Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 56

Update of Directorate Activities

John A. Brighton
Assistant Director for Engineering
http://www.nsf.gov

Advisory Committee for Engineering


May 19, 2004
Changes and Activities
Office of the Director, Effective, February 21, 2004

Rita Colwell Leaves NSF Arden Bement Acting Director


● Becomes Chair of Canon ● Joins NSF from NIST

U.S. Life Sciences, Inc. ● Ph.D. in Engineering

● Ph.D. Oceanography ● Member US National Academy


of Engineering
Changes and Activities
ENG Office of the Assistant Director

Bruce Hamilton Mike Reischman


● Returns to Head BES as ● ENG Deputy Assistant
Division Director Director
● Provided management ● Comes to ENG from NASA &
excellence during transition University Community
● Effective April 15, 2004
Welcome for New ENG Staff

Jesus de la Garza Cassandra Queen Juan Pestana


Virginia Tech Assistant to Univ. of California Berkeley
Program Director Dr. John Brighton Program Director
Information Technology and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Infrastructure Systems Program and Geohazards Mitigation
(CMS) Program (CMS)
Welcome for New ENG Staff

Sohi Rastagar
Errol Arkilic
Johns Hopkins University
StrataGent Life Sciences
Program Director
Program Director
Engineering Education and Centers (EEC)
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
AD and Directors Retreat - Topics
● Core vs. Priority Areas

● Major research facilities

● Broadening participation

● Program Directors – Issues, IPAs

● Cyberinfrastructure (Division of Shared CI)

● Framework for NSF budget


National Science Foundation

Office of the
National Science Board Inspector General

Staff Offices Director

Directorate for
Directorate for Computer and Directorate for
Polar and Integrative
Biological Information Education and
Antarctic Activities
Sciences Science and Human
Programs (MRI, STC)
Engineering Resources

Directorate for
Directorate for Social,
SBIR/STTR Directorate for Directorate for
Mathematical Behavioral,
Engineering Geosciences
and Physical and Economic
Sciences Sciences
National Science Foundation
FY 2005 Congressional Request
(Dollars in Millions)
Total
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Increase %
Actual Estimate Request over '04 Change
BIO 570.5 586.9 599.9 13.1 2.2%
CISE 589.3 604.7 618.1 13.4 2.2%
ENG Programs 450.8 461.5 471.8 10.3 2.2%
SBIR/STTR 90.9 103.6 104.1 0.5 0.5%
GEO 691.8 713.1 728.5 15.4 2.2%
MPS 1040.7 1091.5 1115.5 24.0 2.2%
SBE 198.6 203.8 224.7 20.9 10.3%
OPP 324.0 342.2 349.7 7.6 2.2%
IA 97.9 144.1 240.0 95.9 66.5%
R&RA 4054.4 4251.4 4452.3 201.0 4.7%
EHR 934.9 939.0 771.4 -167.6 -17.9%
MREFC 179.0 155.0 213.3 58.3 37.6%
S&E 189.4 218.7 294.0 75.3 34.4%
NSB 2.9 3.9 4.0 0.1 1.8%
OIG 8.7 9.9 10.1 0.2 1.7%
Total NSF $5,369.4 $5,577.8 $5,745.0 $167.2 3.0%
NSF Funding by Priority Areas
(Dollars in Millions)
Change over
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2004
Priority Area Actual Plan Request Amount Percent

Biocomplexity in the Environment $ 70.28 $ 99.83 $ 99.83 $ 0.00 0.0%

Information Technology Research 335.11 313.03 N/A N/A N/A

Nanoscale Science & Engineering 222.46 253.51 305.06 51.55 20.30%

Mathematical Sciences 60.42 89.09 89.11 0.02 0.00%

Human & Social Dynamics 4.46 24.24 23.25 -0.99 -4.1%

Workforce for the 21st Century N/A N/A 20.00 20.00 N/A

Total, Priority Areas $692.73 $779.70 $537.25 $70.58 15.1%


MREFC Project List
Ongoing Projects
● ALMA - Atacama Large Millimeter Array
● EarthScope – EarthScope: USArray, SAFOD, PBO
● HIAPER – High-Performance Instrumented Airborne
Platform for Environmental Research
● IceCube - IceCube Neutrino Observatory
● LHC - Large Hadron Collider
● NEES – Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation
● SPSM – South Pole Station Modernization
● Terascale – Terascale Computing Systems
MREFC Project List (cont)

New Starts
● NEON – National Ecological Observatory
Network
● SODV – Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel
● RSVP – Rare Symmetry Violating Processes
● OOI – Ocean Observatories Initiative
● ARRV – Alaska Region Research Vessel
MREFC Projects: 2003 and Currently Projected Outyears
Dollars in Millions
350

300

250 ARRV
OOI
RSVP
SOD
200
Terascale
SPSM
NEON

150 NEES
LHC
IceCube
HIAPER
100 EarthScope
ALMA

50

0
2003 2004 CP 2005 Req 2006 2007 2008 2009
Fiscal Year

NOTE: FY 2003 does not include carryover. FY 2004 CP includes 0.59% rescission on all projects. FY 2005 Request and outyears are unaltered.
NSF Six-Year Directorate Budget Growth
FY 1998-2004 = 62%

140% 125%
120%
100%
100%
80% 62% 65% 63% 59% 61%
58% 53%
60% 48%
40%
20% 11%
0%
SF O SE G T R
EO PS E PP IA R
N BI CI EN T G M S B
O EH
R/S
S BI
OMB Outyear Budget Guidance
(Millions of Dollars)

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009


Request
$5,770 $5,666 $5,674 $5,723 $5,749
NSF Budgets: Guidance, Request, and
Appropriations
FY'01 FY'02 FY'03 FY'04 FY'05 FY'06 FY'07 FY'08 FY'09

FY 2002 Req 4,647 4,747 4,705 4,811 4,919


Appropriation 4,547 4,917
Difference +270

FY 2003 Req 5,177 5,159 5,271 5,395 5,521


Appropriation 4,547 4,917 5,430
Difference +253

FY 2004 Req 5,508 5,643 5,746 5,855 6,007


Appropriation 4,547 4,917 5,430 5,617
Difference +109

FY 2005 Req 5,770 5,666 5,674 5,723 5,749


Appropriation 4,547 4,917 5,430 5,617 ??
Difference ??
Success Rates for FY2003 Research Proposals

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
*
SF PP PS EO B E
H
R IO SE G
N O M G S E B CI E N

* Does not include SBIR/STTR


Average Annualized Award Size for FY 2003
Research Grants

$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
*
SF IO SE
EO PP PS G B E
N B CI G O M EN
S

Average Award Duration for FY 2003 is 2.9 years


Engineering Opportunities
● Nanotechnology*+

● Bioengineering

● Cyberinfrastructure*

● Sensors

● Manufacturing
* NSF Priorities
● Engineering Workforce* + ENG Lead
Key Issues for ENG Directorate

●Role and Impact of ENG within NSF

●Positioning SBIR/STTR within ENG and NSF

●Perception of Engineering and Engineers/Impact


on Engineering
NSF Engineering Directorate
Assistant Director
John A. Brighton
Deputy Assistant Director
Senior Advisors
Michael Reischman Mike Roco
Priscilla Nelson

Bioengineering Civil & Chemical &


& Environmental Mechanical Transport
Systems Systems Systems
BES CMS CTS
($0.5M) $68.9M)
Bruce Hamilton Galip Ulsoy Esin Gulari

Design, Electrical & Engineering


Manufacture & Communications Education &
SBIR/STTR* Industrial Systems Centers
Innovation ECS EEC
DMII

Kesh Narayanan Warren DeVries Vasu Varadan Bruce Kramer


*NSF-wide program
ENG Funding
(Dollars in Millions)
Change over
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2004
Actual Plan Request Amount Percent
BES $49.5 $51.0 $49.8 $ -1.3 -2.5%

CTS 68.3 68.9 67.2 -1.7 -2.5%

CMS 63.2 67.2 85.5 18.3 27.3%

DMII 64.0 65.8 65.9 0.1 0.1%

ECS 73.1 74.6 72.7 -1.9 -2.5%

EEC 132.7 134.0 130.7 -3.3 -2.5%

Subtotal 450.8 461.5 471.8 10.3 2.2%

SBIR/STT 90.9 103.6 104.1 0.5 0.5%


R
$541.7 $565.1 $575.9 $10.8 1.9%
Total
NEES Timeline

40
35 Research
30
Millions of $

25 O&M
20
Construction
15 (MREFC)
10 Concept/Dev.
5
0
'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07
Fiscal Year
ENG Funding Trends:
Core vs. Priority Areas
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% Non-Priority
Areas
40% Priority
Areas
30%
20%
10%
0%
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005

Does not include SBIR/STTR


Selected Programs Impacting People
● CAREER (faculty)

● IGERT (Grad students/faculty)

● ADVANCE (Women in Engineering)

● Louis Stokes (Alliances for Minority Participation)

● Expected Proposals and New Studies


Pat Galloway, Coalition of Women Engineers Project
(25 organizations)
AAES (Diversity Proposal)(NACME, MESA, WEPAN)
NAE – Study
NAE Study

● Past and present impact of U.S. engineering


research enterprise
● Adequacy of public and private investment
● Document and evaluate recent contributions of U.S.
based engineering research
● Assess potential for advancing emerging
opportunities
● Blue ribbon committee – Jim Duderstadt, Chair
● Circulate the report for review and feedback by broad
cross-section of the nation’s engineering community
What are we trying to achieve?

What are the indicators of success?


What? -- Assist and enable the
engineering and scientific
communities to advance the frontiers
of engineering research, innovation
and education.

Identify, Invite, Evaluate, Award,


Access
Phases of Specific Research
Initiatives
-3σ -2σ -σ 0 σ 2σ 3σ

Declining activities in gaining Fill in minor Mid- Early Bleeding-


significant information holes or gaps frontier frontier edge

Conferences, call for – fund proposals, workshops


Workshop, define areas – assess potential impact
How ?

● Facilitate workshops to identify areas of critical


interest and opportunities in science,
engineering, innovation and education.

● Support creative ideas and tool development


for discovery, innovation and education
through funding allocated by a competitive
merit review.
How ? (cont)

● Support innovative programs through a merit


review process to advance the education of
future engineers and scientists and the
professional development of faculty.

● Collaborate with industry to support


engineering and science faculty and assist
industry in implementing new ideas
What are the Measures for Success
for Engineering Faculty?

a) Research
• Referred journal publications –
citations
• Grant received
• Special awards/recognition
• Invited Lectures
• Peer assessment
• Graduate students supervised
What are the Measures for Success
for Engineering Faculty? (cont)

a) Teaching
• Teaching evaluations by students
• Grants received
• Books – publications
• Peer evaluation
• Course materials and
• Success of their students
Assessing Performance at NSF
● Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (FY 2003 Performance Highlights)

● Awardees submit annual reports

● Committee of Visitors assess the review and


award process, portfolio and emerging needs
and issues

● External Advisory Committee assesses NSF


success in achieving its Performance Plan
Assessing Performance at NSF (cont)

● Identify major research and education


achievements through nuggets and facilitate
press releases

● Track achievement of numerical targets


(recruiting, diversity, access for new
investigators, merit review, award size and
duration, time to decision, facility cost
overruns and downtime.
Assessing Performance at NSF (cont)

● Identify major collaborations with other


agencies, industry and professional
associations

● Track recipients of major awards that


received NSF support (Nobel, Gordon,
Draper, National Medal of Science,
National Medal of Engineering)
Assessing Performance at NSF (cont)
● For centers, track patents, start up
companies, outreach to K-12 and success
of graduates

● Conduct program evaluations (ERC, REU,


RET, DMII, IGERT)

● Identify major NSF-supported workshops


and solicitations in areas of emerging
opportunity
Questions?
Additional Information

A. Nanotechnology Update

C. Engineering Degrees Awarded

E. American Perspectives on
Engineers and Engineering
Nanotechnology Update

“If I were asked for an area of science


and engineering that will most likely
produce the break-throughs of
tomorrow, I would point to nanoscale
science and engineering.”

- Neal Lane
Assistant to the President
For Science and Technology
April 1998
NNI & Nanotechnology Progress
and Outlook
● $961M invested in NNI in FY 2004
(compared to $270M in FY 2000)

● 7000 people trained with NNI support in


2003

● Strong infrastructure created


NNI & Nanotechnology Progress
and Outlook (cont)
● Over 5,300 U.S. patents in FY 2003 (2/3 of
world patents)

● $400M invested in nanotech start-ups in


2003

● Many new products using nanotechnology


(projected to be worth $1 trillion by 2015)
Examples of Nanotechnology Products

● Head for computer hard ● Stain-free clothing and


drives mattresses
● Magnetic recording tapes ● Dental-bonding agent
● Solid-state compasses ● Burn and would dressings
● Landmine detectors ● Automobile catalytic
● Chemical hazards cleanup converters
● Molecular sensors ● Drug delivery systems
● Cancer detection agents ● Medical imaging devices
● Car body parts ● Lasers with precise
● Paints and protective wavelengths
coatings ● Low friction coatings for
● Metal-cutting tools submarines and ships
● Sunscreens and cosmetics
Organizations that have prepared and contribute
to the National Nanotechnology Initiative

White House

IWGN (October 1998-August 2000)


Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) NSET (August 2000 - continuing)

Departments Independent Agencies


DOC/NIST, DOD, DOE, DOJ,
EPA, FDA, NASA, NIH, NRC, NSF, USG
DOS, DOT, DOTreas, USDA
NNI Budget Overview by Agency
Agency 2003 2004 2005 % Change,
Enacted Current Request 2004 to
Plan 2005
NSF 221 254 305 20%
DOD 322 315 276 -12%
DOE 134 203 211 4%
HHS (NIH) 78 80 89 11%
DOC 64 63 53 -16%
(NIST)
NASA 36 37 35 -5%
USDA 0 1 5 400%
EPA 5 5 5 0%
DHS (TSA) 1 1 1 0%
DOJ 1 2 2 0%
TOTAL 862 961 982 3%
NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Funding
 
(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2004
FY 2003 Likely FY 2005 Change
Actual Enacted Request Amount Percent
BIO 3.0 5.3 5.9 0.5 10.2%
CISE 11.1 15.8 19.4 3.6 22.9%
ENG 94.4 108.9 133.8 24.9 22.9%
GEO 7.5 7.9 7.9 0.0 0.0%
MPS 103.9 111.5 132.1 20.7 18.5%
SBE 2.3 1.6 1.5 -0.1 -3.8%
OIA N/A N/A 0.3 0.3 N/A
Subtotal, R&RA 222.2 251.0 300.9 49.9 19.9%
EHR 0.2 2.6 4.2 1.6 63.1%
Total, NS&E 222.5 253.5 305.1 51.6 20.3%
NNIN Hands-on User Facilities
Half Century of Engineering Degrees
80,000
Bachelor's
70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000
Master's

30,000

20,000

10,000 Doctoral

0
1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

Sources: the Engineering Workforce Commission (aaes.org/ewc)


U.S. Department of Education
Bachelor’s Degrees In Engineering By
African & Hispanic Americans

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000
Total Bachelor’s degrees for 2003 = 75031
0
94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
African American Hispanic American
Doctoral Degrees In Engineering By
African & Hispanic Americans

120
100
80
60
40
20
Total Doctoral degrees for 2003 = 6027
0
94

95

97

98

99

00

01

03
02
69
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
19

African American Hispanic American


Percentage of Women
Earning Engineering Bachelor’s
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

Sources: the Engineering Workforce Commission (aaes.org/ewc)


U.S. Department of Education
Engineering Degrees
as a Percent of Total (Bachelor’s)
7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Sources: the Engineering Workforce Commission (aaes.org/ewc)


U.S. Department of Education
Starting Salaries
vs. Unemployment Rate
8.0 $50,000

7.0 $48,000

6.0 $46,000

Adjusted Dollars (2001)


5.0 $44,000

4.0 $42,000

3.0 $40,000

2.0 $38,000

1.0 $36,000

0.0 $34,000
1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

Sources: the Engineering Workforce Commission (aaes.org/ewc)


Bureau of Labor Statistics
Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees in 2003

Hispanic
American
6%
African American
5%
Foreign National
7%

White Women
12%

White Men
57%

Asian American
13%

Source: the Engineering Workforce Commission (aaes.org/ewc)


The Harri s Po ll

Am eri can Perspectives on


Engi neers an d Engi neeri ng
Conducted For:
American A ss ociatio n o f
En gineerin g S ocie tie s
FI NA L RE PO RT

February 13, 2004


Harris Poll: American Perspectives on
Engineers and Engineering

● 2003 Survey conducted on behalf of American


Assoc. of Engineering Societies with grant from
United Engineering Foundation (UEF)
● Primary objective to build upon 1998 research on
public’s knowledge of and interest in engineers
» How views have changed since 1998
» Public’s perceptions of what engineers do
» Degree to which adults understand what engineers do
» Sources of information used to find out about
engineering
Harris Poll Results

● Americans have high opinions of engineers and


pleased if children pursued engineering as profession
● Recognize contribution engineers have made to
things we take for granted in our daily lives
● Vast majority think engineers make use of both old
and new knowledge to solve practical problems
● Compared to scientists, most think engineers create
economic growth (69% vs. 25%), preserve national
security & make strong leaders
● Despite positive views, just 33% feel very or fairly
well informed about engineers and engineering; down
from 40% in 1998
Harris Poll Results (cont.)
● Nearly 9 in 10 adults followed at least 1 of the
4 news stories examined in the survey and
most could easily identify when a story
focused on engineering

● Cable or local television news were most


commonly used outlets

● Internet also proving important channel of


communication for those with higher interest
level