Annual Report

2012 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 (PIs) Garnering Useful Instruction on Developing [Project] Effectiveness (PI GUIDE) 2012 NAE Annual Meeting Forum—Educating Engineers: Preparing 21st Century Leaders in the Context of New Modes of Learning Role of Community Colleges in STEM Education 6 Technological Literacy Integrated STEM Education 6 Public Understanding of Engineering Committee on Implementing Effective Messages Changing the Conversation: Building the Community Media Relations Public Relations Grand Challenges for Engineering 9 Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society Educational Partnership on Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society Practical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education Energy Ethics Video Challenge 10 Diversity of the Engineering Workforce EngineerGirl Website Engineer Your Life Capitalizing on the Diversity of the Science and Engineering Workforce in Industry 12 Frontiers of Engineering Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers—Gilbreth Lectures 14 Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation Committee on Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation Making Value Workshop 15 Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding 16 Protecting the Natural Soundscapes of America’s National Parks 16 Systems Engineering for Improving Health 17 The Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology: Dialogues among Six Academies 18 STEM Workforce Needs for National Defense 20 2012 NAE Awards Recipients 22 2012 New Members and Foreign Associates 23 NAE Anniversary Members 28 2012 Private Contributions 30 Einstein Society 31 Golden Bridge Society 32 Heritage Society 33 Catalyst Society 33 Rosette Society 34 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 67 Officers 67 Councillors 68 Staff 68 NAE Publications Letter from the President

It has been my honor and privilege to serve as president of the National Academy of Engineering since July 1, 2007, and, as I contemplate the close of my tenure on June 30, 2013, I look back at a time of challenges and accomplishments for the nation, the engineering community, and the NAE. Personally, it has been a very rewarding experi- ence and I want to express my appreciation to all those individuals within and without the NAE who have contributed enormously to advance the welfare of the nation and the engineering community these past nearly 6 years.

One thing that the outgoing leader of an important organization values above all else is to be succeeded by a deeply respected new leader. That is certainly true in this instance. A nominating committee elected by Academy members, representing Charles M. Vest each section of the NAE and chaired by Illinois Institute of Technology president John Anderson, selected C.D. (Dan) Mote Jr., professor and former president of the University of Maryland, as the candidate to be the next president of the NAE. I could not be more pleased by his nomination and look forward to his election.

Some of the challenges for the nation, the engineering community, and the NAE involve long-term engagement and commitment. A set of Engineering Grand Challenges was established by the NAE in 2008 that could be accomplished in the next several decades if we set our minds and resources to them and that, if met, would improve life on Earth. Engineers have worked and continue to work on solving these challenges and, while much remains to be done, highlighting the challenges has galvanized numerous education and outreach programs and they have entered the national dialogue among business, government, and academia. A new generation of young people is eager to engage in them and if we as a nation provide them with the opportunities and resources, I’m sure they will succeed. We need to support their well-informed enthusiasm and efforts by funding higher education, providing research support, supporting rational immigration policy, and recognizing and rewarding their accomplishments.

I think our leaders need to recognize and acknowledge more candidly to the public the nature of today’s world. It is critical to understand that, now and in the future, we must both compete and coop- erate with others all over the world—other countries, other companies, other universities, other col- leagues. Most, perhaps all, of this generation’s challenges are global. They are global because our world is straining to support 7 billion people who share a single environment, finite natural resources, and, above all, a common humanity. Sharing is the enabling mechanism—sharing of knowledge, sharing of talents, sharing of education. This is the new world of open innovation and new ways of working.

We need to be preparing people for the new ways of working that are emerging. A few decades ago, people talked about brain drain, the movement of highly talented young people to the United States from other countries to study and subsequently contribute richly to our nation as faculty members, entrepreneurs, and business leaders. Today, especially for young people, we are more in an age of brain circulation, with students, entrepreneurs, and corporate personnel living and working in multiple countries during their careers. I believe we are rapidly moving toward the age of brain integration, the integration of people’s minds both with each others’ and with computers—a team of humans and computers can be connected so that, collectively, they can act more intelligently than any person, group, or computer has ever done before.

Closer to home, our nation is perplexed about the future of US manufacturing and about how manufacturing jobs have changed or will change. We need to understand what the new jobs will be and how to prepare young people for them. In 2012, the NAE, with the guidance of an informal advisory

1 committee headed by NAE member and former General Motors executive Larry Burns, began developing a new framework for thinking about the nexus of manufacturing, design, and innovation. We held a major workshop of leaders from business, academia, and government, and are developing a fast-track set of research and analysis projects that we hope will be useful to the nation. In our developing framework, making value requires an integrated system of activities—understanding customers, research, development, design, manufacturing, and services—that are all necessary to deliver value to customers. Making value requires that a holistic system of these activities be developed and optimized in the national interest. I hope that our NAE work will meet three basic objectives: (1) analyze existing best practices in holistic enterprises that make value; (2) learn all we can about the likely ecosystem that will support future work, including the skills, education, infrastructure, and government policies to enable and support new work; and (3) determine the necessary and sufficient conditions to make the United States the ideal place to make value.

We must remember that everything begins with education, so we continue to emphasize activities such as the Frontiers of Engineering Education Symposia that can have a direct positive impact on engineering faculty and programs. And in the Forum at the NAE Annual Meeting in October 2012, a distinguished panel explored many facets of contemporary engineering education and provided a fresh view of the opportunities and responsibilities enabled by advances in educational modalities, including new institutional structures, new IT-based capabilities, and new approaches to team-based, hands-on learning. The Forum was recorded and is available on the NAE website at www.fednet.net/nae100112/, and a published summary is also available on the NAE website, at www.nae.edu/68564.aspx.

In the spirit of information sharing both locally and globally, the NAE continues to engage in activities that expand and enhance relationships among engineering communities worldwide. The Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) symposia bring together young engineers, in the United States and internationally, who are pioneering ideas that will lead us into the future. In 2012 the NAE held its yearly US FOE meeting at GM in Warren, Michigan, and bilateral FOE meetings with India in Arlington, Virginia, supported by Lockheed Martin; with Germany in Potsdam, Germany; and with Japan in Irvine, California. We are grateful to The Grainger Foundation, which has provided major funding to the FOE program and allowed us to award two Grainger Foundation Frontiers of Engineering Grants of $30,000 each to two teams of US FOE attendees, enabling collaborations on exciting concepts identified at the meeting to take root.

The independent programs of the NAE depend greatly on private philanthropy. We are grateful to Asad M. Madni and his family for their matching gift challenge to the classes of 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 to encourage donations to the NAE for discretionary purposes. We are pleased to recognize in this report all the members and friends whose generous gifts are helping the NAE to continue making meaningful contributions to the well-being of the nation. We thank them for their support.

In the following pages you will find additional information about the scope and depth of work under- taken by the NAE in 2012. Our projects and reports have been conceived and executed to pursue our 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.

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 US manufacturing 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 2,387 peer-elected members and foreign associates, approximately 53 percent from academia, 38 percent from industry, and 8 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 commit- tees, 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 include 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 2012 Program Reports Engineering Education

Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) In October 2012, 72 of the nation’s most innovative young engineering educators took part in the fourth annual Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) symposium. For 2½ 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 left with a charter to bring about improvements in their home institutions. The attendees were selected from a pool of highly qualified applicants nominated by NAE members and engineering deans. FOEE is sponsored by John McDonnell and the McDonnell Family Foundation. The first three symposia were sponsored by the O’Donnell Foundation and held in November 2009, December 2010, and October 2011.

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, of which 29 were selected for description in an NAE guide published in November 2012. The report, Infusing Real World Experiences into Engineering Education (available on the NAE website at www.nae.edu/publications/65099.aspx), also includes feedback from engineering and engineering technology deans on possible barriers, impediments, and catalysts for adoption of the exemplary programs.

2-Year and 4-Year Engineering and Engineering Technology Transfer Student Pilot In the engineering and engineering technology (e/et) communities, community colleges are important feeders to baccalaureate e/et programs. With support from the National Science Foundation and in collaboration with the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), the NAE in 2011 conducted a pilot survey to characterize the number and demographics of community college students enrolled in e/et programs as well as those who have transferred to a baccalaureate program. This project engaged 2- and 4-year-college and university faculty and deans from a representative sample of 17 engineering baccalaureate degree–granting engineering colleges and 35 geographically distributed community colleges. The results of the survey were discussed at the 2012 Engineering Deans Institute and at the 2012 ASEE Conference. The survey indicated that

4 NAE there were more women and slightly more African American, Hispanic, and foreign national students in the transfer cohort from the 2-year institutions to the 4-year institutions than in any of the existing student populations at the 4-year institutions. This was true for all transfer populations in the survey although the exact percentages varied among the 4-year institutions. This discrepancy can lead to a sense of isolation for 2-year transfer students when they transfer to a 4-year institution. The discussion at the 2012 Engineering Deans Institute focused on existing data and the fea- sibility of additional data collection; policy implications for 2-year/4-year transfer students; unique challenges to 2-year engineering technology programs; and the impact of data collection on institutional resources. There was great interest in successful pretransfer programs at some 4-year institutions to engage students at 2-year institutions. Many of these programs are demonstrating impact on the recruitment and retention of transfer students in 4-year engineering programs. The development of successful transfer programs for 2-year engineering and engineering technology students can also assist 4-year institutions in meeting the growing expectations of their state legislatures and governing bodies to increase the number of bachelor’s degrees in engineering in a climate of scarce resources. In 2013 a follow-on workshop is planned to consider strategies to support 2-year students who transfer to 4-year e/et programs.

Principal Investigators (PIs) Garnering Useful Instruction on Developing program reports [Project] Effectiveness (PI GUIDE) Four NSF programs sponsored the development of a website (http://govpiguide.org) that provides one-to-many electronic mentoring, via video scenarios from experienced PIs; leadership videos; 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). NAE staff contributed to the website by drafting the questions to ask experienced PIs, developing scenarios that describe common problems in the early stages of NSF projects, interviewing PIs, and overseeing the website development. Responsibility for hosting and maintenance of the site will transfer to ASEE in early 2013.

2012 NAE Annual Meeting Forum—Educating Engineers: Preparing 21st Century Leaders in the Context of New Modes of Learning The forum of the NAE Annual Meeting held October 1, 2012, brought together a panel of experts to explore the many challenges and opportunities facing engineering education. Moderated by Ali Velshi, CNN news anchor and chief business correspondent, discussions addressed integration of engineering with new areas of science, the importance of entrepreneurship, impacts of globalization, education for a more diverse engineering workforce, the role of design and production, and online learning and mas- sively open online courses. The panelists were Anant Agrawal, President of edX and professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Linda P.B. Katehi (NAE), Chancellor of University of California, Davis; Salman Khan, Founder of Khan Academy; Richard K. Miller (NAE), President of Olin College; Richard D. Stephens, Senior Vice President for Human Resources and Administration at the Boeing Company; and Tuula Teeri, President of Aalto University in Finland. The forum was recorded and is available online (www.fednet.net/nae100112/) and a summary report is available on the NAE website (www.nae.edu/68564.aspx).

5 2012 Role of Community Colleges in STEM Education The report of a national summit that explored Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape was released in spring 2012. This one-day summit, funded by the NSF, was organized by the National Research Council and the NAE and held a year after the White House Summit on Community Colleges. It focused on issues associated with (1) developmental courses, particularly mathematics, (2) the challenges and opportunities of articulation agreements between 2- and 4-year institutions, and (3) recruitment and retention of underserved students in STEM education. For 2013 the NRC and NAE are organizing follow-on activities to help improve STEM education in community colleges and connections between 2- and 4-year colleges and universities, with a view toward improving STEM teaching, learning, and achievement for all students. The report is available on the NAE website (www.nae.edu/60120.aspx).

Technological Literacy

Integrated STEM Education program reports The joint NAE-NRC Committee on Integrated STEM Education (iSTEM) held its final four meetings in 2012, and the committee has now turned to writing the study’s consensus report, slated for publication in summer 2013. 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 create a descriptive framework for iSTEM education to both guide the work of the project committee and provide a common lan- guage for educators, education researchers, and organizations that fund STEM education reform. The 15-member committee, chaired by Margaret Honey, president and chief executive officer of the New York Hall of Science, also held two workshops and commissioned several topical papers in 2012. 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 is charged with informing and energizing key seg- ments of the engineering community about the potential for improving the public 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 2012, the committee continued to add content and improve the structure of the project’s online “toolkit” (www.engineeringmessages.org), providing the engineering community with resources, advice, and a way to share insights on effective public outreach about engineering. The committee also finished drafting its Action Plan report, which will summarize progress in adopting or adapting the CTC messages and suggest further actions for various engineering sectors to improve public understanding. The report is slated to be published in summer 2013. 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.

6 NAE Changing the Conversation: Building the Community With funding from the United Engineering Foundation (UEF), in 2012 NAE created a Facebook presence for the Changing the Conversation project (www.facebook.com/engineersctc), which is intended to expand and diversify the audience for engineering messaging. By the end of 2012, the page had over 5,000 “likes.” The UEF grant also enabled NAE to enhance the engineeringmessages.org site, for example by adding social plug-ins and creating free, downloadable CTC-message- themed posters and door hangers. In partnership with National Engineers Week Foundation, NAE also developed, tested, and disseminated train-the-trainer materials to boost the engineering community’s capacity for improved messaging.

Media Relations The NAE media relations office fielded numerous inquiries from journalists around the world in 2012 and actively “pitched” NAE projects and other engineering-related topics. Coverage included a USA Today story on the Grand Challenge Scholars Program, a Science magazine piece on the Gordon Prize, local news coverage of various winners of the EngineerGirl essay contest as well as on the EngineerGirl website redesign, and a PE Magazine article about a focus on engineering and the NAE (including the Grand Challenges and Changing the Conversation projects) in the comic strip series Bleeker: The Rechargeable Dog (more below). program reports

NAE Communications/Media Relations Director 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, DC, area) and on Federal News Radio. The reports are also heard on the National Science Foundation’s Science360 Internet radio site. The NAE features these reports on its own website (www.nae.edu/radio), and podcasts of the radio stories are available to millions of subscribers via iTunes.

Public Relations In April, the NAE participated in the 2nd USA Science and Engineering Expo, the theme of which was the NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. In addition to preparing several stage presentations in the National Academies’ exhibit area, the NAE, with support from the Stephen Bechtel Fund, collaborated with students from the University of Texas at El Paso to develop a Grand Challenges Passport mobile application. The feature allowed festival exhibit-goers to collect digital stamps at various activities by scanning QR codes for the opportunity to win a prize. Approximately 500 people downloaded and participated in the app activity.

In September 2012, the NAE partnered with King Features, a unit of Hearst Corporation, to highlight engineers and the impacts of engineering through characters in the comic strip Bleeker: The Rechargeable Dog. The two-week special, featuring the NAE Grand Challenges as well as taglines

7 2012 from the NAE’s Changing the Conversation report, appeared on the NAE website and in newspa- pers around the country. Comic strip students Lila and Skip collaborated on an assignment that highlighted perhaps the least talked-about part of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education—engineering. With Skip’s electronic pet Bleeker tagging along, the 5th grade characters learned what engineers do and how they could make positive impacts in the world by pursuing that career path. The inspiration for Bleeker himself came partly from an engineering innovation with wide-ranging impact—he is a combination of cartoonist Jonathan Mahood’s favorite companions: his dog and his iPod.

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 4,000 subscribers.

Grand Challenges for Engineering The NAE’s Grand Challenges for Engineering have continued to have significant impact since their unveiling in 2008. The Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP), which combines curricular program reports and extracurricular components to prepare undergraduate students to take on the challenges, is active in 12 colleges or universities across the country and is taking root in dozens of others. More than 30 students graduated from the program in 2012 and the White House cited the GCSP as an example of “the power of setting sights on Grand Challenges.” K–12 schools in at least two states are incorporating the NAE Grand Challenges in their curricula.

With funding from Lockheed Martin, the NAE collaborated with the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Engineering in planning the inaugural Global Grand Challenges Summit for March 2013 in London. A series of these global summits will bring together many leading thinkers and innovators, along with the next generation of engineering talent from around the world, to explore new approaches for solving some of the world’s most pressing challenges and to raise public awareness of them. One of the goals of the 2013 two-day event, and an additional Student Day, is to identify opportunities for global cooperation on engineering innovation and education to address common technological challenges. Session themes chosen for the summit are sustainability, health, education, technology and growth, enriching life, and resilience. For an associated video contest, young people will highlight the role of engineers in solving Grand Challenges.

More information on the Grand Challenges for Engineering is available online at www.engineeringchallenges.org.

8 NAE Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society

In 2012 the Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society (CEES) began working with two new partners as part of two NSF grants on issues concerning sustainability and engineering ethics. With the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, CEES will lead a working group focused on the social aspects of sustainability, particularly the role of social institutions. And with the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, CEES will host a conference on Sustainable Cities and Interdisciplinary International Education: Core Knowledge and Skills, at the Keck Building in Washington, DC, on April 24–26, 2013.

Educational Partnership on Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society CEES continued its work on NSF grants received in 2010 for projects focused on ethics and climate and on ethics and energy-related issues. The Climate Change Educational Partnership grant (Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society) supported the development of a partnership among the NAE, Arizona State University (ASU), Colorado School of Mines, University of Virginia,

and Boston Museum of Science to address climate change–related technical and normative chal- program reports lenges for engineered systems. The work focused on issues of sustainability, governance, justice, and public trust and engagement. The culminating conference at ASU on January 28–30, 2013, involved scientists and engineers, including several NAE members, and representatives of industry, government, and the nonprofit sector. Information about the conference is available at the NAE website (www.nae.edu/Activities/Projects/CEES/).

Practical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education In its partnership with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and as part of an NSF- funded grant to build a national e-resource for science and engineering ethics education, CEES held a workshop on Practical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education for Instructors and Administrators, December 12, 2012, at the Academies’ Keck building. Meeting attendees—NAE members and other leaders in science and engineering ethics education—identified three main points of guidance: to create and encourage an attitude of lifelong learning on ethics, to create institutional goals for education and use multiple activities rather than one class to achieve these goals, and to identify a hierarchy for ethics responsibilities at institutions. Proceedings of the workshop will be published online in spring 2013.

Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education The second NSF award, Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education, supports a 3-year collaborative project with ASU to foster leadership in ethics education in energy-related fields. In 2011 the NAE sponsored a research workshop about the topic, and ASU sponsored graduate research and participated in the Arizona state process for planning its energy future. In 2012 CEES solicited applications from graduate students in energy research programs around the country to participate in a week-long national institute for training in energy ethics. Six students were accepted from 11 very good applications, including an international student who will attend with travel support from his home institution. In preparation for hosting the institute on April 8–12, 2013, ASU supported graduate student workshops on energy ethics to test curriculum and teaching options. CEES and the ASU Center for Science Policy Outcomes (CSPO) are also planning a national energy ethics policy and education workshop for fall 2013. Information about this project is available in the energy section of the NAE Online Ethics Center (OEC), at http://onlineethics. org/Topics/Enviro/Energy.aspx.

9 2012 Energy Ethics Video Challenge In 2012 CEES, with the help of the Center’s funding from Harry E. Bovay Jr., developed and ran the program reports Energy Ethics Video Contest through the OEC. Stephanie Annessi, Monique Blake, Xinyi Liu, and Rajiha Mehdi of Smith College won Best Video for their entry on Transnational Nuclear Waste Site Selection. The videos addressed a variety of topics—from fracking to wind farms, from nuclear waste disposal to smart grids, from use of public transportation to the energy costs of the meat industry. A survey of participating faculty members and students found that 70 percent used resources from the OEC in preparing their videos and that 81 percent felt they learned a lot about ethics through the project (figure above). Of the 18 videos submitted, 16 met the eligibility criteria and are posted on the OEC Ethics Video Challenge Facebook page (www.facebook.com/OECEthicsVideoChallenge); the winning entries are also accessible via the NAE and CEES web pages.

Diversity of the Engineering Workforce

EngineerGirl Website In 2012, using input from girls across the country, NAE redesigned its popular EngineerGirl website (www.engineergirl.org) with funding provided by the Lockheed Martin Corporation—the first major redesign since the site premiered in 2000. The website is a platform for informing, inspiring, and supporting young female students interested in engineering. Its target audience is middle school girls, with the aim of introducing them to the rewards of an engineering career. For the site redesign, a Girls Advisory Board, with 135 members from 28 states, held 19 virtual meetings during which they discussed content and interface options for the new site. In addition to a completely new look and site organization, the revised website includes features not

10 NAE previously available on EngineerGirl. There are blogs about what an engineer does and a new section called “Try on a Career” that allows girls to explore different engineering fields. The new site also invites engineers to sign up as role models and maintain a profile on the website with a short bio and information about their work.

The 2012 EngineerGirl national essay competition, on food engineering, asked students in grades 3–12 to choose a food item and explain how it is produced and how engineers are involved in the process. Older students were also asked to select a technology that is critical to the food production process, explain how it works, and describe the different types of engineers who might have contributed to its design. The 1,000 essays received—the most submissions in the contest’s history—were judged on the basis of engineering content, research, expression, and originality. Winners were chosen in three categories: elementary (grades 3–5), middle school (grades 6–8), and high school (grades 9–12). The winners received monetary prizes and certificates. A survey of contest participants indicated that 63 percent of them were more likely to consider an engineering career after writing their essay.

Engineer Your Life The Engineer Your Life Project is a national initiative that encourages college-bound high school program reports girls to consider pursuing an undergraduate degree in engineering. The project website (www. engineeryourlife.org), hosted and maintained by the NAE, highlights the contributions of engineering and engineering technology in addressing global challenges and provides resources for students, teachers, guidance counselors, and engineers about careers in engineering. It also features profiles of young women engineers, with short videos of them. There are regular updates to the site on an accompanying Facebook page. A four-star review by Common Sense Media posted the following description: “Engineer Your Life is packed with information about the possibilities for engineering careers. It answers all the crucial questions a girl might have: What is engineering? Why should I do this? Who else is doing this kind of work? What kind of impact does this work have? How can I become an engineer? The tone is inspiring, never dull. The multimedia and interactive content are engaging. Also of note is the diversity of women featured on the site. The site offers counselors and parents helpful information on advising kids about engineering, and it gives engineers ways to inspire girls’ interest in engineering, as well as an ‘engineer’s pledge’ to help improve the image of the field. With useful content for girls and adults, the site is a great resource that has the potential to inspire.”

In addition to the NAE, project participants include the American Association of Engineering Societies, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the WGBH Foundation, and several other engineering associations and societies.

Capitalizing on the Diversity of the Science and Engineering Workforce in Industry Over the past several decades, two intertwining trends have caused academic, industrial, and political leaders to think carefully, creatively, and critically about the future of the scientific, engineering, and technical workforce in the United States. The first of these trends is the dynamic pace of change in the 21st century global economy in which the United States must compete; the second is the increasing diversity of the US human resource base.

To not only compete but also succeed in the global economy, America must make better use of the scientific and technical talent in its broad and diverse population. Yet, women and underrepresented minorities remain a disproportionately small fraction of those in science, technology, engi-

11 2012 neering, and math (STEM) careers. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), of the 19 million people trained or working in STEM and related fields or occupations, 53 percent, or 10.2 million, worked in industry in 2008. Thus, as the largest employer category of those with STEM backgrounds, industry stands to benefit considerably from greater inclusion of women and underrepresented minorities in the workforce. However, significant challenges remain to recruitment, retention, and advancement of these employees.

Building on two National Academies reports, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (2007) and Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads (2011), this project is intended to facilitate discussion and actions to address the needs and challenges facing industry. To that end, with support from Northrop Grumman, in 2012 NAE and the Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop, Creating a Game-Changing Environment for All in the Industrial Workforce, for leaders from industry, academia, and professional associations to share best practices and innovative approaches to recruiting, retaining, and advancing women and underrepresented minorities in the nation’s industry-based scientific and engineering workforce. The presentations and discussions considered recently available NSF data program reports on women and underrepresented minorities in scientific and engineering fields in industry and identified gaps in the data. The workshop also provided an opportunity for open and frank discussion among participants representing a spectrum of perspectives. The data presented and discussions will be published in spring 2013 in a workshop summary for the benefit of the nation’s scientific and engineering industries and other stakeholders and should serve as a guide to industry representatives and government policymakers.

Frontiers of Engineering

The Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) symposium series brings together emerging engineering leaders from industry, academia, and government laboratories to discuss pioneering 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 30–45) to each other and promote the establishment of contacts among the next generation of engineering leaders and (2) to facilitate collaboration and the transfer of techniques and approaches across engineering fields in order to sustain and build US innovative capacity.

The annual US Frontiers of Engineering (US FOE) Symposium brings together approximately 100 engineers from across the country. There are also five bilateral FOE 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-US Science and Technology Forum; (4) China-America Frontiers of Engineering (CAFOE), in partnership with the Chinese Academy of Engineering; and (5) EU-US Frontiers of Engineering (EU-US FOE), in partnership with the European Council of Applied Sciences and Engineering. Each bilateral symposium is attended by approximately 30 engineers from the partner country and 30 from the United States. In addition, funding was received from the National Science Foundation in 2012 to hold a joint Frontiers of Science and Engineering symposium with Brazil in 2014.

12 NAE Four symposia were held in 2012. In March, the IAFOE symposium was hosted by Lockheed Martin in Arlington, Virginia. The topics were engineering large infrastructure for natural hazards, engineering at the interface of science, intelligent transportation systems, and technology enablers for advances in aerospace materials. Later that month the GAFOE symposium took place in Potsdam, Germany. The topics were robotics for hazardous environments, nanomaterials and the environment, energy program reports storage, and implantable electronics. The US FOE was hosted by General Motors in Warren, Michigan, in September. The topics were climate engineering, vehicle electrification, serious games, and engineering materials for the biological interface. In October the JAFOE symposium was held in Irvine, California. The topics were video content analysis, engineering for natural disaster resiliency, engineering for agriculture, and sports engineering.

FOE encourages continuing interaction among symposium participants through ongoing outreach activities. Yearly proceedings, such as Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2011 NAE Symposium on Frontiers of Engineering, which was published in February 2012, are mailed to past US FOE participants. The FOE website (www.naefrontiers. org) includes a searchable database and directory of all FOE alumni, a Community section where alumni can share news, an FOE Alumni Spotlight that focuses on participants’ research and technical work, and programs, papers, presentation slides, and video from the FOE meetings.

In 2012, The Grainger Foundation Frontiers of Engineering Grants were awarded to two teams of individuals who attended the 2011 US FOE meeting. Ali Khademhosseini (Harvard Medical School) and Aydogan Ozcan (University of California, Los Angeles) received a grant for ultra-high- throughput analysis of cell response to chemical libraries using a computational lens-free imaging platform. Michelle Povinelli (University of Southern California) and Roman Stocker (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) received a grant to examine novel nanophotonic tools for probing bacte- rial motility. This grants program enables further pursuit of new interdisciplinary research and technical work stimulated by the conference and supports 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-US Science and Technology Forum provide support for ongoing collaborations among participants in the GAFOE and IAFOE symposia, respectively. The following sponsors also provided grants or in-kind support for the 2012 FOE meetings: National Science Foundation, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, DOD ASDR&E Research Directorate-STEM Development Office, Microsoft Research, General Motors, Lockheed Martin, and Cummins Inc.

13 2012 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 annual and national meetings.

In 2012, four speakers delivered Gilbreth Lectures at the national meeting. Urbashi Mitra (University of Southern California) spoke on “Next-Generation Wireless Communications: Telehealth.” David Tse (University of California, Berkeley) gave a presentation on “Spectrally Efficient Communication over Unreliable Channels.” Luiz André Barroso (Google) spoke on “Warehouse-Scale Computing.” Bradley Jaeger (Edison2) spoke on “Edison2’s Winning Solution program reports for the Automotive X-Prize and the Future.” In addition, two speakers delivered Gilbreth Lectures at the annual meeting. John Ochsendorf (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) gave a presentation on “Challenges and Opportunities for Low-Carbon Buildings,” and Hod Lipson (Cornell University) spoke on “The Shape of Things to Come: Frontiers in Additive Manufacturing.”

Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation

Transformational changes are occurring in US-based manufacturing, design, and innovation. US manufacturing employment has significantly changed due to increasing globalization and automation on the factory floor. At the same time, innovations in technologies and business models—such as additive manufacturing, biotechnology, and “servitization”—present important opportunities for new value creation in the United States. In 2011 NAE launched an initiative on Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation to understand the effects of these changes on US prosperity and employment and their implications for business practices, research, education, and public policy. The initiative’s activities in 2012 were supported by generous gifts from Robert A. Pritzker, the Robert Pritzker Family Foundation, and Gordon E. Moore.

Activities in 2012 included a workshop on Building the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation held at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on September 27. The concept of the national network, which was announced by President Obama in March, is to establish regional private-public institutes for manufacturing innovation. The workshop, one in a series across the country, brought together experts from manufacturing, research, and education institutions to share ideas on the design of this network. The event was jointly organized by the NAE, the federal Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, the National Academies’ Government- University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) and University-Industry Demonstration Project (UIDP), the University of California at Irvine, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Committee on Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation In December 2011, NAE appointed a committee to advise the NAE President on the development of the Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation Initiative. The 11-member committee was chaired by NAE member Lawrence D. Burns, former vice president of R&D and strategic planning at General

14 NAE Motors, and included NAE members Nicholas M. Donofrio (IBM) and Jonathan J. Rubinstein (Palm). During 2012, the committee identified leading issues impacting the manufacturing value chain, held a workshop (described below) to gather information from a wide range of manufacturing sectors, and recommended topics of study for NAE to address these issues. NAE will launch a consensus study in 2013 based on these recommendations.

Making Value Workshop On June 11–12, 2012, NAE convened a workshop on Making Value: Integrating Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation to Thrive in the Changing Global Economy. The 1½-day meeting brought together approximately 50 experts to explore future directions of manufacturing, design, and innovation and their implications for the United States. Participants discussed potential actions to strengthen human capital, business practices, government services, and infrastructure. A published summary of the workshop is available online through the NAE website (www. nae.edu, under Publications). program reports

Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding

The Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding, a joint effort of NAE and the US Institute of Peace (USIP), completed its first full year of activity in 2012, including conven- ing four workshops and one meeting of the membership. The Roundtable provides a forum for stakeholders from government, industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to (1) consider how the use of technology, engineering, and scientific methods might contribute to conflict prevention, peacemaking, and peacekeeping and (2) explore opportunities for collaboration among stakeholders to address key issues.

The Roundtable’s current institutional members are the US Department of State, US Department of Defense, US Department of Agriculture, US Agency for International Development, National Science Foundation, Qualcomm Incorporated, CH2M HILL, Google, CRDF Global, Alliance for Peacebuilding, InterAction, Search for Common Ground, International Crisis Group, Engineers Without Borders, and International Center for Nonviolent Conflict.

The four workshops addressed the following topics: • Adapting agricultural extension systems to peacebuilding; • Using data sharing to improve coordination in peacebuilding; • Sensing and shaping emerging conflicts; and • Harnessing operational systems engineering in peacebuilding.

Summary reports from the first two workshops were published in late 2012, and reports of the second two are in preparation for publication in early summer 2013.

15 2012 Consistent with its goals, the Roundtable has developed projects for the field based on ideas discussed at several of the workshops. One involves expanding the traditional role of agricultural extension officers to include a peacebuilding component. The first step will be a series of training sessions for extension agents in Afghanistan and Pakistan to develop conflict analysis skills and the ability to use communications technology to access a network of conflict management experts. A second project, combining insights from the sensing and operational systems engineering workshops, will focus on election violence monitor- ing in the March 2013 Kenyan elections. The aim is to map the current network of violence-prevention projects on the ground and the organizations with which they are partnering. Based on what is learned, a potential follow-on effort might leverage sensing and systems strategies to reduce election violence during voting in 2014 in Afghanistan. program reports Protecting the Natural Soundscapes of America’s National Parks

Noise emissions can have important effects on wildlife and ecosystems and can diminish the expe- rience of visitors to US national parks. The US National Park Service (NPS) Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division (NSNSD) is therefore supporting an NPS systemwide initiative to substantially reduce noise “footprints” in national parks. To inform its work, the NSNSD engaged the National Academy of Engineering, in collaboration with the US Department of Transportation’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, to organize a workshop to identify best practices for mini- mizing noise emissions from national park facilities, operations, and maintenance activities.

Drawing on findings from the 2010 NAE report Technology for a Quieter America, an NAE steer- ing committee chaired by NAE member George Maling organized a 2-day workshop in October 2012 in Fort Collins, CO. Approximately 25 noise control experts from industry and academia and NPS staff experienced in noise issues exchanged information for protecting park soundscapes, for use by NPS parks, regions, and divisions. Presentations and discussions focused on NPS- generated noise sources (particularly those related to construction, transportation, and facilities operation and maintenance), the effects of noise on park visitors and wildlife, current NPS guidance for park managers, and experiences with “Buy Quiet” programs of other government agencies and the private sector. A summary of the workshop will be published and disseminated to park managers and other stakeholders in the spring of 2013.

Systems Engineering for Improving Health

Central elements of daily life—from clean water to aviation safety to automobile manufacturing to new imaging technologies—have benefited from the application of systems engineering principles. Systems engineering similarly offers a powerful, albeit underutilized, method of accelerating improvement in the health system. Its tools and techniques have been successfully implemented

16 NAE to prevent health care–acquired infections, promote safety, deliver best practices reliably, and optimize clinical operations. Greater application of these principles can link people, processes, structures, and technology to create reliable, high-performing “systems” approaches that can be implemented at scale, achieving sustainable high levels of patient safety and outcomes and improving value.

Joint NAE/IOM activities over the past decade have illustrated possibilities, and a recent proposal for an NAE/IOM–led initiative to design and conduct a scalable demonstration of systems engineering–enabled improvements in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes is being shared with potential sponsors and other stakeholders. Building on these efforts, in August 2012 NAE and IOM launched a joint activity, the Systems Approaches for Improving Health Innovation Collaborative (under the auspices of the IOM Roundtable on Value and Science-Driven Health Care). The project brings together leaders in medicine, engineering, and information technology to work with patients and clinicians to identify important opportunities and facilitate joint projects; foster information exchange about successful systems approaches to care improvement; and explore compelling conceptual, evaluation, and research questions. The Collaborative’s members are partners in medicine and engineering working on improving patient safety, disease prevention,

wellness, and various dimensions of health care quality and value; representatives of health care program reports and wellness institutions with active process reengineering under way; systems engineering and information technology experts; and key change agents and opinion leaders who can move prom- ising results into practice.

The inaugural meeting of the collaborative, on December 14, 2012, in Washington, DC, was supported by a grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Cochaired by IOM member Gary Kaplan, Virginia Mason Health System, and NAE member Richard Larson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the meeting convened 60 leaders in engineering and health care to discuss current and potential systems-based approaches to achieve best care at lower cost; identify lessons learned in applying engineering principles to health care; provide preliminary feedback on the Moore Foundation–supported, Johns Hopkins University–based ICU patient safety project; consider priority issues, opportunities, and needs in systems approaches for health; and identify projects where collaborative action would advance the field. Collaborative members outlined six potential collaborative projects—from preparation of discussion papers to a national demonstration project for applying systems approaches for improvements in health and health care, at reduced cost—for further exploration and development in 2013.

The Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology: Dialogues among Six Academies

In 2010 the leadership of the NAE, NAS, Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Chinese Academy of Engineering agreed to hold a series of three international symposia to (1) 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) assess the implications of these differences for development of the field nationally and internationally.

The first two symposia took place in 2011 in London and Shanghai. The London meeting, The Economic and Social Life of Synthetic Biology, was held April 13–14; the Shanghai meeting,

17 2012 Enabling Technology for Synthetic Biology, was held October 12–14. Both meetings featured presentations and discussions about the potential of synthetic biology to meet critical societal needs (e.g., in energy, food, and medicine) and about societal concerns related to synthetic biology.

The third and final symposium, Synthetic Biology for the Next Generation, was held in Washington, DC, June 12–13, 2012. The 2-day meeting, attended by approximately 160 individuals, highlighted the progress of each country over the past several years in developing strategies for investment, research, and innovation in synthetic biology, and representatives of the United Kingdom and China presented their newly developed national approaches. Additionally, keynote speakers identified the potential of synthetic biology to enhance both understanding of funda- mental biological questions and the ability to address engineering challenges. There was general agreement that the three symposia helped engage an active international community of researchers and policymakers to support the responsible progress of this field as it moves forward to address scientific, technical, and policy issues.

In response to concerns expressed by several policymakers and researchers from the three countries, a small group from the planning committee met in the United Kingdom in January 2013 to program reports explore intellectual property rights, ownership, and sharing of the parts, tools, and products of synthetic biology. This group hopes to move forward with a workshop on ownership and sharing this summer in London to coincide with Synbio 6.0, an international conference of synthetic biology researchers.

A summary report based on all three symposia will be issued in the spring of 2013. The participating academies now need to determine how to maintain the institutional engagement of the parties involved in organizing these symposia and to think of funding opportunities to support further discussions of synthetic biology (or other emerging fields).

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

STEM Workforce Needs for National Defense

In response to a request from the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council completed a study of issues concerning the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce of the Department of Defense and its industrial base. The committee of 21 experts was cochaired by NAE/NAS member Norman Augustine and NAE member C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. The committee in November 2011 issued a report of a workshop held during the summer of 2011 and in October 2012 concluded its activities with the release of its final consensus report.

18 NAE The committee found that DOD’s STEM workforce, as well as those of its contractors, represents a modest fraction of the nation’s STEM workforce as a whole in today’s burgeoning, technologically driven economy. Total DOD civilian STEM employment is approximately 150,000—of which 47 percent are in engineering and 35 percent in computer and mathematical science occupations— accounting for about 2 percent of the total US STEM workforce. While STEM jobs are a major component of the defense industrial base (approximately 3 in 10 jobs), they also represent a small fraction of total US STEM employment (again about 2 percent). A notable exception is aerospace engineers, a substantial proportion of whom are employed in the aerospace and defense industry.

The DOD’s demand for scientists and engineers is sufficiently modest that fulfilling its need for numbers should be achievable except in specialized, but important, areas, such as cyber security and selected intelligence fields. The issue is quality, not quantity, recognizing that decisions made by the DOD STEM workforce are highly leveraged, impacting the work of very large numbers of people and enterprises both inside and outside the government. Thus the challenge for DOD in the foreseeable future will be to fill its ranks with a suitable share of the best and brightest talent—a challenge exacerbated by the perception of many PhD candidates in the sciences and engineering that working in government is less desirable than a career in academic teaching and

research or industry. program reports

The committee identified the following goals for the DOD to help ensure that the needed cadre of highly qualified STEM workers will be available to support US national security needs: (1) make DOD a more attractive place for highly capable STEM employees to work; (2) create more path- ways for high-quality scientists and engineers to work in DOD; (3) enhance early warning of new global developments in science and engineering by increasing the involvement of DOD’s workforce in global activities in core fields; (4) manage the careers of high-quality civilian government scientists and engineers and give them educational opportunities, as is already done for the most capable uniformed personnel; and (5) establish and ensure adaptable human resource development and management mechanisms that are fully competitive with industry and can respond to abrupt changes in STEM opportunities and needs.

19 2012 2012 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 comfortably, and/or permitted access to information. Presented annually, the prize carries a $500,000 cash award and a gold medal.

George H. Heilmeier, Wolfgang Helfrich, Martin Schadt, and T. Peter Brody, “for the engineering development of the Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) utilized in billions of consumer devices.”

George H. Heilmeier Wolfgang Helfrich Martin Schadt T. Peter Brody

Arthur M. Bueche Award The Bueche Award honors an engineer who has been actively involved in advancing US science and technology policy, promoting US 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.

James J. Duderstadt “for leadership in academe and national service to support innovative science and technology policies.” James J. Duderstadt

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.

Clive L. Dym, M. Mack Gilkeson, and J. Richard Phillips “for creating and disseminating innovations in undergraduate engineering design education to develop engineering leaders.”

Clive L. Dym M. Mack Gilkeson J. Richard Phillips

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.

Nicholas A. Peppas “for contributions to biomedical and drug delivery applications of polymer networks and hydrogels and for leadership in the bioengineering community.” Nicholas A. Peppas

For additional information about the NAE awards, please visit our website,21 www.nae.edu/awards. 2012 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES 2012 NEW MEMBERSANDFOREIGNASSOCIATES2012 NEW 30, 2012. the timeofInductionCeremony, September ciates follows, withtheirprimaryaffiliationsat A listofnewlyelectedmembersandforeignasso- approaches toengineeringeducation.” ing, ordeveloping/implementing innovative advancements intraditional fieldsofengineer developing fieldsoftechnology, makingmajor literature,” andtothe“pioneeringofnew priate, significantcontributionstotheengineering practice, oreducation,including,where appro- standing contributionsto“engineeringresearch, membership honorsthosewho have madeout- distinctions accordedtoanengineer. of Engineeringisamongthehighestprofessional ciates to206.ElectiontheNational Academy bership to2,254andthenumberofforeignasso- 10 foreignassociates,bringingthetotalUSmem- In February, NAE elected66 new members and Thiokol Propulsion, retired Robert L. Crippen LLC Cox Associates, Louis Anthony(Tony)CoxJr. University ofIllinois atUrbana-Champaign James J.Coleman Carnegie MellonUniversity Jared L. Cohon Harvard MedicalSchool George M.Church of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity Max W.Carbon University ofNotreDame Joan F. Brennecke Massachusetts Instituteof Technology Mary C.Boyce Georgia Instituteof Technology Barbara D. Boyan of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity Craig H. Benson University ofCalifornia,SanDiego Michael I. Baskes IBM Almaden Research Center Robert D. Allen GE DigitalEnergy Mark G.Adamiak New Members 22 Academy - Princeton University Kai Li University ofCalifornia, SanDiego Juan C. Lasheras Services TechniquesSchlumberger Fikri J. Kuchuk Stanford University Helmut Krawinkler Pfizer Inc. Richard Worsmeyer Institute TechnologyMassachusetts Mujid S.Kazimi University ofFlorida James W. Jones Occidental Petroleum Corporation Ray R. Irani Pennsylvania State University Richard Hogg RTI International Victoria F. Haynes IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center Alfred Grill Stanford University Steven M. Gorelick Labs, Alcatel-Lucent Bell Alan H. Gnauck Stanford University Peter W. Glynn Harvard BusinessSchool William W. George Brown University Huajian Gao University ofRochester James R. Fienup ResMed Inc. Peter C.Farrell KinetX Aerospace Robert W. Farquhar E6 Partners LLC Gordon R. England MIT/Harvard MedicalSchool Elazer R. Edelman University ofPennsylvania Dennis E. Discher University ofCalifornia,SantaBarbara Steven P. DenBaars MIT LincolnLaboratory William P. Delaney TexasUniversity A&M Akhil Datta-Gupta Purdue University Supriyo Datta NAE 2 0 1 2 NAE Anniversar Edward E.David Jr. Harold Brown Leo L.Beranek Gene M. Amdahl their 45thyear in2012. Names inboldcelebrated 45 yearsor University ofCalifornia,SanDiego Robert E. Skelton Google, Inc. Amit Singhal Cornell University Christine A. Shoemaker University ofCalifornia,Berkeley Scott J. Shenker D.E. Shaw Research David E. Shaw Broadcom Corporation Nambirajan Seshadri The University of Texas atDallas Kaushik Rajashekara Johns HopkinsUniversity Andrea Prosperetti University ofMiami Innovia, LLC Leonard Pinchuk Stanford University Norbert J. Pelc University ofDelaware Babatunde A. Ogunnaike James J.O’Brien, P.E. James J.O’Brien FoundationLLC Ventures, Philip M. Neches Robert A.K. Mitchell Consulting Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems,retired Robert A.K. Mitchell Franklin W. OlinCollegeofEngineering Richard K. Miller Rice University Antonios G. Mikos University ofColorado, Boulder Diane M. McKnight University ofMichigan Jyotirmoy Mazumder Northwestern University Tobin J.Marks Microsoft Research Henrique S. (Rico) Malvar more y Members Mark K.Smith Simon Ramo Allen E.Puckett George E. Mueller Jay W. Forrester Alexander H. Flax Don U. Deere New Foreign Associates University ofChile;Chile Andrés Weintraub Amunix Inc.;Netherlands Willem “Pim” Stemmer India Powder MetallurgyandNewMaterials(ARCI); International Advanced Research Centrefor P. RamaRao Tata Consultancy Services,Ltd.;India Pradip Russian Academy ofSciences P.N. LebedevPhysical Institute;Russia Gennady A. Mesyats Sinica; TaiwanAcademia Chao-Han Liu Samsung ElectronicsCo.,Ltd.;Korea Kinam Kim University ofCambridge;UK Frank P.Kelly Consultant; UK Sue E. Ion University ofCambridge;UK E. John Hinch Oak RidgeNationalLaboratory Steven J. Zinkle Massachusetts Instituteof Technology K. Dane Wittrup University ofSouthernCalifornia Michael S. Waterman Columbia University Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic Northwestern University Samuel I. Stupp Clemson University Roger H. Stolen of WashingtonUniversity David A. Stahl Sidney A. Bowhill Sidney A. B. Paul Blasingame R. ByronBird Albert L. Babb their 40thyear in2012. Names inboldcelebrated 40 to45years 23

2012 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS *Deceased Robert M. White Robert D.Albert Wheelon Edward WenkJr. Dean A.Watkins Morris Tanenbaum Calvin F. Quate Thomas L.Phillips William J.Perry Hilliard W.Paige Brockway McMillan John J.McKetta Jr. J. RossMacdonald Robert G.Loewy T. William Lambe Christopher C.Kraft Jr. Woodrow E.Johnson James R. Johnson William J.Hall Haddad Jerrier A. Richard J.Grosh Roy W.Gould Earnest F. Gloyna FroschRobert A. John S.Foster Jr. Malcolm R.Currie John P. Craven Ray W.Clough Francis H.Clauser Arthur E.Bryson Daniel Berg C. Gordon Bell Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. Richard H.Battin William F. BallhausSr. L. Atkin Rupert Howard Arnold Wm. H-S. Ang Alfredo G. Anderson Arthur Betsy Ancker-Johnson R. Allen Clarence G. Agnew William M. Agnew Harold Andreas Acrivos Norman Abramson H. their 35thyear in2012. Names inboldcelebrated 35 to39years

24 Stephen E. Harris Thomas J.Hanratty John C.Hancock Robert N. Hall Wolf Hafele Paul E.Gray John B. Goodenough Ralph E.Gomory Solomon W.Golomb James F. Gibbons Ivar Giaever Ronald L. Geer Douglas W.Fuerstenau Merton C.Flemings Peter T.Flawn Morris E.Fine A.J. Field Steven J.Fenves Joseph Feinstein Robert M.Fano James L.Everett III Leo Esaki Ira Dyer Mildred S.Dresselhaus Robert M.Drake Jr. Anthony J.DeMaria Robert C. Dean Jr. J.F. Davidson Elio D’Appolonia Charles Crussard Stephen H. Crandall Edgar M.Cortright Fernando J.Corbato Edward Cohen Stuart W.Churchill Joseph V.Charyk Jack E.Cermak Robert H.CannonJr. J. Fred Bucy Norman H.Brooks Frederick P. BrooksJr. William B. Bridges P.L.Brian Thibaut John E.Breen Lewis M.Branscomb Boley Bruno A. Andrew H.Bobeck Donald L.Bitzer Elwyn R. Berlekamp William N. Poundstone David S.Potter Robert Plunkett Jacques Peters Stanford S. Penner Norman F. Parker Jack S.Parker Carlos S. Ospina David Okrent Joseph H.Newman Dale D. Myers Gordon E.Moore Johannes Moe James K.Mitchell Gordon H.Millar Ross E. McKinney Perry L. McCarty Fujio Matsuda Hans Mark Marcatili Enrique A. Frank E.Marble Artur Mager John D. Mackenzie Louis C.Lundstrom Frank W. Luerssen Alan M.Lovelace C. GordonLittle Frederick F. Ling Salomon Levy Milton Levenson Ernest S.Kuh Gordon S.Kino William M. Kays Eneas D. Kane Jan Kaczmarek Robert L.Johnson H. Richard Johnson Paul C. Jennings Arthur E.Humphrey Nick Holonyak Jr. D. Brainerd Holmes Charles H.Holley Philip G. Hodge William C.Hittinger John P. Hirth Joseph M.Hendrie Robert W. Hellwarth Julius J. Harwood William J. Harris Jr.* NAE 2 0 1 2 *Deceased Lloyd S.Cluff Per V.Bruel Howard Brenner Erich Bloch Donald C.Berkey Wallace B. Behnke John W.Batchelor Lionel O. Barthold Seymour Baron G. Anderson John Mihran S. Agbabian P.Arthur Adamson Jan D. Achenbach Egil Abrahamsen their 30thyear in2012. Names inboldcelebrated 30 to34years Zadeh Lotfi A. A. YeeAlfred Amnon Yariv H. WoodsonHerbert L. Wiegel Robert Robert H. Wertheim G. WenzelJames Paul B. Weisz Johannes Weertman M. WebsterWilliam John B. Wachtman Jr. Myron Tribus King TienPing J. TaylorJohn Morgan C.Sze Lawrence E. Swabb Jr. Ivan E.Sutherland Stanley D. Stookey Morris A. Steinberg Mete A.Sozen Robert S.Schechter Thorndike Saville Jr. Jean E. Sammet Allen S.Russell Ian M.Ross Rosen Harold A. Leslie E.Robertson James B. Reswick Eric H.Reichl Ronald F. Probstein

Irwin M. Jacobs K. UnoIngard Michel Hug Charles L.HoslerJr. Edward E.HoodJr. Kenneth F. Holtby David G.Hoag R. Richard Heppe George H.Heilmeier Kenneth E. Haughton George N.Hatsopoulos Harter George A. Dean B. Harrington Kent F. Hansen Elias P. Gyftopoulos Andrew S.Grove Paul E.GreenJr. George S.Graff George W.Govier Eugene I.Gordon Gee Edwin A. Welko E.Gasich 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 Elder Rex A. Peter S. Eagleson Floyd Dunn Duffy Robert A. John E.Dolan Raymond F. Decker Daniel B. DeBra Robert G.Dean Jose B. CruzJr. Robert C.Crooke Robert J.Creagan Harvey G.Cragon Eugene E.Covert Thomas B. CookJr. Esther M.Conwell W. DaleCompton John A. Quinn John A. John M.Prausnitz James W.Plummer Karl S.Pister Marc J.Pelegrin PearsonJ.R. Anthony Harold W.Paxton C. Kumar N.Patel Simon Ostrach William R. Opie Karl H.Norris Richard B. Neal Walter E.Morrow Jr. John W.Morris James J.Morgan Carl L.Monismith Harry W.Mergler Seymour L.Meisel James D. Meindl Charles J.McMahonJr. William J.McCuneJr. John S.Mayo Walter G.May Robert D. Maurer Hudson Matlock James W.Mar Robert W.Lucky William R.Lucas Edwin N.LightfootJr. Tingye Li George Leitmann Griff C.Lee William W.Lang John W.Landis Henry Kressel James N. Krebs KohlerMax A. Herwig Kogelnik Leonard J.Koch Donald E.Knuth Leonard Kleinrock C. Judson King Jack L.Kerrebrock Herbert H.Kellogg Bernard H.Kear John W.Kalb Trevor O. Jones George W.Jeffs Noel Jarrett 25

NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS *Deceased Gerald L. Wilson Gerald R.C. WestwoodAlbert R. WelchLloyd Jasper A.WelchJr. James Wei F.Wilford Weeks E. WadsworthMilton J. Viterbi Andrew C. Vendryes Andre Georges S. Veletsos Anestis S. Vassell Gregory A. VandersliceThomas P.Marshall Tulin Ken Thompson Gareth Thomas M. TellepDaniel E. TaylorCharles George W. SwensonJr. Henry E.Stone Theodore Stern Francis M.Staszesky Roger W.Staehle Gunter Spur Elias Snitzer John BrooksSlaughter Lawrence H.Skromme Masanobu Shinozuka Paul G.Shewmon Oleg D. Sherby John H. Seinfeld William R. Schowalter Roland W.Schmitt Jacob W.Schaefer Gurmukh S.Sarkaria Irwin W.Sandberg Alfred Saffer Donald G. Russell Victor H.Rumsey Dale F. Rudd James F.Roth Anatol Roshko Stanley T.Rolfe Lawrence G.Roberts Roberts George A. Walter L. Robb Gustavo Rivas-Mijares Herbert H.Richardson James R.Rice Irving S.Reed

26 Laurence R. YoungLaurence Dante C. Youla Takeo Yokobori Theodore Y. Wu Donald E.Coles Richard J.Coar John L.Cleasby Robert P. Clagett Richard C. Chu* Jack V.Christiansen Richard M.Christensen Anil K.Chopra Alfred Y.Cho William A. Chittenden Herbert S. Cheng John F. Cashen Edwin L. Carstensen William J. Carroll Michael M.Carroll John C.CalhounJr. Robert L. Byer Walter L.Brown James E.Broadwell Yvonne C. Brill Klaus D. Bowers H. Kent Bowen Amar G. Bose John G.Bollinger Nicolaas Bloembergen Kenneth A. Blenkarn David P. Billington Arden L.BementJr. Alexis T. Bell R. Augustine Norman David Atlas Bishnu S. Atal Arthur Ashkin John A. Armstrong William A. Anders F.William Allen Frances E. Allen K. Allen Dell Harl P. Aldrich Jr. E. Adams Richard their 25thyear in2012. Names inboldcelebrated 25 to29years William G.Howard Jr. Hodges David A. Yu-Chi Ho Cyril Hilsum Edward A. Hiler Alfred J.HendronJr. Adam Heller Robert C.Hawkins Robert D. Hanson Donald L. Hammond Robert S.Hahn Bacharuddin J.Habibie Hermann K.Gummel Arthur C. Gossard James P. Gordon Joseph W. Goodman Mary L. Good Richard J.Goldstein Alastair M.Glass Alexander F. Giacco Ralph S.Gens Harry C.Gatos Donald C.Fraser FowlerCharles A. G. David Forney Jr. John W.Fisher Alexander Feiner FeigenbaumEdward A. John V.Evans Joseph F. Engelberger Richard E.Emmert Tony F.W. Embleton Gerard W. Elverum James Economy Eckert Charles A. Lester F. Eastman Lloyd A.Duscha James M.Duncan James J.Duderstadt Diarmuid Downs Robert H.Dennard Morton M.Denn F. Paul deMello James W.Dally L. EricCross Paul M.Cook ConwayRichard A. Robert W. Conn Philip M.Condit NAE 2 0 1 2 *Deceased Harold Mirels William F. Miller Richard C.Messinger Chiang C.Mei Robert Mehrabian Mead Carver A. Alan L.McWhorter Sanford N.McDonnell Walter J.McCarthy Jr. James W.Mayer Stephen H. Maslen Robert Malpas John B. MacChesney John W.Lyons Dan Luss Joseph C.Logue Raymond C.Loehr Benjamin Y.H. Liu Peter W.Likins Philip W.Lett Martin P. Lepselter John W.Leonard Shih-Ying Lee L. Gary Leal Gerald D. Laubach Kaye D. Lathrop Ronald M.Latanision James F. Lardner J. HalcombeLaning Butler W.Lampson Charles C.Ladd Albert S.Kobayashi Makoto Kikuchi Anthony Kelly Jack Keller Howard H.Kehrl Melvin F. Kanninen Ivan P. Kaminow Thomas Kailath Robert E. Kahn Angel G.Jordan Thomas V.Jones Robert B. Jansen Erich P. Ippen Anthony J.Iorillo James D. Idol Iacocca Lee A. John W.Hutchinson

Joseph L.SmithJr. George E.Smith Ernest T.Smerdon Merrill I.Skolnik William H.Silcox Eugene D. Shchukin Charles V.Shank Eugene Sevin Charles D. Scott Harris M.Schurmeier Schmitz Roger A. Lucien A. Schmit Jr. John H.Schmertmann Eugene C.Sakshaug Chih-Tang Sah Della M. Roy Ronald E.Rosensweig Jerome G.Rivard Eli Reshotko Raj Reddy Lawrence R.Rabiner Michael Prats John William Poduska Sr. Robert Plonsey R. Byron Pipes Emil Pfender George P. Peterson Thomas K.Perkins J. RandolphPaulling Lawrence T.Papay Yih-Hsing Pao Jacques I.Pankove Morton B. Panish Robert B. Ormsby Jr. Alan V. Oppenheim William G.Oldham William D. Nix Robin B. Nicholson George L.Nemhauser Albert Narath Hyla S.Napadensky Gerald Nadler Nadel Norman A. Toshio Mura Joel Moses Richard M.Morrow Mark V.Morkovin Franklin K.Moore Paul Zia Abe M.Zarem Michael Yachnis Eugene Wong J. Wise John L. WilsonEdward James C. Williams Janusz S. Wilczynski E. Widnall Sheila Willis S. White Jr. John A. White Jr. Arthur W. Westerberg John F. Welch Jr. Sheldon Weinig Vern W. WeekmanJr. Walter J. Weber Jr. H. WareWillis I.C. WangDaniel J. WalkerLeland Raymond Viskanta Walter G. Vincenti Arthur F. Veinott Jr. Bernard A. Vallerga L. TurinGeorge F.Joseph Traub PaulE. Torgersen F.A.Haldor Topsoe F.Charles Tiffany J. Themelis Nickolas Byron D. Tapley L. TangChung Joseph F. Sutter G. RussellSutherland Ben G. Streetman William D. Strecker Kenneth N.Stevens Fred Sterzer Charles V. Sternling Dale F. Stein Marshall B. Standing Fred I. Stalkup William E.Splinter Ephraim M.Sparrow Harold G.Sowman Ponisseril Somasundaran Smith Kenneth A. 27

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

In 2012, NAE raised $5.3 million in private funds to support our efforts to strengthen the engineering profession and engage the public about contrib the opportunities that come from engineering. This amounts to an impressive 28% increase over 2011 fundraising totals and a 34% increase over our 2010 fundraising totals. Of the total, $2.5 million was raised to support unrestricted funds, the overwhelming majority of it from NAE members. Without these important funds, NAE would not p rivate 2 have a solid foundation from which to sustain our most successful proj- 1

0 Maxine L. Savitz ects and spearhead the creation of new and timely programs. The ener- 2 getic participation of our members has always driven NAE forward with crucial time, effort, and ideas. Our members are also vital to our fundraising success, both by making financial contributions of their own and by serving as advocates for NAE and engineering to their peers. We sincerely appreciate your generosity and continual support.

Madni Challenges Last year, NAE held two matching gift challenges, both sponsored by Dr. Asad M. Madni (’11) and his family. The Asad, Taj, and Jamal Madni Challenge for Newer Members, which matched any gift from a member of the classes of 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012, exceeded its $50,000 goal to raise $148,568. The Asad, Taj, and Jamal Madni Section 7 Challenge, which matched any increase in a Section 7 member’s 2012 giving over that of the preceding year, was even more successful, raising $203,000. It also helped enable a 3% jump in giving participation in Section 7, to 25%, from the previous year. Dr. Madni sponsored these challenges to inspire his fellow NAE members to support NAE’s mission and to help NAE reach its most ambitious 50th Anniversary goal: 50% participation by NAE members in the fundraising effort.

50th Anniversary NAE will celebrate its 50th Anniversary in 2014. In 2011, NAE embarked on a four-year fundraising effort to Celebrate 50 Years of Engineering Leadership and Service to the nation. Through your gifts, NAE can

28 NAE strengthen its voice on national policy; work to increase the number, quality, and diversity of US engineering graduates; and advance our national capacity for 21st century innovation and global competitiveness. Now, halfway through the campaign, we have made impressive progress toward our “50 for 50” goals. u tions While we are well on our way to meeting many of our goals, we are behind in achieving our goal to reach 50 new Heritage Society members/50 new planned gifts by the anniversary. If you are interested in making a planned gift to NAE, or if you have made a gift provision in your estate plans but not yet notified us, please contact Radka Nebesky at 202-334-3417 or [email protected]. contrib

By finishing a strong, successful fundraising effort in 2014, NAE can position itself to continue its leadership role in promoting engineering and serving the nation by advising intelligent engineering solutions to 21st century challenges. p rivate 2 1

Vest President’s Opportunity Fund 0 In June of 2013, Dr. Charles M. Vest will finish his term as NAE President. During his tenure, Dr. Vest has 2 championed the creation of Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE), taken the lead in developing a new Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation (MDI) Initiative, and continued to harness the Grand Challenges as a tool to capture young people’s imagination. To honor Chuck and to strengthen NAE for the future, we have established the Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund with a goal to raise $10 million by May of this year. To date we have $2.8 million in gifts, pledges, and gift intentions. This new fund will support exploratory studies, seed new initiatives, and supplement strategic programs, as directed by the president of NAE. The discretionary money will empower NAE to be proactive in identifying and leading initiatives to benefit the nation and profession. Any gift made to the Vest President’s Opportunity Fund will also count toward the 50th Anniversary. Thank you to the donors who have already contributed so generously in honor of Chuck.

Significant Contributions I also want to highlight some remarkable gifts NAE received in 2012. While all contributions are greatly appreciated and make a difference in the work of NAE, the following gifts show extraordinary leadership and commitment to NAE. Names in bold are NAE members: • Erich Bloch (’80) for his $100,000 gift to the NAE Independent Fund. • Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. (’75) and the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation for contributing $150,000 to the Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund and Public Understanding of Engineering. • Deere & Company for giving $150,000 to support the upcoming National Engineering Forum. • The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory for contributing $400,000 to cover operating costs of the Draper Prize for the advancement of engineering and public education about engineering. • Joseph Goodman (’87) for making a $500,000 bequest provision to NAE in his will. • Chad (’76) and Ann Holliday for contributing $100,000 to the Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund. • Irwin (’76) and Joan Jacobs for committing $1,000,000 to the Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund. • W.M. Keck Foundation for its $500,000 gift to endow and name the Founders Award in honor of Si Ramo (’64), the last living founding member of NAE. The Si Ramo Founders Award will continue to recognize NAE members and foreign associates who demonstrate the ideals and principles of NAE in their work. • John F. McDonnell and the JSM Charitable Trust for investing $1,000,000 in Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE), a program to encourage and promote effective and innovative engineering instruction. • Ohio University Foundation for contributing $166,676 to cover operating costs associated with awarding the Russ Prize, recognizing engineering achievements that have a significant and widespread impact on society.

29 2012 Loyal Donors Gifts made regularly each year to NAE also demonstrate genuine commitment to our mission and goals. As a long-time donor who understands that every donation to NAE is a choice to support an organization u tions whose work I believe matters greatly, I thank the following people who have contributed to NAE for 15 consecutive years or more:

Clarence R. Allen (’76) Daniel J. Fink (’74) F. Stan Settles (’91)

contrib 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. 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)

p rivate 2 Esther M. Conwell (’80) Simon Ramo (’64) Weertman 1

0 Irwin Dorros (’90) William R. Schowalter (’82) Wm. A. Wulf (’93) 2

Maxine Savitz

2012 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 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. $10 million and above Arnold* and Mabel* Beckman George P. Mitchell Bernard M. Gordon

$5 million to $10 million William R.* and Rosemary B.* Peter O’Donnell Jr. Hewlett

$1 million to $5 million Richard and Rita Atkinson Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. Gordon and Betty Moore Norman R. Augustine Harry E. Bovay Jr.* Robert* and Mayari Pritzker Craig and Barbara Barrett Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fritz J.* and Dolores H.* Russ Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch John F. McDonnell Sara Lee and Axel Schupf

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

*Deceased

30 NAE $250,000 to $499,999 W.O. Baker* Jerome H.* and Ann and Michael Ramage Warren L. Batts Barbara N. Grossman Simon Ramo

Gordon Bell William R. Jackson* Anne and Walt Robb u tions Penny and Bill George Richard M. Morrow Henry and Susan Samueli Kenneth H. Olsen* Charles M. and Rebecca M. Vest $100,000 to $249,999 Holt Ashley* William H. Gates III Susan and Franklin M. Orr Jr. contrib William F. Ballhaus Sr. Nan and Chuck Geschke David Packard* Thomas D.* and Janice Hood Paul and Judy Gray Charles* and Doris* Pankow Barrow George and Daphne Lawrence and Carol Papay Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp Hatsopoulous Jack S. Parker

Erich Bloch Jane Hirsh Allen E. and Marilyn Puckett p rivate 2 1

Lewis M. Branscomb Chad and Ann Holliday Henry M. Rowan 0

George* and Virginia Bugliarello Anita K. Jones Joseph E.* and Anne P. Rowe 2 Fletcher* and Peg Byrom Trevor O. Jones Maxine L. Savitz John and Assia Cioffi Thomas Kailath Wendy and Eric Schmidt Paul and Margaret Citron Leon K.* and Olga* Kirchmayer Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull A. James Clark Jill Howell Kramer Georges C. St. Laurent Jr. W. Dale and Jeanne C. Compton John W. Landis Arnold and Constance Stancell Lance and Susan Davis Gerald and Doris Laubach Charlotte and Morry Tanenbaum Robert and Florence Deutsch David M.* and Natalie Lederman Peter and Vivian Teets Robert and Cornelia Eaton Bonnie Berger and Frank Gary and Diane Tooker Michiko So* and Lawrence Thomson Leighton Andrew and Erna Viterbi Finegold Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Jamal Robert and Joan Wertheim Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink Madni Wm. A. Wulf George and Ann Fisher Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire Alejandro Zaffaroni Harold K.* and Betty A. Forsen Joe and Glenna Moore William L. and Mary Kay Friend C. Daniel and Patricia L. Mote

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. Names in bold are NAE members. $50,000 to $99,999 John O. Hallquist Ronald P. Nordgren Anonymous Milton Harris* Richard F. Rashid William F. Allen Jr. John L. Hennessy Charles Eli Reed* Paul Baran* Michael W. Hunkapiller Ronald L. Rivest Barry W. Boehm J. Erik Jonsson* Neil R. Rolde Kristine L. Bueche Robert E. Kahn George A. Roberts Wiley N. Caldwell Paul and Julie Kaminski Mary and Harvey* Sadow William Cavanaugh Theodore C. Kennedy* Warren G. Schlinger Robert A. Charpie* John R. Kiely* Robert C.* and Eugenia* Seamans Joseph V. Charyk William F. Kieschnick H. Guyford Stever* Lester and Renee Crown Kent Kresa Leo J.* and Joanne J. Thomas Lee L. Davenport* Johanna M. Levelt Sengers Klaus D. Timmerhaus* Ruth A. David Frank W. Luerssen Julia and Johannes Weertman Thomas E. Everhart Roger L. McCarthy Robert M. White Robert W. Gore Darla and George E. Mueller Adrian Zaccaria James N. Gray* Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel $20,000 to $49,999 Andreas and Juana Acrivos Valerie and William A. Anders Kamla and Bishnu Atal Alice M. Agogino Philip M. Arnold* Isaac L. Auerbach* Clarence R. Allen Wm. Howard Arnold Jane K. and William F. Ballhaus Jr.

*Deceased

31 2012 William F. Banholzer Wesley L. Harris Eberhardt* and Deedee Rechtin David K. Barton Fred L. Hartley* Kenneth and Martha Reifsnider Roy H. Beaton* Martin C. Hemsworth* Eric Reissner* R. Byron Bird Robert and Darlene Hermann Will H. Rowand* u tions Samuel W. Bodman David and Susan Hodges Brian H. Rowe* Harold Brown Kenneth F. Holtby Jonathan J. Rubinstein Corbett Caudill Edward E. Hood Jr. Jerry Sanders III Selim A. Chacour Edward G.* and Naomi Jefferson Linda S. Sanford

contrib Sunlin Chou Min H. Kao Roland W. Schmitt G. Wayne Clough John and Wilma Kassakian Donald R. Scifres Dollie Cole James R.* and Isabelle Katzer David E. Shaw Stephen H. Crandall James N. Krebs Joel S. Spira Malcolm R. Currie Lester C. and Joan M. Krogh Robert C. Sprague* Ruth M. Davis* and Benjamin Charles C. Ladd Chauncey Starr* p rivate 2

1 Lohr Yoon-Woo Lee Raymond S. Stata 0 Gerald P. Dinneen* Norman N. Li Richard J. Stegemeier 2 Nicholas M. Donofrio Thomas J. Malone Stanley D. Stookey E. Linn Draper Jr. James F. Mathis John and Janet Swanson Mildred S. Dresselhaus Kenneth G. McKay* Daniel M. Tellep Stephen N. Finger James K. Mitchell Raymond Viskanta Samuel C. Florman John L. Moll* Robert and Robyn Wagoner Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney Van and Barbara Mow John C. Wall Donald N. Frey* Narayana Murthy and Sudha Daniel I. Wang Edgar J. Garbarini* Murty Willis H. Ware Elsa Garmire and Robert Russell Dale and Marge* Myers William L. Wearly* Richard L. and Lois E. Garwin Jaya and Venky Narayanamurti Albert and Jeannie Westwood Louis V. Gerstner Jr. John Neerhout Jr. Willis S. White Jr. Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman Robert M. and Marilyn R. Nerem Sheila E. Widnall Mary L. Good Simon Ostrach John J. Wise Joseph W. Goodman Roberto Padovani Edward Woll* William E. Gordon* Donald E. Petersen Edgar S. Woolard Paul E. Gray Dennis J. Picard A. Thomas Young Delon Hampton Joy and George* Rathmann Jim and Carole Young

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 will or by other deferred gifts. Names in bold are NAE members.

Andreas and Juana Acrivos Richard Evans* Bradford W. and Virginia W. Gene and Marian Amdahl Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink Parkinson Betsy Ancker-Johnson Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney Zack T. Pate John C. Angus Gerard F. Fox* Simon Ramo John and Elizabeth Armstrong Paul H. Gilbert Charles Eli Reed* Norman R. Augustine Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman Allen F. Rhodes* W.O. Baker* Joseph W. Goodman Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. Martin C. Hemsworth* James F. Roth Franklin H. Blecher* Anita K. Jones Dr.* and Mrs. Joseph E. Rowe Corale L. Brierley Ralph* and Claire* Landau Arnold and Constance Stancell James A. Brierley John W. Landis Dale and Audrey Stein Ross and Stephanie Corotis William W. Lang John and Janet Swanson Malcolm R. Currie Thomas M. Leps* Esther S. Takeuchi Lee L. Davenport* Thomas S. Maddock Klaus D. Timmerhaus* Ruth M. Davis* and Benjamin Artur Mager Ivan M. Viest* Lohr Gordon and Betty Moore Willis H. Ware W. Kenneth Davis* Van and Barbara Mow Robert and Joan Wertheim Mildred S. Dresselhaus Ronald P. Nordgren Wm. A. Wulf Gerard W. Elverum William and Constance Opie

*Deceased

32 NAE Annual Giving Societies The NAE gratefully acknowledges the following members and friends who made charitable contributions to the Academies during 2012. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of NAE as a national voice for engineering. u tions

The Asad, Taj, and Jamal Madni Challenge for Newer Members matched, dollar for dollar, any gift to NAE by NAE members or foreign associates elected in the classes of 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012. The Asad, Taj, and Jamal Madni Section 7 Challenge matched, dollar for dollar, any increase in a section 7 member’s 2012 giving above

that of the previous year. Participants in each challenge qualified for the various annual giving societies listed contrib below according to the combined total of their contributions and the matching amounts.

Catalyst Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed $10,000 or more in collective support for the

Academies in 2012. We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor p rivate 2 through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation. 1 0 2 Anonymous Robert W. Gore Lawrence and Carol Papay Andreas and Juana Acrivos Paul and Judy Gray§ Jack S. Parker Alice M. Agogino John O. Hallquist Ronald L. Rivest Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. John L. Hennessy Anne and Walt Robb Gordon Bell Chad and Ann Holliday Henry M. Rowan Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp Evelyn L. Hu§ Henry and Susan Samueli§ R. Byron Bird Michael W. Hunkapiller Jerry Sanders III§ Erich Bloch Ray R. Irani◊ Maxine L. Savitz Lewis M. Branscomb Joan and Irwin Jacobs David E. Shaw Selim A. Chacour◊ Anita K. Jones Arnold and Constance Stancell John and Assia Cioffi§ Robert E. Kahn Peter and Vivian Teets Paul and Margaret Citron Thomas Kailath§ Klaus D. Timmerhaus* A. James Clark Kent Kresa Gary and Diane Tooker§ Lee L. Davenport* Bonnie Berger and Frank Charles M. and Rebecca M. Vest Ruth A. David Thomson Leighton Andrew and Erna Viterbi§ Lance A. Davis Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Jamal John C. Wall◊ Ruth M. Davis* and Benjamin Madni Robert and Joan Wertheim Lohr Roger L. McCarthy Wm. A. Wulf Nicholas M. Donofrio§ Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire Adrian Zaccaria Robert and Cornelia Eaton Narayana Murthy and Sudha Gordon R. England◊ Murty◊ Friends Thomas E. Everhart§ Jaya and Venky Narayanamurti§ Michiko So* and Lawrence Peter C. Farrell◊ John Neerhout Finegold Jim and Lynn Gibbons§ Susan and Franklin M. Orr Jr. Yoon-Woo Lee Joseph W. Goodman§ Roberto Padovani§ John F. McDonnell

Rosette Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed $5,000 to $9,999 in collective support for the Academies in 2012. We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Linda M. Abriola David R. Clarke John and Wilma Kassakian Wm. Howard Arnold G. Wayne Clough James R.* and Isabelle Katzer Samuel W. Bodman James R. Fienup◊ David J. Kuck Barry W. Boehm Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney Fred C. and Leei Lee◊ Vinton G. Cerf Nan and Chuck Geschke Ralph D. Masiello◊ Joseph V. Charyk Richard D. Gitlin§ James F. Mathis Sunlin Chou§ Paul and Julie Kaminski C. Daniel and Patricia L. Mote

*Deceased §Madni Section 7 Challenge ◊Madni Challenge for Newer Members

33 2012 Cherry A. Murray§ Thomas J. Richardson◊ Edgar S. Woolard Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel Harvey W. Schadler Matthew O’Donnell◊ Richard J. Stegemeier Friend Simon Ramo Edwin L. Thomas◊ Kristine L. Bueche u tions Ken and Marty Reifsnider Robert and Robyn Wagoner

Challenge Society In recognition of NAE members and friends who contributed $2,500 to $4,999 in collective support for the contrib Academies in 2012. We acknowledge 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 Arthur Gelb◊ Clyde and Jeanette Baker Louis V. Gerstner ◊ p rivate 2 William F. Baker Mary L. Good 1 ◊

0 Becky and Tom Bergman Wesley L. Harris

2 Rodney A. Brooks Chris T. Hendrickson◊ James Burns◊ Chenming Hu§ Corbett Caudill Michael R. Johnson◊ Josephine Cheng Michael and Diana King Joseph M. Colucci Gerald and Doris Laubach Stephen H. Crandall Hau L. Lee◊ Robert L. Crippen◊ Burn-Jeng Lin§ Edith M. Flanigen Lester L. Lyles◊ Elsa M. Garmire and Robert Henrique S. Malvar◊ Russell§

Richard A. Meserve Richard B. Miles◊ James K. Mitchell Robert M. and Marilyn R. Nerem Ronald P. Nordgren Chris D. Poland◊ Harl P. Aldrich Walter L. Brown Linda S. Sanford Nicolaos G. Alexopoulos§ John H. Bruning§ Richard Scherrer◊ Clarence R. Allen Thomas and Miriam Budinger Raymond S. Stata§ John L. Anderson Jeffrey P. Buzen John and Janet Swanson◊ Minoru S. Araki M. Elizabeth Cannon◊ Julia and Johannes Weertman R. Lyndon Arscott Xianghong Cao◊ Willis S. White Jr. Thomas W. Asmus Albert Carnesale◊ David Atlas François J. Castaing Charter Society Ken Austin Don B. Chaffin § In recognition of NAE members and Wanda M. Austin Mau-Chung Chang friends who contributed $1,000 to Arthur B. Baggeroer Chau-Chyun Chen ◊ $2,499 in collective support for the James E. Barger Stephen Z. Cheng ◊ Academies in 2012. We acknowl- Craig H. Benson Uma Chowdhry edge contributions made as per- Leo L. Beranek Richard M. Christensen ◊ ◊ sonal gifts or as gifts facilitated by John R. and Pierrette G. Birge Jared L. Cohon § the donor through a donor-advised Mark T. Bohr Robert W. Conn § fund, matching gift program, or fam- Rudolph Bonaparte Esther M. Conwell ◊ ily foundation. H. Kent Bowen William J. Cook ◊ Anonymous Frank Bowman Gary L. Cowger Ronald J. Adrian Corale L. Brierley Henry Cox Mihran S. Agbabian James A. Brierley Natalie W. Crawford § William G. Agnew Alan C. Brown Malcolm R. Currie James F. Albaugh◊ Andrew Brown Glen T. Daigger Harold Brown L. Berkley Davis Pablo G. Debenedetti *Deceased §Madni Section 7 Challenge ◊Madni Challenge for Newer Members

34 NAE Thomas and Bettie Deen Eric W. Kaler◊ Donald E. Petersen Robert H. Dennard§ Melvin F. Kanninen Kurt E. Petersen§ Frederick H. Dill§ Chaitan Khosla◊ Julia M. Phillips Stephen W. Director§ Sung W. Kim Percy A. Pierre◊ u tions Ralph L. Disney James L. Kirtley William P. Pierskalla L.K. Doraiswamy*◊ Albert S. Kobayashi Mark R. Pinto◊ Elisabeth M. Drake U. Fred Kocks William F. Powers Michael T. Duke◊ Robert M. Koerner William R. Pulleyblank◊ ◊ Susan T. Dumais Demetrious Koutsoftas Henry H. Rachford contrib Farouk El-Baz Lester C. and Joan M. Krogh Prabhakar Raghavan Gerard W. Elverum Thomas F. Kuech◊ Doraiswami Ramkrishna◊ Robert E. Fenton Way Kuo Richard F. Rashid Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink Charles C. Ladd Buddy D. Ratner Bruce A. Finlayson Edward D. Lazowska Gintaras V. Reklaitis § p rivate 2 Anthony E. Fiorato James U. Lemke Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins 1 George and Ann Fisher Ronald K. Leonard George A. Roberts 0 2 Peter T. Flawn Frederick J. Leonberger§ Bernard I. Robertson Samuel C. Florman Frances and George Ligler Anatol Roshko G. David Forney§ Helmut List Gerald F. Ross§ Heather and Gordon Forward Jack E. Little William B. Russel John S. Foster Robert G. Loewy Allen S. Russell Paul G. Gaffney◊ Christopher B. Lofgren◊ Andrew P. Sage Donald P. Gaver◊ J. David Lowell Vinod K. Sahney Paul H. Gilbert Frank W. Luerssen Steven B. Sample§ Eduardo D. Glandt William J. MacKnight John M. Samuels Earnest F. Gloyna Thomas S. Maddock John H. Schmertmann Arthur L. Goldstein Artur Mager Ronald V. Schmidt§ Paul E. Gray§ John L. Mason William R. Schowalter Hermann K. Gummel§ Robert D. Maurer Henry G. Schwartz John C. Hancock§ Jyotirmoy Mazumder◊ Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull George and Daphne Hatsopoulos Kishor C. Mehta Charles R. Steele Siegfried S. Hecker James J. Mikulski§ Gunter Stein§ Thom and Grace Hodgson Richard K. Miller◊ Kenneth E. Stinson Edward E. Hood Sanjit K. Mitra§ Henry E. Stone John R. Howell Duncan T. Moore Yasuharu Suematsu§ J. Stuart Hunter Joel Moses Richard M. Swanson◊ Mary Jane Irwin Dale and Marge* Myers Charlotte and Morry Tanenbaum§ Kenji Ishihara◊ Albert Narath§ George Tchobanoglous Andrew Jackson and Lillian Philip M. Neches◊ David and Jane Tirrell Rankel◊ Paul D. Nielsen◊ Matthew V. Tirrell Wilhelmina and Stephen Jaffe James J. Padilla James A. Trainham Leah H. Jamieson Claire L. Parkinson◊ Hardy W. Trolander George W. Jeffs Shela and Kumar Patel§ Richard H. Truly Barry C. Johnson§ Syd S. Peng James E. Turner G. Frank Joklik Thomas K. Perkins A. Galip Ulsoy

Darsh T. Wasan Warren and Mary Washington Walter J. Weber Jr. Albert and Jeannie Westwood

Robert M. White Israel J. Wygnanski Yannis C. Yortsos J. Turner Whitted Beverly and Loring Wyllie William D. Young Herbert H. Woodson William W-G. Yeh Mark D. Zoback◊ Richard N. Wright Paul G. Yock◊

*Deceased §Madni Section 7 Challenge ◊Madni Challenge for Newer Members

35 2012 Friends Douglas M. Chapin Steve and Nancy Goldstein Anne Burnett Vernon L. Chartier Solomon W. Golomb§ Evelyn S. Jones Gang and Tracy Chen◊ David J. Goodman§ Andrew R. Chraplyvy§ Roy W. Gould§ u tions Other Individual Donors Robert P. Clagett Thomas E. Graedel John L. Cleasby Gary S. Grest In recognition of NAE members ◊ and friends who contributed up to James J. Coleman Barbara J. Grosz John P. Connolly◊ Karl A. Gschneidner $999 in collective support for the § contrib Richard A. Conway Jerrier A. Haddad Academies in 2012. We acknowl- ◊ edge contributions made as per- Stuart L. Cooper Robert S. Hahn sonal gifts or as gifts facilitated by Fernando J. Corbato Carl W. Hall Richard W. Couch Carol K. Hall the donor through a donor-advised § fund, matching gift program, or fam- Lawrence B. Curtis Robert N. Hall David E. Daniel William J. Hall p rivate 2 ily foundation. § 1 Anonymous (2) Paul D. Dapkus Thomas L. Hampton 0 Delbert E. Day Niels Hansen 2 Hiroyuki Abe H. Norman Abramson Raymond F. Decker William H. Hansmire Armen Der Kiureghian◊ John M. Hanson Paul A. Allaire ◊ Charles A. Amann Joseph M. DeSimone James S. Harris John G. Anderson George E. Dieter Henry J. Hatch Alfredo H. Ang Robert H. Dodds Adam Heller Albert A. Dorman Martin E. Hellman§ John C. Angus § § Frank F. Aplan Irwin Dorros Robert W. Hellwarth Ali S. Argon Earl H. Dowell Larry L. Hench James R. Asay E. Linn Draper Jr. Joseph M. Hendrie Donald W. Bahr T. Dixon Dudderar Arthur H. Heuer Grigory I. Barenblatt Ira Dyer Gerald D. Hines James B. Bassingthwaighte David A. Dzombak George J. Hirasaki Peter S. Eagleson John P. Hirth Richard H. Battin § Zdenek P. Bazant Helen T. Edwards William C. Hittinger Georges and Marlene Belfort Manuel Elices David G. Hoag Mark G. Benz Menachem Elimelech Lester A. Hoel Toby Berger§ Bruce R. Ellingwood Allan S. Hoffman Philip A. Bernstein Tony F. Embleton Edward E. Horton § Richard E. Emmert Salim M. Ibrahim James R. Biard § § Jack L. Blumenthal Joel S. Engel Tatsuo Itoh John V. Evans§ Tatsuo Izawa Alfred Blumstein ◊ George H. Born Lawrence B. Evans Linos J. Jacovides Lillian C. Borrone Robert M. Fano Paul C. Jennings Richard G. Farmer* James O. Jirsa Rafael L. Bras § Clyde L. Briant◊ Joseph Feinstein Donald L. Johnson Millard and Barbara Firebaugh Marshall G. Jones Peter R. Bridenbaugh § Yvonne C. Brill John W. Fisher Angel G. Jordan Merton C. Flemings M. Frans Kaashoek Frederick P. Brooks § Howard J. Bruschi Judson C. French John W. Kalb Eli Fromm Ahsan Kareem◊ Randal E. Bryant ◊ Jack E. Buffington Shun Chong Fung Mujid S. Kazimi James D. Callen Theodore V. Galambos Howard H. Kehrl Joe C. Campbell§ Zvi Galil Timothy L. Killeen John M. Campbell Jacques S. Gansler Judson and Jeanne King Max W. Carbon◊ Edwin A. Gee Oliver D. Kingsley E. Dean Carlson Ronald L. Geer Bernard L. Koff Maryellen Giger◊ Max A. Kohler William J. Carroll ◊ ◊ William Cavanaugh Jacqueline G. Gish Jindrich Kopecek George J. Gleghorn Bill and Ann Koros A. Ray Chamberlain ◊ K.M. Chandy Richard J. Goldstein Richard W. Korsmeyer

*Deceased §Madni Section 7 Challenge ◊Madni Challenge for Newer Members

36 NAE Gerald L. Kulcinski Richard K. Moore* Peter W. Sauer John M. Kulicki John W. Morris Thorndike Saville Derrick M. Kuzak◊ Walter E. Morrow§ Robert F. Sawyer Stephanie L. Kwolek A. Stephen Morse§ Robert S. Schechter Richard T. Lahey Gerard A. Mourou§ Robert A. Scholtz◊ u tions T.W. Lambe Earll M. Murman Walter J. Schrenk James L. Lammie Gerald Nadler Albert B. Schultz David A. Landgrebe Devaraysamudram R. Nagaraj Mischa Schwartz§

William W. Lang R. Shankar Nair Norman R. Scott contrib Carl G. Langner Alan Needleman Hratch G. Semerjian Robert C. Lanphier Stuart O. Nelson Robert J. Serafin Louis J. Lanzerotti Joseph H. Newman F. Stan Settles Cato T. Laurencin◊ Robert E. Nickell Don W. Shaw Alan Lawley David Okrent* Thomas B. Sheridan p rivate 2

Margaret A. LeMone Robert S. O’Neil Martin B. Sherwin 1 Johanna M. Levelt Sengers Elaine S. Oran Neil G. Siegel 0 Herbert S. Levinson David H. Pai Daniel P. Siewiorek 2 Kenneth Levy Athanassios Z. Panagiotopoulos Arnold H. Silver§ Salomon Levy Stavros S. Papadopulos◊ Peter G. Simpkins Paul A. Libby Bradford W. and Virginia W. R. Paul Singh Peter W. Likins Parkinson Jack M. Sipress§ Robert A. Lindeman◊ Donald R. Paul Alvy R. Smith Kuo-Nan Liou Arogyaswami J. Paulraj§ Henry I. Smith§ Nathan and Barbara Liskov H.W. Paxton Gurindar S. Sohi◊ Andrew J. Lovinger Donald W. Peaceman Soroosh Sorooshian Mark and Mary Lundstrom◊ P. Hunter Peckham Alfred Z. Spector Verne L. Lynn Norbert J. Pelc◊ Dale F. Stein J. Ross and Margaret Macdonald§ Alan W. Pense Dean E. Stephan Malcolm MacKinnon Nicholas A. Peppas Gregory Stephanopoulos Subhash Mahajan John H. Perepezko Thomas G. Stephens James W. Mar Henry Petroski Kenneth H. Stokoe William F. Marcuson Karl S. Pister Howard and Valerie Stone◊ Robert C. Marini Stephen B. Pope◊ Richard G. Strauch Hans Mark Michael Prats Gerald B. Stringfellow James J. Markowsky William R. Prindle Stanley C. Suboleski Tobin J. Marks Ronald F. Probstein James M. Symons David K. Matlock Charles W. Pryor Rodney J. Tabaczynski William C. Maurer Edwin P. Przybylowicz James M. Tien Walter J. McCarthy Kaushik Rajashekara◊ William F. Tinney William J. McCroskey Vivian and Subbiah Ramalingam Spencer R. Titley William McGuire Robert H. Rediker§ Alvin W. Trivelpiece Ross E. McKinney Eli Reshotko Stephen D. Umans◊ Diane M. McKnight◊ John R. Rice John M. Undrill◊ Robert M. McMeeking Jerome G. Rivard Moshe Y. Vardi Terence P. McNulty Stephen M. Robinson Walter G. Vincenti Alan L. McWhorter§ Stanley T. Rolfe Thomas H. Vonder Haar Chiang C. Mei Arye Rosen§ Irv Waaland Harry W. Mergler§ Howard B. Rosen Wallace R. Wade◊ Angelo Miele Kenneth M. Rosen Steven J. Wallach James A. Miller Arthur H. Rosenfeld◊ C. Michael Walton Warren F. Miller Hans T. Rossby John D. Warner Keith K. Millheim Jean E. Sammet Michael S. Waterman

*Deceased §Madni Section 7 Challenge ◊Madni Challenge for Newer Members

37 2012 John T. Watson Sheldon Weinig Wilford F. Weeks Paul B. Weisz Robert J. Weimer Jasper A. Welch Lawrence M. Wein◊ Marvin H. White§ u tions Sheldon Weinbaum Robert M. White Andrew M. Weiner§ Robert V. Whitman* David A. Woolhiser Eli Yablonovitch§ contrib Roe-Hoan Yoon Laurence R. Young Paul Zia Ben T. Zinn Dusan S. Zrnic Tributes p rivate 2 In memory of James R. Burnett – 1

0 Friends Anne Burnett 2 Sharon P. Gross In memory of Michiko So – Radka Z. Nebesky Lawrence S. Finegold Elizabeth J. Szekely In memory of Daniel J. Fink – Elizabeth Whitman Tobie Fink

In memory of William Gross – Sharon Gross In memory of Howard S. Jones – Evelyn S. Jones Foundations, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Corporations, and Other Organizations Annual In recognition of foundations, cor- Lifetime porations, and other organizations In recognition of foundations, cor- that contributed to NAE in 2012. porations, and other organizations that have made lifetime contribu- A-dec, Inc. tions of Avid Solutions Industrial Process $1 million or more to NAE. Control The Bechtel Foundation AT&T Corporation S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation Bell Family Foundation The Boeing Company Tom and Becky Bergman Fund DaimlerChrysler Corporation Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp The Charles Stark Draper Fund Laboratory Bessemer Trust E.I. du Pont de Nemours & The Bodman Foundation Company The Boeing Company Ford Motor Company Branscomb Family Foundation General Electric Company CA Technologies General Motors Company Castaing Family Foundation The Grainger Foundation Chevron Humankind Matching International Business Machines Gift Program Corporation Cummins Business Services JSM Charitable Trust The Thomas and Bettie Deen Lockheed Martin Corporation Charitable Gift Fund McDonnell Douglas Corporation Deere & Company The Andrew W. Mellon The Walt Disney Company Foundation The Dow Chemical Company O’Donnell Foundation The Charles Stark Draper The Ohio University Foundation Laboratory Robert Pritzker Family Foundation Employees Charity Organization

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 or [email protected] so we can correct our records.

38 NAE 2012 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 2012 and 2011. 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 2012, 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 2012, 2.8 percent was allocated for normal operating expenses and 3.2 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 2012, the effective draw was 3.1%.

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) 2012 2011

NET ASSETS, BEGINNING $59,555 $61,226 CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET 700 1,013

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

OPERATIONS

Revenue Contributions (Unrestricted) $1,554 $1,292 Dues (Annual), Fees, Miscellaneous 242 234 Indirect Allowance From Contracts and Grants 3,622 3,456 Award Specific Funds Allocation to Operations* 1,815 2,191 Program Specific Funds Allocation to Operations* 4,658 3,697 Unrestricted Allocation to Operations 1,602 1,662

Total Operations Revenue $13,493 $12,532

Expenses Awards $1,825 $2,202 Development 856 879 Management 2,642 2,558 Membership 1,652 1,511 National Academies Activities 238 249 Programs 5,501 4,786

Total Operations Expenses $12,714 $12,185

OPERATIONS SURPLUS $779 $347

NONOPERATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

Allocation to Operations ($6,302) ($5,113) Contributions to Reserves 2,900 3,073 Dues (Lifetime), Miscellaneous 117 121 Gain on Investments 4,887 (139) Investment Earnings (Interest and Dividends) 345 519 Investment Fees/UBIT Taxes (386) (479)

NONOPERATIONAL GAIN $1,561 ($2,018)

NET ASSETS, ENDING $61,895 $59,555

CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET 1,643 700

TOTAL ASSETS, ENDING $63,538 $60,255

*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 2012 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FUND December 31, 2012 and 2011 (-! (+( +.,-, -"('% &2( ' "'+"' .' (-! (+( +.,-, ,!"'(-! (+( +.,-, -(' -"('% &2( ' "'+"' .' -"('% &2( '(-! (+( +.,-, "'+"' .' ,!"'(-! (+( +.,-, -(' ,!"'-"('% &2( ' -(' "'+"' .' -"('% &2( ' "'+"' .' ,!"' -(' ,!"'(-! (+( +.,-, -(' !/."--!(&)'2"'-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .' "''"%,--&'-,( -! -"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! ,!"' (-! (+( +.,-, -(' !/."--!(&)'2"'.'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( "''"%,--&'-,( -!&+ '-!+%-,--&'-,-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! !/."--!(&)'2"'-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .' "''"%,--&'-,( -! -"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! !/."--!(&)'2"' .'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( ( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+ "''"%,--&'-,( -! %-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,&+ '-!+%-,--&'-,-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! ,!"'.'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( -(' &+ '-!+%-,--&'-, !/."--!(&)'2"'( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+.'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( "''"%,--&'-,( -!%-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,&+ '-!+%-,--&'-,-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! !/."--!(&)'2"'( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+ "''"%,--&'-,( -! %-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! ( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+.'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( %-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,&+ '-!+%-,--&'-, .'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( &+ '-!+%-,--&'-, !/."--!(&)'2"'( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+ "''"%,--&'-,( -!%-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! ' ( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+ &'-",+,)(',"% (+-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'- %-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,-"('( -!, "''"%,--&'-,"' (+'0"-!(.'-"' .'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( )+"'")%, '+%%2)-"'-!&+ '-!+%-,--&'-,'"---,( &+" -!","'%.,-! '!/."--!(&)'2"' &'-",+,)(',"% (+-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'- "''"%,--&'-,( -!-"('( -!, "''"%,--&'-,"'-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .'-! '," ( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+ '"&)%&'--"(''&"'-''( "'-+'%('-+(%+ &'-",+,)(',"% (+-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'- %-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,%/'--(-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('( -"('( -!, "''"%,--&'-,"' (+'0"-!(.'-"'.'0!"!(&)+",-!,--&'-( "''"%)(,"-"(',( )+"'")%, '+%%2)-"'-!&+ '-!+%-,--&'-,'"---,( &+" -!","'%.,-! (+'0"-!(.'-"'' "''"%,--&'-,-!-+ + +(&&-+"%&",,--&'- &'-",+,)(',"% (+-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'- )+"'")%, '+%%2)-"'-!0!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'"---,( &+" -!","'%.,-!-"('( -!, "''"%,--&'-,"' ,"'( -"/"-",',! %(0, (+-!2+-!'''-!+ '"&)%&'--"(''&"'-''( "'-+'%('-+(%+ &'-",+,)(',"% (+-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'-%-'(-,-(-! "''"%,--&'-,%/'--(-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('( -"('( -!, "''"%,--&'-,"' (+'0"-!(.'-"'," '"&)%&'--"(''&"'-''( "'-+'%('-+(%+ )+"'")%, '+%%2)-"'-!%/'--(-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('( '"---,( &+" -!","'%.,-! (+'0"-!(.'-"' "''"%,--&'-,-!-+ + +(&&-+"%&",,--&'- )+"'")%, '+%%2)-"'-!0!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'"---,( &+" -!","'%.,-! '," "''"%,--&'-,-!-+ + +(&&-+"%&",,--&'- '"&)%&'--"(''&"'-''( "'-+'%('-+(%+ &'-",+,)(',"% (+-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'- 0!-!+.-( +.(+++(+%/'--(-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('( -"('( -!, "''"%,--&'-,"' ," "''"%,--&'-,-!-+ + +(&&-+"%&",,--&'- '"&)%&'--"(''&"'-''( "'-+'%('-+(%+ 0!-!+.-( +.(+++(+%/'--(-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('( (+'0"-!(.'-"'.++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% "''"%,--&'-,-!-+ + +(&&-+"%&",,--&'- )+"'")%, '+%%2)-"'-!,--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.+0!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'"---,( &+" -!","'%.,-! ' &'-",+,)(',"% (+-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'- -"('( -!, "''"%,--&'-,"' ,"."-"'(+'0"-!."-"' '"&)%&'--"(''&"'-''( "'-+'%('-+(%+ ,-'+, '+%%2)-%/'--(-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('( "'-!'"---,( &+"!(, (+'0"-!(.'-"' .++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% )+"'")%, '+%%2)-"'-!,--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.+'"---,( &+" -!","'%.,-! ,-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"' "''"%,--&'-,-!-+ + +(&&-+"%&",,--&'-.++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% ,--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.+0!-!+.-( +.(+++(++,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-! ,"."-"'(+'0"-!."-"'.++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% '"&)%&'--"(''&"'-''( "'-+'%('-+(%+ ,-'+, '+%%2)-,--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.+%/'--(-!)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('( "'-!'"---,( &+"!(, "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'-."-"'(+'0"-!."-"'.++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% ,-'+, '+%%2)-,--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.+"'-!'"---,( &+"!(, ,-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"'."-"'(+'0"-!."-"'.++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% "''"%,--&'-,-!-+ + +(&&-+"%&",,--&'- ,-'+, '+%%2)-,--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.+0!-!+.-( +.(+++(++,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-!"'-!'"---,( &+"!(, ."-"'(+'0"-!."-"',-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"' ,-'+, '+%%2)-+,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-!"'-!'"---,( &+"!(, "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'-."-"'(+'0"-!."-"',-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"' ,-'+, '+%%2)-+,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-!"'-!'"---,( &+"!(, '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"' "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'-,-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"' )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"'+,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-!(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-! "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'-,-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"' .++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% ,--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.++,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-! "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!. "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'- "-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'- '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"'."-"'(+'0"-!."-"' )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"' ,-'+, '+%%2)-"'-!'"---,( &+"!(,(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-! -!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-, '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"'.++,)(',""%"-2",-(1)+,,'()"'"('('-!, "''"% )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"',--&'-,,('(.+."-('.-(.+0!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"'(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-! -!(, "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!. '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"',-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"' )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"'+,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-!(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-!"-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( +",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/ '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"' "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!.."-"'(+'0"-!."-"' )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"' ,-'+, '+%%2)-'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('"'-!'"---,( &+"!(,(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-!"-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( -!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-, '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"' "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'- "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!. )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"'0!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"'(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-!"-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( -!(, -!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-,( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!.,-'+,+*."+-!-0)%'')+ (+&-!."--((-"' '."-)+(.+0,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.-+,('%,,.+'(.-0!-!+-!!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"'"-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( -!(, +",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/-!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-, "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!. 0'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"'"-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( -!(, '(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"'-!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-,+",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/ "''"%,--&'-,+ +( &-+"%&",,--&'- '()"'"('('-! -"/'0'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"(',,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"'!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"' -!(, %20 -!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-,+",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/ '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"'( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"' '."-)+(.+0,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.-'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"'(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-! -!(, 1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"'+",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," '."-)+(.+ -!,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.-'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"('))+()+"-',,( (.'-"' )(%"",.,' '(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"'+",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/ "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!.( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," '()"'"('('-! -"/' '."-)+(.+,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.-'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"(',,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"'"-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( %20 -!+,('%',,( ,"'(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"' '."-"'/(%/,)+ (+&"'( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," '" "'-(.'-"' )+(.+,-((-"'."-/"' '()"'"('('-! -"/' '."-)+(.+,-"&-,&2,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.-,,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"'(.--!&(.'-,'",%(,.+,"'-!&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' -!(/+%% %20 1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"''(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"'-!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-,( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," '()"'"('('-! -"/' '."-)+(.+ -!0,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.-,,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"'))+()+"-',,( (.'-"'!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"' )(%"",.,' -!(, %20 )+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-,1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"''(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"' "''"%,--&'-,!)+(.+,,%-)'('-!. '()"'"('('-! -"/' -!,,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"'))+()+"-',,( (.'-"'"-(+3,#. &'-"'%."' -!,,,,&'-( )(%"",.,' %20 -!+,('%',,( ,"1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"''(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"'+",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/ '" "'-(.'-"' '()"'"('('-! -"/' ,-"&-,&2 -!'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"(',,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"'))+()+"-',,( (.'-"'&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' )(%"",.,' -!(/+%% %20 -!+,('%',,( ,"1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"'-!+",$,( &-+"%&",,--&'-( -! "''"%,--&'-, '" "'-(.'-"' ,-"&-,&2 -!0))+()+"-',,( (.'-"'!-!+.-( +.(+++(+'&$"'&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' )(%"",.,' -!(/+%% -!(, )+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-,-!+,('%',,( ,"1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"'( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," '" "'-(.'-"' '."-)+(.+,-"&-,&2 -!,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.-))+()+"-',,( (.'-"'&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' )(%"",.,' -!(/+%% %"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. "")+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-,-!+,('%',,( ,"+",$,,,,&'-,-!."-(+(',"+,"'-+'%('-+(%+%/ '" "'-(.'-"' ,-"&-,&2'--(-!'-"-23,)+)+-"('' "+)+,'--"(''-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' -!(/+%% )+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-,-!+,('%',,( ,"'(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"' '" "'-(.'-"' '()"'"('('-! -"/' ,-"&-,&2,,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"'&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' -!(/+%% %20 ."-()"'"(')+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-,( -! "''"%,--&'-,"'(++-(," '."-)+(.+,-!-+))+()+"-"'-!"+.&,-',.- )+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-,%"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. ""1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"' -!'-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+))+()+"-',,( (.'-"' )(%"",.,' %"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. ""'(- (+-!).+)(,( 1)+,,"' '()"'"('('-! -"/',,( -!'-"-23,"'-+'%('-+(% (+"''-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+ %20 ."-()"'"('%"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. ""-!+,('%',,( ," '" "'-(.'-"' ,-"&-,&2'-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' -!(/+%% %"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. ""."-()"'"('1)+,,'(,.!()"'"(' '."-%,("'%.,/%.-"' -!'-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+))+()+"-',,( (.'-"' )(%"",.,' %"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. "")+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-,."-()"'"(' '-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+ ."-()"'"('-!+,('%',,( ," '" "'-(.'-"' ,-"&-,&2&' &'-,0%%,/%.-"' -!(/+%% ."-()"'"(' '(.+()"'"('-! "''"%,--&'-,+ ++-((/)+%"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. "")+,'--"('( -! "''"%,--&'-, ,'- "+%2"'%%&-+"%+,)-,-! "''"%'-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+ ."-()"'"(')(,"-"('( -!-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .',( &+ '-!!' ,"'"-,'- '(.+()"'"('-! "''"%,--&'-,+ ++-((/)+ ,'- "+%2"'%%&-+"%+,)-,-! "''"% %"/-!--!."-/"'0!/(-"'",,. "",,-,'"-,,! %(0, (+-!2+-!''"'(+''(.+()"'"('-! "''"%,--&'-,+ ++-((/)+ ,'- "+%2"'%%&-+"%+,)-,-! "''"%'-'))+()+"--()+(/",", (+(.+0"-!(.'-"' )+"'")%, '+%%2)- )(,"-"('( -!-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .',( &+ '-!!' ,"'"-,'- '(.+()"'"('-! "''"%,--&'-,+ ++-((/)+."-()"'"('"'-!'"---,( &+")(,"-"('( -!-"('% &2( ' "'+"' .',( ,'- "+%2"'%%&-+"%+,)-,-! "''"%&+ '-!!' ,"'"-,'- '(.+()"'"('-! "''"%,--&'-,+ ++-((/)+,,-,'"-,,! %(0, (+-!2+-!''"'(+','- "+%2"'%%&-+"%+,)-,-! "''"%0"-!(.'-"' )+"'")%, '+%%2)- )(,"-"('( -!-"('% &2( ',,-,'"-,,! %(0, (+-!2+-!''"'(+' "'+"' .',( 0"-!(.'-"'&+ '-!!' )+"'")%, '+%%2)- ,"'"-,'- )(,"-"('( -!-"('% &2( '"'-!'"---,( &+" "'+"' .',( &+ '-!!' ,"'"-,'- '(.+()"'"('-! "''"%,--&'-,+ ++-((/)+ ,,-,'"-,,! %(0, (+-!2+-!''"'(+'"'-!'"---,( &+" ,'- "+%2"'%%&-+"%+,)-,-! "''"%0"-!(.'-"' )+"'")%, '+%%2)- "'-!'"---,( &+",,-,'"-,,! %(0, (+-!2+-!''"'(+' 0"-!(.'-"' )+"'")%, '+%%2)- )(,"-"('( -!-"('% &2( '! "''"%,--&'-,( -!.',( ' (+-!2+"'-!'"---,( &+" "'+"' .',( '&+ 0+."-2(-!+&+ '-!!' ,"'"-,'- '(.+()"'"('-! "''"%,--&'-,+ ++-((/)+ ,'- "+%2"'%%&-+"%+,)-,-! "''"% ."-(+,0!(,+)(+--21)+,,'.'&(" ,,-,'"-,,! %(0, (+-!2+-!''"'(+' 0"-!(.'-"'"()"'"('('-!(,,--&'-, )+"'")%, '+%%2)- )(,"-"('( -!-"('% &2( ' ! "''"%,--&'-,( -!.',( ' (+-!2+ "'+"' .',( '&+ 0+."-2(-!+&+ '-!!' ,"'"-,'- "'-!'"---,( &+"! "''"%,--&'-,( -!.',( ' (+-!2+'&+ 0+."-2(-!+ ,,-,'"-,,! %(0, (+-!2+-!''"'(+'."-(+,0!(,+)(+--21)+,,'.'&(" 0"-!(.'-"'"()"'"('('-!(,,--&'-, )+"'")%, '+%%2)- ! "''"%,--&'-,( -!.',( ' (+-!2+ '&+ 0+."-2(-!+ ! "''"%,--&'-,( -!.',( ' (+-!2+"'-!'"---,( &+"."-(+,0!(,+)(+--21)+,,'.'&(" '&+ 0+."-2(-!+"()"'"('('-!(,,--&'-, ."-(+,0!(,+)(+--21)+,,'.'&(" "()"'"('('-!(,,--&'-, ."-(+,0!(,+)(+--21)+,,'.'&(" "()"'"('('-!(,,--&'-, ! "''"%,--&'-,( -!.',( ' (+-!2+ '&+ 0+."-2(-!+ ."-(+,0!(,+)(+--21)+,,'.'&(" "-!+,.+ +2%' "()"'"('('-!(,,--&'-, ! "''"%,--&'-,( -!.',( ' (+-!2+2 '&+ 0+."-2(-!+ "-!+,.+ +2%' ."-(+,0!(,+)(+--21)+,,'.'&(" 2 "-!+,.+ +2%' "()"'"('('-!(,,--&'-, 2 2 "-!+,.+ +2%' 2 "-!+,.+ +2%' 2 "-!+,.+ +2%' 2 "-!+,.+ +2%' 2 42 NAE National Academy of Engineering Fund Statements of Financial Position

December 31, 2012 2011

Assets

Current Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,275,508 $ 532,735 Prepaid expenses 73,342 3,052 Short-term investments 2,285,150 1,165,061 Investment draw receivable 1,321,129 — Promises to give 340,102 227,250 Award medals and other assets 23,505 51,676 Total current assets 5,318,736 1,979,774

Non-current Assets Promises to give – long-term portion, net 783,432 69,447 Beneficial interest in split interest agreements 519,842 403,369 Investments 58,063,265 58,444,297 Total non-current assets 59,366,539 58,917,113

Total assets $ 64,685,275 $ 60,896,887

Liabilities And Net Assets

Current Liabilities Accounts payable – National Academy of Sciences $ 1,147,645 $ 641,972

Net Assets Unrestricted 24,620,450 22,597,682 Temporarily restricted 9,207,863 8,447,916 Permanently restricted 29,709,317 29,209,317 Total net assets 63,537,630 60,254,915

Total liabilities and net assets $ 64,685,275 $ 60,896,887

See Notes To Financial Statements.

43 2012 National Academy of Engineering Fund Statement of Activities

Year Ended December 31,

2012 Temporarily Permanently Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Support and revenue: Contributions $ 1,458,280 $ 3,321,872 $ 500,000 $ 5,280,152 Realized gain on investments 394,356 453,745 — 848,101 Interest and dividends 160,769 183,947 — 344,716 Membership dues 244,180 — — 244,180 Registration fees 110,865 — — 110,865 Miscellaneous revenue 4,249 — — 4,249 Net assets released from restrictions: Satisfaction of program restrictions 5,030,492 (5,030,492) — — Satisfaction of time restrictions 71,625 (71,625) — — Total support and revenue 7,474,816 (1,142,553) 500,000 6,832,263

Expenses: Program services: Programs 3,423,647 — — 3,423,647 Awards 1,825,597 — — 1,825,597 Member programs 398,083 — — 398,083 Support for NRC and NAS 237,851 — — 237,851 5,885,178 — — 5,885,178

Support services: Operations 963,765 — — 963,765 Fundraising 856,313 — — 856,313 1,820,078 — — 1,820,078 Total expenses 7,705,256 — — 7,705,256

Change in net assets before unrealized gain on investments (230,440) (1,142,553) 500,000 (872,993)

Unrealized gain on investment 2,253,208 1,902,500 — 4,155,708

Change in net assets 2,022,768 759,947 500,000 3,282,715

Net assets: Beginning 22,597,682 8,447,916 29,209,317 60,254,915

Ending $ 24,620,450 $ 9,207,863 $ 29,709,317 $ 63,537,630

See Notes To Financial Statements.

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

Year Ended December 31,

2011 Temporarily Permanently Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Support and revenue: Contributions $ 1,183,480 $ 2,996,471 $ — $ 4,179,951 Realized gain on investments 974,373 742,024 — 1,716,397 Interest and dividends 294,366 224,714 — 519,080 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 (3,836,391) — — Satisfaction of time restrictions 37,927 (37,927) — — Total support and revenue 6,681,509 88,791 — 6,770,300

Expenses: Program services: Awards 2,202,266 — — 2,202,266 Programs 2,064,917 — — 2,064,917 Member programs 325,848 — — 325,848 Support for NRC and NAS 248,500 — — 248,500 4,841,531 — — 4,841,531

Support services: Operations 1,070,998 — — 1,070,998 Fundraising 878,938 — — 878,938 1,949,936 1,949,936 Total expenses 6,791,467 — — 6,791,467

Changes in net assets before unrealized gain (loss) on investments (109,958) 88,791 — (21,167)

Unrealized 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 24,518,821 8,510,769 29,209,317 62,238,907

Ending $ 22,597,682 $ 8,447,916 $ 29,209,317 $ 60,254,915

See Notes To Financial Statements.

45 2012 National Academy of Engineering Fund Statement of Cash Flows

Years Ended December 31, 2012 2011

Cash Flows From Operating Activities Changes in net assets $ 3,282,715 $ (1,983,992) Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash used in operating activities: Realized gain on investments (848,101) (1,716,397) Unrealized (gain) loss on investments (4,155,708) 1,962,825 Contributions restricted to investment in perpetuity (500,000) — Changes in assets and liabilities: (Increase) decrease in: Promises to give (826,837) 225,823 Beneficial interest in split interest agreements (116,473) 87,467 Award medals and other assets 28,171 30,052 Prepaid expenses (70,290) (97) Increase (decrease) in: Accounts payable – National Academy of Sciences 505,673 (63,682) Net cash used in operating activities (2,700,850) (1,458,001)

Cash Flows From Investing Activities Proceeds from sale of investments 29,373,598 31,378,721 Purchases of investments (25,108,846) (29,634,025) Investment draw in transit (1,321,129) — Net cash provided by investing activities 2,943,623 1,744,696

Cash Flows From Financing Activities Contributions restricted to investment in perpetuity 500,000 — 500,000 —

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 742,773 286,695

Cash And Cash Equivalents: Beginning 532,735 246,040

Ending 1,275,508 532,735

Supplemental Disclosure Of Cash Flow Information Cash paid for taxes $ 97,071 $ 55,515

See Notes To Financial Statements.

46 NAE National Academy of Engineering Fund Notes to Financial Statements

NOTE 1 — Nature Of Activities And Temporarily restricted net assets–Temporarily Significant Accounting Policies restricted net assets consist of amounts that are subject to donor-imposed time or purpose Nature of Activities restrictions and income earned on temporarily The National Academy of Engineering Fund (the and permanently restricted net assets. The Fund Fund) is an independent non-profit organization is permitted to use or expend the donated assets established by the National Academy of Engineering in accordance with the donor restriction. (NAE) to collect and disburse funds for accomplish- ing the goals of NAE. NAE operates within the Permanently restricted net assets–Permanently charter and framework of the National Academy restricted net assets consist of assets whose use is of Sciences (NAS), which accounts for NAE’s limited by donor-imposed restrictions that neither expenses. The operating expenditures of NAE are expire by the passage of time nor can be fulfilled accounted for by offices of NAS, and are offset by or otherwise removed by action of the Fund. The reimbursement from funds received from the Fund restrictions stipulate that resources be maintained and from contracts and grants administered by NAS. permanently, but permit the Fund to expend the The net expenditures of NAE are paid by the Fund income generated in accordance with the provi- to balance accounts with NAS. sions of the agreement. Permanently restricted net assets consist of the following: A summary of the Fund’s significant accounting policies follows: represents an endowment given by the donor for the purpose of establishing Basis of Accounting and awarding an annual prize in honor of the memory of Charles Stark Draper. It is the The Fund’s financial statements are prepared using Fund’s intention to use the investment earn- the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with ings of the endowment to cover the expenses the generally accepted accounting principles in the incurred in connection with administration United States of America (US GAAP), whereby rev- of the prize and in providing the honorarium enue is recognized when earned and expenses are awarded with the prize. recognized when incurred.

Gordon Prize Basis of Presentation represents an endowment given by the donor for the purpose of establishing The Fund follows the Not-for-Profit Topic of and awarding an annual prize in honor of the Financial Accounting Standards Board Bernard M. Gordon. It is the Fund’s intention (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (the to use the investment earnings of the endow- Codification). Under this Topic, the Fund is required ment to cover the expenses incurred in con- to report the information regarding its financial nection with administration of the prize and position and activities according to three classes in providing the honorarium awarded with of net assets: unrestricted net assets, temporarily the prize. restricted net assets, and permanently restricted net assets. The three classes of net assets are as follows: Capital Preservation and Hans Reissner represent endowments requiring principal be main- Unrestricted net assets–Unrestricted net assets tained in perpetuity and that only the income generally result from revenue derived from pro- be used for general operations of NAE. viding services, receiving unrestricted contributions, unrealized and realized gains and losses, Hollomon represents an endowment requiring and receiving dividends and interest from invest- that the principal be maintained in perpetuity ing in income-producing assets, less expenses and that the income be used to support the incurred in providing services, raising contribu- Hollomon Fellow. tions, and performing administrative functions.

47 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 1 — Nature Of Activities And Promises to Give Significant Accounting Policies Unconditional promises to give are recognized (continued) as revenue and receivables in the period the promises are made. Unconditional promises to Ramo Founders Award represents an endow- give that are expected to be collected within one ment requiring that the principal be main- year are recorded at their net realizable value. tained in perpetuity and that the income be Unconditional promises to give that are expected used to support the “Ramo Founders Award” to be collected in future years are recorded at the given each year at the annual meeting. present value of their estimated future cash flows. The discounts on those amounts are computed Industry Scholar represents an endowment to using risk-free interest rates commensurate with support fellowships for recently retired cor- the risk involved applicable to the years in which porate executives to assist with strategy and the promises are received. The discount rates used management of program activities in NAE range from 0.25% to 0.90% for the years ended and the National Research Council (NRC). December 31, 2012 and 2011. Amortization of the discounts is included in contribution revenue. Senior Scholar represents an endowment to Based on management’s evaluation of the col- support an outstanding member of industry or lectability of receivables, there is no provision for another field working as an advisor and assis- doubtful promises to give at December 31, 2012 tant to the president of NAE in the manage- and 2011. Conditional promises to give are not ment and execution of NAE’s programmatic included as support until the conditions are sub- activities. stantially met.

Young Engineer represents an endowment to Split-interest Agreements support programs aimed at engaging engi- Charitable gift annuity agreements are classified neers at a younger age in the activities of as a beneficial interest in split interest agreements NAE, and to provide an opportunity to iden- in the statements of financial position. The Fund tify nominees from industry for membership has been notified that it was designated as the in NAE. remainder beneficiary for several charitable remainder trusts. The Fund has an agreement with NAS Wm. A. Wulf Initiative for Engineering whereas NAS and not the Fund serves as the trustee Excellence represents an endowment to of the assets. The Fund has recorded an asset and ensure the future of programs that Bill Wulf contribution revenue equal to the present value of instituted as president and provide his suc- the remainder interest. The remainder interest was cessor some flexibility in addressing the most determined by using the fair market value of trust pressing issues before the engineering com- assets, less the estimated distributions to the income munity and the nation at any given time. beneficiary over the Trust term. Upon termination of an annuity, the remainder interest in the asset is Cash and Cash Equivalents available for use by the Fund as restricted or unre- For purposes of reporting cash flows, the Fund con- stricted assets in accordance with the donor’s des- siders all investments purchased with an original ignation. On an annual basis, the Fund re-measures maturity of three months or less to be cash equiva- the value of the asset using current assumptions. lents, except for the cash in the investment portfo- Any change in such value is recorded as a change lio, which will be reinvested on a long-term basis. in value of split interest agreements on the statement of activities. Short-term Investments Temporary investments consist of money market funds that are used to fund normal operations of the Fund and are recorded at their readily determinable fair values as determined by quoted market prices.

48 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 1 — Nature Of Activities And Allocation of Expenses Significant Accounting Policies The costs of providing various programs and other (continued) activities have been summarized on a functional basis in the statement of activities. Accordingly, cer- Investments tain costs have been allocated among the programs Investments are carried at fair market value, as and supporting services benefited as follows: discussed in Note 3. Investment income or loss is included in the change in unrestricted net assets, Programs—programs that address relevant issues unless the income is restricted by donor or law. in the engineering field including, but not lim- Unrealized gains and losses are reflected in the ited to: Education, Engineering Practice and the statement of activities as non-operating. Engineering Workforce; Engineering and the Environment; Engineering, the Economy and Financial Risk Society; Information Technology and Society; National Security and Crime Prevention The Fund maintains its cash and cash equivalents ; and Public Policy and Program Reviews in bank deposit accounts which, at times, may . exceed federally insured limits. The Fund has not Awards experienced any losses in such accounts. The Fund —NAE presents five awards: the Bernard believes it is not exposed to any significant credit M. Gordon Prize, the Charles Stark Draper Prize, risk on cash. the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize, the Arthur M. Bueche Award, and the Ramo Founders The Fund invests in professionally managed portfo- Award. Activities include soliciting nominations, lios that contain common shares of publicly traded selection of the recipients, announcement of the companies, mutual funds, fund of funds, hedge recipients and presentation of the prizes. funds and private equity funds. Such investments Member Programs are exposed to various risks such as market and —organization and adminis- credit. Due to the level of risk associated with such tration of the Annual Meeting and publication of investments, and the level of uncertainty related NAE Memorial Tributes. to change in the value of such investments, it is at Support for NRC and NAS least reasonably possible that changes in risks in —contributions to the near term would materially affect investment joint activities of the National Academies, balances and the amounts reported in the financial including, but not limited to, the NAS/NAE/ statements. IOM Committee on Human Rights, the African American History Program, Community Service Revenue and Support Projects, and the International Visitors Office. The Fund reports gifts of cash and other assets as Operations—includes the functions necessary to restricted support if they are received with donor provide an adequate working environment, pro- stipulations that limit the use of the donated assets. vide coordination and articulation of the Fund’s When a donor restriction expires, i.e., when a programs, secure proper administrative function stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restric- of the Board of Trustees, maintain competent tion is accomplished, temporarily restricted net legal services for program administration, and assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and manage the financial and budgetary responsibili- reported in the statement of activities as net assets ties of the Fund. released from restrictions. Unrestricted gifts of cash and other assets are recorded in revenue, gains and Fundraising—provides the structure necessary to other support when received or in the period in encourage and secure private financial support which such amounts are estimable. Revenues from from individuals, foundations and corporations. special events are recognized at the time the event occurs. Membership dues are accounted for as a contribution in the year it is received.

49 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 1 — Nature Of Activities And and penalties on income taxes, and accounting in Significant Accounting Policies interim periods. The Fund had no such positions (continued) recorded in the financial statements at December 31, 2012 and 2011. Generally, the Fund is no lon- Income Taxes ger subject to U.S. federal income tax positions by The Fund is incorporated under the District of tax authorities for years before 2009. Columbia Non-profit Corporation Act and is exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c) Use of Estimates (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the In preparing financial statements in conformity with Fund has been determined by the Internal Revenue accounting principles generally accepted in the Service not to be a private foundation. The Fund is United States of America, management is required required to remit income taxes to the federal gov- to make estimates and assumptions that affect the ernment and the District of Columbia for unrelated reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the business income. For the years ended December disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the 31, 2012 and 2011, there was unrelated business date of the financial statements and revenue and income of $18,983 and $110,975, respectively. expenses during the reporting period. The most significant assumptions relate to the realization of The Fund complies with the accounting standard on pledges receivable and the fair value measurement accounting for uncertainty in income taxes, which of investments. Actual results could differ from addresses the determination of whether tax benefits those estimates. claimed or expected to be claimed on a tax return should be recorded in the financial statements. Reclassifications Under this guidance, the Fund may recognize the Certain items in the December 31, 2011, financial tax benefit from an uncertain tax position, only if statements have been reclassified to comply with it is more-likely-than-not that the tax position will the current year presentation. These reclassifica- be sustained on examination by taxing authorities, tions had no effect on previously reported change based on the technical merits of the position. The in net assets. tax benefits recognized in the financial statements from such a position are measured based on the Subsequent Events largest benefit that has a greater than 50% likeli- The Fund evaluated subsequent events through May hood of being realized upon settlement. The guid- 22, 2013, which is the date the financial statements ance on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes were available to be issued. also addresses de-recognition, classification, interest

50 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 2 — Promises To Give

Promises to give are unconditional and deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2012:

Unrestricted Restricted Total

Unconditional promises to give $ 159,801 $ 968,190 $ 1,127,991 Less: unamortized discount (970) (3,487) (4,457) $ 158,831 $ 964,703 $ 1,123,534

Amounts due in: Less than 1 year $ 45,692 $ 294,410 $ 340,102 1 to 5 years 113,139 670,293 783,432 $ 158,831 $ 964,703 $ 1,123,534

Promises to give are unconditional and 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) $ 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

There were no unconditional promises to give received during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis.

51 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—Investments

Investments consist of the following at December 31:

2012 2011

Cash and money market* $ 8,609,736 $ 8,807,247 Equity securities 9,243,020 9,201,318 Mutual funds 1,806,344 — Government securities — 2,157,774 Corporate bonds — 1,413,652 Alternative investments 40,689,315 38,029,367 60,348,415 59,609,358 Less: short term investments (2,285,150) (1,165,061) $ 58,063,265 $ 58,444,297 *Cash and money market funds are held at cost.

Investment return consists of the following for the year ended December 31:

2012 2011

Interest and dividends $ 344,716 $ 519,080 Unrealized gain (loss) 4,155,708 (1,962,825) Realized gain 848,101 1,716,397 $ 5,348,525 $ $272,652

52 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—Investments (continued) Level 2—Valuations based on inputs other than quoted prices within Level 1 that are observable The Fair Value Topic of the FASB Codification (the for the asset or liability, either directly or indi- Codification) defines fair value as the price that rectly and fair value is determined through the would be received to sell an asset or paid to trans- use of models or other valuation methodologies. fer a liability in an orderly transaction between Investments which are generally included in this market participants at the measurement date. The category include corporate bonds and loans, Fund utilizes valuation techniques to maximize the less liquid and restricted equity securities and use of observable inputs and minimize the use of certain over-the-counter derivatives. A significant unobservable inputs. Assets and liabilities recorded adjustment to a Level 2 input could result in at fair value are categorized within the fair value the Level 2 measurement becoming a Level 3 hierarchy based upon the level of judgment associ- measurement. ated with the inputs used to measure their value. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 3—Valuations based on inputs that are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets unobservable for the asset or liability and or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to include situations where there is little, if any, unobservable inputs (Level 3). Inputs are broadly market activity for the asset or liability. The defined as assumptions market participants would inputs into the determination of fair value are use in pricing an asset or liability. The three levels based upon the best information in the circum- of the fair value hierarchy are described below: stances and may require significant management judgment or estimation. Level 1—Valuations based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or All transfers between fair value hierarchy levels are liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability recognized by the Fund at the end of each report- to access at the measurement date. The types of ing period. In certain cases, the inputs used to mea- investments included in Level 1 include listed sure fair value may fall into different levels of the equities and listed derivatives. As required by fair value hierarchy. In such cases, an investment’s the guidance provided by the Codification, the level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the Fund does not adjust the quoted price for these lowest level of input that is significant to the fair investments, even in situations where the Fund value measurement. The Fund’s assessment of the holds a large position and a sale could reason- significance of a particular input to the fair value ably impact the quoted price. measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the investment. The inputs or methodology used for valuing financial instruments are not necessarily an indication of the risks associated with investing in those instruments.

53 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—INVESTMENTS (continued)

Investments and other assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows at December 31,

2012 Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Investments: Mutual funds: Long-term bond fund $ 1,806,344 $ 1,806,344 $ — $ — Equity securities: Consumer goods 2,117,327 2,117,327 — — Services 1,762,245 1,762,245 — — Basic materials 1,582,674 1,582,674 — — Financial 1,313,330 1,313,330 — — Technology 830,173 830,173 — — Industrial goods 629,102 629,102 — — Healthcare 606,590 606,590 — — Other assets 120,894 120,894 — — Conglomerates 118,056 118,056 — — Real estate investment trusts 109,353 109,353 — — Utilities 53,276 53,276 — — 9,243,020 9,243,020 — —

Alternative investments 40,689,315 — 2,243,132 38,446,183 Total investments 51,738,679 11,049,364 2,243,132 38,446,183

Beneficial interest in split interest agreements 519,842 — — 519,842

Total $ 52,258,521 $ 11,049,364 $ 2,243,132 $ 38,966,025

54 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—INVESTMENTS (continued)

Investments and other assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows at December 31,

2011 Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Investments: Government securities: U.S. treasury bonds $ 1,210,017 $ — $ 1,210,017 $ — Federal agency securities 947,757 — 947,757 — 2,157,774 — 2,157,774 — Corporate bonds: Technology 319,987 319,987 — — Utilities 284,306 284,306 — — Consumer goods 261,690 261,690 — — Basic materials 166,882 166,882 — — Healthcare 157,266 157,266 — — Financial 145,490 145,490 — — Services 78,031 78,031 — — 1,413,652 1,413,652 Equity securities: Financial 1,966,089 1,966,089 — — Consumer goods 1,855,259 1,855,259 — — Basic materials 1,770,719 1,770,719 — — Services 1,309,710 1,309,710 — — Technology 963,185 963,185 — — Healthcare 465,287 465,287 — — Industrial goods 579,890 579,890 — — Other assets 181,061 181,061 — — Conglomerates 58,978 58,978 — — Utilities 51,140 51,140 — — 9,201,318 9,201,318 — —

Alternative investments 38,029,367 — — 38,029,367 Total investments 50,802,111 10,614,970 2,157,774 38,029,367

Beneficial interest in split interest agreements 403,368 — — 403,368

Total $ 51,205,479 $ 10,614,970 $ 2,157,774 $ 38,432,735

55 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—INVESTMENTS (continued) investments. They are classified as either Level 2 or 3 assets in the fair value hierarchy, depending on The following is a description of the valuation the fair value tier in which the underlying invest- methodologies used for assets measured at fair ments would fall and the Fund’s ability to redeem value. There have been no changes in the method- its interest in the fund. If the underlying assets are ologies used at December 31, 2012 and 2011. publicly traded securities for which there exists a broad, active market, and the Fund’s interest can Mutual funds, equity securities, and corporate be redeemed without penalty in the near term, the bonds are publicly traded on the exchanges and investment is classified as a Level 2 instrument. therefore are considered Level 1 items. If the underlying assets are privately traded and/ or the Fund’s interest cannot be redeemed without Government securities receive interest income penalty in the near term (generally within 90 days based on their stated interest rates and are classi- of December 31), the investment is classified as a fied as Level 2 instruments, as there are no quoted Level 3 instrument. market prices in active markets for identical assets. The value is determined using models and other Beneficial interests in split-interest agreements held valuation methodologies, which are corroborated by others are measured at the present value of by market data. future cash flows considering the estimated return on the invested assets during the expected term of Alternative investments include hedge funds, private the agreements, the contractual payment obliga- equity securities, managed futures and limited part- tions under the agreement, and a discount rate nership interests. The Fund has utilized the net asset commensurate with the risks involved. Split-interest value (NAV) per share or its equivalent as a practi- agreements held by others are classified as Level 3 cal expedient to estimate the fair value of these within the fair value hierarchy.

56 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—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 year ended December 31, 2012:

2012

Limited Split Interest Hedge Fund Private Equity Partnership Agreement Total

Balance, beginning of year $ 34,474,555 $ 2,708,681 $ 846,131 $ 403,369 $ 38,432,736 Purchases 4,129,051 220,690 7,270 — 4,357,011 Sales (5,821,388) (610) (107,087) — (5,929,085) Net unrealized and realized gain 3,140,660 318,100 14,494 116,473 3,589,727 Transfers out of Level 3 (1,484,364) — $ — — (1,484,364) Balance, end of year $ 34,438,514 $ 3,246,861 $ 760,808 $ 519,842 $ 38,966,025

In 2012 two hedge funds were transferred from Level 3 to Level 2 based on the expiration of restrictions on the Fund’s redemption ability.

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 year ended December 31, 2011:

2011

Limited Split Interest Hedge Fund Private 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

57 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—INVESTMENTS (continued)

The table below presents additional information for the Fund’s investments, as of December 31, 2012, whose fair value is estimated using the practical expedient of reported 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, 2012:

Fair Value at Fair Value at Redemption December 31, December 31, Unfunded Redemption Notice 2012 2011 Commitment Frequency Period

Fund of hedge funds – Multi-strategies (a) $ 26,349,663 $ 24,242,996 $ — Annually 1 year Fund of hedge funds – multi-strategies, Monthly – 30 – 125 multi-vehicles (b) 9,529,307 7,586,460 — annually days Hedge funds – restructuring and value Quarterly – 60 – 90 (c) 2,123,804 2,645,099 — annually days Upon Private equity – liquidation multiple strategies (d) 2,865,473 2,412,535 1,015,044 of the fund None Upon dissolution Private equity – of the single strategy (e) 381,387 296,146 101,993 partnership None Upon dissolution of the Limited partnership (f) 760,808 846,131 14,143 partnership None

Total $ 42,010,442 $ 38,029,367 $ 1,131,180

58 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—INVESTMENTS (continued)

(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 two year lockout, after which the fund allows an annual distribution of 5% of the investment balance. Shares are redeemable at their NAV as of the end of the respective month, quarter or year.

(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. Investments representing approximately 44% of the investments in this category are available for redemption monthly or annually with 30–125 days notice. The remaining 56% of investments in this category are available for redemption on December 31, 2013, with 45–90 days written notice. Shares are redeemable at their NAV as of the end of the respective month, quarter or year.

(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. Investments representing approximately 52% of the investments in this category are available for redemption annually with 60 days notice. The remaining 48% of investments in this category are available for redemption on December 31, 2013, with 90 days written notice. Shares are redeemable at their NAV as of the end of the respective quarter or year.

(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 makes indirect investments in emerging private markets including private equity and distressed securities. These investments can never be redeemed with the funds. Instead, the nature of the investments in these categories is that distributions are received through the liquidation of the underlying assets of the fund. As of December 31, 2012, it is probable that the investments in these categories will be liquidated at an amount different from the net asset value of the Fund’s ownership interest in partners’ capital. Investments in the underlying funds are reported at their estimated fair value, as determined in good faith by the manager. Fair value is based on the information provided by the respective general partner of each of the underlying funds, including audited financial statements, which reflects the fund’s share of the fair value of the net assets of the respective underlying fund, and any other relevant factors determined by the Manager. The fund has applied the fair value guidance for measuring its investments in the underlying funds, using the practical expedient. As such, the fund fair values its investments using the underlying funds’ NAV without any further adjustments. The value reported by the Fund is the value of its ownership share.

59 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 3—INVESTMENTS (continued)

(e) The fund invests 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 internal rate of return of 12 – 15% with prudent leverage. The leverage strategy primarily revolves around the following principles: structure debt capita to investment grade standards whenever possible; develop matching debt duration profiles to respective assets’ cash flow profiles; and avoid floating interest rate exposure, either through the use of fixed rate debt or interest hedging activities. These investments can never be redeemed with the funds. Instead, the nature of the investments in these categories is that distributions are received through the liquidation of the underlying assets of the fund. As of December 31, 2012, it is probable that the investments in these categories will be liquidated at an amount different from the net asset value of the Fund’s ownership interest in partners’ capital. Investments in the underlying funds are reported at their estimated fair value, as determined in good faith by the Manager. Fair value is based on the information provided by the respective general partner of each of the underlying funds, including audited financial statements, which reflects the fund’s share of the fair value of the net assets of the respective underlying fund, and any other relevant factors determined by the Manager. The fund has applied the fair value guidance for measuring its investments in the underlying funds, using the practical expedient. As such, the fund fair values its investments using the underlying funds’ NAV without any further adjustments. The value reported by the Fund is the value of its ownership share.

(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. These investments can never be redeemed with the funds. Instead, the nature of the investments in these categories is that distributions are received through the liquidation of the underlying assets of the fund. As of December 31, 2012, it is probable that the investments in these categories will be liquidated at an amount different from the net asset value of the Fund’s ownership interest in partners’ capital. Investments in the underlying funds are reported at their estimated fair value, as determined in good faith by the Manager. Fair value is based on the information provided by the respective general partner of each of the underlying funds, including audited financial statements, which reflects the fund’s share of the fair value of the net assets of the respective underlying fund, and any other relevant factors determined by the Manager. The fund has applied the fair value guidance for measuring its investments in the underlying funds, using the practical expedient. As such, the fund fair values its investments using the underlying funds’ NAV without any further adjustments. The value reported by the Fund is the value of its ownership share.

60 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Note 4—Permanently And Temporarily Restricted Net Assets

Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2012:

2012 Permanently Temporarily Restricted Restricted

Gordon Prize $ 13,438,250 $ — Draper Prize 8,000,000 521,458 Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence 3,014,864 324,056 Capital Preservation 2,397,701 296,491 Senior Scholar 1,000,000 25,995 Young Engineer 778,641 63,018 Ramo Founders Award 500,000 — Industry Scholar 353,038 105,066 Hollomon 201,200 344,844 Hans Reissner 25,623 11,077 President’s Discretionary — 1,404,520 Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation — 1,168,477 Frontiers of Engineering Education — 1,098,452 Vest Opportunity Fund — 913,114 Public Understanding — 723,518 Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years — 629,928 Urban Infrastructure — 363,873 National Engineering Forum — 297,742 Noise Policy Development — 191,366 Global Grand Challenges — 166,715 Others — 147,680 Engineering Ethics — 146,889 Native Americans in Engineering — 59,751 Frontiers of Engineering — 41,775 Information Technology — 30,176 Engineering Ethics Center — 25,012 Russ Prize — 24,177 Diversity in the Engineering Work Force — 23,156 Engineering Education and Research — 15,871 Bueche Award — 13,592 CASEE — 10,774 Homeland Security — 8,478 Technology and Environment — 6,418 Communication with Public in Crisis — 1,917 Engineering and Services — 1,269 EngineerGirl — 655 Engineering Education — 563 $ 29,709,317 $ 9,207,863

61 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Note 4—Permanently And Temporarily Restricted Net Assets (continued)

Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2011:

2011 Permanently Temporarily Restricted Restricted

Gordon Prize $ $13,438,250 $ — Draper Prize 8,000,000 252,682 Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence 3,014,865 32,921 Capital Preservation 2,397,701 175,822 Senior Scholar 1,000,000 — Young Engineer 778,640 — Industry Scholar 353,037 64,953 Hollomon 201,200 305,056 Hans Reissner 25,624 9,419 President’s Discretionary — 2,008,182 Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation — 1,679,983 Public Understanding — 836,236 Global Grand Challenges — 499,960 Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years — 494,977 Frontiers of Engineering Education — 395,713 Urban Infrastructure — 364,233 Engineering Ethics — 292,655 EngineerGirl — 210,454 Others — 170,212 Noise Policy Development — 120,016 Native Americans in Engineering — 100,000 Diversity in the Engineering Work Force — 99,123 National Engineering Forum — 84,040 Real Work Experiences — 80,244 Engineering Education and Research — 36,707 Russ Prize — 27,740 Information Technology — 26,099 Engineering Ethics Center — 25,037 Bueche Award — 15,892 CASEE — 15,120 Homeland Security — 8,486 Technology and Environment — 6,424 Frontiers of Engineering — 5,779 Communication with Public in Crisis — 1,917 Engineering and Services — 1,271 Engineering Education — 563 $ 29,209,317 $ 8,447,916

62 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 5—Endowments (3) General economic conditions; (4) The possible effect of inflation or deflation; Interpretation of relevant law: The Fund has inter- (5) The expected total return from income and the preted the District of Columbia-enacted version of appreciation of investments; the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional (6) Other resources of the institution; Funds Act (UPMIFA) as requiring the Fund, absent (7) The investment policy of the institution. explicit donor stipulations to the contrary, to act in good faith and with the care that an ordinarily pru- Return objective and risk parameters: The Fund has dent person in a like position would exercise under adopted an investment policy for the endowment similar circumstances in making determinations fund. This investment program is based on growing to appropriate or accumulate endowment funds, the endowment fund to provide financial stabil- taking into account both its obligation to preserve ity for the Fund in perpetuity. The Fund’s ability the value of the endowment and its obligation to to tolerate risk and volatility should be consistent use the endowment to achieve the purposes for with that of a conservative growth portfolio, with which it was donated. The Fund classifies as per- investments made in companies that demonstrate manently restricted net assets (a) the original value consistent growth over time. Asset allocations are of gifts donated to the permanent endowment, (b) developed in accordance with this long-term, con- the original value of subsequent gifts to the per- servative growth strategy. manent endowment, and (c) accumulations to the permanent endowment made in accordance with Spending policy: The Fund will appropriate for the direction of the applicable donor gift instru- expenditure in its annual budget a percentage of ment at the time the accumulation is added to the the earnings. There may be times when the Fund fund. The remaining portion of the donor-restricted may opt not to take the spending rate, but rather to endowment fund that is not classified in perma- reinvest some or all of the annual income. nently restricted net assets is classified as temporarily restricted net assets until those amounts are Fair value: The fair value of assets associated with appropriated for expenditure. In accordance with donor-restricted endowment funds may fall below UPMIFA, the Fund considers the following factors the level that UPMIFA requires to retain as a fund in making a determination to appropriate or accu- of perpetual duration. In accordance with GAAP, mulate donor-restricted endowment funds: deficiencies of this nature that are reported in unrestricted net assets were $1,558,643 and $1,933,660 (1) The duration and preservation of the endow- as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. ment fund; (2) The purposes of the institution and the endowment fund;

63 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 5—Endowments (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, 2012:

2012 Temporarily Permanently Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Donor-restricted endowment funds $ (1,558,643) $ 1,692,005 $ 29,709,317 $ 29,842,679 Total funds $ (1,558,643) $ 1,692,005 $ 29,709,317 $ 29,842,679

Changes in endowment net assets for the year ended December 31, 2012 are:

2012 Temporarily Permanently Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total

Endowment net assets, beginning of year $ (1,933,660) $ 567,108 $ 29,209,317 $ 27,842,765 Investment return: Interest and dividends, net of fees — (17,728) — (17,728) Realized gain on investments — 453,745 — 453,745 Net appreciation 375,017 1,786,027 — 2,161,044 Total investment return 375,017 2,222,044 — 2,597,061 Amounts appropriated for expenditure — (1,097,147) — (1,097,147) Contributions received — — 500,000 500,000 Endowment net assets, end of year $ (1,558,643) $ 1,692,005 $ 29,709,317 $ 29,842,679

64 NAE Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 5—Endowments (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, 2011:

2011 Temporarily Permanently 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 ended December 31, 2011 are:

2011 Temporarily Permanently 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, net of fees — (52,961) — (52,961) 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 (758,037) (896,564) — (1,654,601) Endowment net assets, end of year $ (1,933,660) $ 567,108 $ 29,209,317 $ 27,842,765

65 2012 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

NOTE 6—Related Party Transactions National Academy of Sciences—The Fund reim- burses NAS by making monthly payments based The National Academies Corporation—The on NAE’s estimated expenditures for the year. The National Academies Corporation (TNAC) is a non- Fund also receives contributions through NAS. This profit corporation that was incorporated in January resulted in a payable to NAS at December 31, 2012 1986 for the purpose of constructing and maintain- and 2011, of $1,147,645 and $641,972, respec- ing a study and conference facility, the Arnold and tively. Payments made to NAS by the Fund for the Mabel Beckman Center, in Irvine, California, to Fund’s allocated portion of the expenditures shared expand and support the general scope of program jointly by NAS, NAE and IOM were $1,094,164 activities of NAS, NAE, the Institute of Medicine and $1,127,438 for the years ended December 31, (IOM), and NRC. TNAC is organized as a tax- 2012 and 2011, respectively. exempt supporting organization for NAS and the Fund. The Board of Directors and officers of TNAC include certain officers of the Fund. The Fund had no transactions with TNAC for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

66 NAE Officers Councillors

Chair Linda M. Abriola (2013) Julia M. Phillips (2014) Charles O. Holliday Jr. (2014) Dean of Engineering, Tufts Deputy Chief Technology Officer Retired Chairman of the Board and University and Director, ST&E Innovations Chief Executive Officer, E.I. du & Partnerships, Sandia National Pont de Nemours and Co. Alice M. Agogino (2014) Laboratories Professor of Mechanical Irwin M. Jacobs (2012)‡ Engineering, University of Robert F. Sproull (2012)‡ Director, Qualcomm Incorporated California, Berkeley Retired Vice President and Director of Sun Labs, Oracle Immediate Past Chair Corale L. Brierley (2015) Irwin M. Jacobs (2013) Principal, Brierley Consulting, LLC Arnold F. Stancell (2015) Director, Qualcomm Incorporated Retired Vice President, Mobil Paul Citron (2013) Oil; Turner Professor of Chemical President Retired Vice President, Technology Engineering, Emeritus, Georgia Charles M. Vest (2013) Policy and Academic Relations, Institute of Technology President, National Academy of Medtronic, Inc. Engineering Richard H. Truly (2015) G. Wayne Clough (2012)‡ Retired Vice Admiral, United States Vice President Secretary, Smithsonian Institution Navy; Retired Director, National Maxine Savitz (2014) Renewable Energy Laboratory Retired General Manager, Ruth A. David (2013) Technology/Partnerships, President and Chief Executive Ex Officio: Honeywell Inc. Officer, ANSER (Analytic Services Ralph J. Cicerone (2017) Inc.) President, National Academy of Home Secretary Sciences Thomas F. Budinger (2016) Charles Elachi (2013) Professor, University of California, Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Berkeley; Senior Consulting Vice President, California Institute ‡Indicates term ended June 30, Scientist, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley of Technology 2012. Year in parentheses indicates National Laboratory the year term expires. Paul R. Gray (2014) Foreign Secretary Executive Vice Chancellor and Venkatesh Narayanamurti (2015) Provost, Emeritus, and Professor, Benjamin Peirce Professor of University of California, Berkeley Technology and Public Policy, Harvard School of Engineering Anita K. Jones (2015) and Applied Sciences; Director, University Professor Emerita, Science, Technology and Public University of Virginia Policy Program, Harvard Kennedy School Richard A. Meserve (2014) President, Carnegie Institution for Treasurer Science C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. (2013) Glenn Martin Institute Professor of Engineering, University of Maryland

67 2012 Staff NAE Publications

Office of the President Frazier Benya, Program Officer, Center NAE reports are available from the Charles M. Vest, President for Engineering, Ethics, and Society National Academies Press either for Laura Mersky, Senior Executive Elizabeth Cady, Program Officer, purchase or as free downloadable Assistant Engineering Education PDFs at www.nap.edu or 1-800- Joey Manlapaz, Administrative Vivienne Chin, Administrative Assistant 624-6242, or from the National Assistant (through October) Kristen Coakley, Christine Mirzayan Academies Bookstore, 500 Fifth Science and Technology Policy Street NW, Washington, DC. Office of the Home Secretary Graduate Fellow (Spring) Thomas F. Budinger, Home Secretary Catherine Didion, Senior Program All reports can also be read online. Patricia Scales, Membership Associate Officer, Diversity in the Engineering Workforce Reports from 2012: Office of the Foreign Secretary Abby Estabillo, Anderson & Adapting Agricultural Extension to Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Foreign Commonweal Intern (Summer) Peacebuilding Secretary Penelope Gibbs, Senior Program Vivienne Chin, Administrative Assistant Associate Assuring the U.S. Department of Cameron Fletcher, Senior Editor (from Defense a Strong Science, Technology, Executive Office June) Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Maxine Savitz, Vice President Nicole Flores, Program Associate Workforce Lance Davis, Executive Officer Rachelle Hollander, Director, Center Sonja Atkinson, Administrative for Engineering, Ethics, and Society Colloquy on Minority Males in Assistant Janet Hunziker, Senior Program Science, Technology, Engineering, and Officer, Frontiers of Engineering Mathematics Finance Office Maribeth Keitz, Senior Program C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., Treasurer Associate/Web Communications Community Colleges in the Evolving Mary Resch, Director Manager STEM Education Landscape: Summary Raymond Hart, Senior Accountant Mary Kutruff, Financial Officer of a Summit Barbara Bishop, Administrative Vanessa Lester, Program Associate Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Coordinator (from July) Leading-Edge Engineering from the Jacqueline Martin, Awards Associate 2011 Symposium Membership Office Mahlet Meslin, Christine Mirzayan Mary Lee Berger-Hughes, Director Science and Technology Policy Global Navigation Satellite Systems: Michaela Curran, Membership Graduate Fellow (Spring) Report of a Joint Workshop of the Election Associate Greg Pearson, Senior Program Officer, National Academy of Engineering and Kim Garcia, Election Manager K-12 Engineering Education and the Chinese Academy of Engineering Pamela Lankowski, Council Public Understanding of Engineering Administrator Simil Raghavan, Associate Program Infusing Real World Experiences into Jenney Resch, Senior Membership Officer, Diversity in the Engineering Engineering Education Associate Workforce and Online Ethics Center Lifelong Learning Imperative in Patricia Scales, Membership Associate Ryan Shelby, Christine Mirzayan Engineering: Sustaining American Dennis Thorp, Graphic Designer and Science and Technology Policy Competitiveness in the 21st Century Publications Coordinator Graduate and J. Herbert Hollomon Fellow (Fall) Making Value: Integrating Program Office Katie Whitefoot, Senior Program Manufacturing, Design, and Proctor Reid, Director Officer, Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation to Thrive in the Changing Gina Adam, Christine Mirzayan Innovation Global Economy Science and Technology Policy Jason Williams, Senior Financial Graduate Fellow (Fall) Assistant Memorial Tributes: National Academy Safoah Agyemang, Anderson & Deborah Young, Awards Administrator of Engineering, Volume 16 Commonweal Intern (Summer) Carol Arenberg, Senior Editor Development Office Rising Above the Gathering Storm: (through July) Radka Nebesky, NAE Director of Developing Regional Innovation Randy Atkins, Senior Public/Media Development Environments: A Workshop Summary Relations Officer Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop

The Bridge, the NAE quarterly journal, is available from the NAE Program Office or can be read online at www. nae.edu/thebridge. A PDF version is also available on the website. 68 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-per- petuating society of distin guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the author ity of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the Nation al 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. Function ing 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 neering 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 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001