Robots Are Used for Each Assem- and Supplier Networks Or, at Least, a Dependable Trans- Bled Part

Spring 2005

The BRIDGE LINKING ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

Post-Cold War Policy and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base Kenneth Flamm The Transformation of Manufacturing in the 21st Century Lawrence J. Rhoades Digital People in Manufacturing: Making Them and Using Them Sidney Perkowitz Semiconductor Manufacturing: Booms, Busts, and Globalization Alfonso Velosa

Promoting the technological welfare of the nation by marshalling the knowledge and insights of eminent members of the engineering profession. The BRIDGE

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

Craig R. Barrett, Chair Wm. A. Wulf, President Sheila E. Widnall, Vice President W. Dale Compton, Home Secretary George Bugliarello, Foreign Secretary William L. Friend, Treasurer

Editor in Chief (interim): George Bugliarello Managing Editor: Carol R. Arenberg Production Assistant: Penelope Gibbs The Bridge (USPS 551-240) is published quarterly by the National Academy of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC. Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2005 Postmaster: Send address changes to The Bridge, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20418. Papers are presented in The Bridge on the basis of general interest and time- liness. They reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the position of the National Academy of Engineering. The Bridge is printed on recycled paper. © 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Errata In the photo accompanying the article “Remarks by Eli Ruckenstein, 2004 Founders Award Recipient” on page 51 of the winter issue of The Bridge (vol. 34, no. 4), Howard Brenner was incorrectly identified as Eli Ruckenstein. Mr. Brenner accepted the award for Dr. Ruckenstein. Dr. Frances H. Arnold was identified in the winter issue as working at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Dr. Arnold is the Dick and Barbara Dickinson Professor of Chemical Engineering and Bio- chemistry at the California Institute of Technology.

A complete copy of each issue of The Bridge is available in PDF format at http://www.nae.edu/TheBridge. Some of the articles in this issue are also available as HTML documents and may contain links to related sources of information, multimedia files, or other content. The Volume 35, Number 1 • Spring 2005 BRIDGE LINKING ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

Editor’s Note 3 Celebrating Manufacturing Technology Toni Marechaux

Features 5 Post-Cold War Policy and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base Kenneth Flamm The author traces the evolution of defense industrial and technology policies since the end of the Cold War. 13 The Transformation of Manufacturing in the 21st Century Lawrence J. Rhoades The new industrial revolution will enable people to live where they like and produce what they need locally. 21 Digital People in Manufacturing: Making Them and Using Them Sidney Perkowitz The number of “digital people” (artificial beings and partly artificial beings) is increasing rapidly. 26 Semiconductor Manufacturing: Booms, Busts, and Globalization Alfonso Velosa To prosper in the global marketplace, semiconductor companies are developing new business models.

NAE News and Notes 30 NAE Newsmakers 31 From the Home Secretary 32 NAE Announces Million-Dollar Challenge to Provide Safe Drinking Water 33 New Engineering Education Fellows 34 New Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellows Join Program Office 35 NAE, Northrop Grumman, and Penn State College of Engineering Team Up to Improve the EngineerGirl! Website 36 Ralph J. Cicerone Elected President of the National Academy of Sciences 36 Manhattan College Recognizes Alumni Elected to NAE

(continued on next page) The BRIDGE

37 Message from the Vice President and Development Committee Chair 38 National Academy of Engineering 2004 Private Contributions 43 Giving Societies to Honor Donors 44 Class of 2005 Elected 48 Calendar of Meetings and Events 49 In Memoriam

50 Publications of Interest

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self- The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the author- to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility ity of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional char- has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on ter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, The National Research Council was organized by the National under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its adminis- science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering tration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal gov- accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the ernment. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engi- Council has become the principal operating agency of both the neering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages edu- National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engi- cation and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of neering in providing services to the government, the public, and the engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered of Engineering. jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org 3 Editor’s Note

Celebrating Manufac- One way to approach the intersection of national and turing Technology homeland security and the economic health of the United States is in the context of the defense industrial The future of the manu- base. Kenneth Flamm, the Dean Rusk Professor of facturing sector in the Unit- International Affairs at the Lyndon B. Johnson School ed States is much in the at the University of Texas at Austin, traces the complex news these days. Major sto- history of post-Cold War policies that have shaped the ries in almost every news military-industrial complex. He also describes the major outlet are focused on trade, contributions of the electronics manufacturing industry, American jobs, and the loss particularly the development of computers, and the U.S. of the U.S. manufacturing semiconductor industry. Toni Marechaux is director of the and industrial base. More Lawrence Rhoades combines his knowledge of eco- Board on Manufacturing and Engi- specific discussions are nomics, mechanical engineering, and business adminis- neering Design of the National focused on the offshoring, or tration as head of Ex One Corporation (formerly Research Council. outsourcing, of white-collar, Extrude Hone), a small company leading the way to back-office, and technology manufacturing in the next century. Larry describes the jobs and the role of manufacturing in national and transition from discreet-parts manufacturing to non- homeland defense. And in the background, proposals traditional manufacturing processes for machining, fin- have been made for foreign guest worker programs anal- ishing, forming, and measurement. He then suggests ogous to H-1B and L-1 visas for highly educated profes- how these new manufacturing processes will affect com- sionals. All of these issues were touched on by speakers at an NAE symposium on October 4, 2004. merce, transportation, and our quality of life. The session was moderated by Pamela A. Drew, chair The paper by Sidney Perkowitz of Emory University of the National Research Council Board on Manufac- takes us into the next century with a discussion of “dig- turing and Engineering Design (BMED), which has ital people” in manufacturing and in our daily lives. Sid conducted studies on specific topics in manufacturing; describes how technology is inexorably driving us interactions between design, engineering, and manufac- toward new levels of product manufacturing and new turing; and the significance of manufacturing for the kinds of manufactured products. Drawing on nano- nation. The symposium, “A Century of Innovation in technology, molecular biology, artificial intelligence, Manufacturing,” held at the NAE Annual Meeting, was and materials science, scientists are learning to create intended to initiate a discussion on the significance of beings that can move, think, and look like people. They the manufacturing sector to our nation’s stature in the are using increasingly sophisticated machines to carry world and our future prosperity. The symposium gave out a range of brave new manufacturing processes. experts in many fields an opportunity to reflect on our Alfonso Velosa, associate director of Gartner Incor- journey so far and opened a discussion about where we porated, provides an analysis of the semiconductor should go from here. industry in the global technology marketplace. He The four distinguished speakers from the symposium highlights the importance of product markets, device who contributed papers for this issue have very different and process technologies, strategic planning, supply perspectives on manufacturing. In the last 100 years, a chain management, and research to manufacturing and great many changes have been made in the way we engineering design. Al highlights the ups and downs of design and manufacture the things we use in our daily the semiconductor industry and describes emerging lives. The authors discuss the current state of manufac- business models that are enabling U.S. companies to turing, the role of manufacturing in our national and succeed in the global marketplace. economic security, and future technologies that may The information presented in the papers at the change everything about how we make things and how symposium and the questions from the audience made and where we live. for an interesting and provocative discussion of the The 4 BRIDGE history, status, and direction of manufacturing tech- few—but everyone agreed that the future of manufac- nology. Clearly, the manufacturing sector faces many turing will depend on the same innovative spirit that challenges in the emerging global economy. During inspired Henry Ford to build the first assembly line the course of the symposium, different words were used back in 1903. to describe the next generation of manufacturing— flexible, distributed, green, and intelligent, to name a The author traces the evolution of defense industrial and technology policies since the end of the Cold War.

Post-Cold War Policy and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base

Kenneth Flamm

Technology development in the United States has historically been closely related to defense industrial policies. At times, new defense-related technologies led to the development of products that fueled growth in a broad spectrum of commercial industries. At other times, the U.S. military establishment has focused its resources on specialized technologies with little if any applicability to other markets. This essay traces the evolution of Kenneth Flamm is a professor and defense industrial and technology policies from the end of the Cold War to the Dean Rusk Chair in Interna- the post-9/11 world. tional Affairs in the Lyndon B. The rise of modern high-technology industries (e.g., semiconductors, computers, key elements of modern communications systems, aircraft and Johnson School of Public Affairs at space technology, and biotechnology) was stimulated by post-World War II the University of Texas at Austin. government investment in (1) research and development (R&D) to He was Principal Deputy Assistant strengthen national defense and (2) the education of skilled scientists, engineers, and technical staff to work in these new industries. However, in these Secretary of Defense for Dual Use industries sales of dazzling new commercial products soon eclipsed sales of Technology Policy and International high-technology products to military customers. During the Cold War, Programs from 1993 to 1995. roughly two-thirds of U.S. R&D was funded by the federal government, primarily for defense. Today, that percentage has been reversed, with two- thirds of U.S. R&D funded by private industry. The 6 BRIDGE

The Defense Industrial Base on defense industries, partly because U.S. defense sup- Only a handful of U.S. industries are now dominated pliers turned to exports to take up the slack in the by defense spending (so-called defense industries), and domestic military market. As a result, the dollar volume most of them produce “defense-unique” products (e.g., of sales over time remained relatively stable. The only ammunition and ordnance, tanks and armored vehicles, large declines were in sales of ammunition and tanks ships, aerospace vehicles and technologies, search and and space vehicle equipment (the latter is probably navigation electronics, and some kinds of optical attributable to the vertical integration that accompa- instruments) for which the military is the primary nied consolidation). customer. The largest defense sector is military-related The Post-Cold War Conundrum electronics, which accounts for almost 50 percent more in sales than aircraft. The relationship between the The relative stability of U.S. defense industrial output defense establishment and these industries is symbi- contradicted the prevailing forecasts as the Cold War otic—the military depends on them for its technical wound down. U.S. defense spending was expected to advantage, which is at the heart of U.S. security doc- fall sharply, with procurement budgets forecast to fall by trine, and the industries depend on the U.S. armed as much as 70 percent. In the 1980s and 1990s, adjust- forces as their primary customer. ing the defense industrial structure to predicted post- Despite the military origins of computers and micro- Cold War budgets was a central theme, based on clear, electronics, these industries are not on the list of defense deceptively simple logic. The U.S. defense procurement industries. Even though the military is still an impor- system, which had evolved from a structure dating back tant funder of specific, leading-edge technologies in to World War II, operated largely in a cost-plus-markup these fields (e.g., supercomputers and microelectro- contracting framework. Contractors were encouraged mechanical systems [MEMS] devices), commercial to invest in substantial fixed facilities and capabilities demand for these products has far outstripped the and then recoup their overhead costs through charges requirements of the military. added to U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. If procurement budgets shrank, as expected, and the number of contractors remained stable, a company would have to set aside an increasing portion of its con- U.S. defense suppliers turned tracts to recouping its unchanged overhead costs. Thus, funds available for new systems would inevitably dimin- to exports to take up the slack ish sharply. This argument for restructuring defense industries was in the domestic military market. made by William Perry, who became deputy secretary of defense when the Clinton administration took office in 1992 and was appointed secretary of defense shortly The aircraft industry is an exception. For almost a thereafter. As secretary of defense, Perry put forward a century, demand shifted back and forth between mili- three-part strategy. First, shrinking funds would be tary and commercial customers. The aerospace industry, stretched by instituting more economically efficient which never “graduated” from its symbiotic relationship purchasing processes. Reform of the acquisition process with the military, is still highly leveraged with military had been urged by a succession of bipartisan commis- technology investments. Recently, however, as com- sions, and there seemed to be a political consensus mercial space launch has become more important in supporting it. Perry proposed that the acquisition of telecommunications, the trend has shifted toward more defense systems be retooled to be more like the compet- commercial sales. itive, price-conscious practices used in commercial Shipbuilding, besieged by inexpensive foreign com- industry. Greater competition, it was argued, would also petitors, has become increasingly dependent on selling stimulate innovation among defense suppliers. high-priced, specialized systems to the military. Today, Second, efforts would be made to procure systems and the U.S. shipbuilding industry is virtually a captive sup- technologies from outside DOD’s traditional circle of plier to the U.S. Navy. suppliers, that is, from firms selling mainly to commer- The end of the Cold War had surprisingly little effect cial customers. In semiconductors and computers, for SPRING 2005 7

example, commercial industry was investing vastly also under way overseas. Major U.S. allies, who also had larger sums in new technology development than DOD, substantially smaller procurement budgets, faced diffi- and commercial markets had greater technological cult choices, sometimes between sustaining a single, momentum. Thus, DOD could both save money and very high-overhead, very high-cost supplier and losing encourage the rapid incorporation of new technologies the capability of producing a particular type of defense into its systems by tapping into burgeoning innovation system entirely. Thus, to keep key systems from becom- in the commercial arena. ing unaffordable, there were substantial economic pres- The logic behind this “dual-use” strategy seemed sures to export defense systems, perhaps even to unimpeachable. The military would turn to commer- less-than-savory customers. cial suppliers for leading-edge technologies in fields where commercial markets were driving technological change and, at the same time, stimulate the transfer of DOD-funded technologies with commercial potential The logic behind the to firms willing to adapt them to commercial markets. It was argued that this would ultimately lower the cost of “dual-use” strategy new technologies to DOD because of economies of scale and greater investment from private sources. seemed unimpeachable. The dual-use strategy was not popular, however, with traditional defense suppliers who feared they would be facing new competitors in a time of falling budgets. To reduce pressures for exporting technologies with Resistance also arose from the uniformed services, the potential proliferation implications, DOD proposed ultimate customers, who anticipated additional strains offering more technology cooperation with close allies. on their budgets with little promise of receiving quali- The idea was to offer an explicit quid pro quo on prolif- tatively better hardware in the near future. The bene- eration. Access to U.S. defense technology investments fits, they believed, might only be realized in the medium would be exchanged for prior agreements restricting to long term. exports of systems that used the technology. The most The third element of the Perry prescription involved trusted allies (dubbed the “Inner Circle”) would be reducing the defense industry’s fixed overhead costs. For offered the greatest access in exchange for the greatest government-operated or government-owned facilities, a restraint; agreements with less intimate friends might be new base realignment and closure (BRAC) process negotiated later for less access, and, perhaps, less (begun in 1991 under the previous administration) restraint. Ultimately, it was hoped, this policy would would be charged with eliminating unneeded facilities. lead to some institutional structure that would reduce The situation for private industry, however, was more economic pressures for the proliferation of advanced complex. In July 1993, Secretary Perry urged the top military technologies. defense companies to merge and consolidate to reduce The flip side of this initiative was DOD opposition to overhead as procurement declined. At a Pentagon din- increasing U.S. subsidies or increasing exports by Amer- ner (dubbed the “Last Supper”), Perry pledged to sup- ican arms makers. Detailed internal studies showed port efforts by the defense industry to undertake its own that, except in a few specific cases, export subsidies were consolidation. In marked contrast to earlier policies, he likely to have a small impact on overall U.S. market said DOD would adopt measures to facilitate consolida- share. Broad subsidies and promotions might increase tion by assuming a more active role in government U.S. share globally by, perhaps, 10 percentage points; approval of mergers and acquisitions among its suppliers but they might also trigger countermeasures by strapped and implementing cost-reduction incentives for mergers foreign competitors that would increase the risks of and acquisitions (e.g., projected cost savings from merg- proliferation. DOD argued that it would be better to ers would be shared by DOD and its suppliers). promote U.S. exports through cooperative arrangements with allies linked to restraints on their exports. The International Dimension Finally, DOD opposed increasing waivers for R&D At the same time, equally difficult issues were becom- recoupment charges, which essentially freed U.S. arms ing apparent globally. Post-Cold War downsizing was exporters from having to levy a charge to repay DOD for The 8 BRIDGE a portion of its R&D investment in exported military US Arms Exports vs. Procurement Outlays systems. R&D recoupment 90,000 90.0% charges on exports had been a significant factor in reduc- 80,000 80.0% ing the cost to DOD of developing some new sys- 70,000 70.0% tems, thereby stretching U.S. procurement funds. 60,000 60.0% Waivers of these charges significantly lowered the price of exported systems, 50,000 50.0% Percent but raised the ultimate total cost to DOD of developing Mil Current US $ 40,000 40.0% systems. The international initia- 30,000 30.0% tives had mixed results. DOD succeeded in reviving 20,000 20.0% moribund international 10,000 10.0% programs with U.S. allies, 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 and, despite current political tensions, increased outlays cooperation with allies in arms exports exports as % NATO and with Japan continues to this day. However, DOD either lost intera- FIGURE 1 U.S. arms exports vs. procurement outlays. Source: adapted from U.S. Department of State, 2002. gency battles or bowed to political realities on most other issues. As a result of The policy changes and the mathematics of global heavy industry lobbying, a policy directive made the procurement budgets undoubtedly resulted in greatly untargeted promotion of military exports (using diplo- expanded exports of military systems. U.S. arms exports matic, political, and economic leverage) on economic increased from about 20 percent of domestic military grounds the default government position. Congress procurement in the late 1980s to almost 70 percent of passed a “self-financing” export promotion scheme domestic procurement outlays in 1999 (see Figure 1). (with defense industry support) that had little if any real Concerns about the proliferation of militarily signi- effect and did not evolve into the costly subsidy its pro- ficant capabilities by increasingly strapped foreign ponents had hoped for. competitors remain. The Inner Circle idea was attacked from both ends of the policy spectrum. Nonproliferation activists opposed From Endgame to “N-Game” the idea of sharing U.S. technology, even with trusted Domestically, the policy initiatives of the 1990s also allies. Proponents of arms exports did not like the idea had mixed results. The verdict on acquisition reform of restraints on exports as an institutionalized feature of is still out. In an inversion of previous policy, a new cooperative arrangements and worried about allied directive made unique military specifications for com- industrial competitors getting access to U.S. technology. ponents and parts (as an alternative to commercial Although the general policy was rejected, remnants of products) acceptable only if they could be explicitly the idea survive today on a program-by-program basis. justified and defended. By most accounts, this change In the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, for example, has been successful. allied industrial participation was invited, linked to a Changes were made to the Federal Acquisition Reg- review of exports that included JSF technology. The ulations (FAR) to encourage commercial acquisition controversies also survive, and the struggle continues. processes whenever possible. Campaigns were mounted SPRING 2005 9

to encourage acquisition executives and program man- General Dynamics. At about the same time, because of agers to consider price in acquisition policy, and policy congressional concerns about “payoffs for layoffs,” the directives encouraged bottom-line price justifications overhead savings-sharing incentives were ended. for acquisitions, in lieu of the traditional cost-based Although mergers continued among subcontractors, the approach with its extensive documentation require- great wave of mergers among large primes ended in 1997. ments. “Cost as an independent variable” became a Statistics also show that physical plant capacity began shorthand description of the new approach. However, growing steadily again in most sectors after 1997, as the effects of changes to FAR and the attempted reengi- savings-sharing was discontinued. neering of the procurement culture have yet to be per- Ironically, the sharp declines in procurement that led suasively demonstrated. Perry and others to propose cost-saving consolidations The promotion of consolidation in the defense in the 1990s seem likely to be completely reversed in industry was motivated by concerns about fixed costs, the next five years. Recent defense budgets show R&D particularly investments in physical facilities. Clearly, and procurement reaching their Cold War peak in having fewer producers would lower fixed costs per unit 2009—only there will now be far fewer defense firms on any given volume of output because of the competing for many more contract dollars. Needless to economies of scale created by the fixed costs. But with say, this was not the desired outcome of the policies of fewer producers, there would also be less competition the 1990s. and a greater likelihood that producers would increase To some extent, procurement officials, in their zeal profit margins and prices. With fewer producers, there to promote consolidation, overstated their case. might also be less pressure for them to innovate tech- Although procurement in constant dollars did decline nologically to win DOD contracts. Clearly, there was a by almost 70 percent in the 1990s from its Cold War trade-off between economies of scale and competition, peak, outlays (the amount DOD actually spends in a but when the policy was first articulated, attention was year, a more relevant number for an industry depen- focused primarily on the cost issues. The competition dent on defense spending) declined only by about trade-off only belatedly became a central concern as 55 percent. This is because lags in spending for differ- consolidation proceeded. ent types of items have the effect of smoothing out zigs Table 1 shows that the numbers of prime contractors and zags in budget appropriations. If we consider only for major systems dropped from 25 to 70 percent from arms investments (what DOD actually buys from the 1990 to 1997. Estimates of capacity based on U.S. Cen- defense industry, excluding the substantial spending on sus Bureau data also showed significant reductions in physical production capacity in most defense industries TABLE 1 Declining Number of Primes, through 1997. 1990 –1997 After 1997, however, there was little further consolidation among primes—the result of a rethinking of the Number of Contractors policy. From 1992 to 1997, acquisition policy was con- Sector 1990 1997 2000 ceived as an “endgame” for the Cold War defense Tactical missiles 13 4 3 industry infrastructure; restructuring of the industrial Fixed-wing aircraft 8 3 3 legacy was the primary issue on the table. As the numbers in Table 1 show, however, by 1997 the number of Expendable launch vehicles 6 2 3 primes had dropped to very low single digits in many Satellites 8 5 6 sectors, raising concerns that consolidation might have Surface ships 8 5 3 gone too far. At that point, DOD discussions of defense mergers began to focus on the effects of consolidation Tactical wheeled vehicles 6 4 3 on competition and how low the number of producers Tracked combat vehicles 3 2 2 (the “N-game”) could go before DOD ought to become really concerned. Strategic missiles 3 2 2 The change in policy was signaled in 1998 when DOD Torpedoes 3 2 2 opposed mergers of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Rotary-wing aircraft 4 3 3 and the acquisition of Newport News Shipbuilding by The 10 BRIDGE non-defense-unique items like paper clips and per- industry never significantly decreased its reliance on sonal computers), spending was cut by only 40 percent. DOD support for the development of new technologies. Coupled with the surge in arms exports discussed However, aerospace is as important to the strategic earlier, overall defense industry sales declined only advantages of U.S. military forces today as it was slightly, despite forecasts of impending doom. decades ago. Like electronics and IT, aerospace is a Procurement in constant dollars, which fell to the dual-use technology with many important commercial level of the mid-1970s at its low point in the 1990s, is applications. Unlike IT, however, the relative sizes of now almost back to its Cold War peak. And there will the commercial and military aerospace markets have soon be greater output produced by substantially fewer remained in rough parity. This has created unique players than there ever were during the Cold War. This strategic considerations that complicate economic pol- was not the anticipated result of the original restructur- icy (e.g., trade and technology policy). ing, but the current leadership of DOD (understandably Many indicators suggest that the U.S. aerospace distracted with other issues) shows no sign of consider- industry today is in trouble in commercial markets. ing the long-term consequences. However, it is inconceivable that the U.S. military will In retrospect, the defense industrial policy initiatives let its suppliers fail. This raises the specter of a military- of the 1990s effectively responded to the realities of the only aerospace industry, analogous to the military-only moment. The impulse to reform the acquisition system U.S. shipbuilding industry. Can a military-only aero- was sound, although long-term results should be moni- space industry remain a viable and technologically tored. The financial incentives to reduce overhead dynamic sector? Must we intervene to improve the per- seem to have worked during their lifetime, but their formance of our producers in commercial markets? This effects were quickly reversed when they were ended. is a difficult policy question that we seemed destined to Thoughtful proposals on export policies and technolo- address in the next few years. gy cooperation were only partly successful, although the IT is transforming the military as it has transformed underlying ideas still have some limited impact. Most the rest of our society. Electronics, software, and important, DOD’s development of a framework for sort- “other” defense equipment now dominate investment in ing out policy choices affecting the size and configura- defense equipment (Figure 2). These technologies, tion of its industrial base was a laudable first step toward which are primarily driven by commercial suppliers in rationalizing its interactions with industry. Perhaps the an increasingly globalized industry, raise some difficult most significant defect was that not enough considera- long-term questions. Will the qualitative technological tion was given to framing the underlying trade-off advantage of U.S. systems that we have relied on in the between competition and economies of scale, which past become less sustainable? Will the export controls ultimately halted the consolidation initiatives. we have relied on to deny potential adversaries access to our most advanced technologies become increasingly inadequate and outdated? Innovation in IT and biotechnology continues to Should we intervene accelerate, and new industries are springing up to com- mercialize products based on these technologies. Even to improve the by the standard of U.S. military procurement budgets, performance of producers very large sums are being invested in R&D in these areas; however, U.S. defense contractors are barely involved. in commercial markets? Given the threat of chemical and biological weapons and the rise of information warfare, this situation must be changed. However, ensuring that the producers of our defense systems are in close contact with technology Long-Term Concerns development in IT and biotech will require that we We now face a rising tide of procurement spending change the procurement system we inherited from the with substantially fewer defense industries. One imme- last century. diate concern is competitiveness in the aerospace sector. Despite the reforms of the 1990s, the procurement In contrast to computers and semiconductors, this system is still basically a World War II-era regulatory SPRING 2005 11

system based on administered prices derived from Real Defense Investment costs. The system was 400 designed to deliver specialized products to a single customer, the government, 350 produced by suppliers with significant monopoly power. 300 Monitoring and audits were necessary to ensure that out- 250 comes were reasonable, but post-Cold War downsizing 200 of the military included downsizing of the govern- 150 ment workforce that moni- tors procurement. 100 Thus, while procurement is once again increasing rapidly, the monitoring 50 and audit function is not. Indeed, recent well publi- 0

cized scandals suggest that 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 instances of malfeasance on a spectacularly large Aircraft Missiles scale, which occurred from Ships time to time in the past in Vehicles the defense sector, may be Electronics and software Other equipment on the upswing. Consoli- dation and less competition in the defense industry FIGURE 2 Real defense investment, 1974–2003. Source: adapted from Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005. may aggravate the problem. This raises the issue of whether it is time to revisit the systems that incorporate commercial technologies. fundamental design and operation of the procurement Specialized software and systems-integration know- system. The last major examination of this system, con- how may be the keys to transforming widely understood ducted in the 1980s, two decades ago, led to only mar- technology building blocks into closely held military ginal changes. Given the significant changes that have systems. However, the defense industrial base must not occurred in the technological, industrial, and geopoliti- be cut off from commercial developments. To make cal environment since then, it would seem appropriate effective use of new commercially developed technolo- that we reexamine how the government goes about the gies, defense industries must be part of the commercial business of maintaining a technological advantage for world. One solution may be to reengineer the procure- U.S. national security. ment system so military markets will be more attractive The globalized production systems currently produc- to commercially oriented companies and to reduce dif- ing IT, semiconductor, and biotechnology innovations ferences between military and commercial products raise serious questions about national advantage in both wherever possible. This would also help alleviate the the military and economic arenas. Private-sector R&D problems of increasing concentration and decreasing investments in these areas continue to dwarf technology competition in defense industries. investments by the military. The issue for the military is Thus we have come full circle, back to a central how to tap into commercial developments while secur- theme of the defense industrial policies of the 1990s— ing closely held technological differentiators for military commercial-military integration and dual use. In cases The 12 BRIDGE where DOD has unique technology requirements and the 21st Century, edited by A. Markusen and S. Costigan. product niches, it must be prepared to bear the full cost New York: Council on Foreign Relations. of maintaining a separate and unique industrial base. In GAO (General Accounting Office). 1998. Defense Industry: other cases, however, many problems can be solved by Consolidation and Options for Preserving Competition. revamping the procurement system to make it easier for Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. commercial companies to sell solutions to military prob- Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). lems using commercial technology. Dual use is back— 2001. National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2002. or at least it should be! Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). References 2004. National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2005. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2005. National Income and Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. Product Accounts Tables. Available online at: Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Index.asp. 2000. Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress. Flamm, K. 2002. Failures of Defense Industrial Policy Reform Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. and Likely Consequences for the Bush Defense Buildup. Pre- Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. sentation to the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 2001. Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress. March 8, 2002. Available online at: http://www.cfr.org/ Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. public/GeoEcon_Military/KFlamm_paper.doc. U.S. Department of State. 2002. World Military Expenditures Flamm, K. 1999. Redesigning the Defense Industrial Base. and Arms Transfers, 1999–2000. Washington, D.C.: Bureau Pp. 224–246 in Arming the Future: A Defense Industry for of Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department of State. The new industrial revolution will enable people to live where they like and produce what they need locally.

The Transformation of Manufacturing in the 21st Century

Lawrence J. Rhoades

Manufacturing has been defined as the human transformation of materials from one form to another, more valuable form. The transformation can be geometric or compositional, or both. Manufacturing encompasses both the production of man-made materials originating from naturally occurring raw materials and the production of discrete parts, usually from those man- made materials. Nearly all discrete parts are made using a series of steps or Lawrence J. Rhoades is president processes that, with few exceptions, fall into one of four groups: and chief executive officer of • Casting or molding produces an object by transforming a material from a liq- Ex One Corporation. uid to a solid. A material in liquid form is poured or injected into a preformed mold (or die), allowed to solidify (normally by cooling, but sometimes by heating or chemical curing), and, once solidified, removed from the mold as a solid object. The mold is typically made from a metal with a higher melting temperature than the formed material. Sometimes the mold is disposable (e.g., sand or ceramic) and is destroyed during the removal of the formed part. In these cases, the mold itself is “molded” from a durable, preformed pattern. • Forming is a process of applying force, and sometimes heat, to reshape, and sometimes cut, a ductile material by stamping, forging, extruding, or rolling. Like the tools used in casting or molding, the tools used in forming are preformed and durable. The 14 BRIDGE

• Machining is used to “cut” specific features into pre- The heart of the problem is that there are dozens, formed blanks (e.g., slabs, bars, tubes, sheets, extru- sometimes hundreds of steps in the production cycle— sions, castings, forgings, etc.) by manipulating a even for simple products—that require many different fast-moving cutting tool relative to the work piece on machines and worker skills. High-volume production a special (usually computer-controlled) machine tool, scale unavoidably limits flexibility, and many machines such as a lathe, mill, or grinder. In the machining and people must be gathered in one place to make many, process, even though the cutting-tool material is con- many parts and products with limited variation. Even siderably more durable than the work piece material, though individual steps in the production process have the tool is subject to wear and tear. Typically, many been dispersed in recent decades from the centralized, different tools are used, and a specific “cutter path” is fully integrated factories of the 1950s into the “extended programmed for each feature and each tool. Com- enterprise supply chains” of the 1990s (because the pensation is made for tool wear. added cost of handling and shipping from component suppliers to assembly sites is outweighed by the flexibility • Joining includes welding, brazing, and mechanical of the supply chain and lower cost of labor), the volume assembly of parts (made by molding, forming, or of parts going through each process step at any point in machining) to make more complex parts than would the supply chain is the same (if not higher, thanks to otherwise be possible with those methods. Typically, “global” product platform designs). Production is typi- special fixtures or special tooling and programming of cally done in or near cities where large supplies of labor assembly machines or robots are used for each assem- and supplier networks or, at least, a dependable trans- bled part. portation infrastructure, are available. Once products are completed, usually in factories where hundreds or thousands of people gather to make thousands or millions of parts, they are shipped great dis- Manufacturers are constantly tances, often across oceans, to the customers who want struggling to achieve an them. In the automotive industry, the most significant manufacturing sector in the United States, the average appropriate balance between U.S.-built car is finished 90 days before it is purchased —considerably longer than it takes to make it. A man- scale and flexibility. ufactured product has no more value than its untrans- formed materials and components unless it is purchased by a customer who actually wants it in that form. Prod- The common theme in the methods widely used to ucts made, but not sold, represent an inventory risk. manufacture discrete parts is a significant up-front effort, Because the cost of distribution often exceeds the cost which can take several forms: tooling (e.g., dies, molds, of production, a better definition of manufacturing might cutting tools); special-purpose machining; part-specific be the creation of value through the transformation of programming (e.g., tool selection, “feeds and speeds,” materials from one form to another and the delivery of that cutter paths, tool wear compensation); and “design for more valuable product to a buyer. In fact, as Wal-Mart, manufacturing” (i.e., iterating product designs so that Dell, and FedEx have all demonstrated in different ways, fewer, less expensive manufacturing operations are reducing inventory as a percentage of sales, even by just required to produce a product). To justify the up-front a few points, can greatly increase profits. investment of time and money in planning, designing, tooling, buying, programming, installing, and proving The Challenges Ahead out production lines and cells for making products, pro- Creating economic value through manufacturing is duction volumes must be sufficient to amortize the far more important than the public and government investment at a reasonable cost per part. Manufacturers generally acknowledge, and the more broadly manufac- are constantly struggling to achieve an appropriate bal- turing is defined, the more this becomes apparent. The ance between scale and flexibility. “Just-in-time” manu- world economy is based on three principal activities: facturing and “flexible manufacturing systems” are two • Agriculture is the natural (but increasingly engi- of the best known strategies in that struggle. neered and therefore less natural) transformation of SPRING 2005 15

biomaterials from one form to another form more Most important, trade agreements in the past 40 years valuable to humans. Advances in biomimetic mate- have reduced tariffs and quotas and opened markets in rials and processes and the promise of biomanufac- industrialized countries to previously nonindustrial, turing are gradually blurring the line between low-labor-rate countries, such as China, India, Indone- agriculture and manufacturing. sia, Brazil, Russia, Bangladesh, and Mexico, which together account for some 3.1 billion people, more than • Construction can be thought of as manufacturing of half the world population. Products made by workers in very large, immobile “products.” those countries, who earn 10 percent (or less) of what • Manufacturing of products, as conventionally defined, workers with the same skills in G7 countries earn, comprises the bulk of international trade. appear side by side on shelves and in showrooms with domestically produced products for purchase by the Perhaps agriculture and construction can provide mere 700 million G7 consumers who currently have lessons for the development of constructive public pol- most of the world’s purchasing power. icy related to U.S. manufacturing. As the result of major investments by the federal government to provide a national transportation infrastructure, the United States has the best road system in the world, which has More than half the value contributed greatly to U.S. economic efficiency and prosperity. In agriculture, because of advanced tech- of a vehicle sold in nology and equipment and remarkable cooperation among government, universities, and the agricultural the United States today industry, 3 percent of the workforce produces more is produced elsewhere. food than the country can consume. Yet, for nearly all of history (and for most of the world today), most of the workforce was engaged in the production of food. The Not surprisingly, the shift to global manufacturing workforces of newly industrialized countries are rapidly (and what many believe is a lack of concern for the moving to manufacturing-related jobs in cities; for health of the U.S. manufacturing sector) has led to the example, the population in China is migrating from the loss of 2.5 million manufacturing jobs in this country countryside to cities at the rate of 1 percent per year— since 2000. One-third of all manufactured products sold a million people per month. in the United States today are imported; the country The reasons for the trend toward manufacturing are exports only half that much, which has led to a huge, apparent in the derivation of the word itself—which persistent, and growing trade deficit that for years literally means handmade. Through manufacturing, represented 5 percent of GDP but has recently grown both “touch” labor and intellectual labor become trans- to 6 to 7 percent. This deficit is almost entirely attrib- portable through space and time (much more easily utable to the trade imbalance in manufactured goods. than in construction or agriculture) and can be sold in In the economically important automotive industry, markets that value that labor. Ironically, although the one-third of all vehicles bought in the United States laborer himself may not be permitted to enter those are imported. In addition, the foreign content in marketplaces, the products in which his or her labor has “U.S.-made” cars has increased to about 40 percent. As been invested are welcome there. In recent decades, a result, more than half of the value of vehicles sold even though transportation technology has not changed in the United States—the largest auto market in the dramatically, the logistics of transporting goods and keep- world—is produced elsewhere. At the same time, U.S. ing track of them via computers has improved dramati- auto exports are meager. cally, consequently lowering the cost and accelerating Among suppliers of manufacturing technology and the movement of products from production sites to mar- equipment, things are even worse. U.S. production kets. With wage differentials between countries of 10 or of machine tools has fallen by two-thirds since 1998, 20 to 1—a much greater price disparity than for any and two-thirds of the machine tools sold in the commodity—products with significant labor content United States are imported. In this case, the cause is can bear the cost and inconvenience of being trans- not low labor rates but a lack of U.S. commitment to ported across borders. The 16 BRIDGE investments in manufacturing technology. The U.S. produces about 6 percent of the world’s machine tools, about $2.2 billion worth. Japan, which has half the population, produces more than three times as much ($7 billion), and the EU, with a population not much bigger than that of the United States, produces more than six times as much ($15 billion). As a result of this gap, the United States is no longer the recognized leader in manufacturing innovation, FIGURE 1 Molds for an engine set that can be produced in 36 hours with a build-box the size of a trunk. Source: Extrude and, compared to its major Hone/ProMetal, 2003. competitors (particularly Germany), the U.S. government has invested very few • Environmental compatibility, that is, using methods taxpayer dollars in improving U.S. manufacturing tech- that are environmentally benign, using recycled nology and infrastructure, despite the fact that manu- materials as feedstock, and eliminating wasted energy, facturing was the largest sector of the U.S. economy materials, and human resources. until last year, when it was displaced by health care. • Reconfigurable enterprises, which require that intra- Clearly, the investment gap must be addressed. organizational and inter-organizational structures be The challenges facing U.S. manufacturing were not flexible and adaptable. unexpected. In 1998, the National Research Council Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design pub- • Innovative processes that decrease production scale to lished Visionary Manufacturing Challenges for 2020, a an economical lot quantity of one; decrease dimen- study sponsored by the National Science Foundation. sional scale to the manipulation of microparticles, or The objective of the study was “to identify challenges even nanoparticles; and fabricate and use new materi- and enabling technologies for manufacturers to remain als (e.g., functionally gradient materials with different productive and profitable in 2020.” The report defined properties in different areas of a single component). manufacturing in broad terms as “the processes and enti- One innovative area of process technology that ties required to create, develop, support, and deliver addresses nearly all of these challenges includes features products” and identified six “Grand Challenges”: evolving from “rapid prototyping,” “free-form fabri- • Concurrent manufacturing, which entails drastically cation,” “layered manufacturing,” “3D printing,” and shortening the time between product conception and “Innofacturing™.” Thanks partly to government sup- realization. port, the United States currently has a significant market and technological advantage in these technologies, • Integration of human and technical resources, which all of which directly convert computer design files that requires quick reactions throughout the “extended describe objects as “3D models” into physical objects enterprise” workforce to serve customers with high constructed layer by layer (i.e., assembling particles of expectations and many choices. work-piece material digitally on each layer and then • Conversion of information to knowledge, which adding to the work piece one layer at a time). means (1) instantaneously transforming captured The most apparent advantage of these processes is the data into useful knowledge and (2) providing access remarkable product design freedom enabled by layered to knowledge when and where it is needed. construction. More important, however, is that parts SPRING 2005 17

can be produced, without tooling or programming, in a company (Ex One), for example, produces systems single, highly flexible production cell, thus eliminating specifically dedicated to making metal components. the need for, or even the advantage of, scale, including At the large end of the spectrum, metal parts can be volume scale. This enables distributed digital produc- made by using these processes to produce nonmetal cast- tion, which changes just about everything about manu- ing molds. The same sand and binder that were used for facturing as we now know it. years in conventional pattern-based sand casting can be 3D printed to provide precise, complex-geometry sand Digital Production casting molds and cores without patterns; thus, one-off Phil Dickens, a professor at Loughborough Univer- design metal castings for automotive engines can be pro- sity in the United Kingdom and an enthusiastic duced in two days instead of two months (Figure 1). A supporter of distributed digital technology, predicts 1.5 x 1 meter layer can be produced every minute. With that, “The impact of rapid manufacturing will be so 0.2-mm layers, roughly one liter of sand can be processed profound, changing the way products are designed, every three minutes, printed or not; typically, about a manufactured, and distributed, that it can be described liter of printed sand molds and cores can be produced as the next industrial revolution.” Unlike the first every 10 or 15 minutes. industrial revolution, which led to a migration to At the other end of the spectrum, machines with a population-dense cities (a trend that continues in build-box the size of a matchbox can produce half a emerging industrial economies), this revolution will dozen gold dental copings (the part of a dental crown enable people to live where they like and produce that fits precisely on the tooth) every hour. Thus, a den- what they need locally. Distributed digital production tal laboratory can produce a more precise, less expen- is the antithesis of the production line (e.g., “a factory sive dental restoration in one or two days, instead of a in the home” or at least “in the neighborhood”) where week (Figure 2). people will “pay for the plans, not the product,” as Military spare parts can now be made when and described by John Canny, a professor at the University where they are needed, as can custom-designed archi- of California at Berkeley. tectural hardware, gold jewelry, customized trophies, Digital production (or rapid manufacturing) trans- and parts for vintage cars. This tool-less process can forms engineering design files directly into functional even be used to make tools. Forging dies for short-run objects—ideally, fully functional objects. This technol- spare parts can often be made faster and cheaper than ogy emerged from rapid prototyping systems that finding dies that already exist. first produced nonfunc- tional, “appearance models” (limited-use, engineering- design and marketing aids made from nondurable plastic materials). Over time, the plastic materials were strengthened until the models became fairly functional. However, the real- world benchmark materials for full functionality in manufacturing are metals. Currently, most of the companies in the world that produce systems capable of free-form fabrication of metal components are in the United States. The FIGURE 2 Six gold dental copings like the one shown can be produced in an hour with a build-box the size of a matchbox. Source: ProMetal Division of my Extrude Hone/ProMetal, 2003. The 18 BRIDGE

previously spent the bulk of the production cycle wait- Free-form ing for molded parts to cool Internal Cavities down enough to stop being “plastic” and solidify. These Conformal cooling internal geometries can be inside a quite sophisticated and can plastic injection mold incorporate advanced cool- can double ing features like those used production rate } to cool aircraft turbine engine blades. Economics Using some layered $30–$60 per pound, processes, components with near-net shape functionally gradient mate- production cost rials can be produced. In the 3D printing process, the DME designed mold core particles on each layer rep- resenting a cross section of the part are assembled by FIGURE 3 Plastic injection molds with conformal cooling passages. Source: Extrude Hone/ProMetal, 2003. precisely “jetting” droplets of “binder” or glue. Once Plastic Injection Molds printing is complete, the unwanted loose particles can For plastic injection molds, the advantages are dra- be separated from the “glued-together” metal powder matic. The conventional process of plastic injection part. The droplet-printing device can selectively print molding entails injecting a thermoplastic polymer into different “colors” of droplets (i.e., droplets that contain a mold at a temperature high enough for the material to different types or concentrations of alloying agents) on be “plastic,” that is, capable of flowing. The material different areas of the work piece; thus, different materials must then cool down until it solidifies in place and can can be precisely placed at specific locations (Figure 4). be removed and handled without losing its shape. The The metal particles in the printed, or glued-together, solidification is neither instantaneous nor uniform, and part are thermally fused in the sintering operation that the “freeze sequence” can affect dimensional precision follows (Figure 5). The alloying agent deposited at the in critical features of the molded part. selected sites diffuses into the particle material, altering With layered production, digitally produced free-form fabricated products with A sliced layer is 132 New metal powder layer printed into the complex internal geome- CAD solid is spread on build platen new powder layer tries can be produced (Fig- ure 3). For plastic injection molds, this means conformal cooling passages that can control and accelerate the freeze cycle of molded parts just beneath the surface of the mold cavities, enabling higher precision Metal powder Build piston lowers supply is the platen to and higher production moved up to accept the next using the same plastic the spreader layer of metal powder molding machines, floor space, and workforce that FIGURE 4 3D printing layered production process invented at MIT. Source: Extrude Hone/ProMetal, 2003. SPRING 2005 19

its local physical characteristics. Unlike coating or plat- However, the biggest factor has been the impetus pro- ing, in which there can be abrupt interfacial strain from vided by the U.S. government, principally the U.S. loading or temperature, a component with functionally Department of Defense, which has much to gain from gradient material can be made to gradually transition the development of processes for building spare parts from, say, a hard but brittle steel surface to a tough, duc- and new products flexibly and without cost sensitivity to tile interior without risk of delamination. This can be production volumes. Whether or not the United States done by simply varying the concentrations of carbon in maintains and strengthens its leadership position and the binder droplets selectively printed in the part. realizes the benefits of these processes may depend on the outcome of the current debate on the role of government in providing a national “manufacturing technology infrastructure.” As the costs and wait times of tooling, programming, and “designing for manufacturing” are reduced and then eliminated, the perceived advantages of high- production volumes, concentrated manufacturing sites, and complex distribution logistics will yield to the advantages of distributed digital production—products designed to meet the specific preferences of individual customers that can be produced on or near the point of consumption at the time of consumption (e.g., automotive spare parts produced at a dealership). The design freedom enabled by constructing objects FIGURE 5 Electron micrograph showing a thermal bond produced through sintering to in thin layers from particles with dimensions in microns ensure predictable strength and dimensions. Source: Extrude Hone/ProMetal, 2003. will significantly reduce a product’s component-parts count. This, in turn, will reduce product weight by Conclusion eliminating attachment features and fasteners and opti- Distributed digital production, a category of processes mize functionality by eliminating excess material and evolving from rapid prototyping, rapid manufacturing, wasted energy. The particles that are not needed for the free-form fabrication, and layered manufacturing, is a part produced can be recycled to become the next— harbinger of twenty-first-century production, which is maybe very different—part. The metal in older, no dramatically different from the kind of “manufacturing” longer useful products can be locally recycled to become we know today. The fundamental nature of distributed- metal powder feedstock for tomorrow’s production. digital processes—the construction of functional metal Thus, inventory carrying costs and risks and transpor- work pieces by assembling elemental particles, layer by tation costs can be dramatically reduced, increasing layer, with no instructions other than the computer savings in energy, materials, and labor. design files widely used to define objects geometri- Finally, because these processes are highly auto- cally—is based on different assumptions than those that mated, the size of the workforce required to produce drove manufacturing and distribution strategies and deliver manufactured products to the customer will throughout the twentieth century. be greatly reduced. Consequently, low-cost, so-called The United States has an early lead in these emerg- touch labor will lose its competitive advantage in the ing technologies, partly as a result of creative work at production of physical objects. some of the nation’s best universities (e.g., MIT, Uni- The demand for innovative product designs will versity of Texas, Carnegie Mellon University, Stanford expand dramatically. And, because ideas will be deliv- University, University of Southern California, Univer- ered electronically, designers can be located any- sity of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University) and where. As design for manufacturing becomes less Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. The important, and because design superiority will be U.S. lead is also the result of the visionary spirit of gained principally through understanding and respond- technology-focused entrepreneurs who head and back ing to customers’ tastes, designers might want to be companies that are pioneering these new technologies. located near their customers. The 20 BRIDGE

Even if products are designed remotely, however, creativity must also be focused on finding other paths to production will be done locally. Physical objects will economic parity in the value of equivalent human labor be produced “at home” or “in the neighborhood” from to hundreds of millions of low-wage workers throughout locally recycled materials. Thus, cities will lose their the world. economic advantage, and urban populations will be dispersed. References Although the revolution promised by these tech- Bonvillian, W.B. 2004. Meeting the new challenge to U.S. nologies could have great benefits for consumers in economic competitiveness. Issues in Science and Technol- developing countries, the economic advantages of man- ogy 21(1): 75–82. ufacturing in areas with comparatively cheap labor will NRC (National Research Council). 1998. Visionary Manu- be ultimately unsustainable, and workers in poor coun- facturing Challenges for 2020. Washington, D.C.: National tries are likely to suffer. Consequently, our energy and Academy Press. The number of “digital people” (artificial beings and partly artificial beings) is increasing rapidly.

Digital People in Manufacturing: Making Them and Using Them1

Sidney Perkowitz

Robots have played an increasingly prominent role in manufacturing for the past 50 years, and about a million industrial units are in use today worldwide. In a parallel development, the number of humans with bionic units, such as cochlear implants and artificial limbs, is also growing. The presence of these “digital people,” a category that includes artificial and partly artificial beings, from mechatronic (mechanical plus electronic) robots to humans Sidney Perkowitz is the Charles with bionic (biological plus electronic) implants, is rapidly increasing in Howard Candler Professor of industry and in society as a whole. Digital people represent a new technol- Physics at Emory University in ogy that deserves serious attention. The 1920s play R. U. R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) by the Czech author Atlanta. Karel Capek introduced the word “robot,” which comes from the Czech word “robota,” meaning forced labor. Capek foresaw the widespread use of robots, as he painted a picture of humanoid units made purely to serve humanity. At least two rudimentary humanoid mechatronic robots were built in the 1920s and 1930s (Elektro, a unit designed by the Westinghouse Corporation, was a hit at the 1939 New York World’s Fair [Figure 1]); however, true commercial use of robots began with the invention of a

1 This paper is based on the author’s book, Digital People: From Bionic Humans to Androids (Joseph Henry Press/National Academies Press, 2004), which is also available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10738.html. Interested readers are invited to consult the book for further details, including a full bibliography. The 22 BRIDGE

non-humanoid type of arm that is nearly as flexible as a human arm and that industrial robot in 1954. can be programmed to carry out intricate manipulations Now, with advances in of components large and small (Figure 2). Table 1 shows mechatronics, materials sci- that Japan still leads in the use of these robotic workers, ence, artificial intelligence, that roughly one million such units are now operating and other relevant areas, worldwide, and that global use is increasing. This increasingly capable units, growth can be expected to continue, if only because of some of them humanoid, the economic imperative—as the costs of human work- are becoming available for ers are increasing, those of robotic workers are falling. use in industry, homes, and Robots already form some 10 percent of the workforce hostile environments. in the Japanese, Italian, and German automobile FIGURE 1 Elektro, designed by West- The related area of bion- industries, illustrating the potential for robotic labor to inghouse Corporation, was exhibited ics is potentially even more supplant humans, with consequent disruptions, espe- at the 1939 New York World’s Fair. important. The origins of cially for older workers. this technology are scat- Assembly-line robots will continue to play an impor- tered and diffuse, harking back centuries, and even mil- tant industrial role, and indications are that ongoing lennia, to crude prosthetic replacements for missing technical advances will also produce robots suitable limbs, such as wooden legs. Bionic technology is now for nonindustrial applications in the home and in dan- producing sophisticated artificial limbs and bodily gerous and demanding environments. These advances organs, as well as devices that connect directly to the include new artificial physical, sensory, and mental neural system or the brain, for example, cochlear implants that restore hearing to the deaf. Bionic additions such as these promise to address important issues for the injured and ill and perhaps someday to enhance human capabilities. These and other potential results of bionic and robotic technology, however, such as the displacement of human workers, raise complex ethical issues that require careful consideration. Although these technologies are at the beginning stages of development, it is not too early to survey the state of the art and its implications.

Robots for Industry and the Home The year 2004 marked the 50th anniversary of the patenting of the first industrial robot by George Devol, an engineer. With his partner Joseph Engelberger, Devol began making and selling a one-armed, programmable unit called the UNIMATE. Engelberger envisioned robotic devices as “help[ing] the factory operator in a way that can be compared to business machines as an aid to the office worker.” General Motors (GM) bought its first UNIMATE in 1961, but for a variety of economic and societal reasons, the Japanese were the first to widely use robots in automobile factories. In 1978, however, GM installed an assembly line using a PUMA (programmable universal machine for assembly), and robots began to appear in U.S. industry in substantial numbers. A typical industrial robot is fixed in position and con- FIGURE 2 A typical industrial robot. Source: Precision Engineering Research Group, sists principally of a powerful multi-jointed mechanical Massachusetts Institute of Technology. SPRING 2005 23

TABLE 1 World Population of Industrial Robots With advances in mobility and physical versatility, for Selected Years (in thousands of units) sensing abilities, and intelligence, robots are becoming suitable for home and office use, although many are not a b 1984 1988 2001 2002 2003 2006 humanoid. The most popular examples are robotic pets, Japan 67 176 360 350 344 333 such as the artificial dog AIBO made by Sony. Designed purely for entertainment, AIBO was introduced in 1999 U.S. 13 33 97 104 111 135 and quickly enjoyed brisk sales. The AIBO dogs display Europe 17 53 231 244 259 316 sufficient intelligence and manipulative ability to be formed into soccer teams, which roboticists use to study Asia/ Australiab 0.7 2 57 60 64 73 how groups of robots interact. A more practical example is Roomba, a robotic vacuum cleaner that uses intelligent Total 100 266 757 772 838 875 decision making to avoid furniture as it vacuums every a Projected square inch of a floor, without human guidance. b Excluding Japan Note: Some totals incorporate values for other countries, including USSR/Russia. If estimated uncounted units are included, the total for 2002 and later is thought to exceed 1,000,000 units. Sources: NRC, 1996; UNECE, 2003. capabilities, as illustrated by three particular units designed and built in the last few years: ASIMO (advanced step in innovative mobility), a child-size humanoid robot from the Honda Corporation; QRIO, a two-foot tall humanoid robot created by the Sony Corporation; and KISMET, a robotic humanoid head and face designed and built by robot engineer Cynthia Breazeal at MIT. Together these three units display a range of physical abilities that also draw on artificial sensory capabilities, such as vision, walking, climbing stairs, adjusting gait for different surfaces, avoiding obstacles while walking, recovering from a fall, danc- ing, carrying objects, and responding to humans by shaking hands, showing facial expressions, and waving goodbye (Figure 3). These abilities also require a degree of intelligent behavior, defined as behavior that helps an organism survive and thrive by providing effective responses to changing circumstances. According to Harvard psy- chologist Howard Gardner, this adaptive property in humans encompasses seven different types of intelligence: logical-mathematical, linguistic, musical, bodily- FIGURE 3 ASIMO (advanced step in innovative mobility), a child-size robot made kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal by Honda Corporation, shown walking down stairs. (Gardner, 1999). The latter (intrapersonal) touches on the perplexing issue of whether an artificial brain can The humanoid robots ASIMO and QRIO are not yet be truly conscious of itself as we humans are, a question on sale for general use, but ASIMO can be rented from that is unlikely to be answered in the near future. That Sony as a robot receptionist and guide and has been question aside, ASIMO, QRIO, and KISMET clearly designed to interact with humans in future applica- display the low-level rudiments of intelligent behavior. tions; and QRIO has clear possibilities for entertain- For instance, they can memorize and recognize human ment. Table 2 shows the recent spectacular growth in names and faces, and even hold limited conversations. these and other nonindustrial applications, with the The 24 BRIDGE

TABLE 2 World Population of Nonindustrial • More than 30,000 cochlear implants are in use, Robots for Selected Years (in thousands of including some placed in deaf children as young as units) 1 to 2 years of age.

2002 2006b • Several research laboratories and corporations are pursuing the implantation of electronic devices in the Household (vacuum, lawn) 50 500 retina or the cortex of the brain to restore sight to the Professional servicesa 19 49 blind.

Entertainment 545 1,500 • DARPA is funding research in brain-machine interfaces for direct mental control of military aircraft, Total 625 2,200 powered exoskeletons that give soldiers increased Value (billions of $) 3.6 6.0 strength and mobility, and other applications. a These include surgical devices, units for underwater explora- • Living monkey brains have been used to operate tion, surveillance, and hazardous duty, units that assist disabled robotic arms, and a sea-lamprey brain has been used people, etc. to operate a wheeled robotic body. The aim is to b Projected make artificial limbs and other devices for humans Source: UNECE, 2003. that function under direct mental control. number of units already far outstripping the number • At least one research group has made it possible for a of industrial robots. With other developments on the fully paralyzed person to operate an external device, horizon, such as intelligent manipulation of objects a computer, by mental control alone. by robot hands and fingers (driven by research at the • Researchers are developing the “neuron on a chip,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration and that is, a living neuron grown on a standard elec- by the development of surgical robots for delicate med- tronic computer chip so that the neuron and the chip ical procedures) and high-speed object recognition and can directly exchange electrical signals and hence obstacle avoidance (exemplified by projects sponsored information. by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] and the Daimler Chrysler Corporation), a The potential to relieve a variety of human ills and multitude of new applications may be expected to injuries is clear, and the science-fictionish aspiration of develop, including many for the military, such as self- actually improving human physical, mental, and even guided, intelligent weapons. emotional capabilities by artificial additions may be attainable someday. Bionic Humans As robots are becoming more natural by taking on Ethical and Societal Issues human physical and mental characteristics, humans Despite these potential benefits, robotic and bionic are becoming more artificial. At present, bionic tech- technologies also have troubling aspects. In robotics, nology is less well developed than robotic technology, replacement of expensive human workers by cheaper and there seems to be no compilation of worldwide robots may loom large in the automobile industry and activity in bionics comparable to the summaries for other applications, such as using intelligent robots as robotics. However, according to one recent estimate caregivers for the ill and elderly. The latter application from the National Institutes of Health, 8 to 10 percent raises another fundamental question: do we really want of the U.S. population—that is, about 25 million a society where human needs are met by machines, people—has artificial parts, from breast implants to not people? coronary stents to prosthetic limbs to cochlear units, For bionic humans, ethical issues arise from the use suggesting a substantial economic impact. A list of of neural connections and brain-machine interfaces, recent highlights in the development of bionic addi- centered around the question of what it means to be tions, including the growing area of neural (or brain- human. Certainly, a person who has a natural limb machine) interfaces, indicates some present and future replaced with an artificial one has not become less possibilities for this technology: human or lost a significant degree of “personhood.” But SPRING 2005 25

suppose a majority of organs in an injured person is • The population of established types of industrial replaced by artificial components; or, suppose the arti- robots has grown eightfold or more in the last 20 years ficial additions change mental capacity, memory, or and will have an increasing impact on manufacturing personality. Is such a heavily artificial person somehow industries. less than human? Would the established legal, medical, • The latest extensions in robotic capabilities offer new and ethical meanings of personhood, identity, and so opportunities for household and entertainment on, have to be altered? robots, with enormous growth projected in the near We are only in the early stages of understanding future, and may offer new manufacturing uses. brain-machine interfaces and do not grasp all of the potential side effects. Neural implants have been shown •A potentially huge impact will come from medical to change the brain through its plasticity, that is, the uses of robots and human-machine hybrids. These innate ability of neurons to reform the connections include surgical and caretaking units and the replace- among themselves to record new knowledge as the brain ment, and even enhancement, of human physical and learns. Although this could be beneficial—for instance, mental abilities. by enabling a person to incorporate an artificial limb •We must begin considering the many ethical chal- into his or her overall body image—we do not yet know lenges and societal changes that would accompany if all such changes would be desirable. the widespread introduction of robotic and bionic Another, more subtle issue is suggested by some expe- technology. riences with cochlear implants, which usually restore only partial hearing. Most implantees welcome even Any new technology can have both positive and neg- this incomplete restoration, but some find themselves ative outcomes for society. Because robotics and bion- uncomfortably suspended in a gray area between two ics involve simulating, altering, and perhaps even cultures—that of the fully deaf and that of the fully changing the essential nature of humans, they have a hearing. Hence, psychological and even spiritual fac- special significance. Only the best efforts of everyone tors may prove to be barriers to the development of involved, from technological and medical experts to bionic technology. Finally, the process of surgical political decision makers and ordinary citizens, can implantation can raise medical issues, such as infection ensure that these rapidly evolving areas will bring more and rejection by the body or poorly understood side good than harm. effects. For instance, in 2003, U.S. government agen- cies issued a warning that young children with cochlear References implants might be at increased risk for meningitis. Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic For both robotic and bionic technology, projected Books. uses in warfare raise a host of issues. Would self-guided NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Approaches to weapons violate the Geneva Conventions? Would a Robotics in the United States and Japan: Report of a Bilat- heavy dependence on robotic or bionic military units eral Exchange. Washington, D.C.: National Academy lead to the perception that wars can be fought at mini- Press. Also available online at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/ mal human cost, a potentially destabilizing factor in 9511.html. international affairs? These and other issues have Roboethics. 2004. The Ethics, Social, Humanitarian, and already been discussed at one major conference, the Ecological Aspects of Robotics. First International Sym- International Symposium on Roboethics, held in 2004 posium on Roboethics, Sanremo, Italy, January 30–31, to address the ethical, social, humanitarian, and eco- 2004. Available online at: http://www.scuoladirobotica.it/ logical questions raised by robotic technology roboethics/. (Roboethics, 2004). UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). World Robotics 2003: Statistics, Market Analysis, Fore- Conclusions casts, Case Studies and Profitability of Robot Investment. Although it will be years before we understand the ISBN 92-1-101059-04. Geneva: United Nations Publi- ultimate technological limits for robots and bionic cations. Available online at: http://www.unece.org/press/ implants, we can already draw some conclusions: pr2003/03stat_p01e.pdf. To prosper in the global marketplace, semiconductor companies are developing new business models.

Semiconductor Manufacturing: Booms, Busts, and Globalization

Alfonso Velosa

The semiconductor industry presents something of a conundrum to the outside observer. Products based on amazing technologies are developed in huge, sophisticated, very expensive facilities. The majority of these products are then sold for a few cents or a few dollars each in mass markets. This market approach is driven by business decisions that (1) maximize profits and minimize risks in a high-technology market that is extremely capital inten- Alfonso Velosa is associate director sive and subject to severe industry cycles and (2) respond to increasing of marketing and business strategy globalization that started more than 20 years ago. In this paper, I analyze at Gartner Consulting. these trends and identify the major business models semiconductor companies have developed to profit in this environment.

Semiconductor Product Markets The electronics and semiconductor industries, key building blocks of the global economy, combine macro- and microeconomics in many ways. To understand the importance of these industries, consider the size of the global economy in relation to the electronics industry. According to current estimates, the global gross domestic product (GDP) was approximately US$33 trillion in 2003, and the U.S. GDP was approximately US$10.4 trillion. Electronic equipment sales worldwide were estimated at US$1.04 trillion in 2003, and if one includes software, services, and telecommunications, global spending for information technology (IT) was SPRING 2005 27

US$2.26 trillion, or about 7.5 percent of total global industry shrank by more than 30 percent. economic activity. These end-market shifts reflect the manufacturing shift Semiconductors are the basis for the electronics and towards Asia, as firms search for integrated electronic IT industries, the crucial building blocks for key ele- supply chains and lower manufacturing costs. In 2000, the ments. The semiconductor industry reached US$178 consumption of semiconductors by region was roughly billion in 2003 and is estimated to have reached equal among the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Japan. US$223 billion in 2004. Not only is the semiconductor Beginning in 2001, however, consumption shifted towards industry large, it also represents 15.5 to 21.5 percent of Asia, and expectations are that Asia will eventually con- the value of the electronics industry, depending on stitute more than 50 percent of the market. where it is on the industry cycle in any given year. Since its beginning as a laboratory experiment, the Semiconductor Device and Process Technology semiconductor industry has grown to more than $200 As electronics markets adapt to shifting business billion, employing slightly less than half a million peo- cycles and changing geographic manufacturing patterns, ple worldwide. This exciting increase has taken place in semiconductors remain the key technological element many technology areas, involves many companies, and in electronic systems. Researchers have developed a has undergone numerous business cycles, which have technology spectrum for maintaining a full semicon- regularly shaken up the industry and caused it to change ductor pipeline and business processes and intellectual its competitive structure and the way management property rights regimes for the next 10 years. addresses the market and invests in new facilities and Let’s look at a few of the initiatives for the near term, technology. In the past 20 years, the cumulative effect midterm, and long term. In the near term (less than has been to compress the business cycle, thus necessi- two years), products that will reach their critical mar- tating short-term planning at the corporate level. ket volumes include silicon-germanium chips, radio- The pressures of the semiconductor business cycle frequency complementary metal-oxide semiconductors have been compounded by a decrease in the industry’s (CMOS) chips, and platform application-specific inte- core growth rate, from approximately 15 to 17 percent grated circuits (ASICs). Multiple competing firms are through the mid-1990s to 10 to 12 percent in the past bringing these products and technologies to market, decade. The fundamental change in expectations for and customers are starting to integrate them into elec- the industry has complicated risk management, as exec- tronic systems. In the midterm (two to five years), utives assess investments for new facilities. When the technologies such as embedded field programmable cost of a fabrication facility exceeded the billion dollar gate array (FPGA) cores and organic light-emitting mark, executives were forced to develop new business models to minimize their risk. The cyclical nature and slow growth patterns of the industry also reflect the evolution of core electronics In the past decade, the markets. As electronic equipment proliferated and reached the trillion-dollar sales level, it reached the lim- industry’s core growth rate its of market penetration and brought the rate of growth closer to that of overall global economic growth. The has dropped from16 percent core electronics markets also illustrate the “bullwhip” to about 11percent. effect on the supply chain, whereby small changes in orders, say, for computers by end users propagate through the system affecting retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and so on. Eventually, these changes have devices will address significant customer issues and will large, volatile effects on the suppliers of semiconductors, attract funding for product development. In the long wires, and other building blocks. Thus, the business term (five to 10 years or more), technologies such as cycles in the computer, telecommunications, and con- micro-fuel cells, gallium-nitride (GaN) devices, and sumer electronics industries have strong effects on polymer memory have shown significant promise. the business cycle of the semiconductor industry. However, these technologies must overcome many bar- In the debacle of 2001, for example, the semiconductor riers, such as lack of a supply chain infrastructure and The 28 BRIDGE

the absence of demonstrated large-scale products, and New Business Models they may require further development before they can As companies invest in new fabrication facilities to be integrated into high-volume manufacturing facilities. produce new technologies, the risks inherent in these This 10-year time scale is critical to the industry business investments continue to increase. In 1983, it because semiconductor companies are increasingly cost $200 million to manufacture 1,200-nanometer chips adopting smaller scale manufacturing process technolo- in a leading-edge semiconductor facility. In 1997, it cost gies. The largest and most capable semiconductor man- approximately $1.3 billion for a 350-nanometer facility, ufacturers are developing products based on small and in 2003, it cost as much as $3 billion for a 130- line-width technologies with the objective of reaching nanometer facility. Because of the large fixed costs of the market ahead of their competitors. New forecasts for fabrication facilities and the significant volumes and cap- semiconductor fabrication facilities by these leading-edge ital resources necessary to justify them, the number of companies show them to be two to three years ahead of firms with leading-edge technology has been restricted the rest of the market, and their lead appears to be grow- to the largest semiconductor firms in the world. By 2003, ing. Thus, Moore’s law continues to reflect and influence even firms in the top 10 had to consider carefully where decision making in the semiconductor industry. and how to invest in facilities (Table 1). The key metric for the industry is feature size or line Tier 2 and 3 firms must have clear strategies or well width (i.e., the size of the wires embedded in the silicon defined market niches to compete in this arena. The to channel electrons). Leading-edge companies, such as decision to build a new facility or set up a laboratory Intel and TSMC, implemented 90-nanometer produc- must be based on business factors, such as which city or tion facilities in 2004; 65-nanometer processes are region in the United States or Germany or China offers expected to be in volume production by 2006. The the most money and the best incentives, what the mar- wholesale adoption of new technologies continues to kets are demanding, and the cost of capital to build a shift the industry’s center of gravity towards smaller and $1.5 to $3 billion facility. smaller process technologies, forcing leading older facil- The semiconductor foundry market, a model devel- ities to close as they become less and less cost effective. oped in the past decade, is made up of specialized con- However, companies that move away from the cutting tract manufacturers (foundries) that perform edge of high-volume manufacturing are finding business wafer-fabrication services for semiconductor companies models that continue to leverage older (500-nanometer that do not have fabrication facilities, integrated device and larger) processes for all electronic markets. manufacturers, and original equipment manufacturers.

TABLE 1 Top 10 Semiconductor Firms (in US$ millions)

2003 2000 1997

Intel $27,103 Intel $30,298 Intel $21,746

SAMSUNG Electronics $10,502 Toshiba $10,866 NEC $10,222

Renesas Technology $7,936 NEC $10,643 Motorola (Freescale) $8,067

Texas Instruments $7,410 Samsung $10,585 Texas Instruments $7,352

Toshiba $7,356 Texas Instruments $9,202 Toshiba $7,253

STMicroelectronics $7,180 STMicroelectronics $7,890 Hitachi $6,298

Infineon Technologies $6,864 Motorola (Freescale) $7,678 Samsung $5,856

NEC Electronics $6,312 Hitachi $7,286 Fujitsu $4,622

Motorola (Freescale) $4,628 Infineon Technologies $6,732 Philips Semiconductor $4,440

Philips Semiconductors $4,513 Micron Technology $6,314 STMicroelectronics $4,019

Source: Company reports, 2003. SPRING 2005 29

In the majority of cases, the customer creates a design engine, logic, input/output, memory, and so on. By for an integrated circuit and transmits it to the foundry, 2003, the intellectual property market had reached where it is fabricated on silicon wafers and delivered to critical mass, with several firms close to or exceeding the customer or another contract manufacturer for $100 million in sales (ARM-$175 million, Rambus- packaging, assembly, and testing. By 2003, the center of $118 million, and Synopsys-$82 million). gravity of the foundry market was in Asia with TSMC with $5.9 billion and UMC with $2.5 billion in rev- Conclusion enue, and IBM positioned as a strong technology devel- For several decades, the semiconductor industry has oper at $0.8 billion in revenue. been making significant adjustments to adapt to glob- The emergence of the foundry business model facili- alization, providing an instructive example for other tated the rapid increase in “fabless” start-up companies industries contemplating full-scale globalization. Both (i.e., companies that do not have their own fabrication semiconductor production and consumption have facilities), which no longer had to raise enough capital become global activities, with centers of excellence to build a facility. By definition, the fabless sector is spread across the world. The coveted advantages of highly dynamic, with many start-ups, many failures, and having a modern semiconductor facility in one’s com- a few companies fortunate enough to hit on a successful munity has led local governments around the world product or emerging market and “ride the wave” as long to provide semiconductor firms with increasing finan- as they can. Predicting which fabless companies will be cial and infrastructure incentives to build new facilities winners is all but impossible. Nevertheless, the fabless in their locales. Semiconductor firms seeking to mini- model is successful, and the growth of fabless companies mize their risks for these investments in large facilities as a whole is likely to continue and to outpace the are negotiating extensively with flexible, responsive general semiconductor market. By 2003, six fabless local governments. semiconductor firms had exceeded $1 billion in sales At the same time, semiconductor firms continue to (Qualcomm, NVIDIA, Broadcom, Xilinx, ATI Tech, develop a technology pipeline that complements the and MediaTek Inc.) current infrastructure, as well as newer approaches, such The intellectual property industry complements the as the fabless and intellectual-property business models. integrated, foundry, and fabless industries, providing The flexibility shown by the industry in the pursuit of solutions to issues related to specific products. Intellec- end markets, collaborations with partners and govern- tual property has been developed for specific process ments, and the leveraging of technology are grounds for technologies for chip modules, such as the compute optimism about the future of the semiconductor industry. The 30 BRIDGE

NAE News and Notes

NAE Newsmakers

Zdenek P. Bazant, McCormick NEC C&C Award for Lifetime Courtland Perkins, past presi- School Professor and W.P. Murphy Achievement in Computer Science dent, NAE, is the 2004 recipient of Professor of Civil Engineering and and Engineering. The Foundation the Daniel Guggenheim Medal. Materials Science at Northwestern for C&C Promotion was established The award is jointly sponsored by University, received the Lifetime to encourage and support technolog- the American Institute of Aero- Achievement Award from the Illi- ical study and development related nautics and Astronautics, American nois Structural Engineering Section to the integration of computers and Society of Mechanical Engineers, of ASCE (American Society of communications technologies, or AHS International, and Society of Civil Engineers). C&C. The presentation was made Automotive Engineers. Dr. Perkins Charles Elachi, director of the Jet at a gala event to mark the 20th was honored for “outstanding con- Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, anniversary of the award on January tributions to aeronautics in research California, received the NASA 26, 2005, in Tokyo, Japan. and teaching in stability and control Outstanding Leadership Medal for Jack Keller, chief executive offi- and superlative leadership at the “outstanding leadership of the Jet cer, Keller-Bliesner Engineering, has national and international levels.” Propulsion Laboratory, whose legacy been named by Scientific American as Dr. Perkins was president of NAE of excellence in planetary explo- one of the world’s 50 leading con- from 1975 to 1983. ration continues with the awe- tributors to science and technology The National Academy of Sci- inspiring Spirit and Opportunity for the benefit of society. Dr. Keller ences (NAS) will honor Elbert L. missions to Mars.” was recognized for designing low- Rutan, president and CEO, Scaled Herbert Gleiter, professor at the cost, small-scale irrigation and Composites LLC, Mojave, Califor- Research Center Karlsruhe, Insti- water-conservation systems that nia, with the NAS Award in Aero- tute of Nanotechnology, recently have boosted harvests for farmers in nautical Engineering. The $15,000 received the Husun Lee Lecture developing countries. prize is awarded every five years for Award of the Chinese Academy of James K. Mitchell, University distinguished contributions to aero- Science. Distinguished Professor Emeritus, nautical engineering. Mr. Rutan was Mary L. Good, Donaghey Uni- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and chosen “for leadership in engineering versity Professor and dean, Don- State University, was selected by design and construction of Space- aghey College of Information ASCE Geo-Institute to receive the ShipOne, Voyager, and other success- Science and Systems Engineering, 2004 H. Bolton Seed Medal for ful experimental aircraft.” The award University of Arkansas at Little “contributions to the fundamental will be presented on May 2 at a cere- Rock, received the lifetime achieve- understanding and professional mony in Washington, D.C., during ment Vannevar Bush Award. Dr. practice of geotechnical and geo- the NAS 142nd annual meeting. Good was recognized for “her environmental engineering.” Jerry M. Woodall, professor, achievements as an educator and Eugene W. Myers, professor in School of Electrical and Computer industrial research manager. An the Department of Electrical and Engineering, Purdue University, is extraordinary statesperson, a distin- Computer Science, University of the recipient of the Institute of Elec- guished public servant, and a California, Berkeley, won the Max trical and Electronics Engineers remarkable scientist, she has con- Planck Research Prize from the (IEEE) 2005 Jun-ichi Nichizawa tributed broadly to the understand- Alexander von Humboldt Founda- Medal for “pioneering contributions ing and promotion of the value of tion and the Max Planck Society. to the liquid-phase epitaxy in the science and technology.” Dr. Myers received $900,000 to pro- GaAs/AlGaAS systems, including John L. Hennessy, president of mote international cooperation in applications to photonic and elec- Stanford University, received the bioinformatics. tronic devices.” SPRING 2005 31

From the Home Secretary

Second, the deliberations of the the number of slots allocated to each Committee on Membership committee varies, all peer commit- (COM), which makes the final tees are urged to consider only the decisions about which candidates quality of nominees in determining appear on the ballot, are also confi- which ones to forward to COM for dential. The environment in which consideration. I believe that the the committee operates must peer committees have been careful encourage frank and open discus- to follow this procedure. sion. Divulging information about I want to reiterate that careful those discussions makes it difficult screening has been done in assem- W. Dale Compton for committee members to maintain bling the names that appear on the the openness that is critical to the ballot. I must, therefore, take issue Colleagues: I want to share with successful operation of this commit- with the practice of sending letters you some of my concerns about tee. I encourage members to refrain to members encouraging them to recent activities related to our elec- from asking about discussions that vote for or against a given candi- tion processes. NAE prides itself on have taken place in the committee, date, to vote for candidates from a being an honorific society and main- and I encourage committee mem- given geographical area, or to vote taining the highest standards for the bers to maintain the confidentiality for certain candidates because they election of members. To this end, we of the discussions. might join a particular section when have followed a number of proce- Third, the election process in- elected. I find these practices to be dures that have stood the test of volves several steps, beginning with at variance with our high standards time. My intent is to encourage the the receipt of nominations and let- and encourage members not to continuation of these procedures. ters of recommendations. The NAE indulge in them. I hope we contin- First, the entire election process is Council, usually at its August meet- ue to follow our carefully crafted sys- confidential, that is, not open to ing, establishes the number of slots tem to ensure quality and do not try individuals who are not members of available to the peer committees to impose personal opinions on the the academy. I feel certain that and the number of at-large slots process. Each of us can express an many of you know of instances to be filled by the COM. The num- opinion by voting for or against when confidentiality has been com- ber of slots allocated to each individuals on the ballot. promised. If someone asks you for a peer committee is influenced by nomination, I encourage you to tell several factors: the number of nom- him (or her) politely that the inees assigned to each peer commit- process is confidential and is han- tee; the distribution of nominees dled by active academy members. I among the work sectors; the age W. Dale Compton encourage you to ensure the confi- of nominees; and the number of Home Secretary dentiality of your nominations and nominees from underrepresented recommendations. groups in the academy. Although The 32 BRIDGE

NAE Announces Million-Dollar Challenge to Provide Safe Drinking Water

On February 1, NAE announced levels of arsenic is not a major prob- As a sustainable technology, the the establishment of the Grainger lem in the United States where system must also be within the Challenge Prize for Sustainable many communities have the manufacturing capabilities of a Development, a $1 million prize for resources to install expensive, cen- developing country and must not the development of a practical tech- tralized water treatment facilities. degrade other water quality charac- nology that can prevent the poison- “Different solutions are required in teristics or introduce pathogens. ing of people throughout the world the developing world, and the solu- Historically, prizes have stimu- from arsenic contamination in their tion has to work in the field,” lated interest in finding creative drinking water. Arsenic contamina- explained Alden Henderson of the approaches to engineering chal- tion affects tens of millions of U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances lenges. Examples include aviation people, especially in developing and Disease Registry. “The idea of prizes, such as the Orteig Prize won countries where existing treatment sustainability is to offer communi- by Charles Lindbergh and the recent technologies are too expensive for ties choices and an opportunity to Ansari X-Prize for the builder(s) widespread use. The prize will be have a hand in finding a solution.” of a private spaceship. “A challenge awarded for the development of a “Sustainable development is not just prize does more than just reward an small-scale, inexpensive technique about conservation and the wise use individual for achieving a technical for reducing arsenic levels in drink- of the Earth’s resources, but also goal,” Wulf explained. “It also fo- ing water. about improving the quality of life cuses the talents of a particular com- A quarter of the population of for all people,” said NAE President munity on solving a problem.” Bangladesh drinks water from some Wm. A. Wulf. The Grainger Challenge Prize for 10 million tube wells—a cheap, The goal of the Grainger Chal- Sustainable Development, made low-tech way of accessing ground- lenge Prize is to encourage the possible through the generous sup- water. Most of the tube wells were development of a household- or port of the Grainger Foundation, is built with international aid to community-scale water treatment administered and managed by NAE. provide an alternative to bacteria- system that can remove arsenic More information about the tainted surface water. Unfortu- from contaminated groundwater. Grainger Challenge Prize for Sus- nately, these wells frequently tap The system must have a low life- tainable Development is available at into aquifers contaminated by cycle cost and must be robust, . arsenic from natural sources. reliable, easily maintainable, so- Treating drinking water with high cially acceptable, and affordable. SPRING 2005 33

New Engineering Education Fellows

David P. Billington, Gordon Y.S. America Modern (Wiley, 1996). His and technology in society at the Wu Professor of Civil Engineering research interests include thin-shell Virginia Polytechnic Institute and at Princeton University, has been concrete structures, the history of State University in Blacksburg, and selected NAE 2005 Walter L. Robb technology, and scholarship for Juan Lucena, associate professor of Engineering Education Senior Fel- introductory courses in engineering. liberal arts and international studies low. During his 24-month appoint- at the Colorado School of Mines, ment, Billington will improve and Three Boeing Company Engi- Golden, Colorado, will engage in a expand instructional materials neering Education Senior Fellows joint project documenting interna- related to his highly acclaimed began 12-month terms on January 1. tional diversity in engineering and introductory engineering course, Each of them will issue a white developing assessments of learning “Engineering in the Modern paper and make an oral presentation outcomes in courses on practicing World,” for use by faculty at other at the CASEE annual meeting in engineering in an international institutions. The current version of October 2005. context. Their efforts will be docu- the course, which focuses on engi- Christine Grant, an associate pro- mented in the publication of a neering in a historical context, satis- fessor of chemical engineering at report and journal articles. fies university-wide requirements in North Carolina State University in Downey is the author or coauthor both history and science or technol- Raleigh, will focus on advancing the of three books, 15 refereed journal ogy at Princeton. About 40 percent success of engineering faculty mem- articles, and eight book chapters. He of the non-science liberal arts bers from underrepresented popula- is the 2004 recipient of the William majors at Princeton have enrolled in tions (e.g., African Americans, F. Wine Award for teaching excel- this course, significantly advancing Hispanics, Native Americans, and lence at Virginia Tech and a member the understanding of engineering women). She plans to work with of Virginia Tech Academy of Teach- among undergraduates. scholars from these populations to ing Excellence. He was elected a During the summers of 2005 and develop guidelines for faculty and fellow of the American Anthro- 2006, Billington and several col- administrators of all backgrounds in pological Association in 1993. leagues will offer workshops for mentoring future faculty. Grant is a Lucena is finishing a book on the selected faculty, who will then recipient of the 2003 Presidential history of U.S. policy making in sci- report their experiences using the Award for Excellence in Science ence and engineering education, course materials prepared by Billing- and Engineering Mentoring admin- researching the impact of globaliza- ton. Their papers will be included istered by the National Science tion on engineering education in in a report published at the end of Foundation (NSF) on behalf of the the United States and Europe, and Billington’s second year and pre- Executive Office of the President of coauthoring (with Downey) multi- sented at the annual meeting of the the United States and codirector of media modules on engineering cul- Center for the Advancement of the NSF Green Processing Research tures. He is also director of the Scholarship on Engineering Educa- Program. Her research is focused on McBride Honors Program in Public tion (CASEE). surface and interfacial science. She Affairs for Engineers at the Col- Billington is the author of more is a frequent speaker on technical orado School of Mines. than 160 journal articles and eight topics before national and interna- More information about CASEE books, including The Innovators: tional audiences. is available at . The 34 BRIDGE

New Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellows Join Program Office

Nancy Adams John Chase Eileen Gentleman

Nancy Adams will be awarded John Chase is working on an his free time, he enjoys reading, her Ph.D. in geology from the Uni- M.A. in international science and sailing, and hiking and is an active versity of Hawaii in May 2005. Her technology policy at George Wash- volunteer with the Boy Scouts of dissertation work has concentrated ington University (GW). In May America. on the exsolution of volatiles during 2002, he received a B.S. in com- Eileen Gentleman is working the catastrophic eruption that cre- puter science and Japanese language with the NAE Technological Liter- ated the Valley of Ten Thousand and literature from the University of acy Program. Eileen expects to earn Smokes in Alaska. Nancy received Michigan, which included one year her Ph.D. in biomedical engineering an M.A. in geology from Indiana of study at the University of Tokyo from Tulane University in May State University and a B.S. in geo- in Japan. Between graduation and 2005. She received her B.S. from sciences from Trinity University. enrollment as a graduate student at Tulane in the same area. Eileen is While working on her master’s GW, John was an assistant language an insatiable science buff with basic degree, she studied large-scale vol- teacher with the Japanese Exchange knowledge in everything from astro- canic eruptions in Peru. Nancy pre- and Teaching (JET) Program. He physics to zoology, which she hopes viously worked as a project geologist taught English and helped develop will help in her work at NAE. She for Environmental Resources Man- English-language curriculum at the currently works part-time as a mas- agement where her work included elementary and middle-school lev- ter tutor and curriculum developer monitoring bioremediation sites, els in Kanasago-machi, Ibaraki-ken, for Test Masters, LLC, and as a mas- assisting with well installations, and Japan. During his two years in ter tutor for Tutors of Greater New sampling groundwater. Japan, John participated in various Orleans, LLC. She also teaches test At NAE, she is working on pro- youth-orientated community pro- preparation for Kaplan Educational jects for the Center for the grams and coordinated interna- Centers and lectures on test-taking Advancement of Scholarship on tional exchange activities. After strategies. After graduate school, Engineering Education (CASEE). completing his education, he hopes Eileen plans to work as a postdoc- She hopes her fellowship at the to pursue a career in the public toral fellow and then take a faculty National Academies will provide sector advocating policies based position at a major research univer- first-hand experience in policy- on sound science. sity. She hopes her fellowship at related work. Nancy enjoys swim- At NAE, John is working with NAE will give her a chance to be ming and surfing, but looks forward Randy Atkins and Cecile Gonzalez involved in science from “the other to her first real winter in five years. on media and public relations. In side of the lab bench.” SPRING 2005 35

NAE, Northrop Grumman, and Penn State College of Engineering Team Up to Improve the EngineerGirl! Website

A freshman course at Pennsylva- ety. In the fourth quarter of 2004, teachers and students on building a nia State University, “Introduction the site received more than 4 million balloon-driven car based on prin- to Engineering Design,” exposes first- “hits” and 94,042 visits. Although ciples of mechanical engineering. year students to the engineering the target audience is middle-school The Best Engineering Design design process, including customer girls, research shows that teachers, Award went to a website featuring assessments, product specifications girls and women of all ages, and some multiple projects that incorporated development, concept generation, boys and men also use the site. principles of architectural, civil, and concept selection, and embodiment The more than 100 student teams chemical engineering. The projects design. This year, student teams were in the Penn State course were com- were a crossword puzzle on engi- asked to market research, design, peting for four awards: (1) best neering majors and instructions for prototype, and field test material to design process; (2) best design com- building a structure from gumdrops, be added to the NAE EngineerGirl! munication; (3) best engineering making rock candy, and making website (http://www.engineergirl.org) design; and (4) most innovative soda pop. to stimulate interest among middle- design. Students were required to The winner of the Most Inno- school girls in pursuing careers in produce electronic materials and to vative Design Award showed how engineering. The corporate sponsor prototype/model their materials and principles of electrical and elec- of the course for this year, Northrop user test them. At the end of the tronic engineering could be used to Grumman, specified the assignment. semester, 12 teams (selected by class build a simple, inexpensive burglar The NAE EngineerGirl! website, vote) demonstrated their projects at alarm with a buzzer that turns on the only website of its kind, is an Engineering Design Project Exhi- when the door is opened and designed to inform girls about the bition. The winning projects were remains on when the door is closed full range of engineering careers. selected by two teams of judges from again and an arming switch that The site brings together descriptions NAE, Northrop Grumman, and turns the system on and off. The of women engineers, provides real- Penn State. device operates on a single 9-volt world examples of how women have The winner of the Best Design battery at very low amperage and become engineers, and provides Process Award provided instructions can be adapted to protect a window information about gender equity and for building and safely launching a or any object. ideas for introducing engineering rocket based on aeronautical and The winning designs will be curricula for parents, teachers, and chemical engineering principles. incorporated into the EngineerGirl! counselors. The main theme of the The Best Design Communication website. Project designs that did not site is that girls who become engi- Award was given to a flash-driven win an award may also provide new neers can make a difference in soci- website with instructions for material for the site. The 36 BRIDGE

Ralph J. Cicerone Elected President of the National Academy of Sciences

Illinois. He has conducted research Irvine from 1994 to 1998 and was on the plasma physics of Earth’s named chancellor in April 1998. ionosphere, the chemistry of the He also holds the Daniel G. Aldrich ozone layer, radiative forcing of cli- Jr. Chair in Earth System Science mate change, and sources of atmos- and is a professor of chemistry. pheric methane and of methyl halide Dr. Cicerone was elected to the gases. He is the recipient of the James NAS in 1990 and was a member of B. Macelwane and Roger Revelle the governing Council from 1996 to medals from the American Geophys- 1999. He has served on more than ical Union, and the Bower Award 40 NAS and National Research Ralph J. Cicerone and Prize for Achievement in Sci- Council committees since 1984; in ence from the Franklin Institute. His 2001, he chaired the landmark Ralph J. Cicerone, chancellor of work has also been recognized by the study, Climate Change Science: the University of California Irvine United Nations. An Analysis of Some Key Questions, campus, will succeed Bruce Alberts as Dr. Cicerone has served on the conducted at the request of the of July 1, 2005, when his second six- faculty at the University of Michi- White House. He is currently a year term as NAS president ends. An gan and as a research scientist at member of the Committee on atmospheric chemist, Dr. Cicerone both the Scripps Institution of Women in Science and Engineer- received his bachelor’s degree from Oceanography and the National ing, Advisory Board for the the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- Center for Atmospheric Research. Koshland Science Museum, and nology and his master’s and doc- He was dean of physical sciences at Advisory Committee for the Divi- toral degrees from the University of the University of California at sion on Earth and Life Studies.

Manhattan College Recognizes Alumni Elected to NAE

Manhattan College, a small pri- been elected members of NAE. At L. Tomasetti, three recent NAE vate college in Riverdale, New the dedication ceremony in Sep- inductees, brought the number of York, has established the William tember 2000, 11 alumni/ae were NAE members to 14. Dr. George J. Scala Academy Room in the honored. On Wednesday, Decem- Bugliarello, NAE foreign secretary, School of Engineering to recognize ber 1, 2004, James W. Cooley, represented the academy at the distinguished alumni who have Thomas E. Romesser, and Richard ceremony. SPRING 2005 37

Message from the Vice President and Development Committee Chair

the leading sources of support, fol- society. And this campaign will lowed by foundations and corpora- enable NAE to improve programs tions. Unrestricted support totaled that cover engineering education, $10.1 million; $22.4 million was public understanding of engineering, designated for specific projects; and diversity, frontiers of engineering $22.2 million was given to NAE’s research, ethics, and other areas. endowment. The campaign was just a begin- This is an opportune time to step ning, however. There are many back and consider what we have more opportunities in the program- accomplished and where we go from matic areas listed above, as well as in Sheila E. Widnall here. First, the campaign will enable areas for new projects and studies. NAE to pursue more projects inde- To increase NAE’s flexibility and Shaping the Future: The Campaign pendent of government sponsor- independence and take advantage of for the National Academies ended ship. This is a valuable capability these opportunities, the unrestricted on December 31, 2004. With the in a rapidly changing world where endowment must continue to grow. generous support of more than disruptions such as 9/11 require an You will hear more about NAE’s pri- 1,000 NAE members and many immediate response and where pri- orities in the coming months, but, friends of the academy, as well as orities for the engineering enter- for now, please join me in celebrat- foundations and corporations, NAE prise may not yet be recognized by ing the accomplishments of the raised $54.8 million, exceeding our the federal government. The cam- campaign and the work NAE per- $50 million campaign goal. To- paign has also helped to create a forms for America. The academy is gether, we continue to strengthen culture of philanthropy in NAE, grateful for the time so many of you NAE’s finances and independence. which bodes well for privately have freely given and the financial Individual donors, the majority funded future projects that are support you have provided. We of whom are NAE members, were significant for the well-being of remain dedicated to providing authoritative, unbiased advice to Contributions by Source Contributions by Allocation the nation and developing the resources that enable us to do so. Individuals $26,968,251 Unrestricted $10,166,151

Foundations $14,567,059 Projects $22,402,459

Corporations $11,233,117 Endowment $22,219,241 Sheila E. Widnall Other $ 2,019,424 NAE Vice President NAE Development TOTAL: $54,787,851 TOTAL: $54,787,851 Committee Chair The 38 BRIDGE

National Kenneth A. Jonsson Andreas Acrivos Dale D. Myers Olga Kirchmayer William F. Allen Jr. Robert M. Nerem Academy of Frederick A. Klingenstein Gene M. Amdahl Ronald P. Nordgren Engineering Daniel E. Koshland Jr. William A. Anders Simon Ostrach William W. Lang Paul Baran Lawrence T. Papay 2004 Private Contributions Tillie K. Lubin Thomas D. Barrow Zack T. Pate Whitney MacMillan Roy H. Beaton Michael P. Ramage Einstein Society William W. McGuire Elwyn R. Berlekamp George B. Rathmann In recognition of members Ruben F. Mettler Franklin H. Blecher Eberhardt Rechtin and friends who have made Dane A. Miller Erich Bloch Charles Eli Reed cumulative lifetime contribu- G. William Miller Harry E. Bovay Jr. George A. Roberts tions of $100,000 or more George P. Mitchell Lewis M. Branscomb Henry M. Rowan to the National Academies. Ambrose K. Monell George Bugliarello Brian H. Rowe Names in bold are NAE Richard M. Morrow Spencer H. Bush Warren G. Schlinger members. Philip Needleman William Cavanaugh III Roland W. Schmitt Gerda K. Nelson Robert A. Charpie Robert C. Seamans Jr. John Abelson Ralph S. O’Connor John M. Cioffi H. Guyford Stever Bruce Alberts Peter O’Donnell Jr. W. D. Compton Morris Tanenbaum Jack R. Anderson Kenneth H. Olsen Stephen H. Crandall Peter B. Teets John A. Armstrong Charles J. Pankow* Ruth M. Davis Leo J. Thomas Holt Ashley Jack S. Parker W. Kenneth Davis Gary L. Tooker Norman R. Augustine C. Kumar N. Patel E. Linn Draper Jr. Ivan M. Viest William F. Ballhaus Sr. Percy Pollard Mildred S. Dresselhaus Andrew J. Viterbi Eleanor F. Barschall Robert A. Pritzker Robert J. Eaton Willis H. Ware Jordan J. Baruch Allen E. Puckett Daniel J. Fink Johannes Weertman Warren L. Batts Simon Ramo Robert C. Forney Julia R. Weertman Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. David Richards Donald N. Frey Robert H. Wertheim C. Gordon Bell Walter L. Robb Richard L. Garwin Albert R. C. Westwood Elkan R. Blout Hinda G. Rosenthal William H. Gates III Robert M. White David G. Bradley John W. Rowe Martin E. Glicksman Sheila E. Widnall Sydney Brenner Fritz J. Russ* William E. Gordon Edward Woll James McConnell Clark William J. Rutter Robert W. Gore Roman W. DeSanctis Jillian Sackler Paul E. Gray Catalyst Society George C. Eads Bernard G. Sarnat Robert J. Hermann In recognition of NAE mem- George M.C. Fisher Sara Lee Schupf David A. Hodges bers and friends who con- Harold K. Forsen Ted Turner Edward E. Hood Jr. tributed $10,000 or more William L. Friend Leslie L. Vadasz Edward G. Jefferson to the National Academies Eugene Garfield P. Roy Vagelos Trevor O. Jones in 2004. T. H. Geballe Alan M. Voorhees Robert E. Kahn William T. Golden Wm. A. Wulf Thomas Kailath NAE Members Bernard M. Gordon Alejandro Zaffaroni James N. Krebs John A. Armstrong Jerome H. Grossman John W. Landis Holt Ashley William M. Haney III Golden Bridge Society Gerald D. Laubach Jordan J. Baruch The William R. Jackson In recognition of NAE mem- Frank W. Luerssen Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. Family bers who have made cumula- Kenneth G. McKay C. Gordon Bell Robert L. James tive contributions of $20,000 Gordon E. Moore Elwyn R. Berlekamp Anita K. Jones to $99,999 or planned gifts Van C. Mow Harry E. Bovay Jr. Thomas V. Jones of any size. George E. Mueller George Bugliarello

* Recently deceased SPRING 2005 39

John M. Cioffi William H. Gates III Charter Society Carl de Boor Robert J. Eaton Joseph W. Goodman In recognition of NAE mem- Pablo G. Debenedetti George M. C. Fisher Irwin M. Jacobs bers and friends who con- Raymond F. Decker William L. Friend Thomas V. Jones tributed $1,000 to $2,499 Thomas B. Deen Louis V. Gerstner Jr. Robert E. Kahn to the National Academies Gerald P. Dinneen Robert W. Gore Paul G. Kaminski in 2004. Nicholas M. Donofrio Robert J. Hermann Gerald D. Laubach Elisabeth M. Drake Anita K. Jones David M. Lederman NAE Members James J. Duderstadt Oliver D. Kingsley Alan M. Lovelace Malcolm J. Abzug Edsel D. Dunford William W. Lang Norman A. Nadel Andreas Acrivos Delores M. Etter Ruben F. Mettler Ronald P. Nordgren Robert Adler Robert R. Everett Richard M. Morrow Jack S. Parker Mihran S. Agbabian Thomas E. Everhart Robert M. Nerem Michael P. Ramage Clarence R. Allen Thomas V. Falkie Lawrence T. Papay Morris Tanenbaum John C. Angus Michael Field Donald E. Petersen Leo J. Thomas Wm. H. Arnold Daniel J. Fink Robert A. Pritzker David W. Thompson Thomas W. Asmus Robert E. Fischell Allen E. Puckett John W. Townsend Jr. Ken Austin Edith M. Flanigen Eberhardt Rechtin Edward Woll Clyde N. Baker Jr. G. David Forney Jr. Walter L. Robb A. Thomas Young Earl E. Bakken Robert C. Forney Henry M. Rowan William F. Ballhaus Jr. Harold K. Forsen Challenge Society Warren G. Schlinger William F. Banholzer Charles A. Fowler H. Guyford Stever In recognition of NAE mem- David K. Barton Yuan-Cheng B. Fung Peter B. Teets bers and friends who con- Arden L. Bement Jr. Theodore V. Galambos Andrew J. Viterbi tributed $2,500 to $4,999 Wilson V. Binger Elsa M. Garmire Alan M. Voorhees to the National Academies Franklin H. Blecher Charles M. Geschke Johannes Weertman in 2004. David B. Bogy Alexander F. Giacco Julia R. Weertman Oliver C. Boileau Eduardo D. Glandt NAE Members Albert R.C. Westwood Seth Bonder George J. Gleghorn Wm. A. Wulf Lew Allen Jr. H. K. Bowen Arthur L. Goldstein Craig R. Barrett Andrew Brown Mary L. Good Friends Thomas D. Barrow Harold Brown Paul E. Gray Robert W. Lang Roy H. Beaton James R. Burnett Paul R. Gray John Wall Donald C. Burnham Edward J. Campbell Edward E. Hagenlocker Joseph V. Charyk Robert P. Caren Delon Hampton Rosette Society W. D. Compton Francois J. Castaing Wesley L. Harris In recognition of NAE mem- Stephen H. Crandall Corbett Caudill George N. Hatsopoulos bers and friends who con- William E. Gordon William Cavanaugh III Kenneth E. Haughton tributed $5,000 to $9,999 David A. Hodges Edmund Y.S. Chao Siegfried S. Hecker to the National Academies Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf Philip R. Clark Charles O. Holliday in 2004. Dale D. Myers Aaron Cohen Edward E. Hood Jr. Neil E. Paton Joseph M. Colucci Edward E. Horton NAE Members George B. Rathmann Harry M. Conger George W. Jeffs William F. Allen Jr. Arnold F. Stancell Natalie W. Crawford David W. Johnson Jr. Paul Baran Raymond S. Stata Malcolm R. Currie G. Frank Joklik Barry W. Boehm Daniel I. C. Wang Lawrence B. Curtis Howard S. Jones Jr. Lance A. Davis Charles R. Cushing Thomas Kailath Friends E. Linn Draper Jr. Glen T. Daigger John G. Kassakian Thomas J. Engibous Kristine L. Bueche Lee L. Davenport Pradman P. Kaul Alexander Feiner Ruth A. David Theodore C. Kennedy The 40 BRIDGE

Jeong H. Kim William F. Powers Other Individual P. L. Thibaut Brian Leonard Kleinrock Donald E. Procknow Donors Peter R. Bridenbaugh Robert M. Koerner Edwin P. Przybylowicz In recognition of NAE mem- Corale L. Brierley Don R. Kozlowski Simon Ramo bers and friends who con- James A. Brierley James N. Krebs Eugene M. Rasmusson tributed up to $999 to the Frederick P. Brooks Jr. Lester C. Krogh Buddy D. Ratner National Academies in 2004. Harvey Brooks* Way Kuo Eric H. Reichl Rodney A. Brooks Charles C. Ladd Kenneth L. Reifsnider NAE Members Alan C. Brown Richard T. Lahey Jr. George A. Roberts H. Norman Abramson J. H. U. Brown James F. Lardner Bernard I. Robertson Jan D. Achenbach Randal E. Bryant James U. Lemke Anatol Roshko Ronald J. Adrian Jack E. Buffington Frederick J. Leonberger Gerald F. Ross William G. Agnew James D. Callen Carroll N. Letellier Brian H. Rowe Hadi A. Akeel Federico Capasso Mark J. Levin Andrew P. Sage Frances E. Allen Renso L. Caporali Kenneth Levy Steven B. Sample Charles A. Amann E. Dean Carlson Hans W. Liepmann Linda S. Sanford Betsy Ancker-Johnson Don B. Chaffin Frederick F. Ling Maxine L. Savitz John E. Anderson Douglas M. Chapin John G. Linvill Ronald V. Schmidt John G. Anderson Vernon L. Chartier Jack E. Little Roland W. Schmitt John L. Anderson Nai Y. Chen Frank W. Luerssen Henry G. Schwartz Jr. Frank F. Aplan Young-Kai Chen Thomas S. Maddock Robert C. Seamans Jr. David H. Archer Andrew R. Chraplyvy Alfred E. Mann John B. Slaughter Neil A. Armstrong Richard C. Chu David A. Markle Ernest T. Smerdon James R. Asay Paul Citron Craig Marks Robert J. Spinrad Irving L. Ashkenas John L. Cleasby Albert A. Mathews Joel S. Spira David Atlas William A. Clevenger James F. Mathis Robert F. Sproull Jamal J. Azar Louis F. Coffin Jr. Robert D. Maurer Richard J. Stegemeier Arthur B. Baggeroer Richard A. Conway Roger L. McCarthy Z. J. John Stekly Donald W. Bahr Esther M. Conwell Sanford N. McDonnell Stanley D. Stookey W. O. Baker George E. Cooper Richard A. Meserve Ronald D. Sugar Rodica A. Baranescu Fernando J. Corbato James J. Mikulski John E. Swearingen Grigory I. Barenblatt Ross B. Corotis James K. Mitchell Paul E. Torgersen John W. Batchelor Dale R. Corson Benjamin F. Montoya Charles H. Townes Robert F. Bauer Edgar M. Cortright Duncan T. Moore Hardy W. Trolander Howard R. Baum Henry Cox John R. Moore Richard H. Truly Richard T. Baum* John H. Crawford C. Dan Mote Jr. Jan A. Veltrop Zdenek P. Bazant Douglass D. Crombie Cherry A. Murray Robert H. Wagoner Robert Ray Beebe David E. Crow Thomas M. Murray William L. Wearly Georges Belfort James W. Dally William D. Nix Paul K. Weimer* Leo L. Beranek Edward E. David Jr. Franklin M. Orr Jr. Willis S. White Jr. Philip A. Bernstein Delbert E. Day Robert J. Parks Paul A. Witherspoon David P. Billington Morton M. Denn Zack T. Pate M. Gordon Wolman Nicolaas Bloembergen George E. Dieter Celestino R. Pennoni Eugene Wong Jack L. Blumenthal Frederick H. Dill Thomas K. Perkins Edgar S. Woolard Jr. Alfred Blumstein Ralph L. Disney William J. Perry Richard N. Wright Geoffrey Boothroyd Steven D. Dorfman Dennis J. Picard Alfred A. Yee George H. Born Albert A. Dorman Frank E. Pickering Abe M. Zarem Lillian C. Borrone Irwin Dorros John W. Poduska Sr. Earl H. Dowell

* Recently deceased *Recently deceased *Recently deceased SPRING 2005 41

T. D. Dudderar John L. Hennessy Robert G. Loewy David Okrent Floyd Dunn Arthur H. Heuer Joseph C. Logue Daniel A. Okun Peter S. Eagleson James Hillier Andrew J. Lovinger Donald R. Olander James Economy John P. Hirth Cecil Lue-Hing Roy E. Olson Lewis S. Edelheit William C. Hittinger John W. Lyons Charles R. O’Melia Helen T. Edwards Chih-Ming Ho Malcolm MacKinnon III Robert S. O’Neil Christine A. Ehlig- David G. Hoag William J. MacKnight Anthanassios Z. Economides Thom J. Hodgson Christopher L. Magee Panagiotopoulos Bruce R. Ellingwood Lester A. Hoel I. Harry Mandil Donald R. Paul Joel S. Engel David C. Hogg Robert W. Mann Harold W. Paxton Fazil Erdogan Charles H. Holley William F. Marcuson II P. H. Peckham John V. Evans Berthold K. Horn Robert C. Marini Alan W. Pense Lawrence B. Evans Stanley H. Horowitz Hans Mark John H. Perepezko James R. Fair Thomas P. Hughes Hudson Matlock Kurt E. Petersen Robert M. Fano Sheldon E. Isakoff Walter G. May Julia M. Phillips James A. Fay Akira Ishimaru Walter J. McCarthy Jr. Owen M. Phillips Robert E. Fenton Rakesh K. Jain Bramlette McClelland Thomas L. Phillips Essex E. Finney Jr. Robert B. Jansen John C. McDonald Robert Plonsey Millard S. Firebaugh Paul C. Jennings William McGuire Victor L. Poirier John W. Fisher Donald L. Johnson Kenneth G. McKay Michael Prats Gordon E. Forward Marshall G. Jones Ross E. McKinney William R. Prindle Gerard F. Fox Joseph M. Juran Alan L. McWhorter Ronald F. Probstein Eli Fromm John W. Kalb Eugene S. Meieran Nathan E. Promisel E. Montford Fucik Melvin F. Kanninen David Middleton Henry H. Rachford Jr. Douglas W. Fuerstenau Kristina B. Katsaros Angelo Miele Subbiah Ramalingam Mauricio Futran Raphael Katzen Warren F. Miller Jr. Joseph B. Reagan Zvi Galil James R. Katzer Marvin L. Minsky Robert H. Rediker Gerald E. Galloway Howard H. Kehrl Harold Mirels Cordell Reed Ronald L. Geer C. Judson King Sanjit K. Mitra Elsa Reichmanis Elmer G. Gilbert Albert S. Kobayashi Dade W. Moeller Robert O. Reid James Gillin Leonard J. Koch Linn F. Mollenauer John R. Rice Norman A. Gjostein U. Fred Kocks D. Bruce Montgomery Herbert H. Richardson Lawrence R. Glosten Bernard L. Koff Francis C. Moon Jerome G. Rivard Earnest F. Gloyna Max A. Kohler Richard K. Moore Lloyd M. Robeson Richard J. Goldstein Robert G. Kouyoumjian Joel Moses Theodore Rockwell Solomon W. Golomb James M. Lafferty Gerard A. Mourou Alton D. Romig Roy W. Gould James L. Lammie E. P. Muntz Arye Rosen George S. Graff Benson J. Lamp Earll M. Murman Kenneth M. Rosen William A. Gross Louis J. Lanzerotti Gerald Nadler William B. Russel George I. Haddad Chung K. Law Hyla S. Napadensky Murray B. Sachs Jerrier A. Haddad Alan Lawley Albert Narath Peter W. Sauer Carl W. Hall Edward D. Lazowska Marshall I. Nathan Thorndike Saville Jr. William J. Hall Margaret A. LeMone John Neerhout Jr. William R. Schowalter Howard R. Hart Jr. Johanna M. H. Levelt Stuart O. Nelson Frank J. Schuh Julius J. Harwood Sengers Joseph H. Newman Lyle H. Schwartz Alan J. Heeger Herbert S. Levinson Roberta J. Nichols Mischa Schwartz Adam Heller Paul A. Libby Wesley L. Nyborg Willard F. Searle Jr. Martin Hellman Peter W. Likins James G. O’Connor Hratch G. Semerjian Robert W. Hellwarth Barbara H. Liskov J. Tinsley Oden Robert J. Serafin The 42 BRIDGE

F. Stan Settles Irving T. Waaland S. D. Bechtel Jr. Presidents’ Circle Michael R. Sfat Harvey A. Wagner Foundation Donors from the private sector Maurice E. Shank Steven J. Wallach Bell Family Foundation whose contributions are dedi- Don W. Shaw C. Michael Walton The Boeing Company cated to promoting greater Herman E. Sheets Rong-Yu Wan ChevronTexaco awareness of science and tech- Freeman D. Shepherd John D. Warner Corporation nology in our society and a bet- Reuel Shinnar Darsh T. Wasan College House Enterprises ter understanding of the work Daniel P. Siewiorek Warren M. Washington LLC of the National Academies. William H. Silcox Walter J. Weber Jr. Consolidated Edison Com- Arnold H. Silver Robert J. Weimer pany of New York Inc. Jack R. Anderson Marwan Simaan Sheldon Weinig Cummins Inc. Barbara Barrett Richard P. Simmons Max T. Weiss C.R. Cushing & Co. Inc. Thomas D. Barrow Peter G. Simpkins Irwin Welber The Dow Chemical Warren L. Batts W. David Sincoskie Jasper A. Welch Jr. Company Patricia Beckman Jack M. Sipress Jack H. Westbrook Eastman Chemical Berkley Bedell William A. Sirignano John J. Wetzel II Company Diane Bernstein R. W. Skaggs Marvin H. White Eastman Kodak Company E. Milton Bevington Franklin F. Snyder Richard N. White ExxonMobil Foundation E. Cabell Brand J. Edward Snyder Jr. Robert M. White (DC) The Ford Foundation Malin Burnham Soroosh Sorooshian Robert M. White (PA) Gannett Foundation Dan W. Burns Dale F. Stein Robert V. Whitman GE Foundation Fletcher L. Byrom Gunter Stein Robert H. Widmer General Electric Company Louis W. Cabot Dean E. Stephan Dennis F. Wilkie General Motors Wiley N. Caldwell George Stephanopoulos Ward O. Winer Corporation George W. Carmany III Kenneth H. Stokoe II John J. Wise Hewlett-Packard Company James McConnell Clark Henry E. Stone Holden W. Withington Intel Corporation Dollie Cole Richard G. Strauch Savio L. Woo W. M. Keck Foundation Nancy E. Conrad Gerald B. Stringfellow Richard D. Woods Lockheed Martin Howard E. Cox Jr. James M. Symons David A. Woolhiser Corporation Charles R. Denham Simon M. Sze Eli Yablonovitch Microsoft Corporation Charles W. Duncan Jr. Rodney J. Tabaczynski Laurence R. Young Northrop Grumman George C. Eads Charles E. Taylor Ben T. Zinn Corporation John Everets Jr. Daniel M. Tellep Ohio University James L. Ferguson Lewis M. Terman Friends Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. John Brooks Fuqua R. B. Thompson Deirdre R. Meldrum PJM Interconnection Raymond E. Galvin James M. Tien Douglas H. Pearson L.L.C. Robert W. Galvin Matthew V. Tirrell Joy Szekely Project Lead the Way Eugene Garfield Neil E. Todreas Richard Van Leer QUALCOMM Inc. Jack M. Gill Myron Tribus Raytheon Company Ruth H. Grobstein Alvin W. Trivelpiece Corporations, Founda- The San Diego Jerome H. Grossman Howard S. Turner tions, and Other Foundation Norman Hackerman Moshe Y. Vardi Organizations Southern Nuclear William M. Haney III Gregory S. Vassell Air Products & Chemicals Operating Company Inc. Samuel F. Heffner Jr. Charles M. Vest Inc. Southwest Research Jane Hirsh Walter G. Vincenti American Electric Power Institute M. Blakeman Ingle Harold J. Vinegar Company Inc. Stratford Foundation Christopher Ireland Raymond Viskanta Applied Materials Inc. The Teagle Foundation Robert L. James John J. Vithayathil ATOFINA Chemicals Inc. Inc. Howard W. Johnson Thomas H. Vonder Haar The Baruch Fund Xerox Corporation Kenneth A. Jonsson SPRING 2005 43

Alice Kandell Burton J. McMurtry Peter O’Donnell Jr. Collin W. Scarborough William F. Kieschnick Charles H. McTier Jack S. Parker Sara Lee Schupf William I. Koch Kamal K. Midha Robert A. Pritzker H.R. Shepherd Jill Howell Kramer Hon. G. William Miller Allen E. Puckett Georges C.St. Laurent Jr. John H. Krehbiel Jr. George P. Mitchell George B. Rathmann Deborah Szekely Gerald D. Laubach Joe F. Moore Peter H. Raven Thomas J. Tierney Richard J. Mahoney Robert W. Morey Jr. John S. Reed Robert H. Waterman Robert H. Malott David T. Morgenthaler Charles W. Robinson Kenneth E. Weg Thomas A. Mann Darla Mueller Neil R. Rolde W. Hall Wendel Jr. Ernest Mario Dianne Ferrell Neal Hinda G. Rosenthal Susan E. Whitehead Davis Masten Patricia S. Nettleship Jillian Sackler Margaret S. Wilson John F. McDonnell Ralph S. O’Connor Harvey S. Sadow

Giving Societies to Honor Donors

mailings. They will also be recognized in annual reports and invited to special events. If a donor wishes to remain anonymous, this wish will be honored. For information on becoming a member of the Einstein Society or Heritage Society, please contact the Office of Development at 202-334-2431.

Maquette of the Einstein Monument. Heritage Society medal. One knows from daily life that one NAE and the National Acade- Washington, D.C. The Einstein exists for other people—first of all for mies announce the creation of the Society honorees will be recognized those upon whose smiles and well-being Einstein Society and the Heritage at annual meetings and by the Society to honor donors. National Academies’ Presidents’ Cir- our own happiness is wholly dependent, The Einstein Society recognizes cle, and their names will be listed on and then for the many, unknown to us, members and private donors who a plaque at the headquarters building to whose destinies we are bound by the have made cumulative lifetime in Washington, D.C., and in annual ties of sympathy. donations of $100,000 or more reports and donor-recognition issues to NAE, National Academy of of academies publications. A hundred times every day I remind Sciences, Institute of Medicine, The Heritage Society of the myself that my inner and outer life are or National Research Council. In National Academies recognizes all based on the labors of other men, living appreciation of their exemplary com- members and friends who have con- mitment, members of the Einstein tributed to the future of the acade- and dead, and that I must exert myself Society will receive replicas of the mies through life income, bequest, in order to give in the same measure as original maquette of the Einstein and other estate and planned gifts. I have received and am still receiving. Monument created by sculptor Heritage Society members receive Robert Berks that stands on the front a medal bearing the likeness of —Albert Einstein lawn of the National Academies the National Academies building The World As I See It building on Constitution Avenue in in the nation’s capital and special The 44 BRIDGE

Class of 2005 Elected

In February, NAE elected 74 new Ken E. Arnold, senior executive Ilan Asriel Blech, president members and 10 foreign associates, vice president, AMEC Paragon (retired), Flexus Corporation, bringing the number of U.S. mem- Engineering Services, Houston, Pasadena, California. For contri- bers to 2,195 and the number of Texas. For contributions to the butions to analyses, character- foreign associates to 178. Election safety, design, and standardization izations, and solutions of materials to NAE, one of the highest profes- of hydrocarbon production. problems in semiconductor device sional distinctions accorded an Ivo M. Babuska, Robert Trull technology. engineer, honors those who have Chair in Engineering, Department of Mark T. Bohr, senior fellow and made outstanding contributions to Aerospace Engineering and Engi- director of process architecture, “engineering research, practice, or neering Mechanics, University of Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, Ore- education, including, where appro- Texas, Austin. For contributions to gon. For leadership in defining, priate, significant contributions the theory and implementation of developing, and implementing a to the engineering literature” and finite element methods of computer- manufacturable CMO/BiCMOS to the “pioneering of new and based engineering analysis and design. technology for microprocessor and developing fields of technology, Marsha J. Berger, professor of logic products. making major advancements in tra- computer science, Courant Institute John Edward Bowers, professor ditional fields of engineering, or of Mathematical Sciences, New of electrical and computer engineer- developing/implementing innova- York University, New York City. For ing, University of California, Santa tive approaches to engineering edu- developing adaptive mesh refine- Barbara. For contributions to the cation.” A list of the newly elected ment algorithms and software that development of high-speed semi- members and foreign associates fol- have advanced engineering applica- conductor lasers and other devices lows, with their primary affiliations tions, especially the analysis of air- for optical switching and communi- at the time of election and a brief craft and spacecraft. cations systems. statement of their principal engi- Dimitris J. Bertsimas, Boeing A. Robert Calderbank, Professor neering accomplishments. Professor of Operations Research, Emeritus, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technol- Princeton, New Jersey. For leader- New Members ogy, Cambridge. For contributions ship in communications research, Rodney C. Adkins, vice president to optimization theory and stochas- from advances in algebraic coding of development, IBM Systems and tic systems and innovative applica- theory to signal processing for wire- Technology Group, Somers, New tions in financial engineering and line and wireless modems. York. For contributions to the devel- transportation. William J. Chancellor, Professor opment of world-class computer Paul M. Bevilaqua, manager, Emeritus, Department of Biolog- products, from personal computers Advanced Development Programs, ical and Agricultural Engineering, to supercomputers. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Com- University of California, Davis. For Kurt Akeley, senior researcher, pany, Palmdale, California. For the- engineering innovations and for Microsoft Research Asia. For contri- oretical contributions and practical advancing the understanding of agri- butions to the architecture of 3-D innovations that have improved the cultural technology in the United graphics systems and the definition of operational utility of vertical takeoff States and developing countries. Open GL, now the industry standard. and landing aircraft. Chau-Chyun Chen, technology Paul G. Allen, chairman of the Harvey W. Blanch, professor fellow, Aspen Technology Inc., board of directors, Vulcan Inc., of chemical engineering, University Cambridge, Massachusetts. For con- Seattle, Washington. For contri- of California, Berkeley. For scien- tributions to molecular thermo- butions to the creation of the per- tific, engineering, and educational dynamics and process-modeling sonal computer software industry advances in enzyme engineering, technology for designing industrial and the development of innovative bioseparations, and biothermo- processes with complex chem- technologies. dynamics. ical systems. SPRING 2005 45

A. James Clark, chairman of the development of augmentations to tions into gene therapies and frac- board and chief executive officer, marine and aviation global position- ture fixations. Clark Enterprises Inc., Bethesda, ing systems that have become Shafrira Goldwasser, RSA Pro- Maryland. For the development of worldwide standards. fessor of Computer Science and project controls and construction Michael J. Fetkovich, senior Engineering, Massachusetts Insti- equipment, the creation of a major principal reservoir engineer tute of Technology, Cambridge. For construction firm, and support for (retired), Phillips Petroleum Com- contributions to cryptography, num- engineering education. pany, Bartlesville, Oklahoma. For ber theory, and complexity theory Edmund M. Clarke, FORE Sys- the development of widely used and their applications to privacy tems Professor of Computer Sci- techniques for determining future and security. ence, Carnegie Mellon University, oil and gas production and recover- Carol K. Hall, Alcoa Professor of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. For con- able reserves. Chemical Engineering, North Car- tributions to the formal verification Alexander G. Fraser, president, olina State University, Raleigh. For of hardware and software. Fraser Research, Princeton, New applications of modern thermo- James Q. Crowe, chief executive Jersey. For contributions to the dynamic and computer-simulation officer, Level 3 Communications development of packet-switched methods to chemical engineering Inc., Broomfield, Colorado. For networks, including virtual circuit problems involving macromolecules contributions to the development switching and window flow control. and complex fluids. and deployment of Internet-based Gerald G. Fuller, professor of James Robert Harris, president, communication technologies and chemical engineering, Stanford Uni- J.R. Harris & Company Structural services. versity, Stanford, California. For Engineers, Denver, Colorado. For David E. Culler, professor, Com- contributions to our understanding contributions to the development, puter Science Division, University of the rheology of complex fluids and improvement, and implementation of California, Berkeley. For contri- fluid interfaces and the development of modern standards for the design butions to scalable parallel process- of unique rheo-optical techniques. of buildings. ing systems, including architectures, George Georgiou, Joe C. Walter Allan S. Hoffman, professor, operating systems, and programming Jr. Endowed Chair, Department of Department of Bioengineering and environments. Chemical Engineering, University Chemical Engineering, University Joseph M. DeSimone, William R. of Texas, Austin. For protein engi- of Washington, Seattle. For pio- Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor, neering, especially the development neering work on the medical uses of Department of Chemistry, Universi- of therapeutics to biological warfare polymeric materials. ty of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. agents, protein manufacturing tech- Gerard J. Holzmann, principal For the development of environ- nologies, and combinatorial library computer scientist, NASA Jet mentally friendly chemistries and screening methodologies. Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, processes for the synthesis of mater- Richard D. Gitlin, senior vice California. For the creation of ials, especially new fluoropolymers. president, Communications Sci- model checking systems for soft- Dominic M. Di Toro, Edward C. ences Research (retired), Bell Labs, ware verification. Doris Professor and Evironmental Lucent Technologies, Princeton, Roger T. Howe, professor, Engineer, Department of Civil and New Jersey. For contributions Department of Electrical Engineer- Environmental Engineering, Uni- to communications systems and ing and Computer Science, Univer- versity of Delaware, Newark. For networking. sity of California, Berkeley. For leadership in the development and Steven A. Goldstein, Henry Rup- contributions to the development of application of mathematical models penthal Family Professor of microelectromechanical systems in for establishing water-quality criteria Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomed- processes, devices, and systems. and making management decisions. ical Engineering, University of John R. Howell, Ernest Cockrell Per Kristian Enge, professor and Michigan, Ann Arbor. For contri- Jr. Memorial Chair, Department of associate chair, School of Engineer- butions to our understanding of Mechanical Engineering, University ing, Stanford University, Stanford, bone micromechanical and remod- of Texas, Austin. For the develop- California. For leadership in the eling behaviors and their transla- ment and dissemination of methods The 46 BRIDGE of addressing complex radiation our understanding of metal and direction and leadership in mineral heat-transfer problems. oxyanion adsorption on environ- processing and hydrometallurgy. J. Stuart Hunter, Professor Emer- mental surfaces that have led to R. Shankar Nair, principal and itus, School of Engineering and novel strategies for soil and ground- senior vice president, Teng & Asso- Applied Science, Princeton Univer- water remediation. ciates, Chicago, Illinois. For contri- sity, Princeton, New Jersey. For the Michael E. Lesk, professor of butions to the art and science of development and application of sta- library and information studies, Rut- engineering through the design of tistical methods for efficiently gers University, New Brunswick, innovative bridges and building designed experiments and data New Jersey. For contributions to structures. interpretation. UNIX applications, information sys- Andrew J. Ouderkirk, corporate Kenneth A. Jackson, Professor tems, and digital libraries. scientist, 3M Film and Light Man- Emeritus of Materials Science, Uni- Marc D. Levenson, editor in chief, agement, St. Paul, Minnesota. For versity of Arizona, Tucson. For Micro-Lithography World, Camp- the development and commercial- advancing the science and technol- bell, California. For the introduction ization of multilayer polymer films ogy of single crystal growth and of phase-shifting methods to improve with unique optical properties. materials made by casting. optical lithography and for contribu- Tresa M. Pollock, L.H. and F.E. Leah H. Jamieson, Ransburg Pro- tions to quantum spectroscopy. Van Vlack Professor of Materials fessor of Electrical and Computer Frances S. Ligler, UNS Senior Science and Engineering, Univer- Engineering and associate dean for Scientist, Naval Research Labora- sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. For undergraduate education, Purdue tory, Washington, D.C. For the contributions to our understanding University, West Lafayette, Indiana. invention and demonstration of of the processing and performance For innovations in integrating engi- portable, automated biosensors for of advanced metallic materials. neering education and commun- fast, on-site detection of pathogens, Howard Raiffa, Professor Emeri- ity service. toxins, pollutants, drugs of abuse, tus, Harvard University, Boston, Lawrence L. Kazmerski, director, and explosives. Massachusetts. For contributions to National Center for Photovoltaics, Subhash Mahajan, chair, Depart- decision analysis, negotiation analy- National Renewable Energy Labora- ment of Chemical and Materials sis, and engineering decision making. tory, Golden, Colorado. For leader- Engineering, Arizona State Univer- Raja V. Ramani, Professor Emer- ship in U.S. and global research in sity, Tempe. For advancing our itus, Mining and Geoenvironmental photovoltaics and solar technology. understanding of structure-property Engineering, Pennsylvania State Ilan M. Kroo, professor, Depart- relationships in semiconductors, University, University Park. For ment of Aeronautics and Astronau- magnetic materials, and materials improvements to the health and tics, Stanford University, Stanford, for light-wave communication. safety of miners through a better California. For new concepts in air- Arunava Majumdar, Almy and understanding of the nature and craft design methodology and for Agnes Maynard Professor of Mechan- control of airborne particulates. the design and development of the ical Engineering, University of Cali- Danny David Reible, Bettie Mar- SWIFT sailplane. fornia, Berkeley. For contributions to garet Smith Chair of Environmental David A. Landgrebe, Professor nanoscale thermal engineering and Health Engineering, University of Emeritus of Electrical and Com- molecular nanomechanics. Texas, Austin. For the development puter Engineering, Purdue Univer- Robert M. McMeeking, professor of widely used methods of managing sity, West Lafayette, Indiana. For of mechanical and environmental contaminated sediments. contributions to the development of engineering, University of Califor- Howard B. Rosen, vice presi- multispectral technology for remote nia, Santa Barbara. For contribu- dent of commercial strategy, Gilead Earth sensing. tions to the computational modeling Sciences Inc., Foster City, Cali- James O. Leckie, Peck Class of of materials and for the development fornia. For the invention of bio- 1906 Professor, Department of of codes widely used by industry. erodible polymers and contri- Civil and Environmental Engi- Terence P. McNulty, president, butions to the development of neering, Stanford University, Stan- T.P. McNulty and Associates Inc., drug-delivery systems. ford, California. For advances in Tucson, Arizona. For technical Jonathan J. Rubinstein, senior SPRING 2005 47

vice president, iPod Division, Apple Jason L. Speyer, professor, computer science and electrical Computer Inc., Cupertino, Califor- Mechanical and Aerospace Engi- engineering, Stanford University, nia. For the design of innovative neering Department, University of Stanford, California. For contribu- personal computers and consumer California, Los Angeles. For the tions to the design and implementa- electronics that have defined new development and application of tion of active and semi-structured industries. advanced techniques for optimal data management systems. Thomas L. Saaty, University navigation and control of a wide Bruce F. Wollenberg, professor of Professor, Katz School of Business, range of aerospace vehicles. electrical and computer engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Brian Stott, president, Stott Inc., University of Minnesota, Minneapo- Pennsylvania. For the development Scottsdale, Arizona. For contribu- lis. For contributions to control cen- and generalization of the analytic tions to the analysis of the reliability ters for electric power grids and to hierarchy process and the analytic and security of electric power sys- power engineering education. network process in multicriteria tems and for leadership in education Ralph T. Yang, Dwight T. Benton decision making. and research. Professor of Chemical Engineering, Geert W. Schmid-Schoenbein, Carson W. Taylor, principal engi- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. professor of bioengineering, Univer- neer, Bonneville Power Administra- For the development of the theory, sity of California, San Diego. For tion, Vancouver, Washington. For methods, and materials for the improvements to our understanding the development and application of removal of environmentally haz- of how white blood cells are acti- methods to enhance reliability and ardous compounds from transpor- vated and the medical and pharma- dynamic performance of large inter- tation fuels and other difficult cological effects of white blood cell connected electrical power systems. separations. activation. Spencer R. Titley, professor of Thomas Leslie Youd, Professor Roger R. Schmidt, Distinguished geosciences, University of Arizona, Emeritus, Brigham Young Univer- Engineer, IBM Corp., Poughkeepsie, Tucson. For contributions to our sity, Provo, Utah. For contribu- New York. For advances in thermal understanding of the genesis of por- tions to assessments of hazards from technologies for the cooling and phyry copper deposits. liquefaction, leadership in earth- temperature control of electronic Jeffrey Wadsworth, director, quake engineering, and service to equipment. chief executive officer, and presi- the government and educational Neil G. Siegel, vice president of dent, UT-Battelle, LLC, Oak Ridge communities. technology, Northrop Grumman National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Mission Systems, Carson, California. Tennessee. For research on high- New Foreign Associates For the development and imple- temperature materials, superplastic- Genevieve M. Comte-Bellot, mentation of the digital battle- ity, and ancient steels and for Professor Emeritus, Ecole Centrale field, an integral part of U.S. Army leadership in national defense and de Lyon, Ecully, France. For contri- operations. science programs. butions in fluid mechanics and Subhash C. Singhal, Battelle Frederick D. Weber, chief tech- acoustics. Fellow and director of fuel cells, nology officer, AMD, Sunnyvale, Rik Huiskes, professor of bio- Pacific Northwest National Labora- California. For contributions to the medical engineering, Eindhoven tory, Richland, Washington. For the design and implementation of main- University of Technology, Eind- development and promotion of stream and scalable microprocessor hoven, Netherlands. For advancing solid-oxide fuel cells for clean and architectures. the understanding of how bone efficient power generation. George M. Whitesides, Wood- prostheses affect the functioning of Pol D. Spanos, L.B. Ryon Chair ford L. and Ann A. Flowers Univer- the living human skeleton. in Engineering, Rice University, sity Professor, Harvard University, Michael B. Jamiolkowski, pro- Houston, Texas. For the develop- Cambridge, Massachusetts. For the fessor of geotechnical engineering, ment of methods of predicting the development and promulgation of Department of Structural and Geo- dynamic behavior and reliability of methods of self-assembly and soft technical Engineering, Technical structural systems in diverse loading lithography. University of Torino, Torino, Italy. environments. Jennifer Widom, professor of For the design and engineering of The 48 BRIDGE

major projects on difficult soils and Nikolay P. Laverov, vice presi- effects of non-idealized properties for international leadership in educa- dent, Russian Academy of Sci- and multiphase conditions on reser- tion and research in geotechnology. ences, Moscow. For leadership in voir performance and well testing. William M. Kahan, professor, the uses of uranium and for the Raymond E. Smallman, Emeritus Computer Science Division, Uni- direction of national and inter- Professor of Metallurgy and Materi- versity of California, Berkeley. For national programs for the manage- als, University of Birmingham, the development of techniques for ment of radioactive waste. United Kingdom. For fundamental reliable, floating-point computa- John D. Rhodes, executive studies of defects in solids produced tion, especially the IEEE Floating chairman, Filtronic PLC, Shipley, by irradiation damage and plastic Point Standards. United Kingdom. For research, deformation. Ora Kedem, professor, Weizmann entrepreneurship, and commercial Walter M. Wonham, University Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. applications in circuit and micro- Professor Emeritus, electrical and For contributions to the thermo- wave theory. computer engineering, University of dynamics of irreversible transport Fernando Samaniego, professor of Toronto, Canada. For work on the processes and the development of petroleum engineering, Universidad geometric theory of linear systems separation processes for the treat- Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, and for bridging the gap between ment of water and wastewater. Mexico City. For studies of the control theory and computer science.

Calendar of Meetings and Events

February 7 EngineerGirl! Website Advisory February 25 NAE Congressional Luncheon May 5–7 German-American Frontiers of Subcommittee March 15–16 Workshop on Engineering Engineering Symposium February 7–8 NRC Governing Board Studies at Tribal Colleges Potsdam, Germany Irvine, California March 16 NRC Executive Committee May 9–10 NAE Convocation of Professional February 9 NAE Council Meeting Meeting Engineering Societies Irvine, California March 22 NAE Regional Meeting May 10–11 NRC Governing Board Meeting/ February 10 NAE National Meeting University of Southern California Executive Committee Meeting Irvine, California March 31 NAE Regional Meeting May 12–13 NAE Council Meeting February 21 NAE Awards Dinner Ceremony University of Minnesota All meetings are held in the National Academies and Presentation April 12 NRC Executive Committee Building, Washington, D.C., unless otherwise noted. February 24 NAE Finance and Budget Meeting For information about regional meetings, please Committee contact Sonja Atkinson at [email protected] or Conference Call (202) 334-3677. SPRING 2005 49

In Memoriam

ROBERT AVERY, 82, retired senior 17, 2004. Mr. Elkins was elected to on the properties of liquids and for scientist, Argonne National Labora- NAE in 1976 for his pioneering work his leadership as a teacher and tory, died on August 29, 2004. Dr. on increasing oil and gas production administrator. Avery was elected to NAE in 1978 from low-grade reservoirs. for his contributions to reactor design GEORGE S. SCHAIRER, 91, and analysis and fast-reactor safety. GERARD M. FAETH, 68, Arthur retired vice president, research, The B. Modine Professor of Aerospace Boeing Company, died on October RICHARD T. BAUM, 85, partner Engineering, and head, Gas Dynam- 28, 2004. Dr. Shairer was elected to emeritus and consultant, Jaros Baum ics Laboratories, University of Michi- NAE in 1967 for his contributions & Bolles, died on January 30, 2005. gan, died on January 24, 2005. Dr. to aircraft design and development. Mr. Baum was elected to NAE in Faeth was elected to NAE in 1991 for 1983 for innovative cost-efficient seminal contributions to our under- ASCHER H. SHAPIRO, 88, Insti- designs of mechanical systems, standing of the structure of combus- tute Professor Emeritus, Massachu- including energy-efficient heating tive and noncombustive sprays. setts Institute of Technology, died and air-conditioning systems, for on November 26, 2004. Dr. Shapiro large buildings. JOSEPH J. JACOBS, 88, chairman, was elected to NAE in 1974 for Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., died contributions to fluid-mechanics SEYMOUR M. BOGDONOFF, on October 23, 2004. Dr. Jacobs was research and education. 84, Professor Emeritus and Senior elected to NAE in 1994 for the appli- Research Scholar, Department of cation of chemical engineering con- AL F. TASCH JR., 63, Cockrell Mechanical and Aerospace Engi- struction principles and for service to Family Regents Chair Emeritus in neering, Princeton University, died the engineering profession. Engineering and Professor Emeritus on January 10, 2005. Mr. Bogdonoff of Electrical and Computer Engi- was elected to NAE in 1977 for DONALD O. PEDERSON, 79, neering, University of Texas, died contributions to the development Professor Emeritus of Electrical on November 30, 2004. Dr. Tasch of gas dynamics and the mechan- Engineering, Department of Electri- was elected to NAE in 1989 for ics of viscous fluids, especially in cal Engineering and Computer Sci- outstanding contributions to semi- hypersonic flow and shock boundary- ences, University of California, conductor memory technology. layer interactions. Berkeley, died on December 25, 2004. Dr. Pederson was elected to PAUL K. WEIMER, 90, retired fel- JACOB H. DOUMA, 92, retired NAE in 1974 for his leadership in low, RCA Laboratories, died on Jan- hydraulic engineer, died on Octo- research on integrated circuits and uary 6, 2005. Dr. Weimer was elected ber 4, 2004. Mr. Douma was for innovation in related computer- to NAE in 1981 for contributions to elected to NAE in 1971 for contri- aided design. the development of television cam- butions to federal and private era tubes, thin-film active devices, practice in hydraulic engineering CORNELIUS J. PINGS, 75, pro- and solid-state image sensors. here and abroad. fessor of chemical engineering, Uni- versity of Southern California, died LLOYD E. ELKINS SR., 92, petro- on December 6, 2004. Dr. Pings was leum consultant, died on December elected to NAE in 1981 for his work The 50 BRIDGE

Publications of Interest

The following reports have been associated with fundamental member Hsieh W. Shen, University published recently by the National research. NAE member C. Dan of California, Berkeley (emeritus), Academy of Engineering or the Mote Jr., University of Maryland, was a member of the study commit- National Research Council. Unless served as vice chair of the committee. Hardcover, $54.00. otherwise noted, all publications are tee. Other NAE members on the for sale (prepaid) from the National study committee were Charles B. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Academies Press (NAP), 500 Fifth Duke, Wilson Center for Research Review. For years, gun control and Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Wash- & Technology; John S. Foster Jr., the ownership of firearms have been ington, DC 20055. For more infor- Northrop Grumman Space Tech- contentious political issues. Policy mation or to place an order, contact nology; Mary L. Good, University of makers must take into account the NAP online at Arkansas at Little Rock; Robert J. relationship between guns and vio- or by phone at (888)624-8373. Hermann, Global Technology Part- lence, as well as conflicting consti- (Note: Prices quoted by NAP are sub- ners LLC; James C. McGroddy, IBM tutional claims and divided public ject to change without notice. Online Corporation; James G. O’Connor, opinion. Legislators need adequate orders receive a 20 percent discount. Pratt & Whitney (retired); and data and research on the effects of Please add $4.50 for shipping and han- Fawwaz Ulaby, University of firearms on violence and the effi- dling for the first book and $0.95 for Michigan. Paper, $18.00. cacy of different violence-control each additional book. Add applicable policies. In the current literature sales tax or GST if you live in CA, Endangered and Threatened Species of on firearms research, it is sometimes DC, FL, MD, MO, TX, or Canada.) the Platte River. The Platte River difficult to distinguish scholarship flows across three states—Colorado, from advocacy. There is a pressing Assessment of Department of Defense Wyoming, and Nebraska—and is need for a clear, unbiased assess- Basic Research. The U.S. Depart- home to several endangered ment of existing data and research. ment of Defense (DOD) supports species—the whooping crane, inte- Firearms and Violence uses conven- basic research to advance funda- rior least tern, and pallid sturgeon— tional standards of science to exam- mental knowledge in fields impor- and a threatened species—the ine three major themes—firearms tant to national defense. Over the piping plover. This report, focused and violence, the quality of past six years, however, concerns on the central Platte River in research, and the quality of avail- have been raised about whether all Nebraska, reexamines the current able data. The authoring commit- of the research meets DOD’s defini- “critical habitat” designations for tee assesses the strengths and tion of basic research; whether the piping plover and whooping limitations of current databases and reporting requirements have crane to determine if they are sup- reviews current research studies on become cumbersome and onerous; ported by existing science. The the use of firearms and efforts to and whether basic research is committee concludes that the desig- reduce unjustified firearm use. defined and handled differently by nations were scientifically valid at NAE member Alfred Blumstein, the three services. To address these the time they were made but that Carnegie Mellon University, was a concerns, Congress requested a future designations should be based member of the study committee. study from the National Research on newer scientific approaches that Hardcover, $47.95. Council (NRC) on the nature of take into account human activities research funded by DOD. Specifi- and increased attacks by predators Government/Industry/Academic Rela- cally, NRC was asked to determine on nests. The committee also finds tionships for Technology Development: if the programs in the DOD basic that other agency decisions, such as A Workshop Report. The National research portfolio are consistent habitat-suitability guidelines and Aeronautics and Space Administra- with DOD’s definition of basic instream-flow recommendations, tion (NASA) Human Exploration research and with the characteristics were based on valid science. NAE and Development of Space (HEDS) SPRING 2005 51

Program in the Office of Space benefits in these evaluations or to the ecology might affect, or be Flight has proposed a new frame- estimate how funding from non- affected by, navigation, recreation, work for space technology and governmental sources would affect or other activities. In addition, the systems development—advanced R&D. At the direction of Congress, economic justifications for expand- systems, technology, research, and DOE asked the NRC to develop a ing the locks on the rivers are still analysis (ASTRA)—for future methodology for evaluating the inadequate because of flaws in the spaceflight capabilities. To assist in prospective benefits of these R&D models of existing and projected the development of this framework, programs by focusing on program barge traffic. NAE member(s) Ger- NASA asked the National Research management and funding decisions. ald E. Galloway Jr., University of Council to convene a series of work- This letter report provides an Maryland, College Park, and shops on the interests of various overview of this approach and com- Soroosh Sorooshian, University of stakeholders in advancing the pares it to previous retrospective California, Irvine, were members of human and robotic exploration and studies. NAE member(s) Wesley the study committee. Paper, $18.00. development of space. The second L. Harris, Massachusetts Institute workshop, which is summarized in of Technology; Maxine L. Savitz, The Role of Experimentation in Building this report, was focused on inter- Honeywell Inc. (retired); and John Future Naval Forces. The U.S. relationships between government, J. Wise, Mobil Research & Devel- Department of Defense is in the industry, and academia in the development Company, were members of process of transforming the nation’s opment of technology. The discus- the study committee. Available armed forces to meet the military sion of best practices for cooperative online at: http://www.nap.edu/cata- challenges of the twenty-first cen- efforts was based on examples from log/11176.html. tury. During this process, experi- the Defense Advanced Research ments at the individual-service and Projects Agency, the U.S. Depart- Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- joint-service levels—analyses, war ment of Defense, and the National neers Restructured Upper Mississippi games, modeling and simulations, Science Foundation. NAE member River-Illinois Waterway Feasibility small focused experiments, and large Charles R. Trimble, U.S. Global Study: Second Report. The U.S. Army field events—could enhance naval Positioning System Industry Coun- Corps of Engineers (USACE) has and joint-force development. The cil, was a member of the study com- proposed doubling the length of as Chief of Naval Operations asked the mittee. Print on Demand, $18.00. many as a dozen locks on the Missis- National Research Council (NRC) sippi River-Illinois Waterway. The to conduct a study of the role Methodology for Estimating Prospective National Research Council first of experimentation in configuring Benefits of Energy R&D Programs. reviewed the feasibility study for this future naval forces to operate Since its inception in 1977, the U.S. multibillion dollar project when in a joint-force environment. NAE Department of Energy (DOE) has questions were raised about the members Ruzena K. Bajcsy, Uni- invested substantial sums in accuracy of the models of barge versity of California, Berkeley; L. research and development (R&D) transportation used to justify the David Montague, L. David Mon- on energy efficiency and fossil fuels. expansion. This second review of tague Associates; and William B. Over the years, the agency and Con- the restructured proposal concludes Morgan, Naval Surface Warfare gress have had these R&D programs that USACE has included many Center (retired), were members of evaluated in terms of cost and bene- creative and potentially useful the study committee. Paper, $50.75. fits. However, it is difficult to incor- ecosystem restoration measures but porate the full range of public has not adequately considered how

The Periodicals BRIDGE Postage Paid (USPS 551-240)

National Academy of Engineering 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418