Annual Report

2011 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 Engineering Education Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) Real World Engineering Education (RWEE) 2-Year and 4-Year Engineering and Engineering Technology Transfer Student Pilot Principal Investigators Garnering Useful Instruction on Developing [Project] Effectiveness (PI GUIDE) 5 Technological Literacy Standards for K–12 Engineering Integrated STEM Education 6 Public Understanding of Engineering Committee on Implementing Effective Messages Media Relations Public Relations Grand Challenges for Engineering 7 Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society 9 Diversity of the Engineering Workforce EngineerGirl! Website Engineer Your Life Project 10 Frontiers of Engineering Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers—Gilbreth Lectures 11 Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation Making Things: Annual Meeting Forum Committee on Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation 12 Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding 13 Global Navigation Satellite Systems 15 Lessons from the Macondo Well–Deepwater Horizon Blowout for Improving Offshore Drilling Safety 16 Engineering and Health 16 The Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology: Six Academy Dialogues 18 Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Developing Regional Innovation Environments 18 STEM Workforce Needs for National Defense 19 America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs 20 2011 NAE Awards Recipients 22 2011 New Members and Foreign Associates 24 NAE Anniversary Members 28 2011 Private Contributions 30 Einstein Society 31 Golden Bridge Society 32 Heritage Society 32 Catalyst Society 33 Rosette Society 33 Challenge Society 34 Charter Society 35 Other Individual Donors 38 Foundations, Corporations, and Other Organizations 40 National Academy of Engineering Fund Financial Report 42 Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants 47 Notes to Financial Statements 63 Officers 63 Councillors 64 Staff 64 NAE Publications Letter from the President

The issues laid out by the National Academies some six years ago in our report Rising Above the Gathering Storm continue to resonate across the political landscape, among corporations and universities, and across the engineering community. The importance of government support for robust investment in long-term R&D, attracting the best and brightest from the U.S. and throughout the world to engineering and science careers, reinvig- orating the environment for innovation and entrepreneurship, and build- ing an America with world-class precollege and university education and training for all our young people remains undiminished.

The NAE is especially attuned to the need for more and better engineers. Charles M. Vest U.S. industry, including the national security industry, will face a wave of retirements in the coming years. Many high-tech companies already report that they cannot find qualified U.S. citizens to fill critically important engineering and technology jobs, including in manufacturing. In the past, gaps in engineering manpower have been filled with the best and brightest engineers from other countries, and those immigrants made remarkable contributions to entrepreneurship and job creation in this country, but it will be increasingly difficult to attract such people to the United States in the face of attractive opportunities offered by newly emerging economies. And while many students who receive their training here aspire to stay and contribute to the United States, our visa policies make their paths difficult. Increasingly, what is seen today is a “brain circulation” around the globe—and young Americans are joining this great circulation as well. Thus, this nation needs to focus on training a new generation of brilliant U.S. engineers, researchers, and entrepreneurs to secure a vibrant future for the country, with an undiminished quality of living, and then retain this new generation of highly skilled workers by providing opportunities for them to flourish in industry, academia, and government.

In 2011 the NAE continued a concerted effort to “change the conversation” by encour- aging messages intended to improve the public perception of engineering, especially, among bright young people who aspire to make the world a better place. The goal is to encourage them to consider an engineering education by helping them appreciate the creativity of engineering through such messages as “Dreams need doing” and the critical importance of engineering to the future well-being of our nation because “Engineering is essential to our health, happiness, and safety.” The NAE has also moved the discussion from the abstract to the real world by identifying and publicizing the Grand Challenges facing humankind, which can only be solved with engineers at the center of the effort— driving sustainability, advancing the cause of better health, making the world more secure, and expanding humankind’s capabilities to enable more joyful and productive lives (see www.engineeringmessages.org). To further highlight the importance of engineering to the future welfare of the nation, we began planning a National Engineering Forum, in partnership with the Lockheed Martin Corporation to be held in September 2012 in New York City.

Improving K–12 education is critical, but fostering continuous improvement in undergraduate engineering education is no less important. To that end, the NAE staged its third Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) symposium in 2011. This symposium brings together the nation’s next generation of engineering education leaders to recognize, reward, and promote effective, substantive, and inspirational engineering education.

1 In a forum at the NAE Annual Meeting in October 2011, a panel of experts explored the many facets of contemporary manufacturing and design and helped establish a fresh view of the opportunities and responsibilities of engineering leaders (see http://fednet. net/nas101711/ and www.nae.edu/56070.aspx). To develop an NAE Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation Initiative, I have charged a committee to identify significant national challenges for U.S.-based manufacturing, design, and innovation and to recom- mend questions for the NAE to investigate to address these challenges.

The issues are complex. All large corporations are now global entities, as they must be in today’s global economy. Enormous wealth is being generated in the United States, but traditional manufacturing jobs and, increasingly, a good chunk of engineering functions have been outsourced to other countries, and we, as a nation, must question whether this is a sustainable scenario. Because the world is now totally interconnected, both manufacturing and service functions are distributed far and wide, with the consequence that corporate interests and national interests have frequently become the yin and yang of global enterprises. But dealing with a global marketplace is a necessity in today’s world; nations must simultaneously compete to achieve excellence and wealth and must cooperate with each other to gain efficiency and spread markets.

The NAE continues to engage in activities that support the Academy’s mission of expanding and enhancing relationships among engineering communities worldwide. In 2011 the NAE held bilateral Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) program meetings with China, hosted by Qualcomm, Inc., in San Diego, with Japan in Osaka, and with the European Union at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. In cooperation with the Chinese Academy of Engineering, the NAE held a workshop on Global Navigation Satellite Systems in Shanghai in May 2011. We are grateful to the Grainger Foundation for its support of the FOE program and for providing seed funding for two grants of $30,000 each to be given to U.S. Frontiers of Engineering (USFOE) participants who pursue innovative interdisciplinary research and projects stimulated by the USFOE symposium.

The independent programs of the NAE depend greatly on private philanthropy, and we are extremely proud that our members believe those programs are worthy of their support. Once again, we are especially grateful to Joan and Irwin Jacobs for establishing a matching gift challenge for new members to encourage annual donations to the NAE by the Class of 2011. The pages that follow provide the names of NAE members and friends whose generous contributions are helping the Academy pursue its mission to advance the well-being of the nation by promoting a vibrant engineering profession and by marshalling the expertise and insights of eminent engineers to provide independent advice to the federal government on matters involving engineering and technology. We thank them for their support.

In this annual report you will also find important details on the scope and depth of the NAE’s work in 2011.

Thank you.

Charles M. Vest President

2 NAE In Service to the Nation

Every day our nation faces questions related to engineering and technology. What does the nation need to do to prosper in the global economy? What is the role of basic research and development in ensuring future economic development? How do we assess the importance of manufacturing in the U.S. to national prosperity? How can we ensure that students are aware of the nature of engineering and its importance to the nation, so they can make informed decisions about pursuing an engineering education? How do we ensure that undergraduate engineering education meets the needs of those students? How do we increase the diversity of the engineering workforce? As technology becomes an ever more critical discriminator for our success in the global marketplace for ideas, goods and services, addressing these questions becomes increasingly important.

Since 1964 the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has provided independent, objective advice to the nation on engineering-related topics and policies. The 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, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art.”

The NAE has more than 2,393 peer-elected members and foreign associates, approximately 51 percent from academia, 40 percent from industry, and 9 percent from nonprofit institutions and government. NAE members are leaders in bioengineering, computer science, electronics, aerospace, earth resources, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, materials engineering, and interdisciplinary engineering. They serve as members of research and study committees, plan and conduct symposia and workshops, and assist in the work of the Academy in many other ways. Activities include collaborative projects at home and abroad to examine technological problems, advising Congress and government agencies on engineering-related matters of national importance, and recognizing and honoring outstanding engineers for their contributions to the well-being of both the nation and the world.

The NAE not only responds to requests from the federal government but also engages in activities sponsored by foundations, industry, and state and local governments and funds projects through endowment funds supported by private contributions. Thus, the NAE is a unique organization that brings together distinguished engineers for the purpose of improving the lives of people everywhere.

The NAE is a member of the National Academies, which includes the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the National Research Council (NRC). Mission Statement

The mission of the National Academy of Engineering is to advance the well-being of the nation by promoting a vibrant engineering profession and by marshalling the expertise and insights of eminent engineers to provide independent advice to the federal government on matters involving engineering and technology.

3 2011 Program Reports

Engineering Education

Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) In November 2011, 65 of the nation’s most innovative young engineering educators took part in the third Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) symposium. For two and a half days, these early-career faculty members, who are developing and implementing innovative educational approaches in a variety of engineering disciplines, shared ideas and learned from research on best practices in education. They returned home with a charter to bring about improvements in their home institutions. The attendees, who were nominated by NAE members and engineering deans, were selected from a pool of highly qualified applicants. FOEE is sponsored by the O’Donnell Foundation. The first FOEE symposium was held in November 2009, and the second was held in December 2010.

Real World Engineering Education (RWEE) In June 2011 the NAE, with support from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., began a project to highlight programs that have successfully infused real-world experiences into engineering or engineering technology undergraduate education. The nomination process opened at the end of 2011 and ended in early February 2012, with 95 nominations. Nominated programs will be reviewed by a committee, and those chosen as model programs will be included in a printed guide to be produced by the NAE. The project includes gathering feedback from engineering and engineering technology deans to discuss possible barriers, impediments, and catalysts for adoption of the exemplary programs.

2-Year and 4-Year Engineering and Engineering Technology Transfer Student Pilot Within the engineering and engineering technology (e/et) communities, a critical role of community colleges is as feeders to baccalaureate e/et programs. The NAE, in collaboration with the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), conducted a pilot survey in 2011 to better characterize the number of community college students enrolled in individual e/ et programs as well as those who have directly transferred to a baccalaureate program. This activity engaged 2-year and 4-year college and university faculty and deans from a represen- tative sample of 17 engineering baccalaureate degree–granting engineering colleges and 35 geographically distributed community colleges. The initial results of the transfer pilot program were discussed at a policy summit in June 2011. The summit convened representatives of the NAE, the ASEE, the National Governors Association, the U.S. Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) as well as leadership and subject-matter experts from the institutions involved in the pilot program. Discussions at the summit centered on existing data and the feasibility of additional data collection, policy implications for 2-year/4-year student transitions, unique challenges to 2-year engineering technology programs, and the impact of data collection on institutional resources. Follow-on projects are planned.

4 NAE Principal Investigators Garnering Useful Instruction on Developing [Project] Effectiveness (PI GUIDE) Four NSF programs have sponsored the development of a website (http://govpiguide.org) that provides one-to-many electronic mentoring, video scenarios from experienced PIs; leadership vid- eos; and discussion, chat, and other community activities for grantees or would-be grantees of the four programs (Advanced Technological Education, Robert J. Noyce Scholarship Program, Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM, and Research on Gender in Science and Engineering). program reports

Technological Literacy

The purpose of the Program on Technological Literacy is to determine how Americans can become better prepared to navigate and participate actively in our technology-dependent society. What do adults and children need to know about technology?

The technological literacy program is now in its 12th year. Most recently, it has focused on the interplay between engineering and K–12 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education.

Standards for K–12 Engineering In 2011, NAE members Linda Katehi (University of California, Davis) and Rebecca Richards- Kortum (Rice University) participated in an NRC effort to craft a framework to guide development of a new generation of K–12 science education standards. The initiative, funded by the Carnegie Corporation and overseen by the NRC Board on Science Education, resulted in engineering concepts and practices being included alongside those for science. In this regard the framework is consistent with recommendations from a 2010 NAE report, Standards for K–12 Engineering Education?, which suggested that engineering content should be infused into new federal or state standards for mathematics and science. The NRC framework has been handed off to Achieve, Inc., which is working with a consortium of 26 states to develop actual standards for K–12 science education. The standards are expected to be published in late 2012.

Integrated STEM Education The joint NAE–NRC Committee on Integrated STEM Education (iSTEM) met once in 2011 and commissioned a review of the literature to inform this 2-year-long consensus study. The goal of the project is to craft a research agenda for determining the value—in terms of student achievement, motivation, career aspirations, and other factors—of K–12 iSTEM education in the United States. A major task is to craft a descriptive framework, or taxonomy, for

5 2011 iSTEM education to guide the work of the project committee and provide a structure for data gathering, analysis, and reporting. The 15-member committee is chaired by Margaret Honey, president and chief executive officer of the New York Hall of Science. NAE member Linda Abriola (Tufts University) serves on the panel. The project is funded by the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation; the NSF; the Samueli Foundation; and PTC, Inc.

Public Understanding of Engineering

Committee on Implementing Effective Messages This committee, also called the Changing the Conversation II (CTC II) committee, is charged with informing and energizing key segments of the engineering community about the potential for improving the pub-

program reports lic image of engineering. The project is a follow-up to a 2008 NAE report, Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. In early 2011 the CTC II project launched an online “toolkit” (see www.engineeringmessages.org) to provide resources, advice, and a way to share insights on effective public outreach about engineering. The site provides background information on engineering’s messaging challenge, catalogs some 125 specific examples of messaging, and provides a variety of interactive forums for dialogue and information sharing. The project is funded by the NSF and the committee is cochaired by NAE President Charles M. Vest and Ellen Kullman, chair of the board and chief executive officer of DuPont.

In late 2011, NAE learned it had been awarded a grant from the United Engineering Foundation to establish a Facebook presence for the CTC II project, to enhance certain features of the engineeringmessages.org site, and to conduct train-the-trainer workshops for those in the engineering community who want to retool their messaging efforts. These initiatives will run through 2012.

Media Relations The NAE media relations office fielded numerous inquiries from journalists around the world in 2011 and actively “pitched” NAE-related stories and other engineering-related topics. Coverage included a Los Angeles Times story on the Draper Prize, a Chronicle of Higher Education piece on the Gordon Prize, local news coverage of various winners of the EngineerGirl! website essay contest, IEEE Spectrum coverage of the Frontiers of Engineering program, and several stories on the Grand Challenges for Engineering.

NAE Senior Media Relations Officer Randy Atkins continued to report weekly “Engineering Innovation” pieces on the all-news-format radio station WTOP-FM (the most popular radio station in the Washington, D.C., area) and Federal News Radio. The reports can also be heard on the NSF’s Science360 Internet radio site. The NAE features these reports on its own

6 NAE website (www.nae.edu/radio), and podcasts of the radio stories are available to millions of subscribers via iTunes.

The NAE continued working with CSI television series creator Anthony Zuiker on developing shows related to cybersecurity and bioengineering. Zuiker’s production company also sought the Academy’s help with an episode of CSI about cyberbullying, and experts found by the NAE contributed to the CSI episode, which aired in April 2011.

Public Relations In collaboration with Lockheed Martin Corporation and the Council on Competitiveness, the NAE has been planning a first-of-its-kind National Engineering Forum. The purpose is to gather engineering leaders from across the country to examine their roles in addressing tough issues, such as a faltering economy, and decide on specific actions. This event, being planned for 2013, will involve both invitation-only discussions and public outreach elements.

Throughout the year the “Spotlight on Engineering” e-newsletter provided information on engineering and policy activities of the National Academies, engineering news from around

the world, special events, and other items of interest to more than 6,000 subscribers. program reports

Grand Challenges for Engineering The NAE’s Grand Challenges for Engineering—14 “game-changing” goals proposed by an international committee of leading thinkers and doers—have continued to have significant impact and to build momentum since their unveiling in 2008. The Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP), which combines curricular and extracurricular components to prepare students to take on these goals, continues to take root at more than 40 colleges and universities across the country. As dozens more students began graduating from the GCSP in 2011, it was stated in a White House blog that, “if we are to find solutions to the many complex problems we face, America needs thousands of students participating in this program.” Now the concepts are reaching into grades K–12. For example, in 2011 a new high school opened in North Carolina that targets underrepresented groups and uses the Grand Challenges as a framework and an inspiration for the entire curriculum. Finally, following on the heels of two national and five regional Grand Challenges summits, a global summit is being planned for the spring of 2013. More information on the project is available at www. engineeringchallenges.org.

Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society

The Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society (CEES) continued its work on two NSF grants received in 2010 for projects focused on ethics and energy-related issues. The Climate Change Educational Partnership grant (“Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society”) supports a partnership by the NAE, Arizona State University (ASU), Colorado School of Mines, University of Virginia, and Boston Museum of Science to address technical and nor- mative challenges of climate change for engineered systems, examining issues of sustainability, governance, justice, and public trust and engagement. In 2011 the NAE sponsored two workshops on these issues, describing formal and informal education efforts to address them. A new section of the NAE Online Ethics Center (OEC; www.onlineethics.org) contains results from the workshops and related partnership activities. The partners have brought new institutions into the effort to establish a network to develop materials and resources for high-quality

7 2011 educational programs in community and tribal colleges, undergraduate institutions, science centers, and community venues. The 18-month award cul- minates with the submis- sion of a proposal to NSF in March 2012 to implement the results.

The second NSF award, “Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education,” is a 3-year collaborative project with ASU to foster leadership in program reports ethics education in energy- related fields. In 2011 the NAE sponsored a research workshop to identify ethical issues, institutional policies, and educational approaches about the topic and to fill in the project activities and evaluation time line. ASU sponsored graduate research and participated in the Arizona process for planning its energy future. In 2012 the project will continue with training in energy and energy research ethics for interdisciplinary programs at ASU and with planning for a weeklong national institute for 15 graduate students in energy research programs around the country as well as a national energy ethics policy and education workshop in 2013. A new energy section in the OEC makes information about this project available.

The OEC continues to be a highly ranked web-based resource for academic and practicing engineers and others working to improve engineering ethics and engineering ethics education. The pie charts show users’ responses to polls taken this year about what they would like to see on the site. CEES and OEC staff members are working to add new materials and func- tionality that are responsive to these needs.

Currently, CEES and OEC are working with the University of Illinois–Urbana on developing materials and findings of use in improving ethics education for scientists and engineers. A joint advisory group with membership from CEES and OEC and the NAS-NAE Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) met in 2011 to begin this process, which may culminate in a workshop in 2013 on assessing and improving ethics education for scientists and engineers.

8 NAE Diversity of the Engineering Workforce

EngineerGirl! Website The EngineerGirl! website (www.engineergirl.org), a significant component of NAE’s web presence, has more than 20,000 visitors per month and is the number one listing on Google™ for “girls and engineering.” The site is a general reference for girls and young women considering careers in engineering, a field in which they have been, and continue to be, underrepresented. EngineerGirl! provides career guidance for students and parents, links to other sites, games, and interesting facts about engineering and the history of women in engineering. Portions of the site have been translated into Spanish to meet the needs of the Latino community.

The most popular feature, program reports “Ask an Engineer,” invites students to e-mail questions directly to any of the almost 200 practicing women engineers profiled on the site, who answer the questions directly. Most questions are about prerequisites for studying engineering, potential careers in engineering, and undergraduate engineering programs. The subject of the 2011 EngineerGirl! annual essay contest was “Engineering and Human Service—Relief from a Disaster.” Students in grades 3 through 12 were asked to describe an item that is used for disaster relief and explain some of the engineering behind its design. More than 900 students submitted essays. The winning essays were posted on the website. Results of a survey conducted in 2011 reaffirmed that the website is reaching its target audience of young females. Sixty-four percent of middle and high school girls who had visited the site said they were likely to visit it again, and 71 percent of female students surveyed said they would share information about the website with others.

Engineer Your Life Project The Engineer Your Life (EYL) Project is a national initiative that encourages college-bound high school girls to consider pursuing undergraduate degrees in engineering. Project participants, in addition to the NAE, include the American Association of Engineering Societies, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the WGBH Foundation, and several other engineering associations. The NAE hosts and maintains a website, www.engineeryourlife.org, that provides resources for students, teachers, guidance counselors, and engineers about careers in engineering. The site features profiles of young women engineers and highlights the contributions of engineering and technology in addressing the difficult challenges facing our planet. An independent evaluation in 2009 found that EYL had stimulated interest in engineering (79 percent of girls familiar with EYL listed engineering as their first career choice) and inspired girls (75 percent who were familiar with EYL said the website had made them want to take an engineering class). Overall, the evaluation found that EYL is helping girls understand the requirements and rewards of pursuing engineering degrees and the variety of interesting jobs available to engineers.

9 2011 Frontiers of Engineering

Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) is a symposium series that brings together emerging engineering leaders from industry, academia, and government laboratories to discuss pioneer- ing 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 promote the establishment of contacts among the next generation of engineering leaders and (2) to facilitate the collaboration and 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 (USFOE) symposium brings together approximately 100 engineers from

program reports 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 partnership with 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) E.U.–U.S. Frontiers of Engineering (EU–USFOE), in partnership with the European Council of Applied Sciences and Engineering. Each bilateral symposium is attended by approximately 30 engineers from the partner country and 30 engineers from the United States.

Four symposia were held in 2011. In March the CAFOE symposium was hosted by Qualcomm Inc. in San Diego. The topics were ocean engineering, wireless communication, bio-inspired engineering, and advanced vehicles and mobility. In June the JAFOE symposium was held in Osaka, Japan. The topics were massive data management, smart grid, bio-inspired materials, and robotics. The USFOE symposium was hosted by Google™ in Mountain View, California, in September. The topics were additive manufacturing, semantic processing, engineering sustainable buildings, and neuro-prosthetics. In November the EU–USFOE symposium was held in Irvine, California. The topics were sustainable cities, future manufacturing, networks in biology and personalized medicine, and smart grid.

FOE encourages continuing interaction among participants in its symposia through ongoing outreach activities. Yearly proceedings, such as Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading Edge Engineering from the 2010 NAE Symposium on Frontiers of Engineering, which was published in February 2011, are mailed to past USFOE participants. The FOE website (www. naefrontiers.org) includes a searchable database and directory of all FOE alumni; the FOE Alumni News section, where alumni can share information; the FOE Alumni Spotlight, which focuses on participants’ research and technical work; and programs, papers, and presentation slides from FOE meetings. In 2011 The Grainger Foundation Frontiers of Engineering Grants program was started for attendees of the USFOE symposium in order to enable further pursuit

10 NAE of new interdisciplinary research and technical work stimulated by the conference and to support participants’ continuing interactions. In addition to The Grainger Foundation’s support of the FOE symposia and grant program, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Indo–U.S. Science and Technology Forum provide support for ongoing collaborations among participants 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 outstanding engineers from among FOE speakers to give presentations at the NAE’s annual and national meetings.

In 2011 two speakers delivered Gilbreth lectures at the annual meeting. Jeanne VanBriesen, professor of civil and envi-

ronmental engineering at Carnegie-Mellon program reports University, spoke on “Infrastructure in the Digital Age.” Armando Fox, adjunct associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley, spoke on “The Potential of Cloud Computing: Opportunities and Challenges.”

Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation

U.S.-based manufacturing has undergone major changes over the past few decades as productivity has improved and a number of production activities have moved offshore to take advantage of the local market demand, skill base, supply chains, and/or lower wages in other countries. As a result, manufacturing employment in this country has steadily decreased from over 19 million workers in 1980 to less than 14 million today.

These trends have been accompanied by groundbreaking technological advances that have the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, design, and innovation in the United States and globally. Innovations in nanotechnology, biotechnology, and robotics are enabling the production of entirely novel types of products—such as pharmaceuticals that target cancer cells while bypassing healthy cells and next-generation transistors that are faster, smaller, and more energy efficient. Additionally, advances in information technologies have enhanced access to and analysis of data sets detailing product characteristics and operation, enabling real-time optimization of a product’s performance.

These transformational changes raise a set of challenges of critical importance to the nation regarding the future of manufacturing. Where is U.S.-based manufacturing headed? What are the implications for the U.S. economy, value creation, and the workforce? What can be done to harness future transformations in manufacturing, design, and innovation to advance the nation’s well-being? And what roles might government and industry have in preparing for this future? The NAE is launching a new initiative to understand and address these challenges.

11 2011 Making Things: Annual Meeting Forum On October 17, 2011, the NAE hosted a 3-hour forum as part of the Academy’s annual meeting to kick off the Initiative on Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation. The forum was entitled Making Things: 21st Century Manufacturing and Design. An expert panel, moderated by Ali Velshi, on-air news anchor and chief business cor- respondent for CNN, explored many facets of contemporary manufacturing and presented a fresh view of the opportunities for U.S. manufacturing and design and the responsibilities of engineering leaders. The panelists included Craig R. Barrett, former chairman and chief executive officer of Intel Corporation; Rodney A. Brooks, founder, chairman, and chief technology officer of Heartland Robotics and professor emeritus at MIT; Lawrence D. Burns, former vice president for R&D, General Motors Corporation; Ursula M. Burns, chairman and chief executive officer, Xerox Corporation; Regina E. Dugan, director, Defense Advanced Research Projects program reports Agency; Brett P. Giroir, vice chancellor for Strategic Initiatives, Texas A&M University System, and executive director, National Center for Therapeutics Manufacturing; and David Kelley, founder and chairman of IDEO and professor of mechanical engineering, Stanford University.

Summaries of the insights of these distinguished panelists and the ensuing discussions are included in the 2012 National Academies Press publication Making Things: 21st Century Manufacturing and Design—Summary of a Forum. The forum was recorded and is available on the NAE website.

Committee on Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation In December 2011, NAE staff assembled a committee charged with advising the NAE president on the development of a manufacturing, design, and innovation initiative. The committee is chaired by NAE member Lawrence D. Burns, professor of engineering practice at the University of Michigan and former vice president of R&D and strategic planning at General Motors Corporation. The committee is charged with identifying significant national challenges for U.S.-based manufacturing, design, and innovation and with recommending questions that the Academy might investigate to address these challenges. The first committee meeting took place in February 2012.

Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding

Violent conflicts cause suffering and destabilization throughout the world. At least 100 nascent, active, or post-conflict situations are being monitored across the globe, and hun- dreds of thousands of people die every year as a direct or an indirect result of these conflicts. Many more suffer life-changing physical or mental disabilities, and large numbers of people are displaced from their homes. In addition to these human costs, the economic and social costs include damage to infrastructure, loss of agricultural capacity, lost worker productivity, and devastated social institutions.

In 2007 the NAE, in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), convened a workshop to explore how information and communication technology might be used to help

12 NAE prevent and manage violent conflicts. In March 2009 the NAE and USIP convened a follow- up daylong brainstorming session cochaired by NAE president Charles M. Vest and USIP president Richard Solomon to discuss options for supporting ongoing multistakeholder dialogue and action on technology and peacebuilding. Based on guidance from participants at that meeting, NAE and USIP developed a 3-year proposal for a roundtable that would provide a forum for stakeholder groups (government, industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]) to (1) consider how using technology, engineering, and scientific methods might contribute to conflict prevention, peacemaking, and peacekeeping and (2) explore opportunities for ongoing collaboration among stakeholders to address key issues.

Present institutional members of the roundtable include: U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Science Foundation, Qualcomm Incorporated, CH2MHill, Google™, CRDF Global, Alliance for Peacebuilding, InterAction, Search for Common Ground, International Crisis Group, Engineers Without Borders, and International Center for Nonviolent Conflict.

The inaugural meeting of the roundtable was held in May 2011. A total of 27 representatives program reports of roundtable members attended: 11 from the NGO community, 8 from U.S. government agencies, 5 from industry, and 3 from academia. The agenda included sessions addressing the roundtable’s draft strategic plan, case examples illustrating how the roundtable might address specific challenge areas, and discussion of possible projects. The second meeting of the roundtable occurred in mid-December and focused on four priority topics for roundtable action in 2012: • Adapting agricultural extension systems to peacebuilding, with a focus on determining the training needs of extension experts who might play a role in resolving disputes over land and other assets in order to strengthen rural institutions and civil society; • Sensing emerging conflicts, with a focus on determining which data (from Internet-based social media sources, on-the-ground sensors, and traditional media such as print and radio) will be most useful to peacebuilding organizations; • Harnessing systems methods for efficient delivery of peacebuilding services, with a focus on applying methods from operational systems engineering to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery; and • Information sharing to improve coordination, planning, and decision making, with a focus on expanding the user base for UNITY, a data-sharing platform developed jointly by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Global Navigation Satellite Systems

The U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) has revolutionized the measurement of position, velocity, and time. It has rapidly evolved into a worldwide utility with more than a billion receiver sets currently in use. Applications include emergency services, aircraft landing, farm tractor auto steering, and measurements of Earth’s tectonic motion, with new applications appearing every year. And there have been enormous benefits to humanity: improved safety of life, increased productivity, and widespread convenience. Recognizing this utility, Russia is rejuvenating its satellite navigation system—GLONASS.

13 2011 Other nations are now deploying new Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSs) of their own, such as the European Galileo system and the Chinese system called Compass (or BeiDou). Regional satellite systems are also being deployed: Japan’s Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) and the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS).

The U.S. GPS constellation may decline in size over the next 5 years (from the current 31 satellites). This will reduce signal availability for those GPS-only users whose views of the sky are restricted by mountains, tree canopy, and/or city buildings. An expanded constellation of satellites providing more signals would significantly improve system access and reliability for sky-impaired users. Moreover, a diversity of frequency signals provided by an expanded constellation would help mitigate inadvertent radio frequency interference with the weak GPS signal.

All of humanity will benefit if available GNSS systems can operate as one supersystem, with users able to navigate using any four satellites, but this can happen only if all system and signal specifications are well understood, interoperable, and officially supported so that receiv- ers can be manufactured and their integrity assessed. The Russians and Europeans have pro- program reports vided significant signal and system details, but as of mid-2011, China had shared relatively little technical information with the United States regarding its Compass system.

To promote technical and policy-related cooperation between the United States and China regarding their respective navigation satellite systems for the benefit of China, the United States, and GNSS users worldwide, the NAE and the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) jointly convened a workshop in Shanghai on May 23–25, 2011. The organizing committee for the bilateral workshop was led by NAE members Bradford Parkinson and Per Enge and CAE member Liu Jingnan. The workshop brought together over 40 leading U.S. and Chinese experts on the technical, economic, operational, and political aspects of GNSS from government, academia, and industry in an effort to encourage greater transparency regarding the technical and operational details that would allow the two countries to exchange system- and signal-level specifications.

Presentations and discussions focused on the history and status of the GPS and Compass systems; opportunities for technical information exchange (to promote interoperability, mutual availability of signal specifications, cross-constellation integrity assistance, and other objectives); new applications for GNSS, particularly focused on the advantages of interchangeability; and barriers to deeper bilateral cooperation in GNSS and how they might be overcome.

At the time of the workshop, China had not released an official description of its civil signals, and many of the U.S. delegates expressed an interest in this critical information. However, in December 2011, as the summary of the workshop, Global Navigational Satellite Systems (National Academies Press, 2012), was going to press, China released this crucial document. The recent exchange of data will improve the accuracy and availability of real- time position, navigation, and time data for all users worldwide. This exchange will foster the interchangeability of satellite signals, which will greatly decrease outages, particularly for sky-impaired users.

14 NAE Lessons from the Macondo Well– Deepwater Horizon Blowout for Improving Offshore Drilling Safety

The Macondo well–Deepwater Horizon blowout and explosion, which occurred on April 20, 2010, killed 11 workers and led to the release of nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In response to a request from the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NAE and NRC formed a committee to examine the causes of the blowout, explosion, fire, and oil spill and to identify ways to prevent similar inci- dents in the future. The study committee, chaired by NAE member Donald Winter, former secretary of the U.S. Navy, included NAE members and other individuals with expertise in geophysics, petroleum engineering, marine systems, accident and incident investigations, safety systems, risk analysis, human factors,

and organizational behavior. In December 2011, the committee’s final report, Macondo Well– program reports Deepwater Horizon Blowout: Lessons for Improving Offshore Drilling Safety, was released.

The committee found that multiple flawed decisions led to the blowout and explosion, indi- cating a lack of effective safety management among the companies involved in the Macondo well–Deepwater Horizon disaster. Despite the challenging geological conditions encountered while drilling the exploratory Macondo well, alternative techniques were available that could have been used to seal the well safely until the necessary infrastructure could be installed to support hydrocarbon production. In addition, several signs of an impending blowout were missed by management and crew, resulting in the failure to take action in a timely manner. The committee also found that the design, test, operation, and maintenance of the blowout preventer system were not consistent with a high-reliability, fail-safe device.

To reduce the risk of another accident on the scale of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, the committee recommended that companies involved in offshore drilling take a system safety approach to anticipating and managing possible dangers throughout the drilling operation. Such an approach would include ensuring the integrity of wells and designing blowout preventers that function robustly and reliably under all foreseeable conditions. Operating companies should have ultimate responsibility and accountability for well integrity because only they possess the ability to view all aspects of well design and operation. The drilling contractor should be held responsible and accountable for the operation and safety of the offshore equipment.

To improve regulatory effectiveness, the committee recommended that government agencies use an enhanced approach that combines strong industry safety goals with mandatory oversight at critical points during drilling operations. Both industry and regulators should significantly expand the formal education and training of personnel engaged in offshore drilling to ensure they can safely implement systems operations and management.

On the basis of available evidence, the committee believed that it was able to identify and assess the principal and direct root causes of the incident and developed a series of recommendations to provide suitable and cost-effective corrective actions, materially reducing the likelihood of a recurrence of a similar event.

15 2011 Engineering and Health

In October 2010, NAE President Charles M. Vest and IOM President Harvey Fineberg tasked a small steering committee, cochaired by IOM member William Stead (Vanderbilt University Health System) and NAE member William Rouse (Georgia Tech), with developing a model engineered system of care that would help health care professionals, engineers, policy makers, and the broader public understand the potential of using systems engineering methods and tools to advance the goals of a patient-centered, value-driven, learning health care system.

Between November 2010 and March 2011, the nine-member steering committee developed a case statement and strategic roadmap for a multiyear initiative, “Enabling and Accelerating a Value-Driven Health System,” which the cochairs presented and discussed with the IOM and NAE councils at their respective spring and summer board meetings.

The core premise of the proposed initiative is that systems

program reports engineering principles can be employed on a massive scale to achieve continuous improvements in the efficacy, efficiency, and value of disease prevention and health care services, resulting in both a healthier and more productive population and significant cost savings for the nation. To catalyze a systems engineering–enabled transformation of health care services delivery in the United States, the steering committee proposed that NAE and IOM lead a coalition of health care providers, engineering schools, public and private insurers, and industry stakeholders in designing and conducting scalable demonstrations of systems engineering–enabled improvements in the prevention and management of key high-spend medical conditions.

The proposed target of the first demonstration is Type 2 diabetes, a condition that affects over 26 million American adults and is responsible for over $34 billion in medical costs and another $140 billion in indirect costs associated with disability, work loss, and premature mortality each year. The NAE and IOM plan to enlist partner organizations and sponsors for the first demonstration in 2012.

The Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology: Six Academy Dialogues

In 2010 the leadership of the NAE, the NAS, the U.K. Royal Society, the U.K. Royal Academy of Engineering, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Chinese Academy of Engineering agreed to hold a series of three international symposia (1) to explore national and regional differences in research, innovation, and commercialization in synthetic biology and the policies (ethical, regulatory, security, biosafety, intellectual property, and others) that shape them and (2) to assess the implications of the differences for how the field will develop nationally and internationally in the future.

16 NAE In 2011 the first two symposia took place in London, England, and Shanghai, China. The London meeting, entitled “The Economic and Social Life of Synthetic Biology,” was held on April 13–14, 2011. The Shanghai meeting, entitled “Enabling Technology for Synthetic Biology,” was held on October 12–14, 2011. Both meetings featured scientific presentations and discussions about the potential of synthetic biology to meet critical societal needs (e.g., in energy and medicine), and many notable presentations focused on societal concerns related to synthetic biology’s position as a revolutionary technology. program reports The London meeting brought together over 110 individuals from numerous countries, disciplines, and professions. Keynote speakers included the U.K. science minister; The Right Honorable David Willets, MP; and George Poste of Arizona State University. Panelist presentations reviewed recent developments in synthetic biology and addressed visions for the near- and medium-term future of the field; requirements and resources necessary for creating value from synthetic biology research; and characteristics of an enabling environment for synthetic biology research, innovation, and use, including international governance of the emerging field.

The Shanghai symposium involved approximately 180 individuals, including a sizable contingent of Chinese students and high-level participation from the Chinese Academy of Engineering (Dai-Ming Fan, vice president) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Jing- hai Li, vice president); the director of the Department of Basic Research from the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (Xian-en Zhang); and Thomas Lee, director of the Microsystems Technology Office in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Keynote and panel presentations focused on major scientific and technical challenges that must be met to enable further development of the field; industrial applications of synthetic biology; the scientific, technological, and educational impacts of the student-focused International Genetically Engineered Machine (i-GEM) competition on development of the field; and the ethical, legal, and societal implications for synthetic biology. Anita L. Allen, member of the U.S. President’s Bioethics Commission, spoke about the commission’s report on synthetic biology.

The third and final symposium will be held in the Washington, D.C., on June 12–13, 2012. It will focus on next-generation tools, platforms, and infrastructure for continued progress in synthetic biology and associated policy implications. A summary report based on all three symposia will be issued in the fall of 2012.

Support for participation by the National Academies in the planning and execution of the six- academy symposium series is being provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

17 2011 Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Developing Regional Innovation Environments

Although the United States leads the world in scientific and technological developments and the U.S. economy is based largely on such innovations, danger signs on the horizon suggest that U.S. leadership in these areas is threatened.

This was the overarching conclusion of a National Academies landmark report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Academies Press, 2007), authored by a committee chaired by NAE member Norman Augustine, retired chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation, that included Nobel laureates and prominent business, government, and academic leaders, nine of them NAE members.

The committee made four recommendations, with 20 specific implementation actions, for improving K–12 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education, for program reports attracting the best and brightest students to STEM higher education, for increasing support for research, and for improving the environment for innovation. The America COMPETES Act, signed into law in 2007, included almost all of them.

An additional outcome of the original Gathering Storm report is that it catalyzed efforts on the part of states and regions to improve their own science and engineering capabilities. During 2011 a planning committee of COSEPUP organized a workshop, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Developing Regional Innovation Environments,” to take stock of these efforts. The workshop, held September 20–22, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin, explored what states and regions might do to foster innovation through improved science and mathematics education, investments in research, and partnerships. NAE members Ruth David, Mary Good, Sangtae Kim, Arun Majumdar, C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., Paul Peercy, and William J. Spencer participated in the workshop as planning committee members or agenda speakers.

STEM Workforce Needs for National Defense

In response to a request from the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, the NAE and NRC have jointly undertaken a series of activities focused on the STEM workforce of the U.S. Department of Defense and its industrial base. The committee of 21 experts is cochaired by NAE– NAS member Norman Augustine and NAE member C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. Overall, the activities will consist of advising the Defense Department on STEM workforce

18 NAE demands, challenges to meeting those demands, options for doing so in the near term, how these needs might evolve over the next 5 to 15 years, and the capacity of the nation’s higher education enterprise to meet these needs within the Defense Department and the U.S. defense industrial base.

The study committee held a two-day workshop in August 2011 to gather a broad range of views from 80 participants from both the public and the private sectors, including major defense contractors, and from NGOs, all of whom are stakeholders in the future STEM workforce. NAE President Charles M. Vest led the event with a keynote presentation on the supply of scientists and engineers entering the workforce nationwide. The report of the workshop was published by the National Academies Press in January 2012.

After the workshop, the committee continued with fact-finding efforts and deliberations aimed at producing a full-length consensus study draft report. The final report is expected to

be released in September 2012. program reports

America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs

In 2009 several panel reports associated with a joint NAE–NAS project called America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs (AEF) were delivered to the Obama administration and Congress and subsequently released publicly. In 2010 the National Academies released four final documents—two more panel reports, Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States and Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments; a detailed, in-depth report based on all of the panel reports and studies, America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation; and Overview and Summary of America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation, a summary report highlighting key findings and major topics in the full report.

These recommendations figured prominently in considerations by Congress of energy and climate legislation in 2010 and by government departments and agencies still considering options for energy research and development, including the Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR), initiated in early 2011 by the U.S. Department of Energy, and in particular as a basis for the energy technology assessments included in the QTR. Follow-up efforts to the AEF project so far have included current projects focused on energy and transportation, renewable electric power technologies, and renewable energy fuels. Others in the planning stages include efforts focused on electric vehicles, the electric power grid, and policy options for accelerating deployment of emerging energy technologies.

19 2011 2011 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 contributions 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, the prize carries a $500,000 cash award and a gold medal.

Frances H. Arnold and Willem P. C. Stemmer “for directed evolution, a method used worldwide for engineering novel enzymes and biocatalytic processes for pharmaceutical and chemical products.”

Frances H. Arnold and Willem P. C. Stemmer

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, the prize carries a $500,000 cash award and a gold medal.

Leroy E. Hood “for automating DNA sequencing that revolutionized bio- medicine and forensic science.”

Leroy E. Hood For additional information about the NAE awards, please visit our website www.nae.edu/awards. 20 Bernard M. Gordon Prize The Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education honors technology educators whose innovative programs have strengthened the engineering workforce by cultivating students’ leadership, creativity, and teamwork skills. The Gordon Prize is presented annually and awards a cash prize of $500,000, shared between the educator(s) and the educational institution, to support continuation of the award-winning program. The recipients also receive a gold medal.

Edward F. Crawley “for leadership, creativity, and energy in defin- ing and guiding the CDIO (Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate) Initiative, which has been widely adopted internationally for engineering education.” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Edward F. Crawley

Founders Award The Founders Award is given in recognition of an NAE member or foreign associate who has exemplified the ideals and principles of NAE through professional, educational, and personal achievement and accomplishment. Presented annually during the NAE Annual Meeting in the fall, the recipient receives a commemorative medal.

David Atlas “for five decades of research, innovation and development, leading to operational weather radar systems that have improved aviation safety and weather-related David Atlas safety for millions worldwide.”

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. technological development, and enhancing relations between industry, government, and universities. Presented annually during the NAE Annual Meeting in the fall, the recipient receives a commemorative medal.

Charles Elachi “for innovations in planetary remote sensing science and technology, and distinguished leadership in creating government, university and industry partnerships and space technology policies.” Charles Elachi

21 2011 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES 2011 MEMBERSANDFOREIGNASSOCIATES NEW 2011. the timeofInductionCeremony, October16, ciates follows,withtheirprimaryaffiliationsat A listofnewlyelectedmembers andforeignasso- es toengineeringeducation.” or developing/implementinginnovativeapproach- advancements intraditionalfieldsofengineering, developing fieldsoftechnology, makingmajor literature,” andtothe“pioneeringofnew ate, significantcontributionstotheengineering practice, oreducation,including,whereappropri- standing contributionsto“engineeringresearch, membership honorsthosewhohavemadeout- distinctions accordedtoanengineer. Academy of Engineeringisamongthehighestprofessional ciates to202.ElectiontheNational Academy bership to2,290andthenumberofforeignasso- 9 foreignassociates,bringingthetotalU.S.mem- In February, NAEelected68newmembersand Massachusetts InstituteofTechnology Michael J.Cima University ofCalifornia,Los Angeles Albert Carnesale University ofMichigan General MotorsCorporation,retired Lawrence D.Burns The UniversityofChicago John R.Birge ExxonMobil ChemicalCompany Jeffrey S.Beck Raytheon BBNTechnologies James E.Barger Skidmore, Owings&Merrill William F. Baker University ofCalifornia,SantaBarbara David D.Awschalom Carnegie MellonUniversity Nadine Aubry University ofMichigan John E.Allison Boeing Commercial Airplane Group James F. Albaugh NEW MEMBERS 22 University Virginia PolytechnicInstituteand State Fred C.Lee University ofConnecticut Cato T. Laurencin University ofMichigan Mark J.Kushner University ofUtah Jindrich Kopecek Stanford University Daphne Koller Fluor Henry Z.Kister Garmin, Ltd. Min H.Kao The UniversityofTexas Keith P. Johnston Paphos Consulting Delphi Research Labs,retired Linos J.Jacovides University ofSouthernCalifornia Mark S.Humayun California InstituteofTechnology Michael R.Hoffmann Carnegie MellonUniversity Chris T. Hendrickson Stanford University James S.Harris General MotorsCorporation Daniel M.Hancock Massachusetts InstituteofTechnology Linda G.Griffith Vanderbilt University John C.Gore Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems,retired Jacqueline G.Gish Princeton University Christodoulos A.Floudas Reservoir EngineeringResearch Institute Abbas Firoozabadi IBM ThomasJ.Watson Research Center Daniel C.Edelstein Microsoft Research Susan T. Dumais University ofCalifornia,Berkeley Armen DerKiureghian The OhioStateUniversity Stuart L.Cooper Georgia InstituteofTechnology William J.Cook Boston University James J.Collins NAE 2 0 1 1 Rochal Industries,LLP Joseph C.Salamone Michigan StateUniversity Joan B.Rose California InstituteofTechnology Ares J.Rosakis University ofIllinois John A.Rogers Robinson HelicopterCompany, retired Franklin D.Robinson Qualcomm Incorporated Thomas J.Richardson University ofSouthernCalifornia Aristides A.Requicha University ofCalifornia,Berkeley Ramamoorthy Ramesh E. O.LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory Karsten Pruess MiMedx Group,Inc. Parker H.“Pete”Petit University ofCalifornia,SanDiego John A.Orcutt Massachusetts InstituteofTechnology Amedeo R.Odoni Northwestern University Donald A.Norman Princeton University Richard B.Miles Stanford University Nick McKeown Kema, Inc. Ralph D.Masiello University ofCalifornia,Berkeley Jitendra Malik Lockheed MartinSpaceSystemsCompany Joanne M.Maguire Independent Consultant BEI Technologies, Inc.,retired Asad M.Madni The Lyles Group Lester L.Lyles American BureauofShipping,retired Donald Liu University ofWashington Henry M.Levy Michael J.Rouse;UnitedKingdom Michael J.Rouse University ofToronto; Canada Jonathan ScottRose Swansea University;UnitedKingdom D. RogerJ.Owen University of Alberta, emeritus; Canada Jacob H.Masliyah Linköping University, emeritus;Sweden Ingemar Lundström Kundur PowerSystemsSolutionsInc.;Canada Prabha S.Kundur Petrobras OilCompany;Brazil Guilherme d.Estrella University ofCalgary;Canada M. ElizabethCannon Harwell Laboratory, retired;UnitedKingdom Ronald Bullough NEW FOREIGNASSOCIATES Stanford University Mark D.Zoback American Superconductor Corporation J. YurekGregory Columbia University Mihalis Yannakakis InTouch Health Yulun Wang Ford MotorCompany, retired Wallace R.Wade GE Energy, retired John M.Undrill The DowChemicalCompany James C.Stevens Princeton University Alexander J.Smits Salk InstituteforBiologicalStudies Terrence J.Sejnowski Cornell University Fred B.Schneider 23

2011 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS NAE A 45th year in2011 Names inboldcelebratedtheir 45 Y Calvin F. Quate Thomas L.Phillips William J.Perry Hilliard W. Paige George E.Mueller Brockway McMillan John J.McKetta,Jr. J. RossMacdonald Robert G.Loewy Christopher C.Kraft,Jr. Woodrow E.Johnson William J.Hall Haddad Jerrier A. Richard J.Grosh Roy W. Gould Earnest F. Gloyna Robert A.Frosch John S.Foster, Jr. Jay W. Forrester Alexander H.Flax Don U.Deere Malcolm R.Currie John P. Craven Karl P. Cohen Ray W. Clough Francis H.Clauser Arthur E.Bryson Harold Brown Sidney A.Bowhill B. PaulBlasingame R. ByronBird Robert F. Bauer* Edward J.Barlow M. Amdahl Gene 40th year in2011. Names inboldcelebratedtheir 40 TO44 YEARS Simon Ramo Allen E.Puckett Edward E.David,Jr. Leo L.Beranek ears

nni or 24 M . v ore ersar y M Robert M.White Albert D.Wheelon Edward Wenk, Jr. WatkinsDean A. Mark K.Smith George C.Dacey Charles Crussard Alan Cottrell Edgar M.Cortright Fernando J.Corbato Edward Cohen Stuart W. Churchill Joseph V. Charyk Charpie* Robert A. Jack E.Cermak Robert H.Cannon,Jr. James R.Burnett J. FredBucy Norman H.Brooks Frederick P. Brooks,Jr. P. L.ThibautBrian John E.Breen Lewis M.Branscomb Boley Bruno A. Andrew H.Bobeck Donald L.Bitzer Daniel Berg Stephen D.Bechtel,Jr. Richard H.Battin Jordan J.Baruch* William F. Ballhaus,Sr. Albert L.Babb L. Atkin Rupert H. Arnold Wm. Alfredo H.Ang G. Anderson Arthur Betsy Ancker-Johnson Clarence R.Allen WilliamG. Agnew Harold M.Agnew H. NormanAbramson 35th year in2011. Names inboldcelebratedtheir 35 TO39 YEARS *Deceased embers John LoweIII Alan M.Lovelace C. GordonLittle Salomon Levy Milton Levenson T. William Lambe Ernest S.Kuh Gordon S.Kino Robert L.Johnson James R.Johnson H. RichardJohnson Arthur E.Humphrey Nick Holonyak,Jr. Charles H.Holley William C.Hittinger John P. Hirth Joseph M.Hendrie William R.Hawthorne* Thomas J.Hanratty John C.Hancock Paul E.Gray John B.Goodenough Ralph E.Gomory Solomon W. Golomb James F. Gibbons Ivar Giaever Elmer L.Gaden Douglas W. Fuerstenau Merton C.Flemings Peter T. Flawn Daniel J.Fink Morris E.Fine A. J.Field Steven J.Fenves Joseph Feinstein Robert M.Fano James L.EverettIII Evans* Ersel A. Kenneth M.Eldred Ira Dyer Mildred S.Dresselhaus Robert M.Drake,Jr. Gerald P. Dinneen Anthony J.DeMaria Ruth M.Davis J. F. Davidson Lee L.Davenport* NAE 2 0 1 1 30th year in2011. Names inboldcelebratedtheir 30 TO34 YEARS Zadeh Lotfi A. A. YeeAlfred Amnon Yariv Herbert H.Woodson Robert L.Wiegel Robert V. Whitman David C.White James G.Wenzel Johannes Weertman William M.Webster John B.Wachtman, Jr. Howard S.Turner Myron Tribus John W. Townsend, Jr. * Ping K.Tien John J.Taylor Morris Tanenbaum Morgan C.Sze Ivan E.Sutherland Anthony E.Siegman* Robert S.Schechter Allen S.Russell Ian M.Ross Rosen Harold A. Leslie E.Robertson James B.Reswick Eric H.Reichl David S.Potter Robert Plunkett Norman F. Parker Jack S.Parker Henry J.Ongerth* David Okrent Joseph H.Newman Dale D.Myers Gordon E.Moore John L.Moll* James K.Mitchell Gordon H.Millar Sidney Metzger* Fujio Matsuda Hans Mark Enrique A.Marcatili Frank E.Marble John D.Mackenzie *Deceased Richard L.Garwin William J.Galloway Robert G.Gallager Theodore V. Galambos Tasuku Fuwa Yuan-Cheng B.Fung James L.Flanagan John C.Fisher Thomas E.Everhart Robert R.Everett Von R.Eshleman Leo Esaki Elder Rex A. Duffy Robert A. John E.Dolan Raymond F. Decker Daniel B.DeBra Robert G.Dean Robert C.Dean,Jr. Elio D’Appolonia Jose B.Cruz,Jr. Robert C.Crooke Robert J.Creagan Stephen H.Crandall Harvey G.Cragon Eugene E.Covert Dale R.Corson Thomas B.Cook,Jr. Esther M.Conwell W. DaleCompton Lloyd S.Cluff Per V. Bruel David Brown William B.Bridges Howard Brenner Michel Boudart Erich Bloch Franklin H.Blecher Elwyn R.Berlekamp Donald C.Berkey C. GordonBell Wallace B.Behnke John W. Batchelor Lionel O.Barthold Seymour Baron Neil A.Armstrong G. Anderson John P.Arthur Adamson Andreas Acrivos Egil Abrahamsen William W. Lang John W. Landis Henry Kressel Max A.Kohler Herwig Kogelnik Leonard J.Koch Donald E.Knuth Leonard Kleinrock C. JudsonKing Clyde E.Kesler* Jack L.Kerrebrock Herbert H.Kellogg Bernard H.Kear William M.Kays Eneas D.Kane Edward R.Kane* John W. Kalb Jan Kaczmarek Paul C.Jennings George W. Jeffs Noel Jarrett Donald G.Iselin Sheldon E.Isakoff K. UnoIngard Michel Hug Charles L.Hosler, Jr. Edward E.Hood,Jr. Kenneth F. Holtby D. BrainerdHolmes Philip G.Hodge David G.Hoag Robert W. Hellwarth George H.Heilmeier George N.Hatsopoulos Julius J.Harwood George A.Harter William J.Harris,Jr. Stephen E.Harris Dean B.Harrington Robert N.Hall Wolf Hafele Elias P. Gyftopoulos Andrew S.Grove Paul E.Green,Jr. George S.Graff George W. Govier Eugene I.Gordon Ronald L.Geer Gee Edwin A. Welko E.Gasich 25

NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS GeorgeRoberts A. Gustavo Rivas-Mijares Herbert H.Richardson James R.Rice Irving S.Reed Quinn John A. Paul E.Queneau Ronald F. Probstein John M.Prausnitz William N.Poundstone James W. Plummer Karl S.Pister Jacques Peters Joseph Penzien* Stanford S.Penner Marc J.Pelegrin J. R. Anthony Pearson Harold W. Paxton C. KumarN.Patel Simon Ostrach Carlos S.Ospina Karl H.Norris Richard B.Neal Walter E.Morrow, Jr. John W. Morris James J.Morgan Carl L.Monismith Dade W. Moeller* Johannes Moe Harold S.Mickley* Harry W. Mergler Seymour L.Meisel James D.Meindl Charles J.McMahon,Jr. Ross E.McKinney William J.McCune,Jr. Perry L.McCarty John S.Mayo Walter G.May Robert D.Maurer James W. Mar Artur Mager Louis C.Lundstrom Frank W. Luerssen Robert W. Lucky William R.Lucas Frederick F. Ling Edwin N.Lightfoot,Jr. Tingye Li Griff C.Lee 26 Laurence R. YoungLaurence Takeo Yokobori Holden W. Withington* Gerald L.Wilson Albert R.Westwood Robert H.Wertheim Lloyd R.Welch Jasper A. Welch, Jr. Paul B.Weisz James Wei Wilford F. Weeks Milton E.Wadsworth Andrew J.Viterbi Ivan M.Viest Georges Andre C.Vendryes Anestis S.Veletsos Gregory S.Vassell VandersliceThomas A. Marshall P. Tulin Ken Thompson Daniel M.Tellep Charles E.Taylor George W. Swenson,Jr. Lawrence E.Swabb,Jr. Stanley D.Stookey Henry E.Stone Beno Sternlicht Theodore Stern SteinbergMorris A. Francis M.Staszesky Roger W. Staehle Arthur M.Squires Gunter Spur Sozen Mete A. Elias Snitzer Lawrence H.Skromme Masanobu Shinozuka Paul G.Shewmon Oleg D.Sherby Roland W. Schmitt Jacob W. Schaefer Thorndike Saville,Jr. Gurmukh S.Sarkaria Irwin W. Sandberg Jean E.Sammet Alfred Saffer Victor H.Rumsey Dale F. Rudd Anatol Roshko Lawrence G.Roberts *Deceased G. DavidForney, Jr. John W. Fisher Alexander Feiner Edward A.Feigenbaum John V. Evans Joseph F. Engelberger Richard E.Emmert Eckert Charles A. Lester F. Eastman Peter S.Eagleson Floyd Dunn James M.Duncan Robert H.Dennard Morton M.Denn F. PauldeMello James W. Dally L. EricCross Paul M.Cook Richard A.Conway Philip M.Condit Donald E.Coles Richard J.Coar John L.Cleasby Robert P. Clagett Jack V. Christiansen Anil K.Chopra Alfred Y.Cho John F. Cashen John C.Calhoun,Jr. Walter L.Brown Klaus D.Bowers H. KentBowen John G.Bollinger Nicolaas Bloembergen David P. Billington Arden L.Bement,Jr. R. Augustine Norman David Atlas Arthur Ashkin William A.Anders William F. Allen K. Allen Dell Harl P. Aldrich, Jr. S. Agbabian Mihran E. Adams Richard D. Achenbach Jan 25th year in2011. Names inboldcelebratedtheir 25 TO29 YEARS NAE 2 0 1 1 John B.MacChesney John W. Lyons Dan Luss Joseph C.Logue Raymond C.Loehr Peter W. Likins Philip W. Lett John W. Leonard George Leitmann Shih-Ying Lee Kaye D.Lathrop Ronald M.Latanision James F. Lardner J. HalcombeLaning Butler W. Lampson Charles C.Ladd James N.Krebs Albert S.Kobayashi Anthony Kelly Howard H.Kehrl Ivan P. Kaminow Thomas Kailath Angel G.Jordan Trevor O.Jones Thomas V.Jones Robert B.Jansen Irwin M.Jacobs Erich P. Ippen Anthony J.Iorillo James D.Idol Lee A.Iacocca John W. Hutchinson William G.Howard,Jr. Hodges David A. Cyril Hilsum R. RichardHeppe Alfred J.Hendron,Jr. Robert C.Hawkins Kenneth E.Haughton Robert D.Hanson Kent F. Hansen Robert S.Hahn Bacharuddin J.Habibie Hermann K.Gummel James P. Gordon Richard J.Goldstein Ralph S.Gens Harry C.Gatos Donald C.Fraser Fowler Charles A. *Deceased Roger A. Schmitz Roger A. Lucien A. Schmit,Jr. John H.Schmertmann Eugene C.Sakshaug Chih-Tang Sah Donald G.Russell James F. Roth Ronald E.Rosensweig Stanley T. Rolfe Walter L.Robb Jerome G.Rivard Eli Reshotko Raj Reddy Lawrence R.Rabiner Michael Prats John W. Poduska,Sr Robert Plonsey Emil Pfender George P. Peterson Thomas K.Perkins J. RandolphPaulling Yih-Hsing Pao Jacques I.Pankove Morton B.Panish M. KennethOshman* William R.Opie William G.Oldham Robin B.Nicholson George L.Nemhauser Hyla S.Napadensky Gerald Nadler Nadel Norman A. Thomas J.Murrin Toshio Mura Joel Moses Richard M.Morrow Yasuo Mori Douglas C.Moorhouse Franklin K.Moore Harold Mirels Richard C.Messinger Chiang C.Mei Robert Mehrabian Mead Carver A. Alan L.McWhorter Sanford N.McDonnell Walter J.McCarthy, Jr. James W. Mayer Hudson Matlock Robert Malpas Paul Zia C. YoulaDante Michael Yachnis Theodore Y.Wu John J.Wise Edward L.Wilson Sheila E.Widnall Willis S.White,Jr. John F. Welch, Jr. Sheldon Weinig Vern W. Weekman, Jr. Walter J.Weber, Jr. Willis H.Ware Daniel I.Wang Leland J.Walker Arthur F. Veinott, Jr. George L.Turin Joseph F. Traub Paul E.Torgersen Haldor F. Topsoe Charles F. Tiffany Gareth Thomas Nickolas J.Themelis Chung L.Tang Joseph F. Sutter G. RussellSutherland Kenneth N.Stevens Fred Sterzer Dale F. Stein Marshall B.Standing William E.Splinter Ephraim M.Sparrow Harold G.Sowman Ponisseril Somasundaran Smith Kenneth A. Joseph L.Smith,Jr. George E.Smith Ernest T. Smerdon John B.Slaughter Merrill I.Skolnik William H.Silcox Eugene D.Shchukin Maurice E.Shank Charles V. Shank Eugene Sevin John H.Seinfeld Charles D.Scott Harris M.Schurmeier William R.Schowalter 27

NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS A Message from NAE Vice President Maxine L. Savitz

I am happy to report that 2011 was a successful fundraising year for NAE. Thanks to the extraordinary generosity and support of more than 650 members, we raised almost $3.4 million in new cash and pledges, 30 percent of NAE’s annual budget. We thank you for your confidence that we will use these contributions to continue to serve the engineering community, students, policy makers, and the public.

1 private contributions private 1 More than one-third of the private money we received in 2011, slightly 1

0 Maxine L. Savitz more than $1.2 million, was donated to the NAE Independent Fund. This 2 vital, unrestricted money not only provides core support, but also enables us to initiate important new projects that lack federal funding, as well as to expand the scope and impact of current programs.

Perhaps one of the best examples of the exceptional potential of flexible funds was the development of the Grand Challenges for Engineering. This initiative, which began as an idea to inspire student and public engagement with engineering, has since taken on a life of its own. Several universities have organized curri- cula around the Grand Challenges and have established the Grand Challenges Scholars Program. Seven Grand Challenges Summits have been held in the United States, organized by Duke, USC, Olin College, and others, and the first Global Grand Challenges Summit will be held in 2013 in cooperation with the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Engineering. The 14 Grand Challenges were selected by an NAE-appointed committee under the sponsorship of NSF, but continued engagement in the project was made possible by unrestricted donations provided by NAE members.

50th Anniversary In December 2014, NAE will celebrate 50 years since its founding as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers under the NAS charter. We can look back on past accomplishments spearheaded by NAE members, including influential projects and studies, such as Rising Above the Gathering Storm, America’s Energy Future, and the recent report on the Deepwater Horizon. But we can also look ahead to finding new ways of addressing the changing needs of a rapidly changing society.

With an eye to the future of NAE, we have launched a 50th anniversary fundraising activity: Celebrating 50 Years of Engineering Leadership and Service. We hope to engage members who have never given to NAE, as well as to inspire our loyal donors to consider making additional commitments to help us reach some very ambitious goals: • increasing membership in our lifetime giving societies—the Einstein, Heritage, and Golden Bridge societies • initiating crucial new projects supported by Leadership Gifts • promoting friendly competition among sections to increase the percentage of members who give to NAE

Nobody understands better than our members the crucial role of engineering and technological innovation in driving the U.S. economy, national security, and quality of life. If our efforts are successful, we will reach our 50th anniversary with enough resources in hand to help the engineering community address the Grand Challenges facing us today, turn complex technological questions into opportunities for innovation and improvement, and maintain NAE’s position as a national voice for engineering. Please visit www.nae.edu/ giving for more details.

28 NAE Outstanding Contributions All contributions are greatly appreciated, and all of them make a difference in the work of NAE. Before I close, however, I want to highlight some of the most remarkable gifts we received in 2011: • Ross (’02) and Stephanie Corotis established a $100,000 charitable gift annuity to benefit NAE. • The estate of Lee L. Davenport (’73) established a bequest of $50,000 to support joint work with IOM to improve the efficiency of the U.S. health care system. • Irwin (’82) and Joan Jacobs sponsored two matching gift challenges, their third and fourth such challenges in the past three years. This year’s challenges for the Class of 2011 and the Classes of 2009 and 2010 helped raise almost $150,000 for the NAE Independent Fund. • Lockheed Martin donated $500,000 to support the Global Grand Challenges Summit; $250,000 to EngineerGirl!; and $100,000 to support the National Engineering Forum. • Asad (’11), Taj, and Jamal Madni have committed $100,000 to sponsor two matching gift challenges

in 2012, one for new members and one for Section 7 members. contributions private 1 1

• Robin (’07) and Rose McGuire contributed $100,000 to encourage Native American students to 0

pursue careers in engineering. 2 • Gordon (’76) and Betty Moore donated $100,000 to NAE’s unrestricted Independent Fund. • Northrop Grumman donated $100,000 to encourage diversity in the science and engineering workforce. • The O’Donnell Foundation invested $500,000 in Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE), a program that promotes effective, innovative engineering education.

Gifts made regularly each year to NAE also demonstrate genuine commitment to our mission and goals. As a longtime donor who understands that every donation to NAE is a choice to support an organization whose work matters greatly, I thank the following members who have contributed to NAE for 15 or more consecu- tive years: Clarence R. Allen (’76) Daniel J. Fink (’74) F. Stan Settles (’91) Charles A. Amann (’89) Robert C. Forney (’89) Morris Tanenbaum (’72) John C. Angus (’95) Anita K. Jones (’94) Hardy W. Trolander (’92) Wm. Howard Arnold (’74) Johanna M. H. Levelt Sengers (’92) Andrew J. Viterbi (’78) Harold Brown (’67) Thomas S. Maddock (’93) Irving T. Waaland (’91) Jack E. Buffington (’96) Jack S. Parker (’76) Johannes (’76) and Julia (’88) Esther M. Conwell (’80) Simon Ramo (’64) Weertman Irwin Dorros (’90) William R. Schowalter (’82) Wm. A. Wulf (’93)

Be on the lookout in 2012 for opportunities to participate in activities leading up to NAE’s 50th anniversary celebration. We will be discussing plans for this milestone at regional meetings and throughout the year and will provide more information in our spring and fall appeals. Remember, too, that we are always available to discuss your ideas for celebrating NAE.

On behalf of the NAE Council, our president Charles M. Vest, and myself, thank you very much for your contributions in 2011. Our supporting members, friends, partner corporations, foundations, government sponsors, and other organizations make all the difference in our ability to positively impact our world and to continue advocating for engineering. I am grateful for your contributions, and I look forward to your continued involvement in 2012.

Maxine Savitz

29 2011 2011 Private Contributions

The National Academy of Engineering gratefully acknowledges the following members and friends who have made generous charitable lifetime contributions. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of NAE as a national voice for engineering.

EINSTEIN SOCIETY In recognition of NAE members and friends who have made lifetime contributions of $100,000 or more to the National Academies as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation. Names in bold are NAE members.

1 private contributions private 1 $1,000,000 or more 1 0

2 Norman R. Augustine Harry E. Bovay, Jr.* George P. Mitchell Craig and Barbara Barrett Donald L. Bren Gordon and Betty Moore Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch Bernard M. Gordon Peter O’Donnell, Jr. Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. William R.* and Rosemary B.* Robert A.* and Mayari Pritzker Arnold O.* and Mabel M.* Hewlett Fritz J.* and Delores H.* Russ Beckman Fred Kavli

$500,000 to $999,999 Anonymous Joan and Irwin Mark Jacobs Dane and Mary Louise Miller Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Thomas V. Jones Shela and Kumar Patel John and Lise Armstrong Cindy and Jeong Kim John and Janet Swanson James McConnell Clark Ralph* and Claire* Landau Alan M. Voorhees* Richard Evans* William W. Lang Eugene Garfield Ruben F.* and Donna Mettler

$250,000 to $499,999 Warren L. Batts William R. Jackson* Simon Ramo C. Gordon Bell Richard M. Morrow Anne and Walt Robb Jerome H.* and Barbara N. Kenneth H. Olsen* Henry and Susan Samueli Grossman Ann and Michael Ramage Charles M. and Rebecca M. Vest

$100,000 to $249,999 Holt Ashley* William H. Gates III Lawrence and Carol Papay William F. Ballhaus, Sr. Nan and Chuck Geschke Jack S. Parker Thomas D.* and Janice Hood Paul and Judy Gray Allen E. and Marilyn Puckett Barrow Jane Hirsh Henry M. Rowan Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp Anita K. Jones Dr.* and Mrs. Joseph E. Rowe George* and Virginia Bugliarello Trevor O. Jones Maxine L. Savitz A. James Clark Leon K.* and Olga* Kirchmayer Wendy and Eric Schmidt W. Dale and Jeanne Compton Jill H. Kramer Georges C. St. Laurent, Jr. Robert and Florence Deutsch John W. Landis Charlotte and Morry Tanenbaum Robert and Cornelia Eaton Gerald and Doris Laubach Peter and Vivian Teets Tobie and Dan Fink David M. Lederman Andrew and Erna Viterbi George and Ann Fisher Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire Wm. A. Wulf Harold K. and Betty A. Forsen David Packard* Alejandro Zaffaroni William L. and Mary Kay Friend Charles* and Doris Pankow

*Deceased

30 NAE Golden Bridge Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who have made lifetime contributions of $20,000 to $99,999 to the Academies as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation. $50,000 to $99,999 Paul Baran* Paul and Julie Kaminski George A. Roberts Lewis M. Branscomb Theodore C. Kennedy Warren G. Schlinger William Cavanaugh III Kent Kresa Robert C. Seamans* Robert A. Charpie* Bonnie Berger and Frank Thomson Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull John M. Cioffi Leighton H. Guyford Stever* Lance A. Davis Johanna Levelt Sengers Leo J.* and Joanne J. Thomas Robert W. Gore Frank W. Luerssen Johannes Weertman James N. Gray Darla and George E. Mueller Julia Weertman 1 private contributions private 1

John O. Hallquist Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel Robert H. and Joan Wertheim 1 0

Michael W. Hunkapiller Franklin M. Orr, Jr. Robert M. White 2 Robert E. Kahn Richard F. Rashid Adrian Zaccaria Thomas Kailath Charles Eli Reed* $20,000 to $49,999 Clarence R. Allen Paul E. Gray Eberhardt Rechtin* William F. Allen, Jr. Delon Hampton Ronald L. Rivest William A. Anders Wesley L. Harris Will H. Rowand* Bishnu S. Atal Martin C. Hemsworth* Brian H. Rowe* William F. Ballhaus, Jr. John L. Hennessy Jonathan J. Rubinstein William F. Banholzer Robert and Darlene Hermann Roland W. Schmitt David K. Barton David and Susan Hodges Donald R. Scifres Roy H. Beaton* Charles O. Holliday, Jr. Joel S. Spira Erich Bloch Kenneth F. Holtby Arnold and Constance Stancell Barry W. Boehm Edward E. Hood, Jr. Chauncey Starr* Harold Brown Edward G. Jefferson* Raymond S. Stata Corbett Caudill Min H. Kao Richard J. Stegemeier Joseph V. Charyk John and Wilma Kassakian Stanley D. Stookey Paul Citron James Krebs Daniel M. Tellep G. Wayne Clough Lester C. and Joan M. Krogh Gary and Diane Tooker Stephen H. Crandall Norman N. Li Raymond Viskanta Malcolm R. Currie Asad M., Taj, and Jamal Madni John C. Wall Ruth A. David Thomas J. Malone Daniel I. C. Wang Gerald P. Dinneen James F. Mathis Willis H. Ware Nicholas M. Donofrio Roger L. McCarthy William L. Wearly* E. Linn Draper, Jr. Kenneth G. McKay* Albert R. C. and Jeannie Thomas E. Everhart James K. Mitchell Westwood Stephen N. Finger John L. Moll* Willis S. White, Jr. Samuel C. Florman Dan and Patsy Mote Sheila E. Widnall Robert C. and Marilyn Forney Dale and Marge* Myers John J. Wise Donald N. Frey* John Neerhout, Jr. Edward Woll* Edgar J. Garbarini* Robert M. and Marilyn Nerem Edgar S. Woolard, Jr. Richard L. Garwin Ronald Nordgren A. Thomas Young Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. Simon Ostrach Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman Donald E. Petersen Friend Joseph W. Goodman Dennis J. Picard Kristine L. Bueche William E. Gordon* George B. Rathmann

*Deceased

31 2011 Heritage Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who have thoughtfully planned gifts today that will provide for the future by including the Academies in their wills or by other deferred gifts. Names in bold are NAE members.

Andreas and Juana Acrivos Gerard W. Elverum Bradford W. and Virginia W. Gene and Marian Amdahl Richard Evans* Parkinson Betsy Ancker-Johnson Robert C. and Marilyn Forney Zack T. Pate John C. Angus Paul H. Gilbert Simon Ramo John and Lise Armstrong Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman Allen F. Rhodes* Norman R. Augustine Joseph W. Goodman Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins W. O. Baker* Anita K. Jones James F. Roth Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. John W. Landis Arnold and Constance Stancell Franklin H. Blecher William W. Lang Dale and Audrey Stein Corale L. Brierley Thomas M. Leps* John and Janet Swanson 1 private contributions private 1 James A. Brierley Thomas S. Maddock Esther S. Takeuchi 1

0 Ross and Stephanie Corotis Artur Mager Klaus D. Timmerhaus* 2 Malcolm R. Currie Gordon and Betty Moore Ivan M. Viest Lee L. Davenport* Van C. and Barbara Mow Willis H. Ware Ruth M. Davis Ronald Nordgren Robert H. and Joan Wertheim W. Kenneth Davis* William and Constance Opie Wm. A. Wulf Mildred S. Dresselhaus

Annual Giving Societies The National Academy of Engineering gratefully acknowledges the following members and friends who made charitable contributions to the Academies during 2011. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of NAE as a national voice for engineering.

The Class of 2011 Matching Gift Challenge matched, dollar for dollar, gifts made to NAE by NAE members or foreign associates elected in 2011. The Jacobs Challenge for the Classes of 2009 & 2010 matched, fifty cents on the dollar, gifts made to NAE by NAE members or foreign associates elected in 2009 and 2010. Participants in each challenge qualified for the various annual giving societies listed below according to the combined total of their contributions and matching amounts.

Catalyst Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed $10,000 or more in collective support for the Academies in 2011. We acknowledge those contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. Joan and Irwin Mark Jacobs Allen E. and Marilyn Puckett Harry E. Bovay, Jr.* Thomas Kailath Simon Ramo George* and Virginia Bugliarello Min H. Kao§ Thomas J. Richardson§ Robert A. Charpie* Theodore C. Kennedy Ronald L. Rivest Paul Citron Kent Kresa Anne and Walt Robb Ruth A. David Bonnie Berger and Frank Thomson George A. Roberts Lance A. Davis Leighton Maxine L. Savitz Robert and Cornelia Eaton Asad M., Taj, and Jamal Madni§ Joel S. Spira Stephen N. Finger◊ Roger L. McCarthy Peter and Vivian Teets Tobie and Dan Fink Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire Charles M. and Rebecca M. Vest Arthur M. Geoffrion Gordon and Betty Moore Andrew and Erna Viterbi Paul and Judy Gray Narayana Murthy and Sudha Adrian Zaccaria John O. Hallquist Murty◊ Charles O. Holliday, Jr. Lawrence and Carol Papay Friend Michael W. Hunkapiller Jack S. Parker Peter O’Donnell, Jr.

*Deceased §Giving matched by the Class of 2011 Challenge ◊Giving matched by the Jacobs Challenge for the Classes of 2009 & 2010

32 NAE Rosette Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed $5,000 to $9,999 in collective support for the Academies in 2011. We acknowledge those contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

William A. Anders Thomas E. Everhart Cherry A. Murray Bishnu S. Atal Robert C. and Marilyn Forney Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel Norman R. Augustine Nan and Chuck Geschke Venkatesh Narayanamurti C. Gordon Bell Arthur L. Goldstein John Neerhout, Jr. Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp Martin C. Hemsworth* Robert B. Ormsby, Jr. R. Byron Bird Robert E. Kahn Bernhard O. Palsson Samuel W. Bodman Paul and Julie Kaminski Henry M. Rowan Barry W. Boehm Robert M. Koerner Henry and Susan Samueli Lewis M. Branscomb Fred C. Lee§ John H. Schmertmann

◊ contributions private 1

Selim A. Chacour Frank W. Luerssen Raymond S. Stata 1

Joseph V. Charyk J. Ross and Margaret Macdonald John C. Wall◊ 0 G. Wayne Clough John C. Martin Edgar S. Woolard, Jr. 2 Gerald P. Dinneen James F. Mathis A. Thomas Young Nicholas M. Donofrio Dan and Patsy Mote

Challenge Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed $2,500 to $4,999 in collective support for the Academies in 2011. We acknowledge those contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Rodney C. Adkins Keith P. Johnston§ Kenneth L. Reifsnider Clyde and Jeanette Baker John and Wilma Kassakian Lisa Dhar and John Rogers§ William F. Baker§ Hau L. Lee◊ Mendel Rosenblum and Diane Becky and Tom Bergman◊ Burn-Jeng Lin Greene◊ M. Elizabeth Cannon§ Ralph D. Masiello§ Jerry Sanders Albert Carnesale§ Richard A. Meserve Linda S. Sanford Corbett Caudill Richard B. Miles§ Ronald V. Schmidt Sunlin Chou Ronald Nordgren Arnold and Constance Stancell John M. Cioffi Donald A. Norman§ Richard J. Stegemeier Joseph M. Colucci Matthew O’Donnell◊ John and Janet Swanson◊ Samuel C. Florman Franklin M. Orr, Jr. Raymond Viskanta Arthur Gelb◊ Claire L. Parkinson◊ Johannes Weertman Paul H. Gilbert William J. Perry Julia R. Weertman Eduardo D. Glandt Pete Petit§ Willis S. White, Jr. Paul E. Gray John W. Poduska, Sr. Wesley L. Harris Chris D. Poland◊ Friend John L. Hennessy Robert H. Rediker Kristine L. Bueche

*Deceased §Giving matched by the Class of 2011 Challenge ◊Giving matched by the Jacobs Challenge for the Classes of 2009 & 2010

33 2011 Charter Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed $1,000 to $2,499 in collective support for the Academies in 2011. We acknowledge those contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Anonymous Malcolm R. Currie Barry C. Johnson Andreas and Juana Acrivos Glen T. Daigger Michael R. Johnson◊ William G. Agnew L. Berkley Davis G. Frank Joklik Alfred V. Aho Carl de Boor Anita K. Jones James F. Albaugh§ Pablo G. Debenedetti Trevor O. Jones Harl P. Aldrich, Jr. Thomas and Bettie Deen Eric W. Kaler◊ Nicolaos G. Alexopoulos Armen Der Kiureghian§ Melvin F. Kanninen Clarence R. Allen Ralph L. Disney Sung Wan Kim John L. Anderson L. K. Doraiswamy◊ James L. Kirtley 1 private contributions private 1

1 Minoru S. Araki Irwin Dorros Albert S. Kobayashi 0 Neil A. Armstrong Elisabeth M. Drake Jindrich Kopecek§ 2 Wm. Howard Arnold James J. Duderstadt Demetrious Koutsoftas James R. Asay Susan T. Dumais§ Lester C. and Joan M. Krogh Thomas W. Asmus Lloyd A. Duscha Charles C. Ladd David Atlas Lewis S. Edelheit Fred J. Leonberger Nadine Aubry§ Gerard W. Elverum Dennis P. Lettenmaier◊ Ken Austin Thomas V. Falkie Frances S. and George T. Ligler Arthur B. Baggeroer James A. Fay Jack E. Little James E. Barger§ Anthony E. Fiorato Christopher B. Lofgren◊ David K. Barton Robert E. Fischell J. David Lowell Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch George and Ann Fisher Lester L. Lyles§ Arden L. Bement, Jr. Edith M. Flanigen Thomas S. Maddock Daniel Berg Peter T. Flawn Artur Mager Rudolph Bonaparte Harold K. and Betty A. Forsen John L. Mason Seth Bonder* John S. Foster, Jr. Robert D. Maurer H. Kent Bowen Elsa M. Garmire James C. McGroddy Corale L. Brierley Donald P. Gaver◊ Kishor C. Mehta James A. Brierley Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. James K. Mitchell Rodney A. Brooks Alexander F. Giacco Sanjit K. Mitra Alan C. Brown Herbert Gleiter Duncan T. Moore Andrew Brown, Jr. Mary L. Good Albert F. Myers Harold Brown Joseph W. Goodman Dale and Marge* Myers Ned H. Burns Barbara J. Grosz Albert Narath Jeffrey P. Buzen Hermann K. Gummel Robert M. and Marilyn Nerem Federico Capasso Edward E. Hagenlocker Paul D. Nielsen◊ Francois J. Castaing James S. Harris, Jr.§ Chrysostomos L. Nikias Jean-Lou A. Chameau◊ George N. Hatsopoulos Amedeo R. Odoni§ Chau-Chyun Chen Siegfried S. Hecker Robert M. Oliver Uma Chowdhry Joachim Heinzl Bradford W. and Virginia W. Michael J. Cima§ Chris T. Hendrickson§ Parkinson Philip R. Clark David and Susan Hodges Shela and Kumar Patel Esther M. Conwell Thom J. Hodgson Donald E. Petersen William J. Cook§ Edward E. Hood, Jr. Kurt E. Petersen Dale R. Corson John R. Howell Percy A. Pierre◊ Gary L. Cowger J. Stuart Hunter William P. Pierskalla Henry Cox Mary Jane Irwin William F. Powers Stephen H. Crandall Wilhelmina and Stephen Jaffe William R. Pulleyblank◊ Natalie W. Crawford Leah H. Jamieson Henry H. Rachford, Jr. James Q. Crowe George W. Jeffs Prabhakar Raghavan

*Deceased §Giving matched by the Class of 2011 Challenge ◊Giving matched by the Jacobs Challenge for the Classes of 2009 & 2010

34 NAE Doraiswami Ramkrishna◊ Gregory Stephanopoulos David A. Whelan Richard F. Rashid Henry E. Stone J. Turner Whitted Buddy D. Ratner William D. Strecker Ward O. Winer Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins Charlotte and Morry Tanenbaum Herbert H. Woodson Bernard I. Robertson George Tchobanoglous Richard N. Wright Alton D. Romig, Jr. Matthew V. Tirrell Wm. A. Wulf Anatol Roshko Haldor F. A. Topsoe Israel J. Wygnanski William B. Russel James A. Trainham III Beverly and Loring Wyllie Allen S. Russell Hardy W. Trolander William W-G. Yeh Vinod K. Sahney Richard H. Truly Paul G. Yock◊ Joseph C. Salamone§ James E. Turner, Jr. William D. Young Harvey W. Schadler A. Galip Ulsoy Mark D. Zoback§ Richard Scherrer◊ John M. Undrill§ William R. Schowalter Harold J. Vinegar Friends 1 private contributions private 1

Jane and Jerome Schultz Thomas H. Vonder Haar Evelyn S. Jones 1 Henry G. Schwartz, Jr. Rob and Robyn Wagoner Toby Wolf 0 Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull Darsh T. Wasan 2 Gunter Stein Warren M. Washington

Other Individual Donors In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed up to $999 in collective support for the Academies in 2011. We acknowledge those contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Hiroyuki Abe Madan M. Bhasin Robert P. Clagett H. Norman Abramson James R. Biard John L. Cleasby Linda M. Abriola David P. Billington Robert E. Cohen◊ Hadi Abu-Akeel Jack L. Blumenthal Seymour B. Cohn Arthur P. Adamson Alfred Blumstein John P. Connolly◊ Ronald J. Adrian F. Peter Boer Richard A. Conway Joseph A. Ahearn◊ Mark T. Bohr Paul M. Cook Paul A. Allaire Geoffrey Boothroyd Stuart L. Cooper§ Frances E. Allen George H. Born Richard W. Couch, Jr. Charles A. Amann Lillian C. Borrone Arthur Coury◊ John David Anderson, Jr.◊ Rafael L. Bras Lawrence B. Curtis John G. Anderson Clyde L. Briant◊ David E. Daniel John C. Angus Peter R. Bridenbaugh Delbert E. Day Frank F. Aplan Yvonne C. Brill F. P. de Mello Ali S. Argon Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. Raymond F. Decker R. Lyndon Arscott Norman H. Brooks Don U. Deere Eric Ash Howard J. Bruschi Anthony J. DeMaria Jamal J. Azar Randal E. Bryant Robert H. Dennard Donald W. Bahr Jack E. Buffington Robert C. DeVries Ruzena K. Bajcsy Anne and John Cahn Daniel W. Dobberpuhl Rodica A. Baranescu James D. Callen Robert H. Dodds Grigory I. Barenblatt Joe C. Campbell Albert A. Dorman Robert W. Bartlett Sebastien Candel◊ Earl H. Dowell John W. Batchelor E. Dean Carlson E. Linn Draper, Jr. Zdenek P. Bazant William Cavanaugh III Floyd Dunn Leo L. Beranek Don B. Chaffin Ira Dyer Toby Berger A. Ray Chamberlain David A. Dzombak Arthur E. Bergles Vernon L. Chartier Peter S. Eagleson Philip A. Bernstein Andrew R. Chraplyvy Helen T. Edwards

*Deceased §Giving matched by the Class of 2011 Challenge ◊Giving matched by the Jacobs Challenge for the Classes of 2009 & 2010

35 2011 Manuel Elices John P. Hirth Salomon Levy Bruce R. Ellingwood William C. Hittinger Paul A. Libby Joel S. Engel David G. Hoag Peter W. Likins John V. Evans Lester A. Hoel Robert A. Lindeman◊ Lawrence B. Evans Stanley H. Horowitz Kuo-Nan Liou S.M. Farouq Ali◊ Thomas J. R. Hughes Nathan and Barbara Liskov Joseph Feinstein Arthur E. Humphrey Andrew J. Lovinger Robert E. Fenton Salim M. Ibrahim Mark and Mary Lundstrom◊ Bruce A. Finlayson Izzat M. Idriss Verne L. Lynn Essex E. Finney, Jr. Kenichi Iga Noel C. MacDonald Millard and Barbara Firebaugh Sheldon E. Isakoff Subhash Mahajan Merton C. Flemings Jeremy Isenberg Thomas J. Malone Christodoulos A. Floudas§ Kenji Ishihara◊ Robert Malpas G. David Forney, Jr. Tatsuo Izawa James W. Mar 1 private contributions private 1

1 Abdel-Aziz A. Fouad Andrew Jackson and Lillian A. William F. Marcuson III

0 Charles A. Fowler Rankel◊ Robert C. Marini 2 Eli Fromm Linos J. Jacovides§ Hans Mark Douglas W. Fuerstenau David Japikse James J. Markowsky Shun Chong Fung Paul C. Jennings David K. Matlock Elmer and Jennifer Gaden James O. Jirsa William C. Maurer Theodore V. Galambos Donald L. Johnson Walter J. McCarthy, Jr. Zvi Galil Marshall G. Jones William J. McCroskey Gerald E. Galloway, Jr. Angel G. Jordan William J. McCune, Jr. Edwin A. Gee Aravind K. Joshi William McGuire Ronald L. Geer John W. Kalb Ross E. McKinney David B. Geselowitz Ahsan Kareem◊ Robert M. McMeeking Don P. Giddens Linda P. Katehi Terence P. McNulty Maryellen Giger◊ Michael C. Kavanaugh Alan L. McWhorter Jacqueline Gish§ Leon M. Keer Eugene S. Meieran Richard J. Goldstein Chaitan Khosla◊ Angelo Miele Steve and Nancy Goldstein Pradeep K. Khosla James J. Mikulski Solomon W. Golomb Timothy L. Killeen James A. Miller David J. Goodman Judson and Jeanne King Warren F. Miller, Jr. Roy W. Gould Riki Kobayashi Keith K. Millheim Thomas E. Graedel Leonard J. Koch Richard K. Moore Gary S. Grest Bernard L. Koff Walter E. Morrow, Jr. William Gropp◊ Max A. Kohler A. Stephen Morse Ignacio E. Grossmann Bill and Ann Koros Joel Moses Karl A. Gschneidner Mark H. Kryder Gerard A. Mourou Jerrier A. Haddad Thomas F. Kuech◊ Richard S. Muller Carl W. Hall John M. Kulicki E. Phillip Muntz Carol K. Hall Stephanie L. Kwolek Earll M. Murman Robert N. Hall Bruce M. Lake Haydn H. Murray William J. Hall James L. Lammie Thomas M. Murray Thomas L. Hampton Benson J. Lamp Gerald Nadler Thomas J. Hanratty David A. Landgrebe Devaraysamudram R. Nagaraj Niels Hansen William W. Lang Tsuneo Nakahara John M. Hanson Robert C. Lanphier III David J. Nash Henry J. Hatch Louis J. Lanzerotti Alan Needleman Adam Heller Cato T. Laurencin Stuart O. Nelson Martin Hellman Alan Lawley Joseph H. Newman Robert W. Hellwarth Edward D. Lazowska David Okrent Joseph M. Hendrie Margaret A. LeMone Elaine S. Oran Arthur H. Heuer Johanna Levelt Sengers David H. Pai George J. Hirasaki Kenneth Levy Athanassios Z. Panagiotopoulos

*Deceased §Giving matched by the Class of 2011 Challenge ◊Giving matched by the Jacobs Challenge for the Classes of 2009 & 2010

36 NAE Morton B. Panish Robert F. Sawyer Alvin W. Trivelpiece Stavros S. Papadopulos◊ George W. Scherer Howard S. Turner Donald R. Paul Roland W. Schmitt Stephen D. Umans◊ Arogyaswami J. Paulraj Albert B. Schultz Moshe Y. Vardi H. W. Paxton Lyle H. Schwartz Anestis S. Veletsos P. Hunter Peckham Mischa Schwartz Walter G. Vincenti Syd S. Peng Shirley E. Schwartz Irv Waaland Alan W. Pense Terrence J. Sejnowski§ Wallace R. Wade§ Nicholas A. Peppas Hratch G. Semerjian C. Michael Walton John H. Perepezko Robert J. Serafin John D. Warner Thomas K. Perkins F. Stan Settles John T. Watson Julia M. Phillips Maurice E. Shank Walter J. Weber, Jr. Mark R. Pinto◊ Don W. Shaw Wilford F. Weeks Franz F. Pischinger Thomas B. Sheridan Mark N. Wegman◊ 1 private contributions private 1

Karl S. Pister Martin B. Sherwin Robert J. Weimer 1

Stephen B. Pope◊ Neil G. Siegel Lawrence M. Wein◊ 0 Michael Prats Daniel P. Siewiorek Sheldon Weinig 2 Ronald F. Probstein Peter G. Simpkins Paul B. Weisz Charles W. Pryor, Jr. Kumares C. Sinha Irwin Welber Edwin P. Przybylowicz Jack M. Sipress Jasper A. Welch, Jr. Gintaras V. Reklaitis Ernest T. Smerdon David C. White Eli Reshotko Donald M. Smyth John A. White, Jr. James R. Rice Gurindar S. Sohi◊ Robert M. White John R. Rice Soroosh Sorooshian Robert M. White Bruce E. Rittmann Alfred Z. Spector George M. Whitesides Jerome G. Rivard Francis M. Staszesky Robert V. Whitman Leslie E. Robertson and Dean E. Stephan Kaspar J. Willam Sawteen See Thomas G. Stephens Eli Yablonovitch Lloyd M. Robeson James C. Stevens§ Yannis C. Yortsos Stephen M. Robinson Kenneth E. Stinson Les Youd Arye Rosen Kenneth H. Stokoe II Laurence R. Young Howard B. Rosen Howard and Valerie Stone◊ Xiang Zhang◊ Ken Rosen Richard G. Strauch Paul Zia Arthur H. Rosenfeld◊ G. B. Stringfellow Ben T. Zinn Hans T. Rossby Stanley C. Suboleski Dusan S. Zrnic William B. Rouse Richard M. Swanson◊ B. Don and Becky Russell James M. Symons Friends Andrew P. Sage Rodney J. Tabaczynski Marguerite Adams Eugene C. Sakshaug Edwin L. Thomas◊ Jeanne M. Fox Jean E. Sammet James M. Tien Sharon P. Gross Gurmukh S. Sarkaria Neil E. Todreas Roger and Dolores Kiel Peter W. Sauer John W. Townsend, Jr.* Joy Szekely Thorndike Saville, Jr. Charles E. Treanor Elizabeth W. Toor

Tribute In Honor of Arthur L. Goldstein – Cabot Corporation Fund In Memory of Laurence J. Adams – Marguerite Adams In Memory of Jordan J. Baruch – Rhoda Baruch In Memory of Gerard F. Fox – Jeanne M. Fox In Memory of Howard Jones, Jr. – Evelyn S. Jones In Memory of Herbert L. Toor – Elizabeth W. Toor In Memory of Jack Keil Wolf – Toby Wolf

*Deceased §Giving matched by the Class of 2011 Challenge ◊Giving matched by the Jacobs Challenge for the Classes of 2009 & 2010

37 2011 Foundations, Corporations, and Other Organizations Lifetime In recognition of foundations, corporations, and other organizations that have made lifetime contributions of $1 million or more to the National Academy of Engineering. AT&T Corporation Ford Motor Company McDonnell Douglas Corporation S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation General Electric Company The Andrew W. Mellon The Boeing Company General Motors Company Foundation The Charles Stark Draper The Grainger Foundation O’Donnell Foundation Laboratory International Business Machines The Ohio University Foundation E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Corporation Robert Pritzker Family Foundation Company Lockheed Martin Corporation Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Annual 1 private contributions private 1

1 In recognition of foundations, corporations, and other organizations that contributed to the National Academy of

0 Engineering in 2011. 2 A-dec, Inc. General Electric Company O’Donnell Foundation Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Geosynthetic Institute The Ohio University Foundation Avid Solutions Industrial Process Gerstner Family Foundation Parametric Technology Control The Glenmede Trust Company Corporation The Baruch Fund Google, Inc. Donald and Jo Anne Petersen Stephen Bechtel Fund Gratis Foundation Fund S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation H.O.R. Heavy Oil Technologies Poduska Family Foundation Inc. Bell Family Foundation Indo-US Science and Technology Qualcomm Foundation Matching Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp Forum Gifts Program Fund Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund of the Qualcomm, Inc. The Bodman Foundation Jewish Community Foundation Leslie E. Robertson Associates Boeing PAC Match Program KAO Family Foundation Rouse Associates, LLC Cabot Corporation W.M. Keck Foundation Henry M. Rowan Family Castaing Family Foundation Lockheed Martin Corporation Foundation, Inc. The Robert A. Charpie Foundation Lutron Foundation Samueli Foundation Continuing Bioengineering Ed, Margaret and Ross Macdonald Tawny & Jerry Sanders Charitable Inc. Charitable Fund of Triangle Foundation Cummins Business Services Community Foundation Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP The Charles Stark Draper McGroddy Family Foundation Inc. Southwest Research Institute Laboratory Microsoft Corporation Ray & Maria Stata Family E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Microsoft Matching Gift Program/ Charitable Fund of November Company Giving Campaign 1983 Employees Charity Organization Gordon and Betty Moore Morris & Charlotte Tanenbaum of Northrop Grumman Foundation Family Foundation Forney Family Foundation Dale and Marge Myers Fund at University of California, Berkeley GE Foundation The San Diego Foundation Viterbi Family Grant Fund of the Arthur and Linda Gelb Charitable National Philanthropic Trust Jewish Community Foundation Foundation Northrop Grumman Corporation Zarem Foundation

We have made every effort to list donors accurately and according to their wishes. If we have made an error, please accept our apologies and contact the Development Office at 202.334.2431 so we can correct our records.

38 NAE 2011 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 41 summarizes both the NAEF and outside operating revenue and expenses as well as non-operation-related transactions for the NAE for 2011 and 2010. 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 2011, 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 government 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 membership 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 2011, 2.2 percent was allocated for normal operating expenses and 3.8 percent was allocated for fund-raising expenses. This allocation, combined with annual meeting registration fees, membership dues, and investment earnings on current operating funds, make up the remainder of the Academy’s operating revenue. Academy operations have continually yielded a yearly surplus and that surplus is returned to the NAEF, reducing the effective draw on unrestricted assets. In 2011, the effective draw was 4.7%.

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.

40 NAE NAE/NAEF Combined Summary of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets (Unaudited-Pro Forma) (Thousands of Dollars) 2011 2010

NET ASSETS, BEGINNING $61,226 $56,456 CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET 1,013 3,495

TOTAL ASSETS, BEGINNING $62,239 $59,951

OPERATIONS

Revenue Contributions (Unrestricted) $1,292 $1,203 Dues (Annual), Fees, Miscellaneous 234 232 Indirect Allowance From Contracts and Grants 3,456 3,400 Award Specific Funds Allocation to Operations* 2,191 515 Program Specific Funds Allocation to Operations* 3,697 3,536 Unrestricted Allocation to Operations 1,662 1,862

Total Operations Revenue $12,532 $10,748

Expenses Awards $2,202 $545 Development 879 1,085 Management 2,558 2,452 Membership 1,511 1,547 National Academies Activities 249 283 Programs 4,786 4,732

Total Operations Expenses $12,185 $10,644

OPERATIONS SURPLUS $347 $104

NONOPERATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

Allocation to Operations ($5,113) ($3,691) Contributions to Reserves 3,073 3,373 Dues (Lifetime), Miscellaneous 121 107 Gain (Loss) on Investments (139) 4,670 Investment Earnings (Interest and Dividends) 519 683 Investment Fees/UBIT Taxes (479) (476)

NONOPERATIONAL GAIN ($2,018) $4,666

NET ASSETS, ENDING $59,555 $61,226

CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET 700 1,013

TOTAL ASSETS, ENDING $60,255 $62,239

*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.

41 2011

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FUND December 31, 2011 and 2010

Audit x Tax x Advisory

Grant Thornton LLP 2010 Corporate Ridge, Suite 400 McLean, VA 22102-7838 Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants TAudit 703.847.7500 x Tax x Advisory F 703.848.9580 www.GrantThornton.comGrant Thornton LLP 2010 Corporate Ridge, Suite 400 Board of Trustees McLean, VA 22102-7838 NationalReport of Academy Independent of Engineering Certified Fund Public Accountants T 703.847.7500 F 703.848.9580 www.GrantThornton.comAudit x Tax x Advisory We have audited the accompanying statements of financial position of the National Academy Board of Trustees Grant Thornton LLP of Engineering Fund (the Fund) as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the2010 related Corporate Ridge,statements Suite 400 ofNational activities Academy and changes of Engineering in net assets Fund and cash flows for the years then ended.McLean, TheseVA 22102-7838 financial Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants statements are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibilityT 703.847.7500 is to express anWe opinion have audited on these the financial accompanying statements statements based on of our financial audits. position of theF 703.848.9580National Academy of Engineering Fund (the Fund) as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and thewww.GrantThornton.com related statements Board of Trustees Weof activities conducted and ourchanges audits in netin accordanceassets and cashwith flows auditing for thestandards years then generally ended. accepted These financial in the Nationalstatements Academy are the ofresponsibility Engineering of Fund the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express United States of America, as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.an opinion on Thosethese financial standards statements require that based we planon our and audits. perform the audit to obtain reasonable We have audited the accompanying statements of financial position of the National Academy assuranceof Engineering about Fund whether (the theFund) financial as of Decemberstatements 31, are 2011 free andof material 2010, and misstatement. the related statements An audit includesWe conducted consideration our audits of internal in accordance control over with fi nancialauditing reporting standards as generallya basis for accepted designing in audit the ofUnited activities States and of changes America, in net as assets established and cash by flows the forAmerican the years Institute then ended. of Certified These financial Public proceduresstatements arethat the are responsibilityappropriate in of the the circumstances, Fund’s management. but not for Our the responsibility purpose of expressing is to express an opinionAccountants. on the Those effectiveness standards requireof the that Fund’s we plan in andternal perform control the overaudit tofinancial obtain reasonablereporting. assurancean opinion about on these whether financial the statementsfinancial statements based on ourare freeaudits. of material misstatement. An audit Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidenceincludes considerationsupporting the of internalamounts control and disclosures over financial in thereporting financial as astatements, basis for designing assessing audit the proceduresWe conducted that ourare appropriateaudits in accordance in the circumstances, with auditing but notstandards for the generally purpose ofaccepted expressing in the an accountingUnited States principles of America, used, asand established significant by estimates the American made byInstitute management, of Certified as wellPublic as evaluatingopinion on the the overall effectiveness financial statementof the Fund’spresen tation.internal We control believe overthat ourfinancial audits reporting.provide a Accordingly,Accountants. we Those express standards no such require opinion. that weAn plan audi andt also perform includes the examining, audit to obtain on a reasonabletest basis, reasonableassurance about basis forwhether our opinion. the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accountingincludes consideration principles ofused, internal and controlsignificant over fiestimatesnancial reporting made by as amanagement, basis for designing as well audit as Inprocedures our opinion, that theare financialappropriate statements in the circumstances, referred to above but presentnot for thefairly, purpose in all material of expressing respects, an theevaluating financial the position overall offinancial the National statement Academy presen oftation. Engineering We believe Fund thatas of our December audits provide 31, 2011 a opinionreasonable on basis the for effectiveness our opinion. of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. andAccordingly, 2010, and we the express changes no insuch its opinion.net assets An and audi itst cashalso includesflows for examining, the years onthen a testended, basis, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. evidenceIn our opinion, supporting the financial the amounts statements and referreddisclosures to above in the present financial fairly, statements, in all material assessing respects, the accounting principles used, and significant estimates made by management, as well as the financial position of the National Academy of Engineering Fund as of December 31, 2011 andevaluating 2010, theand overallthe changes financial in itsstatement net assets presen andtation. its cash We flows believe for thatthe yearsour audits then provideended, ina reasonable basis for our opinion. conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

McLean,In our opinion, Virginia the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, May 10, 2012 the financial position of the National Academy of Engineering Fund as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the years then ended, in McLean,conformity Virginia with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. May 10, 2012

McLean, Virginia May 10, 2012

Grant Thornton LLP U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Grant Thornton LLP U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd NAE National Academy of Engineering Fund Statements of Financial Position

December 31, 2011 2010

Assets

Current Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 532,735 $ 246,040 Prepaid expenses 3,052 2,955 Short-term investments 1,165,061 1,319,711 Contribution receivable 227,250 496,043 Award medals and other assets 51,676 81,728

Total Current Assets 1,979,774 2,146,477

Non-current Assets Contribution receivable–long-term portion, net 69,447 26,477 Beneficial interest in split interest agreements 403,369 490,836 Investments 58,444,297 60,280,771

Total Non-current Assets 58,917,113 60,798,084

Total Assets $ 60,896,887 $ 62,944,561

Liabilities and Net Assets

Current Liabilities Accounts payable–National Academy of Sciences $ 641,972 $ 705,654

Net Assets Unrestricted 22,597,682 24,518,821 Temporarily restricted 8,447,916 8,510,769 Permanently restricted 29,209,317 29,209,317

Total Net Assets 60,254,915 62,238,907

Total Liabilities and Net Assets $ 60,896,887 $ 62,944,561

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.

43 2011 National Academy of Engineering Fund Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets

Year ended December 31,

2011 Temporarily Permanently Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Revenue Interest and dividends $ 294,366 $ 224,714 $ — $ 519,080 Realized gain/(loss) on investments 974,373 742,024 — 1,716,397 Contributions 1,183,480 2,996,471 — 4,179,951 Membership dues 248,640 — — 248,640 Registration fees 102,445 — — 102,445 Miscellaneous revenue 3,787 — — 3,787 Net assets released from restrictions: Satisfaction of program restrictions 3,836,491 (3,836,491) — — Satisfaction of time restrictions 37,927 (37,927) — —

Total Revenue 6,681,509 88,791 — 6,770,300

Expenses Program services: Programs 2,064,917 — — 2,064,917 Member programs 325,848 — — 325,848 Support for NRC and NAS 248,500 — — 248,500 Awards 2,202,266 — — 2,202,266

Total program services 4,841,531 — — 4,841,531

Supporting services: Fundraising 878,938 — — 878,938 Operations 1,070,998 — — 1,070,998

Total supporting services 1,949,936 — — 1,949,936

Total Expenses 6,791,467 — — 6,791,467

Change in Net Assets Before Unrealized Gain on Investments (109,958) 88,791 — (21,167)

Unrealized gain/(loss) on investments (1,811,181) (151,644) — (1,962,825)

Change in Net Assets (1,921,139) (62,853) — (1,983,992)

Net Assets, beginning of year 24,518,821 8,510,769 29,209,317 62,238,907

Net Assets, end of year $ 22,597,682 $ 8,447,916 $ 29,209,317 $ 60,254,915

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.

44 NAE National Academy of Engineering Fund Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets

Year ended December 31,

2010 Temporarily Permanently Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Revenue Interest and dividends $ 319,460 $ 363,336 $ — $ 682,796 Realized loss on investments (290,322) (330,007) — (620,329) Contributions 865,685 1,046,077 21,673 1,933,435 Membership dues 236,080 — — 236,080 Registration fees 100,180 — — 100,180 Miscellaneous revenue 2,245 21,537 — 23,782 Net assets released from restrictions: Satisfaction of program restrictions 2,189,583 (2,189,583) — — Satisfaction of time restrictions 448,578 (448,578) — —

Total Revenue 3,871,489 (1,537,218) 21,673 2,355,944

Expenses Program services: Programs 2,213,333 — — 2,213,333 Member programs 351,141 — — 351,141 Support for NRC and NAS 282,642 — — 282,642 Awards 544,836 — — 544,836

Total program services 3,391,952 — — 3,391,952

Supporting services: Fundraising 1,085,447 — — 1,085,447 Operations 1,020,002 — — 1,020,002

Total supporting services 2,105,449 — — 2,105,449

Total Expenses 5,497,401 — — 5,497,401

Change in Net Assets Before Unrealized Gain on Investments (1,625,912) (1,537,218) 21,673 (3,141,457)

Unrealized gain on investments 3,755,160 1,673,877 — 5,429,037

Change in Net Assets 2,129,248 136,659 21,673 2,287,580

Net Assets, beginning of year 22,389,573 8,374,110 29,187,644 59,951,327

Net Assets, end of year $ 24,518,821 $ 8,510,769 $ 29,209,317 $ 62,238,907

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.

45 2011 National Academy of Engineering Fund Statement of Cash Flows

Year ended December 31, 2011 2010

Cash Flows from Operating Activities Change in net assets $ (1,983,992) $ 2,287,580 Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash used in operating activities: Realized (gain)/loss on investments (1,716,397) 620,239 Unrealized loss/(gain) on investments 1,962,825 (5,429,037) Changes in assets and liabilities: Contribution receivable 225,823 2,316,528 Beneficial interest in split interest agreements 87,467 165,836 Award medals 30,052 6,896 Prepaid expenses (97) 33,679 Accounts payable – National Academy of Sciences (63,682) 954,043

Net Cash (Used in) Provided by Operating Activities (1,458,001) 955,764

Cash Flows from Investing Activities Proceeds from sale of investments 31,378,721 50,447,554 Purchase of investments (29,634,025) (52,381,038)

Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities 1,744,696 (1,933,484)

Net Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents 286,695 (977,720)

Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of year 246,040 1,223,760

Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of year $ 532,735 $ 246,040

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.

46 NAE National Academy of Engineering Fund Notes to Financial Statements

December 31, 2011 and 2010 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 Split-interest Agreements the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with Charitable gift annuity agreements are classified as a the generally accepted accounting principles in the beneficial interest in split interest agreements in the United States of America (“GAAP”). statements of financial position. The Fund, has been notified that it was designated as the remainder Cash and Cash Equivalents beneficiary for several charitable remainder trusts. The Fund has an agreement with NAS whereas NAS For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the and not the Fund serves as the trustee of the assets. Fund considers all investments purchased with an The Fund has recorded an asset and contribution original maturity of three months or less to be cash revenue equal to the present value of the remainder equivalents, except for the cash in the investment interest. The remainder interest was determined by portfolio, which will be reinvested on a long-term using the fair market value of trust assets, less the basis. The Fund’s cash management policies limit estimated distributions to the income beneficiary its exposure to a concentration of credit risk by over the Trust term. Upon termination of an annuity, maintaining cash accounts at financial institutions the remainder interest in the asset is available for whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit use by the Fund as restricted or unrestricted assets Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Cash deposits may in accordance with the donor’s designation. On exceed the FDIC insurable limit at times throughout an annual basis, the Fund re-measures the value of the year due to unanticipated large contributions. the asset using current assumptions. Any change in Management does not consider this to be a signifi- such value is recorded as a change in value of split cant credit risk. interest agreements on the statement of activities.

Awards Medals The Fund maintains gold medals for various awards, which are carried at cost.

47 2011 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE A — GENERAL INFORMATION AND Temporarily Restricted Net Assets SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING Temporarily restricted net assets consist of amounts POLICIES (Continued) that are subject to donor-imposed time or purpose restrictions and income earned on temporarily Fair Value of Financial Instruments and permanently restricted net assets. The Fund is The Fund has adopted the guidance that defines fair permitted to use or expend the donated assets in value, establishes a framework for measuring fair accordance with the donor restriction. value in accordance with US GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. Where Permanently Restricted Net Assets applicable, such information has been disclosed Permanently restricted net assets consist of assets elsewhere in the notes to the financial statements. whose use is limited by donor-imposed restrictions that neither expire by the passage of time nor can Level 1 inputs include quoted market prices in be fulfilled or otherwise removed by action of the active markets for identical assets. Level 2 inputs Fund. The restrictions stipulate that resources be include inputs other than quoted prices in active maintained permanently, but permit the Fund to markets that are either directly or indirectly observ- expend the income generated in accordance with able; and Level 3, defined as unobservable inputs the provisions of the agreement. Permanently in which little or no market data exists, therefore restricted net assets consist of the following: requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions. Level 3 inputs are used to measure fair value to Draper Prize–represents an endowment given the extent that observable inputs are not available, by the donor for the purpose of establishing and thereby allowing for situations where there is little, awarding an annual prize in honor of the memory if any, observable market activity for the asset at the of Charles Stark Draper. It is the Fund’s intention measurement date. to use the investment earnings of the endowment to cover the expenses incurred in connection with Investments administration of the prize and in providing the Investments held by the Fund are presented at honorarium awarded with the prize. their fair market value. Investments consist of cash and money market funds, federal agency securi- Gordon Prize–represents an endowment given ties, treasury securities, corporate debt securities, by the donor for the purpose of establishing and equity securities and other investments. The fair awarding an annual prize in honor of Bernard value of all debt and equity securities with a readily M. Gordon. It is the Fund’s intention to use determinable market value are based on published the investment earnings of the endowment to market prices. The alternative investments, which cover the expenses incurred in connection with are not readily marketable, are carried at estimated administration of the prize and in providing the fair values as provided by the investment managers. honorarium awarded with the prize. The Fund reviews and evaluates the values provided by the investment managers and agrees with the Capital Preservation and Hans Reissner–repre- valuation methods and assumptions used in deter- sent endowments requiring principal be main- mining the fair value of the alternative investments. tained in perpetuity and that only the income be Those estimated fair values may differ significantly used for general operations of NAE. from the values that would have been used had a ready market for these securities existed. 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.

48 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE A — GENERAL INFORMATION AND Income Taxes SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING The Fund is incorporated under the District of POLICIES (Continued) Columbia Non-profit Corporation Act and is exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c) Industry Scholar–represents an endowment to (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the support fellowships for recently retired corporate Fund has been determined by the Internal Revenue executives to assist with strategy and manage- Service not to be a private foundation. The Fund is ment of program activities in NAE and NRC. required to remit income taxes to the federal government and the District of Columbia for unrelated Senior Scholar–represents an endowment to business income. For the years ended December support an outstanding member of industry or 31, 2011 and 2010, there was unrelated business another field working as an advisor and assistant income of $110,975 and $182,193, respectively. to the president of NAE in the management and execution of NAE’s programmatic activities. Effective in 2009, the Fund adopted new guidance that creates a single model to address uncertainty Young Engineer–represents an endowment to in tax positions and clarified the accounting for support programs aimed at engaging engineers income taxes by prescribing the minimum recogni- at a younger age in the activities of NAE, and tion threshold a tax position is required to meet to provide an opportunity to identify nominees before being recognized in its financial statements. from industry for membership in NAE. Under the requirements of this guidance, organizations could now be required to record an obligation Wm. A. Wulf Initiative for Engineering as the result of tax positions they have historically Excellence–represents an endowment to ensure taken on various tax exposure items. The impact the future of programs that Bill Wulf instituted of the adoption of this guidance did not have a as president and provide his successor some material effect on the financial statements of the flexibility in addressing the most pressing issues Fund. Prior to the adoption of this guidance, the before the engineering community and the determination of when to record a liability for a nation at any given time. tax exposure was based on whether a liability was considered probable and reasonably estimable in Restricted Support accordance with guidance concerning recording of The Fund reports gifts of cash and other assets as contingencies. restricted support if they are received with donor stipulations that limit the use of the donated assets. Use of Estimates When a donor restriction expires, i.e., when a stip- In preparing financial statements in conformity with ulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accounting principles generally accepted in the accomplished, temporarily restricted net assets are United States of America, management is required reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported to make estimates and assumptions that affect the in the statement of activities as net assets released reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the from restrictions. disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and revenue and Allocation of Expenses expenses during the reporting period. The most The costs of providing various programs and other significant assumptions relate to the realization of activities have been summarized on a functional pledges receivable and the fair value measurement basis in the statement of activities. Accordingly, of investments. Actual results could differ from certain costs have been allocated among the pro- those estimates. grams and supporting services benefited.

49 2011 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE A — GENERAL INFORMATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

Recent Accounting Pronouncements In January 2010, the FASB issued guidance that clarifies existing disclosures and requires new disclosures about fair value measurements. The clarifications and the requirement to disclose the amounts and reasons for significant transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 and significant transfers into and out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy were effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2009 and were adopted by the Fund for the period ending December 31, 2010. The new requirement that purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements be presented gross in the Level 3 reconciliation became effective and was adopted by the Fund for the period ending December 31, 2011. This newly effective guidance only amends the disclosure requirements, and did not have any material impact on the Fund’s financial statements.

50 NAE 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, 2011:

Unrestricted Restricted Total

Unconditional promises to give $ 157,792 $ 140,000 $ 297,792 Less: unamortized discount (1,095) — (1,095)

Net unconditional promises to give $ 156,697 $ 140,000 $ 296,697

Amounts due in: Less than 1 year $ 87,250 $ 140,000 $ 227,250 1 to 5 years 69,447 — 69,447

$ 156,697 $ 140,000 $ 296,697

Contributions receivable consist of unconditional promises to give and are deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2010:

Unrestricted Restricted Total

Unconditional promises to give $ 171,700 $ 351,343 $ 523,043 Less: unamortized discount (523) — (523)

Net unconditional promises to give $ 171,177 $ 351,343 $ 522,520

Amounts due in: Less than 1 year $ 144,700 $ 351,343 $ 496,043 1 to 5 years 26,477 — 26,477

$ 171,177 $ 351,343 $ 522,520

There were no unconditional promises to give received during the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2011 measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis.

51 2011 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE C—INVESTMENTS

Investments at fair value consist of the following at December 31:

2011 2010

Cash and money market $ 8,807,247 $ 8,017,187 Federal Agency securities 947,757 576,330 Corporate debt securities 2,623,669 6,363,510 Equity securities 9,201,318 8,853,798 Other 38,029,367 37,789,657

59,609,358 61,600,482 Less: short-term investments (1,165,061) (1,319,711)

$ 58,444,297 $ 60,280,771

Investments measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows as of December 31:

2011

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 $ 8,807,247 $ 8,807,247 $ — $ — Corporate debt securities 2,623,669 1,407,567 1,216,102 — Equity securities 9,201,318 8,820,588 380,730 — Federal agency securities 947,757 947,757 — — Other 38,029,367 — — 38,029,367

Total investments 59,609,358 19,983,159 1,596,832 38,029,367

Beneficial interest in split interest agreements 403,369 — — 403,369

Total $ 60,012,727 $ 19,983,159 $ 1,596,832 $ 38,432,736

52 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE C—INVESTMENTS (Continued)

Investments measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows as of December 31:

2010

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 $ 8,017,187 $ 8,017,187 $ — $ — Corporate debt securities 6,363,510 4,329,410 2,034,100 — Equity securities 8,853,798 8,853,798 — — Federal agency securities 576,330 576,330 — — Other 37,789,657 — — 37,789,657

Total investments 61,600,482 21,776,725 2,034,100 37,789,657

Beneficial interest in split interest agreements 490,836 — — 490,836

Total $ 62,091,318 $ 21,776,725 $ 2,034,100 $ 38,280,493

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, 2011 and 2010.

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.

Beneficial interests in split-interest agreements held by others are measured at the present value of future cash flows considering the estimated return on the invested assets during the expected term of the agreements, the contractual payment obligations under the agreement, and a discount rate commensurate with the risks involved. Split-interest agreements held by others are classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

53 2011 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE C—INVESTMENTS (Continued)

The table below sets forth a summary of changes in fair value of the Fund’s level 3 assets, including the beneficial interests in split-interest agreements, for the years ended December 31:

2011

Hedge Private Limited Split Interest Fund Equity Partnership Agreement Total

Balance, beginning of year $ 34,880,751 $ 1,921,085 $ 987,821 $ 490,836 $ 38,280,493 Purchases 2,175,000 671,614 10,000 20,203 2,876,817 Sales (2,807,357) (92,462) (300,944) — (3,200,763) Net unrealized and realized gain/(loss) 226,161 208,444 149,254 (107,670) 476,189

Balance, end of year $ 34,474,555 $ 2,708,681 $ 846,131 $ 403,369 $ 38,432,736

2010

Hedge Private Limited Split Interest Fund Equity Partnership Agreement Total

Balance, beginning of year $ 21,864,669 $ 1,112,921 $ 1,030,683 $ 656,672 $ 24,664,945 Purchases and sales, net 9,919,250 650,793 (264,226) (304,347) 10,001,470 Net unrealized and realized gain 3,096,832 157,371 221,364 138,511 3,614,078

Balance, end of year $ 34,880,751 $ 1,921,085 $ 987,821 $ 490,836 $ 38,280,493

Investments are further classified as follows at December 31:

2011 2010

Unrestricted $ 22,850,491 $ 24,560,484 Temporarily restricted 9,483,879 9,334,126 Permanently restricted 27,274,988 27,705,872

$ 59,609,358 $ 61,600,482

Investment return consists of the following at December 31:

Dividends and interest $ 519,080 $ 682,796 Unrealized (loss)/gain (1,962,825) 5,429,037 Realized (loss)/gain 1,716,397 (620,329)

$ 272,652 $ 5,491,504

54 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE C—INVESTMENTS (Continued)

The table below presents additional information for the Fund’s investments, as of December 31, 2011, whose fair value is estimated using the practical expedient of reported net asset value (NAV). These disclosures are required for all investments that are eligible to be valued using the practical expedient, regardless of whether the practical expedient has been applied.

The following table presents the nature and risk of assets with fair values estimated using NAV held at December 31, 2011:

Fair Value at Fair Value at Redemption December 31, December 31, Unfunded Redemption Notice 2011 2010 Commitment Frequency Period

Fund of hedge funds – Multi-strategies (a) $ 24,242,996 $ 26,617,832 $ N/A Annually 1 Year

Fund of hedge funds – Multi-strategies, multi- Monthly – 30-90 vehicles (b) 7,586,460 5,567,649 N/A Annually days

Hedge fund – Restructuring and value (c) 2,645,099 2,695,270 N/A Annually 60 Days

Upon Private Equity – liquidation multiple strategies (d) 2,412,535 1,582,159 1,252,779 of the fund N/A

Private equity – single strategy (e) 296,146 338,926 142,379 N/A N/A

Upon dissolution of the Limited partnership (f) 846,131 987,821 14,143 partnership N/A

Total $ 38,029,367 $ 37,789,657 $ 1,409,301

(a) This category includes investments in funds of hedge funds that use multiple strategies to obtain total returns on a leveraged basis. The funds invest in a broad range of equity instruments, including international, domestic, and private equity. The funds also invest in fixed income, and alternative asset classes. The fund’s portfolio is designed to achieve equity-like returns at fixed income risk levels. The funds are subject to a 2 year lockout, after which the fund allows an annual distribution of 5% of the investment balance.

55 2011 Notes to Financial Statements (Continued)

NOTE C—INVESTMENTS (Continued)

(b) This category includes investments in a multi-strategy, multi-vehicle hedge fund with the objective of maximizing long-term, risk adjusted returns and capital appreciation. The funds have investments in multiple investees which trade in various financial instruments such as, but not limited to, domestic and international securities, fixed income debt, government securities, real estate investment trusts, and derivatives.

(c) Investment funds in this strategy invest in securities of companies that are believed to be significantly undervalued some of which are in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The other fund invests in equity and debt of companies it deems to be undervalued. Both funds invest in a master fund which includes derivatives.

(d) This category includes investments in private equity, venture capital and distressed securities and other non-traditional categories on a global basis. The other fund make indirect investments in emerging private markets including private equity and distressed securities.

(e) The fund investments in private equity companies that provide infrastructure. The fund seeks investments that have a desirable risk return profiles which will deliver, in aggregate, a gross target IRR of 12-15% with prudent leverage. The leverage strategy primarily revolves around the following principles: structure debt capita to investment grade standards whenever possible; developing matching debt duration profiles to respective assets’ cash flow profiles; and avoiding floating interest rate exposure, either through the use of fixed rate debt or interest hedging activities.

(f) This category includes investment in a limited partnership who invests in private equity funds engaged in venture capital, buyouts and growth capital, international private equity, and other private equity investments. The Fund may receive distributions-in-kind from the Partnership Investments representing securities of the Partnership Investments’ underlying portfolio companies.

56 NAE 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, 2011:

Permanently Temporarily Restricted Restricted

Draper Prize $ 8,000,000 $ 252,682 Gordon Prize 13,438,250 — Capital Preservation 2,397,701 175,822 Hollomon 201,200 305,056 Frontiers of Engineering Education — 395,713 Public Understanding — 836,236 Technology and Environment — 6,424 Frontiers of Engineering — 5,779 Bueche Award — 15,892 CASEE — 15,120 Russ Prize — 27,740 Engineering Ethics Center — 25,037 Diversity in the Engineering Work Force — 99,123 Engineering Education — 563 Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation — 1,679,983 Hans Reissner 25,624 9,419 Engineering Ethics — 292,655 Information Technology — 26,099 Engineering & Services — 1,271 Homeland Security — 8,486 Communication with Public in Crisis — 1,917 Industry Scholar 353,037 64,953 Senior Scholar 1,000,000 — Young Engineer 778,640 — Noise Policy Development — 120,016 Urban Infrastructure — 364,233 Engineering Education & Research — 36,707 Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence 3,014,865 32,921 Engineering Girl — 210,454 Global Grand Challenges — 499,960 National Engineering Forum — 84,040 Real Work Experiences — 80,244 Native Americans in Engineering — 100,000 President’s Discretionary — 2,008,182 Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years — 494,977 Others — 170,212

$ 29,209,317 $ 8,447,916

57 2011 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, 2010:

Permanently Temporarily Restricted Restricted

Draper Prize $ 8,000,000 $ 744,834 Gordon Prize 13,438,250 — Capital Preservation 2,397,701 333,770 Hollomon 201,200 305,993 Frontiers of Engineering Education — 153,056 Public Understanding — 826,718 Technology and Environment — 6,431 Frontiers of Engineering — 55,876 Bueche Award — 137 CASEE — 6,134 Russ Prize — 31,410 Engineering Ethics Center — 25,064 Diversity in the Engineering Work Force — 127 Engineering Education — 63 Frontiers of Engineering - Grainger Foundation — 2,130,397 Hans Reissner 25,624 11,574 Engineering Ethics — 356,476 Information Technology — 31,022 Engineering & Services — 1,272 Homeland Security — 8,495 Communication with Public in Crisis — 1,917 Industry Scholar 353,037 65,726 Senior Scholar 1,000,000 — Young Engineer 778,640 721 Noise Policy Development — 120,016 Urban Infrastructure — 357,941 National Academy of Engineering Roundtable — 108,190 Engineering Education & Research — 48,046 Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence 3,014,865 39,632 President’s Discretionary — 2,139,893 Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years — 497,745 Others — 102,093

$ 29,209,317 $ 8,510,769

58 NAE 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 $1,933,660 and $1,175,623 ment to achieve the purposes for which it was as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. 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.

59 2011 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 2011 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Donor-restricted endowment funds $ (1,933,660) $ 567,108 $ 29,209,317 $ 27,842,765

Total funds $ (1,933,660) $ 567,108 $ 29,209,317 $ 27,842,765

Changes in endowment net assets for the year end December 31 are as follows:

Temporarily Permanently 2011 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Endowment net assets, beginning of Year $ (1,175,623) $ 1,502,453 $ 29,209,317 $ 29,536,147

Investment return: Interest and dividends, — (52,961) — (52,961) net of fees Realized loss on investments — (175,409) — (175,409) Net appreciation — 189,589 — 189,589

Total investment return — (38,781) — (38,781)

Amounts appropriated for Expenditure — (1,654,601) — (1,654,601) Contributions received — — — — Adjustment from (to) Unrestricted net assets (758,037) 758,037 — —

Endowment net assets, end of year $ (1,933,660) $ 567,108 $ 29,209,317 $ 27,842,765

60 NAE 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 2010 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Donor-restricted endowment funds $ (1,175,623) $ 1,502,453 $ 29,209,317 $ 29,536,147

Total funds $ (1,175,623) $ 1,502,453 $ 29,209,317 $ 29,536,147

Changes in endowment net assets for the year end December 31 are as follows:

Temporarily Permanently 2010 Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Endowment net assets, beginning of Year $ (2,463,217) $ 639,323 $ 29,187,644 $ 27,363,750

Investment return: Interest and dividends, — 330,987 — 330,987 net of fees Realized loss on investments — (301,136) — (301,136) Net appreciation — 2,570,944 — 2,570,944

Total investment return — 2,600,795 — 2,600,795

Amounts appropriated for Expenditure — (450,071) — (450,071) Contributions received — — 21,673 21,673 Adjustment from (to) Unrestricted net assets 1,287,594 (1,287,594) — —

Endowment net assets, end of year $ (1,175,623) $ 1,502,453 $ 29,209,317 $ 29,536,147

61 2011 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, 2011 and 2010. 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 in a payable to NAS on Human Rights, the African American History at December 31, 2011 and 2010 of $641,972 and Program, Community Service Projects, and the $705,654, respectively. Payments made to NAS International Visitors Office. by the Fund for the Fund’s allocated portion of the expenditures shared jointly by NAS, NAE and IOM Awards–NAE presents five awards: the Bernard were $1,127,438 and $1,368,089 for the years end- M. Gordon Prize, the Charles Stark Draper ing December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. See Prize, the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize, the Note A for the relationship of related parties. Arthur M. Bueche Award, and the NAE Founders Award. Activities include soliciting nominations, selection of the recipients, announcement NOTE H—SUBSEQUENT EVENTS of the recipients and presentation of the prizes. The Fund evaluated its December 31, 2011 financial Fundraising–provides the structure necessary to statements for subsequent events through May 10, encourage and secure private financial support 2012, the date the financial statements were avail- from individuals, foundations and corporations. able to be issued. The Fund is not aware of any subsequent event which would require recognition or Operations–includes the functions necessary to disclosure in the accompanying financial statements. provide an adequate working environment, provide coordination and articulation of the Fund’s programs, secure proper administrative function of the Board of Trustees, maintain competent legal services for program administration, and manage the financial and budgetary responsibilities of the Fund.

62 NAE Officers Councillors

Chair Linda M. Abriola (2013) Richard A. Meserve (2014) Irwin M. Jacobs (2012) Dean of Engineering, Tufts President, Carnegie Institution for Director, Qualcomm Incorporated University Science

President Alice M. Agogino (2014) Bradford W. Parkinson (2011)‡ Charles M. Vest (2013) Professor of Mechanical Edward C. Wells Professor of President, National Academy of Engineering, University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Engineering California, Berkeley Emeritus, Stanford University

Vice President Corale L. Brierley (2012) Julia M. Phillips (2014) Maxine Savitz (2014) Principal, Brierley Consulting, LLC Deputy Chief Technology Officer Retired General Manager, and Director, ST&E Innovations Technology/Partnerships, Paul Citron (2013) & Partnerships, Sandia National Honeywell Inc. Retired Vice President, Technology Laboratories Policy and Academic Relations, Home Secretary Medtronic, Inc. Robert F. Sproull (2012) Thomas F. Budinger (2012) Retired Vice President and Director Professor, University of California, G. Wayne Clough (2012) of Sun Labs, Oracle Berkeley; Senior Consulting Secretary, Smithsonian Institution Scientist, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley Arnold F. Stancell (2012) National Laboratory Ruth A. David (2013) Retired Vice President, Mobil President and Chief Executive Oil; Turner Professor of Chemical Foreign Secretary Officer, ANSER (Analytic Services Engineering, Emeritus, Georgia Venkatesh Narayanamurti (2015) Inc.) Institute of Technology Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy, Charles Elachi (2013) Ex Officio: Harvard School of Engineering Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Ralph J. Cicerone (2017) and Applied Sciences; Director, Vice President, California Institute President, National Academy of Science, Technology and Public of Technology Sciences Policy Program, Harvard Kennedy School Paul R. Gray (2014) Executive Vice Chancellor and ‡Indicates term ended June 30, George Bugliarello (2011)‡ Provost, Emeritus, and Professor, 2011. Year in parentheses indicates (through February, deceased) University of California, Berkeley the year term expires. President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of NYU

Treasurer C. Dan Mote, Jr. (2013) Glenn Martin Institute Professor of Engineering, University of Maryland

63 2011 Staff NAE Publications

Office of the President Vivienne Chin, Assistant to the NAE reports are available from the Charles M. Vest, President Director National Academies press either for Laura Mersky, Senior Executive Catherine Didion, Senior Program purchase or as free downloadable Assistant Officer, Diversity in the Engineering PDFs at www.nap.edu or 1-800- Joey Manlapaz, Administrative Workforce 6247654, or from the National Assistant (from March) Nicole Flores, Program Associate Academies Bookstore, 500 Fifth Street, (since November) N.W., Washington, D.C. Office of the Home Secretary Norman Fortenberry, Director, Center Thomas F. Budinger, Home Secretary for the Advancement of Scholarship All reports can also be read online. Patricia Scales, Membership Associate on Engineering Education (through April) Office of the Foreign Secretary Candice “Sachi” Gerbin, Christine Reports from 2011: Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Foreign Mirzayan Science and Technology Secretary (from July) Policy Fellow (Fall) Engineering a Learning Healthcare George Bugliarello, Foreign Secretary Penelope Gibbs, Senior Program System: A Look at the Future: (until February, deceased) Associate Workshop Summary Vivienne Chin, Administrative Assistant Kellie Green, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Executive Office Fellow (Winter/Spring) Leading-Edge Engineering from the Maxine Savitz, Vice President Victoria Gunderson, Christine 2010 Symposium Lance Davis, Executive Officer Mirzayan Science and Technology Sonja Atkinson, Administrative Policy Fellow (Fall) Global Technology: Changes and Assistant Rachelle Hollander, Director, Center Implications: Summary of Forum for Engineering, Ethics, and Society Finance Office Janet Hunziker, Senior Program Officer, Macondo Well-Deepwater Horizon C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., Treasurer Frontiers of Engineering Blowout: Lessons for Offshore Drilling Mary Resch, Director Nathan Kahl, Senior Program Associate Safety Raymond Hart, Senior Accountant (through October) Barbara Bishop, Administrative Maribeth Keitz, Senior Program Memorial Tributes: National Academy Coordinator Associate of Engineering, Volume 14 Mary Kutruff, Financial Officer Membership Office Erica Lively, Christine Mirzayan Memorial Tributes: National Academy Mary Lee Berger-Hughes, Director Science and Technology Policy of Engineering, Volume 15 Michaela Curran, Membership Fellow (Winter/Spring) Elections Associate Jacqueline Martin, Senior Program Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Kim Garcia, Election Manager Assistant Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Pamela Lankowski, Council Greg Pearson, Senior Program Officer, Category 5: Condensed Version Administrator Public Understanding of Engineering Jenney Resch, Senior Membership Simil Raghavan, Associate Program The Bridge, the NAE quarterly journal, Associate Officer, Diversity in the Engineering is available from the NAE Program Patricia Scales, Membership Associate Workforce and Online Ethics Center Office or can be read online at www. Dennis Thorp, Graphic Designer and Elizabeth Weitzmann, Program nae.edu/thebridge. A PDF version is Publications Coordinator Associate also available on the website. Katie Whitefoot, Senior Program Program Office Officer, Design, Manufacturing, and Proctor Reid, Director Innovation (since August) Safoah Agyemang, Anderson & Jason Williams, Senior Financial Commonweal Intern (Summer) Assistant Carol Arenberg, Senior Editor Deborah Young, Awards Administrator Randy Atkins, Senior Public/Media Pria Young, Christine Mirzayan Science Relations Officer and Technology Policy Fellow (Fall) Frazier Benya, Program Officer, Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society Development Office (since October) Eric Johnson, Chief Advancement Elizabeth Cady, Program Officer, Officer (through June) Center for the Advancement Radka Nebesky, Senior Development of Scholarship on Engineering Officer Education

64 NAE

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 govern ment 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 organization 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 Engineer ing 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 Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate profes sions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility 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 Scienc es 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 general 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 engi neer ing communities. 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

Photo Credits: Page 1: Cable Risdon Page 9: Courtesy of Google Page 10: Cable Risdon Pages 20-21: Drs. Arnold and Stemmer – Saul_Sandra Photo; Dr. Hood – Robin Layton; Dr. Crawley – David White; Dr. Atlas – Carl Schramm; Dr. Elachi – NASA/JPL-Caltech NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001