Annual Report - National Academy of Engineering

advertisement
2013
Annual Report
N AT I O N A L A C A D E M Y O F E N G I N E E R I N G
ENGINEERING
THE
FUTURE
1 Letter from the President
3 In Service to the Nation
3 Mission Statement
4 NAE 50th Anniversary Initiative – Video Contest
4 Program Reports
4 Engineering Education
Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE)
2- and 4-Year Engineering and Engineering Technology Transfer Student Pilot
Engineering Technology Education
Barriers and Opportunities in Completing Two- and Four- Year STEM Degrees
Understanding the Engineering Education–Workforce Continuum
Workshop: Educate to Innovate: What and How?
7 Technological Literacy
Integrated STEM Education
Guiding Implementation of K–12 Engineering Education
7 Public Understanding of Engineering
Committee on Implementing Engineering Messages
Media Relations
Public Relations
Grand Challenges for Engineering
10 Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society (CEES)
Practical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education
Ethics and Sustainability in Engineering
Online Ethics Center
Educational Partnership on Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society
Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education
12 Diversity of the Engineering Workforce
EngineerGirl Website
Engineer Your Life
2013 NAE Annual Meeting Forum: Importance of Engineering Talent to the
Prosperity and Security of the Nation
13 Frontiers of Engineering
Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers—Gilbreth Lectures
15 Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation
Making Value for America Project
16 Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding
17 Systems Engineering for Improving Health
18 Best Available and Safest Technologies for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations
20 2013 NAE Awards Recipients
22 2013 New Members and Foreign Associates
23 NAE Anniversary Members
28 2013 Private Contributions
30 Catalyst Society
31 Rosette Society
31 Challenge Society
32 Charter Society
33 Other Individual Donors
36 Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund
37 Tributes
37 Einstein Society
38 Golden Bridge Society
39 Heritage Society
40 Foundations, Corporations, and Other Organizations
42 National Academy of Engineering Fund Financial Report
44 Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants
49 Notes to Financial Statements
66Officers
66Councillors
67Staff
67 NAE Publications
Letter from the President
My six-year term as president of the National Academy of Engineering began on July
1, 2013. I pledge to continue the mission of the NAE in service to the welfare of the
nation and the engineering community as did my predecessor Chuck Vest. Tragically,
Chuck passed away on December 12. His wise counsel was long sought by the nation
at the highest levels of government, industry, universities, and the nonprofit sector, all
of which he served selflessly with distinction. Chuck’s vigorous and remarkably productive life was full and appreciated deeply, and his impact on our nation and people
will be lasting.
I believe that three strategic issues for engineering will have significant implications for
our nation’s future. They are (1) the importance of talent in our engineering workforce,
(2) globalization and the global role of the NAE, and (3) the visibility and understanding of engineering. How these familiar issues evolve will shape our future.
C. D. Mote, Jr.
Talent in the engineering workforce is normally not mentioned when discussing our national preparedness in engineering. If the need for talent and the value placed on talent are high, talent in engineering deserves priority attention. If society depends on engineering talent for its future, then ensuring a
talented engineering workforce is a critical national need. However, I do not see that talent is given
priority attention. Virtually every society globally is recruiting engineering talent aggressively and
particularly the “in-demand” talent with current skills. Increasingly, attractive opportunities for engineers that offer excellent salaries, facilities, and economic growth potential are in Asia and the Middle
East, and soon in Africa. In the Forum at the NAE Annual Meeting last October, a distinguished panel
explored the many questions surrounding the importance of top talent in the engineering workforce
to the competitiveness of the US economy and the future quality of life of US citizens. The Forum is
available on the NAE website at www.fednet.net/NAE100713, and the published summary is at www.
nae.edu/108332.aspx.
Two NAE programs have been particularly effective at pushing the global reach of the Academy: the
Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) and the Global Grand Challenges. The founding of our Frontiers of
Engineering program led quickly to interest from abroad in creating bilateral FOE symposia. We now
have bilateral Frontiers programs with Germany, Japan, China, India, and the EU, and a new one with
Brazil in March 2014. The attendees of these symposia, half chosen by the NAE and half by the partner
academy, all become alumni of our Frontiers program, who now number about 4,000. In a literal sense,
the Frontiers of Engineering is leading the NAE to the global frontiers of engineering and attracting the
global engineering leadership of tomorrow. This important effort is central to the mission of the NAE.
The Grand Challenges for Engineering, a program initiated under president Bill Wulf and implemented under Chuck Vest, is also an attractor of the global engineering community and an expander
of the NAE’s global reach. The Grand Challenges led to a collaboration by the national academies
of the United Kingdom, the People’s Republic of China, and the United States in sponsoring the
first Global Grand Challenges Summit in London in March 2013. In 2015, the Chinese Academy of
Engineering will host the next Global Grand Challenges Summit, and the NAE will follow in 2017.
Additionally, the deans of engineering at Duke and University of Southern California, Tom Katsouleas
and Yannis Yortsos, and the president of Olin College, Rick Miller, have taken the lead on many Grand
Challenge activities including establishing the Charles M. Vest NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering
International Scholarships that are used to recruit international graduate students to the US for a year’s
study. The Grand Challenges symposia are leading the NAE globally, attracting international attention
to the Challenges, and catalyzing international partnerships.
1
Representing the essence of engineering as “things,” rather than as creation, maintains public confusion about engineering. Engineers create, or to paraphrase the late Theodore von Kármán, “engineering
creates what never was.” The use of things to describe engineering reinforces the misplaced impression
that things are the essence of engineering. The value proposition for engineering is its creative solutions
serving the welfare of humanity and the needs of society, which clarifies that things are the vehicle but
not the destination of engineering. All major engineering prizes have long recognized that the most
eminent engineering achievements are contributions to humanity. This distinction is important to the
next generation, who wish to serve people and societal needs. This brings us to the strategic message for the NAE’s 50-year Anniversary celebration which was
kicked off at the October 2013 NAE Annual Meeting and will culminate at the end of 2014, a
15-month year. Our Semicentennial Celebration Year explores the value proposition for engineering.
We will highlight the importance of the nexus of engineering creations, people, and society over a
century, starting with the founding of the NAE in 1964 and continuing 100 years to 2064. We will
highlight this nexus through essays and a global video competition.
Essays, written for a public audience, will showcase engineering’s service to the quality of life of all
Americans and the needs of society, both as documented in the past and as projected into the future.
The essays and subsequent discussions about them may provide a new point of reference for describing the value of engineering to the public and for answering, more effectively, the question “what is
engineering?” The national video competition asks contestants to highlight this nexus in a one- to twominute video that illustrates the essential role of engineering in quality of life for the nation and the
world. Pertinent information is provided on the website www.e4uvideocontest.org. The 2014 Annual
Meeting program will feature presentations on both the essays and the videos, and the awarding of
prizes along with other anniversary celebrations.
The semicentennial year provides an opportunity to highlight how the future quality of life of all
Americans and the needs of our society are tied to engineering. The future of engineering, and consequently its service to people and society, depends on making this point to the public. As Abraham
Lincoln counseled, “public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without
it, nothing can succeed.” Engineering needs the public sentiment that engineering creations serve the
welfare of humanity and the needs of society. Practitioners of engineering must carry this understanding to the public.
The independent programs of the NAE depend greatly on private philanthropy. We are grateful to
Peter Farrell for his matching gift challenge to the classes of 2012 and 2013 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 its contributions to the well-being of the
nation. Your generous support is greatly appreciated.
In the following pages you will find additional information about the work undertaken by the NAE in
2013. Our projects pursue our mission to advance the well-being of the nation. I thank you for your
support in so many ways.
C. D. Mote, Jr.
President
2
NAE
In Service to the Nation
Every day our nation faces questions related to engineering and technology. What does the nation
need to do to prosper in the global economy? What is the role of basic research and development in
ensuring future economic development? How do we assess the importance of manufacturing in the US
to national prosperity? How can we ensure that students are aware of the nature of engineering and its
importance to the nation, so they can make informed decisions about pursuing an engineering education? How do we ensure that undergraduate engineering education meets the needs of those students?
How do we increase the diversity of the engineering workforce? As technology becomes an ever more
critical discriminator for our success in the global marketplace for ideas, goods, and services, addressing these questions becomes increasingly important.
Since 1964 the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has provided independent, objective advice
to the nation on engineering-related topics and policies. The NAE operates under the same congressional act of incorporation that established the National Academy of Sciences, signed in 1863 by
President Abraham Lincoln, to respond, “whenever called upon by any department or agency of the
government, to investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art.”
The NAE has more than 2,408 peer-elected members and foreign associates, approximately 54 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 committees, plan and conduct symposia and workshops, and assist in the work of the Academy in many other
ways. Activities include conducting 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 wellbeing of both the nation and the world.
The NAE not only responds to requests from the federal government but also engages in activities
sponsored by foundations, industry, and state and local governments, and funds projects through
endowment funds supported by private contributions. Thus, the NAE is a unique organization that
brings together distinguished engineers for the purpose of improving the lives of people everywhere.
The NAE is a member of the National Academies, which includes the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the National Research Council (NRC).
Mission Statement
The mission of the National Academy of Engineering is to advance the well-being of the nation by
promoting a vibrant engineering profession and by marshalling the expertise and insights of eminent
engineers to provide independent advice to the federal government on matters involving engineering
and technology.
3
2 013
NAE 50th Anniversary Initiative – Video Contest
The Engineering for You (E4U) Video Contest (www.e4uvideocontest.org) is being organized to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the National Academy of Engineering and to
increase public understanding and awareness of engineering’s
contributions to the welfare of humanity and the needs of
society. Contestants are asked to create a one- to two-minute
video demonstrating or predicting engineering contributions
between 1964 and 2064 that serve (or will serve) human
welfare and the needs of society. Six categories of contestants span students from middle school through graduate
school as well as the general public. The deadline for submissions is March 31, 2014. The NAE
President will appoint an independent panel of judges to review the contest entries. Finalists will
be selected from each category based on the following criteria: creativity in content selection and
presentation, anticipated breadth of public appeal and interest, and effectiveness in highlighting
engineering contributions to human welfare and the needs of society. The Judges Panel will also
select videos for a People’s Choice Award to be voted on during the summer of 2014 on the NAE
YouTube channel. The grand prize is $25,000; $5,000 prizes will be awarded to winners in each
category and for the People’s Choice video at the discretion of the Judges Panel. Winners will be
announced at the 2014 NAE Annual Meeting in September.
Program Reports
Engineering Education
Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE)
In October, seventy three of the nation’s most innovative engineering educators took part in the
fifth annual Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) symposium. For 2½ days these mostly
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 at their home institutions. The attendees were selected from a pool of highly qualified applicants nominated by NAE
members and engineering deans.
Just prior to the meeting, the NAE launched the new FOEE community website, www.naefoee.org.
The site serves as a platform for networking and collaboration, hosts a collection of resources,
and gives participants the opportunity to build on relationships formed at the annual symposia.
Information will be available for past and forthcoming symposia and future FOEE attendees will
be able to access resources prior to the symposium. In addition, the site provides a streamlined
system for NAE members and engineering deans to nominate faculty members and for nominees
to submit their applications.
4
NAE
2- 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. 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 survey results indicated that 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 the existing student populations at the 4-year institutions, a distinction
that can lead to a sense of isolation for the 2-year transfer students. The results of the survey were
discussed at the 2012 Engineering Deans Institute and at a 2013 “Leaders Forum: Engineering
Deans and Community College Leaders Conversation on 2-Year and 4-Year Partnerships” at the
ASEE Conference. In 2014 a follow-on workshop is planned to consider strategies to support
2-year students who transfer to 4-year e/et programs.
Engineering Technology Education
With support from the National Science Foundation, the NAE launched a consensus study in late
2013 on the status, role, and needs of engineering technology education in the United States.
The project will examine both 2- and 4-year degree pathways. The study’s objectives are to (1)
review the status and history of the production and employment of engineering technologists and
technicians in the United States, (2) gather available data and explore private- and public-sector
employer perceptions regarding the adequacy of the supply of engineering technologists and technicians as well as the appropriateness of the knowledge and skills they bring to the workplace,
and (3) describe the characteristics of US engineering technology education programs related to
such things as curriculum and faculty professional development; outreach to/partnerships with
K–12 schools, industry, and other organizations; and communication and collaboration with engineering education programs. The 14-member study committee is co-chaired by NAE members
Katharine Frase (IBM) and Ron Latanision (Exponent, Inc.). A final report with findings and recommendations will be published in mid-2015.
Barriers and Opportunities in Completing Two- and Four- Year STEM Degrees
A National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC) ad hoc
Committee is conducting a study on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing Two- and FourYear STEM (science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics) Degrees. The committee’s
report will present conclusions based on the evidence and research-based guidance to inform
policies and programs that aim to attract and retain students to complete associate’s and bachelor’s degrees in STEM disciplines. The report will also address the following specific questions:
(1) What research and data are currently available to identify barriers to and opportunities for
completion of two- and four-year degrees both in STEM generally and in the different STEM disciplines? (2) What do the research and data reveal about barriers that discourage completion and
about opportunities that encourage completion of STEM degrees? And (3) Do the barriers and
opportunities vary for students based on race, gender, and particular STEM discipline? Finally, the
5
2 013
program reports
FOEE is currently sponsored by John McDonnell and the McDonnell Family Foundation. The
FOEE symposia held in November 2009, December 2010, and October 2011 were sponsored by
the O’Donnell Foundation.
program reports
report will review the effectiveness of policies that two- and four-year institutions are implementing to attract and retain students in STEM majors. The committee has held three committee meetings and a public workshop and publication of the report is expected in late 2014.
Understanding the Engineering Education–Workforce Continuum
At the end of 2013, NAE initiated a 20-month consensus study with NSF funding to generate a
more expansive, nuanced, and useful perspective on the engineering education–workforce continuum. Overseen and executed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts chaired by NAE
member Jean-Lou Chameau, president of King Abdullah University for Science and Technology
(KAUST) in Saudi Arabia, the study will use rigorous data gathering and analysis to provide a
more comprehensive view of the career paths and related decision making of those formally
trained in engineering (i.e., with a BS degree) and those with nonengineering degrees who are
employed as engineers in the United States.
The committee will undertake three major tasks. First, it will collect and synthesize data from
existing sources about the characteristics of those working as engineers and those formally educated as engineers who are not working in engineering occupations in the United States. These
characteristics will include age, gender, educational background, occupational sector, job category (e.g., engineer, manager), compensation, and job-related competencies. Second, the committee will collect and synthesize existing data that shed light on factors that influence the career
decisions of these overlapping populations, such as personal values and beliefs, motivation, selfefficacy, educational experience, economic incentives, job satisfaction, and job mobility. Third,
based on its review of the data, the committee will consider the implications of the career paths
of working engineers and engineering graduates for undergraduate engineering education, postsecondary engineering programs, continuing engineering education initiatives, employers of engineering talent (e.g., on-the-job training), and US national interests.
The penultimate activity of the project will be a workshop at which the preliminary results of the
committee’s research and analysis will be presented and discussed. The study will culminate in
summer 2015 with the publication and dissemination of a consensus report with findings and recommendations for key stakeholders.
Workshop: Educate to Innovate: What and How?
To remain a global economic and technological superpower, the United States must continue to
expand and improve the innovative capacity of individuals and organizations within its borders.
In 2013 the NAE partnered with a team of researchers from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (UIUC) on a project called Educate to Innovate to better understand the skills and
experiences that foster innovation and to explore best practices for inculcating these skills and
experiences in US-based students of engineering, science, mathematics, and technology.
To support the project, the NAE convened in early 2013 an 8-member steering committee chaired
by NAE member Arden Bement (UIUC) to (1) advise the interview research of a UIUC-team led
by UIUC Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate College, Debadish Dutta, that conducted
nearly 60 semistructured, open-ended interviews with successful US innovators and (2) plan a
workshop at which the UIUC team’s findings and other relevant research would be presented and
discussed. Digital recordings of the UIUC interviews were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively
to identify attributes common among innovators.
On October 22–23, 2013, the NAE convened the workshop “Educate to Innovate: What and
How?” in Washington, DC. More than 75 innovators and thought leaders from industry, aca-
6
NAE
The NAE workshop was funded by the National Science Foundation via a grant to the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Technological Literacy
Integrated STEM Education
The report of the joint NAE-NRC Committee on Integrated STEM
Education cleared report review at the end of 2013 and was published in early February 2014. STEM Integration in K–12 Education:
Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research concludes that
integrated STEM is a diverse and poorly defined area of education with the potential to significantly enhance student interest
and achievement in the STEM subjects. Evidence for the benefits of integrated STEM education is limited, the report finds,
largely because there is no common theoretical framework to
guide research or practice. The report presents a framework
to help researchers and practitioners think strategically about
the design and implementation of integrated STEM education
initiatives. It also offers recommendations for moving this area of education forward and questions to guide future research. The 15-member study committee was
chaired by Margaret Honey, president and CEO of the New York Hall of Science. NAE member
Linda Abriola (Tufts University) served on the panel. The project was funded by the S. D. Bechtel,
Jr. Foundation, National Science Foundation, Samueli Foundation, and PTC, Inc.
Guiding Implementation of K–12 Engineering Education
With generous support from Chevron Corp., the NAE launched a new project in late 2013 to
support efforts around the country to implement engineering education at the K–12 level. The
three-year, $1.5 million project will develop a resource website that provides materials relevant
to teaching and learning engineering and a platform for development of a community of practice.
The site’s contents, structure, and features will be developed in an iterative fashion based on input
from regional stakeholders meetings planned for the initiative’s first year. A committee appointed
by the NAE president will oversee the project, and four national organizations have been enlisted
as partners: Achieve, Inc., the National Science Teachers Association, American Association for
Engineering Education, and International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. The
project is motivated in part by the recent publication of the Next Generation Science Standards,
which include concepts and practices related to engineering as well as science.
Public Understanding of Engineering
Committee on Implementing Engineering Messages
Some important progress has been made in the use of effective messages about engineering, but
7
2 013
program reports
demia, and federal government came together to review the preliminary findings of the UIUC
interview research and share insights on the teaching of innovation and innovation-related skills.
A summary of the NAE workshop, with the UIUC team’s analysis of the innovator interviews, will
be published by the National Academies Press in mid-2014.
program reports
more can and should be done, according to the NAE Committee
on Implementing Engineering Messages. The committee’s final
report, Messaging for Engineering: From Research to Action,
summarizes messaging efforts by NAE and other organizations
over the previous five years and recommends additional steps
these stakeholders should consider moving forward. Industry,
for example, should increase its use of tested messages, such as
those developed in the NAE’s earlier Changing the Conversation
(CTC) project, in recruiting, product advertising, and public
outreach. Engineering professional societies should consider
creating a memorandum of understanding to coordinate their
use of the CTC messages. And engineering schools should make
greater efforts to explain to faculty and other staff the rationale
and potential benefits of the CTC messaging approach. The 11-member committee was cochaired
by DuPont Chair of the Board and CEO Ellen Kullman and former NAE President Chuck Vest. The
project was supported with funds from the National Science Foundation.
Media Relations
The NAE media relations office fielded numerous inquiries from journalists around the world in
2013 and actively pitched NAE-related stories and other engineering topics. Coverage included a
Washington Post piece on the 2013 Draper and Gordon Prize winners, an online article about the
Global Grand Challenges Summit held in London in the Huffington Post UK, a piece in the New
York Times discussing the NAE report Technology for a Quieter America, a PE Magazine article
about the 2013 report Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding
of Engineering, and mentions in WIRED Magazine and Forbes and on CBS.
NAE Communications Director Randy Atkins continued to report weekly “Engineering Innovation”
stories on the all-news-format radio station WTOP-FM (the most popular radio station in the
Washington, DC, area) and Federal News Radio. The reports can also be heard on the NSF
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 the spring the NAE partnered with Marvel Studios, the Discovery Science Center, and the
Broadcom Foundation for the Iron Man 3 Inventor and Innovator Fair. The competition asked students in grades 6–9 from across the United States to create innovative projects based on themes
in Marvel’s Iron Man 3 movie that linked with the NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. The
finalists’ projects were judged as part of a series of activities in Hollywood and presented at a
movie screening event that included Iron Man 3 star Robert Downey Jr.
The NAE hosted the third annual “Go Viral to Improve Health” collegiate challenge, cosponsored
by the Institute of Medicine, to inspire students to work in interdisciplinary teams to transform
health data into mobile apps, online tools or games, or other innovative products that solve vexing health problems. The winners of the contest were announced in June. A team of students from
Texas A&M University who created a mobile app called H-Radar, which tracks and reports nearby
infectious diseases, won first place and a $10,000 prize.
In September the NAE participated in the Broadcom MASTERS competition, which brings the top
30 middle school finalists from around the country to Washington, DC, where they present their
STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) projects and participate in five days of engaging
8
NAE
The NAE has continued to use social media to increase public awareness of engineering, its role
in society, and the NAE itself. In 2013 the NAE_dc Twitter account doubled its number of followers and received more than 500 retweets about information shared from the NAE account.
Notable retweets and mentions were from Bill Gates, Microsoft, IBM Research, Change the
Equation, General Electric, Motorola Solutions, Time Warner Cable, Johns Hopkins University,
and IEEE.
NAE Program Associate Nicole Flores live-tweeted from the 2013 Global Grand Challenges
Summit in London, the NAE Regional Meeting at the University of Minnesota, US Frontiers of
Engineering Symposium sponsored by DuPont, and Awards Gala. To learn more about the NAE
Twitter page go to www.Twitter.com/NAE_dc.
Throughout the year the “Spotlight on Engineering” e-newsletter provided information on engineering and related 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—14 “game-changing” goals proposed by an international committee of leading thinkers and doers—have continued to build momentum and have
significant impact, particularly in education, since their unveiling in 2008.
The NAE Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP), which combines curricular and extracurricular components to prepare students to take on the goals, was active in 15 colleges and universities by the end of 2013 and was taking root in more than 40 other institutions of higher learning across the country. In addition, K–12 schools nationwide developed classes, programs, and
activities related to the NAE Grand Challenges, and there was a ribbon-cutting at a high school in
North Carolina that frames its entire curriculum on them.
In March the NAE and the engineering academies of the United Kingdom and China cohosted the
first Global Grand Challenges Summit (GGCS), in London. More than 400 people participated in
the two-day event with the goal of identifying opportunities for global cooperation on engineering
innovation and education to address complex global issues. Also in attendance were 60 college
students from around the globe, many of them from the NAE Grand Challenge Scholars Program,
who were invited to attend a Student Day just before the Summit. The GGCS panel sessions
focused on six key themes: sustainability, health, education, technology and growth, enriching life,
and resilience. Highlights included plenary addresses from genome pioneer J. Craig Venter and
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, presentation of the Global Grand Challenges Video Contest winners
by NASA’s Charles Elachi and entertainer Will.i.am, and announcement of the Vest Scholarships
to encourage international student collaboration on the NAE Grand Challenges in honor of NAE
President Charles M. Vest. The Summit also inspired a new joint project between the US National
Science Foundation and the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to fund transatlantic research with the goal of providing all people with access to clean water.
9
2 013
program reports
STEM-based activities. During the competition, the NAE created a booth with information on the
Grand Challenges for Engineering for the Public Day at the National Geographic Society and
organized an event at the STEM Challenge Day at the Maryland Science Center. An element of
Challenge Day was called “Innovative Plan” in which students formed small teams, randomly
selected one of six NAE Grand Challenges, and then researched the challenge, devised a possible
solution, and presented their plan to a panel of five judges.
program reports
In October Duke University held a workshop that convened 150 leaders from industry, state
government, federal agencies, academia, and NGOs in the Research Triangle region of North
Carolina to explore the manufacturing and engineering capabilities needed to solve the NAE
Grand Challenges for Engineering. The goal of the event was to develop a vision for the future of
manufacturing as a driver for tackling critical global goals.
More information about the Grand Challenges for Engineering is available at www.engineering
challenges.org.
Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society (CEES)
Practical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education
In September CEES published the workshop summary report Practical Guidance on Science and
Engineering Ethics Education for Instructors and Administrators, with edited papers of the speakers’ presentations and a review of workshop discussions in four key areas: goals and objectives for
ethics instruction, instructional assessment, institutional and research cultures, and development
of guidance checklists for instructors and administrators. The report is available through the NAE
website (www.nae.edu/Projects/CEES/CEESReports/PracticalGuidance.aspx).
Ethics and Sustainability in Engineering
Work continued with two partners on issues concerning sustainability and engineering ethics. The
goal of the first project, with the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC), is to develop
a network of researchers and practitioners, including engineers, who will examine what it means
to engineer in a socially sustainable manner. Examples of socially sustainable engineering are civil
engineering projects in developing countries that are designed in collaboration with the community to meet its needs, accommodate the skills and tools of community members for repairs
and maintenance, and improve quality of life. Although engineering education and practice have
incorporated environmental sustainability, what social sustainability means for engineering education and practice is much less clear.
Project activities in 2013 included participation in the first annual conference (held in Charlotte)
of the Integrated Network for Social Sustainability (INSS). The conference initiated collaborations
between scholars and practitioners to, for example, identify assessment tools for social sustainability, develop a research agenda, and collect educational materials. The first conference included
sessions on engineering food production systems and focused on issues of food availability, accessibility, and quality, including production and distribution, two aspects that involve engineers and
social sustainability. CEES is involved in two working groups that grew out of the meeting, on
developing a research agenda and on identifying educational resources. To expand the network
and direct attention to social sustainability in engineering, CEES developed a panel for the annual
meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics in March 2014 on the recent history of interest in sustainability in engineering, with an examination of assessment tools that engineers and others might use to define and measure social sustainability. The next INSS conference,
April 4–6, 2014, will focus on manufacturing and social sustainability.
The goal of the second project, with the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (UMN-TC), is to
develop an interdisciplinary and international graduate curriculum on sustainable cities that integrates technical education with education about ethical and social dimensions. With UMN-TC,
CEES hosted a conference on Sustainable Cities and Interdisciplinary International Education:
10
NAE
Online Ethics Center
The Online Ethics Center (OEC) website (www.onlineethics.org), an electronic repository of
resources on science, engineering, and research ethics, continues to be a CEES priority. Site
improvements during 2013 included the addition of a section on sustainability; links in sections
on climate change, energy, military technologies, synthetic biology, and ethics codes; and a bibliography of background materials on energy ethics. A new link to SciEthics Interactive gives visitors access to free virtual reality STEM education simulations that feature OEC content.
Fourteen cases were added to the Cases and Scenarios Database, including 5 from a new module
on problem-based learning from the Georgia Institute of Technology, 8 from an NSF-funded project on Developing and Assessing Macroethics Modules for the Collaborative Institutional Training
Initiative (CITI) responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses, and one from the Markkula Center
for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University on responsible group collaboration.
The popularity of the OEC’s Cases and Scenarios Database grew: website statistics indicate an
almost 20 percent increase in visitors (from 16,577 to 19,853 unique visits during 2013) to the
database.
Educational Partnership on Climate Change, Engineered Systems, and Society
CEES helped organize the last of three workshops for the NSF-funded Climate Change Educational
Partnership) and is now preparing a project report for online publication. One of the project’s
aims was to identify requirements for sustainability, governance, justice, and public trust and
engagement in addressing issues of climate change and engineered systems in society. At the culminating workshop, at Arizona State University (ASU) on January 28–30, 2013, discussions indicated that (1) there is a need to develop robust strategies for a wide range of potential outcomes,
including attention to questions of infrastructure, justice, and human rights, because of limited
human capabilities and the length of time it takes to develop infrastructure; (2) building social
capital requires involving all the stakeholders; (3) advance preparation is essential to take advantage of moments and targets of opportunity; (4) societal and ethical
questions should be addressed in engineering classes to educate
the next generation of engineers; and (5) science and technology
centers and museums have a useful role to play in developing and
continuing the conversation on climate and America’s infrastructure
needs. Videotaped presentations from the January meeting are available at www.nae.edu/Projects/CEES/57196/35146/62777.aspx.
Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education
This 3-year NSF-supported collaborative project with the ASU
Center for Science Policy and Outcomes (CSPO) concluded in
December 2013. CEES supported the project aim—to foster leadership in ethics education in energy-related fields—by identifying students and helping develop the curriculum for a week-long national
institute for graduate student training on energy ethics (April 8–12).
11
2 013
program reports
Core Knowledge and Skills in Washington, DC on April 24–26, 2013. Members of the international project team met and articulated curriculum plans for the project’s first education program,
in India (summer 2013), and its second program, in China (summer 2014). CEES also conducted
video interviews with team members to learn their hopes for project outcomes and their reasons
for joining the effort. The results from the program in India are being readied for publication and
an edited video based on the interviews is being prepared for posting on the NAE project page.
program reports
Graduate students from the institute went on to organize events and reading groups and develop
curriculum on the topic after returning to their campuses. The project was presented at the 2013
annual meetings of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics and the American Society
for Engineering Education. CEES and CSPO concluded the project with a capstone workshop,
Energy Ethics in Graduate Education and Public Policy: Enhancing the Conversation, September
12–13, 2013, in Washington, DC. The speakers’ presentations and discussions highlighted the
development of the field of energy ethics and ways the topic can be fruitfully included in engineering education and in the policy and ethics activities of professional societies. Video of the
workshop’s evening event on the challenges for business ethics and economics posed by development of alternative energy is available at www.onlineethics.org/Projects/EESE.aspx.
CEES also announced, in February, the winners of the online Energy Ethics Video Contest; the
winning entries are posted on the NAE website, www.nae.edu/69865.aspx.
Diversity of the Engineering Workforce
EngineerGirl Website
The EngineerGirl website (www.engineergirl.org), sponsored by Lockheed Martin, was launched
in 2001 to bring widespread attention to exciting career opportunities in engineering particularly
for girls and women. In 2012 the NAE completed a redesign of the site to better connect with a
modern audience of young girls and to provide thousands of students with tools, knowledge, and
inspiration to consider engineering careers. Since the launch of the redesigned site in October
2012, the NAE has seen more interest in this program than ever as indicated by website statistics.
The site averages around 1,000 visits per day and ranks at the top of Google’s searches of “girls
and engineering.” In addition, the EngineerGirl website was recently named by Fashion Playtes (a
fashion and style website) as one of the “30 Sites That Are Empowering Young Girls.”
The increase in visitor traffic and engagement of the website is all the more important because
a survey of participants in the 2013 EngineerGirl essay competition revealed that 30 percent of
students say the site changed their views about engineering and caused them to consider becoming an engineer, and 14 percent of girls (versus 5 percent of boys) said they were first exposed to
engineering through the website.
The 2013 EngineerGirl national essay contest on “Engineering: Essential
to our Health” asked boys and girls in grades 3–12 to describe an
advance in disease treatment or prevention that was developed through
engineering and explain why the advance was important and how engineers were involved. Nearly 1,000 essays were submitted. The winners
received monetary prizes and certificates, and their essays are posted
on the EngineerGirl website: www.engineergirl.org/GetThere/Contest/
Winners/2013Winners.aspx.
Engineer Your Life
Engineer Your Life is a national initiative that encourages college-bound
high school girls to consider 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,
12
NAE
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.
2013 NAE Annual Meeting Forum: Importance
of Engineering Talent to the Prosperity and
Security of the Nation
At the 2013 Annual Meeting, the morning of the second day
was devoted to a forum on the importance of top talent in the
engineering workforce to the competitiveness of the US economy and the future prosperity, security, and quality of life of
US citizens.
Christine Romans, host of CNN’s Your Money program, introduced the six forum speakers and moderated the panel discussion. Subra Suresh, president of Carnegie Mellon University and
former director of the National Science Foundation, described
four global trends that are reshaping how engineering talent is
generated and deployed worldwide. John Montgomery, director of research at the US Naval Research Laboratory, outlined
challenges for the US military in attracting top engineering talent and some measures to address
them. Alec Broers, who spent nearly 20 years doing research at IBM in the United States before
returning to Britain and receiving a knightship for his service to higher education, drew contrasts between the United States and the United Kingdom to identify strengths and weaknesses
in both countries. Marie Thursby, Regents’ Professor who holds the Hal and John Smith Chair in
Entrepreneurship at the Georgia Institute of Technology Scheller College of Business, explained
some of the subtleties in the supply and demand figures for engineers and elucidated the importance of cross-disciplinary connections for engineers. William Banholzer, chief technology officer
and executive vice president at the Dow Chemical Company, affirmed the need for engineers
to make new discoveries practical and affordable. Finally, David Baggett, founder and head of
Arcode Corporation, made the case for identifying and nurturing the elusive “ten-x” programmer—the individual who, by producing an order of magnitude more code than an average programmer, can propel companies to success.
The panel, encompassing the public and private sectors, US- and foreign-based firms, big companies and small, offered a remarkably wide range of perspectives, but all six speakers agreed that
the creation and wise use of talent are the greatest opportunities and challenges facing engineering today. The published summary is available at www.nae.edu/108332.aspx.
Frontiers of Engineering
Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) is a symposium series that brings together emerging engineering
leaders from industry, academe, and government laboratories to discuss pioneering technical
work and leading-edge research in various engineering fields and industrial sectors. The goals of
13
2 013
program reports
teachers, guidance counselors, and engineers about careers in engineering. It also features profiles
and short videos of young women engineers. There are updates to the site on an accompanying
Facebook page.
program reports
the symposia are to (1) 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) 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 programs: (1) GermanAmerican Frontiers of Engineering (GAFOE), in partnership
with the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; (2) JapanAmerica 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, Technologies, and Engineering. In addition, the NAE is
working with the US National Academy of Sciences and the Brazilian Academy of Sciences to
hold a joint Frontiers of Science and Engineering symposium with Brazil in 2014. Each bilateral
symposium is attended by approximately 30 engineers from the partner country and 30 from the
United States.
Four symposia were held in 2013. The GAFOE symposium took place in April at the National
Academies’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The topics were additive manufacturing, transport in complex systems, biomass conversion, and materiomics. The CAFOE symposium was held
in May in Beijing, and the topics were nanotechnology: synthesis, functionality, and applications,
the future Internet and the Internet of things, bio-MEMS, and solar energy. In September the US
FOE was hosted by DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware, with sessions on designing and analyzing
societal networks, cognitive manufacturing, energy: reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and
flexible electronics. In November, the EU-US FOE symposium in Chantilly, France, featured presentations on the future of transportation, nanosensors, big data, and wireless broadband.
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 2012 Symposium (published in February 2013), are mailed to past US FOE
14
NAE
The Grainger Foundation Frontiers of Engineering Grants enable further pursuit of new interdisciplinary research and technical work stimulated by the conference and supports participants’ continuing interactions. In 2013 these grants were awarded to two teams of individuals who attended
the 2012 US FOE meeting. Andrea Armani (University of Southern California) and Matthew
Gevaert (KIYATEC Inc.) received a grant for real-time monitoring of cell behavior in 3D tissue
scaffolds. Mona Jarrahi (University of Michigan) and Jordan Green (Johns Hopkins University)
received a grant to examine high-performance label-free drug delivery monitoring through terahertz spectroscopy.
The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum also
provide support for ongoing collaborations among participants in the GAFOE and IAFOE symposia, respectively.
The following sponsors provided grants or in-kind support for the 2013 FOE symposia: The
Grainger Foundation, National Science Foundation, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
Air Force Office of Scientific Research, DOD-ASDR&E Research Directorate-STEM Development
Office, Microsoft Research, DuPont, Cummins, Inc., and individual donors.
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 2013 four speakers delivered Gilbreth lectures at
the National Meeting on February 7 in Irvine, CA.
Ronald Azuma (Intel IXR) spoke on “Augmented Reality:
Meaningful Connections and Compelling Experiences”;
Manu Parashar (Alstom Grid) gave a presentation on
“Synchrophasor Wide-Area Measurement and Control”;
Sossina Haile (California Institute of Technology) spoke about “Material Solutions for Energy
Conversion and Storage: Fuel Cells and Solar Fuel Generators”; and Riley Duren (Jet Propulsion
Laboratory) gave a talk on “Geoengineering and Climate Intervention: What We Need to Know.”
In addition, two speakers delivered Gilbreth lectures at the NAE Annual Meeting: Amy Kaleita
(Iowa State University) gave a presentation on “Applications of Precision Agriculture in Rural
Communities,” and Christopher Geyer (BAE Systems) spoke on “Robot Navigation.”
Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation
Transformational changes are occurring in US-based manufacturing, design, and innovation. US
manufacturing employment is significantly affected by increasing globalization and automation
on the factory floor. At the same time, innovations in technologies and business models—such as
15
2 013
program reports
participants. The FOE website (www.naefrontiers.org) includes a searchable database and directory of all FOE alumni, an FOE 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 symposia.
program reports
additive manufacturing, biotechnology, and “servitization”—present opportunities for new value
creation in the United States. The NAE created the Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation (MDI)
Initiative to understand the effects of these changes on US prosperity and employment and their
implications for business practices, research, education, and public policy.
In September 2013 the NAE launched the Making Value for America project (described below)
as the centerpiece of the MDI Initiative. The project aims to follow on the National Academies
reports Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future (2007) and Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough
Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security (2012) to provide a foundation of information that will support actions to improve US innovation and prosperity. This time the focus is
on critical issues impacting US innovation and workforce opportunities in light of the changing
manufacturing sector.
Additional MDI activities in 2013 included a regional summit on Manufacturing for the Grand
Challenges, held in Cary, NC. The summit brought together 150 leaders from industry, federal agencies, academia, and NGOs in North Carolina’s Research Triangle area to explore the
manufacturing and engineering capabilities needed to solve 21st century grand challenges. NAE
President C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. drew attention to the need to improve engineering talent, manufacturing capabilities, and public understanding and support of engineering to address important
challenges such as the need for inexpensive and environmentally sustainable sources of energy.
Keynote speakers—including Boeing CEO Jim McNerney and Caterpillar SVP David Bozeman—
emphasized the need for universities and community colleges to prepare people with both technical and business skills.
Making Value for America Project
This project is examining the state of manufacturing and high-value services in the United States
to recommend actions for businesses, education, and government to accelerate value creation in
the US and create job opportunities throughout the workforce. In August 2013, NAE appointed a
foundational committee to identify best practices for value creation. In its first two meetings the
committee examined business case studies across diverse industries as well as economics research
on workforce trends and management practices in the United States and several other countries.
The project is chaired by NAE member Nicholas M. Donofrio, former executive vice president for
innovation and technology at IBM. In addition, the following NAE members serve on the committee: Lawrence D. Burns, Dean Kamen, Linda P.B. Katehi, Ann L. Lee, Arun Majumdar, Jonathan J.
Rubinstein, and John J. Tracy.
The project is sponsored by the late Robert A. Pritzker and the Robert Pritzker Family Foundation,
Gordon E. Moore, Cummins, Boeing, IBM, Rockwell Collins, and Xerox.
Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding
The National Academy of Engineering (NAE)–US Institute of Peace (USIP) Roundtable on
Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding, in its third year, is an alliance of government agencies,
corporations, NGOs, and academic experts in pursuit of engineering and technological applications that support peacebuilding efforts to prevent deadly conflicts, rehabilitate societies torn by
16
NAE
program reports
such conflicts, and build communities, cultures, and institutions that foster inclusive societies and the peaceful resolution
of conflicts. Launched in mid-2011, the Roundtable plenary
convenes twice a year and is co-chaired by the presidents of the
NAE and USIP. Institutional and individual expert members of
the Roundtable are from federal agencies (State, USAID, DOD,
USDA), major NGOs (Alliance for Peacebuilding, InterAction,
International Crisis Group, Mercy Corps), multinational corporations (Qualcomm, Microsoft, Google), think tanks and universities, and an international organization (UNDP).
The Roundtable facilitates the strategic application of engineering, technology, and science to make a measurable, positive
impact on conflict management and peacebuilding capabilities
around the world through convening, fact finding, and networkbuilding activities. In its first year (FY2012) the Roundtable identified four areas of technological need (and potential):
•
•
•
•
Sensing emerging conflict to support local initiatives to limit deadly violence
Enhancing data sharing among engaged actors to promote collaboration
Supporting agricultural extension systems with conflict analysis and expertise
Applying systems engineering to complex peacebuilding challenges
During 2012 workshops were held on each of these areas to analyze and target applications of
engineering and technology to improve the performance and impact of peacebuilding activities.
Summaries of the four workshops, published by the National Academies Press in late 2012 and
2013, are available at www.nae.edu.
In 2013 the Roundtable met twice to (1) hear testimony on priority peacebuilding challenges from
the Department of Defense, the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict Stabilization Operations,
and the United Nations’ Development Program’s Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery; (2)
review findings of the National Research Council study of Climate Change and Political Stress;
and (3) discuss potential follow-on activities to the 2012 workshops and other new initiatives.
Following its January 2013 meeting, the Roundtable developed and launched a project with DOD
funding that builds on the 2012 sensing, data sharing, and systems engineering workshops and
seeks to develop a software platform to promote more effective information collaboration among
peacebuilding organizations. The Roundtable also convened two project scoping meetings, on
environmental stresses as sources of deadly conflict (April 16) and on technology applications to
enhance the effectiveness of campaigns of civil resistance to authoritarian regimes (September 25).
Systems Engineering for Improving Health
Systems engineering offers a powerful, though woefully underused, portfolio of tools and techniques for improving the quality, safety, and value of health care and for helping clinicians manage the increasing complexity of modern care, while laying the foundation for a continuously
learning health system. Systems methods have been applied successfully to prevent healthcare–
acquired infections, promote safety, deliver best practices reliably, and optimize clinical opera-
17
2 013
program reports
tions. The implementation of these engineering tools and methods at higher levels of scale in the
nation’s health system can integrate people, processes, structures, and technology to achieve sustainable, high levels of patient safety and healthcare quality and value.
In August 2012 the NAE and Institute of Medicine (IOM), with support from the Gordon and
Betty Moore Foundation, launched the joint Systems Approaches for Improving Health Innovation
Collaborative (under the auspices of the IOM Roundtable on Value and Science-Driven Health
Care). Co-chaired by NAE member Richard Larson (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and
IOM member Gary Kaplan (Virginia Mason Health System), the initiative brings together leaders
in medicine, engineering, and information technology as well as patient representatives to identify
important opportunities for joint action; facilitate joint projects; foster information exchange about
successful systems approaches to wellness and care improvement; and explore compelling conceptual, evaluation, and research questions.
In 2013, building on ideas put forward at the inaugural meeting of the Collaborative in December
2012, a working group of Collaborative members prepared a discussion paper, “Bringing a
Systems Approach to Health,” that illustrates instances in which systems-based interventions have
promoted better health at lower cost. The paper outlines several case studies that not only identify and address adoption barriers, such as the need for culture shifts and substantial leadership
support, but also demonstrate the high potential of systems approaches. For instance, the implementation of systems methods across operations at the Virginia Mason Health System resulted in
reduced wait times, improvements in safety and patient outcome, and cost reduction.1 A second
Collaborative working group initiated background research for a discussion paper on expanding
education and training in systems approaches to health by inventorying exemplar courses, programs, or other modes of educating health professionals about systems approaches and engineers
about systems challenges in the health and healthcare domains.
At the Collaborative’s second meeting (September 2013, Washington, DC), the members
reviewed dissemination strategies for the discussion paper, received updates on several systems-focused field-building initiatives and, on the second working group project, explored the
challenges of using systems approaches on a broad population level (with examples from the
healthcare and population health sectors), and identified a select number of opportunities and
practical projects for Collaborative members to take on to advance systems-based approaches to
achieve best care at lower cost. Proposed activities include the preparation of additional discussion papers focused on the economic case for systems approaches to health and the regulatory
implications of these approaches, and the development of a “C-suite toolkit” for working with
leading institutions in the application of systems approaches to identify effective tools and strategies to assist health system leaders in adopting systems approaches for measurable improvements
in care and health outcomes.
Best Available and Safest Technologies for Offshore
Oil and Gas Operations
The technical challenges of drilling and producing oil and gas in the offshore environment
become more demanding as activities move into deep water, formations that involve high pressures or high temperatures, or harsh environments such as the Arctic. In the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act, Congress directs the Secretary of the Interior to require the use of the best avail-
18
NAE
After the Macondo well blowout and Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010, the Department of
the Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) asked the NAE and NRC
to form a committee to provide options for improving the implementation of BAST. Chaired by
NAE member Donald Winter, former secretary of the US Navy, the committee included NAE
members and other individuals with expertise in petroleum engineering, marine systems, system
safety, risk analysis, testing and evaluation of new technologies, and human factors. The members
also had experience in regulatory and corporate decision making concerning the identification,
development, and deployment of advanced technologies. The committee’s report, Best Available
and Safest Technologies for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations: Options for Implementation, was
released in October 2013.
To implement the BAST requirements, the committee noted that BSEE needs to enlist a multidisciplinary group of individuals with the necessary skills to perform critical technical assessments,
economic analysis, and independent reviews. Acknowledging that the bureau cannot be expected
to have all the necessary technical expertise in-house (federal compensation limits make it difficult to attract and retain top experts), the committee concluded that BSEE’s independent Ocean
Energy Safety Institute (OESI) could be a suitable vehicle for providing the talent needed for evaluating and developing new technologies. However, the institute needs to be properly organized,
staffed, and supported, and the current funding level of up to $5 million over five years to launch
OESI could limit BSEE’s ability to attract and retain key personnel. In addition to greater and
stable funding over multiple years, the committee recommended that BSEE consider strengthening
its in-house capabilities by hiring a highly accomplished chief
engineer or chief scientist with expertise in offshore drilling and
production activities to interface with OESI.
The committee further recommended that BSEE’s evaluation
of candidate technologies to meet the BAST mandate examine
the complexity of the entire system in which the technologies
will be used as well as the interactions of components, human
operators, and the geologic environment. Assessments of the
economic feasibility of implementing new technologies should
include potential costs of disrupting drilling and production
operations as new, immature technologies are introduced.
To hasten the development of new safety technology, the committee recommended that BSEE consider providing legislative or regulatory incentives to industry, such as favorable tax
treatment for investments in research on safety technologies.
In addition, systematic analyses of operations and near misses, as well as accidents, can spur
technology development. The range of technologies should be broad and take into account
advanced instruments and factors in the human-system interface that affect the performance of
individuals, work crews, and organizations in a work environment.
19
2 013
program reports
able and safest technologies (BAST) that are economically feasible for offshore oil and gas drilling
and production.
2013 NAE Awards recipients
Charles Stark Draper Prize for Engineering
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 the access to information.
Presented annually, the prize carries a $500,000 cash award and a commemorative medallion.
Martin Cooper, Joel S. Engel, Richard H. Frenkiel, Thomas Haug, and Yoshihisa
Okumura “for their pioneering contributions to the world’s first cellular
telephone networks, systems, and standards.”
Martin Cooper
Joel S. Engel
Richard H. Frenkiel Thomas Haug
Yoshihisa Okumura
Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize
The Russ Prize is awarded in recognition of an outstanding achievement in
bioengineering that improves the human condition. Presented biennially,
the prize carries a $500,000 cash award and a commemorative medallion.
Rangaswamy Srinivasan, James J. Wynne, and Samuel E. Blum* “for the
development of laser ablative photodecomposition, enabling LASIK and PRK
eye surgery.”
Rangaswamy
Srinivasan
For additional information
about the NAE awards,
please visit our website,
www.nae.edu/awards.
20
James J. Wynne
Samuel E. Blum
Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in
Engineering and Technology Education
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 commemorative medallion.
Richard K. Miller, David
V. Kerns Jr., and Sherra
E. Kerns “for guiding the
creation of Olin College
and its student-centered
approach to developing
effective engineering
leaders.” (Olin College)
Left to Right: Sherra E. Kerns, Richard K. Miller, and David V. Kerns Jr.
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.
John E. Kelly III “for his leadership in driving US semiconductor technology excellence through the creation of world class
government, university, and corporate R&D partnerships.”
John E. Kelly III
Simon Ramo Founders Award
The Simon Ramo Founders Award
is given in recognition of an NAE
member or foreign associate who has
exem¬plified 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 comAlbert D. Wheelon
memorative medal.
Albert D. Wheelon* “for outstanding
contributions to aircraft, spacecraft, and
communication satellite technology that
enhanced national security and strengthened the US economy.”
21
*Deceased
2013 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES
2013 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES
In February, NAE elected 69 new members and
11 foreign associates, bringing the total US membership to 2,250 and the number of foreign associates to 211. Election to the National Academy
of Engineering is among the highest professional
distinctions accorded to an engineer. Academy
membership honors those who have made outstanding contributions to “engineering research,
practice, or education, including, where appropriate, significant contributions to the engineering
literature,” and to the “pioneering of new and
developing fields of technology, making major
advancements in traditional fields of engineering, or developing/implementing innovative
approaches to engineering education.”
A list of the newly elected members and foreign
associates follows, with their primary affiliations
at the time of the Induction Ceremony, October
6, 2013.
New Members
Paul R. Adams
Pratt & Whitney
Anant Agarwal
edX
James M. Anderson
Case Western Reserve University
Peter L. Andresen
GE Global Research Center
Joseph J. Beaman, Jr.
The University of Texas at Austin
Murty P. Bhavaraju
PJM Interconnection
Lorenz T. (Larry) Biegler
Carnegie Mellon University
Donna G. Blackmond
The Scripps Research Institute
Dawn A. Bonnell
University of Pennsylvania
Craig T. (Tom) Bowman
Stanford University
Ursula M. Burns
Xerox Corporation
Robert S. Chau
Intel Corporation
Weng Cho Chew
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Steven L. Crouch
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Thomas F. Degnan, Jr.
ExxonMobil Research and Engineering
Company
Gregory G. Deierlein
Stanford University
David L. Dill
Stanford University
David A. Dornfeld
University of California, Berkeley
Abbas El Gamal
Stanford University
James O. Ellis, Jr.
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
Charbel Farhat
Stanford University
Edward W. Felten
Princeton University
Eric R. Fossum
Dartmouth College
Curtis W. Frank
Stanford University
Ashok J. Gadgil
University of California, Berkeley
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Charles F. Gay
Applied Materials Inc.
David Goodyear
T.Y. Lin International
Helen Greiner
CyPhy Works Inc.
David H. Gustafson
University of Wisconsin-Madison
R. John Hansman, Jr.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eli Harari
SanDisk Corporation
Joseph P. Heremans
The Ohio State University
Maurice P. Herlihy
Brown University
Eric Horvitz
Microsoft Research
John R. Huff
Oceaneering International, Inc.
Ganesh Kailasam
The Dow Chemical Company
Edward Kavazanjian, Jr.
Arizona State University
John E. Kelly, III
International Business Machines Corporation
22
NAE
Eric S.G. Shaqfeh
Stanford University
Pradeep S. Sindhu
Juniper Networks
Krishna (Kris) P. Singh
Holtec International
William A. Thornton
Cives Engineering Corporation
Rex W. Tillerson
Exxon Mobil Corporation
John J. Tracy
The Boeing Company
Sharon L. Wood
The University of Texas at Austin
Ken Q. Xie
Fortinet, Inc.
Elias A. Zerhouni
Sanofi
New Foreign Associates
John A. Cherry
University of Guelph, Canada
Richard H. Friend
University of Cambridge, U.K
H. David Hibbitt
ABAQUS, Inc., retired
Urs Hölzle
Google, Inc.
Jens Rasmussen
Risø National Laboratory, emeritus
Technical University of Denmark
Shlomo Shamai
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Ratan N. Tata
Tata Sons Limited, emeritus, India
Tata Trusts
Henrik Topsøe
Haldor Topsøe A/S, Denmark
Mathias Uhlén
KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Kechang Xie
Chinese Academy of Engineering, China
Ji Zhou
Chinese Academy of Engineering, China
NAE Anniversary Members
45 years or more
Names in bold celebrated
their 45th year in 2013.
Gene M. Amdahl
Leo L. Beranek
Harold Brown
Ray W. Clough
Edward E. David, Jr.
Don U. Deere
Alexander H. Flax
Jay W. Forrester
Jerrier A. Haddad
William J. Hall
Woodrow E. Johnson
George E. Mueller
Hilliard W. Paige
Allen E. Puckett
23
2 013
2013 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN ASSOCIATES
Carl C. Koch
North Carolina State University
Charles E. Kolb
Aerodyne Research, Inc.
Vijay Kumar
University of Pennsylvania
Enrique J. Lavernia
University of California, Davis
Raphael C. Lee
The University of Chicago
Kam W. Leong
Duke University
James C. Liao
University of California, Los Angeles
Bruce E. Logan
Pennsylvania State University
Gerald H. Luttrell
Virginia Tech
Edward W. Merrill
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Arthur L. Money
U.S. Department of Defense
John A. Montgomery
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
José M.F. Moura
Carnegie Mellon University
Richard M. Murray
California Institute of Technology
M. Allen Northrup
Northrup Consulting Group
Michael Ortiz
California Institute of Technology
Thomas J. Overbye
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Robin Podmore
IncSys
Stephen R. Quake
Stanford University
Robert E. Schafrik
General Electric Aviation
Jan C. Schilling
General Electric Aviation
Bal Raj Sehgal
KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, emeritus
NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS
Simon Ramo
Mark K. Smith
Dean A. Watkins
Robert M. White
40 to 45 years
Names in bold celebrated
their 40th year in 2013.
Albert L. Babb
R. Byron Bird
B. Paul Blasingame
Norman H. Brooks
Arthur E. Bryson
Robert H. Cannon, Jr.
Joseph V. Charyk
Edgar M. Cortright
John P. Craven
Malcolm R. Currie
Robert M. Fano
Morris E. Fine
John S. Foster, Jr.
Robert A. Frosch
Earnest F. Gloyna
Roy W. Gould
Richard J. Grosh
Nick Holonyak, Jr.
Arthur E. Humphrey
H. Richard Johnson*
James R. Johnson
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.
T. William Lambe
Robert G. Loewy
J. Ross Macdonald
John J. McKetta, Jr.
Brockway McMillan
Joseph H. Newman
William J. Perry
David S. Potter
Calvin F. Quate
Harold A. Rosen
Ivan E. Sutherland
Morris Tanenbaum
Myron Tribus
Albert D. Wheelon*
Lotfi A. Zadeh
35 to 39 years
Names in bold celebrated their
35th year in 2013.
Egil Abrahamsen
H. Norman Abramson
Andreas Acrivos
Harold M. Agnew*
William G. Agnew
Clarence R. Allen
Betsy Ancker-Johnson
Arthur G. Anderson
Alfredo H-S. Ang
Wm. Howard Arnold
Rupert L. Atkin
Richard H. Battin
Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr.
C. Gordon Bell
Daniel Berg
Elwyn R. Berlekamp
Donald L. Bitzer
Andrew H. Bobeck
Bruno A. Boley
Lewis M. Branscomb
John E. Breen
P. L. Thibaut Brian
William B. Bridges
Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.
J. Fred Bucy
Stuart W. Churchill
Lloyd S. Cluff
Edward Cohen
Fernando J. Corbato
Harvey G. Cragon
Stephen H. Crandall*
Charles Crussard
Elio D’Appolonia
John F. Davidson
Robert C. Dean, Jr.
Anthony J. DeMaria
Robert M. Drake, Jr.
Mildred S. Dresselhaus
Ira Dyer
Rex A. Elder
Leo Esaki
Von R. Eshleman
James L. Everett, III
Thomas E. Everhart
Joseph Feinstein
Steven J. Fenves
A. J. Field
James L. Flanagan
Peter T. Flawn
Merton C. Flemings
Douglas W. Fuerstenau
Richard L. Garwin
Ronald L. Geer
Ivar Giaever
James F. Gibbons
Solomon W. Golomb
Ralph E. Gomory
John B. Goodenough
Paul E. Gray
Robert N. Hall
John C. Hancock
Thomas J. Hanratty
Stephen E. Harris
Julius J. Harwood
George N. Hatsopoulos
Robert W. Hellwarth
Joseph M. Hendrie
John P. Hirth
Philip G. Hodge
Charles L. Hosler, Jr.
George W. Jeffs
Paul C. Jennings
Robert L. Johnson
Eneas D. Kane
William M. Kays
Herbert H. Kellogg
Jack L. Kerrebrock
Gordon S. Kino
Herwig Kogelnik
Ernest S. Kuh
William W. Lang
Milton Levenson
Salomon Levy
Frederick F. Ling
C. Gordon Little
Alan M. Lovelace
William R. Lucas
Robert W. Lucky
Louis C. Lundstrom
John D. Mackenzie
Artur Mager
Frank E. Marble
Enrique A. Marcatili
Hans Mark
Fujio Matsuda
Walter G. May
*Deceased
24
NAE
Robert H. Wertheim
Robert L. Wiegel
Herbert H. Woodson
Amnon Yariv
Alfred A. Yee
30 to 34 years
Names in bold celebrated
their 30th year in 2013.
Jan D. Achenbach
Arthur P. Adamson
Mihran S. Agbabian
John G. Anderson
Norman R. Augustine
Seymour Baron
Lionel O. Barthold
Wallace B. Behnke
Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Donald C. Berkey
Erich Bloch
John G. Bollinger
Howard Brenner
Per V. Bruel
John L. Cleasby
W. Dale Compton
Esther M. Conwell
Thomas B. Cook, Jr.*
Eugene E. Covert
Robert J. Creagan
Robert C. Crooke
L. Eric Cross
Jose B. Cruz, Jr.
Robert G. Dean
Daniel B. DeBra
Raymond F. Decker
John E. Dolan
Robert A. Duffy
Floyd Dunn
Peter S. Eagleson
Charles A. Eckert
Robert R. Everett
John C. Fisher
G. David Forney, Jr.
Yuan-Cheng B. Fung
Tasuku Fuwa
Theodore V. Galambos
Robert G. Gallager
William J. Galloway
Welko E. Gasich
Harry C. Gatos
Edwin A. Gee
Ralph S. Gens
Eugene I. Gordon
George W. Govier
George S. Graff
Paul E. Green, Jr.
Andrew S. Grove
Elias P. Gyftopoulos
Kent F. Hansen
Dean B. Harrington
George A. Harter
Kenneth E. Haughton
George H. Heilmeier
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
R. Richard Heppe
Cyril Hilsum
David G. Hoag
David A. Hodges
Kenneth F. Holtby*
Edward E. Hood, Jr.
Michel Hug
John W. Hutchinson
K. Uno Ingard
Irwin M. Jacobs
Noel Jarrett
Trevor O. Jones
Bernard H. Kear
C. Judson King
Leonard Kleinrock
Donald E. Knuth
Leonard J. Koch
Max A. Kohler
James N. Krebs
Henry Kressel
Charles C. Ladd
J. Halcombe Laning
Griff C. Lee
George Leitmann
Edwin N. Lightfoot, Jr.
Raymond C. Loehr
Joseph C. Logue
James W. Mar
Hudson Matlock
Robert D. Maurer
John S. Mayo
William J. McCune, Jr.
Charles J. McMahon, Jr.
Alan L. McWhorter
Seymour L. Meisel
*Deceased
25
2 013
NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS
Perry L. McCarty
Ross E. McKinney
James D. Meindl
Gordon H. Millar
James K. Mitchell
Johannes Moe
Gordon E. Moore
James J. Morgan
Walter E. Morrow, Jr.
Dale D. Myers
Carlos S. Ospina*
Simon Ostrach
Norman F. Parker
C. Kumar N. Patel
Harold W. Paxton
Marc J. Pelegrin
Stanford S. Penner
Jacques Peters
Robert Plunkett
William N. Poundstone
Ronald F. Probstein
John A. Quinn
Eric H. Reichl
James B. Reswick
Lawrence G. Roberts
Leslie E. Robertson
Anatol Roshko
Dale F. Rudd
Allen S. Russell
Jean E. Sammet
Thorndike Saville, Jr.
Robert S. Schechter
Roland W. Schmitt
Masanobu Shinozuka
Mete A. Sozen
Roger W. Staehle
Morris A. Steinberg
Stanley D. Stookey
Lawrence E. Swabb, Jr.
George W. Swenson, Jr.
Morgan C. Sze
John J. Taylor*
Ping King Tien
Georges Andre C. Vendryes
Andrew J. Viterbi
John B. Wachtman, Jr.
William M. Webster
Johannes Weertman
James Wei
James G. Wenzel
NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS
Harry W. Mergler
Carl L. Monismith
John W. Morris*
Norman A. Nadel
Robin B. Nicholson
Karl H. Norris
J. R. Anthony Pearson
Karl S. Pister
John M. Prausnitz
Lawrence R. Rabiner
James R. Rice
Herbert H. Richardson
Gustavo Rivas-Mijares
Walter L. Robb
Stanley T. Rolfe
James F. Roth
Victor H. Rumsey
Donald G. Russell
Irwin W. Sandberg
Gurmukh S. Sarkaria
Jacob W. Schaefer*
William R. Schowalter
Harris M. Schurmeier*
John H. Seinfeld
Charles V. Shank
Oleg D. Sherby
Paul G. Shewmon
John B. Slaughter
George E. Smith
Kenneth A. Smith
Gunter Spur
Francis M. Staszesky*
Theodore Stern
Fred Sterzer
Henry E. Stone
Charles E. Taylor
Daniel M. Tellep
Nickolas J. Themelis
Gareth Thomas
Kenneth Thompson
Marshall P. Tulin
Thomas A. Vanderslice
Gregory S. Vassell
Anestis S. Veletsos
Wilford F. Weeks
Jasper A. Welch, Jr.
John F. Welch, Jr.
Lloyd R. Welch
Albert R. C. Westwood
Willis S. White, Jr.
Gerald L. Wilson
Theodore Y. Wu
Takeo Yokobori
Dante C. Youla
Laurence R. Young
Paul Zia
25 to 29 years
Names in bold celebrated their
25th year in 2013.
Richard E. Adams*
Harl P. Aldrich, Jr.
Richard C. Alkire
Dell K. Allen
Frances E. Allen
William F. Allen
William A. Anders
Frederick T. Andrews*
John A. Armstrong
Arthur Ashkin
Bishnu S. Atal
David Atlas
William F. Ballhaus, Jr.
Alexis T. Bell
David P. Billington
Kenneth A. Blenkarn
Nicolaas Bloembergen
H. Kent Bowen
Klaus D. Bowers
James E. Broadwell
Robert W. Brodersen
Walter L. Brown
Robert L. Byer
Michael M. Carroll
William J. Carroll
Edwin L. Carstensen
John F. Cashen
Ben H. Caudle
Herbert S. Cheng
William A. Chittenden
Alfred Y. Cho
Anil K. Chopra
Richard M. Christensen
Jack V. Christiansen
Jon F. Claerbout
Robert P. Clagett
Richard J. Coar*
Keith H. Coats
Philip M. Condit
Robert W. Conn
Richard A. Conway
Paul M. Cook
Edward J. Cording
Lawrence B. Curtis
James W. Dally
Ernest L. Daman
F. Paul de Mello
Morton M. Denn
Robert H. Dennard
Diarmuid Downs
James J. Duderstadt
James M. Duncan
Lloyd A. Duscha
Dean E. Eastman
Lester F. Eastman*
James Economy
Helen T. Edwards
Gerard W. Elverum
Tony F. W. Embleton
Richard E. Emmert
Joseph F. Engelberger
John V. Evans
Edward A. Feigenbaum
Alexander Feiner
John W. Fisher
Charles A. Fowler
Donald C. Fraser
Alexander F. Giacco
Alastair M. Glass
Richard J. Goldstein
Mary L. Good
Joseph W. Goodman
Arthur C. Gossard
Hermann K. Gummel
Bacharuddin J. Habibie
Robert S. Hahn
Donald L. Hammond
Robert D. Hanson
Robert C. Hawkins
Siegfried S. Hecker
Adam Heller
Edward A. Hiler
Narain G. Hingorani
Yu-Chi Ho
John H. Horlock
William G. Howard, Jr.
Chieh-Su Hsu
Lee A. Iacocca
James D. Idol
*Deceased
26
NAE
Sanjoy K. Mitter
Joe H. Mize
John B. Mooney, Jr.
Franklin K. Moore
Mark V. Morkovin
Joel Moses
C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr.
Gerald Nadler
Hyla S. Napadensky
Albert Narath
George L. Nemhauser
Robert M. Nerem
William D. Nix
J. Tinsley Oden
William G. Oldham
Alan V. Oppenheim
Robert B. Ormsby, Jr.
Carel Otte
Morton B. Panish
Jacques I. Pankove
Yih-Hsing Pao
Lawrence T. Papay
Frank L. Parker
Ronald R. Parker
Donald R. Paul
J. Randolph Paulling
Val P. Peline
Thomas K. Perkins
Donald E. Petersen
Emil Pfender
R. Byron Pipes
Robert Plonsey
John William Poduska, Sr.
Michael Prats
Donald E. Procknow
Robert A. Rapp
Raj Reddy
Eli Reshotko
Jerome G. Rivard
Enders A. Robinson
Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe
Ronald E. Rosensweig
Della M. Roy
Chih-Tang Sah
Eugene C. Sakshaug
John H. Schmertmann
Lucien A. Schmit, Jr.
Roger A. Schmitz
Charles D. Scott
Eugene Sevin
Don W. Shaw
Eugene D. Shchukin
William H. Silcox
Leonard M. Silverman
Merrill I. Skolnik
Ernest T. Smerdon
Leroy H. Smith, Jr.
Ponisseril Somasundaran
Ephraim M. Sparrow
William J. Spencer
Fred I. Stalkup
Dale F. Stein
Charles V. Sternling
Kenneth N. Stevens
William D. Strecker
Ben G. Streetman
G. Russell Sutherland
Joseph F. Sutter
Chung L. Tang
Byron D. Tapley
Robert E. Tarjan
David A. Thompson
Charles F. Tiffany
Neil E. Todreas
Paul E. Torgersen
Joseph F. Traub
George L. Turin
Walter G. Vincenti
Raymond Viskanta
Leland J. Walker
Daniel I. C. Wang
Willis H. Ware*
Walter J. Weber, Jr.
Vern W. Weekman, Jr.
Julia R. Weertman
Sheldon Weinig
Irwin Welber
Arthur W. Westerberg
John A. White, Jr.
Sheila E. Widnall
Janusz S. Wilczynski
Forman A. Williams
James C. Williams
Edward L. Wilson
Ward O. Winer
John J. Wise
Eugene Wong
Abe M. Zarem
Jacob Ziv
*Deceased
27
2 013
NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS
Anthony J. Iorillo
Erich P. Ippen
Robert B. Jansen
Marvin E. Jensen
James O. Jirsa
Ellis L. Johnson
Thomas V. Jones
Angel G. Jordan
Frank D. Judge
Robert E. Kahn
Thomas Kailath
Ivan P. Kaminow
Melvin F. Kanninen
Howard H. Kehrl*
George E. Keller, II
Jack Keller
Anthony Kelly
Makoto Kikuchi
Albert S. Kobayashi
Bernard L. Koff
Butler W. Lampson
Louis J. Lanzerotti
Ronald M. Latanision
Kaye D. Lathrop
Gerald D. Laubach
L. Gary Leal
Shih-Ying Lee
James U. Lemke
John W. Leonard
Martin P. Lepselter
Philip W. Lett
Peter W. Likins
Barbara H. Liskov
Benjamin Y.H. Liu
Dan Luss
John W. Lyons
John B. MacChesney
Albert Macovski
Robert Malpas
George A. Maneatis
Stephen H. Maslen
John L. Mason
Bill B. May
James W. Mayer
Carver A. Mead
Robert Mehrabian
Chiang C. Mei
Richard C. Messinger
William F. Miller
Harold Mirels
2013 private contributions
A Message from NAE Vice President
Maxine L. Savitz
It has been a great privilege and pleasure to serve as vice president of
the NAE for the past 8 years. As my term comes to an end on June
30th, I would like to take the opportunity to thank our generous and
dedicated donors and staff, and also highlight what we accomplished
together during my tenure.
In 2013 NAE raised over $8.3 million in new gifts and pledges to further the goals of the Academy. This is a 77 percent increase from $4.7
million in 2008. Annual unrestricted support doubled from $800,000
Maxine L. Savitz
in 2008 to over $1.65 million in 2013, the overwhelming majority of it
from NAE members. During the same period, the number of NAE donors grew by 25 percent, from 578
in 2008 to 722 this past year, and the member giving participation rate grew from 26 percent in 2008 to
30 percent. Also for the first time, we had 100 percent giving participation from the NAE Council—a sincere gesture of commitment by our leadership.
In 2008 the NAE helped spark over $3 million in funding for America’s Energy Future, a comprehensive
overview of US energy supply, demand, and efficiency, with recommendations for our nation going forward. Over the years, we were privileged to secure and launch several matching gift challenges, including the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Matching Gift Challenges in 2009, 2010, and 2011; the Asad, Taj, and
Jamal Madni Challenges in 2012, and the Peter Farrell Challenge in 2013. Additionally, we initiated the
50th Anniversary Campaign, and spearheaded the fundraising effort to honor outgoing and since
deceased NAE President Charles M. Vest. Here are a few highlights.
50th Anniversary
This year NAE celebrates its 50th anniversary. The NAE embarked on a four-year fundraising effort to celebrate 50 years of engineering leadership and service to the nation in 2011.
Through your support, the NAE can strengthen its voice on national policy, work to increase the number,
quality, and diversity of engineering graduates, advance quality of life, and enhance national capacity for
innovation and global competitiveness.
28
NAE
Help us reach our remaining 50th Anniversary Campaign goals of securing 50 new Einstein Society
Members and/or 50 new estate or planned gifts by the end of 2014. I encourage you to think about making a gift provision to the NAE or a gift to reach the Einstein Society. If you have already included the
NAE in your estate plans but have not notified us or are interested in learning more about the 50th
Anniversary goals, please contact Radka Nebesky at 202.334.3417 or at [email protected]
Farrell Challenge
Last year, Peter Farrell (’12), a new member from Section 2, sponsored a $100,000 challenge to match
gifts made by members of the classes of 2012 and 2013. Thirty-eight percent of our members responded
to the Peter Farrell Challenge, exceeding our $100,000 goal by raising over $544,000 and inspiring a
couple of $100,000 gifts. Thanks to Peter’s great generosity, the newest NAE members were encouraged
to support the NAE’s mission and moved to help meet our 50th Anniversary goal of 50 percent giving
participation.
Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund
As Chuck’s term as president was drawing to a close, we established the Charles M. Vest Opportunity
Fund in 2012, to honor his presidency and his tireless efforts in advocating for and promoting engineering.
Many NAE members and friends helped raise $4.5 million in gifts, pledges, and gift intentions in less than
18 months. Starting this year the fund will seed new initiatives, supplement existing programs, and support
exploratory studies, as directed by future presidents, while at the same time honoring Chuck and his work
at NAE. The fund will empower the NAE to be a stronger voice for engineering and to be more proactive
in leading and identifying initiatives to benefit the nation and engineering profession. All gifts to the Vest
President’s Opportunity Fund counted toward the 50th Anniversary Campaign. We thank all the donors
who contributed so generously to honor Chuck (see pages 36–37 for a full list of contributors).
In December 2013 we were deeply saddened to lose Chuck to pancreatic cancer. I hope many of you
were able to join us at the NAS Building on February 20, 2014 to celebrate his life and legacy.
Loyal Donors
Gifts made to the NAE year after year by our members and friends demonstrate a steadfast commitment
to our mission and work. As a regular long-time donor to the NAE to support the work I so strongly
believe in, I am genuinely grateful to the following people who have contributed to the NAE for 15 consecutive years or more:
H. Norman Abramson (’76)
Clarence R. Allen (’76)
Charles A. Amann (’89)
John C. Angus (’95)
Wm. Howard Arnold (’74)
Barry W. Boehm (’96)
Harold Brown (’67)
Jack E. Buffington (’96)
Esther M. Conwell (’80)
Lawrence B. Curtis (’88)
Irwin Dorros (’90)
Daniel J. Fink* (‘74)
Robert C. Forney (’89)
Adam Heller (’87)
George W. Jeffs (’78)
Anita K. Jones (’94)
Max A. Kohler (’81)
Louis J. Lanzerotti (’88)
Johanna M.H. Levelt
Sengers (’92)
Thomas S. Maddock (’93)
Robert D. Maurer (’79)
James J. Mikulski (’97)
John Neerhout (’92)
Simon Ramo (’64)
Jerome Rivard (’86)
William R. Schowalter (’82)
F. Stan Settles (’91)
Morris Tanenbaum (’72)
Hardy W. Trolander* (’92)
Andrew J. Viterbi (’78)
Irving T. Waaland (’91)
Johannes (’76) and Julia (’88)
Weertman
Robert M. White (’68)
Edgar S. Woolard (’92)
Wm. A. Wulf (’93)
*Deceased
29
2 013
2013 private contributions
As we head into the final year of our campaign, we have made impressive progress toward our “50 for
50” goals. In 2012, we exceeded the Leadership goal of securing 50 new gifts of $50,000 or more. This
past year, we exceeded the goal of securing 50 new Golden Bridge Society Members, and Section 2 has
surpassed the 50 percent giving participation goal for NAE sections. Plus many other sections are on target or have seen remarkable improvement. See graphs on page 28 for more details.
2013 private contributions
Private funds now make up almost a third of the NAE’s yearly budget. Simply put, we would not be able
to operate without them. Your support is essential not only in providing core support but also in expanding the scope and impact of current projects and initiating new ones. The energetic and enthusiastic participation of our members in NAE activities has been and always will be the backbone of the NAE. You
are the driving force pushing us forward. Our members are also vital to our fundraising success, both by
making financial contributions and by serving as advocates for the NAE and the engineering profession.
On behalf of the NAE Council and President Dan Mote, I thank you for your contributions over the years
and especially in 2013. Our generous members, friends, partner corporations, foundations, government
sponsors, and other supporters make all the difference in our ability to positively impact our world and to
continue advocating for engineering. I am deeply grateful for your generosity, continued involvement,
and unwavering support of the NAE mission.
Maxine L. Savitz
2013 Honor Roll of Donors
Annual Giving Societies
The National Academy of Engineering gratefully acknowledges the following members and friends who made charitable contributions to the Academies during 2013. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of
the NAE as a national voice for engineering.
The Peter Farrell Challenge matched dollar for dollar, up to $100,000, any gift to the NAE by NAE members or
foreign associates elected in the classes of 2012 and 2013.
Catalyst Society
Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $10,000 or more in collective support for the Academies in 2013. 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.
$500,000 and above
Penny and Bill George, George
Family Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore
Raymond S. Stata
George and Daphne Hatsopoulos
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
Mary and Howard* Kehrl, Estate
of Howard Kehrl
Philip M. Neches◊
Richard P. Simmons
Ken Xie◊
Clayton Daniel and Patricia L.
Mote
David E. Shaw◊
Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull
Willis H. Ware*, Estate of Willis
Ware
Robert M. and Mavis E. White
James O. Ellis◊
Paul and Judy Gray
John O. Hallquist
John L. Hennessy
Kent Kresa
$100,000 to $499,999
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Gordon Bell
Ursula Burns◊ and Lloyd Bean
Olivia and Peter Farrell
George and Ann Fisher
Friend
John F. McDonnell
$50,000 to $99,999
Vladimir and Hertha S. Haensel*,
Estate of Vladimir Haensel
John W. Landis*
$20,000 to $49,999
Rodney A. Brooks
Lance and Susan Davis
*Deceased
◊Peter Farrell Challenge
30
NAE
Henry and Susan Samueli
Martin B. and Beatrice E. Sherwin
Charles M.* and Rebecca M. Vest
Andrew and Erna Viterbi
John C. Wall
Adrian Zaccaria
Friends
Michiko So* and Lawrence
Finegold
William I. Koch
Robert W. Gore
Eliyahou Harari◊
Chad and Ann Holliday
Michael W. Hunkapiller
John E. Kelly◊
Norman N. Li
Frances and George Ligler
Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire
Jaya and Venky Narayanamurti
John Neerhout Jr.
Roberto Padovani
Larry and Carol Papay
Arogyaswami J. Paulraj
Ronald L. Rivest
Henry M. Rowan
Maxine L. Savitz
Joel S. Spira
Arnold and Constance Stancell
Peter and Vivian Teets
George M. Whitesides
Anonymous
$10,000 to $19,999
Seta and Diran Apelian
Norman R. Augustine
Barry W. Boehm
Lewis M. Branscomb
Sigrid and Vint Cerf
Jean-Lou A. Chameau
Uma Chowdhry
Paul Citron and Margaret
Carlson Citron
Jeffrey Dean
Nicholas M. Donofrio
Robert and Cornelia Eaton
Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink
Arthur M. Geoffrion
Friends
Jeanne M. Fox*, Estate of Jeanne
M. Fox
Burt and Deedee McMurtry
Rosette Society
Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $5,000 to $9,999 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. 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.
Andreas and Juana Acrivos
Alice M. Agogino
Jane K. and William F. Ballhaus Jr.
Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch
Becky and Tom Bergman
Bharati and Murty Bhavaraju◊
Diane and Samuel W. Bodman
Robert L. Byer
Corbett Caudill
Selim A. Chacour
Josephine Cheng
Sunlin Chou
David R. Clarke
Ruth A. David
Gordon R. England◊
Thomas E. Everhart
Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney
Nan and Chuck Geschke
Paul E. Gray
Evelyn L. Hu
Robert E. Kahn
Paul and Julie Kaminski
Robert M. and Pauline W.
Koerner
Mark J. Levin
James C. McGroddy
Richard A. Meserve
Cherry A. Murray
Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel
Alfred Z. Spector and Rhonda G.
Kost
Richard J. Stegemeier
David W. Thompson
Raymond Viskanta
Elias A. Zerhouni◊
Challenge Society
Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $2,500 to $4,999 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. 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
Clyde and Jeanette Baker
Chau-Chyun Chen
Joseph M. Colucci
Carl de Boor
Pablo G. Debenedetti
James J. Duderstadt
Gerard W. Elverum
Eric R. Fossum◊
Louis V. Gerstner Jr.
Eduardo D. Glandt
Wesley L. Harris
Janina and Siegfried Hecker
Leroy E. Hood
Michael R. Johnson
John and Wilma Kassakian
Michael and Diana King
Gerald and Doris Laubach
Helmut List
Richard B. Miles
James K. Mitchell
Dale and Marge* Myers
Robert M. and Marilyn R. Nerem
Robert E. Nickell
Matthew O’Donnell
Shela and Kumar Patel
Neil E. Paton
John W. and Susan M. Poduska
*Deceased
◊Peter Farrell Challenge
31
2 013
2013 private contributions
Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Jamal
Madni
Roger L. McCarthy
M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell
Paul S. Peercy
Simon Ramo
2013 private contributions
Robert H. Rediker
John M. Samuels Jr.
Linda S. Sanford
Henry E. Stone
Edwin L. Thomas
Henrik TopsoeV
James J. Truchard
Richard H. Truly
Robert and Robyn Wagoner
Julia and Johannes Weertman
Willis S. White Jr.
William D. Young
Mark D. Zoback
Friends
Kristine L. Bueche
Isabelle M. Katzer
Joe and Glenna Moore
Charter Society
Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $1,000 to $2,499 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. 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.
Ronald J. Adrian
William G. Agnew
Harl P. Aldrich Jr.
Clarence R. Allen
John L. Anderson
John C. Angus
Frances H. Arnold
Kenneth E. Arnold
R. Lyndon Arscott
James R. Asay
Thomas W. Asmus
David Atlas
Ken Austin
Arthur B. Baggeroer
William F. Baker
James E. Barger
Leo L. Beranek
Donald L. Bitzer
Mark T. Bohr
Rudolph Bonaparte
H. Kent Bowen
Corale L. Brierley
James A. Brierley
Andrei Z. Broder
William R. Brody
Alan C. Brown
Andrew Brown Jr.
Harold Brown
John H. Bruning
Thomas and Miriam Budinger
George* and Virginia Bugliarello
Jeffrey P. Buzen
Federico Capasso
Stuart K. Card
François J. Castaing
Don B. Chaffin
Edwin A. Chandross
Robert S. Chau◊
Weng C. Chew◊
Shu and Kuang-Chung Chien
Jared L. Cohon◊
Esther M. Conwell
Edward J. Cording
Gary L. Cowger
Henry Cox
Natalie W. Crawford
Robert L. Crippen◊
Malcolm R. Currie
Glen T. Daigger
David E. Daniel
L. Berkley Davis
Raymond F. Decker
Thomas B. Deen
George E. Dieter
Stephen W. Director
Dennis E. Discher◊
Ralph L. Disney
Daniel W. Dobberpuhl
Irwin Dorros
Elisabeth M. Drake
Susan T. Dumais
Lloyd A. Duscha
Robert R. Everett
Robert E. Fenton
Leroy M. Fingerson
Bruce A. Finlayson
Anthony E. Fiorato
Robert E. Fischell
Edith M. Flanigen
Samuel C. Florman
Heather and Gordon Forward
Howard Frank
Douglas W. Fuerstenau
Huajian Gao◊
Elsa M. Garmire and Robert H.
Russell
Donald P. Gaver
C. William Gear
Arthur Gelb
Alexander F. Giacco
Paul H. Gilbert
Vida F. and Arthur L. Goldstein
Steve and Nancy Goldstein
Mary L. Good
Joseph W. Goodman
William Gropp
Hermann K. Gummel
Juris Hartmanis
Kenneth E. Haughton
Jeff Hawkins
Alan J. Heeger
Martin Hellman
Larry L. Hench
Chris T. Hendrickson
David and Susan Hodges
Thom and Grace Hodgson
Urs Hölzle◊
Edward E. Hood Jr.
Mark Horowitz
John R. Howell
J. Stuart Hunter
Mary Jane Irwin
Andrew Jackson and Lillian
Rankel
Wilhelmina and Stephen Jaffe
Leah H. Jamieson
George W. Jeffs
Barry C. Johnson
G. Frank Joklik
Anita K. Jones
Marshall G. Jones
Eric W. Kaler
Melvin F. Kanninen
Michael C. Kavanaugh
Edward Kavazanjian◊
Sung Wan Kim
Judson and Jeanne King
Oliver D. Kingsley Jr.
James L. Kirtley
Albert S. Kobayashi
Charles E. Kolb Jr.◊
Demetrious Koutsoftas
Lester C.* and Joan M. Krogh
Charles C. Ladd
Michael R. Ladisch
T.W. Lambe
Louis J. Lanzerotti
David C. Larbalestier
Richard C. Larson
Ronald M. Latanision
Enrique J. Lavernia◊
Ann L. Lee
James U. Lemke
*Deceased
◊Peter Farrell Challenge
32
NAE
William P. Pierskalla
Mark R. Pinto
Victor L. Poirier
Donald E. Procknow
William R. Pulleyblank
Henry H. Rachford Jr.
Prabhakar Raghavan
Doraiswami Ramkrishna
Richard F. and Terri W. Rashid
Buddy D. Ratner
Raj Reddy
Kenneth and Martha Reifsnider
Gintaras V. Reklaitis
Thomas J. Richardson
Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins
Bernard I. Robertson
C. Paul Robinson
Mendel Rosenblum and Diane
Greene
Anatol Roshko
Gerald F. Ross
William B. Russel
Andrew P. Sage
Vinod K. Sahney
Steven B. Sample
Harvey W. Schadler
Jan C. Schilling◊
John H. Schmertmann
Ronald V. Schmidt
William R. Schowalter
Alan Schriesheim
Henry G. Schwartz Jr.
Lyle H. Schwartz
Nambirajan Seshadri◊
Daniel P. Siewiorek
Donald M. Smyth
Gunter Stein
Gregory Stephanopoulos
Kenneth E. Stinson
Michael R. Stonebraker
John and Janet Swanson
Richard M. Swanson
James R. Swartz
Esther S. Takeuchi
Charlotte and Morris Tanenbaum
Eva Tardos
George Tchobanoglous
James M. Tien
Rex W. Tillerson◊
Richard L. Tomasetti
John J. Tracy◊
James A. Trainham III
Hardy W. Trolander*
A. Galip Ulsoy
Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic◊
Darsh T. Wasan
Warren and Mary Washington
Michael S. Waterman◊
J. Turner Whitted
Janusz S. Wilczynski
Ward O. Winer
Savio and Pattie Woo
Edgar S. Woolard Jr.
Richard N. Wright
Wm. A. Wulf
Beverly and Loring Wyllie
KeChang Xie◊
Kuang-Di Xu
William W-G. Yeh
Paul G. Yock
Zarem Foundation
Ji Zhou◊
Anonymous
Friends
Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson
Josephine F. Berg
Merrill Bonder
Evelyn S. Jones
Toby Wolf
Other Individual Donors
Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed
up to $999 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. 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.
H. Norman Abramson
Linda M. Abriola
Arthur P. Adamson
Mihran S. Agbabian
Montgomery M. Alger
Paul A. Allaire
Bernard Amadei
Charles A. Amann
Cristina H. Amon
John G. Anderson
Mary P. Anderson
Frederick T. Andrews Jr.*
Kristi S. Anseth
Frank F. Aplan
Ali S. Argon
Professor Arvind
Jamal J. Azar
Donald W. Bahr
Rodica A. Baranescu
Grigory I. Barenblatt
Michael I. Baskes◊
James B. Bassingthwaighte
Ray H. Baughman
Howard and Alice Baum
Zdenek P. Bazant
Georges and Marlene Belfort
Philip A. Bernstein
James F. Blinn
Jack L. Blumenthal
Alfred Blumstein
F. Peter Boer
William J. Boettinger
George and Carol Born
Lillian C. Borrone
*Deceased
◊Peter Farrell Challenge
33
2 013
2013 private contributions
Ronald K. Leonard
Frederick J. Leonberger
James C. Liao◊
Burn-Jeng Lin
Jack E. Little
Chao-Han Liu◊
Robert G. Loewy
Joan M. and Frank W.* Luerssen
Lester L. Lyles
William J. MacKnight
Thomas and Caroline Maddock
Artur Mager
Subhash Mahajan
Henrique S. Malvar◊
David A. Markle
W. Allen Marr
John L. Mason
James F. Mathis
Robert D. Maurer
Kishor C. Mehta
Edward W. Merrill◊
James J. Mikulski
Richard K. Miller◊
Sanjit K. Mitra
Arthur L. Money◊
Duncan T. Moore
Van and Barbara Mow
Earll M. Murman
Albert Narath
Paul D. Nielsen
Chrysostomos L. Nikias
William D. Nix
Ronald P. Nordgren
M. Allen Northrup◊
Susan and Franklin M. Orr Jr.
Claire L. Parkinson
John H. Perepezko
Thomas K. Perkins
Kurt E. Petersen
Julia M. Phillips
2013 private contributions
Craig T. Bowman◊
Frank Bowman
Barbara Boyan◊
John D. Bredehoeft
Peter R. Bridenbaugh
Frederick P. Brooks Jr.
Norman H. Brooks
Howard J. Bruschi
Randal E. Bryant
Jack E. Buffington
Ned H. Burns
Anne and John Cahn
Joe C. Campbell
Max W. Carbon◊
E. Dean Carlson
Albert Carnesale
John R. Casani
John J. Cassidy
William Cavanaugh
A. Ray Chamberlain
Donald D. Chamberlin
Douglas M. Chapin
Vernon L. Chartier
Andrew R. Chraplyvy
Robert P. Clagett
Edmund M. Clarke
John L. Cleasby
James J. Collins
Robert P. and Ellen M. Colwell
Richard A. Conway
Harry E. Cook
Robert L. Cook
Thomas B. Cook Jr.*
Stuart L. Cooper
Ross and Stephanie Corotis
Arthur Coury
John and Norma Crawford
Lawrence B. Curtis
Paul D. Dapkus
Edward E. David Jr.
Delbert E. Day
F.P. de Mello
Thomas F. Degnan◊
Joseph M. DeSimone
Robert C. DeVries
David L. Dill◊
Frederick H. Dill
Robert H. Dodds
Albert A. Dorman
David A. Dornfeld◊
E. Linn Draper Jr.
T. Dixon Dudderar
Floyd Dunn
David A. Dzombak
Peter S. Eagleson
Lewis S. Edelheit
Helen T. Edwards
Farouk El-Baz
Manuel Elices
Bruce R. Ellingwood
Richard E. Emmert
Joel S. Engel
John V. Evans
Lawrence B. Evans
James L. Everett III
Robert M. Fano
Joseph Feinstein
Millard and Barbara Firebaugh
Peter T. Flawn
Merton C. Flemings
Christodoulos A. Floudas
James D. Foley
G. David Forney Jr.
Curtis W. Frank◊
Ivan T. Frisch
Eli Fromm
Shun Chong Fung
Theodore V. Galambos
Zvi Galil
Edwin A. Gee
Ronald L. Geer
John H. Gibbons
Don P. Giddens
Jacqueline Gish
George J. Gleghorn
Herbert Gleiter
Richard J. Goldstein
Solomon W. Golomb
John B. Goodenough
David J. Goodman
Roy W. Gould
Thomas E. Graedel
Leslie Greengard
Gary S. Grest
Ignacio E. Grossmann
Barbara J. Grosz
Karl A. Gschneidner
George I. Haddad
Jerrier A. Haddad
Donald J. Haderle
Carol K. Hall
William J. Hall
Eugene E. Haller
Thomas L. Hampton
William H. Hansmire
John M. Hanson
Henry J. Hatch
Robert C. Hawkins
Adam Heller
Robert W. Hellwarth
Joseph M. Hendrie
Arthur H. Heuer and Joan Hulburt
George J. Hirasaki
Peter B. Hirsch
John P. Hirth
Allan S. Hoffman
Richard Hogg◊
Stanley H. Horowitz
Davorin D. Hrovat
Arthur E. Humphrey
Izzat M. Idriss
Kenichi Iga
Jeremy Isenberg
Linos J. Jacovides
Paul C. Jennings
James O. Jirsa
Donald L. Johnson
Angel G. Jordan
Aravind K. Joshi
M. Frans Kaashoek
Charles K. Kao
Ahsan Kareem
William E. Kastenberg
Kristina B. Katsaros
Bernard H. Kear
Leon M. Keer
Chaitan Khosla
Timothy L. Killeen
Albert I. King
Donald E. Knuth
Riki Kobayashi
Carl C. Koch◊
Bernard L. Koff
Max A. Kohler
Jindrich Kopecek
Bill and Ann Koros
Richard W. Korsmeyer
Herbert Kroemer
Fikri J. Kuchuk◊
Thomas F. Kuech
John M. Kulicki
Stephanie L. Kwolek
Richard T. Lahey Jr.
Bruce M. Lake
Simon S. Lam
James L. Lammie
Leslie B. Lamport
David A. Landgrebe
Carl G. Langner
Robert C. Lanphier III
Alan Lawley
Edward D. Lazowska
Margaret A. LeMone
Johanna M.H. Levelt Sengers
Octave Levenspiel
Herbert S. Levinson
Salomon Levy
Paul A. Libby
Peter W. Likins
John H. Linehan
Kuo-Nan Liou
*Deceased
◊Peter Farrell Challenge
34
NAE
Leonard Pinchuk◊
Karl S. Pister
Stephen and Linda Pope
Michael Prats
Ronald F. Probstein
Charles W. Pryor Jr.
Roberta and Edwin Przybylowicz
Robert A. Pucel
Stephen R. Quake◊
Kaushik Rajashekara◊
Vivian and Subbiah Ramalingam
Eugene M. Rasmusson
Eli Reshotko
James R. Rice
Bruce E. Rittmann
Jerome G. Rivard
Lloyd M. Robeson
Stephen M. Robinson
Thomas E. Romesser
Arye Rosen
Howard B. Rosen
Kenneth M. Rosen
Donald E. Ross
Yoram Rudy
B. Don and Becky Russell
Peter W. Sauer
Thorndike Saville Jr.
Robert F. Sawyer
George W. Scherer
Richard Scherrer
Geert W. Schmid-Schoenbein
Jerald L. Schnoor
Walter J. Schrenk
Albert and Susan Schultz
Robert J. Schultz
Mischa Schwartz
Bal Raj Sehgal◊
Hratch G. Semerjian
Robert J. Serafin
F. Stan Settles
Don W. Shaw
Thomas B. Sheridan
Ben A. Shneiderman
Neil G. Siegel
Arnold H. Silver
Kumares C. Sinha
Jack M. Sipress
R. Wayne Skaggs
John Brooks Slaughter
Gurindar S. Sohi
Soroosh Sorooshian
Dale F. Stein
Dean E. Stephan
George Stephanopoulos
Thomas G. Stephens
Kenneth H. Stokoe II
Howard and Valerie Stone
Richard G. Strauch
Stanley C. Suboleski
Yasuharu Suematsu
James M. Symons
Rodney J. Tabaczynski
Richard A. Tapia
Robert W. Taylor
William F. Tinney
David and Jane Tirrell
Spencer R. Titley
Neil E. Todreas
Alvin W. Trivelpiece
Stephen D. Umans
John M. Undrill
Theodore Van Duzer
Moshe Y. Vardi
Walter G. Vincenti
Harold J. Vinegar
Thomas H. Vonder Haar
Irv Waaland
Wallace R. Wade
Steven J. Wallach
C. Michael Walton
Yulun Wang
John T. Watson
Watt W. Webb
Frederick D. Weber
Wilford F. Weeks
Robert J. Weimer
Sheldon Weinbaum
Sheldon Weinig
Jasper A. Welch Jr.
David A. Whelan
Robert M. and Mavis E. White
Sharon L. Wood◊
David A. Woolhiser
Eli Yablonovitch
Roe-Hoan Yoon
Yannis C. Yortsos
Les Youd
Laurence R. Young
Paul Zia
Steven J. Zinkle◊
Ben T. Zinn
Anonymous
Friends
Nancy Andrews
James Barksdale
Caitlyn Carr
Colby A. Chapman and Marc A.
Manly
Steve S. Chen
Clara K. Ellert
Frances P. Elliott
Maria Evans
Erin Fitzgerald
*Deceased
◊Peter Farrell Challenge
35
2 013
2013 private contributions
Nathan and Barbara Liskov
Andrew J. Lovinger
Verne L. Lynn
John W. Lyons
J. Ross and Margaret Macdonald
Albert Macovski
Thomas J. Malone
James W. Mar
William F. Marcuson III
Robert C. Marini
Hans Mark
James J. Markowsky
David K. Matlock
Fujio Matsuda
Walter J. McCarthy Jr.*
William J. McCroskey
Ross E. McKinney
Diane M. McKnight◊
Robert M. McMeeking
Harry W. Mergler
Angelo Miele
Antonios G. Mikos◊
James A. Miller
Robert D. Miller
Keith K. Millheim
Benjamin F. Montoya
Francis C. Moon
William B. Morgan
A. Stephen Morse
Joel Moses
E.P. Muntz
Haydn H. Murray
Thomas M. Murray
Gerald Nadler
Devaraysamudram R. Nagaraj
R. Shankar Nair
Tsuneo Nakahara
Hyla S. Napadensky
David Nash
Alan Needleman
Stuart O. Nelson
Martin E. Newell
Joseph H. Newman
Babatunde A. Ogunnaike◊
Robert S. O’Neil
Elaine S. Oran
John K. Ousterhout
David H. Pai
Athanassios Z. Panagiotopoulos
Stavros S. Papadopulos
Donald R. Paul
H.W. Paxton
Judea Pearl
P. Hunter Peckham
Celestino R. Pennoni
Nicholas A. Peppas
Roderic I. Pettigrew
2013 private contributions
Sharon P. Gross
Tina Hedrick
Sara Lo
Charlotte D. McCall
Linda McCarthy
Michele H. Miller
Radka Z. Nebesky
Andrew Oakley
Marty Perreault
Richard and Norma Sarns
Verna W. Spinrad
Judith and Paul Spradlin
Joy Szekely
Barbara A. Thompson
Elizabeth W. Toor
Margot White
Sarah Widner and Timothy Hess
Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund
In recognition of NAE members and friends who gave generously to the Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity
Fund in 2013 to honor and remember the NAE’s ninth president, Chuck Vest.
H. Norman Abramson
Alice M. Agogino
Bernard Amadei
Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson
Mary P. Anderson
Diran Apelian
Frances H. Arnold
Wm. Howard Arnold
Professor Arvind
Norman R. Augustine
Clyde and Jeanette Baker
Jane K. and William F. Ballhaus Jr.
James Barksdale
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch
Gordon Bell
Diane and Samuel W. Bodman
F. Peter Boer
Corale L. Brierley
James A. Brierley
William R. Brody
Rodney A. Brooks
John H. Bruning
Thomas and Miriam Budinger
Ursula Burns and Lloyd Bean
Jeffrey P. Buzen
Albert Carnesale
Sigrid and Vint Cerf
Don B. Chaffin
A. Ray Chamberlain
Jean-Lou A. Chameau
Paul Citron and Margaret Carlson
Citron
Henry Cox
David E. Daniel
Ruth A. David
Thomas F. Degnan
Frederick H. Dill
Stephen W. Director
Nicholas M. Donofrio
David A. Dornfeld
James J. Duderstadt
Robert R. Everett
Olivia and Peter Farrell
Bruce A. Finlayson
Anthony E. Fiorato
George and Ann Fisher
Samuel C. Florman
James D. Foley
Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney
Zvi Galil
Huajian Gao
Elsa M. Garmire and Robert H.
Russell
Arthur Gelb
Arthur M. Geoffrion
Don P. Giddens
Jacqueline Gish
Steve and Nancy Goldstein
Joseph W. Goodman
Paul E. Gray
Paul and Judy Gray
Barbara J. Grosz
George I. Haddad
Jerrier A. Haddad
Wesley L. Harris
George and Daphne Hatsopoulos
Janina and Siegfried Hecker
Adam Heller
John L. Hennessy
Urs Hölzle
Mark Horowitz
Mary Jane Irwin
Andrew Jackson and Lillian Rankel
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
Leah H. Jamieson
Paul C. Jennings
Donald L. Johnson
Michael R. Johnson
Robert E. Kahn
Michael C. Kavanaugh
Leon M. Keer
John E. Kelly
Judson and Jeanne King
William I. Koch
Richard W. Korsmeyer
Fikri J. Kuchuk
Charles C. Ladd
T.W. Lambe
Louis J. Lanzerotti
David C. Larbalestier
Richard C. Larson
Margaret A. LeMone
Johanna M.H. Levelt Sengers
Frances and George Ligler
Peter W. Likins
Burn-Jeng Lin
John H. Linehan
Helmut List
Andrew J. Lovinger
Albert Macovski
Thomas and Caroline Maddock
Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Jamal
Madni
Subhash Mahajan
Thomas J. Malone
W. Allen Marr
John L. Mason
Roger L. McCarthy
John F. McDonnell
Burt and Deedee McMurtry
Edward W. Merrill
Richard A. Meserve
Richard K. Miller
Gordon and Betty Moore
Joe and Glenna Moore
Clayton Daniel and Patricia L.
Mote
Van and Barbara Mow
Earll M. Murman
Cherry A. Murray
Thomas M. Murray
Albert Narath
Jaya and Venky Narayanamurti
Radka Z. Nebesky
Alan Needleman
Joseph H. Newman
William D. Nix
Ronald P. Nordgren
Roberto Padovani
Marty Perreault
John W. and Susan M. Poduska
William R. Pulleyblank
Simon Ramo
Jerome G. Rivard
Ronald L. Rivest
Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins
Howard B. Rosen
Henry and Susan Samueli
Linda S. Sanford
Richard and Norma Sarns
Maxine L. Savitz
Bal Raj Sehgal
David E. Shaw
Martin B. and Beatrice E. Sherwin
Ben A. Shneiderman
Richard P. Simmons
36
NAE
Tributes
Charlotte and Morris Tanenbaum
Edwin L. Thomas
James M. Tien
David and Jane Tirrell
Richard L. Tomasetti
Richard H. Truly
Moshe Y. Vardi
Harold J. Vinegar
Andrew and Erna Viterbi
Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic
In memory of Jordan Baruch – Rhoda Baruch
In memory of Robert Berg – Josephine F. Berg
In memory of Mary F. Discher – Dennis E. Discher
In memory of Howard S. Jones Jr. – Evelyn S. Jones
In memory of Gibran Kareem – Ahsan Kareem
In memory of Karen Larbalestier – David C.
Larbalestier
In memory of David W. McCall – Charlotte D.
McCall
In memory of Robert V. Pound – Harold J. Vinegar
In memory of Catherine A. Pucel – Robert A. Pucel
In memory of Rudolf Sans – Esther S. Takeuchi
In memory of Andrew S. Schultz Jr. – Arthur M.
Geoffrion
John C. Wall
Sheldon Weinbaum
Sarah Widner and Timothy Hess
Ward O. Winer
Sharon L. Wood
KeChang Xie
Kuang-Di Xu
Laurence R. Young
Ji Zhou
In honor of David P. Discher – Dennis E. Discher
In honor of Fikri J. Kuchuk’s daughters – Fikri J.
Kuchuk
In honor of Milton Harlow Northrup III – M. Allen
Northrup
In honor of Robert Plonsey – B. Don and Becky
Russell
In honor of Haldor Topsoe – Henrik Topsoe
Lifetime Giving Societies
The NAE gratefully acknowledges the following members and friends who have made generous charitable lifetime contributions. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of the NAE as a national voice for
engineering.
Einstein Society
Recognizes 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.
$500,000 and above
George P. Mitchell*
Bernard M. Gordon
$5 million to $10 million
Peter O’Donnell Jr.
$1 million to $5 million
Richard and Rita Atkinson
Norman R. Augustine
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch
Stephen D. Bechtel Jr.
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
John F. McDonnell
Gordon and Betty Moore
Robert* and Mayari Pritzker
Sara Lee and Axel Schupf
Penny and Bill George, George
Family Foundation
William T.* and Catherine
Morrison Golden
Thomas V. Jones*
Cindy and Jeong Kim
William W. Lang
Ruben F.* and Donna Mettler
Dane and Mary Louise Miller
Shela and Kumar Patel
Raymond S. Stata
Anonymous
$500,000 to $999,999
Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson
John and Elizabeth Armstrong
James McConnell Clark
Eugene Garfield
*Deceased
37
2 013
2013 private contributions
John Brooks Slaughter
Alfred Z. Spector and Rhonda G.
Kost
Judith and Paul Spradlin
Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull
Arnold and Constance Stancell
Raymond S. Stata
Yasuharu Suematsu
Joy Szekely
Esther S. Takeuchi
2013 private contributions
$250,000 to $499,999
Warren L. Batts
Gordon Bell
Jerome H.* and Barbara N.
Grossman
Mary and Howard* Kehrl
Janet and Richard M.* Morrow
Ann and Michael Ramage
Simon Ramo
Anne and Walt Robb
Henry and Susan Samueli
Charles M.* and Rebecca M.
Vest
Nan and Chuck Geschke
Paul and Judy Gray
John O. Hallquist
George and Daphne
Hatsopoulos
John L. Hennessy
Jane Hirsh
Chad and Ann Holliday
Anita K. Jones
Trevor O. Jones
Thomas Kailath
William I. Koch
Jill Howell Kramer
Kent Kresa
John W. Landis*
Gerald and Doris Laubach
David M.* and Natalie Lederman
Bonnie Berger and Frank
Thomson Leighton
Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Jamal
Madni
Roger L. McCarthy
Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire
Burt and Deedee McMurtry
Joe and Glenna Moore
Clayton Daniel and Patricia L.
Mote
Philip M. Neches
Susan and Franklin M. Orr Jr.
Larry and Carol Papay
Jack S. Parker*
Allen E. and Marilyn Puckett
Henry M. Rowan
Joseph E. and Anne P. Rowe*
Maxine L. Savitz
Wendy and Eric Schmidt
Richard P. Simmons
Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull
Georges C. St. Laurent Jr.
Arnold and Constance Stancell
John and Janet Swanson
Charlotte and Morris Tanenbaum
Peter and Vivian Teets
Gary and Diane Tooker
Andrew and Erna Viterbi
Robert and Joan Wertheim
Robert M. and Mavis E. White
Wm. A. Wulf
Ken Xie
Adrian Zaccaria
Alejandro Zaffaroni
$100,000 to $249,999
William F. Ballhaus Sr.*
Thomas D.* and Janice H. Barrow
Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp
Erich Bloch
Lewis M. Branscomb
George* and Virginia Bugliarello
Ursula Burns and Lloyd Bean
Fletcher* and Peg Byrom
John and Assia Cioffi
Paul Citron and Margaret Carlson
Citron
A. James Clark
W. Dale and Jeanne C. Compton
Lance and Susan Davis
Robert and Florence Deutsch
Robert and Cornelia Eaton
Olivia and Peter Farrell
Michiko So* and Lawrence
Finegold
Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink
George and Ann Fisher
Harold K.* and Betty A. Forsen
William L. and Mary Kay Friend
William H. and Melinda F.
Gates III
Golden Bridge Society
Recognizes 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
William F. Allen Jr.
Jane K. and William F. Ballhaus Jr.
Barry W. Boehm
Kristine L. Bueche
Wiley N. Caldwell
William Cavanaugh
Joseph V. Charyk
Lester and Renee Crown
Ruth A. David
Thomas E. Everhart
Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney
Robert W. Gore
Hertha S. Haensel*
Michael W. Hunkapiller
Robert E. Kahn
Paul and Julie Kaminski
Rita Vaughn and Theodore C.*
Kennedy
William F. Kieschnick
Johanna M.H. Levelt Sengers
Joan M. and Frank W.* Luerssen
Darla and George E. Mueller
Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel
John Neerhout Jr.
Ronald P. Nordgren
Richard F. and Terri W. Rashid
Ronald L. Rivest
George A. Roberts*
Neil R. Rolde
Warren G. Schlinger
David E. Shaw
John C. Wall
Willis H. Ware*
Julia R. and Johannes
Weertman
*Deceased
38
NAE
Andreas and Juana Acrivos
Alice M. Agogino
Clarence R. Allen
Valerie and William A. Anders
Seta and Diran Apelian
Wm. Howard Arnold
Kamla and Bishnu S. Atal
Clyde and Jeanette Baker
William F. Banholzer
David K. Barton
R. Byron Bird
Diane and Samuel W. Bodman
Rodney A. Brooks
Harold Brown
Corbett Caudill
Selim A. Chacour
Sunlin Chou
Uma Chowdhry
G. Wayne Clough
Joseph M. Colucci
Stephen H. Crandall*
Malcolm R. Currie
Ruth M. Davis* and Benjamin
Lohr
Mary P. and Gerald P.* Dinneen
Nicholas M. Donofrio
E. Linn Draper Jr.
Mildred S. Dresselhaus
James O. Ellis
Stephen N. Finger
Samuel C. Florman
Elsa M. Garmire and Robert H.
Russell
Richard L. and Lois E. Garwin
Arthur M. Geoffrion
Louis V. Gerstner Jr.
Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman
Mary L. Good
Joseph W. Goodman
Paul E. Gray
Delon Hampton
Wesley L. Harris
Robert and Darlene Hermann
David and Susan Hodges
Kenneth F. Holtby
Edward E. Hood Jr.
Edward G.* and Naomi Jefferson
Min H. Kao
John and Wilma Kassakian
James R.* and Isabelle Katzer
Robert M. and Pauline W.
Koerner
James N. Krebs
Lester C.* and Joan M. Krogh
Charles C. Ladd
Yoon-Woo Lee
Norman N. Li
Frances and George Ligler
Thomas J. Malone
James F. Mathis
James C. McGroddy
Richard A. Meserve
James K. Mitchell
Van and Barbara Mow
Cherry A. Murray
Narayana Murthy and Sudha
Murty
Dale and Marge* Myers
Jaya and Venky Narayanamurti
Robert M. and Marilyn R. Nerem
Simon Ostrach
Roberto Padovani
M.E. Paté-Cornell
Arogyaswami J. Paulraj
Paul S. Peercy
Donald E. Petersen
Dennis J. Picard
John W. and Susan M. Poduska
Joy and George* Rathmann
Eberhardt* and Deedee Rechtin
Kenneth and Martha Reifsnider
Jonathan J. Rubinstein
Jerry Sanders III
Linda S. Sanford
Roland W. Schmitt
Martin B. and Beatrice E.
Sherwin
Joel S. Spira
Richard J. Stegemeier
Henry E. Stone
Stanley D. Stookey
Daniel M. Tellep
David W. Thompson
Raymond Viskanta
Robert and Robyn Wagoner
Daniel I. Wang
Albert R.C. and Jeannie
Westwood
Willis S. White Jr.
Sheila E. Widnall
John J. Wise
Edgar S. Woolard Jr.
A. Thomas Young
Jim and Carole Young
Anonymous
Heritage Society
Recognizes members and friends who have included the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering, Institute of Medicine, or National Research Council in their estate plans or who have made some
other type of planned gift to the Academies. Names in bold are NAE members.
Andreas and Juana Acrivos
Gene and Marian Amdahl
Betsy Ancker-Johnson
John C. Angus
John and Elizabeth Armstrong
Norman R. Augustine
Corale L. Brierley
James A. Brierley
Kristine L. Bueche
Ross and Stephanie Corotis
Malcolm R. Currie
Mildred S. Dresselhaus
Gerard W. Elverum
Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink
Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney
Paul H. Gilbert
Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman
Joseph W. Goodman
Anita K. Jones
John W. Landis*
William W. Lang
Thomas and Caroline Maddock
Artur Mager
Gordon and Betty Moore
Van and Barbara Mow
Ronald P. Nordgren
Constance and William* Opie
Bradford W. and Virginia W.
Parkinson
Zack T. Pate
Simon Ramo
Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins
James F. Roth
Arnold and Constance Stancell
Dale F. Stein
John and Janet Swanson
Esther S. Takeuchi
Willis H. Ware*
Robert and Joan Wertheim
Wm. A. Wulf
*Deceased
39
2 013
2013 private contributions
$20,000 to $49,999
2013 private contributions
Foundations, Corporations, and Other Organizations
Lifetime
In recognition of foundations, corporations, and other organizations that have made lifetime contributions of
$1 million or more to the National Academy of Engineering.
AT&T Corporation
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Foundation
The Baruch Fund
S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
The Boeing Company
Chevron Corporation
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
The Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company
Ford Motor Company
General Electric Company
General Motors Company
The Grainger Foundation
International Business Machines
Corporation
Jewish Community Foundation
San Diego
JSM Charitable Trust
Lockheed Martin Corporation
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation
O’Donnell Foundation
Robert Pritzker Family Foundation
Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize
Fund of the Russ College of
Engineering and Technology at
Ohio University
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Annual
In recognition of foundations, corporations, and other organizations that contributed to the National Academy
of Engineering in 2013.
A-dec, Inc.
Avid Solutions Industrial Process
Control
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Foundation
The Baruch Fund
Bell Family Foundation
Bimcon, Inc.
The Bodman Foundation
The Boeing Company
Seth Bonder Foundation
The Rodney Brooks Charitable
Fund
Card Family Foundation
Castaing Family Foundation
Chevron Corporation
Cornell University Foundation
Council of Scientific Society
Presidents
Cummins, Inc.
The Thomas and Bettie Deen
Charitable Gift Fund
The Dow Chemical Company
The Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company
Ellis Family Charitable Fund at
Schwab Charitable Fund
Employees Charity Organization
of Northrop Grumman
ExxonMobil Foundation
Michiko So Finegold Memorial
Trust
Forney Family Foundation
GE Foundation
Arthur and Linda Gelb Charitable
Foundation
General Electric Company
Geosynthetic Institute
Gerstner Family Foundation
The Geschke Foundation at the
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Google, Inc.
Gratis Foundation
Hood Family Fund at the Seattle
Foundation
Hopper-Dean Foundation
Indo-US Science and Technology
Forum
International Business Machines
Corporation
Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund of the
Jewish Community Foundation
W.M. Keck Foundation
Lutron Foundation
Margaret and Ross Macdonald
Charitable Fund of Triangle
Community Foundation
McGroddy Family Foundation
Microsoft Corporation
Mobil Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation
Dale and Marge Myers Fund at
the San Diego Foundation
The Omaha Community
Foundation
Orcas Island Community
Foundation
Poduska Family Foundation
Qualcomm, Inc.
Rockwell Collins Charitable
Corporation
Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize
Fund of the Russ College of
Engineering and Technology at
Ohio University
Henry M. Rowan Family
Foundation
Samueli Foundation
Henry and Sally Schwartz Family
Foundation
Southwest Research Institute
Ray and Maria Stata Family
Charitable Fund of November
1983
Strategic Worldwide, LLC
Strauss Hawkins Fund at the
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Morris and Charlotte Tanenbaum
Family Foundation
United Way of Greater Los
Angeles
Viterbi Family Grant Fund of the
Jewish Community Foundation
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC
The White Family Trust
The Woolard Family Foundation
Xerox Corporation
XIE Foundation
Zarem Foundation
Zerhouni Family Charitable
Foundation
We have made every effort to list donors accurately and according to their wishes. If we have made an error,
please accept our apologies and contact the Development Office at 202.334.2431 or [email protected] so we can
correct our records.
40
NAE
2 013
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 43 summarizes both the NAEF and outside operating revenue and expenses as well
as non-operation-related transactions for the NAE for 2013 and 2012. 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 2013, 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 2013, 2.3 percent was allocated for normal
operating expenses and 3.7 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 2013, the effective draw was 4.5%.
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.
42
NAE
NAE/NAEF Combined Summary of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in
Net Assets (Unaudited-Pro Forma)
(Thousands of Dollars)
2013
2012
NET ASSETS, BEGINNING
CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET
$61,895
1,643
$59,555
700
TOTAL ASSETS, BEGINNING
$63,538
$60,255
$1,333
264
3,545
2,128
3,422
1,710
$1,554
242
3,622
1,815
4,658
1,602
$12,402
$13,493
$2,128
878
2,658
1,589
245
4,419
$1,825
856
2,642
1,652
238
5,501
$11,917
$12,714
$485
$779
OPERATIONS
Revenue
Contributions (Unrestricted)
Dues (Annual), Fees, Miscellaneous
Indirect Allowance From Contracts and Grants
Award Specific Funds Allocation to Operations*
Program Specific Funds Allocation to Operations*
Unrestricted Allocation to Operations
Total Operations Revenue
Expenses
Awards
Development
Management
Membership
National Academies Activities
Programs
Total Operations Expenses
OPERATIONS SURPLUS
NONOPERATIONAL TRANSACTIONS
Allocation to Operations
Contributions to Reserves
Contribution Expense to NAS/NAE Unrestricted Support
Dues (Lifetime), Miscellaneous
Gain on Investments
Investment Earnings (Interest and Dividends)
Investment Fees/UBIT Taxes
NONOPERATIONAL GAIN
NET ASSETS, ENDING
CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET
TOTAL ASSETS, ENDING
($6,301)
5,900
(500)
137
7,148
269
(390)
($6,302)
2,900
0
117
4,887
345
(386)
$6,263
$1,561
$68,643
$61,895
2,660
1,643
$71,303
$63,538
*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.
43
2 013
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FUND
December 31, 2013 and 2012
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Board of Trustees
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Washington, D.C.
Independent Auditor’s Report
Report on the Financial Statements
To the Board of Trustees
We
haveAcademy
audited the
financial statements of the National Academy of Engineering Fund (the
National
of accompanying
Engineering Fund
Fund)
which comprise
the statements of financial position as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related
Washington,
D.C.
statements of activities and cash flows for the years then ended and the related notes to the financial
statements.
Report on the Financial Statements
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the National Academy of Engineering Fund (the
Management
is responsible
for the preparation
and
fair presentation
of these
statements
Fund) which comprise
the statements
of financial
position
as of December
31,financial
2013 and
2012, andinthe related
accordance
with
accounting
principles
accepted
in the and
United
America;
includes the
statements of
activities
and cash
flows generally
for the years
then ended
theStates
relatedofnotes
to thethis
financial
design,
implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of
statements.
financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Auditor’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
Our
responsibility
is to express
an opinion
on these
financial
statements
basedof
onAmerica;
our audits.
conducted
accordance
with accounting
principles
generally
accepted
in the
United States
thisWe
includes
the
our
audits
in accordanceand
withmaintenance
auditing standards
generally
Statesand
of America.
Those of
design,
implementation,
of internal
controlaccepted
relevantintothe
theUnited
preparation
fair presentation
standards
require that
weare
plan
and
perform
the misstatement,
audit to obtain whether
reasonable
financial statements
that
free
from
material
dueassurance
to fraud orabout
error. whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement.
Auditor’s Responsibility
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the
Our
responsibility
is toThe
express
an opinion
on these
financial
based onincluding
our audits.
conductedof
financial
statements.
procedures
selected
depend
on thestatements
auditor’s judgment,
theWe
assessment
our
auditsofinmaterial
accordance
with auditing
standards
accepted
in due
the United
of America.
the risks
misstatement
of the
financialgenerally
statements,
whether
to fraudStates
or error.
In makingThose
those
standards
require that
we planconsiders
and perform
the audit
to obtain
reasonable
assurance
aboutand
whether
the
risk
assessments,
the auditor
internal
control
relevant
to the entity’s
preparation
fair presentation
financial
statements
are freeinoforder
material
misstatement.
of the financial
statements
to design
audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but
not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we
An audit no
involves
performing
procedures
to obtain
audit evidence
about the amounts
and disclosures
the and
express
such opinion.
An audit
also includes
evaluating
the appropriateness
of accounting
policiesin
used
financial
statements.ofThe
procedures
selectedestimates
depend on
the by
auditor’s
judgment,
the assessment
of
the reasonableness
significant
accounting
made
management,
asincluding
well as evaluating
the overall
the
risks of material
misstatement
of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those
presentation
of the financial
statements.
risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation
of
financial
in orderwe
to design
audit procedures
that
areappropriate
appropriatetoinprovide
the circumstances,
but
Wethe
believe
that statements
the audit evidence
have obtained
is sufficient
and
a basis for our
not
the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we
auditforopinion.
express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and
the
reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
Opinion
presentation of the financial statements.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position
of the
Academy
Engineering
Fundisas
of December
31, 2013 and
2012, and
the changes
We believe
thatNational
the audit
evidenceofwe
have obtained
sufficient
and appropriate
to provide
a basis
for our in
its
netopinion.
assets and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally
audit
accepted in the United States of America.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of the National Academy of Engineering Fund as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the changes in
its net assets and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally
Gaithersburg,
accepted in theMaryland
United States of America.
June 2, 2014
Gaithersburg, Maryland
June 2, 2014
1
44
1
NAE
National Academy of Engineering Fund
National Academy
of Engineering
Statements
of Financial
PositionFund
Statements of Financial Position
December 31, 2013 and 2012
2013
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents
Contributions receivable
Prepaid expenses
Short-term investments
Investment draw receivable
Promises to give
Award medals and other assets
Total current assets
$
Non-Current Assets
Promises to give – long-term portion, net
Beneficial interest in split interest agreements
Investments
Total non-current assets
2012
516,728
1,479,637
37,295
3,143,560
1,402,697
815,694
7,395,611
868,993
702,297
63,654,109
65,225,399
Total assets
Liabilities and Net Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable – due to National Academy of Sciences
783,432
519,842
58,063,265
59,366,539
72,621,010
$
64,876,215
$
1,318,116
$
1,338,585
27,356,400
14,198,274
29,748,220
71,302,894
Total liabilities and net assets
1,275,508
190,940
73,342
2,285,150
1,321,129
340,102
23,505
5,509,676
$
Net Assets
Unrestricted
Temporarily restricted
Permanently restricted
Total net assets
$
72,621,010
See Notes to Financial Statements.
2
45
2 013
$
24,620,450
9,207,863
29,709,317
63,537,630
$
64,876,215
National Academy of Engineering Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Statement of Activities
Statement of Activities
Year Ended December 31, 2013
Unrestricted
Temporarily
Permanently
Restricted
Restricted
Total
Support and Revenue
$
Contributions
1,578,451
$
6,630,414
$
38,903
$
8,247,768
Realized gain on investments
364,439
448,853
-
Interest and dividends
121,034
148,083
-
269,117
Membership dues
257,180
-
257,180
Registration fees
138,392
-
138,392
-
8,688
-
5,892
Miscellaneous revenue
2,796
813,292
Net assets released from restrictions:
Satisfaction of program restrictions
Satisfaction of time restrictions
4,921,571
(4,921,571)
-
109,124
(109,124)
-
7,496,083
Total support and revenue
2,199,451
-
38,903
9,734,437
Expenses
Program services:
Programs
3,144,803
-
-
3,144,803
Awards
2,127,698
-
-
2,127,698
Member programs
438,502
-
-
438,502
Support for NRC and NAS
245,381
-
-
245,381
5,956,384
-
-
5,956,384
1,469,253
-
-
1,469,253
877,744
-
-
877,744
2,346,997
-
-
2,346,997
8,303,381
-
-
8,303,381
Support services:
Operations
Fundraising
Total expenses
Change in net assets
before unrealized
(807,298)
gain on investments
Unrealized Gain on Investment
Change in net assets
Net Assets
Beginning
$
Ending
2,199,451
38,903
1,431,056
3,543,248
2,790,960
2,735,950
4,990,411
38,903
7,765,264
24,620,450
9,207,863
29,709,317
63,537,630
27,356,400
$
14,198,274
-
$
29,748,220
6,334,208
$
71,302,894
See Notes to Financial Statements.
46
3
NAE
National Academy of Engineering Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Statement of Activities
Statement of Activities
Year Ended December 31, 2012
Unrestricted
Temporarily
Permanently
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
4,249
-
-
4,249
Miscellaneous revenue
Net assets released from restrictions:
Satisfaction of program restrictions
Satisfaction of time restrictions
Total support and revenue
5,030,492
(5,030,492)
-
71,625
(71,625)
-
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
Operations
963,765
-
-
963,765
Fundraising
856,313
-
-
856,313
1,820,078
-
-
1,820,078
7,705,256
-
-
7,705,256
Support services:
Total expenses
Change in net assets
before unrealized
gain on investments
Unrealized Gain on Investment
Change in net assets
(230,440)
(1,142,553)
500,000
-
(872,993)
2,253,208
1,902,500
4,155,708
2,022,768
759,947
500,000
3,282,715
22,597,682
8,447,916
29,209,317
60,254,915
9,207,863
$ 29,709,317
$ 63,537,630
Net Assets
Beginning
Ending
$ 24,620,450
$
See Notes to Financial Statements.
4
2 013
47
National Academy of Engineering Fund
National Academy
Engineering Fund
Statements
of CashofFlows
Statements of Cash Flows
Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
2013
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Changes in net assets
Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash
used in operating activities:
Realized gain on investments
Unrealized gain on investments
Contributions restricted to investment in perpetuity
Changes in assets and liabilities:
(Increase) decrease in:
Contributions receivable
Promises to give
Beneficial interest in split interest agreements
Award medals and other assets
Prepaid expenses
Increase (decrease) in:
Accounts payable – National Academy of Sciences
Net cash used in operating activities
$
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Proceeds from sale of investments
Purchases of investments
Investment draw in transit
Net cash provided by investing activities
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Contributions restricted to investment in perpetuity
Net cash provided by financing activities
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Beginning
7,765,264
2012
$
(813,292)
(6,334,208)
(38,903)
(848,101)
(4,155,708)
(500,000)
(1,288,697)
(561,153)
(52,892)
23,505
36,047
125,954
(826,837)
(116,473)
28,171
(70,290)
(20,469)
(1,284,798)
379,719
(2,700,850)
15,482,171
(14,913,488)
(81,568)
487,115
29,373,598
(25,108,846)
(1,321,129)
2,943,623
38,903
38,903
500,000
500,000
(758,780)
742,773
532,735
1,275,508
Ending
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information
Cash paid for taxes
3,282,715
$
516,728
$
1,275,508
$
40,212
$
97,071
See Notes to Financial Statements.
5
48
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1.
Nature of Activities and Significant Accounting Policies
Nature of Activities: The National Academy of Engineering Fund (the Fund) is an independent non-profit
organization established by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to collect and disburse funds for
accomplishing the goals of NAE. NAE operates within the charter and framework of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), which accounts for NAE’s expenses. The operating expenditures of NAE
are accounted for by offices of NAS, and are offset by reimbursement from funds received from the Fund
and from contracts and grants administered by NAS. The net expenditures of NAE are paid by the Fund
to balance accounts with NAS.
A summary of the Fund’s significant accounting policies follows:
Basis of Accounting: The Fund’s financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting
in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (U.S.
GAAP), whereby revenue is recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred.
Basis of Presentation: The Fund follows the Not-for-Profit Topic of the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (the Codification). Under this Topic, the Fund is
required to report the information regarding its financial position and activities according to three classes
of net assets: unrestricted net assets, temporarily restricted net assets, and permanently restricted net
assets. The three classes of net assets are as follows:
Unrestricted net assets: Unrestricted net assets generally result from revenue derived from providing
services, receiving unrestricted contributions, unrealized and realized gains and losses, and receiving
dividends and interest from investing in income-producing assets, less expenses incurred in providing
services, raising contributions, and performing administrative functions.
Temporarily restricted net assets: Temporarily restricted net assets consist of amounts that are subject
to donor-imposed time or purpose restrictions and income earned on temporarily and permanently
restricted net assets. The Fund is permitted to use or expend the donated assets in accordance with
the donor restriction.
Permanently restricted net assets: Permanently restricted net assets consist of assets whose use is
limited by donor-imposed restrictions that neither expire by the passage of time nor can be fulfilled or
otherwise removed by action of the Fund. The restrictions stipulate that resources be maintained
permanently, but permit the Fund to expend the income generated in accordance with the provisions of
the agreement. Permanently restricted net assets consist of the following:
Gordon Prize represents an endowment given by the donor for the purpose of
establishing and awarding an annual prize in honor of Bernard M. Gordon. It is the Fund’s
intention to use the investment earnings of the endowment to cover the expenses
incurred in connection with administration of the prize and in providing the honorarium
awarded with the prize.
Draper Prize represents an endowment given by the donor for the purpose of
establishing and awarding an annual prize in honor of the memory of Charles Stark
Draper. It is the Fund’s intention to use the investment earnings of the endowment to
cover the expenses incurred in connection with administration of the prize and in
providing the honorarium awarded with the prize.
Wm. A. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence represents an endowment to ensure
the future of programs that Bill Wulf instituted as president and provide his successor
some flexibility in addressing the most pressing issues before the engineering community
and the nation at any given time.
6
2 013
49
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1.
Nature of Activities and Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Capital Preservation and Hans Reissner represent endowments requiring principal be
maintained in perpetuity and that only the income be used for general operations of NAE.
Senior Scholar represents an endowment to support an outstanding member of industry
or another field working as an advisor and assistant to the president of NAE in the
management and execution of NAE’s programmatic activities.
Young Engineer represents an endowment to support programs aimed at engaging
engineers at a younger age in the activities of NAE and to provide an opportunity to
identify nominees from industry for membership in NAE.
Ramo Founders Award represents an endowment requiring that the principal be
maintained in perpetuity and that the income be used to support the “Ramo Founders
Award” given each year at the annual meeting.
Industry Scholar represents an endowment to support fellowships for recently retired
corporate executives to assist with strategy and management of program activities in
NAE and the National Research Council (NRC).
Hollomon represents an endowment requiring that the principal be maintained in
perpetuity and that the income be used to support the Hollomon Fellow.
Cash and Cash Equivalents: For purposes of reporting cash flows, the Fund considers all investments
purchased with an original maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents, except for the cash in
the investment portfolio, which will be reinvested on a long-term basis.
Contributions Receivable: Contributions receivables include contributions collected near or at year end by
NAS for the Fund but not yet received by the Fund as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.
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.
Investment Draw Receivable: The Fund is eligible to draw 5% from one of its investment funds annually.
This transfer crosses fiscal years and is recorded as a receivable until the cash is received by the Fund.
Promises to Give: Unconditional promises to give are recognized as revenue and receivables in the
period the promises are made. Unconditional promises to give that are expected to be collected within
one year are recorded at their net realizable value. Unconditional promises to give that are expected to be
collected in future years are recorded at the present value of their estimated future cash flows. The
discounts on those amounts are computed using risk-free interest rates commensurate with the risk
involved applicable to the years in which the promises are received. The discount rates used range from
0.25% to 0.90% for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. Amortization of the discounts is
included in contribution revenue. Based on management’s evaluation of the collectability of receivables,
there is no provision for doubtful promises to give at December 31, 2013 and 2012. Conditional promises
to give are not included as support until the conditions are substantially met.
Split-Interest Agreements: Charitable gift annuity agreements are classified as a beneficial interest in split
interest agreements in the statements of financial position. The Fund has been notified that it was
designated as the remainder beneficiary for several charitable remainder trusts. The Fund has an
agreement with NAS, whereas, NAS rather than the Fund serves as the trustee of the assets for all but
one of the agreements and related assets. The Fund has recorded an asset and contribution revenue
equal to the present value of the remainder interest.
50
7
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1.
Nature of Activities and Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Split-Interest Agreements (Continued): The remainder interest was determined by using the fair market
value of trust assets, less the estimated distributions by NAS to the income beneficiary over the Trust
term. Upon termination of an annuity, the remainder interest in the asset is available for use by the Fund
as restricted or unrestricted assets in accordance with the donor’s designation. On an annual basis, the
Fund re-measures the value of the asset using current assumptions. Any change in such value is
recorded as a change in value of split-interest agreements on the statement of activities.
Investments: Investments are carried at fair market value, as discussed in Note 3. Investment income or
loss is included in the change in unrestricted net assets, unless the income is restricted by donor or law.
Unrealized gains and losses are reflected in the statement of activities as non-operating.
Financial Risk: The Fund maintains its cash and cash equivalents in bank deposit accounts which, at
times, may exceed federally insured limits. The Fund has not experienced any losses in such accounts.
The Fund believes it is not exposed to any significant credit risk on cash.
The Fund invests in professionally managed portfolios that contain equity and fixed income mutual funds,
common shares of publicly traded companies, hedge funds, fund of funds, a limited partnership, and
private equity funds. Such investments are exposed to various risks such as market and credit. Due to the
level of risk associated with such investments, and the level of uncertainty related to change in the value
of such investments, it is at least reasonably possible that changes in risks in the near term would
materially affect investment balances and the amounts reported in the financial statements.
Support and Revenue: The Fund reports gifts of cash and other assets as restricted support if they are
received with donor stipulations that limit the use of the donated assets. When a donor restriction expires,
(that is, when a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished) temporarily
restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the statement of activities
as net assets released from restrictions. Unrestricted gifts of cash and other assets are recorded in
revenue, gains and other support when received or in the period in which such amounts are estimable.
Membership dues are recognized as a contribution in the year it is received. Revenues from special
events are recognized at the time the event occurs.
Allocation of Expenses: The costs of providing various programs and other activities have been
summarized on a functional basis in the statement of activities. Accordingly, certain costs have been
allocated among the programs and supporting services benefited as follows:
Programs: Programs that address relevant issues in the engineering field including, but not
limited to: Education, Engineering Practice and the Engineering Workforce; Engineering and the
Environment; Engineering, the Economy and Society; Information Technology and Society;
National Security and Crime Prevention; and Public Policy and Program Reviews.
Awards: NAE presents five awards: the Bernard M. Gordon Prize, the Charles Stark Draper Prize
for Engineering, the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize, the Arthur M. Bueche Award, and the
Simon Ramo Founders Award. Activities include soliciting nominations, selection of the
recipients, announcement of the recipients and presentation of the prizes.
Member Programs: Organization and administration of the Annual Meeting and publication of
NAE Memorial Tributes.
Support for NRC and NAS: Contributions to joint activities of the National Academies, including,
but not limited to, the NAS/NAE/IOM Committee on Human Rights, the African American History
Program, Community Service Projects, and the International Visitors Office.
8
2 013
51
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1.
Nature of Activities and Significant Accounting Policies (Continued)
Operations: Includes the functions necessary to provide an adequate working environment,
provide coordination and articulation of the Fund’s programs, secure proper administrative
function of the Board of Trustees, maintain competent legal services for program administration,
and manage the financial and budgetary responsibilities of the Fund.
Fundraising: Provides the structure necessary to encourage and secure private financial support
from individuals, foundations, and corporations.
Income Taxes: The Fund is incorporated under the District of Columbia Non-Profit Corporation Act and is
exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the Fund
has been determined by the Internal Revenue Service not to be a private foundation. The Fund is
required to remit income taxes to the federal government and the District of Columbia for unrelated
business income. For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, there was unrelated business
income of $53,851 and $18,983, respectively.
The Fund complies with the accounting standard on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes, which
addresses the determination of whether tax benefits claimed or expected to be claimed on a tax return
should be recorded in the financial statements. Under this guidance, the Fund may recognize the tax
benefit from an uncertain tax position, only if it is more likely than not that the tax position will be
sustained on examination by taxing authorities, based on the technical merits of the position. The tax
benefits recognized in the financial statements from such a position are measured based on the largest
benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon settlement. The guidance on
accounting for uncertainty in income taxes also addresses de-recognition, classification, interest and
penalties on income taxes, and accounting in interim periods. The Fund had no such positions recorded
in the financial statements at December 31, 2013 and 2012. Generally, the Fund is no longer subject to
U.S. federal income tax positions by tax authorities for years before 2010.
Use of Estimates: In preparing financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, management is required to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and
liabilities at the date of the financial statements and revenue and expenses during the reporting period.
The most significant assumptions relate to the realization of pledges receivable and the fair value
measurement of investments. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Upcoming Accounting Pronouncement: In April 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2013-06, Not-for-Profit Entities (Topic 958): Services
Received from Personnel of an Affiliate. This ASU requires a recipient not-for-profit entity to recognize all
services received from personnel of an affiliate that directly benefit the recipient not-for-profit entity. Those
services should be measured at the cost recognized by the affiliate for the personnel providing those
services. However, if measuring a service received from personnel of an affiliate at cost will significantly
overstate or understate the value of the service received, the recipient not-for-profit entity may elect to
recognize that service received at either (1) the cost recognized by the affiliate for the personnel providing
that service or (2) the fair value of that service. This ASU is effective prospectively for fiscal years
beginning after June 15, 2014, and interim and annual periods thereafter.
Reclassifications: Certain items in the December 31, 2012, financial information have been reclassified to
conform to the December 31, 2013, financial statement presentation. The reclassifications had no effect
on the previously reported change in net assets or net assets.
Subsequent Events: The Fund evaluated subsequent events through June 2, 2014, which is the date the
financial statements were available to be issued.
52
9
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 2.
Promises to Give
Promises to give are unconditional and deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2013:
2013
Restricted
Unrestricted
Unconditional promises to give
Less unamortized discount
Amounts due in
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
$
$
$
$
120,676
(738)
119,938
$
71,551
48,387
119,938
$
$
$
Total
1,574,097
(9,348)
1,564,749
$
744,143
820,606
1,564,749
$
$
$
1,694,773
(10,086)
1,684,687
815,694
868,993
1,684,687
Promises to give are unconditional and deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2012:
2012
Restricted
Unrestricted
Unconditional promises to give
Less unamortized discount
Amounts due in
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
$
$
$
$
10
2 013
159,801
(970)
158,831
$
45,692
113,139
158,831
$
$
$
Total
968,190
(3,487)
964,703
$
294,410
670,293
964,703
$
53
$
$
1,127,991
(4,457)
1,123,534
340,102
783,432
1,123,534
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 3.
Investments
Investments consist of the following at December 31:
2013
$
Cash and money market*
Equity securities
Mutual funds
Alternative investments
Less short-term investments
$
9,061,212
10,597,907
4,211,920
42,926,630
66,797,669
(3,143,560)
63,654,109
2012
$
$
8,609,736
9,243,020
1,806,344
40,689,315
60,348,415
(2,285,150)
58,063,265
*Cash and money market funds are held at cost.
Investment return consists of the following for the years ended December 31:
2013
$
Interest and dividends
Unrealized gain
Realized gain
$
269,117
6,334,208
813,292
7,416,617
2012
$
$
344,716
4,155,708
848,101
5,348,525
The Fair Value Topic of the FASB Codification (the Codification) defines fair value as the price that would
be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market
participants at the measurement date. The Fund utilizes valuation techniques to maximize the use of
observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Assets and liabilities recorded at fair
value are categorized within the fair value hierarchy based upon the level of judgment associated with the
inputs used to measure their value. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in
active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs
(Level 3). Inputs are broadly defined as assumptions market participants would use in pricing an asset or
liability. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:
Level 1
Valuations based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or
liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date. The types of
investments included in Level 1 include listed equities and listed derivatives. As required by the
guidance provided by the Codification, the Fund does not adjust the quoted price for these
investments, even in situations where the Fund holds a large position and a sale could reasonably
impact the quoted price.
Level 2
Valuations based on inputs other than quoted prices within Level 1 that are observable
for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly and fair value is determined through the use of
models or other valuation methodologies. Investments which are generally included in this category
include corporate bonds and loans, less liquid and restricted equity securities and certain over-thecounter derivatives. A significant adjustment to a Level 2 input could result in the Level 2 measurement
becoming a Level 3 measurement.
54
11
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 3.
Investments (Continued)
Level 3
Valuations based on inputs that are unobservable for the asset or liability and include
situations where there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability. The inputs into the
determination of fair value are based upon the best information in the circumstances and may require
significant management judgment or estimation.
All transfers between fair value hierarchy levels are recognized by the Fund at the end of each reporting
period. In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value
hierarchy. In such cases, an investment’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level
of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Fund’s assessment of the significance of a
particular input to the fair value 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.
Investments and other assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows at December 31,
2013:
2013
Total
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Investments
Mutual funds:
Large growth equity fund
1,766,511
1,010,514
International equity fund
1,434,895
1,434,895
-
-
4,211,920
4,211,920
-
-
Long-term bond fund
$
$
1,766,511
1,010,514
$
-
$
-
Equity securities:
Consumer goods
2,089,844
2,089,844
-
-
Services
2,061,666
2,061,666
-
-
Basic materials
1,729,419
1,729,419
-
-
Financial
2,151,012
2,151,012
-
-
869,049
869,049
-
-
1,068,699
1,068,699
-
-
529,743
529,743
-
-
Conglomerates
48,386
48,386
-
-
Utilities
50,089
50,089
-
-
10,597,907
10,597,907
-
-
Technology
Industrial goods
Healthcare
42,926,630
Alternative investments
Total investments
-
57,736,457
14,809,827
10,359,955
32,566,675
10,359,955
32,566,675
Beneficial interest in split interest
Total
-
702,297
agreements
$
58,438,754
$
12
2 013
14,809,827
$
10,359,955
55
702,297
$
33,268,972
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 3.
Investments (Continued)
Investments and other assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows at December 31,
2012:
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
-
-
40,689,315
Alternative investments
Total investments
-
51,738,679
11,049,364
2,243,132
38,446,183
2,243,132
38,446,183
Beneficial interest in split interest
agreements
-
519,842
Total
$
56
52,258,521
$
11,049,364
$
2,243,132
519,842
$
38,966,025
13
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 3.
Investments (Continued)
The following is a description of the valuation methodologies used for assets measured at fair value.
There have been no changes in the methodologies used at December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Mutual funds and equity securities are publicly traded on the exchanges and therefore are considered
Level 1 items.
Alternative investments include hedge funds, private equity securities, managed futures and limited
partnership interests. The Fund has utilized the net asset value (NAV) per share or its equivalent as a
practical expedient to estimate the fair value of these investments. They are classified as either Level 2 or
Level 3 assets in the fair value hierarchy, depending on the fair value tier in which the underlying
investments would fall and the Fund’s ability to redeem its interest in the fund. If the underlying assets are
publicly traded securities for which there exists a broad, active market, and the Fund’s interest can be
redeemed without penalty in the near term (generally within 90 days of December 31), the investment is
classified as a Level 2 instrument. If the underlying assets are privately traded and/or the Fund’s interest
cannot be redeemed without penalty in the near term, the investment is classified as a Level 3 instrument.
Beneficial interests in split-interest agreements held by others are measured at the present value of future
cash flows considering the estimated return on the invested assets during the expected term of the
agreements, the contractual payment obligations under the agreement, and a discount rate
commensurate with the risks involved. Split-interest agreements held by others are classified as Level 3
within the fair value hierarchy.
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, 2013:
2013
Hedge Fund
Balance, beginning of year
Purchases
Sales
$ 34,438,514
104,442
Private Equity
$ 3,246,861
Limited
Split Interest
Partnership
Agreement
$
760,808
125,946
44,960
(2,424,286)
(124,279)
(269,033)
3,919,347
490,290
11,654
$
519,842
129,563
-
Total
$ 38,966,025
404,911
(2,817,598)
Net unrealized and realized
gain
Transfers out of Level 3
Balance,
end of year
(7,758,549)
$ 28,279,468
$ 3,738,818
52,892
$
548,389
$
702,297
4,474,183
(7,758,549)
$ 33,268,972
In 2013, eight hedge funds were transferred from Level 3 to Level 2 based on the expiration of restrictions
on the Fund’s redemption ability.
14
2 013
57
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
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
Hedge Fund
Balance, beginning of year
$ 34,474,555
$ 2,708,681
4,129,051
220,690
Purchases
Sales
Private Equity
(5,821,388)
Limited
Split Interest
Partnership
Agreement
$
846,131
$
7,270
(610)
(107,087)
403,369
Total
$ 38,432,736
-
4,357,011
-
(5,929,085)
Net unrealized and realized
gain
3,140,660
Transfers out of Level 3
Balance,
end of year
318,100
(1,484,364)
$ 34,438,514
14,494
$ 3,246,861
116,473
$
3,589,727
-
760,808
$
519,842
(1,484,364)
$ 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 presents additional information for the Fund’s investments, as of December 31, 2013,
whose fair value is estimated using the practical expedient, and presents the nature and risk of assets
with fair values estimated using NAV held at December 31, 2013:
Fund of hedge funds –
Multi-strategies (a)
Fair Value at
Fair Value at
December 31,
December 31,
Unfunded
Redemption
Notice
2013
2012
Commitment
Frequency
Period
Annually
75 days
30 – 125 days
$
26,432,513
$
25,028,535
Redemption
$
440,000
Fund of hedge funds –
multi-strategies, multi-vehicles (b)
9,764,184
9,529,307
-
Monthly –
annually
Hedge funds –
restructuring and value (c)
2,442,727
2,123,804
-
Quarterly –
annually
Private equity –
multiple strategies (d)
3,336,333
2,865,474
612,140
Upon liquidation
of the fund
Private equity –
single strategy (e)
402,484
381,387
71,666
Upon dissolution of
the partnership
None
Limited partnership (f)
548,389
760,808
14,143
Upon dissolution of
the partnership
None
Total
$
58
42,926,630
$
40,689,315
$
60 – 90 days
None
1,137,949
15
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
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 an initial two-year lock up and are subject to an annual lock-up
thereafter. Withdrawals require a minimum 75 days notice and are subject to specific considerations
as outlined in the Limited Partnership Agreement.
(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. The investments in this category are available for redemption monthly, quarterly or
annually with 30-125 days notice. Shares are redeemable at their net asset value (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 48% of the investments in this category are
available for redemption quarterly with 60 days notice. The remaining 52% of investments in this
category are available for redemption annually 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, 2013, 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 Foundation is the value of its ownership share.
16
2 013
59
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
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% to 15% with prudent leverage. The leverage strategy primarily revolves around the
following principles: structure debt capital 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, 2013, 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, 2013, 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
17
NAE
National
Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 4.
Permanently and Temporarily Restricted Net Assets
Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2013:
Permanently
Restricted
Gordon Prize
Draper Prize for Engineering
Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence
Capital Preservation
Senior Scholar
Young Engineer
Simon Ramo Founders Award
Industry Scholar
Hollomon
Hans Reissner
Vest Opportunity Fund
Chevron Guiding Implementation
President’s Discretionary
Frontiers of Engineering Education
Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation
Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years
Make Value for America
Public Understanding
Urban Infrastructure
National Engineering Forum
Noise Policy Development
Others
Information Technology
Russ Prize
Global Grand Challenges
Frontiers of Engineering
Native Americans in Engineering
Engineering Education and Research
Bueche Award
Technology and Environment
CASEE
Diversity in the Engineering Work Force
Engineering Ethics Center
Homeland Security
Communication with Public in Crisis
Engineering Girl
Engineering Education
Engineering and services
18
2 013
$
$
13,438,250
8,000,000
3,014,864
2,423,701
1,000,000
791,544
500,000
353,038
201,200
25,623
29,748,220
61
2013
$
$
Temporarily
Restricted
1,141,237
745,485
548,537
155,820
153,861
49,601
162,949
411,557
15,446
4,316,178
1,437,458
795,282
668,046
665,299
648,260
549,890
502,990
362,843
295,520
187,595
165,080
64,660
41,661
33,584
22,685
14,232
9,538
7,422
6,413
5,398
4,338
3,296
2,432
1,917
694
562
508
14,198,274
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 4.
Permanently and Temporarily Restricted Net Assets (Continued)
Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2012:
2012
Permanently
Restricted
Gordon Prize
Draper Prize for Engineering
Wm. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence
Capital Preservation
Senior Scholar
Young Engineer
Simon Ramo Founders Award
Industry Scholar
Hollomon
Hans Reissner
President’s Discretionary
Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation
Frontiers of Engineering Education
Vest Opportunity Fund
Public Understanding
Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years
Urban Infrastructure
National Engineering Forum
Noise Policy Development
Global Grand Challenges
Others
Engineering Ethics
Native Americans in Engineering
Frontiers of Engineering
Information Technology
Engineering Ethics Center
Russ Prize
Diversity in the Engineering Work Force
Engineering Education and Research
Bueche Award
CASEE
Homeland Security
Technology and Environment
Communication with Public in Crisis
Engineering and services
Engineering Girl
Engineering Education
62
$
$
13,438,250
8,000,000
3,014,864
2,397,701
1,000,000
778,641
500,000
353,038
201,200
25,623
29,709,317
Temporarily
Restricted
$
$
521,458
324,056
296,491
25,995
63,018
105,066
344,844
11,077
1,404,520
1,168,477
1,098,452
913,114
723,518
629,928
363,873
297,742
191,366
166,715
147,680
146,889
59,751
41,775
30,176
25,012
24,177
23,156
15,871
13,592
10,774
8,478
6,418
1,917
1,269
655
563
9,207,863
19
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 5.
Endowments
Interpretation of Relevant Law: The Fund has interpreted the District of Columbia-enacted version of the
Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) as requiring the Fund, absent explicit
donor stipulations to the contrary, to act in good faith and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person
in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances in making determinations to appropriate or
accumulate endowment funds, taking into account both its obligation to preserve the value of the
endowment and its obligation to use the endowment to achieve the purposes for which it was donated.
The Fund classifies as permanently restricted net assets (a) the original value of gifts donated to the
permanent endowment, (b) the original value of subsequent gifts to the permanent endowment, and
(c) accumulations to the permanent endowment made in accordance with the direction of the applicable
donor gift instrument at the time the accumulation is added to the fund. The remaining portion of the
donor-restricted endowment fund that is not classified in permanently restricted net assets is classified as
temporarily restricted net assets until those amounts are appropriated for expenditure. In accordance with
UPMIFA, the Fund considers the following factors in making a determination to appropriate or accumulate
donor-restricted endowment funds:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
The duration and preservation of the endowment fund
The purposes of the institution and the endowment fund
General economic conditions
The possible effect of inflation or deflation
The expected total return from income and the appreciation of investments
Other resources of the institution
The investment policy of the institution
Return Objective and Risk Parameters: The Fund has adopted an investment policy for the endowment
fund. This investment program is based on growing the endowment fund to provide financial stability for
the Fund in perpetuity. The Fund’s ability to tolerate risk and volatility should be consistent with that of a
conservative growth portfolio, with investments made in companies that demonstrate consistent growth
over time. Asset allocations are developed in accordance with this long-term, conservative growth
strategy.
Spending Policy: The Fund will appropriate for expenditure in its annual budget a percentage of the
earnings. There may be times when the Fund may opt not to take the spending rate, but rather to reinvest
some or all of the annual income.
Fair Value: The fair value of assets associated with donor-restricted endowment funds may fall below the
level that UPMIFA requires to retain as a fund of perpetual duration. In accordance with GAAP,
deficiencies of this nature that are reported in unrestricted net assets were $808,621 and $1,558,643 as
of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
The following illustrates endowment net asset composition by type of fund and the changes in
endowment net assets for the year ended December 31, 2013:
2013
Unrestricted
Donor-restricted endowment funds
Total funds
Permanently
Restricted
Restricted
Total
$
(808,621)
$
3,384,493
$
29,748,220
$
32,324,092
$
(808,621)
$
3,384,493
$
29,748,220
$
32,324,092
20
2 013
Temporarily
63
National
Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 5.
Endowments (Continued)
Changes in endowment net assets for the year ended December 31, 2013, are:
2013
Temporarily
Permanently
Restricted
Restricted
Unrestricted
Total
Endowment net assets,
$
beginning of year
(1,558,643)
$
1,692,005
$
29,709,317
$
29,842,679
Investment return:
Interest and dividends,
-
net of fees
Realized gain on investments
Net appreciation
Total investment return
-
(247,641)
448,853
(247,641)
-
448,853
750,022
2,674,301
-
750,022
2,875,513
-
3,424,323
3,625,535
-
(1,183,025)
Amounts appropriated for
-
expenditure
Endowment net assets,
end of year
(1,183,025)
-
Contributions received
$
-
(808,621)
$
38,903
3,384,493
$
29,748,220
38,903
$
32,324,092
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
Restricted
Unrestricted
Donor-restricted endowment funds
Total funds
64
Permanently
Restricted
Total
$
(1,558,643)
$
1,692,005
$
29,709,317
$
29,842,679
$
(1,558,643)
$
1,692,005
$
29,709,317
$
29,842,679
21
NAE
National Academy of Engineering  Fund
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 5.
Endowments (Continued)
Changes in endowment net assets for the year ended December 31, 2012, are:
2012
Temporarily
Restricted
Unrestricted
Endowment net assets,
beginning of year
Investment return:
Interest and dividends,
net of fees
Realized gain on investments
Net appreciation
Total investment return
Amounts appropriated for
expenditure
Contributions received
Endowment net assets,
end of year
Note 6.
$
(1,933,660)
$
375,017
375,017
$
$
1,692,005
Total
$
-
(1,097,147)
-
(1,558,643)
29,209,317
(17,728)
453,745
1,786,027
2,222,044
$
567,108
Permanently
Restricted
(17,728)
453,745
2,161,044
2,597,061
500,000
$
29,709,317
27,842,765
(1,097,147)
500,000
$
29,842,679
Related Party Transactions
The National Academies Corporation: The National Academies Corporation (TNAC) is a non-profit
corporation that was incorporated in January 1986 for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a
study and conference facility, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center, in Irvine, California, to expand and
support the general scope of program activities of NAS, NAE, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and NRC.
TNAC is organized as a tax-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, 2013 and 2012.
National Academy of Sciences: The Fund reimburses NAS by making monthly payments based on NAE’s
estimated expenditures for the year. The Fund also receives contributions through NAS. This resulted in a
payable to NAS at December 31, 2013 and 2012, of $1,318,116 and $1,338,585, respectively. Payments
made to NAS by the Fund for the Fund’s allocated portion of the expenditures shared jointly by NAS, NAE
and IOM were $1,123,125 and $1,094,164 for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012,
respectively.
22
2 013
65
Officers
Chair
Charles O. Holliday, Jr. (2014)
Retired Chairman of the Board
and CEO, E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Co.
Immediate Past Chair
Irwin M. Jacobs (2013)‡
Director, Qualcomm Incorporated
Treasurer
Martin B. Sherwin (2017)
Retired Vice President, W.R.
Grace & Co.
Paul R. Gray (2014)
Executive Vice Chancellor and
Provost, Emeritus, and Professor,
University of California, Berkeley
C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. (2013)‡
Glenn Martin Institute Professor
of Engineering, University of
Maryland
Anita K. Jones (2015)
University Professor Emerita,
University of Virginia
Councillors
President
C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. (2019)
President, National Academy of
Engineering
Linda M. Abriola (2013)‡
Dean of Engineering, Tufts
University
Charles M. Vest (2013)‡
President, National Academy of
Engineering
Alice M. Agogino (2014)
Professor of Mechanical
Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley
Immediate Past President
Charles M. Vest (2014)
(through December, deceased)
Corale L. Brierley (2015)
Principal, Brierley Consulting, LLC
Vice President
Maxine Savitz (2014)
Retired General Manager,
Technology/Partnerships,
Honeywell Inc.
Home Secretary
Thomas F. Budinger (2016)
Professor, University of California,
Berkeley; Senior Consulting
Scientist, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
Foreign Secretary
Venkatesh Narayanamurti (2015)
Benjamin Peirce Professor of
Technology and Public Policy,
Harvard School of Engineering
and Applied Sciences; Director,
Science, Technology and Public
Policy Program, Harvard Kennedy
School
Uma Chowdhry (2016)
Retired Senior Vice President and
Chief Science and Technology
Officer, Emeritus, E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Co.
Paul Citron (2016)
Retired Vice President, Technology
Policy and Academic Relations,
Medtronic, Inc.
David E. Daniel (2016)
President, The University of Texas
at Dallas
Ruth A. David (2013)‡
President and Chief Executive
Officer, ANSER (Analytic
Services Inc.)
Richard A. Meserve (2014)
President, Carnegie Institution for
Science
Julia M. Phillips (2014)
Vice President and Chief
Technology Officer, Sandia
National Laboratories
C. Paul Robinson (2016)
President Emeritus, Sandia
National Laboratories
Arnold F. Stancell (2015)
Retired Vice President, Mobil
Oil; Turner Professor of Chemical
Engineering, Emeritus, Georgia
Institute of Technology
Richard H. Truly (2015)
Retired Vice Admiral, United States
Navy; Retired Director, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory
Ex Officio:
Ralph J. Cicerone (2017)
President, National Academy of
Sciences
‡ Indicates
term ended June 30,
2013. Year in parentheses indicates
the year term expires
Charles Elachi (2013)‡
Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory;
Vice President, California Institute
of Technology
66
NAE
Staff
Office of the President
Charles M. Vest, President
(through June)
C. D. Mote, Jr., President (from July)
Laura Mersky, Senior Executive
Assistant
Office of the Home Secretary
Thomas F. Budinger, Home Secretary
Mary Lee Berger-Hughes, Director,
Membership Office
Office of the Foreign Secretary
Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Foreign
Secretary
Vivienne Chin, Administrative
Assistant
Executive Office
Maxine Savitz, Vice President
Lance Davis, Executive Officer
Sonja Atkinson, Administrative
Assistant
Finance Office
C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., Treasurer
(through June)
Martin B. Sherwin, Treasurer
(from July)
Mary Resch, Director
Raymond Hart, Senior Accountant
Barbara Bishop, Administrative
Coordinator
Membership Office
Mary Lee Berger-Hughes,
Michaela Curran, Election Associate
Kim Garcia, Election Manager
Pamela Lankowski, Council
Administrator
Jenney Resch, Senior Membership
Associate
Patricia Scales, Membership Associate
Dennis Thorp, Graphic Designer and
Publications Coordinator
Program Office
Proctor Reid, Director
Randy Atkins, Senior Public/Media
Relations Officer
Frazier Benya, Program Officer, Center
for Engineering, Ethics, and Society
Elizabeth Cady, Program Officer,
Engineering Education
Vivienne Chin, Administrative
Assistant
NAE Publications
Catherine Didion, Senior Program
Officer, Diversity in the Engineering
Workforce and Engineering
Education
Abbey Estabillo, Anderson &
Commonweal Intern (Summer)
Cameron Fletcher, Senior Editor
Nicole Flores, Program Associate
Sarah Gizaw, Anderson &
Commonweal Intern (Summer)
Penelope Gibbs, Senior Program
Associate
Rachelle Hollander, Director, Center
for Engineering, Ethics, and Society
Janet Hunziker, Senior Program
Officer, Frontiers of Engineering
Maribeth Keitz, Senior Program
Associate/Web Communications
Manager
Mary Kutruff, Financial Officer
Vanessa Lester, Program Associate
Jacqueline Martin, Awards Associate
Greg Pearson, Senior Program
Officer, K-12 Engineering Education
and Public Understanding of
Engineering
Simil Raghavan, Associate Program
Officer, EngineerGirl! Website and
Online Ethics Center
Katie Whitefoot, Senior Program
Officer, Manufacturing, Design, and
Innovation
Jason Williams, Senior Financial
Assistant
Deborah Young, Awards Administrator
NAE reports are available from the
National Academies Press either for
purchase or as free downloadable
PDFs at www.nap.edu or 1-800624-6242, or from the National
Academies Bookstore, 500 Fifth
Street NW, Washington, DC.
Development Office
Radka Nebesky, NAE Director of
Development
Jamie Killorin, Director of Gift
Planning (from July)
Messaging for Engineering: From
Research to Action
All reports can also be read online.
Reports from 2013:
Best Available and Safest Technologies
for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations:
Options for Implementation
Bringing a Systems Approach to
Health: A Discussion Paper
Educating Engineers: Preparing 21st
Century Leaders in the Context of
New Modes of Learning
Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on
Leading-Edge Engineering from the
2012 Symposium
Harnessing Operational Systems
Engineering to Support Peacebuilding:
Report of a Workshop by the National
Academy of Engineering and United
States Institute of Peace Roundtable
on Technology, Science, and
Peacebuilding
Memorial Tributes: National Academy
of Engineering, Volume 17
Positioning Synthetic Biology to Meet
the Challenges of the 21st Century:
Summary Report of a Six Academies
Symposium Series
Practical Guidance on Science and
Engineering Ethics Education for
Instructors and Administrators
Protecting National Park Soundscapes
Sensing and Shaping Emerging
Conflicts: Report of a Joint Workshop
of the NAE and the United States
Institute of Peace
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.
67
2 013
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of dis­tin­guished scholars engaged in scientific and
engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the author­
ity of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy
has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal gov­ern­ment on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of
the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under
the charter of the Na­tion­al Academy of Sciences, as a parallel 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 En­gi­neer­ing also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote,
Jr. 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 pro­fes­sions 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 Sci­enc­es in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
technology with the Academy’s purposes of fur­ther­ing knowledge and
advising the federal government. Func­tion­ing in accordance with 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 en­gi­neer­ing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the
Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr. are
chair­and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
Photo Credits:
Page 1: Cable Risdon
Pages 20-21:
Dr. Cooper – © Ed Carreon Photography
Dr. Engel – © Nick Shirghio Photography
Dr. Frenkiel – © Jon Roemer Photography
Dr. Haug – © Lina Haskel Photography
Dr. Okumura – © Makoto Ishida
Dr. Srinivasan – © Bill Truslow Photography
Dr. Wynne – © Bill Truslow Photography
Drs. Kerns, Miller, Kerns – © Bill Truslow Photography
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
www.nae.edu
Download