2009 Annual Report
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING THE FUTURE 1 Letter from the President 3 In Service to the Nation 3 Mission Statement 4 Program Reports 4 Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education 5 Technological Literacy 5 Public Understanding of Engineering Implementing Effective Messages Media Relations Public Relations Grand Challenges for Engineering 8 Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society 8 Diversity in the Engineering Workforce Engineer Girl! Website Engineer Your Life Project 10 Frontiers of Engineering Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers- Gilbreth Lectures 12 Technology for a Quieter America 12 Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding 13 Engineering and Health 14 Opportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology 15 America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks and Tradeoffs 15 U.S.-Chinese Cooperation on Electricity from Renewables 17 Gathering Storm Still Frames the Policy Debate 18 Rebuilding a Real Economy: Unleashing Engineering Innovation 20 2009 NAE Awards Recipients 22 2009 New Members and Foreign Associates 24 NAE Anniversary Members 28 2009 Private Contributions 28 Einstein Society 28 Heritage Society 29 Golden Bridge Society 30 The Presidents’ Circle 30 Catalyst Society 31 Rosette Society 31 Challenge Society 31 Charter Society 33 Other Individual Donors 35 Foundations, Corporations, and Other Organizations 37 National Academy of Engineering Fund Financial Report 39 Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants 43 Notes to Financial Statements 57 Officers 57 Councillors 58 Staff 58 NAE Publications Letter from the President
The United States is slowly emerging from the most serious economic cri- sis in recent memory. To set a sound course for the 21st century, we must now turn our attention to unleashing technological innovation to create products and services that add actual value. As a nation we must refocus on the real economy, which will require a reenergized innovation system to generate new knowledge and technology and move them successfully to the competitive world marketplace. We must become more productive and efficient at the things we already do well, and in addition create new industries and transform others. To sustain our economic vitality and quality of life, we must address the difficult problems of energy, the environment, infrastructure, security, and health care delivery. Our innovation system Charles M. Vest itself must evolve to meet these large-scale challenges. The Forum at the NAE Annual Meeting in October 2009 addressed these issues (see www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id=12851).
The work of NAE and the National Academies can be leveraged by individuals and private groups, as well as by the federal government. The Academies’ report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, defined the federal investments and policy changes necessary to generate new businesses and industries and to prepare workers to fill the jobs they create. The NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering (see www.engineeringchallenges.org) and the Academies’ America’s Energy Future report set the stage. We must now focus on execution. I believe there are three essential components of any reasonable strategy for moving forward: devel- oping brainpower, unleashing innovation, and grappling with scale.
Our fundamental task must be to increase the number of U.S. citizens entering STEM (sci- ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields of study. This will require inspira- tion and improved education. We must inspire the next generation to contribute to a better world and a stronger economy through engineering and science; and we must become serious about improving our public K-12 education so students will be prepared to do that. In September 2009, NAE released, Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects, a report that addresses many of these issues.
The Grand Challenges for Engineering report is proving to be an effective organizing frame- work for inspiring the next generation. Several engineering deans and university presidents have developed and adopted an agenda for inspiring and exciting students to take on the global challenges of the 21st century. Six coordinated summits will be held in different parts of the country in early 2010. Each will bring students, faculty, and leaders of industry and government together to focus on two or three of the NAE Grand Challenges.
With leadership from Duke, USC, and Olin College, a national movement is afoot to estab- lish a program of Grand Challenge Scholars among engineering undergraduates to encour- age research, study, and experiential learning related to the Grand Challenges. In addition, undergraduate project courses, and even reorganizations of curricula, will build on our Grand Challenges report.
Rising Above the Gathering Storm recommended bringing to a national scale a program that provides modest financial incentives for teachers who qualify to teach science and math at the advanced placement (AP) level and for students who pass AP subjects in math,
science, and English. In 2009, the private sector National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI) AP Program resulted in a marked increase in the number of exams taken and passed by AP students. NMSI’s second component, UTEACH aspires to meet the Gathering Storm goal of graduating 10,000 K-12 teachers who are appropriately educated in the dis- ciplines they teach.
We will need transformative breakthroughs to address many if not most of the Grand Challenges. Macro-scale systems challenges, especially energy, will drive innovation in the coming decade. Innovations in higher education will be necessary to cross-educate students in emerging disciplines, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology, and to prepare them to attack the great challenges of our times. To further these objectives, NAE held the inaugural Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) meet- ing in the DC area, chaired by NAE member, Ed Crawley from MIT. The FOEE symposium, generously supported by the O’Donnell Foundation, was designed to promote innovative approaches to engineering education among young faculty.
Efficient, low-cost manufacturing is an essential element in the deployment of batteries, solar cells, and other green technologies. Many thinkers, including a number of NAE members, believe we must find a new manufacturing paradigm, perhaps based on emerg- ing advances in robotics and the biological synthesis of materials and devices, fields in which we might establish a lead.
NAE continues to engage in activities that support our mission of building and enhancing relationships with engineering communities worldwide and providing a global perspec- tive to relevant NAE and NRC studies. In 2009, we continued our bilateral Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) programs with Germany and Japan, held our first FOE program with China, in Changsha, China, and negotiated an agreement with Euro-CASE, the European Council of Academies of Science and Engineering, to inaugurate an EU-US FOE program, for which the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK will be the lead European acad- emy. The German Leopoldina held a joint symposium with NAE, NAS, and IOM called “Technologically Modified Environment: Environmentally Modified Technology.”
To encourage donations to NAE for discretionary purposes, Joan and Irwin Jacobs put forth a very generous and successful matching gift challenge for new and increased gifts to NAE in 2009. This annual report lists members and friends whose generous contributions are helping NAE to continue to make meaningful contributions to the well-being of the nation. We are deeply grateful for their support.
The pages that follow provide details on the scope and depth of NAE work performed in 2009. These activities have been conceived and executed to pursue our goal of providing objective, independent advice to the federal government and the engineering community and to proactively promote the technological welfare of the nation.
Thank you.
Charles M. Vest President
NAE 2009 In Service to the Nation
Every day our nation faces questions related to engineering and technology. How can we keep our nation safe from terrorism? How can we increase diversity in the engineering workforce? What role should citizens play in decisions about technology development? How can we help journalists and others in the media provide accurate, timely information on engineering and technology? As we advance technologically and become more involved in the global community, answering these questions becomes increasingly difficult.
Since 1964, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has provided independent, objective advice to the nation on engineering-related topics and policies. NAE operates under the same congressional act of incorporation that established the National Academy of Sciences, signed in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln, to respond “whenever called upon by any department or agency of the government, to investigate, examine, experi- ment, and report upon any subject of science or art.”
NAE has more than 2,395 peer-elected members and foreign associates, approximately 50 percent from academia, 43 percent from industry, and 7 percent from nonprofit insti- tutions and government. NAE members are leaders in bioengineering, computer science, electronics, aerospace, earth resources, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, chem- ical engineering, industrial engineering, materials engineering, and interdisciplinary engi- neering. They serve as members of research and study committees, plan and conduct symposia and workshops, and assist in the work of the organization in many other ways. Activities include collaborative projects at home and abroad to identify and illuminate engineering issues of global importance, advising Congress and government agencies on engineering-related matters of national importance, and recognizing and honoring out- standing engineers for their contributions to the well-being of the nation and the world.
NAE not only responds to requests from government at the federal level, but also spon- sors activities with foundations, industry, and state and local governments and funds proj- ects through endowment funds supported by private contributions. Thus NAE is a unique organization that brings together distinguished engineers for the purpose of improving the lives of people everywhere.
NAE is a member of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council.
Mission Statement
To promote the technological welfare of the nation by marshalling the expertise and insights of eminent members of the engineering profession.
NAE 2009 Program Reports
Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education
The Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE) col- laborates with a variety of other institutions and organizations to leverage opportuni- ties for improving engineering education. CASEE’s activities fall into three categories: (1) capacity building for research and innovation in engineering education; (2) facili- tating research and developing tools, and (3) disseminating knowledge.
As part of CASEE’s efforts to clarify the theoretical and practical underpinnings of engi- neering education, NAE continued to host Dr. Debasish Dutta, dean of the graduate school and professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Illinois. Dr. Dutta was rapporteur for a summary of a June 2009 workshop, “The Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering” (LLI). Workshop attendees—representatives of industry, academe, and government—gathered to assess current practices in lifelong learning for engineering professionals and to re- examine underlying assumptions, consider options, and out- line strategies for the future. By including policy makers in the workshop, we hoped to initiate a national dialogue on lifelong learning for engineering professionals in the knowl- edge age. The workshop discussions resulted in the identifi- cation of critical issues that warrant in-depth investigation.
In the second category, CASEE concluded the pilot valida- tion of two companion tools, the Engineering National Survey of Student Engagement (E-NSSE) and the Engineering Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (E-FSSE). Both surveys build on tools developed at the University of Indiana to assess the level of student and faculty engagement in high-quality educational practices and student learning outcomes aligned with engineering accredita- tion criteria.
CASEE’s principal dissemination activities in 2009 were part of the Engineering Equity Extension Service (EEES), a project supported by the National Science Foundation. The goal of the EEES project is to increase the number of women in baccalaureate programs in electrical, computer, and mechanical engineering, large disciplines with historically low rates of female graduates. CASEE works with three orga- nizations on this project, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Project Lead The Way. Through training workshops and the support of a cadre of experts, EEES reviews and makes suggestions for improving existing programs of the three organizations, specifically increasing
NAE 2009 career awareness and improving academic retention and advancement by girls and women from middle school through college, are based on research results for improv- ing instructional practices and curricular designs. Information and guidance are now available through New Directions in Engineering Excellence, a recently released series of booklets and videos (available at http://www.caseeconduit.org/ndeeindex.html).
Technological Literacy
The purpose of the Program on Technological Literacy is to determine how Americans can become better prepared to navigate our technology-dependent society. What do adults and children need to know about technology? What role should citizens play in deciding which technologies are developed and for what purposes? What changes in formal and informal education and in the policy arena will be necessary to prepare citizens to participate knowledgeably in making these decisions?
The technological literacy program, now in its eleventh year, has contributed to the devel- program reports opment of standards for the study of technology in elementary and secondary schools; car- ried out a variety of outreach projects for educators, policy makers, and the general public; sponsored a number of informational workshops; and overseen four consensus studies.
NAE partnered with the NRC Board on Science Education on a two-year study of K–12 engineering education in the United States. The project committee was chaired by NAE member Linda Katehi, University of California, Davis. The release of the report in September 2009 generated considerable interest inside the Beltway. It was the focus of a hearing in the House Science and Technology Committee and was discussed in a meeting on STEM education of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The K–12 project was funded by NAE member Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr.; additional support was provided by Parametric Technologies Corporation, a software firm in Boston, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In 2009, work continued on an NSF-funded project to assess the value and feasibility of developing content standards for K–12 engineering education. National standards have been adopted for science, mathematics, and technology education, among many other subjects, but not for engineering. The committee for this project, chaired by NAE member Robert M. White, Carnegie Mellon University (Emeritus), will consider the pros and cons of developing standards, including the implications for STEM edu- cation policy and practices. The committee held a major data-gathering workshop in July and is now writing the report. The study is being funded by NSF, with supporting funds from the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation.
Public Understanding of Engineering
Implementing Effective Messages Building on the 2008 report, Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering, NAE embarked in 2009 on a follow-on project to help the engineering community implement some of the recommendations. The new project, funded by NSF, has three objectives:
NAE 2009 • Develop an online “toolkit” that provides messaging-related resources, community- building applications, and other resources to support the project goal. • Facilitate a dialogue among organizations that have developed implementation strat- egies for new engineering messages and influential stakeholders in the engineering community who have not yet implemented the messages. • Create and disseminate an “action plan” to guide the adoption and use of the online toolkit and encourage coordinated outreach to the public by the larger engi- neering community.
The project committee will be co-chaired by NAE President Charles M. Vest and Ellen Kullman, Chair of the Board and CEO of DuPont.
Media Relations In 2009, the NAE media relations office worked with news outlets worldwide respond- ing to inquiries, pitching stories about NAE activities, and suggesting general engineer- ing-related story ideas. Coverage of NAE members and projects appeared in outlets around the globe. For example, media relations staff responded quickly when it was program reports announced that the Nobel Prize for Physics had been awarded to two former Draper Prize winners—Willard Boyle and George Smith. Our efforts resulted in a flood of requests for photos and other information.
NAE continued to work with the Radio and Television Digital News Foundation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the “News and Terrorism: Communicating in a Crisis” workshop series. Events in 2009 in Las Vegas (January) and Baltimore (September) brought together journalists, public officials, technical experts, and private-sector representatives for “tabletop” exercises of hypothetical ter- rorist attacks. More people attended the 2009 workshops than any of the previous 15 workshops (2004–2008).
The purpose of the workshops is to identify communication gaps and complex tech- nical issues that may arise in the event of a terrorist attack and to explore ways to address them. The exercises reveal the challenges involved in delivering potentially alarming information to the public with a balance of speed and accuracy. The work- shops bring together people in different fields who are not likely to meet, except in an emergency, and encourage the development of relationships that could be crucial in a time of crisis. Results from after-action surveys show that attendees have found them “eye-opening” and will use the information learned at these events to improve the emergency preparedness of their organizations.
In conjunction with colleagues at the National Research Council, NAE produced a new “fact sheet” on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to be distributed at the workshops. The fact sheets include tips on how to respond during a terrorism crisis. Previous fact sheets covered biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological attacks.
Senior Media Relations Officer Randy Atkins gave a presentation about the “News and Terrorism” workshop series to representatives of many countries at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe at their headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Discussions about creating an international version of this successful series were ongo- ing at the end of 2009.
NAE 2009 Public Relations NAE continued to produce weekly reports featuring engineering innovations for WTOP-FM, an all-news station and the most listened-to radio station in the Washington, D.C., region, and Federal News Radio. NAE also features the reports on its website
In 2009 the media relations office significantly improved the look and deliverability of its biweekly e-newsletter, “Spotlight on Engineering.” The newsletter provides informa- tion on engineering and policy activities by the National Academies, events and items of interest, and engineering news items from around the world. The e-newsletter has about 6,000 subscribers.
NAE made significant inroads into the realm of “social media” in 2009 by creating a Twitter profile, which has drawn 600 followers in less than a year. This profile is used to share information about NAE and NAE members, to report interesting engineering program reports stories, and to gather information from other engineering-related organizations that NAE follows on Twitter. The NAE Twitter profile was featured in an issue of Today’s Engineer, a print and online publication of IEEE.
In November, the media relations office arranged and participated in a series of meet- ings between technical experts and the creators of the popular television series CSI, who are planning a new crime show that focuses on computer engineering/security. The meetings took place over a period of three days, during which the participants from Hollywood also visited the National Security Agency and related sites.
Grand Challenges for Engineering NAE’s Grand Challenges for Engineering website (www.engineeringchallenges.org) con- tinues to attract many site visits and comments. Across the country dozens of universi- ties are developing a “Grand Challenges Scholars Program,” a combined curricular and extra-curricular program with five components designed to prepare students to tackle the Grand Challenges (www. grandchallengescholars. org/). The founding schools, Duke University, the Viterbi School of Engineering at the University of Southern California, and the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, organized a Grand Challenges-themed “summit” in March 2009 at Duke that drew an audience of nearly 1,000. Five regional summits and another national summit are planned for 2010.
NAE 2009 Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society
In 2009, a new “Ethics Column” was launched on the NAE Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society (CEES) home page to highlight the activities of NAE members and other prominent engineers related to engineering ethics. The first column focuses on accessibility to the results of failure investigations and highlights the activities of NAE member Zdenek Bazant, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University. The site also features a “comments” section where readers can share ideas and provide and receive feedback. Bazant also raised the issue of acces- sibility of investigation records with the NAE Civil Engineering Section, of which he is a member; this section has established a group, headed by Ross Corotis, professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado-Boulder, to study the issues addressed in the column. The “Ethics Column” can be found at http://www.nae.edu/17098.aspx.
Ethics Education and Scientific and Engineering Research: What’s Been Learned? What
program reports Should Be Done?, a summary of a workshop held in April 2008, was published by the National Academy Press (NAP, 2009). Follow-up activities include a career workshop at the AAAS Annual Meeting in San Diego on February 19, 2010, and a panel session at the ASEE Annual Meeting in Louisville in June 2010. A summary of the October 2008 workshop “Engineering, Social Justice, and Sustainable Community Development” is in the final stages of review and will be published by NAP in 2010. Follow-up from the latter workshop included a panel session, “Engineering and Social Justice: The Case of Hurricane Katrina,” at the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) on October 29, 2009, and a mini-conference on “Engineering toward a More Just and Sustainable World” at the annual meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics in March 2010.
The CEES Advisory Group had its second meeting on March 18–19, 2009. The group first reviewed CEES activities and plans and advised staff about applying for a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant to improve the Online Ethics Center (OEC) website. The group also discussed and approved the development of an initiative on energy eth- ics and suggested several topics for the next CEES-sponsored public workshop. The next meeting of the Advisory Group is scheduled for June 15–16, 2010. The list of current members is available at http://www.nae.edu/Programs/CEES14954/AboutCEES.aspx.
Diversity in the Engineering Workforce
Engineer Girl! Website The Engineer Girl! website (www.engineergirl.org), a significant component of NAE’s web presence, has over 20,000 visitors per month and is the number one listing on Google for “girls and engineering.” The site is a general reference for young women considering careers in engineering, a field in which they have been, and continue to be, underrepresented. Engineer Girl! provides career guidance for students and par- ents, links to other sites, games, and interesting facts about engineering and the history of women in engineering. Portions of the Engineer Girl! website have been translated into Spanish to meet the needs of the Latino community.
NAE 2009 program reports
The most popular feature on the site, “Ask an Engineer,” invites students to e-mail ques- tions directly to any of the almost 200 practicing women engineers profiled on the site, who will answer them directly. Most questions are about prerequisites for studying engi- neering, potential careers in engineering, and undergraduate engineering programs.
The 2010 Engineer Girl! annual essay contest was a survival design challenge and asked students between grades 3 through 12 to describe how they would use the clothing or accessories they are wearing, the contents of their backpacks, and items in the environment to create a shelter, gather food and water, or get the attention of a rescue party if they were lost during a field trip to a national forest. More than 800 students in grades 3 through 12 submitted essays. The winning essays are posted on the website.
A survey conducted in 2009 demonstrated the website reaches its target audience of young women as 58 percent of the high school girls and 69 percent of the middle school girls said they were likely to visit the EngineerGirl! website again with many of them sharing the information about the website with others (54% of high school girls and 69% of middle school girls).
Engineer Your Life Project The Engineer Your Life (EYL) Project is a national initiative to encourage college-bound high-school girls to consider pursuing undergraduate degrees in engineering. Project participants, in addition to NAE, include the American Association of Engineering Societies, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the WGBH Foundation, and several other engineering associations.
NAE hosts and maintains the website (www.engineeryourlife.org), which provides resources for students, teachers, guidance counselors, and engineers about careers in engineering. The site features profiles of young women engineers and highlights the importance of engineering and technology in addressing the difficult challenges facing our planet.
NAE 2009 An independent evaluation in 2009 found that EYL is sparking an interest in engineer- ing—79% of girls familiar with EYL list engineering as their number one career choice. EYL is also inspiring girls—75% of girls familiar with EYL said the website made them want to take an engineering class. The evaluation found overall that EYL is helping girls understand the rich variety of interesting jobs available to engineers and how to pursue an engineering degree.
Frontiers of Engineering
Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) is a symposium series that brings together emerging engi- neering leaders from industry, academe, and government laboratories to discuss pio- neering technical work and leading-edge research in various fields of engineering and industrial sectors. The goals of the symposia are: (1) to introduce outstanding young engineers (ages 30 to 45) to each other and to promote the establishment of contacts among the next generation of engineering leaders and (2) to facilitate collaboration and
program reports the transfer of techniques and approaches across engineering fields in order to sustain and build U.S. innovative capacity.
The annual U.S. Frontiers of Engineering (U.S. FOE) Symposium brings together approxi- mately 100 engineers from across the country. FOE also has five bilateral programs: (1) German-American Frontiers of Engineering (GAFOE), in partnership with the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; (2) Japan-America Frontiers of Engineering (JAFOE), in part- nership with the Japan Science and Technology Agency and the Engineering Academy of Japan; (3) Indo-American Frontiers of Engineering (IAFOE), in partnership with the Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum; (4) China-America Frontiers of Engineering (CAFOE) in partnership with the Chinese Academy of Engineering; and (5) EU-US Frontiers of Engineering (EU-US FOE) in partnership with the European Council of Applied Sciences and Engineering. Each bilateral symposium is attended by approxi- mately 30 engineers from the partner country and 30 from the United States.
Four symposia were held in 2009. In April, the GAFOE Symposium was held in Potsdam, Germany. The topics were materials for extreme environments, biosystems
10 NAE 2009 engineering, complex systems design and control, and renew- able energy sources. In September, the U.S. FOE Symposium was held at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The topics were engineering tools for scientific discovery, nano/ micro photonics and new applications, engineering the health care delivery system, and resilient and sustainable infrastructure. In October, the inaugural CAFOE Symposium was held in Changsha, China. The topics were engineering and public health: ensuring food safety; new energy-saving technologies, sustainable and disaster-resilient infrastructure systems, and intelligent transportation systems. The JAFOE Symposium was held in November at the Beckman Center. The topics were state-of-the-art technologies for knowledge manage- ment, breakthrough technologies in brain science, novel materials for industrial applica- tions, and modeling global climate change.
Thanks to a generous grant received from The Grainger Foundation in 2008, NAE was
able to add bilateral FOE programs with China and the European Union; the first meet- program reports ing with the EU will be held in September 2010.
FOE encourages continuing interaction among participants in FOE symposia through ongoing outreach activities. Yearly proceedings, such as Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading Edge Engineering from the 2008 NAE Symposium on Frontiers of Engineering, which was published in February 2009, are mailed to past U.S. FOE par- ticipants. Other outreach activities include alumni newsletters, which encourage alumni to keep in touch and share information about their work and current status, and an FOE website that includes a searchable database, a directory of all FOE alumni, and access to the presentations from the U.S. FOE meeting. The previously mentioned grant from The Grainger Foundation has also enabled a redesign of the FOE website, which will be launched in 2010, with additional features to enhance the community-building aspects of the program. In addition, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum provide support for ongoing collaborations among par- ticipants in the GAFOE and IAFOE symposia, respectively.
Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers-Gilbreth Lectures The Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers—Gilbreth Lectures, a related but independent program, selects outstand- ing engineers among FOE speakers to give presentations at the NAE Annual and National Meetings. In 2009, two speak- ers gave Gilbreth lectures at the Annual Meeting in Irvine, California. Dr. Jeffrey Welser director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation, spoke on “The Quest for the Next Information Processing Technology.” Dr. Yoky Matsuoka, Torode Family Endowed Career Development Processor in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington, spoke on “Neurobotics: Interfacing Robot and Nervous Systems to Enhance Human Movement.”
11 NAE 2009 Technology for a Quieter America
In 2006, NAE initiated Technology for a Quieter America, a multi-year study to review state-of-the-art noise-control engineering, describe the technological, economic and political climate for noise control, and identify gaps in research. During the past three years, a 14-member umbrella committee, chaired by NAE member George Maling of the Institute for Noise Control Engineering USA, five subcommittees, and focused working groups have explored three categories of issues related to noise-control engi- neering and public concerns: applications of current technologies; research and devel- opment initiatives; and intra-governmental and public relations programs.
The committee’s forthcoming report (2010) documents advances in the past few decades in noise-control technology, instruments for measuring noise, and criteria for controlling noise. The committee also explores how these advances can help shape an approach to noise control and public policy to improve the noise climate in the United States. When coupled with worldwide interest in reducing noise, these
program reports advances provide a basis for the production of low-noise products, which would con- tribute to U.S. competitiveness. However, the committee acknowledges that reducing noise emissions from products and noise in factories, office buildings, classrooms, homes, and the environment are still challenging goals.
The study committee’s recommendations include undertaking cost-benefit analyses of noise reductions, especially traffic noise; supporting the development of technolo- gies to reduce airplane noise; improving metrics for establishing noise levels as a basis for noise control; lowering limits for noise exposure in industry; initiating buy-quiet programs; promoting the adoption of international standards for noise emissions; and controlling noise levels in schools, hospitals, office buildings, and other structures. The committee also recommends more cooperation between industry and govern- ment agencies involved with noise and a larger role for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is already empowered in existing law.
Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding
Violent conflict causes suffering and destabilization throughout the world. Today, there are some 100 nascent, active, or post-conflict situations across the globe. Annually, hundreds of thousand of people die as a direct or indirect result of these conflicts. Many more suffer life-changing physical or mental disabilities, and large numbers are displaced from their homes. Added to the human costs of conflict are economic and social ones, including damage to infrastructure, destruction of agricul- tural capacity, lost worker productivity, and devastated social institutions.
In 2007, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), convened a workshop to examine how information and communication technology (ICT) might be brought to bear on the challenges asso- ciated with preventing and managing violent conflict. The gathering of ICT luminaries
1The workshop summary can be viewed online at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12255.
12 NAE 2009 from industry and individuals engaged in peacebuilding at the grass roots and policy levels revealed that there is a creative and committed, but relatively small, cadre of organizations using ICT and related tools in the service of peacebuilding.1 Perhaps most important, workshop participants indicated an interest in considering opportuni- ties and challenges to achieve more robust and effective applications of technology for peacebuilding.
Building on ideas put forward, in March 2009 NAE and USIP convened a one-day brainstorming session to vet and elaborate a plan for establishing a more permanent structure to support multi-stakeholder dialog and action on technology and peace- building. The meeting was co-chaired by NAE President Charles M. Vest and USIP President Richard Solomon. Its 15 participants included seven NAE members, as well as experts in science, health and peacebuilding.
The unanimous conclusion from the planning group was that a joint National Academies-USIP roundtable on technology, science, and peacebuilding should be established. The roundtable will provide a forum for key stakeholder groups (govern-
ment, industry, academia, and the NGO community) to 1) consider how the applica- program reports tion of technology and of knowledge and methods from engineering and science can serve the goals of conflict prevention, peacemaking, and peacekeeping and 2) explore opportunities for stakeholder collaboration and action on key issues on an ongoing basis. The group envisioned an initial roundtable membership consisting of roughly 25-30 senior representatives of U.S. and foreign government agencies, global technol- ogy-intensive industries, U.S. and international NGOs, and academic research centers/ programs.
Based on guidance from planning meeting participants, NAE and USIP developed a 3-year proposal for roundtable that they are currently discussing with potential public and private sector sponsors.
Engineering and Health
In 2005, the NAE and Institute of Medicine published a joint consensus study on Building a Better Delivery System: A New Engineering/Health Care Partnership (NAP, 2005), which documented a wealth of opportuni- ties for using systems engineering and information technol- ogy to redesign health care delivery processes to improve the quality and efficiency of health care. In 2009, the report’s findings and recommendations continued to shape the research portfolios of several federal research fund- ing agencies. For example, the study was invoked in the establishment of a new NSF I-UCRC, the Center for Health Organization and Transformation (CHOT) led by Texas A&M and the Georgia Institute of Technology. It was also referenced by the Veteran’s Health Administration in the creation of four national Veterans Engineering Resource
13 NAE 2009 Centers (VERC) to connect schools of engineering to VA medical centers and clin- ics located across the country to help the VHA develop more effective and efficient ways to provide care, as well as the VHA Advanced Fellowships in Health Systems Engineering to support the research and training activities of the VERCs.
In March 2009, NAE and IOM published and disseminated, Systems Engineering to Improve Traumatic Brain Injury Care in the Military Health System, the summary of a 2008 workshop sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. The two-day meet- ing brought together 50 experts in operational systems engineering (OSE), biomedi- cal engineering, TBI care, and military health care to identify near and longer term opportunities for using operational systems engineering (OSE) tools and methods to improve the care of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the Military Health System (MHS). The workshop summary reviews the potential of OSE for improving the quality of health care and places the challenge of TBI care in the larger context of the quality and cost challenges facing MHS.
In October 2009, NAE President Charles Vest and IOM President Harvey Fineberg program reports tasked a small group of NAE and IOM members co-chaired by William Rouse, (NAE) Georgia Institute of Technology and Denis Cortese, (IOM) Mayo Clinic, with exploring directions for future collaboration between IOM and NAE at the intersection of engi- neering and health. Ideas generated during the group’s brainstorming session will be presented by Drs. Cortese and Rouse and discussed at the February 2010 NAE Council meeting and a joint session of the NAE and IOM Councils in May 2010.
Opportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology
On July 9–10, 2009, under the auspices of the National Academies (NAE, CSTL, BLS, and STEP), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the United Kingdom Royal Society, an international symposium was held in Washington, D.C., to bring together the scientific, engineering, legal, and policy communities, as well as members of the public, to explore the opportunities and challenges posed by the emerg- ing field of synthetic biology. The symposium featured invited presentations and discus- sions on the myriad legal, policy, and ethical questions raised by synthetic biology in the global enterprise. The keynote address was given by Arden Bement Jr. (NAE), Director of the National Science Foundation. Presenters included engineers Drew Endy, Stanford University; Richard I. Kitney, Imperial College; Sven Panke, ETH-Zurich; Christina Smolke, California Institute of Technology; Randy Rettberg, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Ed Lazowska (NAE), University of Washington.
The overarching goals of the meeting were to help foster this new community of pro- fessionals, to frame the language of the discussion and the issues, to identify areas for future study, and to educate the public and policy makers about this emerging field. The meeting agenda, speakers’ biographies, a list of participants, and a transcript can be found at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/stl/PGA_050738.
Support for the Symposium was provided by the National Science Foundation, Sloan Foundation, and Biotechnology Industry Organization.
14 NAE 2009 America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks and Tradeoffs
In 2009, five panel reports associated with America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks and Tradeoffs, were delivered to the administration and Congress and subsequently released publicly. These are all part of the America’s Energy Future (AEF) Project, which was initiated in 2007 jointly by NAE and NAS to inform the nation- al dialogue on the nation’s energy future. The reports provide authoritative character- izations of technologies that are either currently available or could be available in the next two decades that could help meet the nation’s energy challenges. Since their pub- lication, the committee’s initial report and the five panel reports have been the subjects of scores of briefings and have been widely disseminated among policy makers (see www.nationalacademies.org/energy). The results are being used widely by Congress in its considerations of energy and climate legislation in 2010 and by government depart- ments and agencies considering options for energy research and development.
The goal of the final report, America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation, program reports is to inform policy makers about technological options for transforming energy pro- duction, distribution, and use, to increase sustainability, support long-term economic prosperity, promote energy security, and reduce adverse environmental impacts. The principal technologies will address needs related to energy efficiency in buildings, transportation and industry, coal-fired electric power generation, nuclear power, renew- able energy (principally in electric power generation), oil and natural gas, alternative liquid transportation fuels derived from coal and biomass, and modernization of the nation’s electric power transmission and distribution grid.
A key AEF conclusion is that, with a sustained national commitment, the United States could realize substantial improvements in energy- efficiency, new sources of energy, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the accelerated deployment of the existing and emerging technologies in this portfolio. However, mobilization of the public and private sectors, supported by sustained long-term poli- cies and investments, will be essential to the decades-long efforts to develop, demonstrate, and deploy these technologies. Actions taken between now and 2020 to develop and demonstrate several key technologies will largely determine our options for many decades to come. Therefore, we must begin work very soon on key technology development and demonstration activities, even though some will be expensive, some will not be successful, and some are likely to be overtaken by better and newer technologies.
U.S.-Chinese Cooperation on Electricity from Renewables
The United States and China, the two largest energy consumers in the world, have a tremendous opportunity to shift reliance on fossil fuels to a more sustainable infrastruc- ture based on renewable energy. Although both countries have enjoyed recent growth
15 NAE 2009 in installed capacity, particularly for wind energy con- version, power generated from renewables has yet to meet even 10 percent of primary energy demand in either country. NAE, the NRC Policy and Global Affairs Division, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), and the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) are conduct- ing a joint study to help both countries develop strate- gies to scale up renewable power production and to identify prospects and recommend priorities for bilateral research and technology cooperation. This study is the latest phase of a cooperative program with CAS and CAE that dates back to the late 1990s.
The purpose of this study, which is being conducted by U.S. and Chinese committees of leading technical and scientific experts, is to help relevant agencies, minis- tries, and private industries in both countries assign priorities for cooperative activities program reports in developing and using electricity from renewable energy. The study has three sepa- rate but related goals:
• to assess the resource potential in China and the United States for grid-scale electric- ity generation • to explore near-term market opportunities for mature technologies, and • to recommend priorities for further collaboration, with a focus on reducing costs, improving efficiency and grid connectivity, and improving energy storage
The study focuses heavily on three major resources (wind, solar, and biomass) for grid- scale electricity generation, but some technologies with longer time horizons, such as geothermal and tidal power, are also considered. The study builds on the America’s Energy Future report (2009) that assessed technology risks and trade-offs for various renewable energy technologies. NAE member Dr. Larry Papay chairs the U.S. commit- tee, which traveled twice to China and twice to sites in the United States to hold bilat- eral meetings with its Chinese counterpart.
The second joint committee meeting, in March 2009 in Hawaii, included meetings with representatives of the governor’s office and visits to a geothermal power plant, wind farm, and several energy research institutes. In July 2009 the committees met in Qinghai Province, China, to learn about regional initia- tives to build a photovoltaic manufacturing and power-production base. At their most recent meeting in October 2009, the committees spent two days touring the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the University of Colorado at Boulder, before traveling to Irvine, California, where they studied Southern California Edison’s efforts to build infrastructure for the transmission of renewables and the associated challenges of integrating large amounts of intermittent power into the grid.
16 NAE 2009 The committees have drafted a consensus report, which will be ready for external review in June 2010 and released in September 2010. Dissemination events are planned for both countries.
Gathering Storm Still Frames the Policy Debate
Although the United States leads the world in science and technology development and the U.S. economy is based largely on scientific and technological innovation, danger signs on the horizon suggest that U.S. leadership might be threatened. For example, U.S. students consistently score below the international average in math and science, and, for the cost of hiring an engineer in the United States, a company can hire eight young professional engineers in India. These and other factors indicate that America’s advantages are eroding.
This was the overarching conclusion in Rising Above the
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for program reports a Brighter Economic Future, a landmark report from the National Academies released in 2005. The distinguished committee that wrote the report was chaired by NAE member Norman Augustine, retired head of Lockheed Martin, and included Nobel laureates and prominent business, government, and academic leaders, nine of them NAE members. The committee issued a strong warning that the United States is losing its global compet- itive edge in research and technology and that, unless we take concrete steps to reverse that trend, U.S. prosperity will decline as a result.
The committee made four recommendations with 20 specific implementation actions for improving K–12 science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education, attracting the best and brightest students to STEM higher education, increasing support for research, and improving the environment for innovation. Gathering Storm attracted significant attention from the executive and legislative branches of government. The America COMPETES Act, which includes almost all of the recommendations in the report, was passed and signed into law in 2007.
In April 2008, the National Academies organized a convocation to commemorate the release of the report. NAE President Charles M. Vest served on the convocation organiz- ing committee along with Norman Augustine and Tom Luce, CEO of the National Math and Science Initiative.
In the first year of the Obama administration, funding was appropriated for the APRA-E program recommended in Gathering Storm. In 2010, efforts to reauthorize America COMPETES are likely to reopen the debate and again call attention to Gathering Storm and its recommendations.
In addition, since the report was released, a number of states have organized Gathering Storm events and studies as part of their efforts to revitalize their economies through
17 NAE 2009 science- and engineering-based economic development. Many of these efforts were inspired by a convocation held by the National Academies in September 2006. The private sector has also taken steps, such as the launch of the National Math and Science Initiative, to implement several Gathering Storm recommendations for improving K–12 education on a national scale.
Rebuilding a Real Economy: Unleashing Engineering Innovation
The financial crisis that began in 2008 is a stark demonstration that we as a nation have put our country at risk by allowing too much of our economy to be based on sectors that do not create real value. Relying on vaporous transactions to generate wealth is no substitute for making real products and providing real services. In the 21st century, the United States and the rest of the world will face some of the most serious challenges of the modern age: feeding a growing population, generating ade- program reports quate energy without destroying the environment, countering chronic and emerging infectious diseases. The first decade of the new century has shown that engineering and technological innovation will be essential for the United States and other coun- tries to meet these challenges.
At the 2009 NAE Annual Meeting in Irvine, California, a public forum entitled “Rebuilding a Real Economy: Unleashing Engineering Innovation” brought together seven prominent leaders in engineering and innovation to discuss the chal- lenges facing America. Jean-Lou Chameau, president of the California Institute of Technology, described how research universities can not only foster the development of new ideas at the heart of innovation, but can also help translate those ideas into new products and services. Peter Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X PRIZE Foundation, explained how large prizes can catalyze innovation in many sectors to solve outstanding technological challenges. Judy Estrin, former chief technology officer of Cisco, focused on the dual needs of taking risks and thinking long term. Chad Holliday, former chairman and CEO of DuPont, identified the very real competitive threats facing our nation and sug- gested how we could go about countering them. Steve Koonin, under secretary of science at the U.S. Department of Energy, described the necessary steps to ensuring that the United States has secure, sustainable sources of energy. Raymond Lane, managing partner of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield, and Byers, laid out the steps govern- ment can take to promote innovation in the renewable energy sector. And Tony Tan Keng Yam, chairman of the National Research Foundation and former deputy prime minister of Singapore, offered an international perspective on U.S. prospects in the
18 NAE 2009 program reports
global economy. The insights of the panel members cut to the heart of the challenge of U.S. leadership in the turbulent world of the 21st century.
The forum was hosted by Ali Velshi, chief business correspondent for CNN and host of the program “Your Money.” Velshi has an extensive background in topics related to the economy and valuable first-hand experience in talking with people throughout the country about their concerns and hopes. His participation in the forum made for a lively and productive discussion.
As the panelists pointed out, no single action will reenergize our innovation system. We will need a portfolio of interconnected, interdependent initiatives to generate new knowledge and technology and move that new knowledge into a competitive world marketplace. The panelists clarified the goal toward which we must strive and described some of the most important steps we must take to achieve it.
A forthcoming summary (spring 2010) that captures the main points raise by the forum participants will encourage further reflection and discussion.
19 NAE 2009 2009 NAE Awards recipients
Charles Stark Draper Prize Recognized as one of the world’s preeminent awards for engineering achievement, this prize honors an engineer or engineers whose contribu- tions have significantly improved the quality of life, enabled people to live more freely and comfort- ably, and/or permitted the access to information. Presented annually during Engineers Week, the prize carries a $500,000 cash award and a gold medal.
Robert H. Dennard “for his invention and contributions to the development of Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM), used universally in comput- ers and other data processing and communication systems.”
Robert H. Dennard
Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize The Russ Prize is awarded in recognition of an outstanding achievement in bioengineering that improves the human condition. Presented biennially during Engineers Week, the prize carries a $500,000 cash award and a gold medal.
Elmer L. Gaden “for pioneering the engineering and commercialization of biological systems for large-scale manufacturing of antibiotics and other drugs.”
For additional information Elmer L. Gaden about the NAE awards, please visit our website
Founders Award The Founders Award is given in recognition of an NAE mem- ber or foreign associate who has exemplified the ideals and principles of NAE through professional, educational, and personal achievement and accomplishment. The Founders Award is presented at the NAE Annual Meeting in October and carries a $2,500 cash prize and a gold medal.
John R. Casani “for distinguished innovation and leadership in robotic spacecraft engineer- ing and project management that has enabled the first four decades of planetary and deep John R. Casani space exploration.”
Arthur M. Bueche Award The Bueche Award honors an engineer who has been actively involved in advancing U.S. science and technology policy, promoting U.S. technologi- cal development, and enhancing relations between industry, government, and universities. The award is presented at the NAE Annual Meeting and carries a $2,500 cash prize and a gold medal.
Sheila E. Widnall “for a remarkable academic career in fluid dynamics combined with the highest levels of public service, and for championing the role of women in engineering.” Sheila E. Widnall
21 2009 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES 009 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES FOREIGN AND MEMBERS NEW 2009 NationalAcademy Engineeringofthe ofone is foreignElectiontheassociatesof to 197. to membershipnumberU.S.the2,246and to foreignnineandassociates, bringingtotalthe February,In membersnewelectedNAE65 Massachusetts Institute of Technologyof Institute Massachusetts Yet-MingChiang Technologyof Institute California Chameau A. Jean-Lou Laboratory Propulsion Jet T.Moustafa Chahine Corporation Hydro American Chacour A. Selim Inc. Google Brin Sergey LLC Decisions, Strategic Bowman L. Frank Laboratory Research Naval States United P.Jay Boris Corporation Bechtel AvidanA. Amos Consultant Auth C. David WorcesterInstitute Polytechnic Apelian Diran Boulder at Colorado of University Anseth S. Kristi Associates Math Power Anderson M. Paul MEMBERS NEW theirinduction,oftime the 2009.October 4, associatesfollows,primarywith affiliations at Anewlyelectedofmemberslistforeign and approachesengineeringto education.” developing/implementingoring, innovative advancementstraditionalin engineerfields of developingtechnology,fieldsof makingmajor literature,”ing “pioneeringand and …new significantcontributionsengineer theto education,or including, whereappropriate, tributions“engineeringto research, practice, individualsoutstandingmadehavewho con engineer.an Academy membership honors highestprofessional distinctions accordedto 22
- - - H.O.R. Heavy Oil TechnologiesOil Heavy H.O.R. Ali Farouq S.M. Angeles Los California, of University Estrin L. Deborah Technologyof Institute Massachusetts Drela Mark Technologyof Institute Massachusetts Dennis B. Jack Inc. Google, Dean Jeffrey University Stanford Dally J. William retired Corporation, Genzyme Coury J. Arthur Studios Animation Pixar Cook L. Robert IBM Almaden Research Center Research Almaden IBM Miller D. Robert Inc. McGuire, J. Michael McGuire J. Michael University State Ohio The Marras S. William University Purdue Lundstrom S. Mark Inc. National, Schneider Lofgren B. Christopher Inc. Research Cryptography Kocher C. Paul Angeles Los California, of University Kim John University Stanford Khosla Chaitan Dame Notre of University Kareem Ahsan Urbana-Champaign at Illinois of University Jain Kanti ExxonMobilResearch Engineeringand Company Jackson Andrew Inc. Giroud, JP Giroud Jean-Pierre Inc. Devices, Analog Gilbert Barrie Inc. Google, Ghemawat Sanjay emeritus School, Postgraduate Naval U.S. P.Donald Jr.Gaver Labs Bell Alcatel-Lucent, Foschini J. Gerard Inc. Affymetrix, P.A.Stephen Fodor Whitney,& retired Pratt Finger N. Stephen
NAE 2 009 Chad A. Mirkin Robert W. Tkach Northwestern University Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent Umesh Mishra Stephen D. Umans University of California, Santa Barbara Consultant C. Mohan Mark W. Verbrugge IBM Almaden Research Center General Motors Research and Development Edward I. Moses Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Alan R. Washburn Charles Noelke U.S. Naval Postgraduate School E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company Lawrence M. Wein Matthew O’Donnell Stanford University University of Washington William L. Whittaker George A. Olah Carnegie Mellon University University of Southern California Paul G. Yock James F. Pankow Stanford University Portland State University Stavros S. Papadopulos S.S. Papadopulos Associates Inc. Stuart S.P. Parkin IBM Almaden Research Center NEW FOREIGN ASSOCIATES Claire L. Parkinson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Monika Auweter-Kurtz Percy A. Pierre University of Hamburg, Germany Michigan State University Jurjen Anno Battjes 2009 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES Chris D. Poland Delft University of Technology, emeritus, Degenkolb Engineers Netherlands Doraiswami Ramkrishna Sébastien Candel Purdue University Ecole Centrale de Paris, France Mendel Rosenblum Xianghong Cao Stanford University China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC), Robert A. Scholtz China University of Southern California Brian L. Eyre Gurindar S. Sohi University of Oxford, United Kingdom University of Wisconsin-Madison Prakash C. Kapur Howard A. Stone Indian Institute of Technology, India Harvard University Peter T. Kirstein John A. Swanson University College London, United Kingdom Swanson Analysis Services, Inc. Hendrik Van Brussel Richard M. Swanson Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium SunPower Corporation Edwin L. Thomas Massachusetts Institute of Technology
23 NAE 2009 NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS y M embers Anniversary NAE 45th yearin2009 Name inboldcelebratedhis Years 45 Robert M.White Edward Wenk, Jr. Dean A. Watkins H. GuyfordStever Lombard Squires Mark K.Smith Allen E.Puckett Max S.Peters Hilliard W. Paige George E.Mueller Brockway McMillan Kenneth G.McKay Douglas C.MacMillan Harvey F. Ludwig Charles H.Kaman Woodrow E.Johnson Walter R.Hibbard,Jr. William J.Hall Jerrier A. Haddad Richard J.Grosh Donald N.Frey John S.Foster, Jr Jay W. Forrester Alexander H.Flax Harold W. Fisher Don U.Deere Edward E.David,Jr. Karl P. Cohen Ray W. Clough Harold Brown R. ByronBird Leo L.Beranek Robert F. Bauer Edward J.Barlow Gene M. Amdahl 2009. in year 40th their celebrated bold in Names YEARS 44 TO 40 Simon Ramo More or 24 . .
Earnest F. Gloyna James F. Gibbons Joseph G.Gavin,Jr. Elmer L.Gaden E. MontfordFucik Robert A. Frosch Peter T. Flawn Daniel J.Fink Morris E.Fine A. J.Field Robert M.Fano James R.Fair James L.Everett,III Charles H.Elmendorf,III Mildred S.Dresselhaus Robert M.Drake,Jr. Lee L.Davenport George C.Dacey Malcolm R.Currie John P. Craven Edgar M.Cortright Francis H.Clauser Stuart W. Churchill Joseph V. Charyk Jack E.Cermak Robert H.Cannon,Jr. J. FredBucy Arthur E.Bryson Norman H.Brooks Lewis M.Branscomb Willard S.Boyle Sidney A. Bowhill B. PaulBlasingame Donald L.Bitzer Richard H.Battin Jordan J.Baruch Thomas D.Barrow William F. Ballhaus,Sr. Albert L.Babb Wm. HowardArnold Neal R. Amundson William G.Agnew 35th yearin2009. Names inboldcelebratedtheir 35 TO39 YEARS *Deceased
Henry R.Linden Salomon Levy Thomas M.Leps T. William Lambe Christopher C.Kraft,Jr. H. RichardJohnson James R.Johnson Arthur E.Humphrey Nick Holonyak,Jr. John P. Hirth Ira G.Hedrick Thomas J.Hanratty John C.Hancock Roy W. Gould John A.Tillinghast John J.Taylor Morris Tanenbaum Ivan E.Sutherland Louis D.Smullin Cedomir M.Sliepcevich* Anthony E.Siegman Robert W. Rummel* Rustum Roy Ian M.Ross Harold A. Rosen Eugene D.Reed Calvin F. Quate David S.Potter Robert Plunkett Thomas L.Phillips William J.Perry Robert J.Parks David Okrent Joseph H.Newman Dale D.Myers John L.Moll John J.McKetta,Jr. Fujio Matsuda Thomas L.Martin,Jr.* Frank E.Marble J. RossMacdonald John Lowe,III Alan M.Lovelace Robert G.Loewy C. GordonLittle John G.Linvill NAE 2 009 Myron Tribus Charles Crussard Julius J. Harwood Howard S. Turner Elio D’Appolonia George N. Hatsopoulos Albert D. Wheelon J. F. Davidson William R. Hawthorne Lotfi A. Zadeh Ruth M. Davis George H. Heilmeier Robert C. Dean, Jr. Robert W. Hellwarth Anthony J. DeMaria Joseph M. Hendrie 30 TO 34 YEARS Charles A. Desoer William C. Hittinger Names in bold celebrated their Gerald P. Dinneen David G. Hoag 30th year in 2009 Ira Dyer Philip G. Hodge Rex A. Elder David C. Hogg* Egil Abrahamsen Kenneth McK. Eldred Charles H. Holley H. Norman Abramson Leo Esaki D. Brainerd Holmes Andreas Acrivos Von R. Eshleman Kenneth F. Holtby NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS Harold M. Agnew Ersel A. Evans Charles L. Hosler, Jr. Clarence R. Allen Robert R. Everett W. Jack Howard Lew Allen, Jr. Thomas E. Everhart Michel Hug Betsy Ancker-Johnson Joseph Feinstein Noel Jarrett Arthur G. Anderson Steven J. Fenves George W. Jeffs John G. Anderson Iain Finnie* Paul C. Jennings Alfredo H-S. Ang Irene K. Fischer* Robert L. Johnson Neil A. Armstrong James L. Flanagan Jan Kaczmarek Rupert L. Atkin Merton C. Flemings Eneas D. Kane Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. Douglas W. Fuerstenau Edward R. Kane C. Gordon Bell Robert A. Fuhrman* William M. Kays Daniel Berg Yuan-Cheng B. Fung Bernard H. Kear Donald C. Berkey Tasuku Fuwa Herbert H. Kellogg Elwyn R. Berlekamp Theodore V. Galambos Jack L. Kerrebrock Franklin H. Blecher Robert G. Gallager Clyde E. Kesler Donald J. Blickwede William J. Galloway Robert W. Keyes Andrew H. Bobeck Richard L. Garwin Gordon S. Kino Bruno A. Boley Welko E. Gasich Herwig Kogelnik Michel Boudart Edwin A. Gee Thomas R. Kuesel Francis W. Boulger Ronald L. Geer Ernest S. Kuh Harry E. Bovay, Jr. Paul Germain* Christian J. Lambertsen John E. Breen Ivar Giaever William W. Lang P. L. Thibaut Brian John J. Gilman* Milton Levenson William B. Bridges Solomon W. Golomb Edwin N. Lightfoot, Jr. Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. Ralph E. Gomory Frederick F. Ling David Brown John B. Goodenough William R. Lucas Per V. Bruel William E. Gordon Robert W. Lucky James R. Burnett Eugene I. Gordon Frank W. Luerssen Robert A. Charpie George W. Govier Louis C. Lundstrom Lloyd S. Cluff Paul E. Gray John D. Mackenzie Louis F. Coffin, Jr. Andrew S. Grove Artur Mager Edward Cohen Wolf Hafele Enrique A. Marcatili John W. Coltman Robert N. Hall Nathan Marcuvitz Fernando J. Corbato Arthur G. Hansen Hans Mark Alan Cottrell Cyril M. Harris Edward A. Mason Harvey G. Cragon Stephen E. Harris Max V. Mathews Stephen H. Crandall William J. Harris, Jr. Robert D. Maurer *Deceased 25 NAE 2009 NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS James D.Meindl Ross E.McKinney William J.McCune,Jr. Bramlette McClelland Perry L.McCarty John S.Mayo Walter G.May Thorndike Saville,Jr. Jean E.Sammet Alfred Saffer Allen S.Russell Dale F. Rudd Anatol Roshko Warren M.Rohsenow Leslie E.Robertson Lawrence G.Roberts George A. Roberts James B.Reswick Eric H.Reichl Lymon C.Reese* Irving S.Reed John A. Quinn Ronald F. Probstein John M.Prausnitz William N.Poundstone James W. Plummer Thomas H.Pigford Jacques Peters Joseph Penzien Stanford S.Penner Marc J.Pelegrin Harold W. Paxton C. KumarN.Patel Norman F. Parker Jack S.Parker Simon Ostrach Carlos S.Ospina Henry J.Ongerth Kenneth H.Olsen Richard B.Neal Walter E.Morrow, Jr. John W. Morris James J.Morgan Gordon E.Moore Dade W. Moeller Johannes Moe James K.Mitchell Gordon H.Millar Harold S.Mickley Sidney Metzger 26 Edward Woll J. ErnestWilkins, Jr. Maurice V. Wilkes Robert L.Wiegel Robert H.Widmer Robert V. Whitman David C.White Richard T. Whitcomb* Robert H.Wertheim James G.Wenzel Lloyd R.Welch Paul B.Weisz James Wei Johannes Weertman Wilford F. Weeks William M.Webster Milton E.Wadsworth John B.Wachtman, Jr. Andrew J.Viterbi Ivan M.Viest Georges Andre C.Vendryes Anestis S. Veletsos Milton D.Van Dyke Marshall P. Tulin John W. Townsend, Jr. Klaus D.Timmerhaus Ping KingTien Daniel M.Tellep Charles E.Taylor Morgan C.Sze George W. Swenson,Jr. Lawrence E.Swabb,Jr. Stanley D.Stookey Theodore Stern Morris A. Steinberg Francis M.Staszesky Roger W. Staehle Arthur M.Squires Mete A. Sozen Elias Snitzer Joe MaukSmith Lawrence H.Skromme John H.Sinfelt Masanobu Shinozuka Paul G.Shewmon Oleg D.Sherby H. E.D.Scovil Manfred R.Schroeder* Roland W. Schmitt Robert S.Schechter *Deceased Arthur Ashkin William A.Anders Dell K.Allen Harl P. Aldrich,Jr. Mihran S. Agbabian Arthur P. Adamson Jan D. Achenbach 25th yearin2009. Names inboldcelebratedtheir 25 TO29 YEARS Leonardo ZeevaertWiechers Alfred A. Yee Amnon Yariv Herbert H.Woodson John E.Dolan Robert H.Dennard Raymond F. Decker Daniel B.DeBra Robert G.Dean F. Paul deMello James W. Dally Jose B.Cruz,Jr. L. EricCross Robert C.Crooke Douglass D.Crombie Robert J.Creagan Eugene E.Covert Dale R.Corson Harry W. Coover Thomas B.Cook,Jr. Esther M.Conwell W. DaleCompton Donald E.Coles Richard J.Coar John L.Cleasby Anil K.Chopra Bei T. Chao Howard Brenner John G.Bollinger Nicolaas Bloembergen Erich Bloch Arden L.Bement,Jr. Wallace B.Behnke John W. Batchelor Lionel O.Barthold Seymour Baron Norman R. Augustine
NAE 2 009 Robert A. Duffy John W. Leonard Roger A. Schmitz Floyd Dunn Philip W. Lett William R. Schowalter Peter S. Eagleson Tingye Li Glenn A. Schurman Charles A. Eckert Peter W. Likins Harris M. Schurmeier Joseph F. Engelberger Raymond C. Loehr John H. Seinfeld John V. Evans Joseph C. Logue Charles V. Shank Alexander Feiner Dan Luss Maurice E. Shank John C. Fisher James W. Mar Eugene D. Shchukin G. David Forney, Jr. Hudson Matlock Josef Singer* Harry C. Gatos James W. Mayer John B. Slaughter Ralph S. Gens Walter J. McCarthy, Jr. George E. Smith George S. Graff Charles J. McMahon, Jr. Kenneth A. Smith Paul E. Green, Jr. Alan L. McWhorter Joseph L. Smith, Jr. NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS Elias P. Gyftopoulos Carver A. Mead Harold G. Sowman Robert S. Hahn Robert Mehrabian William E. Splinter Kent F. Hansen Seymour L. Meisel Charles P. Spoelhof Robert D. Hanson Harry W. Mergler Gunter Spur Dean B. Harrington Carl L. Monismith Marshall B. Standing George A. Harter Franklin K. Moore Beno Sternlicht Douglass C. Harvey Douglas C. Moorhouse Fred Sterzer Kenneth E. Haughton Thomas J. Murrin Henry E. Stone Alfred J. Hendron, Jr. Norman A. Nadel Derald A. Stuart R. Richard Heppe Hyla S. Napadensky G. Russell Sutherland Cyril Hilsum Robin B. Nicholson Joseph F. Sutter David A. Hodges Karl H. Norris Clarence A. Syvertson Edward E. Hood, Jr. William R. Opie Nickolas J. Themelis John W. Hutchinson M. Kenneth Oshman Gareth Thomas K. Uno Ingard John R. Pearson Leo J. Thomas Sheldon E. Isakoff Thomas K. Perkins Ken Thompson Donald G. Iselin Karl S. Pister Charles F. Tiffany Irwin M. Jacobs Dalton H. Pritchard Haldor F. A. Topsoe Trevor O. Jones Paul E. Queneau Thomas A. Vanderslice Thomas Kailath Lawrence R. Rabiner Gregory S. Vassell John W. Kalb Raj Reddy Leland J. Walker Ivan P. Kaminow Eli Reshotko Sheldon Weinig C. Judson King James R. Rice Jasper A. Welch, Jr. Leonard Kleinrock Herbert H. Richardson John F. Welch, Jr. Donald E. Knuth Gustavo Rivas-Mijares Albert R. C. Westwood Leonard J. Koch Walter L. Robb Willis S. White, Jr. Max A. Kohler Stanley T. Rolfe Gerald L. Wilson James N. Krebs James F. Roth Holden W. Withington Henry Kressel Victor H. Rumsey Theodore Y. Wu Charles C. Ladd Donald G. Russell Takeo Yokobori Butler W. Lampson Irwin W. Sandberg Dante C. Youla John W. Landis Gurmukh S. Sarkaria Laurence R. Young J. Halcombe Laning Jacob W. Schaefer Edwin L. Zebroski Griff C. Lee John A. Schey Paul Zia George Leitmann John H. Schmertmann
*Deceased 27 NAE 2009 2009 Private Contributions tions
u The National Academy of Robert and Cornelia Eaton Shela and Kumar Patel Engineering gratefully acknowledges Richard Evans Percy Pollard the following members and friends Harvey V. Fineberg and Robert A. Pritzker who made charitable contributions Mary E. Wilson Dr. and Mrs. Allen E. Puckett during 2009. Their collective, pri- Tobie and Dan Fink Ann and Michael Ramage contrib
vate philanthropy helps to enhance George and Ann Fisher Simon Ramo the impact of NAE as advisor to Harold K. and Betty A. Forsen Carol and David Richards the nation. William L. and Mary Kay Friend Anne and Walt Robb Eugene Garfield Henry M. Rowan rivate William H. Gates, III George Rowe EINSTEIN SOCIETY T. H. Geballe Jack W. and Valerie Rowe In recognition of members and Penny and Bill George Mrs. Joseph E. Rowe friends who have made lifetime Nan and Chuck Geschke William J. Rutter 2009 p contributions of $100,000 or more Bernard M. Gordon Stephen and Anne Ryan to the National Academies as per- Barbara N. Grossman Jillian Sackler sonal gifts or as gifts facilitated by Corbin Gwaltney Raymond and Beverly Sackler the donor through a donor advised Margaret A. Hamburg and Henry and Susan Samueli fund, matching gift program, or Peter F. Brown Bernard G. and Rhoda Sarnat family foundation. Names in bold William M. Haney, III Leonard D. Schaeffer are NAE members. Michael and Sheila Held Wendy and Eric Schmidt Jane Hirsh Sara Lee and Axel Schupf Anonymous M. Blakeman Ingle Shep and Carol Ruth Shepherd John Abelson Joan and Irwin Mark Jacobs Melvin I. Simon Bruce and Betty Alberts Robert L. and Anne K. James Georges C. St. Laurent, Jr. Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Anita K. Jones Charlotte and Morry Tanenbaum John and Lise Armstrong Thomas V. Jones Ted Turner Richard C. and Rita Atkinson Trevor O. Jones Leslie L. Vadasz Norman R. Augustine Kenneth A. Jonsson Roy and Diana Vagelos William F. Ballhaus, Sr. Yuet Wai and Alvera Kan Charles M. and Rebecca M. Vest Craig and Barbara Barrett Fred Kavli John C. Whitehead Jordan and Rhoda Baruch Cindy and Jeong Kim Wm. A. Wulf Warren L. Batts Olga Kirchmayer* Alejandro Zaffaroni Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. Frederick A. Klingenstein Janet and Jerry Zucker Kenneth E. Behring William I. Koch C. Gordon Bell Jill H. Kramer Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp John W. Landis HERITAGE SOCIETY Diane and Norman Bernstein William W. Lang In recognition of members and Mrs. Elkan R. Blout Gerald and Doris Laubach friends who have contributed to the Harry E. Bovay, Jr. Whitney and Betty MacMillan future of the National Academies David G. Bradley William W. McGuire through life income, bequests, Donald L. Bren Burton and DeeDee McMurtry and other estate and planned gifts. Sydney Brenner Richard and Ronay Menschel Names in bold are NAE members. Fletcher* and Peg Byrom Dane and Mary Louise Miller Russell L. Carson Mrs. G. William Miller Andreas Acrivos Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone George and Cynthia* Mitchell Gene M. Amdahl A. James Clark Gordon and Betty Moore John C. Angus James McConnell Clark Joe and Glenna Moore John and Lise Armstrong W. Dale and Jeanne Compton David and Lindsay Morgenthaler Norman R. Augustine Roman W. DeSanctis Richard M. Morrow Jack D. Barchas Robert and Florence Deutsch Philip and Sima Needleman Stanley Baum George and Maggie Eads Gerda K. Nelson* Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. Ralph S. O’Connor Clyde J. Behney Peter O’Donnell, Jr. Paul Berg Key: Franklin H. Blecher *Deceased Kenneth H. Olsen §Emeritus Doris Pankow Daniel Branton ◊Giving matched by Lawrence and Carol Papay Robert and Lillian Brent the Jacobs Challenge Jack S. Parker John A. Clements
28 NAE 2009 D. Walter Cohen Paul R. Schimmel Robert C. Forney Morrel H. Cohen Stuart F. Schlossman Donald N. Frey Colleen Conway-Welch Kenneth I. Shine Richard L. Garwin Ellis and Bettsy Cowling Robert L. Sinsheimer Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. tions Barbara J. Culliton Arnold and Constance Stancell Martin E. Glicksman u Malcolm R. Currie H. Eugene Stanley Joseph W. Goodman Ruth M. Davis Dale F. Stein William E. Gordon* Robert A. Derzon* Rosemary A. Stevens Robert W. Gore
Peter N. Devreotes John A. Swets Paul E. Gray contrib Paul M. Doty Esther S. Takeuchi Paul R. Gray Mildred S. Dresselhaus Paul Talalay John O. Hallquist Gerard W. Elverum Ivan M. Viest Delon Hampton
Emanuel Epstein Willis H. Ware Martin C. Hemsworth* rivate William K. Estes Robert H. Wertheim John L. Hennessy Richard Evans Maw-Kuen Wu Robert and Darlene Hermann Robert C. Forney Wm. A. Wulf David and Susan Hodges
Paul H. Gilbert Charles Yanofsky Kenneth F. Holtby 2009 p Martin E. Glicksman Michael Zubkoff Edward E. Hood, Jr. George Gloeckler Robert E. Kahn Chushiro Hayashi Thomas Kailath Michael and Sheila Held GOLDEN BRIDGE SOCIETY Dr. and Mrs. Paul G. Kaminski Richard B. Johnston, Jr. In recognition of members of the John and Wilma Kassakian Anita K. Jones National Academy of Engineering Theodore C. Kennedy Jerome Kagan who have made lifetime contribu- James Krebs John W. Landis tions of $20,000 to $99,999 to the Kent Kresa Norma M. Lang National Academies as personal Lester C. Krogh William W. Lang gifts or as gifts facilitated by the David M. Lederman R. Duncan Luce donor through a donor advised Bonnie Berger and Frank Thomas S. Maddock fund, matching gift program, or Thomson Leighton Artur Mager family foundation. Johanna Levelt Sengers Jane Menken Norman N. Li G. Lewis* and Ingrid Meyer Andreas Acrivos Frank W. Luerssen Gordon and Betty Moore William F. Allen, Jr. James F. Mathis Arno G. Motulsky Gene M. Amdahl Kenneth G. McKay Van C. Mow William A. Anders John L. Moll Guido Munch Bishnu S. Atal Dan and Patsy Mote Mary O. Mundinger William F. Ballhaus, Jr. Van C. Mow Gerda K. Nelson* William F. Banholzer George E. Mueller Norman F. Ness Paul Baran Dale and Marge Myers Ronald and Joan Nordgren Thomas D. Barrow Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel Gilbert S. Omenn Franklin H. Blecher John Neerhout, Jr. Wm. R. Opie Erich Bloch Robert M. Nerem Dr. and Mrs. Bradford Parkinson Barry W. Boehm Ronald P. Nordgren Zack T. Pate Lewis M. Branscomb Franklin M. Orr, Jr. Daniel W. Pettengill* Harold Brown Simon Ostrach Frank and Billie* Press George Bugliarello Zack T. Pate Simon Ramo William Cavanaugh, III Donald E. Petersen Alexander Rich Robert A. Charpie Dennis J. Picard Frederic M. Richards* Joseph V. Charyk Richard F. Rashid Henry W. Riecken John M. Cioffi George B. Rathmann Emanuel P. Rivers Stephen H. Crandall Ronald L. Rivest Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins Malcolm R. Currie George A. Roberts James F. Roth Ruth A. David Jonathan J. Rubinstein Sheila A. Ryan Lance A. Davis Maxine L. Savitz Ruth M. Davis Warren G. Schlinger Gerald P. Dinneen Roland W. Schmitt Key: E. Linn Draper Donald R. Scifres *Deceased Mildred S. Dresselhaus § Robert F. Sproull Emeritus Thomas E. Everhart Arnold and Constance Stancell ◊Giving matched by Samuel C. Florman the Jacobs Challenge Raymond S. Stata
29 NAE 2009 H. Guyford Stever Howard E. Cox§ The 2009 Irwin and Joan Jacobs Stanley D. Stookey Leslie B. Daniels NAE Matching Gift Challenge Peter B. Teets Charles R. Denham matched, dollar for dollar, tions Daniel M. Tellep Ralph C. Derrickson any increase over a donor’s u Leo J. and Joanne J. Thomas Meredith L. Dreiss 2008 contribution to the NAE Gary and Diane Tooker Charles W. Duncan, Jr.§ Independent Fund. Donors are Ivan M. Viest George C. Eads recognized in the NAE’s annual Andrew J. Viterbi Harvey V. Fineberg giving societies, listed below,
contrib Daniel I.C. Wang Richard N. Foster according to the combined Willis H. Ware Raymond E. Galvin§ impact of their 2009 contribu- William L. Wearly Eugene Garfield§ tions and the matched amount. Johannes Weertman Jack M. Gill §
rivate Julia R. Weertman Samuel F. Heffner Robert H. Wertheim Jane Hirsh Catalyst Society Albert R. C. Westwood Charles O. Holliday, Jr. In recognition of NAE members Robert M. White M. Blakeman Ingle§ and friends of NAE who contrib-
2009 p Sheila E. Widnall Christopher Ireland uted $10,000 or more in collective John J. Wise Irwin Mark Jacobs support for the National Academies Edward Woll Robert L. James§ in 2009. We acknowledge those A. Thomas Young Scott A. Jones§ contributions made as personal Kenneth A. Jonsson§ gifts or as gifts facilitated by the William F. Kieschnick§ donor through a donor advised The Presidents’ Circle William I. Koch fund, matching gift program, or The Presidents’ Circle is an advi- Jill H. Kramer family foundation. sory and philanthropic support Gerald D. Laubach§ group of the National Academies. Richard J. Mahoney§ NAE Members Donations by members of the Robert H. Malott§ Anonymous ◊ Presidents’ Circle help promote Davis L. Masten Alice M. Agogino ◊ greater awareness of science, John F. McDonnell William F. Ballhaus, Jr. technology, and medicine in our Burton J. McMurtry§ Paul Baran society and a better understand- Charles H. McTier Craig and Barbara Barrett ◊ ing of the work of the National Kamal K. Midha§ Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. ◊ Academies. Names in italics are ex George P. Mitchell§ Harry E. Bovay, Jr. officio members. Joe F. Moore§ George Bugliarello ◊ Robert W. Morey§ Robert A. Charpie Drew E. Altman David T. Morgenthaler John M. Cioffi § ◊ Jack R. Anderson Darla Mueller A. James Clark ◊ Norman R. Augustine Patricia S. Nettleship§ G. Wayne Clough § ◊ Thomas D. Barrow Peter O’Donnell, Jr. Ruth A. David § ◊ Ernest A. Bates Jack S. Parker§ Lance A. Davis § ◊ Warren L. Batts Robert A. Pritzker Robert H. Dennard Donald R. Beall Robert and Florence Deutsch◊ § John S. Reed Berkley Bedell Charles W. Robinson§ Robert and Cornelia Eaton § ◊ Diane Bernstein Neil R. Rolde§ Stephen N. and Sharon Finger § ◊ E. Cabell Brand Jillian Sackler Tobie and Dan Fink Malin Burnham § William L. and Mary Kay Friend◊ § Harvey S. Sadow Fletcher L. Byrom* Axel Schupf Nan and Chuck Geschke § ◊ Louis W. Cabot Sara Lee Schupf Paul R. Gray § ◊ Wiley N. Caldwell H.R. Shepherd§ John O. Hallquist § ◊ M. Blouke Carus Susan E. Siegel John L. Hennessy Ralph J. Cicerone § Charles O. Holliday, Jr.◊ § Georges C. St. Laurent, Jr. James McConnell Clark Thomas C. Sutton Joan and Irwin Mark Jacobs Dollie Cole§ Thomas Kailath◊ § Judy Swanson Nancy E. Conrad Deborah Szekely§ Theodore C. Kennedy Charles M. Vest Cindy and Jeong Kim Robert H. Waterman§ John W. Landis Key: Margaret S. Wilson§ David M. Lederman
*Deceased Carole S. Young Bonnie Berger and Frank § ◊ Emeritus James F. Young Thomson Leighton ◊Giving matched by Gordon and Betty Moore the Jacobs Challenge
30 NAE 2009 Dan and Patsy Mote◊ William E. Gordon*◊ Wesley L. Harris◊ Ronald and Joan Nordgren◊ Michael W. Hunkapiller Siegfried S. Hecker◊ Roberto Padovani◊ Robert E. Kahn Chenming Hu◊ Lawrence and Carol Papay◊ Dr. and Mrs. Paul G. Kaminski Anita K. Jones◊ tions Jack S. Parker◊ James R. Katzer John and Wilma Kassakian u Robert A. Pritzker Pradman P. Kaul◊ Anthony D. Kurtz Ann and Michael Ramage Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.◊ Richard A. Meserve◊ Richard F. Rashid◊ Gerald and Doris Laubach James K. Mitchell◊ ◊ ◊
Ronald L. Rivest Frank W. Luerssen Cherry A. Murray contrib Anne and Walt Robb◊ John C. Martin◊ Stuart O. Nelson◊ Jonathan J. Rubinstein◊ George E. Mueller Matthew O’Donnell◊ Maxine L. Savitz◊ Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel Percy A. Pierre◊ ◊
Donald R. Scifres Dennis J. Picard George A. Roberts rivate Arnold and Constance Stancell◊ Simon Ramo Mendel Rosenblum◊ Dale F. Stein◊ Henry M. Rowan Andrew P. Sage◊ Peter B. Teets Henry and Susan Samueli Jerry Sanders◊
Charles M. and Joel S. Spira◊ Linda S. Sanford◊ 2009 p Rebecca M. Vest◊ Dr. and Mrs. Leo J. Thomas Ronald V. Schmidt◊ Raymond Viskanta◊ Gary and Diane Tooker Maurice E. Shank◊ Andrew J. Viterbi◊ Daniel I.C. Wang◊ John A. Swanson◊ Robert H. Wertheim◊ Edgar S. Woolard, Jr.◊ Thomas H. Vonder Haar◊ Sheila E. Widnall◊ Adrian Zaccaria Robert H. Wagoner◊ Paul G. Yock◊ Willis S. White, Jr.◊ A. Thomas Young◊ Friends Wm. A. Wulf◊ Anonymous◊ Friends Friends Jane C. Brown◊ Jim and Cindy Hinchman◊ Barbara N. Grossman Challenge Society Peter O’Donnell, Jr. In recognition of NAE members and friends of NAE who contrib- Charter Society uted between $2,500 and $4,999 In recognition of NAE members Rosette Society in collective support for the and friends of NAE who contrib- In recognition of NAE members National Academies in 2009. We uted between $1,000 and $2,499 and friends of NAE who contrib- acknowledge those contributions in collective support for the uted between $5,000 and $9,999 made as personal gifts or as gifts National Academies in 2009. We in collective support for the facilitated by the donor through a acknowledge those contributions National Academies in 2009. We donor advised fund, matching gift made as personal gifts or as gifts acknowledge those contributions program, or family foundation. facilitated by the donor through a made as personal gifts or as gifts donor advised fund, matching gift facilitated by the donor through a NAE Members program, or family foundation. donor advised fund, matching gift Anonymous◊ program, or family foundation. Rodney C. Adkins NAE Members Ken Austin◊ Andreas Acrivos NAE Members Clyde and Jeanette Baker◊ Ronald J. Adrian◊ Thomas D. Barrow R. Byron Bird◊ Harl P. Aldrich, Jr. Barry W. Boehm Thomas F. Budinger◊ Edward C. Aldridge, Jr. Lewis M. Branscomb Jeffrey P. Buzen◊ Clarence R. Allen Joseph V. Charyk Corbett Caudill Lew Allen, Jr. * Sunlin Chou◊ Selim A. Chacour◊ John L. Anderson Paul Citron◊ Joseph M. Colucci◊ John C. Angus◊ Robert P. and Ellen M. Colwell◊ Harry M. Conger Minoru S. Araki Robert C. Forney Robert W. Conn◊ Neil A. Armstrong Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.◊ Ross B. Corotis◊ Wm. Howard Arnold Richard D. Gitlin◊ Malcolm R. Currie◊ Arthur B. Baggeroer Lee L. Davenport◊ Daniel Berg◊ James J. Duderstadt◊ Philip A. Bernstein◊ ◊ ◊ Key: Charles Elachi Rudolph Bonaparte *Deceased Harold K. and Betty A. Forsen◊ Seth Bonder §Emeritus Howard L. Frank George H. Born◊ ◊Giving matched by Paul E. Gray H. Kent Bowen the Jacobs Challenge
31 NAE 2009 Willard S. Boyle◊ Edward E. Hagenlocker◊ Venkatesh Narayanamurti◊ Corale L. Brierley◊ George A. Harter◊ John Neerhout, Jr.◊ James A. Brierley◊ George N. Hatsopoulos Chrysostomos L. Nikias tions William R. Brody Alan J. Heeger◊ Robert B. Ormsby, Jr. u Alan C. Brown David and Susan Hodges◊ Franklin M. Orr, Jr. Andrew Brown, Jr. Thom J. Hodgson Dr. and Mrs. Bradford Parkinson◊ Harold and Colene Brown Edward E. Hood, Jr.◊ Shela and Kumar Patel John H. Bruning◊ John R. Howell Arogyaswami J. Paulraj◊ ◊ ◊ contrib James R. Burnett Mary Jane Irwin Stanford S. Penner Robert P. Caren◊ Andrew Jackson and Donald E. Petersen Moustafa T. Chahine◊ Lillian A. Rankel◊ Kurt E. Petersen◊ A. Ray Chamberlain◊ Stephen B. Jaffe◊ William P. Pierskalla◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
rivate Jean-Lou A. Chameau Leah H. Jamieson Chris D. Poland Chau-Chyun Chen◊ George W. Jeffs William F. Powers Stephen Z. Cheng Marvin E. Jensen◊ Donald E. Procknow◊ Aaron Cohen◊ Barry C. Johnson Henry H. Rachford, Jr.◊
2009 p Esther M. Conwell G. Frank Joklik Prabhakar Raghavan◊ Avelino Corma◊ Evelyn S. Jones Joy and George Rathmann Richard W. Couch, Jr.◊ Aravind K. Joshi◊ Buddy D. Ratner◊ Arthur Coury◊ M. Frans Kaashoek◊ Joseph B. Reagan Gary L. Cowger Melvin F. Kanninen◊ Kenneth L. Reifsnider◊ Henry Cox Chaitan Khosla◊ Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins Natalie W. Crawford Sung W. Kim◊ Bernard I. Robertson Glen T. Daigger James L. Kirtley Warren M. Rohsenow◊ Ernest L. Daman Albert S. Kobayashi Alton D. Romig, Jr.◊ David E. Daniel◊ Paul C. Kocher◊ Anatol Roshko L. Berkley Davis◊ U. Fred Kocks◊ William B. Rouse◊ Carl de Boor Lester C. and Joan M. Krogh William B. Russel◊ Pablo G. Debenedetti Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf Allen S. Russell◊ Raymond F. Decker Way Kuo◊ B. Don and Becky Russell◊ Thomas and Bettie Deen Charles C. Ladd Vinod K. Sahney Ralph L. Disney◊ Fred J. Leonberger Steven B. Sample◊ Nicholas M. Donofrio◊ Frances S. and George T. Ligler◊ Roland W. Schmitt◊ E. Linn Draper, Jr.◊ Burn-Jeng Lin◊ William R. Schowalter◊ George J. Dvorak◊ Kuo-Nan Liou◊ Soroosh Sorooshian◊ Gerard W. Elverum◊ Jack E. Little James F. Stahl◊ Lawrence B. Evans◊ Robert G. Loewy Raymond S. Stata Thomas E. Everhart J. David Lowell Richard J. Stegemeier Thomas V. Falkie Dr. and Mrs. J. Ross Macdonald Kenneth E. Stinson Leroy M. Fingerson◊ William J. MacKnight◊ Stanley D. Stookey◊ Anthony E. Fiorato◊ Thomas S. Maddock Richard M. Swanson◊ George and Ann Fisher Artur Mager◊ Charlotte and Morry Tanenbaum Peter T. Flawn◊ Hans Mark◊ Charles E. Taylor◊ Samuel C. Florman Edward A. Mason◊ George Tchobanoglous Gordon E. Forward James F. Mathis James M. Tien◊ Mauricio Futran◊ Robert D. Maurer Matthew V. Tirrell Elsa M. Garmire Dan Maydan Hardy W. Trolander Donald P. Gaver◊ Walter J. McCarthy, Jr.◊ James J. Truchard◊ Joseph G. Gavin, Jr. Sanford N. McDonnell R. Rhodes Trussell◊ Alexander F. Giacco James C. McGroddy◊ James E. Turner, Jr. Eduardo D. Glandt◊ Terence P. McNulty◊ A. Galip Ulsoy Arthur L. Goldstein◊ Kishor C. Mehta◊ David Walt and Michele May◊ Mary L. Good◊ James D. Meindl◊ Darsh T. Wasan◊ Hermann K. Gummel James J. Mikulski William L. Wearly William F. Miller◊ Johannes Weertman Duncan T. Moore Julia R. Weertman Key: Edward I. Moses◊ Albert R. C. Westwood◊ *Deceased ◊ ◊ § Albert F. Myers David A. Whelan Emeritus ◊ ◊ Dale and Marge Myers Ward O. Winer Giving matched by ◊ ◊ the Jacobs Challenge Albert Narath Jack K. Wolf
32 NAE 2009 Eugene Wong F. Peter Boer Robert E. Fenton◊ Herbert H. Woodson◊ Geoffrey Boothroyd Michael J. Fetkovich Richard N. Wright Lillian C. Borrone Morris E. Fine Israel J. Wygnanski P. L. Thibaut Brian Bruce A. Finlayson◊ tions Alfred A. Yee◊ Yvonne C. Brill◊ Essex E. Finney, Jr. u William W-G. Yeh◊ Howard J. Bruschi RADM and Mrs. Millard Yannis C. Yortsos◊ Jack E. Buffington◊ Firebaugh◊ Anne and John Cahn Robert E. Fischell ◊
Friends James D. Callen Nancy D. Fitzroy contrib Kristine L. Bueche John M. Campbell, Sr. Merton C. Flemings◊ Eric C. Johnson and Kathleen Federico Capasso G. David Forney, Jr. Minadeo Johnson E. Dean Carlson◊ John S. Foster, Jr.◊
William Cavanaugh, III Charles A. Fowler rivate Don B. Chaffin Eli Fromm Other Individual Morris Chang◊ Shun Chong Fung Donors Vernon L. Chartier Dr. and Mrs. Elmer L. Gaden◊
In recognition of NAE members Anil K. Chopra◊ Theodore V. Galambos 2009 p and friends of NAE who contrib- Andrew Chraplyvy Gerald E. Galloway, Jr.◊ uted up to $999 in collective sup- Richard C. Chu◊ Edwin A. Gee◊ port for the National Academies David R. Clarke◊ Ronald L. Geer in 2009. We acknowledge those Edmund M. Clarke◊ Don P. Giddens◊ contributions made as personal John L. Cleasby Virginia P. Gidley◊ gifts or as gifts facilitated by the Ray W. Clough◊ Paul H. Gilbert donor through a donor advised Seymour B. Cohn◊ George J. Gleghorn fund, matching gift program, or Richard A. Conway Earnest F. Gloyna family foundation. Fernando J. Corbato◊ Alan J. Goldman Dale R. Corson Richard J. Goldstein◊ NAE Members Eugene E. Covert Steve and Nancy Goldstein H. Norman Abramson◊ Douglass D. Crombie Solomon W. Golomb Linda M. Abriola◊ David E. Crow Joseph W. Goodman Hadi Abu-Akeel Lawrence B. Curtis Roy W. Gould◊ Mihran S. Agbabian Edward E. David, Jr.◊ Thomas E. Graedel William G. Agnew Delbert E. Day Gary S. Grest Paul A. Allaire Anthony J. DeMaria◊ William and Sharon Gross◊ Charles A. Amann Joseph M. DeSimone◊ Barbara J. Grosz◊ John E. Anderson Charles A. Desoer◊ Karl A. Gschneidner◊ John G. Anderson◊ Robert C. DeVries Jerrier A. Haddad Paul M. Anderson◊ George E. Dieter Carl W. Hall◊ Frank F. Aplan◊ Robert H. Dodds Carol K. Hall◊ Kenneth E. Arnold Albert A. Dorman William J. Hall R. Lyndon Arscott◊ Irwin Dorros Thomas L. Hampton James R. Asay◊ Earl H. Dowell Julius J. Harwood Donald W. Bahr Elisabeth M. Drake Ira* and Tina Hedrick◊ Ruzena K. Bajcsy◊ Floyd Dunn Adam Heller Grigory I. Barenblatt◊ Ira Dyer Martin E. Hellman Robert W. Bartlett◊ David A. Dzombak◊ Robert W. Hellwarth Howard and Alice Baum Peter S. Eagleson Arthur H. Heuer Zdenek P. Bazant Robert C. Earlougher, Jr. John P. Hirth Georges and Marlene Belfort Lewis S. Edelheit William C. Hittinger◊ Leo L. Beranek Helen T. Edwards David G. Hoag◊ Arthur E. Bergles◊ Farouk El-Baz Allan S. Hoffman◊ James R. Biard Bruce R. Ellingwood Stanley H. Horowitz Paul N. Blumberg◊ Joel S. Engel Evelyn L. Hu◊ Jack L. Blumenthal Deborah L. Estrin◊ Thomas J. Hughes John V. Evans Sheldon E. Isakoff James R. Fair Robert B. Jansen Key: Robert M. Fano Donald L. Johnson
*Deceased Richard G. Farmer Marshall G. Jones◊ §Emeritus ◊ James A. Fay Angel G. Jordan Giving matched by ◊ the Jacobs Challenge Joseph Feinstein John W. Kalb
33 NAE 2009 Ivan P. Kaminow Joan L. Mitchell Robert J. Serafin Ahsan Kareem◊ Sanjit K. Mitra F. Stan Settles Kenneth H. Keller◊ Dade W. Moeller Don W. Shaw tions Pradeep K. Khosla Francis C. Moon Freeman D. Shepherd u Timothy L. Killeen Richard K. Moore Thomas B. Sheridan Judson and Jeanne King A. Stephen Morse◊ Martin B. Sherwin Robert M. Koerner Joel Moses Reuel Shinnar◊ Bernard L. Koff◊ E. Phillip Muntz Neil G. Siegel
contrib Max A. Kohler Earll M. Murman Anthony E. Siegman Bill and Ann Koros Haydn H. Murray◊ Arnold H. Silver Demetrious Koutsoftas◊ Gerald Nadler Peter G. Simpkins Herbert Kroemer◊ Devaraysamudram R. Nagaraj Kumares C. Sinha◊ ◊
rivate Richard T. Lahey, Jr. David J. Nash Jack M. Sipress Larry W. Lake◊ Alan Needleman◊ Ernest T. Smerdon James L. Lammie Joseph H. Newman Henry I. Smith◊ William W. Lang Wesley L. Nyborg◊ Gurindar S. Sohi◊
2009 p Carl G. Langner◊ James G. O’Connor Alfred Z. Spector◊ Robert C. Lanphier, III Charles R. O’Melia Gunter Stein Louis J. Lanzerotti Robert S. O’Neil◊ Dean E. Stephan Ronald G. Larson◊ David H. Pai Gregory Stephanopoulos Chung K. Law Hilliard W. Paige Thomas G. Stephens Alan Lawley◊ Athanassios Z. Panagiotopoulos◊ Kenneth H. Stokoe, II◊ Edward D. Lazowska Stavros S. Papadopulos◊ Richard G. Strauch◊ Margaret A. LeMone Frank L. Parker G. B. Stringfellow Johanna Levelt Sengers Claire L. Parkinson◊ Stanley C. Suboleski Mark J. Levin◊ Alan W. Pense James M. Symons Herbert S. Levinson◊ Nicholas A. Peppas◊ Rodney J. Tabaczynski Salomon Levy John H. Perepezko◊ R. Bruce Thompson Paul A. Libby◊ Thomas K. Perkins David A. Tirrell◊ Peter W. Likins Julia M. Phillips◊ Neil E. Todreas◊ Barbara H. Liskov◊ Karl S. Pister Charles H. Townes◊ Joseph C. Logue◊ William R. Prindle Charles E. Treanor Mark S. Lundstrom◊ Ronald F. Probstein Alvin W. Trivelpiece◊ Larry Lynn Charles W. Pryor, Jr. Richard H. Truly Albert Macovski Edwin P. Przybylowicz Howard S. Turner Subhash Mahajan Robert H. Rediker◊ Stephen D. Umans◊ William F. Marcuson, III◊ Cordell Reed◊ Moshe Y. Vardi Robert C. Marini◊ Gintaras V. Reklaitis◊ Anestis S. Veletsos James J. Markowsky◊ Eli Reshotko◊ Walter G. Vincenti David K. Matlock Jerome G. Rivard John Vithayathil Fujio Matsuda◊ Leslie E. Robertson and Irv Waaland Walter G. May◊ Sawteen See C. Michael Walton William J. McCroskey◊ Lloyd M. Robeson◊ Warren M. Washington◊ William McGuire Theodore Rockwell◊ John T. Watson Kenneth G. McKay Robert K. Roney Lawrence M. Wein◊ Ross E. McKinney Arye Rosen Shelly Weinbaum◊ Robert M. McMeeking◊ Howard B. Rosen◊ Irwin Welber◊ Alan L. McWhorter Ken Rosen Jasper A. Welch, Jr. Eugene S. Meieran Hans T. Rossby◊ Edward Wenk, Jr.◊ Angelo Miele Alfred Saffer David C. White◊ James A. Miller William S. Saric◊ Robert Marshal White Robert D. Miller◊ Peter W. Sauer◊ Robert Mayer White Warren F. Miller, Jr.◊ Thorndike Saville, Jr. Robert V. Whitman Keith K. Millheim George W. Scherer John J. Wise Jerald L. Schnoor◊ M. Gordon and Elaine Wolman Walter J. Schrenk◊ Beverly and Loring Wyllie Key: Albert B. Schultz Eli Yablonovitch *Deceased § Henry G. Schwartz, Jr. Les Youd Emeritus ◊ ◊ Lyle H. Schwartz Laurence R. Young Giving matched by ◊ the Jacobs Challenge Mischa Schwartz Ben T. Zinn Hratch G. Semerjian
34 NAE 2009 Friends ExxonMobil Foundation Qualcomm Inc. Anonymous Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund The Rathmann Family Foundation Mary Lee Berger-Hughes◊ Ford Motor Company Brian and Jill Rowe Foundation Roger and Dolores Kiel GE Energy Samueli Foundation tions Radka Z. Nebesky◊ GE Foundation The San Diego Foundation u Kenneth Phillips General Motors Corporation Schwab Charitable Fund Geosynthetic Institute Shell Oil Company GivingExpress Online from Siemens Product Lifecycle Foundations,
American Express Management Inc. contrib Corporations, and Google Inc. Silicon Valley Community Other Organizations The Grainger Foundation Foundation In recognition of foundations, cor- Houston Jewish Community Strategic Worldwide LLC
porations, and other organizations Foundation The T. Rowe Price Program for rivate that contributed to NAE in 2009. Indo-US Science and Technology Charitable Giving Forum The Teagle Foundation Inc. Analytic Services Inc. Ingersoll-Rand Company TIAA-CREF Avid Solutions Industrial Process Intel Corporation Triangle Community Foundation 2009 p Control Jewish Community Foundation Inc. AYCO Charitable Foundation San Diego United Way of Central New Baltimore Community Foundation Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley Mexico Stephen Bechtel Fund Philanthropic Funds Vanguard Charitable Endowment Bechtel Group Foundation Medtronic Foundation Program Bechtel Group Inc. Microsoft Corporation WGBH Educational Foundation Bell Family Foundation Microsoft Matching Gift Program/ Zarem Foundation Boeing PAC Match Program Giving Campaign BP America Inc. Gordon and Betty Moore We have made every effort to list Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation Foundation donors accurately. If we have Combined Jewish Philanthropies NACCO Industries Inc. made an error, please accept Community Foundation for Network For Good our apologies and contact the Southeastern Michigan Northrop Grumman Corporation Development Office at (202) Cummins Inc. Employees Charity Organization 334-3517 so we can correct our Dow Chemical Company of Northrop Grumman records. Foundation O’Donnell Foundation Charles Stark Draper Laboratory The Ohio University Foundation E.I. du Pont de Nemours & The Omaha Community Company Foundation
Key: *Deceased §Emeritus ◊Giving matched by the Jacobs Challenge
35 NAE 2009 NAE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FUND FINANCIAL REPORT
Governed by the National Academy of Engineering Fund (NAEF) Board of Trustees, the NAEF is the tax-exempt corporation (under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) that serves as a holding entity for the independent assets and operating funds of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). The NAE operates within the charter and framework of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
The table on page 38 summarizes both the NAEF and outside operating revenue and expenses as well as non-operation-related transactions for the NAE for 2009 and 2008. The information on the NAEF presented in this table has been extracted from the Fund’s audited financial statements also contained in this report.
During 2009, contributions for the National Academy of Engineering were solicited from corporations, NAE members, and private foundations. These funds and contracts and grants from the federal gov- ernment are a major source of support for the Academy’s self-initiated programs, which are described in this report.
A second source of revenue for the Academy is the allocation from the overhead charge assessed on government and privately funded contracts for National Research Council (NRC) projects; the NRC is the operating arm of the NAE and the National Academy of Sciences. This allocation is used to offset expenses incurred in the oversight function and for such other administrative operations as NAE mem- bership services and governance.
Under a policy established by the NAEF Board of Trustees, the Academy may use a certain percent of its unrestricted invested assets for operations each year. In 2009, 2.8 percent was allocated for normal operating expenses and 3.2 percent was allocated for fund-raising expenses. This allocation, com- bined with annual meeting registration fees, membership dues, and investment earnings on current operating funds, make up the remainder of the Academy’s operating revenue.
The Academy welcomes corporate and private gifts, which are used to help finance the research, education, and public information programs of the institution. The NAE does not, however, conduct proprietary studies for private clients or corporations.
37 2009 NAE/NAEF Combined Summary of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets (Unaudited-Pro Forma) (Thousands of Dollars) 2009 2008
NET ASSETS, BEGINNING $49,563 $72,100 CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET 4,140 3,773
TOTAL ASSETS, BEGINNING $53,703 $75,873
OPERATIONS
Revenue Contributions (Unrestricted) $1,566 $1,099 Dues (Annual), Fees, Miscellaneous 236 240 Indirect Allowance From Contracts and Grants 3,242 3,066 Award Specific Funds Allocation to Operations* 2,081 1,679 Program Specific Funds Allocation to Operations* 4,359 4,773 Unrestricted Allocation to Operations 2,054 2,015
Total Operations Revenue $13,538 $12,872
Expenses Awards $2,096 $1,708 Development 1,106 915 Management 2,405 2,274 Membership 1,300 1,390 National Academies Activities 340 314 Programs 5,497 5,926
Total Operations Expenses $12,744 $12,527
OPERATIONS SURPLUS $794 $345
NONOPERATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Allocation to Operations ($5,590) ($5,019) Contributions to Reserves 5,344 2,693 Dues (Lifetime), Miscellaneous 118 172 Gain (loss) on Investments 5,854 (22,024) Investment Earnings (Interest and Dividends) 779 1,656 Investment Fees (406) (361)
NONOPERATIONAL GAIN $6,099 ($22,882)
NET ASSETS, ENDING $56,456 $49,563
CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET 3,495 4,140
TOTAL ASSETS, ENDING $59,951 $53,703
*Restricted funds are reported in this unaudited-pro forma report as operating revenue when earned
*NOTE: The audited financial statements that follow record contributions as revenue the year in which the pledge is received in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
38 NAE 2009 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FUND December 31, 2009 and 2008
39 NAE 2009 National Academy of Engineering Fund Statement of Financial Position
December 31, 2009 2008
Assets
Current Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,223,760 $ 137,133 Prepaid expenses 36,634 37,387 Accounts receivable–National Academy of Sciences 248,389 — Short-term investments 2,112,796 1,342,610 Contribution receivable 2,577,832 1,940,409 Award medals and other assets 88,624 118,000
Total Current Assets 6,288,035 3,575,539
Non-current Assets Contribution receivable–long-term portion, net 917,888 2,199,626 Investments 52,745,404 48,695,385
Total Non-current Assets 53,663,292 50,895,011
Total Assets $ 59,951,327 $ 54,470,550
Liabilities and Net Assets
Current Liabilities Accounts payable–National Academy of Sciences $ — $ 767,399
Net Assets Unrestricted 22,389,573 18,900,759 Temporarily restricted 8,374,110 5,681,135 Permanently restricted 29,187,644 29,121,257
Total Net Assets 59,951,327 53,703,151
Total Liabilities and Net Assets $ 59,951,327 $ 54,470,550
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
40 NAE 2009 National Academy of Engineering Fund Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets
Year ended December 31,
2009 2008 Temporarily Permanently Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total Total
Revenue Interest and dividends $ 377,445 $ 401,877 $ — $ 779,322 $ 1,656,913 Realized loss on investments (3,300,640) (3,512,650) — (6,813,290) (7,606,062) Contributions 1,358,997 4,676,952 66,387 6,102,336 4,833,591 Membership dues 251,040 — — 251,040 243,300 Registration fees 99,060 — — 99,060 94,850 Miscellaneous revenue 4,557 — — 4,557 18,622 Net assets released from restrictions: Satisfaction of program restrictions 3,927,265 (3,927,265) — — — Satisfaction of time restrictions 202,343 (202,343) — — —
Total Revenue 2,920,067 (2,563,429) 66,387 423,025 (758,786)
Expenses Program services: Programs 2,364,446 — — 2,364,446 2,237,857 Member programs 209,376 — — 209,376 345,682 Support for NRC and NAS 340,205 — — 340,205 314,057 Awards 2,095,853 — — 2,095,853 1,708,101
Total program services 5,009,880 — — 5,009,880 4,605,697
Supporting services: Fundraising 1,105,275 — — 1,105,275 914,841 Operations 917,847 — — 917,847 852,275
Total supporting services 2,023,122 — — 2,023,122 1,767,116
Total Expenses 7,033,002 — — 7,033,002 6,372,813
Change in Net Assets Before Unrealized Gain (Loss) on Investments (4,112,935) (2,563,429) 66,387 (6,609,977) (7,131,599)
Unrealized gain (loss) on investments 7,601,749 5,256,404 — 12,858,153 (15,038,276)
Change in Net Assets 3,488,814 2,692,975 66,387 6,248,176 (22,169,875)
Net Assets, beginning of year 18,900,759 5,681,135 29,121,257 53,703,151 75,873,026
Net Assets, end of year $ 22,389,573 $ 8,374,110 $ 29,187,644 $ 59,951,327 $ 53,703,151
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
41 NAE 2009 National Academy of Engineering Fund Statement of Cash Flows
Year ended December 31, 2009 2008
Cash Flows from Operating Activities Change in net assets $ 6,248,176 $ (22,169,875) Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash used in operating activities: Realized loss on investments 6,813,290 7,606,062 Unrealized (gain) loss on investments (12,858,153) 15,038,279 Changes in assets and liabilities: Contribution receivable 644,315 (366,980) Award medals 29,377 (620) Prepaid expenses 753 (18,557) Accounts payable/receivable–National Academy of Sciences (1,015,788) (344,618)
Net Cash Used in Operating Activities (138,030) (256,309)
Cash Flows from Investing Activities Proceeds from sale of investments 87,580,623 60,012,175 Purchase of investments (86,355,966) (60,760,065)
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities 1,224,657 (747,890)
Net Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents 1,086,627 (1,004,199)
Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of year 137,133 1,141,332
Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of year $ 1,223,760 $ 137,133
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
42 NAE 2009 National Academy of Engineering Fund Notes to Financial Statements
December 31, 2009 and 2008 Short-term Investments Temporary investments consist of money market NOTE A — GENERAL INFORMATION AND funds that are used to fund normal operations of the SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING Fund and are recorded at their readily determinable POLICIES fair values as determined by quoted market prices.
General Information Contributions Receivable Unconditional promises to give (pledges) are rec- The National Academy of Engineering Fund (the ognized as revenue and contributions receivable in Fund) is an independent non-profit organization the period the promises are made. Unconditional established by the National Academy of Engineering promises to give that are expected to be collected (NAE) to collect and disburse funds for accomplish- within one year are recorded at their net realiz- ing the goals of NAE. NAE operates within the able value. Unconditional promises to give that charter and framework of the National Academy are expected to be collected in future years are of Sciences (NAS), which accounts for NAE’s recorded at the present value of their estimated expenses. The operating expenditures of NAE are future cash flows. The discounts on those amounts accounted for by offices of NAS, and are offset by are computed using risk-free interest rates commen- reimbursement from funds received from the Fund surate with the risk involved applicable to the years and from contracts and grants administered by NAS. in which the promises are received. Amortization The net expenditures of NAE are paid by the Fund of the discounts is included in contribution revenue. to balance accounts with NAS. Conditional promises to give are not included as support until the conditions are substantially met. Basis of Accounting The Fund’s financial statements are prepared using Awards Medals the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with The Fund maintains gold medals for various awards, the generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”). which are carried at cost.
Cash and Cash Equivalents Fair Value of Financial Instruments For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the The Fund has adopted the guidance that defines fair Fund considers all investments purchased with an value, establishes a framework for measuring fair original maturity of three months or less to be cash value in accordance with US GAAP, and expands equivalents, except for the cash in the investment disclosures about fair value measurements. Where portfolio, which will be reinvested on a long-term applicable, such information has been disclosed basis. The Fund’s cash management policies limit elsewhere in the notes to the financial statements. its exposure to a concentration of credit risk by maintaining cash accounts at financial institutions Level 1 inputs include quoted market prices in whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit active markets for identical assets. Level 2 inputs Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Cash deposit may include inputs other than quoted prices in active exceed the FDIC insurable limit at times throughout markets that are either directly or indirectly observ- the year due to unanticipated large contributions. able; and Level 3, defined as unobservable inputs Management does not consider this to be a signifi- in which little or no market data exists, therefore cant credit risk. requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions. Level 3 inputs are used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available, thereby allowing for situations where there is little, if any, observable market activity for the asset at the measurement date.
43 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE A — GENERAL INFORMATION AND to use the investment earnings of the endowment SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING to cover the expenses incurred in connection with POLICIES (Continued) administration of the prize and in providing the honorarium awarded with the prize. Investments Investments held by the Fund are presented at their Gordon Prize–represents an endowment given fair market value. Investments consist of cash and by the donor for the purpose of establishing and money market funds, federal agency securities, awarding an annual prize in honor of Bernard treasury securities, corporate debt securities, equity M. Gordon. It is the Fund’s intention to use securities and other investments. Fair value is the the investment earnings of the endowment to exchange price that would be received for an asset cover the expenses incurred in connection with or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the administration of the prize and in providing the principal or most advantageous market for the asset honorarium awarded with the prize. or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. As required Capital Preservation and Hans Reissner–repre- by GAAP for fair value measurement, the Fund uses sent endowments requiring principal be main- a fair value hierarchy that maximizes the use of tained in perpetuity and that only the income be observable inputs and minimizes the use of unob- used for general operations of NAE. servable inputs by requiring that the observable inputs be used when available. Hollomon–represents an endowment requiring that the principal be maintained in perpetu- Unrealized gains and losses are reflected in the ity and that the income be used to support the statement of activities and changes in net assets as Hollomon Fellow. non- operating. Industry Scholar–represents an endowment to Temporarily Restricted Net Assets support fellowships for recently retired corporate executives to assist with strategy and manage- Temporarily restricted net assets consist of amounts ment of program activities in NAE and NRC. that are subject to donor-imposed time or purpose restrictions and income earned on temporarily Senior Scholar–represents an endowment to and permanently restricted net assets. The Fund is support an outstanding member of industry or permitted to use or expend the donated assets in another field working as an advisor and assistant accordance with the donor restriction. to the president of NAE in the management and execution of NAE’s programmatic activities. Permanently Restricted Net Assets Permanently restricted net assets consist of assets Young Engineer–represents an endowment to whose use is limited by donor-imposed restrictions support programs aimed at engaging engineers that neither expire by the passage of time nor can at a younger age in the activities of NAE, and be fulfilled or otherwise removed by action of the to provide an opportunity to identify nominees Fund. The restrictions stipulate that resources be from industry for membership in NAE. maintained permanently, but permit the Fund to expend the income generated in accordance with Wm. A. Wulf Initiative for Engineering the provisions of the agreement. Permanently Excellence–represents an endowment to ensure restricted net assets consist of the following: the future of programs that Bill Wulf instituted as president and provide his successor some Draper Prize–represents an endowment given flexibility in addressing the most pressing issues by the donor for the purpose of establishing and before the engineering community and the awarding an annual prize in honor of the memory nation at any given time. of Charles Stark Draper. It is the Fund’s intention
44 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE A — GENERAL INFORMATION AND Under the requirements of this guidance, organiza- SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING tions could now be required to record an obligation POLICIES (Continued) as the result of tax positions they have historically taken on various tax exposure items. The impact Restricted Support of the adoption of this guidance did not have a The Fund reports gifts of cash and other assets as material effect on the financial statements of the restricted support if they are received with donor Fund. Prior to the adoption of this guidance, the stipulations that limit the use of the donated assets. determination of when to record a liability for a When a donor restriction expires, i.e., when a stip- tax exposure was based on whether a liability was ulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is considered probable and reasonably estimable in accomplished, temporarily restricted net assets are accordance with guidance concerning recording of reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported contingencies. in the statement of activities as net assets released from restrictions. Use of Estimates In preparing financial statements in conformity with Allocation of Expenses accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, management is required The costs of providing various programs and other to make estimates and assumptions that affect the activities have been summarized on a functional reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the basis in the statement of activities. Accordingly, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the certain costs have been allocated among the pro- date of the financial statements and revenue and grams and supporting services benefited. expenses during the reporting period. The most significant assumptions relate to the realization of Income Taxes pledges receivable and the fair value measurement The Fund is incorporated under the District of of investments. Actual results could differ from Columbia Non-profit Corporation Act and is those estimates. exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the Fund has been determined by the Internal Revenue New Accounting Pronouncements In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Service not to be a private foundation. The Fund is Board (“FASB”) issued new guidance to establish required to remit income taxes to the federal gov- the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (the ernment and the District of Columbia for unrelated “Codification”) as the single source of authorita- business income. For the years ended December tive nongovernmental U.S. GAAP. The Codification 31, 2009 and 2008, there was no unrelated busi- is effective for statements issued for interim and ness income and, consequently, no provision for annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. income taxes has been made. The adoption of this standard has not had a mate- rial impact on the Fund’s financial statements. Effective 2009, the Fund adopted new guidance that creates a single model to address uncertainty in tax positions and clarified the accounting for Reclassifications income taxes by prescribing the minimum recogni- Certain 2008 amounts have been reclassified to tion threshold a tax position is required to meet conform to the 2009 presentation. before being recognized in its financial statements.
45 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE B — CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE
Contributions receivable consist of unconditional promises to give and are deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2009:
Unrestricted Restricted Total
Unconditional promises to give $ 453,360 $ 3,086,788 $ 3,540,148 Less: unamortized discount — (44,428) (44,428)
Net unconditional promises to give $ 453,360 $ 3,042,360 $ 3,495,720
Amounts due in: Less than 1 year $ 453,360 $ 2,124,472 $ 2,577,832 1 to 5 years — 917,888 917,888
$ 453,360 $ 3,042,360 $ 3,495,720
Contributions receivable consist of unconditional promises to give and are deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2008:
Unrestricted Restricted Total
Unconditional promises to give $ 149,750 $ 4,335,611 $ 4,485,361 Less: unamortized discount — (345,326) (345,326)
Net unconditional promises to give $ 149,750 $ 3,990,285 $ 4,140,035
Amounts due in: Less than 1 year $ 149,750 $ 1,790,659 $ 1,940,409 1 to 5 years — 2,199,626 2,199,626
$ 149,750 $ 3,990,285 $ 4,140,035
46 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE B — CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE (Continued)
Unconditional promises to give received during the year ended December 31, 2009 (excluding prior year promises) measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis are as follows:
2009
Quoted Prices in Active Significant Other Significant Markets for Observable Unobservable Identical Assets Inputs Inputs Amount (Level 1) (Level 2) (Level 3)
Contribution commitments $ 74,716 $ — $ 74,716 $ —
$ 74,716 $ — $ 74,716 $ —
Net restricted contributions consist of $58,229 and $190,106 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, which is subject to time restrictions, and $2,985,491 and $3,800,179 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, which is subject to donor-imposed purpose restrictions.
NOTE C—INVESTMENTS
Investments at fair value consist of the following at December 31:
2009 2008
Cash and money market $ 15,714,496 $ 14,593,618 Corporate debt securities 6,162,184 — Equity securities 10,003,930 17,460,899 Mutual Funds — 1,307,709 Managed futures — 9,208,494 Other 22,977,590 7,467,275
54,858,200 50,037,995 Less: short-term investments (2,112,796) (1,342,610)
$ 52,745,404 $ 48,695,385
47 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE C—INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows as of December 31:
2009
Quoted Prices Significant in Active Other Significant Markets for Observable Unobservable Identical Assets Inputs Inputs Amount (Level 1) (Level 2) (Level 3)
Cash and money market $ 15,714,496 $ 15,714,496 $ — $ — Corporate debt securities 6,162,184 3,815,918 2,346,266 — Equity Securities 10,003,930 8,973,247 — 1,030,683 Other 22,977,590 — — 22,977,590
$ 54,858,200 $ 28,503,661 $ 2,346,266 $ 24,008,273
2008
Quoted Prices Significant in Active Other Significant Markets for Observable Unobservable Identical Assets Inputs Inputs Amount (Level 1) (Level 2) (Level 3)
Cash and money market $ 14,593,618 $ 14,593,618 $ — $ — Equity Securities 17,460,899 16,219,529 — 1,241,370 Mutual Funds 1,307,709 1,307,709 — — Managed Futures 9,208,494 — — 9,208,494 Other 7,467,275 — — 7,467,275
$ 50,037,995 $ 32,120,856 $ — $ 17,917,139
48 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE C—INVESTMENTS (Continued)
The following is a description of the valuation methodologies used for assets and liabilities measured at fair value. There have been no changes in the methodologies used at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
Cash and money market, corporate debt securities, certain equity securities and mutual funds are valued at the closing price reported on the active market on which the individual (or similar) securities are traded.
Alternative investments include hedge funds, private equity securities, managed futures and limited partnership interests have been estimated using the net asset value per share of the investments.
The table below sets forth a summary of changes in fair value of the Fund’s level 3 assets for the year ended December 31:
2009
Hedge Private Limited Managed Fund Equity Partnership Futures Total
Balance, beginning of year $ 6,816,408 $ 1,857,098 $ — $ 9,243,633 $ 17,917,139 Purchases and sales, net 2,082,794 317,713 9,934,367 (8,809,278) 3,525,596 Net unrealized and realized gain (loss) 919,832 (31,207) 2,111,268 (434,355) 2,565,538
Balance, end of year $ 9,819,034 $ 2,143,604 $ 12,045,635 $ — $ 24,008,273
49 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE C—INVESTMENTS (Continued)
2008
Hedge Private Managed Fund Equity futures Total
Balance, beginning of year $ 8,678,504 $ 1,560,387 $ 7,438,429 $ 17,677,320 Purchases and sales, net — 471,849 — 471,849 Net unrealized and realized gain (loss) (1,862,096) (175,138) 1,805,204 (232,030)
Balance, end of year $ 6,816,408 $ 1,857,098 $ 9,243,633 $ 17,917,139
Investments are further classified as follows at December 31:
2009 2008
Unrestricted $ 22,232,889 $ 23,420,155 Temporarily restricted 6,421,969 2,308,101 Permanently restricted 26,203,342 24,309,739
$ 54,858,200 $ 50,037,995
Investment return consists of the following at December 31:
Dividends and interest $ 779,322 $ 1,656,913 Unrealized gain (loss) 12,858,153 (15,038,276) Realized loss (6,813,290) (7,606,062)
$ 6,824,185 $ (20,987,425)
50 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE D—PERMANENTLY AND TEMPORARILY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS
Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2009:
Permanently Temporarily Restricted Restricted
Draper Prize $ 8,000,000 $ 139,223 Gordon Prize 13,438,250 — Capital Preservation 2,379,526 190,727 Hollomon 201,200 271,108 Frontiers of Engineering Education — 409,452 Public Understanding — 436,349 Technology and Environment — 6,437 Frontiers of Engineering — 61,046 Bueche Award — 4,514 CASEE — 12,189 Russ Prize — 65,701 Engineering Ethics Center — 25,092 Diversity in the Engineering Work Force — 127 Engineering Education — 1,835 Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation — 2,448,918 Hans Reissner 25,624 9,707 Engineering Ethics — 486,054 Information Technology — 28,169 Engineering & Services — 1,273 Homeland Security — 8,505 Communication with Public in Crisis — 1,917 Industry Scholar 353,038 28,559 Senior Scholar 1,000,000 — Young Engineer 778,640 — Noise Policy Development — 120,016 Urban Infrastructure — 358,339 Engineering Education & Research — 71,808 Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence 3,011,366 — President’s Discretionary — 2,366,381 Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years — 672,669 Others — 147,995
$ 29,187,644 $ 8,374,110
51 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE D—PERMANENTLY AND TEMPORARILY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS (Continued)
Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2008:
Permanently Temporarily Restricted Restricted
Draper Prize $ 8,000,000 $ — Gordon Prize 13,438,250 — Capital Preservation 2,378,276 33,774 Hollomon 201,200 213,513 Frontiers of Engineering Education — — Public Understanding — 335,494 Technology and Environment — 6,445 Frontiers of Engineering — 99,371 Bueche Award — 21,900 CASEE — 79,734 Russ Prize — 72,616 Engineering Ethics Center — 25,125 Diversity in the Engineering Work Force — 1,771 Engineering Education — 103,709 Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation — 2,786,850 Hans Reissner 25,624 7,160 Engineering Ethics — 639,876 Information Technology — 17,535 Engineering & Services — 1,794 Homeland Security — 8,516 Communication with Public in Crisis — 1,917 Industry Scholar 353,038 — Senior Scholar 1,000,000 — Young Engineer 778,640 — Noise Policy Development — 97,260 Urban Infrastructure — 361,542 Engineering Education & Research — 107,065 Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence 2,946,229 — President’s Discretionary — 79,175 Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years — 422,426 Others — 156,567
$ 29,121,257 $ 5,681,135
52 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE E—ENDOWMENT those amounts are appropriated for expenditure. In making a determination to appropriate or accumu- As required by GAAP, net assets associated with late, the Fund adheres to the standard of prudence endowment funds are classified and reported based prescribed by the Act and considers the following on the existence or absence of donor-imposed factors: (1) The duration and preservation of the restrictions. endowment fund; (2) The purposes of the institution and the endowment fund; (3) General economic During 2008, the District of Columbia enacted conditions; (4) The possible effect of inflation or into law the Uniform Prudent Management of deflation; (5) The expected total return from income Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA). Management and the appreciation of investments; (6) Other of NAEF has interpreted the District of Columbia resources of the institution; and (7) The investment law as requiring the Fund, absent explicit donor policy of the institution. stipulations to the contrary, to act in good faith and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a The fair value of assets associated with donor- like position would exercise under similar circum- restricted endowment funds may fall below the stances in making determinations to appropriate or level that UPMIFA requires to retain as a fund of accumulate endowment funds, taking into account perpetual duration. In accordance with GAAP, both its obligation to preserve the value of the deficiencies of this nature that are reported in unre- endowment and its obligation to use the endow- stricted net assets were $2,463,217 as of December ment to achieve the purposes for which it was 31, 2009. donated. NAEF classifies as permanently restricted net assets (a) the original value of gifts donated to NAEF has adopted an investment policy for the the permanent endowment, (b) the original value endowment fund. This investment program is of subsequent gifts to the permanent endowment, based on growing the endowment fund to provide and (c) accumulations to the permanent endow- financial stability for NAEF in perpetuity. The ment made in accordance with the direction of the NAEF’s ability to tolerate risk and volatility should applicable donor gift instrument at the time the be consistent with that of a conservative growth accumulation is added to the fund. The remaining portfolio, with investments made in companies that portion of the donor-restricted endowment fund that demonstrate consistent growth over time. Asset is not classified in permanently restricted net assets allocations are developed in accordance with this is classified as temporarily restricted net assets until long-term, conservative growth strategy.
53 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE E—ENDOWMENT (Continued)
The following illustrates endowment net asset composition by type of fund and the changes in endowment net assets for the year ended December 31:
Temporarily Permanently 2009 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total
Donor-restricted endowment funds $ (2,463,217) $ 639,323 $ 29,187,644 $ 27,363,750
Total funds $ (2,463,217) $ 639,323 $ 29,187,644 $ 27,363,750
Changes in endowment net assets for the year end December 31 are as follows:
Temporarily Permanently 2009 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total
Endowment net assets, beginning of Year $ (3,928,415) $ 254,447 $ 29,121,257 $ 25,447,289
Investment return: Interest and dividends — 376,566 — 376,566 Realized loss on investments — (3,299,368) — (3,299,368) Net depreciation — 6,140,442 — 6,140,442
Total investment return — 3,217,640 — 3,217,640
Amounts appropriated for Expenditure — (1,367,566) — (1,367,566) Contributions received — — 66,387 66,387 Adjustment from (to) Unrestricted net assets 1,465,198 (1,465,198) — —
Endowment net assets, end of year $ (2,463,217) $ 639,323 $ 29,187,644 $ 27,363,750
54 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE E—ENDOWMENT (Continued)
The following illustrates endowment net asset composition by type of fund and the changes in endowment net assets for the year ended December 31:
Temporarily Permanently 2008 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total
Donor-restricted endowment funds $ (3,928,415) $ 254,477 $ 29,121,257 $ 25,447,289
Total funds $ (3,928,415) $ 254,477 $ 29,121,257 $ 25,447,289
Temporarily Permanently 2008 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total
Endowment net assets, beginning of year $ — $ 8,433,537 $ 29,047,881 $ 37,481,418
Investment return: Interest and dividends — 844,721 — 844,721 Realized loss on investments — (3,987,062) — (3,987,062) Net depreciation — (7,589,439) — (7,589,439)
Total investment return — (10,731,780) — (10,731,780)
Amounts appropriated for Expenditure — (1,375,725) — (1,375,725) Contributions received — — 73,376 73,376 Adjustment from (to) Unrestricted net assets (3,928,415) 3,928,415 — —
Endowment net assets, end of year $ (3,928,415) $ 254,447 $ 29,121,257 $ 25,447,289
55 NAE 2009 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)
NOTE F—DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM NOTE G—RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS AND SUPPORTING SERVICES The National Academies Corporation The following program and supporting services are The National Academies Corporation (TNAC) is included in the accompanying financial statements: a non-profit corporation that was incorporated in January 1986 for the purpose of constructing Programs–programs that address relevant issues and maintaining a study and conference facility, in the engineering field including, but not lim- the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center, in Irvine, ited to: Education, Engineering Practice and the California, to expand and support the general scope Engineering Workforce; Engineering and the of program activities of NAS, NAE, the Institute of Environment; Engineering, the Economy and Medicine (IOM), and NRC. TNAC is organized as Society; Information Technology and Society; a tax-exempt supporting organization for NAS and National Security and Crime Prevention; and the Fund. The Board of Directors and officers of Public Policy and Program Reviews. TNAC include certain officers of the Fund. The Fund had no transactions with TNAC for the years Member Programs–organization and administra- ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. tion of the Annual Meeting and publication of NAE Memorial Tributes. National Academy of Sciences The Fund reimburses NAS by making monthly Support for NRC and NAS–contributions to joint payments based on NAE’s estimated expenditures activities of the National Academies, including, for the year. The Fund also receives contributions but not limited to, the NAS/NAE/IOM Committee through NAS. This resulted to a receivable from/ on Human Rights, the NRC Office of Scientific payable to NAS at December 31, 2009 and 2008 and Engineering Personnel, and Issues in of $248,389 and $767,399, respectively. Payments Science and Technology. made to NAS by the Fund for the Fund’s allocated portion of the expenditures shared jointly by NAS, Awards–NAE presents five awards: the Bernard NAE and IOM were $1,445,332 and $1,228,898 M. Gordon Prize, the Charles Stark Draper for the years ending December 31, 2009 and 2008, Prize, the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize, the respectively. See Note A for the relationship of Arthur M. Bueche Award, and the NAE Founders related parties. Award. Activities include soliciting nomina- tions, selection of the recipients, announcement of the recipients and presentation of the prizes. NOTE H—SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
Fundraising–provides the structure necessary to In May 2009, the FASB issued new guidance encourage and secure private financial support regarding the reporting of subsequent events to from individuals, foundations and corporations. incorporate the accounting and disclosure require- ments for subsequent events into GAAP. This guid- Operations–includes the functions necessary to ance introduces new terminology, defines a date provide an adequate working environment, pro- through which management must evaluate sub- vide coordination and articulation of the Fund’s sequent events, and lists the circumstances under programs, secure proper administrative function which an entity must recognize and disclose events of the Board of Trustees, maintain competent or transactions occurring after the statement of legal services for program administration, and financial position date. The Fund adopted the new manage the financial and budgetary responsibili- guidance as of December 31, 2009. ties of the Fund. The Fund evaluated its December 31, 2009 financial statements for subsequent events through May 26, 2010, the date the financial statements were avail- able to be issued. The Fund is not aware of any sub- sequent event which would require recognition or disclosure in the accompanying financial statements. 56 NAE 2009 Officers Councillors
Chair Linda M. Abriola (2010) Julia M. Phillips (2011) Irwin M. Jacobs (2010) Dean of Engineering, Tufts Director, Physical, Chemical, Co-founder, Current Board University and Nano Sciences Center, Member, Retired CEO and Sandia National Laboratories Chairman, QUALCOMM Alice M. Agogino (2011) Incorporated Professor of Mechanical John B. Slaughter (2009)‡ Engineering, University of President and CEO, National Immediate Past Chair California, Berkeley Action Council for Minorities in Craig R. Barrett (2009)‡ Engineering Chairman of the Board, Intel William F. Banholzer (2009)‡ Corporation (until May) Executive Vice President and Robert F. Sproull (2012) Chief Technology Officer, The Vice President and Sun Fellow, President Dow Chemical Company Sun Microsystems Inc. Charles M. Vest (2013) President, National Academy of Corale L. Brierley (2012) Arnold F. Stancell (2012) Engineering Principal, Brierley Consulting, Retired Vice President, Mobil LLC Oil; Turner Professor of Vice President Chemical Engineering, Emeritus, Maxine Savitz (2010) G. Wayne Clough (2012) Georgia Institute of Technology Retired General Manager, Secretary, Smithsonian Technology/Partnerships, Institution Ex Officio: Honeywell Inc. Ralph J. Cicerone (2011) Ruth A. David (2010) President, National Academy of Home Secretary President and Chief Executive Sciences Thomas F. Budinger (2012) Officer, ANSER (Analytic Professor, University of Services Inc.) California, Berkeley, and Senior ‡ Indicates term ended June 30, Consulting Scientist, E.O. Charles Elachi (2010) 2009. Year in parentheses indicates Lawrence Berkeley National Director, Jet Propulsion the year term expires. Laboratory Laboratory, and Vice President, California Foreign Secretary Institute of Technology George Bugliarello (2011) President Emeritus and Paul R. Gray (2011) University Professor, Polytechnic Executive Vice Chancellor and Institute of NYU Provost, Emeritus, and Professor, University of California, Treasurer Berkeley William L. Friend (2009)‡ Retired Executive Vice Lawrence T. Papay (2010) President, Bechtel Group Inc. Retired Sector Vice President, Science Applications C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. (2013) International Corporation President and Glenn Martin Institute Professor of Bradford W. Parkinson (2011) Engineering, University of Edward C. Wells Professor of Maryland Aeronautics and Astronautics Emeritus, Stanford University
57 NAE 2009 Staff NAE Publications
Office of the President Thomas Crowley, CASEE Summer NAE reports can be purchased from the Charles M. Vest, President Intern National Academies Press,
58 NAE 2009 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-per- petuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the author ity of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organi- zation of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Acadmy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibil- ity given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with gen- eral policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communi- ties. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
59 NAE 2009
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
www.nae.edu