## NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

*Directorate for Engineering*

## [Making the Case for Engineering]{.smallcaps}

## Study and Recommendations

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.5625in" height="1.5625in"}

**"An opportunity to improve and better position engineering to ensure
that innovation continues to improve our safety, health, and economic
prosperity."**

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Email: engcase@nsf.gov

# Making the Case for Engineering

# Contents Page

I. Introduction 3

II\. Charge to Task Force and Methodology 7

III\. Executive Summary 8

IV\. Building Public Support for Engineering 9

V.  The Current State of Public Understanding 11

VI. Conclusions 16

VI\. Recommendations and Action Plan 17

VII\. Next Steps 21

VIII\. References 22

##### Appendix Documents Attached to this Document

1\. Get ENG's Communities Involved 24

2\. Better Focus ENG's Portfolio 27

3\. Partnerships 29

4\. Effectively Serving the Engineering Community 31

5\. NAE Study 35

##### Appendix Documents Available on Public ENG Drive

1\. PowerPoint Slides

2\. Survey NSF, PD, Outside Communities

3\. Brown Bag Lunch Minutes and Presentation by Marshall Lih

4\. NAE Proposal on Messaging

##### CASE Task Group

Cheryl Albus

Fil Bartoli

Charles Blue

Ken Chong (Chair)

Delcie Durham

Darren Dutterer

Bruce Hamilton

Sue Kemnitzer

Glenn Larsen (Secretary)

**I. Introduction: Engineering Innovation**

Throughout the last century, the United States has remained the world
leader in basic research and innovation.

Over that time, bold investments have catalyzed our nation's capacity to
innovate, producing remarkable advances in communications, health care,
information technology, transportation, and infrastructure. These
innovations continue to improve our quality of life.

As we move through the 21^st^ century, engineering innovation will
continue to be of unmatched value to our nation, particularly in areas
of security, job creation, and environmental stewardship.

The National Science Foundation (NSF), through its Directorate for
Engineering (ENG), is a major contributor to advancing engineering
innovation in the United States. ENG does this by serving as the
principal source of federal funding for university-based fundamental
engineering research, providing over 42 percent of the total federal
support in this area. ENG also focuses its investments in critically
important areas for today\'s needs---such as nanotechnology,
bioengineering, information and communication systems, homeland
security, environment and earthquake engineering, smart and engineered
materials, sensors and control systems, and manufacturing frontiers. ENG
also supports the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs, which address important
scientific, engineering, or science/engineering education problems.

To ensure the continued pace of engineering innovation, ENG also invests
in the development of a U.S. engineering and technical workforce to
maintain leadership in an increasingly competitive global environment.

The ability of the United States to retain this preeminence in
innovation, however, is not guaranteed. Current and projected federal
budgets suggest a flat or even declining trend in funding for
non-medical science and engineering research. While other nations \--
particularly China, India, Japan and the European Union \-- are
increasing their investments in these vital areas.

The impact of these disparities is compounded by the fact that the
public -- *whose support is mandatory for a national environment that
fosters innovation* -- does not adequately understand the role of
engineering in advancing our nation.

To address this concern, John Brighton, the NSF Assistant Director for
Engineering, established a task force to \"Make the Case\" for
engineering in August 2004 to highlight the importance of engineering
innovation, and its role and impact on the U.S. economy, national
security, and quality of life.

ENG and the engineering community face major hurdles in accomplishing
this goal. One of the greatest obstacles is the "disconnect" between
engineering innovations and the people who use, rely on, and prosper
because of them. Additionally, research demonstrates that the general
public is not well aware of the nature of the engineering profession and
its impact on quality of life[^1], even though engineering has
compelling success stories to tell.

The *Great Achievements* project and the recent Lemelson-MIT/CNN
Innovations program provide numerous, well-recognized examples of
engineering's pervasive impact on society \[Figure 1\]. These and other
outreach programs, announcements, and efforts certainly help to
communicate select elements of engineering, but as with many public
relations activities, after the initial "splash" of an announcement the
impact fades.

Beyond the broader understanding of engineering, NSF and ENG also need
to communicate their role and impact on advancing the U.S. engineering
and innovation enterprise.

ENG success stories of this impact do exist, such as the Civil and
Mechanical Systems Division\'s (CMS) grantee and 2003 Nobel Laureate
Paul C. Lauterbur, whose pioneering work on Magnetic Resonance Imaging
\[Figure 2\] has had profound impact on the health of this nation and
the world. There are many more examples, large and small.

It may be, however, that the most compelling messages will not come from
our past successes, but from the potential to improve our lives in the
future through new technology and new engineering innovations.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="2.6354166666666665in" height="1.96875in"}

To highlight the timeliness of this effort, the *Making the Case* report
comes at a time when other related reports and recommendations from the
U.S. science and engineering community have been, or are in the process
of being issued by such leading institutions as the National Academy of
Engineering and the Council on Competitiveness[^2]. These are:

> *The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century*
> \[NAE, 2004\], which centers on envisioning future scenarios, and
> determining what sort of education engineers will require to address
> them.
>
> *Innovate America: National Innovation Initiative Report* \[Council on
> Competitiveness, 2004\], which recommends programs to ensure the
> talent, investment, and infrastructure necessary for the United States
> to continue to excel in innovation on a global scale.
>
> *Assessing the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise:
> Preliminary Report for Public Review* \[NAE Draft, 2005\], which
> recommends specific programs on a local and national level the United
> States should embrace, particularly Discovery-Innovation Institutes.

Each of these reports highlights fundamental challenges that have to be
overcome before we can hope to advance engineering in the United States,
and not the least of which is a lack of appreciation for what is
engineering, how is it distinct from science, and what is its impact on
the U.S. economy and quality of life. These concepts may be considerably
more difficult to communicate than success stories, since there are no
accepted definitions, even within the engineering community.
Additionally, there is a dearth of research on what **messages** and
**programs** will help make the case with our target audiences.[^3]

It is clear that ENG and the engineering community must make a more
effective case for the promise of engineering research, education, and
investment. This report attempts to address this by providing a flexible
framework that can be utilized as ENG moves forward with its strategic
planning process.

This need can be summed up in the words of Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel
and NAE chairman: \"We are not graduating the volume \[of scientists and
engineers\], we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have
a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real
dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science. The only
crisis the U.S. thinks it is in today is the war on terrorism. It's
not!"[^4]

**II. Task Force Charge and Methodology**

The *Task Force* was initially directed to prepare an action plan to
enable ENG to better define and communicate its role in serving the
nation, NSF, and the engineering community by addressing the following
issues:

-   How can we better educate the general public and policymakers about
    the role of engineering and ENG?

-   How can we get the engineering communities (in government, academe,
    and industry) to help make the case for moving ENG forward?

-   How can we better focus ENG\'s portfolio of funding of research and
    education in order to move ENG forward? (Review the current
    portfolio to see if we can bring better focus on certain
    problem/opportunity areas.)

-   What partnerships are needed in order to move ENG forward?

-   Are the engineering communities being effectively served by NSF? If
    not, what needs to change? How can we better communicate with them?

Based on feedback from the Assistant Director for Engineering, the
charge was modified to reflect an "outreach" oriented approach. The task
force prepared an action plan that communicates the value and impact of
engineering innovation to the nation. The report also presents specific
strategies that communicate ENG\'s role in supporting innovation that
advances our safety, health, and economic prosperity. The report
specifically addresses how the engineering communities can help make the
case for engineering, and what partnerships (i.e. media partners, the
science community, engineering societies, science centers, etc.) are
necessary to communicate most effectively. Key elements from the first
draft are included in the report appendices for reference and as a
resource.

Under a very tight schedule, the following tasks have been accomplished:

-   Each Task Force member led one or more major segment of this report.

-   Input was sought from all ENG, other NSF directorates, engineering
    deans, university presidents, industry leaders, NAE members,
    professional societies and others.

-   A brown bag lunch discussion involving 24 professional members from
    ENG was held.

-   Numerous reference books and reports were reviewed. Selected
    findings are included in this report.

-   The ENG AdCom[^5] helped to further refine the report.

-   The DRAFT report was presented at the ENG AdCom and EMT meetings.

-   The DRAFT report was circulated among other members of the
    Directorate Management Team for in-depth review and comment.

-   A revised draft was prepared reflecting a more focused charge.

**III. Executive Summary**

The reasons for making the case for engineering are clear and
compelling. First, engineering drives our economy; it builds the
foundation for a prosperous and secure future. Second, the engine of
engineering innovation does not run solely on the value of its
contributions to society; it requires a committed and active public and
private investment. It also requires a strong educational foundation and
a world-class workforce. Finally, the public awareness and understanding
of engineering -- its process and its impact -- are not well understood
by the public. This final point hinders our nation's ability to
adequately attract a diverse, world-class engineering workforce, and to
enact the bold programs necessary to ensure our continued leadership in
engineering innovation.

This task force answers its charge in two ways: first, by making
recommendations on what internal changes (cultural and programmatic) the
NSF and ENG should undertake to help *make the case* within NSF,
throughout the engineering community, and to the public. It also makes
recommendations on how it can catalyze and support external activities
that will have a broad, long-term impact on the public understanding and
awareness of engineering innovation.

A common theme to both the internal and external recommendations is the
clear understanding that a unified message and approach across all
sectors of engineering is vital to ensure the ultimate success of these
efforts.

**IV. Building Public Support for Engineering**

The public understanding of engineering is a critical and growing
concern for engineering research, engineering education, and the
progress of engineering innovation in the United States.

Recent reports by the Council on Competitiveness and the National
Academy of Engineering echo longstanding concerns that the United States
is in jeopardy of falling behind other nations economically and
technologically, and that our nation's capacity to innovation is being
challenged.

Many developing countries (e.g., China and India) are now educating
excellent engineers, and in large quantities. \[Workforce Report,
NSF/ENG, 2005\]

![](media/image3.png){width="5.475694444444445in"
height="2.8534722222222224in"}

Figure 3: Engineering degrees granted by country \[NSF, 2004\]

These data reinforce one of the assertions of the Council on
Competitiveness' report on innovation, which reads: "While we remain the
world's leader, the capacity for innovation is going global... ." The
report also states that sustaining our competitive advantage will
require "innovating continuously on a global basis."

This report and others recommend bold new programs that could turn the
tide and reinvigorate the U.S. engineering innovation enterprise. But,
they also acknowledge that to move these bold programs forward, the
United States requires broad public understanding and support for
engineering innovation. As noted in the *DRAFT* NAE report on
innovation, "... as the American public comes to understand the
importance of leadership in technological innovation to national
economic prosperity and security, the committee believes bold
initiatives of this magnitude could be given a higher priority in the
federal budget process, just as funding for biomedical research was
doubled in the 1990s" \[NAE, Draft 2005\]. Public understanding,
therefore, is the linchpin in moving engineering forward and preserving
the U.S. global leadership in innovation.

Public understanding is also seen as critical to developing and
maintaining a world-class engineering workforce. In the *Engineer of
2020* report, the NAE notes that, "Encouraging greater understanding of
the value of engineering and the contributions it makes to society can
help attract undecided students to engineering as well" \[NAE, 2004\].

This greater understanding may help engineering contend with the fact
that the diversity of the profession is far from parity with the
population of the United States.

![](media/image4.png){width="3.9166666666666665in" height="2.25in"}

Figure 4: Percentage engineering degrees earned by women, African
Americans, and Hispanics in 2003 \[NSF 2004\]

Women and minorities make up more than two-thirds of the United States'
workforce; yet only represent 23 percent of engineering graduates
\[NSF/ENG Workforce Report, 2005\]. Among the factors contributing to
this disparity are: disillusionment with engineering and the lack of
interest in the potential lifestyle, and lack of role models \[Johnson
and Shepperd, 2004\].

Engineering, however, can make a solid case for both of these concerns.
A recent survey indicates that engineers make up the largest percentage
of Fortune Magazine's top 200 CEOs (Figure 5). Clearly, there are
strong, positive messages about lifestyle and role models that can and
should be made.

![](media/image5.wmf)

This ties in to the data found in the final report from the
*Extraordinary Women Engineers* project.[^6] From a series of focus
groups, several questions were asked that shine light on why girls may
or may not choose to pursue a career in engineering. Two examples
follow:

> ***What do high school girls think about engineering?***
>
> High school girls believe engineering is for people who love both math
> and science. They do not have an understanding of what engineering is.
> They do not show an interest in the field nor do they think it is "for
> them."
>
> ***What messages is the engineering community sending to high school
> students?***
>
> Current engineering messages portray engineering as challenging and
> stress the importance of superior math and science abilities. These
> messages are not relevant for this audience. Messages do not include
> the benefits and rewards of engineering.

What these results show is that engineering has failed to demonstrate to
young women, and perhaps even to the public, an exciting, recognizable
face. It also fails to explain the rewards -- both financial and
life-style -- that an engineering career can offer.

######## V. The Current State of Public Understanding

In 1998 and 2003, the American Association of Engineering Societies
(AAES) commissioned a Harris Poll to provide a better understanding of
the public's attitudes toward engineering and engineers.

Among the results from these surveys, the following data, published in
2004, stand out as relevant to our work:

**Figure 6: Excerpts from the Harris Poll Indicating the Level of
Prestige American's Impart to Various Professions**

+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
|                | **Very | **             | **S   | **H     | **D    |
|                | G      | Considerable** | ome** | ardly** | on't** |
|                | reat** |                |       |         |        |
|                |        |                |       | **Any** | **     |
|                |        |                |       |         | Know** |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Doctor         | 61     | 27             | 10    | 2       | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Scientist      | 55     | 30             | 10    | 3       | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Teacher        | 53     | 26             | 15    | 5       | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Minister       | 46     | 28             | 19    | 7       | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Police         | 41     | 31             | 20    | 7       | 0      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Engineer       | 34     | 39             | 22    | 4       | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Military Off.  | 34     | 36             | 23    | 6       | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Architect      | 26     | 42             | 26    | 4       | 2      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Congressman    | 25     | 31             | 26    | 17      | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Lawyer         | 23     | 30             | 28    | 18      | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Athlete        | 20     | 28             | 34    | 17      | 0      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Entertainer    | 19     | 29             | 36    | 15      | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Businessman    | 18     | 37             | 38    | 6       | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Banker         | 18     | 33             | 39    | 10      | 0      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Accountant     | 17     | 33             | 39    | 11      | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Journalist     | 15     | 33             | 37    | 13      | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Union Leader   | 16     | 28             | 33    | 22      | 1      |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+
| Note: Not all  |        |                |       |         |        |
| percentages    |        |                |       |         |        |
| add up to 100  |        |                |       |         |        |
| because not    |        |                |       |         |        |
| all            |        |                |       |         |        |
| respondents    |        |                |       |         |        |
| answered every |        |                |       |         |        |
| question.      |        |                |       |         |        |
+----------------+--------+----------------+-------+---------+--------+

It is shown in the research that engineers have a moderate-to-high level
of prestige \-- though at a level lower than other professions, namely
scientists, doctors, teachers, ministers, and police. This is a good
data point for certain elements, such as the weight a particular
profession's viewpoint would add to a debate on a topic of national
interest. It does not, however, help in understanding why certain people
choose a particular profession, or why it is perceived differently by
men, women, and minorities.

Certainly, the lower prestige of professions like "Lawyer" does not
dissuade people from choosing the legal profession as a career path.
Likewise, the extremely high prestige of "Teachers" does not result in
an abundance of qualified teachers in the United States. Other factors,
such as lifestyle and financial rewards may be of greater impact.

Figure 7: Results of Periodic Polls by Harris Interactive on the
Prestige of Various Professions, 1977-1988, Percentage that rated
prestige as "very great"

  ------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                     **1977**   **1982**   **1992**   **1997**    **1998**

  Doctor             61         55         50         52          61

  Scientist          66         59         57         51          55

  Teacher            29         28         41         49          53

  Minister           41         42         38         45          46

  Police             NA         NA         34         36          41

  Engineer           34         30         37         32          34

  Military Off.      NA         22         32         29          34

  Architect          NA         NA         NA         NA          26

  Congressman        NA         NA         24         23          25

  Lawyer             36         30         25         19          23

  Athlete            26         20         18         21          20

  Artist             21         20         13         19          NA

  Entertainer        18         16         17         18          19

  Businessman        18         16         19         16          18

  Banker             17         17         17         15          18

  Accountant         NA         13         14         18          17

  Union Leader       NA         NA         12         14          16

  Journalist         17         16         15         15          15
  ------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

One valuable point from the Harris Poll, however, is shown by tracking
prestige over time. As noted here, engineers, even during a time of
rapid technological advance and improvements in our standard of living,
have not been perceived more prestigiously.

Part of that lack of change may in fact be due to broad misconceptions
by the public as to what engineering is, what engineers do, and how
engineers contribute to society.

# Figure 8: Comparative Perception of Scientists, Technician, and Engineers

  -------------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------
                             **Scientists**   **Technicians**   **Engineers**

  Invents                    11               2                 2

  Builds                                      10                26

  Designs/plans              1                1                 27

  Is creative                3                1                 3

  Discovers                  18               1                 

  Pioneers                   1                                  

  Measures                                    1                 1

  Works in lab               8                                  

  Conducts research          11                                 

  Equipment repair                            15                

  Works w/ computers                          9                 

  Specially qualified in                      6                 
  their field                                                   

  Works with Electronics     5                                  

  Train Operator                                                5

  Cures disease              9                                  

  Seeks Knowledge            6                                  

  Conducts experiments       5                                  
  -------------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------

This chart demonstrates that the participants think of scientists as
inventors and discoverers; of technicians as having specialized
equipment-related qualifications; and of engineers as builders, makers,
designers, and planners.

Also, most people did not recognize the contributions of engineers to
the areas where they have been instrumental: the development of new
forms of energy, working in space, and the development of new drugs and
medications. In general, scientists were more strongly associated with
these activities.

Also shown in the Harris Poll data is the fact that adults do not
consider themselves very well informed about or interested in
engineering and engineers.

Only one-third of adults consider themselves fairly or very well
informed about engineering and engineers, compared to nearly half who
would say the same about science and scientists. Similarly, four in ten
adults are interested in learning about engineering and engineers,
compared to more than half who are interested in science and scientists.

Other studies indicate that most Americans are probably not
technologically literate. They have little conception of how science,
technology, and engineering are related to one another, and they do not
clearly understand what engineers do and how engineers and scientists
work together to create technology. Those are the major findings of a
recent report issued by the NAE's Committee on Technological Literacy
2002. In addition, the International Technology Education Association
(ITEA) concluded from its 2001 survey that, \"adults are very interested
in but relatively poorly informed about technology\" \[NSF Indicators
2004\].

![](media/image6.png){width="2.370138888888889in" height="5.95in"}In the
ITEA survey, respondents were asked to name the first word that comes to
mind when they hear the word \"technology.\" Approximately two-thirds
said \"computers.\" Moreover, when given a choice of two definitions for
\"technology,\" 63 percent chose \"computers and the Internet,\" whereas
36 percent chose \"changing the natural world to satisfy our needs.\"

A majority of survey respondents (59 percent) associated the word
*design* (in relation to technology) with \"blueprints and drawings from
which you construct something\" rather than \"a creative process for
solving problems.\"

These data, however, are of limited value in understanding the public's
perception of engineers and engineering in a broader context. For
example, they do not answer questions such as: What does engineering do
for me? Do you want to be an engineer; if not, why? Is engineering
research as important or more important than medical research? What
impact has engineering had on society? What serious problems --
environmental, security, health -- demand new and innovation engineering
solution? (The public may not even understand that engineers are capable
of solving these problems.)

Additionally, the surveys do not provide any guidance (such as effective
messages or outreach tools) on improving the public awareness and
understanding of the impact of engineering. As shown in the *2004
Science and Engineering Indicators* report (Figure 9), the public
clearly relies on television for its general information on science and
engineering, though the Internet has emerged as the leading information
source for specific questions. This clearly demonstrates that not all
outreach is equally effective in reaching the broadest audiences and
having the most significant impact. If engineering wants to have
meaningful impact, it will have to understand how the public receives
their information, along with the messages that best connect to their
needs and wants.

Even without such guidance, however, the engineering community continues
to maintain an active outreach effort to improve the understanding and
awareness of engineering. Corporations, professional societies, the
National Academy of Engineering, and universities have all made
commitments to public outreach, with an estimated annual investment of
approximately \$400 million \[NAE, 2004\].

Though evaluation of these programs is difficult, some programs could be
viewed as successful in the short term (such as Great Achievements,
Lemelson-MIT Innovation, and Engineers Week). Others outreach efforts
have come along with lofty goals, yet failed due to lack of investment
and broad buy-in, or they were localized and focused on a particular
event or program.

The \"lessons learned\" from past outreach endeavors demonstrate that
individual efforts can be very successful, yet tend to have very narrow
impact. Larger scale \"comprehensive\" outreach activities typically
lack effective messages, and fail to gain broad community buy-in and
financial investment.

# VI. Conclusions

The conclusions that can be drawn from these data indicate that: 1) the
public support of engineering innovation is critical to advancing the
U.S. engineering enterprise; 2) the public understanding of engineering
is insufficient to support this outcome as fully as it could and should;
4) NSF/ENG can be of service to the engineering community by helping to
research the messages that will best "make the case" and in helping to
bring together the engineering community for broad-based efforts to
improve the public understanding and awareness of the impact of
engineering innovation.

**VII. Recommendations and Action Plan**

Making the case to the general public is long-term and complex
challenge. It will require support from other organizations and
collaboration with other directorates. ENG, however, has to understand
its niche in this endeavor and pursue those activities where its added
value will have the greatest impact.

This report addresses two objectives:

-   Developing ***Internal*** strategies to make the case -- both within
    NSF and in the engineering community.

-   Developing ***External*** strategies that primarily address making
    the case through activities outside of the NSF that ENG can catalyze
    and help support.

***Internally***, ENG must communicate more effectively within NSF and
make palpable cultural changes to foster and encourage the public
understanding of engineering. There are four strategies \-- with
supporting tactics \-- that are recommended.

Strategy 1: [Develop Mechanism to Support Public Understanding of
Engineering]{.underline}: The task force recommends that ENG support
proposals that specifically address the public understanding of
engineering. The task force does not advocate a particular mechanism to
do this, but rather presents a spectrum of options for consideration.
The political and budgetary climate of ENG and NSF would need to be
weight against these options to determine the optimal approach.
[Timing]{.underline}: Medium- to long-term (2005-2006);
[Budget]{.underline}: To be determined, depending on level of
commitment.

a.  [Option 1]{.underline}: *Informal Science Education Collaboration*:
    ENG should co-fund proposals with the office of Informal Science
    Education (ISE). Each year, ISE funds numerous public outreach
    activities that have a strong engineering content. Many others are
    unfunded or under-funded due to limited resources. ENG can identify
    those worthy programs with strong engineering content that would
    benefit from co-funding. This collaboration could then be used as a
    steppingstone to add "engineering" to the title of the office.

b.  [Option 2]{.underline}: *Formal ENG Solicitation*: ENG could
    announce a cross-directorate solicitation for public understanding
    proposals.

c.  [Option 3]{.underline}: *Formal Entity*: Create either a Program or
    Office of Public Understanding of Engineering within ENG to both
    help coordinate the outreach components of all ENG-funded proposals,
    and to fund specific proposals that related to the public
    understanding of engineering.

Strategy 2: [Set and Enforce the Lexicon]{.underline}: ENG should work
to infuse key terms such as \"engineering\" and \"innovation\" more
prominently into the vocabulary and culture of the NSF.

a.  [Internal Education]{.underline}: Frequently terms such as
    "technology" and "applied science" replace the term "engineering" in
    both external and internal publications of the NSF. NSF
    publications, including press releases and publications such as the
    Facilities Plan and Annual Reports should be reviewed to ensure that
    "engineering" is used where "engineering" is meant. Regular
    attention to this fact will help the internal comprehension of ENG's
    contributions and will ensure that the public more broadly
    recognizes the impact of engineering innovation.
    [Timing]{.underline}: Immediate; [Budget]{.underline}: Covered under
    existing operations.

b.  [SRS Surveys:]{.underline} In their influential surveys and
    publication of *Science and Engineering Indicators*, SRS does not
    normally differential between science and engineering, and
    substitutes the term "technology" for "engineering." ENG should work
    with SRS to include survey questions that provide quantitative and
    qualitative data on engineering. [Timing]{.underline}: Immediate;
    [Budget]{.underline}: Covered under existing operations.

c.  [Distinguished Lecture Series]{.underline}: ENG should reinvigorate
    the ENG Distinguished Lecture Series to communicate within NSF the
    contributions of engineers and the latest research from the
    engineering profession. This will also foster the
    cross-fertilization of ideas. Timing: Short-term (2005);
    [Budget]{.underline}: Covered under existing operations.

Strategy 3[: Continue and Build on Strong Linkages with the Office of
Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA)]{.underline}: ENG has established
directorate and division-wide media liaisons who provide timely
information for press releases and web publication. The first step in
this was to appoint a primary and deputy liaison for each division with
active participation by all program directors. Next, OLPA provided media
training to ensure that each person is comfortable performing these
tasks. As a final step, currently in development, the liaisons will work
with their grantees to ensure they are aware of our needs for
information about ENG-sponsored research. This will allow for a two-way
flow of information between OLPA and ENG. Additionally, ENG should
support other OLPA activities, such as staffing booths at AAAS meetings
and working on event-specific outreach activities as they materialize.
[Timing]{.underline}: Ongoing; [Budget]{.underline}: Covered under
existing operations.

Strategy 4: [Change Proposal Criteria]{.underline}: ENG should make
outreach (public and K-12) a stronger element of the \"Broader Impacts\"
of larger proposals (\$1 million or more), and use that as a criterion
for funding. ENG also should insist that PIs inform ENG of technical
presentations of their sponsored research. This would multiply the
effectiveness of our funding, ensuring that those who received
government funding better communicate the value of that work to the
public who ultimately support them. Note, these criteria are similar in
scope to those already imposed by NASA. [Timing]{.underline}: Short-term
(2005); [Budget]{.underline}: Covered under existing operations.

***Externally***, ENG should build an engineering community-wide effort
to 'make the case' under a unified message. This requires researching
messages and then catalyzing community-wide outreach efforts.

Strategy 1: [Define the Message]{.underline}: ENG should fund the basic
research to understand which messages and outreach activities will most
effectively \"make the case\" to the public. As stated in a draft White
Paper by the National Academy of Engineering \"the words engineers use
to describe what they do are not easily understood by most members of
the public. In addition, the contribution of engineering to the
betterment of society is not self-evident to many people. Despite these
challenges, ... effective messages for PUE \[public understanding of
engineering should\] be developed and the engineering community
\[should\] be encouraged to adopt them.\" Additionally, the messages
used to encourage women and minority high school students to consider
engineering as a career are not going to be the same as those used to
convince the public and decision makers that engineering innovation is
vital to the continued leadership of the United States. Beyond this, the
specific programs (commercial or public television programs, museum
exhibits, hands-on school demonstrations, revised text books, etc.) have
different impact and are more effective on different audiences.
Understanding the interrelationships among message, audience, and
program will vastly improve the effectiveness of any effort to make the
case for engineering.

This research would be done by professional public opinion polling
institutions. A first step in the research -- currently underway by the
NAE -- is to convene a meeting of professional marketing experts to
evaluate the current suite of messages that are being used in
engineering and propose more focused and compelling messages. This
preliminary study would be the foundation of the more comprehensive
research. [Timing]{.underline}: Short-term (2005); [Budget]{.underline}:
\$350,000

Strategy 2: [Build the Community]{.underline}: ENG should help unify the
engineering community, help it speak with one voice, and adopted the
messages that research shows will truly improve public understanding.

> a\. [Conferences and Workshops]{.underline}: Just as ENG-sponsored
> workshops help to build community around certain topics, such as
> bioinformatics, and ADVANCE (Increasing the Participation and
> Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers), ENG
> should sponsor workshops and conferences that endeavor to build unity
> in the engineering community for making the case. NSF-sponsored
> conferences such as "Communicating Astronomy to the Public" helped to
> galvanize specific and impactful programs around which community-wide
> support could be mustered. [Timing]{.underline}: Short-to-mid term
> (late 2005, early 2006); [Budget]{.underline}: \$40,000
>
> b\. [Spreading the Word]{.underline}: The results from the Message and
> Program Survey will be of little or no value if the engineering
> community does not have access to these data and does not understand
> their importance. ENG should help enable the dissemination of the
> results of this research, with the ultimate goal of building a unified
> voice for engineering. This could be done at a specific conference or
> workshop. [Timing]{.underline}: Short-to-mid term (late 2005, early
> 2006); [Budget]{.underline}: \$25,000

Strategy 3: [Unified Actions]{.underline}: After the messages are
researched, and the community of engineers are more closely united in
outreach, ENG also should stimulate and help lead engineering-community
wide outreach activities. No one institution can sustain the broad-based
efforts needed to communicate the impact of engineering to the public.
ENG can fill an important role by helping to unite the engineering
community in making the case, and by undertaking specific projects that
highlight ENG\'s and engineering\'s contributions to the national
economy, security, health, and standard of living. Additionally, the
engineering community can work to identify and cultivate a nationally
recognized, young, and telegenic spokesperson for engineering.
[Timing]{.underline}: Mid-to-long term: [Budget]{.underline}: Dependent
on program and co-funding. (This may be best achieved through long-term
support of a consortium or similar organization.) Potential activities
of such as group may include:

a.  [Formal Education Collaboration]{.underline}: Work with the
    engineering community and educators to integrate engineering and
    technology into the pre-college curriculum and textbooks.
    Specifically, encourage textbook publishers and editors to correctly
    identify engineering and its impact where it has a major bearing on
    existing studies (history, science, social studies, etc.)

b.  [Grand Challenges for the Public]{.underline}: Build on successful
    models (such as Great Achievements and the Lemelson/MIT Innovations)
    to undertake a community-wide effort to identify and communicate the
    grand challenges of engineering *that would resonate most with the
    public* (this is meant as an outreach effort, not to replace any
    priority-setting activities of ENG). ENG could partner with other
    institutions, such as the NAE, and media outlets such as *Discover
    Magazine*.

c.  [Engineering Series]{.underline}: Develop a major PBS or commercial
    television program on engineering and innovation that would
    communicate the core messages developed from the messaging research
    or through the proposed Grand Challenges activity. This program
    could also be a mechanism to spotlight and publicize a national
    "voice" for engineering.

Strategy 4: [Greater Society Support]{.underline}: ENG should work with
the engineering societies to advance engineering with a collective
voice. ENG should become a more active participant in Engineers Week,
supporting specific programs in addition to merely sponsoring the
activity. Also, ENG could become one of the rotating lead organizations
or sponsors for Engineers Week. (This is a one-year commitment.)
[Timing]{.underline}: Current and Long-term (ENG currently is a
contributor to E-Week); [Budget]{.underline}: \$50,000 annually plus
\$15,000 annual membership dues to Engineers Week, lead society
sponsorship would be higher.

Strategy 5: [Champion a Common Cause]{.underline}: Work with the NAE and
the Council and Competitiveness, and through engineering societies,
colleges of engineering, and industry leaders to communicate messages on
a local level, and promote the recommendations found in the 3 key
reports (*Engineer of 2020*, *Innovate America*, and *Assessing the
Capacity*). [Timing]{.underline}: Current and ongoing;
[Budget]{.underline}: Included under current operations.

Strategy 6: [Help to Catalyze Nobel Prize]{.underline}: ENG should
catalyze an effort to explore the addition of "engineering" as the
category of the Nobel Prize. The Bank of Sweden (Sveriges Riksbanks)
Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was instituted in
1968, at the tercentenary of the bank. The awarding ceremony takes place
on 10 December, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death. The laureates
in economics are announced and published on the Academy's and the Nobel
Foundation web sites every year in mid-October immediately after they
have been chosen. It has since been judged and administered by the Nobel
Foundation. It was suggested the NSF together with the NAE and the
engineering society, along with support from industries could explore
with the Nobel Foundation the possibility of the Engineering Nobel
Prize. [Timing]{.underline}: Short- through long-term;
[Budget]{.underline}: Included under current operations.

# VII. Next Steps

Clearly, many of the recommendations in this report are geared toward
the long term. They require fundamental research and broad support.
However, ENG and other sectors of the engineering community are poised
to enact many of these ideas -- funding, administrative approval, and
proper guidance are all that are necessary to proceed.

# References

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

AAES/ASCE/WGBH Educational Foundation, "Extraordinary Women Engineers
Final Report" 2005

American Institute of Physics, FYI No. 149, 2004

Brighton, J. A. \" Making the Case for Engineering.\" AD/ENG Policy Memo
No. 04-05. Aug. 2004.

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

Council on Competitiveness, "Innovate America: National Innovation
Initiative Report," 2004

Davis, L. and Gibbin, R.; \"Raising Public Awareness of Engineering,\"
National Academy of Engineering 2002.

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

Engineering Trends, \"Trends in College Enrollments and Graduations,\"
2003

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

Hill, Susan T. and Jean M. Johnson; \"Science and Engineering Degrees:
1966-2001,\" NSF 04-311, National Science Foundation.

National Academy of Engineering, \"The Engineer of 2020; Visions of
Engineering in the New Century,\" 2004

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

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

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

National Academy of Engineering, DRAFT for public comment, "Assessing
the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise," 2005

National Science Foundation, "Science and Engineering Indicators 2004"

National Science Foundation / Directorate for Engineering, "The
Engineering Workforce: Current State, Issues, and Recommendations," 2005

Neff, T. and D. Ogden; \"Route to the Top: The Demand for Performance
Chief

Executive;\" www.chiefexecutive.net 2003

**Appendix 1: Get ENG's Communities Involved**

Engineering enables the production of goods and services that make our
modern standard of living possible. The infrastructure and technologies
that make the United States competitive depend on engineers to innovate
and implement scientific and engineering discoveries that translate
knowledge into physical goods and services.

Engineers give us so much, but society takes them for granted. The
engineering community needs to raise public awareness and appreciation
for what engineers provide. So how can this be done?

The National Academy of Engineering's study \[NAE, Davis and Gibbin,
2002\] points out that many organizations (colleges and universities,
engineering societies, museums, national laboratories, etc.) are doing
outreach to educate the public on the benefits of engineering. It is
estimated that the expenditures could be as much as \$400 million. So
why isn't the public better informed? The NAE study observes that most
of the outreach efforts have been local and regional with no
coordination at a national level \[NAE, Davis and Gibbin, 2002\].

It is therefore recommended that a coordinated national campaign be
initiated to promote public awareness of the benefits of engineering to
the national economy. A national understanding of the contribution of
engineering should be developed and promoted by all engineering
professionals (at the highest levels), e.g. CEOs, Deans of Engineering,
government executives.

The economic and social impact of engineering should be explained
through the media (web, speeches, newspapers, radio, and television).
National laboratories, university research labs, as well as small
businesses are constantly developing new innovative engineering
projects. Good practice would be to invite local media to showcase these
projects to educate local, state, and federal officials as well as the
general public. Most importantly, we need to rebuild our nation's
engineering workforce. As the engineering workforce is aging, we need to
be concerned with how we can prepare the next generation for developing
the next generation of technology.

Sir Isaac Newton developed the scientific knowledge required to get us
to the Moon, but it was engineering that built the rockets and
spacecraft that actually got us there. The national pride of getting
into space exploration was the principal causative agent for the rise in
the enrollment in engineering schools \[Trends, 2002\]. This same sense
of pride needs to be revived today. The engineering community
(government, academe, and industry) collectively should coordinate their
message and resources to maximize public awareness of the role that
engineering plays in society.

## Recommendations:

First and foremost, the benefits of engineering should be disseminated
via the web and media (e.g. engineering society magazines, local
newspapers, television, etc.). Twenty-one percent of Fortune 200 Company
CEOs have undergraduate degrees in Engineering \[Neff and Ogden, 2003\]
while only 6 percent of college graduates are in the engineering field
\[Hill and Johnson, 2004\]. Enlist these CEOs to promote and encourage
the engineering profession by giving speeches and interviews (see Figure
6).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image7.wmf)

  **Figure 6**
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, ask Deans of Engineering to encourage outreach in surrounding
schools (K-12) to excite youngsters with the work that engineers do. It
is known that children make up their minds whether or not they like Math
or Science as early as third grade \[NAE, 2004\]. It is therefore
suggested that educators, government agencies, and private industry
promote a mentorship program whereby the nation's engineering schools
would receive supplemental funding for engineering students to mentor
K-12 students during a school year. This interaction could help form the
foundation for young students to see the many exciting and innovative
things that engineers do and create.

Third, encourage government agencies to promote engineering by funding
students to intern during school breaks at government research
facilities.

Finally, these efforts should be reinforced through television programs
and advertisements sponsored by the government and industry. Local
businesses could also encourage children to consider the engineering
profession by offering tours of their facilities to stimulate interest.
It is an obvious fact that both young and old like to see and understand
how things are made and put together.

Over the past 50 years advances made by U.S. engineers has been
spectacular -- we must find a way to continue this momentum for the next
50 years! \[Brighton, 2004\]

# Appendix 2: Better Focus ENG's Portfolio

In collaboration with engineering outreach, ENG must take a critical
look at how it allocates its funding. This will build a better case for
investment by demonstrating a focused approach to allocating its
portfolio. Before we can make these decisions, however, it is important
to understand the current financial underpinnings of the ENG budget.
Financial analysis of ENG\'s portfolio demonstrates the following
focuses:

\(1\) *Nano*. In FY 2004, 23 percent of ENG\'s total funds (not counting
SBIR/STTR) were invested into Nano. In FY 2005, this will rise to over
28 percent. Clearly, Nano is a major ENG focus, with increasing
financial support. NSF is recognized as the leader of the Federal
government Nano effort. Within NSF, ENG is recognized as the Nano
leader.

![](media/image8.wmf)

\(2\) C*enters*. In FY 2004, ENG invested over \$75 million in Centers
(ERCs, EERCs, I/UCRCs), which was about 16 percent of ENG\'s total funds
(not counting SBIR/STTR). Clearly, Centers are a major ENG focus. At
NSF, and to some extent beyond NSF, ENG is recognized as a leader in the
Center area.

\(3\) *CAREER Grants*. In FY 2004, ENG invested over \$33 million in
CAREER grants, or about 7 percent of its total funds (not counting
SBIR/STTR). In proportion to its size, ENG is the strongest supporter of
the CAREER grant program at NSF. However, it can be argued that ENG
receives basically no recognition from NSF for this strong support of
the CAREER program. For example, ENG receives no additional funds as a
result of its strong CAREER support.

\(4\) *Grants to Support Unsolicited Proposals*. In FY 2004, over 27
percent of ENG\'s total funds (not counting SBIR/STTR) were invested in
unsolicited proposals. Unsolicited proposals are a \"hallmark\" of NSF
within the academic community. Unfortunately, the success rate for
unsolicited proposals is rapidly dropping in ENG. One primary reason for
the rapid drop is the decreased availability of funds due to the
increasing allocation of funds to Nano items (NSE solicitation, NSEE
solicitation, NNIN, etc.) and the Sensor and Sensor Networks
solicitation. In FY 2005, this situation will be even more marked due to
the new allocation of \$20 million to support NEES operations, coupled
with a probable decrease in ENG\'s total budget. As already cited, NSF
and ENG hold leadership positions in Nano. Within NSF, the same is true
for the Sensor and Sensor Networks solicitation, and NEES. It can be
argued that the recognition afforded to ENG by leadership of Nano,
Sensors, and NEES is worth the cost incurred, namely lower success rates
for ENG unsolicited proposals.

\(5\) *Special ENG Solicitations*. Not counting the solicitations
already cited (such as Nano, Centers, Sensors, CAREER) and some other
mandatory solicitations such as BE and ITR, in FY 2004, ENG invested
about \$36 million, or 7.8 percent of its total funds (not counting
SBIR/STTR) in special solicitations. This is a relatively small
proportion of ENG\'s total funds. These special solicitations gain ENG
significant visibility and recognition with Federal government partners
(NIH, USDA, EPA, etc.) and in academic communities. Also, some argue
that it is through special solicitations that ENG program officers are
able to be innovative leaders in advancing engineering research and
education.

ENG (through STG, EDDG, EMG) has recently drafted the following ENG
Vision, which it aspires to achieve within 5 to 10 years:

> *ENG is the acknowledged leader for advancing the frontiers of
> engineering research, innovation, and education, in partnership with
> the engineering community, in service to society and the nation.*

As ENG makes future investment decisions, each candidate investment can
be gauged against this vision: Will such an investment move ENG in the
direction of acknowledged leadership? If the answer to this question is
\"no,\" then perhaps the investment should not be made, particularly in
times of a declining budget for ENG.

The above financial analysis shows where ENG has been putting its money
in the past. In light of ENG\'s draft vision, the key question is, where
should ENG put its money in the future?

## The "ENG Portfolio\" Details

### 1. Financial Analysis

Darren Dutterer has compiled a financial analysis of ENG\'s portfolio
for each of the four (4) most recently completed fiscal years. Data are
presented for each of these fiscal years \-- ENG division by ENG
division (for all 6 ENG divisions) plus OAD/ENG. Taking totals of the
data yields the following results:

### ![](media/image9.wmf)

### 2. ASTG Related Work 

The ENG Awards and Solicitations Task Group (ASTG) is currently
compiling data for ENG solicitations. These data include, for each ENG
solicitation, the number of proposals, the number of awards, and the
success rate for each solicitation.

### 3. AIA Related Work

The ENG Awards Impact and Assessment Task Group (AIA) is \"responsible
for recommending how ENG should determine the impact of its investments
in research, education, and innovation.\" In the long run, the outcome
of such assessments will be of use in tuning the focus of investments in
ENG\'s funding portfolio.

### 4. STG Related Work

The Strategic Thinking Group (STG) is doing a SWOT analysis of ENG,
working on Vision statements, and thinking about strategy.

## 5. Workforce The Workforce Task Group is recommending actions to enhance the quality and diversity of the engineering workforce. 

## Recommendations

1.  Create a Vision that is embraced by ENG.

2.  Better focus ENG\'s portfolio to be congruent with:

\(a\) ENG\'s Vision

\(b\) Serving the \"community\"

(Action by EMT)

# Appendix 3: Partnerships

The Directorate for Engineering at NSF has established numerous
partnerships over the past decade to support a broad spectrum of
engineering research and educational activities. These collaborations
are viewed as essential to fulfilling ENG's Vision.

In making the case for engineering, partnerships have been embraced as a
means to reach out to a broad community of researchers and educators, by
establishing relevance through connectivity with those in other
government agencies, industry, professional societies, and non-profit
organizations. Many of the partnerships that have formed over the past
decade have focused on either a specific research topic, the realization
of new devices, or the creation of an educational agenda that addresses
a national need, national security, issues around globalization, or the
advancement of specific new technologies. In numerous instances, ENG has
taken a leadership role in the management of the partnership. At other
occasions, ENG has been a key constituent of a broad-based activity. The
value of these partnerships have included the advancement of knowledge
in an emerging area, the setting of new directions for the nation, and
the creation of centers of excellence that integrate across science and
engineering.

***External partnerships*** with other agencies, professional societies,
and technical groups have been formed to support research, education,
and studies into emerging technologies. The table on the following page
provides a partial listing of recent activities.

Some of the partnerships were a result of interests of program officers
in different agencies committing program funds to a one-time, or short
span of activity. The NSF/SRC Mixed Signal Electronic Technologies
represents this time of solicitation, which ran through just one cycle.
The NSF/Sandia program is an ongoing activity, again supported by a
working group of program officers across four of the engineering
divisions at NSF. This activity has had three calls for proposals, each
announcement reflecting current interests of the programs at NSF and
Sandia.

Other, longer-term relationships have been established such as the
NSF/EPA Technologies for Sustainable Systems, which ran joint
solicitations from 1997 through 2003. The management of each of the
examples focused on a working group with a lead program officer in each
agency to marshal the management plan, a memorandum of agreement and the
text of the solicitation through each agency or entity.

+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| **         | **Solicitation**                    | **Pa   | **ENG\ |
| Partners** |                                     | rtner\ | F      |
|            |                                     | F      | unding |
|            |                                     | unding | \$**   |
|            |                                     | \$**   |        |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NSF/EPA    | A. Environmental Technologies and   | 9,5    | 5,5    |
|            | Systems (03-510)                    | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NS         | B. Multiscale Modeling in           | 15,0   | 2,5    |
| F/NIH/DOE/ | Biomedical, Biological,             | 00,000 | 00,000 |
|            |                                     |        |        |
| NASA       | And Behavioral Systems (04-607)     |        |        |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NS         | C. IUCRC                            | 68,0   | 5,2    |
| F/industry |                                     | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NSF/SANDIA | D. Systems Modeling and Simulation  | 2,0    | 2,0    |
|            | (03-505)                            | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NSF/SRI    | E. Semiconductor Factory and Supply | 2,7    | 9      |
|            | Chain (04-532                       | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| I          | F. Opportunities in Metabolic       | 6,0    | 1,5    |
| nteragency | Engineering (03-516)                | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| I          | G. Nanotechnology (NNIN)            | 849,0  | 46,5   |
| nteragency |                                     | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NSF        | H. Quantitative Systems Biology     | 4,0    | 2,4    |
|            | (04-516)                            | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NSF        | I. ITR (04-012)                     | 90,0   | 11,1   |
|            |                                     | 00,000 | 70,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NSF        | J. Biocomplexity in the Environment | 51,0   | 6,0    |
|            | (03-597)                            | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+
| NSF / EU   | K. Cooperative Activities in Mat'ls | 2,0    | 5      |
|            | Research (03-565)                   | 00,000 | 00,000 |
+------------+-------------------------------------+--------+--------+

![](media/image1.wmf)![](media/image2.wmf)

NSF ENG has also taken a different role in establishing long-term
partnerships to create a vision for future directions in emerging areas.
One example is the leadership role ENG took in advancing
nanotechnologies through sustained efforts in NNUN, Partnerships in
Nanotechnologies, NSE, and NNIN. The effectiveness of the engineering
leadership in pulling together a broad coalition of agencies, national
labs and cross-directorate support, starting in the mid-90s is
demonstrated by the growth of the engineering research and educational
activities in the global nano-technology arena.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.0in"
height="2.3256944444444443in"}***Internal partnerships*** within NSF
have become a fact of life for the Engineering Directorate. Examples of
these include current activities in ITR, Biocomplexity, and with EHR
that focus on multi-disciplinary research and curricular development at
levels extending well beyond the engineering domain. These
collaborations can occur from either a top-down directive or a bottom-up
teaming of program officers with a common vision. Each of the activities
that represent an NSF-wide priority area appears to have a different
management scheme. In all cases, coordination, collaboration, and
communication are key issues for ENG when resources have been committed
to a multi-year, NSF-wide solicitation. The success of these
partnerships is often dependent upon the management plan developed to
support the long-term goals of the various divisions and directorates.
The potential of bringing communities of researchers together to address
highly complex systems research can be of significant value to the
desired progression from scientific discovery through to the realization
of these ideas.

***Vertically-aligned partnerships*** provide a framework for a NSF ENG
to enhance activities that include both education and research, with
direct collaboration with professional societies or industry, aimed at
integrating and advancing multi-disciplinary thrusts in emerging and
important areas. The Engineering Research Centers program, the NEES
infrastructure program, and the BEES program between engineering and EHR
provide examples where engineering has establish the necessary support
for comprehensive programs that incorporate goals to educate the
engineering workforce while advancing knowledge through sustained
research activities with industrial or professional society input.

The challenges and potential failures that can occur in any of the
different types of partnerships can include:

1)  Proposals that are not adequately responsive to the new directions
    in the solicitation;

2)  Changes in personnel resulting in less than enthusiastic support for
    an ongoing activity;

3)  Budgetary changes that redirect funds;

4)  Insufficient timeline to get the full community involvement in an
    emerging area.

In addition, there is a constant tension to maintain the appropriate
balance between core programmatic research and the priority areas or
directed solicitations. The management of resources for the directorate
needs to be aligned with the vision for ENG that comes forward from the
STG.

## Recommendations

The Engineering Directorate can establish a sustainable framework
supporting collaborative partnerships across agencies and outside
entities, or within NSF at the cross-directorate or cross-division
level. This framework will recognize the need to manage all resources --
financial, IT, and human, necessary to assure successful collaborations
in the future.

1)  Create a flexible format and a realistic timeline in which to inform
    and build community capabilities;

2)  Recognize management needs in terms of time and staffing to
    adequately support commitments to collaborations;

3)  Develop a prioritized list of ongoing and emerging areas that can
    provide a sustainable framework for discussion between agencies and
    directorates with an open format for introducing, maturing, and
    graduating areas of activity.

# Appendix 4: Effectively Serving the Engineering Community

The NSF has a long history of success in serving the broad community of
engineers and the industries that rely on them, through its support for
enabling technologies, technology transfer, and the education of a
strong diverse workforce. These lead to greater economic
competitiveness, a stronger industrial base, more jobs, and commercial
products that better society and improve quality of life.

There is a continuing need for wise research investment and leadership
from NSF/ENG to stimulate the development of a technology base in areas
critical to the nation's economy and to provide for industry's present
and future workforce needs. (If these contributions are not always fully
appreciated, NSF's past successes and vision for the future need to be
better communicated to the engineering community.)

NSF/ENG programs serve the engineering research community specifically
through support of academic research and education, sound stewardship of
federal research funds, management of a fair and effective proposal
review and award process, the engineering research centers program,
infrastructure investments such as NNIN and NEES, and technical
leadership to help stimulate interdisciplinary research activity in
areas ripe for innovation. These communities also benefit from proactive
efforts within NSF and ENG to increase funding levels for engineering
research.

![](media/image4.png){width="5.0in" height="2.4791666666666665in"}

**Engineering Across Multiple Scales (RPI, Award CMS 030596)**

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.125694444444444in"
height="4.204861111111111in"}

## 

## 

While NSF/ENG has been proactive in supporting research at the
intersection of diverse disciplines through program solicitations, it
does not do so well in unsolicited core proposal competitions. When, as
often happens, highly innovative research does not fall neatly into
areas defined by targeted solicitations, a significant portion of the
engineering research community is not being particularly well served.
Further, a good portion of the investment in solicitations has come in
recent years at the expense of core programs. The table in the Portfolio
section of this report shows that unsolicited proposals accounted for
slightly over one quarter of the 2003 ENG budget. This causes serious
disruptions since the core programs are the primary means through which
NSF/ENG supports the full spectrum of the engineering research
community.

## Opportunities:

Support for "transforming" interdisciplinary research has the potential
to educate students with broad skill sets who are ready to hit the
ground running in an industrial environment, transition critical
technology to industry, and provide the United States a competitive edge
in the global marketplace. At the same time it is important that
enabling discoveries and innovation continue to occur within
single-investigator research grants, which are supported by core
programs. Sound stewardship of NSF research funds requires that NSF/ENG
maintain a careful balance between core programs and program
solicitations.

Open communication and information exchange between NSF/ENG and the
research community is essential, both to receive guidance and feedback
from the engineering research community, and to provide a clear and
up-to-date picture of present funding opportunities. Hopefully, clearly
communicated expectations will help lead to higher, more historical
success rates.

It is important to ensure that the NSF funding for core research
programs not fall below critical levels. Budget programming should be
corrected to provide a "safety net" and prevent such an occurrence in
the future. One possible guiding principle would be to prevent core
budgets from falling below historical levels, e.g., averaged over the
most recent five-year period.

An unfortunate gap exists in the ENG portfolio. Awards for broadly based
engineering research range from individual investigator grants to large
engineering research centers, but funding vehicles for intermediate-size
engineering research groups do not exist outside special solicitations
(e.g., NIRT or SIRG). Interdisciplinary research usually requires
community building and formation of partnerships that bridge diverse
disciplines. What opportunities will be there for interdisciplinary
engineering research groups after the solicitations that supported them
are terminated? Effective funding vehicles are needed within core
programs across ENG to permit interdisciplinary group investigations to
continue.

## Recommendations

A multi-pronged approach is needed, including:

-   Avoid abrupt and unpredictable reversals in funding patterns, which
    make it difficult for the research community to plan effectively.
    These could arise from:

    -   Holding a solicitation for interdisciplinary research, and
        discontinuing it after one year leaving the teams that were
        formed with nowhere to go, and

    -   Faulty budgeting and planning algorithms.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Organized workshops to develop a strategic vision for the
    Engineering Directorate with the several-fold goal to:

    -   Identify those areas of engineering research with the potential
        for the greatest economic and societal impact over the next
        several decades, particularly at the intersection of technical
        disciplines experiencing rapid growth and innovation,

    -   Fully engage the engineering community in these discussions to
        promote greater awareness and communication regarding NSF
        research opportunities,

    -   Help ENG exercise leadership in stimulating research that
        bridges critical gaps between diverse disciplines and promoting
        interdisciplinary partnerships, and

    -   Enunciate a clear and compelling argument for greater
        congressional support for the nation's research infrastructure.

-   Strategic planning within ENG to strike a dynamic balance between
    exercising leadership in newly emerging areas through program
    solicitations and serving the full spectrum of ENG community through
    core programs.

-   Meet with engineering leaders in the university, commercial and
    government communities to establish a consensus regarding workforce
    needs for the coming decades.

-   ![](media/image6.jpeg){width="3.375in"
    height="2.0104166666666665in"}Encourage partnerships among diverse
    disciplines at academic institutions to better prepare a workforce
    suited to projected challenges in the industrial sector, as well as
    between engineering schools and industry to better define
    educational needs.

-   Meet with Deans of Engineering to identify the primary education and
    workforce challenges for the first quarter of the century and
    determine how NSF can help them meet these challenges.

-   Engage industry to reexamine how U.S. research expertise and
    accomplishments can transition to industry effectively and
    contribute to the nation's economic competitiveness on global
    markets.

# Appendix 5: NAE study: "Assessing the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise"

In this report we identify Priorities and Actions to better make the
case for engineering. In order to make these concrete, we review one of
example of how they can be addressed, namely the National Academy of
Engineering study to assess the capacity of the U. S. Engineering
Research Enterprise \[NAE, 2005\].

## It is an example of the Directorate for Engineering serving "as a catalyst to build and communicate with the engineering community a shared vision for engineering" (Priority #1) and building "on existing linkages and enable new flexible and collaborative partnerships" (Priority #4). The goals of these efforts were to conduct a "fast-track" evaluation of (1) the past and potential impact of the U.S. engineering research enterprise on the nation's economy, quality of life, security, and global leadership, and (2) the adequacy of public and private investment to sustain U.S. preeminence in basic engineering research.

The NAE assessed the capacity of the U.S. engineering research
enterprise, evaluated recent contributions of U.S.-based engineering
research to the nation's interests, assessed potential contributions to
meeting emerging national challenges and opportunities, and outlines a
national strategy to ensure that the engineering research foundations of
American global economic, military, scientific, and technological
preeminence remain rock solid in the face of rapid, often disruptive,
societal and global changes. The report puts forward findings,
recommendations, and a national action plan designed to engage all major
constituents of the U.S. engineering enterprise.

The preliminary report is posted on the NAE website \[www.nae.edu\] so
that the public at large and the engineering community in particular can
comment on it. The discussion generated will refine and strengthen the
recommendations.

The draft recommendations focus on critical changes in public- and
private-sector investment priorities, programs, and activities. The
draft report proposes a new, nationwide initiative to encourage and
support technological innovation, including:

**Recommendation 1.** Federal research and mission agencies should
increase significantly their investments in engineering and physical
sciences research, particularly long-term fundamental research, to
sustain broad-based science and engineering advancement across
disciplines. These agencies should also continue to encourage
multidisciplinary research through support of project-specific research
teams and other institutionalized mechanisms, such as engineering
research centers and university-industry research centers.

**Recommendation 2.** Federal and state governments should invest more
resources in upgrading and expanding laboratories, equipment,
information technologies, and other infrastructural needs of research
universities to ensure that the national capacity to conduct world-class
engineering research is sufficient to address the technical challenges
that lie ahead. Geographically dispersed, world-class research
facilities will have the added benefit of making engineering attractive
to more students (at home and from abroad), will stimulate a competition
of ideas among research groups working on related problems, and will
provide a basis for the emergence of networks of researchers and
clusters of industry across the nation.

**Recommendation 3.** State and federal governments, academic
institutions, accreditation bodies, and the private sector should take
steps to cultivate U.S. student interest in, and aptitude for, careers
in engineering, and in engineering research in particular. These steps
should include providing more funding for graduate fellowships and
traineeships and faculty development, as well as supporting efforts to
improve K--12 math and science education to prepare high school students
for careers in science and engineering.

**Recommendation 4.** Academic institutions, accreditation bodies, and
other public and private-sector stakeholders should encourage the
development and implementation of innovative curricula that address the
realities of contemporary engineering practice and the needs of the
nation, without compromising the teaching of fundamental engineering
principles.

**Recommendation 5.** Immigration procedures should be addressed to
enable American industry and universities to continue to attract top
scientific and engineering talent from around the world. Although the
committee recognizes that many other study panels, committees, and task
forces have made similar recommendations, little progress has been made
toward fulfilling them.

We offer this as an example of the role that NSF can play to stimulate
the engineering community to formulate compelling visions of the future
and to plan for that future.

[^1]: American Perspectives on Engineers and Engineering, AAES, 2004

[^2]: The Engineer of 2020 (NAE); Assessing the Capacity of the U.S.
    Engineering Research Enterprise (NAE); Innovate America (Council on
    Competitiveness)

[^3]: Raising Public Awareness of Engineering \[Davis, Gibbin, NAE,
    2002\]

[^4]: *New York Times* columnist Thomas Friedman , Reported in
    *Assessing the Capacity* Report \[NAE, 2005\]

[^5]: AdComm liaisons include: Joan F. Brennecke; Legand L. Burge, Jr.;
    Patricia D. Galloway; Richard Miller; Cherri Pancake; Jacquelyn
    (Jackie) Sullivan; and Judy Vance

[^6]: Extraordinary Women Engineers Final Report 2005, AAES, ASCE, WGBH
    Educational Foundation