new and
transformative concepts that stabilize the marketplace and move the
economy forward), 2) pay attention to transformative facilities and
infrastructure (NSF needs to address critical, well-posed questions that
require these facilities), and 3) educate a workforce for the 21^st^
Century in math and science education at every level. This role is
shared by every directorate at NSF. The Directorate for Education and
Human Resources has primary responsibility for developing instructional
materials and evaluation. The research directorates provide content and
bring this content into the classroom.

To advance innovation, NSF must encourage innovative activities to be
incorporated into the educational experience. The integration of
research and education is integral to this effort. There may be ways of
shifting from the old paradigm of teaching to more interactive
activities that involve more mentoring. (This can be challenging from a
faculty time-management point of view). Input from the advisory
committees is needed as NSF shapes their programs going forward.

The physical sciences and engineering are targeted in the ACI. As NSF's
budget increases, ENG will get a good cut -- at least at the rate that
the NSF increases. There is no guarantee that NSF's budget will double
-- it won't happen unless NSF convinces decision makers they are making
good progress, and providing good outputs, good impacts, and good
investments. Advice from the ENG AdCom is appreciated.

Discussion:

The ACI represents a tremendous opportunity for the engineering
community. Dr. Bement said that over the last 3-4 years, ENG has
improved its position. Increased funding also requires careful
management. Every problem can't be solved with more resources. It is
also about using those resources more effectively. Dr. Bement said that
he is delighted to work with Dr. Buckius who is addressing those issues
and working to better manage the ENG portfolio. NSF has to be cautious
about maintaining a good balance between unsolicited and solicited
proposals. They are starting to see an upward trend. New resources will
also be helpful.

Young ENG faculty are increasing in numbers and engineering is becoming
integrated with new fields and new types of infrastructure. The ENG
AdCom discussed ways to encourage young faculty. Dr. Bement said NSF is
one of the few federal agencies that support engineering. NSF's role is
to support fundamental research at the frontier. The role of the
universities is to provide a continuum from basic to applied research
and to link to other resources (state, industry, etc.) and be sure there
is an appropriate balance. Younger researchers have to rely on
fundamental research support and have to build a team and make their
case in a very short amount of time. This is the purpose of the NSF
CAREER program.

It was noted that NSF should provide enhanced support for emerging
engineering technologies. Dr. Bement agreed.

Dr. Olsen asked the ENG AdCom about the ENG themes; the group shared the
topics of their discussions.

It was noted that sustainability could be an overarching unifying NSF
theme. Dr. Bement observed that contributions are already being made in
atmospheric sciences and geosciences in understanding the natural cycles
of the world and our impacts on these cycles. He said that the problem
with the topic of sustainability is that the theme is too broad; it is
hard to measure. The research needs to be at the program level. There
are sustainability-related activities in nanotechnology, such as water
purification. Some major NSF facilities deal with sustainability, such
as the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and the Ocean
Observatories Initiative (OOI). Research on the International Polar Year
and climate change is also closely related to sustainability. Dr. Bement
asked the AdCom members where the nation could make additional
investments to get the highest return in the area of sustainability.
What programs need more focus or more resources to achieve their
sustainability potential? Dr. Bement observed that NSF likes to have
major issues come "bottom up" from the community and the AdCom.

Dr. Olsen queried the AdCom on whether they would prefer to have a
teleconference with the AdCom chairs or to have periodic meetings at NSF
where they could provide advice and engage in discussion. Dr. May said
that he thought it would be useful to have a half day meeting.

The Engineering directorate has the closest ties to industry and it is
important to enhance those ties. The new NSB policy on cost sharing may
have some unintended consequences. For programs that previously required
cost sharing, will industrial partnerships be weakened under the new
rules? Dr. Bement said programs with industry have always been "Bring
Your Own Budget". The problem with cost-sharing was that it was
difficult to evaluate in-kind contributions. The new policy seems to be
working fairly well. Each type of center has its own business model and
that flexibility is important. Dr. Bement said that he would be
interested in learning more about whether or not this policy has
substantially reduced the contribution of industry to these types of
activities. It is important to monitor the effects of the new policy on
cost sharing.

What is the impact of a continuing resolution? Dr. Bement said that one
impact is that a continuing resolution prevents any new starts. It also
continues expenditure rates at the FY06 level (less than the FY07
request). If it were to extend beyond the end of 2006, it would become
problematic. With new starts/major facilities on hold until funds are
available, project costs increase. It is also possible that there could
be a rescission that would reduce the budget by one to two percent.

Dr. May said the ENG AdCom appreciated the bottom up approach to
development of the NSF Strategic Plan and congratulated NSF on a great
document. Dr. Bement thanked the ENG AdCom for their input and
encouraged them to keep discussing frontier themes.

## Wrap Up

Tentative meeting dates for the spring and fall ENG AdCom meeting were
proposed: April 19-20, April 26-27 and Oct 24-25 and Oct 31-Nov 1, 2007.
Dr. Buckius thanked the ENG staff that helped support the meeting. The
ENG AdCom thanked Dr. Buckius for his leadership. With no further
discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

Summary of November 16-17, 2006 ENG AdCom Action Items:

-   Data were requested on the demographics of institutions that are
    dropping out of proposal submissions. Are they minority serving
    institutions?

-   How do the number of submissions and awards of multiple
    investigators compare to for single PIs? AdCom requested these data.

-   ENG requested names from the ENG AdCom of individuals who might be
    interested in neuroscience.

-   The COV report on the CAREER program will be provided to ENG AdCom
    members when it becomes available (Spring '07).

-   Data were requested on the breakdown of success rates by the type of
    awards (Centers, CAREER, etc.).

-   It would be helpful to get data on whether the new engineering
    faculty are more focused on research than the individuals that they
    have replaced.

#### 

#### Directorate for Engineering Advisory Committee Meeting

**National Science Foundation**

### November 16-17, 2006

**Agenda**

## Day 1: Thursday, November 16, 2006, Room 1235

8:00 AM Registration and Light Refreshments

8:30 Welcome, Introduction, Agenda, and Approval of Minutes -- May 3-4,
2006

*Richard Miller, Advisory Committee Chair*

8:45 Directorate Update

*Richard Buckius, Assistant Director for Engineering*

9:45 Update on Cyberinfrastructure and Simulation-Based Engineering
Science

*Abhi Deshmukh*

**10:05 BREAK**

10:20 ENG Division Research and Education Highlights

*Usha Varshney*, *Judy Raper, Adnan Akay, Al Soyster, Kesh Narayanan*

11:15 Discussion of Engineering Themes

\- Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems -- *Adnan Akay*

\- Energy and Environment -- *Judy Raper*

\- Innovation -- *Kesh Narayanan*

\- Manufacturing Frontiers *-- Adnan Akay*

\- New Frontiers in Nanotechnology -- *Bruce Kramer*

**12:30 PM LUNCH** - Future Investments in Neuroscience

*Rae Silver, Senior Advisor, Office of Integrative Activities*

1:15 Breakout Groups

\- Room 505 Group

\- Room 530 Group

\- Room 1235 Group

**3:15 BREAK**

3:30 AdCom Executive Session

4:30 Report back on break outs

5:15 Prepare for discussion with Director

5:45 Wrap Up

6:00 Reception and Dinner at the Front Page

## Day 2: Friday, November 17, 2006, Room 1235

8:00 AM Light Refreshments

8:30 Review of Today's Agenda

*Gary May, Advisory Committee Past Chair*

8:45 NSF's Impact of Proposal and Award Management (IPAM) Committee
report

*Adnan Akay, ENG IPAM representative*

9:05 Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA) Activities

*Jeff Nesbit, Director, OLPA*

9:25 Potential Research Collaborations with France

> *Kathryn Sullivan, Deputy Director, Office of International Science
> and Engineering*

9:45 Final preparations for meeting with the Director

**10:15 BREAK**

10:30 Meet with Director

11:30 Wrap Up

*Gary May, Advisory Committee Past Chair*

12:00 Adjourn