Report - National Academy of Engineering

Transcription

2015
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
3
3
4
4
6
18
20
22
27
46
69
69
70
70
Letter from the President
In Service to the Nation
Mission Statement
NAE Strategic Plan
NAE Annual Meeting
Program Reports
6 Postsecondary Engineering Education
Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE)
2- and 4-Year Engineering and Engineering Technology Transfer Student Pilot
Barriers and Opportunities in Completing Two- and Four-Year STEM Degrees
Understanding the Engineering Education–Workforce Continuum
Engagement of Engineering Societies in Undergraduate Engineering Education
The Supply Chain for Middle-Skill Jobs: Education, Training, and Certification Pathways
Engineering Technology Education
8 K–12 Engineering Education
LinkEngineering Website
Educator Capacity Building in PreK–12 Engineering Education
9 Public Understanding of Engineering
Media Relations
Public Relations
Grand Challenges for Engineering
The Next MacGyver
11 Center for Engineering Ethics and Society (CEES)
Becoming the Online Resource Center for Ethics in Engineering and Science
Infusing Ethics into the Development of Engineers
Workshop on Overcoming Challenges to Infusing Ethics in the Development of Engineers
Integrated Network for Social Sustainability (INSS)
Sustainable Cities and Interdisciplinary International Education
13 Diversity of the Engineering Workforce
EngineerGirl Website
14 Frontiers of Engineering
Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers—Gilbreth Lectures
16 Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation
Making Value for America: Embracing the Future of Manufacturing, Technology, and Work
16 Center-Based Engineering Research
2015 NAE Awards Recipients
2015 New Members and Foreign Members
NAE Anniversary Members
2014 Private Contributions
30 Catalyst Society
30 Rosette Society
31 Challenge Society
31 Charter Society
33 Other Individual Donors
36 Tributes
36 Loyalty Society
38 Einstein Society
40 Golden Bridge Society
41 Heritage Society
42 Foundations, Corporations, and Other Organizations
National Academy of Engineering Fund Financial Report
46 Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants
51 Notes to Financial Statements
Officers
Councillors
Staff
NAE Publications
Letter from the President
In July 2015 the academy complex experienced its greatest transformation since the
NAE was founded in 1964 when it welcomed the new National Academy of Medicine,
created from the Institute of Medicine. The three academies also adopted a new brand:
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Each academy retains
its identity, and the new branding for the complex prepares us to participate more
effectively in today’s global environment.
Last year the NAE wrote and released its first new strategic plan since 1999. Our goal
was to craft a 5-year plan focusing on our strategic priorities. We received valuable
inputs from the membership, held a council retreat (generously supported by IBM’s
C. D. Mote, Jr.
planning services), did extensive work virtually, and reviewed our progress at every
council meeting. The new strategic plan was adopted by the council last August. It sets
forth the NAE mission, vision, and six 5-year strategic goals (summarized below); recommends actions
to support each goal; and establishes metrics and milestones to assess progress on them. While we
may not complete all the goals within five years, they will certainly be meaningfully advanced.
1. Membership Representation: increase the representation of business, female, younger, foreign, and
underrepresented minority members;
2. Industry Collaboration: increase the value of the NAE to industry;
3. Public Understanding: demonstrate to the public how engineering creates a better quality of life;
4. Ensuring Engineering Talent: promote and inspire highly competitive engineering talent in the US
workforce;
5. Global Engagement: engage globally in support of national interests; and
6. Effective Advising: together with our sister Academies of Sciences and Medicine, enhance effective
advice to the nation on technological and societal challenges.
The theme for the 2015 NAE annual meeting was the NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering, a highlight of our global engagement goal. A list of 14 Grand Challenges for Engineering was published in
2008 by a committee of 18 distinguished engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and visionaries who set
out to identify the most critical, yet tractable engineering system challenges that must be tackled successfully in this century for continuation of life on the planet as we know it. A number of activities
planned in conjunction with the annual meeting took this theme.
Building on the success of the first Engineering for You (E4U) video competition in 2014, and with the
generous sponsorship of the ExxonMobil Foundation and its president Suzanne McCarron, we held
another contest (E4U2), this time on engineering contributions to solutions of the Grand Challenges.
Several hundred contestants submitted 1- to 2-minute videos; I encourage you to watch the winning
selections at www.nae.edu/e4u2/.
The Grand Challenges for Engineering continue to grow in momentum and outreach, in large part
because they are relevant to everyone and are not targeted to a country or industry. In 2010 the Grand
Challenge Scholars Program was the first organizational effort to prepare talent for, and present a
vision directed to, achieving solutions to the challenges on a global scale. The second organizational
effort was the Global Grand Challenges Summit, held in London in March 2013 and cosponsored by
the Royal Academy of Engineering, Chinese Academy of Engineering, and NAE in our first joint effort.
In September 2015 the 2nd Global Grand Challenges Summit was held in Beijing, with over 600
attendees invited by the three academies. The summit topics were sustainability, urban infrastructure,
health, joy of living, energy, education, security, and resilience.
1
Also at the Beijing summit, the three academies and FIRST Robotics (FIRST stands for “For Inspiration
and Recognition of Science and Technology”), founded by NAE member Dean Kamen, announced
a collaboration to be launched in 2017 at the 3rd Global Grand Challenges Summit, which the NAE
will host in the United States. FIRST Robotics reaches hundreds of thousands of 6- to 18-year-old students through its nearly 50,000 competitions in 83 countries. In this new collaboration, FIRST, with
the participation of the academies, will select Grand Challenge goals for its championship robotics
competition, which will take place immediately following the summit. In addition, a university student competition to develop a business plan for a startup based on the Grand Challenges will again
precede the summit. In these ways, the Grand Challenges for Engineering will be exposed to millions
of new people—students, parents, sponsors, governments, corporations, and mentors—including the
young people we need to inspire to conquer them.
For the 2015 annual meeting forum, a panel of seven members of the original Grand Challenges committee provided their perspectives on “NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering: Imperatives, Prospects,
and Priorities” (the forum can be watched at www.nae.edu/default.aspx?id=141118). This may be the
first time in history that a panel of experts has put forward a set of recommendations for the planet
and, just seven years later, actually seen those recommendations propelling global, grass-roots movements that are impacting not only engineering education but also, most importantly, the way people
are thinking about the future and the role of engineering in it.
Complementing these activities, our Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) series has bilateral programs with
Germany, Japan, China, India, and the European Union. The increasing interest in these programs
parallels the growing demand for engineering talent in developed and developing societies alike. The
bilateral programs engage young and talented engineers in partnerships to accelerate innovation—and,
like the Grand Challenges, they are central to our goals of promoting understanding of engineering
and ensuring top talent in the workforce and global leadership.
The independent programs of the NAE depend greatly on private philanthropy and the flexibility it provides. We are grateful to Ming and Eva Hsieh for their generous matching gift challenge to members
and friends to increase giving that provides resources for programs aligned with the new NAE strategic
plan; to Fran and George Ligler for their matching gift challenge to Section 2 members; and to Virginia
Bugliarello who, to honor George Bugliarello’s memory, gave generously to the EngineerGirl program,
which encourages girls and young women to become engineers. We are pleased to recognize in this
report all the members and friends whose gifts help the NAE continue its important work to serve the
nation. Your generosity is appreciated greatly.
In the following pages you will find additional information about the work undertaken by the NAE in
2015. Our projects pursue with enthusiasm our mission to advance the well-being of the nation.
I thank you most sincerely for your support.
C. D. Mote, Jr.
President
2
NAE
In Service to the Nation
Every day our government and citizens face 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 United States 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
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.”
As of December 2015 the NAE had 2,418 peer-elected members and foreign members, approximately
52 percent from academia, 37 percent from industry, and 11 percent from nonprofit institutions and
government. NAE members are leaders in bioengineering, computer science, electronics, aerospace,
earth resources, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, materials engineering, and interdisciplinary engineering. They serve as members of research and
study committees, plan and conduct symposia and workshops, and assist in the work of the Academy
in many other ways. Activities include collaborative projects at home and abroad to examine technological problems, advising Congress and government agencies on engineering-related matters of
national importance, and recognizing and honoring outstanding engineers for their contributions.
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 National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of
Medicine work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
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
2 015
NAE Strategic Plan
In 2015, the NAE council developed and adopted a new 5-year strategic plan for the NAE. The
plan’s preparation included soliciting input from the NAE membership, a two-day council retreat
(supported by IBM’s planning services), and extensive work by council members and the president’s office drafting and refining the document prior to its formal adoption in August.
The 2015 strategic plan of the NAE sets forth the mission, long-term vision, and a five-year plan
(2016–2020) for the Academy building on an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats currently facing the organization. It elaborates six goals in support of the NAE
mission and vision and identifies objectives and specific actions to realize these goals over the
next five years.
The following six goals were drafted in support of the mission and vision.
1. Membership Representation: increase the representation of business, female, younger, foreign,
and underrepresented minority members;
2. Industry Collaboration: increase the value of the NAE to industry;
3. Public Understanding: demonstrate to the public how engineering creates a better quality of life;
4. Ensuring Engineering Talent: promote and inspire highly competitive engineering talent in the
US workforce;
5. Global Engagement: engage globally in support of national interests; and
6. Effective Advising: together with our sister Academies of Sciences and Medicine, enhance
effective advice to the nation on technological and societal challenges.
NAE Annual Meeting
Engineering for You Video Contest (E4U2)
The NAE held its second Engineering for You Video
Contest (E4U2), for which participants submitted a
1- to 2-minute video showing how achieving one
or more of the 14 NAE Global Grand Challenges
for Engineering would impact the world’s sustainability, health, security, and/or joy of living. More
than 300 videos were received in four categories:
middle school and younger (K–8), high school
(grades 9–12), tertiary education (2-year college
through graduate school, full or part time), and the
general public.
The contest winners were announced at the NAE
Annual Meeting. The Texas Student Television Digital
Media Team—students Jason Weilee, Carson Taylor,
and Ridge Liu—won the Best Video Overall Award for
“The Personalized Teacher,” which addressed the Grand
Challenge of Advanced Personalized Learning using a
playful, rhyming narration reminiscent of Dr. Seuss. In
their video the team also illustrated how alleviating one
challenge created a stronger foundation for solving the
other Grand Challenges.
The Personalized Teacher
4
NAE
The Best Video Overall Award includes a $25,000 prize. Awards of $5,000 were given to the winners of the following categories:
• Middle School and Younger: “Engineering for You” by Maksim Tonyushkin
• High School: “Making Solar Panels More Affordable” by Hans Voegeli
• Tertiary Education: “Our Future Shines Above” by Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM), Querétaro campus
• General Public: “Virtual Reality: The Next Technological Frontier” by Bonny Eagle Robotics
Team #133
• People’s Choice: “Water Is Our Future” by Tyler Su
The winning videos are available to watch on the Engineering for You website (www.nae.edu/
e4u2/#linkPrints).
The E4U2 Contest, sponsored by the ExxonMobil Foundation, is part of the NAE’s effort to engage
and inspire young people to become the engineers who will solve our world’s greatest challenges.
2015 NAE Annual Meeting Forum: Grand Challenges for Engineering:
Imperatives, Prospects, and Priorities
For the Annual Meeting Forum on October 5, seven members
of the NAE committee that identified the Grand Challenges
for Engineering in 2008 returned to consider progress against
them, their impacts, and next steps. The session was moderated by BuzzFeed science reporter Dan Vergano.
Wesley Harris, Charles Stark Draper Professor of Aeronautics
and Astronautics at MIT, characterized the Grand Challenges
as being “about humanity and our service to humanity within
our profession,” and urged engineers to think about ways the
Challenges bear on international concerns such as food delivery, transportation networks, communications, and other essential elements of modern life. Looking at environmental soundness and
sustainability, Robert Socolow, codirector of Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative,
explained the distinction between puzzle solving and problem solving; problem solving for the
Earth’s ecosystem will require “ambition, multidisciplinarity, and humility.” Jackie Ying, founding
executive director of the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology in Singapore and editor
in chief of Nano Today, described her recent work and added that, based on her experience with
the institute’s youth outreach program, young people become excited when they realize that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are building blocks to positively affect
people’s lives. After reporting on progress in the Grand Challenge area of fusion energy, Alec
Broers, former chair of the Select Committee for Science and Technology for the United Kingdom’s
House of Lords and past president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, cautioned that engineering systems have become so complex that “it’s easy for ethics to get lost”; he underscored the
need for “a formal code of ethics for engineers—perhaps modeled on the codes of the medical
profession.” Calestous Juma, professor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and
director of its Science, Technology, and Globalization Project, cited the expanding influence of
the Grand Challenges—from a high school preengineering program in Connecticut to proposals
submitted for the Africa Prize for Engineering Innovation. Exploring ways to spread the word about
the Grand Challenges, Farouk El-Baz, research professor at Boston University and director of its
Center for Remote Sensing, suggested not only the Internet but also a series of children’s books on
each of the challenges to get even young children engaged with 21st century issues. The forum’s
5
2 015
PROGRAM REPORTS
closing speaker, Dean Kamen, founder of the DEKA Research and Development Corporation,
challenged his colleagues in the engineering community to dramatically improve communication
with the next generation, arguing that technology can be a unifying force especially among young
people who see science and engineering as the path out of problems.
A report of the forum will be released in 2016.
PROGRAM REPORTS
Postsecondary Engineering Education
Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE)
In October 70 of the nation’s most innovative engineering educators took part in the seventh
annual Frontiers of Engineering Education (FOEE) symposium. For 2½ days these mostly earlycareer 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
further collaborate with their FOEE colleagues and 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.
The FOEE community website (http://naefoee.org/) offers 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 is available for past and forthcoming meetings
and attendees can access resources before the symposium. The site also provides a streamlined
system for NAE members and engineering deans to nominate faculty members and for nominees
to submit their applications.
The FOEE program has been sponsored by John McDonnell and the JSM Trust since 2012. The first
three symposia (in 2009–2011) were sponsored by the O’Donnell Foundation.
6
NAE
The NAE and American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) cosponsored a June 2014 workshop on “Effective Practices in Supporting Transfer Students” at which presenters described specific measures and impacts at several institutions. Policies and programs included (1) orientation
sessions and other steps to facilitate transfer students’ assimilation at 4-year schools; (2) mentoring
and advising programs for transfer students; and (3) summer programs to enhance transfer students’ knowledge and inform their expectations for success in the 4-year engineering and engineering technology programs. A brief summary of the workshop was released in August.
Barriers and Opportunities in Completing Twoand Four-Year STEM Degrees
A joint NAE-NRC ad hoc committee conducted a study of Barriers
and Opportunities in Completing Two- and Four-Year STEM (science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics) Degrees. The
committee considered the individual and institutional factors influencing students to enter and stay in STEM majors in 2- and 4-year
postsecondary institutions and described the various nontraditional
pathways to a STEM degree taken by many students. Special attention was given to how individual differences (e.g., race, ethnicity,
gender, socioeconomic status) of students interact with external factors to affect student decision making. The committee’s report was
completed for release in January 2016 and provides evidence-based
guidance to inform policies and programs that aim to attract and
retain all students to complete associate’s and bachelor’s degrees in
STEM disciplines.
Understanding the Engineering Education–Workforce Continuum
This consensus study, funded by NSF, will generate an expansive, nuanced, and useful depiction
of the educational and career paths and related decision making of those formally trained in engineering (i.e., with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in engineering) as well as those with nonengineering
degrees who are employed as engineers in the United States. 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 committee
collected and synthesized data from national datasets, survey data, and other sources about the
characteristics of those working in the United States as engineers and those formally educated as
engineers who are not working in engineering occupations. In 2015 the committee held its final
meeting to discuss findings and recommendations and began writing its consensus report, which
will be released with briefings for key stakeholders in 2016.
Engagement of Engineering Societies in Undergraduate Engineering
Education
This project, supported by the National Science Foundation, examines the engagement of engineering societies in undergraduate engineering education to ensure capacity in their fields.
Among many roles, these societies may provide education opportunities to their members, set and
maintain professional standards, help clarify the knowledge and skills needed by those practicing
in the field, and serve as a bridge between employers and schools of engineering. In 2015 the
project staff conducted initial outreach with a number of engineering societies to learn about their
7
2 015
PROGRAM REPORTS
2- and 4-Year Engineering and Engineering Technology Transfer Student
Pilot
PROGRAM REPORTS
education programs and did a preliminary literature review of the relevant research. Both efforts
will provide input for the project’s core tasks in 2016: a survey of approximately 130 engineering
societies on their activities in undergraduate education and the planning of a workshop, which
will take place in early 2017, to explore those activities in greater depth. A report on the workshop and the survey will be published in 2017.
The Supply Chain for Middle-Skill Jobs: Education, Training, and
Certification Pathways
In January 2015 the NAE and Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) began
a project to examine coverage, effectiveness, flexibility, and coordination among the nation’s
programs to prepare Americans for technically oriented, skilled jobs that demand nonroutine
problem solving but do not require a baccalaureate or higher degree. Among the topics to be
studied are gaps in coverage and market failures in this part of the labor market, public and
private sector roles in financing and providing employment training and skills certification, and
incentives and information for individuals to improve their work skills. The committee will also
consider selected employment preparation practices in other countries (e.g., European
apprenticeship programs) and those of foreign-headquartered firms and their relevance to the US
labor market. The project is overseen by an ad hoc committee cochaired by former US Senator
Jeff Bingaman and NAE member Katharine Frase. In 2015 the committee held three meetings and
a public symposium at which 11 commissioned papers were presented. A consensus report will
be published in the summer of 2016.
Engineering Technology Education
The NAE Committee on Engineering Technology Education completed a draft of its final report in
late 2015. With NSF funding, the project examined both two- and four-year degree programs in
this important but often overlooked segment of the technical workforce. The report will summarize the project’s data collection efforts, which included two national surveys—one of engineering
technology educators and the other of employers of people with engineering technology degrees.
Findings and recommendations will address several key issues, including the nature of engineering technology education, educational and employment pathways into the field, and data gaps.
The 11-member study committee is cochaired by NAE members Katharine Frase (IBM) and Ron
Latanision (Exponent, Inc.). The report will be published in mid-2016.
K–12 Engineering Education
LinkEngineering Website
LinkEngineering, a website created to support implementation of engineering in preK–12 education,
launched publicly in August 2015. By the end of the
year it had about 580 registered users and an average of 2,000 visits per month. The three-year project,
which began in late 2013, is funded by Chevron Corp.
and overseen by a 21-member NAE committee that
includes NAE members Bonnie Dunbar, University of
Houston, and Jackie Gish, Northrop Grumman (ret.). In
addition, five national organizations have been enlisted
as partners: Achieve, Inc., National Science Teachers
Association, American Association for Engineering
8
NAE
Educator Capacity Building in PreK–12 Engineering Education
Although the visibility and potential importance of engineering in preK–12 education have
increased in recent years, research suggests that the number of educators prepared to teach preK–12
engineering is quite small relative to likely demand. In addition, the policy and educational infrastructure for building educator capacity in preK–12 engineering is significantly underdeveloped. In
response to this challenge, with funding from the National Science Foundation, the NAE launched
a project in October 2014 to understand current and anticipated needs for engineering-literate
preK–12 educators in the United States and how these needs might be addressed.
The project will (1) determine what is known from the published literature about the preparation
of preK–12 educators to teach engineering; (2) catalogue existing US pre- and inservice programs
that support the preparation and professional development of preK–12 engineering educators;
(3) review formal (e.g., state certification) and informal (e.g., “badging”) mechanisms that are
being or might be used to recognize expertise and support career pathway options for preK–12
teachers of engineering; and (4) explore the potential for four-year engineering and engineering
technology programs to take a more active role in the preparation of teachers of preK–12 engineering. The 18-month study is led by the NAE in collaboration with the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Board on Science Education. The principal product will be
a consensus report with findings and recommendations.
Public Understanding of Engineering
Media Relations
The NAE media relations office fielded numerous
inquiries from journalists around the world in 2015
and actively pitched NAE-related stories and other engineering-related topics. Coverage included
more than 400 stories about “The Next MacGyver” project (see below)—in outlets such as the
New York Times, ABC’s Good Morning America, Science magazine, National Public Radio, the
Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post—and articles in the Boston Globe and San Diego
Tribune about the Gordon and Draper prizes, respectively.
NAE Communications Director Randy Atkins continued to report weekly “Engineering Innovation”
pieces on the all-news radio station WTOP-FM (the most popular radio station in the Washington
area) and Federal News Radio. The reports can also be heard on the NSF’s Science360 Internet
radio site. The NAE features these reports on its own
website (www.nae.edu/radio), and podcasts of the
radio stories are available to millions of subscribers
via iTunes.
Public Relations
The NAE continued to use social media to raise public awareness of engineering and its role
in society and to increase recognition of the NAE. Throughout the year, the NAE sent tweets to
media, corporate partners, and universities to help spread the word about NAE activities.
9
2 015
PROGRAM REPORTS
Education, International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, and Council of State
Science Supervisors. They are represented on the oversight committee and bring added visibility
and credibility to the project.
PROGRAM REPORTS
The NAE “Spotlight on Engineering” enewsletter was redesigned to add video and photo capabilities. The newsletter provides information on engineering and policy activities of the National
Academies, engineering news from around the world, special events, and other items of interest to
more than 4,000 subscribers.
Grand Challenges for Engineering
The NAE’s Grand Challenges for Engineering movement—inspired by 14 “game-changing” goals
outlined in an influential 2008 NAE report—is having far-reaching and growing impacts.
The NAE Grand
Challenge Scholars
Program (GCSP), which
combines curricular and
extracurricular components to prepare students
to take on these goals,
is taking root at more
and more colleges and
universities across the
country. In March, 122
schools signed a letter of
commitment to President
Obama pledging to graduate a minimum of 20 students per year who are specifically prepared to
lead the way in solving large-scale problems, with the goal of training more than 20,000 formally
recognized “Grand Challenge Engineers” over the next decade. This pledge was announced at the
White House.
In September the Chinese Academy of Engineering, US National Academy of Engineering, and
Royal Academy of Engineering held the second Global Grand Challenges Summit (GGCS), in
Beijing. US participation was sponsored by Lockheed Martin. The GGCS focused on themes of the
NAE Grand Challenges report—sustainability, health, security/resilience, and joy of living—as well
as education, energy, and infrastructure. Some 600 delegates attended, including nearly 200 student participants both in-person and via webcast around the globe. Top experts outlined ideas for
international cooperation in addressing the NAE Grand Challenges and discussed them with each
other and the audience. Among the speakers were Alibaba Group founder and executive chair
Jack Ma, Queens University Belfast cybersecurity expert Maire O’Neill, and Princeton University
sustainability expert and original NAE Grand Challenges report committee member Robert
Socolow. The day before the summit was a Student Day during which undergraduate teams from
the three host countries competed in pitching entrepreneurial ideas for addressing one or more of
the NAE Grand Challenges.
More information about the Grand Challenges for Engineering is available at www.
engineeringchallenges.org.
The Next MacGyver
In celebration of National Engineers Week in February, the NAE and the University of Southern
California’s Viterbi School of Engineering, in collaboration with the MacGyver Foundation and
Lee Zlotoff (creator of the TV series “MacGyver”), launched a worldwide crowdsourcing competi-
10
NAE
Almost 2,000 submissions were received and, through a screening process involving judges from
both engineering and entertainment, 12 finalists were selected. From as far away as Australia, they
include practitioners and scholars in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
fields, seasoned and first-time writers, students, and an Internet personality. Show concepts ranged
from science fiction thriller to comedy, classic spy, historical, and interactive crime drama.
During a live pitch event at the Paley Center in Beverly Hills on July 28, the 12 finalists presented
their show ideas and concept art before an esteemed panel of judges. Five winners were selected,
each of whom received $5,000 and was paired with a successful Hollywood TV producer mentor
to create an original TV pilot script. Expert engineers were also engaged to advise on engineering
elements of the storylines. Information on the winners and their show ideas is available at www.
TheNextMacGyver.com.
Center for Engineering Ethics and Society (CEES)
Becoming the Online Resource Center for Ethics in Engineering and
Science
In the second year of the project to expand the National Academy of Engineering’s Online Ethics
Center (OEC; onlineethics.org) to be the go-to online source for critical resources and support
for ethics and ethics education in science and engineering, the site was revised and relaunched.
It has been redesigned to (1) connect resources; (2) provide resources on ethics topics and on
how to teach ethics; (3) allow searching and browsing by type of resource, topic, or science and
engineering field; and (4) enable better recognition of those who author and contribute resources.
Over the next three years six content editorial boards will identify, develop, and evaluate materials to expand the collection; and, together with the Outreach and Engagement Group, will
reach out to meet the needs of the site’s wide range of audiences. The focus areas of the content
editorial boards are engineering; life and environmental sciences; computer, math, and physical
sciences; social and behavioral sciences; research ethics; and international ethics. The project’s
advisory committee includes leaders in ethics, the sciences, and engineering, and members of the
three academies. The project
is funded by the National
Science Foundation, with
the cooperation of the NAE’s
sister Academies of Sciences
and Medicine, and in collaboration with the Ethics
Education Library (EEL) of
the Center for the Study of
Ethics in the Professions
at the Illinois Institute of
Technology.
11
2 015
PROGRAM REPORTS
tion called “The Next MacGyver.” Sponsored by the United Engineering Foundation, Ford Motor
Company, and Google, the project sought ideas for a scripted television show featuring a female
engineer character in a leading role. The goal was to create a historic TV series that inspires young
people, especially women, to pursue careers in engineering.
PROGRAM REPORTS
Infusing Ethics into the Development of Engineers
The CEES advisory group invited faculty and administrators at US universities and colleges to
submit activities at the associate’s, bachelor’s, or master’s level for engineering or engineering
technology that prepare students for ethical practices, research, or leadership in engineering.
Submissions were accepted until September 18 and had to meet two criteria: the activity should
connect ethics to technical engineering content and it should include assessment, quantitative or
qualitative, of whether its educational goals have been or are being met. An NAE selection committee reviewed the submissions and selected those that might serve as exemplars for broader
adoption and adaptation. The resulting 25 exemplary programs—from short activities inserted in
engineering courses to multiyear programs required of all students—will be featured in a report
published in early 2016. Additional information about and materials from the exemplars will be
included in the OEC collection (onlineethics.org). Information about the project is available at
www.nae.edu/InfusingEthics.aspx.
Workshop on Overcoming Challenges to Infusing Ethics in the
Development of Engineers
This project will convene current and emerging leaders in ethics and engineering who are
working to improve the ethical development of engineering students at a workshop to (1) share
their work, experiences, and lessons learned; (2) discuss strategies for overcoming institutional
and cultural challenges; and (3) develop plans and collaborations for advancing efforts to infuse
ethics into the development of engineers. Practicing engineers, engineering educators, and
engineering ethics scholars will have both informal and guided opportunities at the workshop
to strategize and develop plans for incorporating ethics in engineering curricula. The workshop
will be held in January 2017. More information is available at www.nae.edu/
overcomingchallenges.aspx.
Integrated Network for Social Sustainability (INSS)
CEES is assisting the University of North Carolina–Charlotte with an Integrated Network for Social
Sustainability (INSS), for researchers and practitioners, to bring attention to and refine public
understanding of social sustainability. Broadly defined, social sustainability includes aspects of
human welfare associated with community, quality of life, social justice, democratic process,
education, and health and safety. This project seeks to convene qualified and diverse individuals
to develop research, education, and outreach activities that illuminate the definition and components of social sustainability. In its third year, the network held a distributed virtual summit, at four
sites in the United States and one abroad, where members shared case studies and experiences
and worked toward articulating a more definitive and inclusive concept of social sustainability
that engages practitioners and academics alike. The fourth annual INSS meeting, on “Communities
and Connections,” will be held June 8–10, 2016, at eight sites, including the Keck Center in
Washington. CEES leads the INSS Research Group, which has prepared a paper itemizing potential questions for a research agenda in social sustainability. More information is available at www.
nae.edu/INSS.aspx.
Sustainable Cities and Interdisciplinary International Education
CEES is part of an NSF Partnership in International Research and Education (PIRE) grant led by
Anu Ramaswami (University of Minnesota) that focuses on “Developing Low-Carbon Cities in
the United States, China, and India through Inter-Disciplinary Integration across Engineering,
Environmental Sciences, Social Sciences & Public Health.” The project is developing a transformative international research, education, and outreach program to assist in the development
12
NAE
Diversity of the Engineering Workforce
EngineerGirl Website
The EngineerGirl website (www.EngineerGirl.org) was launched in 2001 as a project of the
Committee on the Diversity of the Engineering Workforce to bring widespread attention to exciting career opportunities in engineering, particularly for girls and women. Since the site was redesigned in 2012 to more effectively engage a modern audience, it has enjoyed a steady increase
in traffic: in 2015 the number of sessions—59,900 per month—and unique visits—49,500 per
month—were up 33 percent from 2014.
EngineerGirl hosts a number of ongoing programs to provide answers and information for students. In 2015 through the Ask an Engineer section, where students can ask questions about a
career from practicing engineers, 178 new answers were posted online. To showcase the many
opportunities available to engineers, a new field of earth resources engineering was added to the
Try on a Career Section, thanks to the generous support of the Chevron Corporation, and 39 new
profiles of practicing engineers were added to the Directory of Women Engineers.
In addition to providing
students with the tools,
knowledge, and inspiration to consider engineering careers, the site
hosts an annual national
essay contest to encourage students to explore
how engineers impact
the world. The 2015
contest, on “Engineering
in Sports,” asked girls
and boys in grades 3–12
to describe the engineering behind a technology
used in a sport they
enjoy. The 678 entries
came from 46 states, the
District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico as well as 10 foreign countries. First, second, and third prize winners were selected for each of three grade categories. The winners received monetary prizes and certificates, and
the winning essays are available online at www.EngineerGirl.org/2015Winners.aspx.
13
2 015
PROGRAM REPORTS
of low-carbon, resource-efficient, healthy cities in the United States, China, and India. CEES
assisted in organizing and hosting a workshop at the NAS Building in August 2015 to present
the results of the partnership and its educational program. The workshop included a session on
ethics and ethics education for sustainable urban futures. The OEC will compile a list of educational resources on the topics and produce a short video from the workshop. More information, including the names of the other project partners, is available at www.nae.edu/Projects/
CEES/57196/70831.aspx.
PROGRAM REPORTS
The large number of visits and engagement on the website suggest that girls around the world are
learning valuable information that will help them chart their careers. Feedback from a survey of
participants in the 2015 essay competition confirmed that EngineerGirl continues to make a difference. From 479 student responses, 71 percent of girls (and 60 percent of boys) said the site and
the contest changed their views about engineering, and 39 percent of the respondents indicated
that the site caused them to consider becoming an engineer, thus underscoring the importance of
compelling online information for students about engineering careers.
Frontiers of Engineering
The Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) symposium series brings together
emerging engineering leaders from industry, academia, and government laboratories to discuss pioneering technical work and
leading-edge research in various engineering fields and industrial
sectors. The goals of 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) German-American
Frontiers of Engineering (GAFOE), in partnership with the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation; (2) Japan-America Frontiers of Engineering (JAFOE), in partnership with the
Engineering Academy of Japan; (3) Indo-American Frontiers of Engineering (IAFOE), in partnership with the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum; (4) China-America Frontiers of Engineering
(CAFOE), in partnership with the Chinese Academy of Engineering; and (5) EU-US Frontiers of
Engineering (EUUS FOE), in partnership with the
European Council
of Applied Sciences,
Technologies, and
Engineering.
Three symposia
were held in 2015.
The GAFOE meeting
was held in April in
Potsdam, Germany,
and the topics were
nano- to microrobotics, particle
accelerators and their
applications, synthetic
membranes and their
applications, and
14
NAE
FOE encourages continued interaction among symposium participants through ongoing outreach activities. Yearly proceedings, such as Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge
Engineering from the 2014 Symposium (published in February 2015), are mailed to US FOE 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 on participants’ research and technical work, and programs, papers, presentation slides,
and video from the FOE symposia. An FOE alumni newsletter is published twice a year.
The Grainger Foundation Frontiers of Engineering Grants enable further pursuit of new interdisciplinary research and technical work stimulated by the conference and support participants’
continuing interactions. In 2015 these grants were awarded to two teams of individuals who
attended the 2014 US FOE meeting. Andrea Alù (University of Texas at Austin) and Luke
Sweatlock (Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems) received a grant to research the limits of
thermal management and radio-communications using time-modulated metasurfaces. Danielle
Tullman Ercek (University of California, Berkeley) and David Mascareñas (Los Alamos National
Laboratory) received a grant to develop a programmable structural adhesive capable of selfdegradation of its structural properties at a specified time after being triggered by an appropriate
stimulus. 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 2015 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, 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 2015 four speakers delivered
Gilbreth lectures at the National
Meeting on February 5 in Irvine.
Dennis Hong (University of California,
Los Angeles) spoke on “Biologically
Inspired Mobile Robots”; Julia Greer
(California Institute of Technology) gave
a presentation on “Mechanics and
Physics of Nanosolids in Designing
3-D Hierarchical Metamaterials”;
15
2 015
PROGRAM REPORTS
protecting user privacy in the age of big data. For the CAFOE symposium in June at the Beckman
Center, the topics were advanced manufacturing, big data, clean water, and devices for health
care. At the US FOE meeting in September, also at the Beckman Center, presentations addressed
cybersecurity and privacy, engineering the search for Earth-like exoplanets, optical and mechanical metamaterials, and forecasting natural disasters.
PROGRAM REPORTS
Todd Coleman (University of California, San Diego) spoke about “Smart Skin Sensors and
Analytics in the Cloud to Advance the Frontiers of Wearable Health”; and Richard Marks (Sony
Computer Entertainment) gave a talk on “Moving Innovative Game Technology from the Lab to
the Living Room.”
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 factory automation. At the same time, innovations in technologies and business models—such as additive
manufacturing, advanced sensors, and “servitization”—present opportunities for new value creation. 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.
Making Value for America: Embracing the Future of
Manufacturing, Technology, and Work
This NAE study examined how recent developments in technologies
and business models are influencing manufacturing and high-tech
industries in the United States. Established in August 2013, the study
committee released its report in March 2015, outlining the challenges and opportunities facing US businesses and workers and presenting recommendations for a variety of private and public actors to
strengthen American innovation in manufacturing and high-tech services. Briefings were held for industry groups, government officials
(including White House and Congressional staff), and academics.
The study was chaired by NAE member Nicholas M. Donofrio, former executive vice president for innovation and technology at IBM;
and the committee included NAE members Lawrence D. Burns, Dean Kamen, Linda P.B. Katehi,
Ann L. Lee, Arun Majumdar, Jonathan J. Rubinstein, and John J. Tracy.
Financial support for the study was provided by Robert A. Pritzker and the Robert Pritzker Family
Foundation, Gordon E. Moore, Cummins, Boeing, IBM, Rockwell Collins, Xerox, Jon Rubinstein,
Qualcomm, and Edward Horton.
Center-Based Engineering Research
This 21-month, NSF-funded project, “A Vision for the Future of Center-Based, Multidisciplinary
Engineering Research,” is developing a vision and high-level strategic recommendations for the
future of NSF-supported center-scale, multidisciplinary engineering research. The project is jointly
overseen by the NAE and National Materials and Manufacturing Board. The study will focus on
the forces that are likely to shape engineering research, education, and technological innovation in the future, identifying associated challenges and opportunities, and evaluating the most
promising models and approaches to successfully address them. It will consider models of largescale, multidisciplinary engineering research in the United States and other parts of the world;
NSF’s Engineering Research Centers will be used as prominent examples or cases in the study,
16
NAE
17
2 015
PROGRAM REPORTS
but the intent is not to evaluate them. The 19-member committee is cochaired by NAE members
Maxine Savitz (Honeywell, ret.) and David Walt (Tufts University). Other NAE members on the
panel are Nadine Aubry (Northeastern University), Cheryl R. Blanchard (Microchips Biotech, Inc.),
Robert Brown (Georgia Institute of Technology), Philip M. Neches (Teradata Corp.), Richard F.
Rashid (Microsoft Corp.), Shankar Sastry (University of California, Berkeley), and Yannis Yortsos
(University of Southern California). NAS member Monica Olvera de la Cruz (Northwestern
University) also serves on the committee. The project aims to deliver a prepublication version of
its report in January 2017 and the final report in April 2017.
2015 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 access to information.
Presented annually, the prize carries a $500,000 cash award, an inscribed
certificate, and a commemorative medallion.
Nick Holonyak, Jr., M. George Craford, Russell D. Dupuis, Isamu Akasaki, and Shuji Nakamura
“for the invention, development, and commercialization of materials and processes for lightemitting diodes (LEDs).”
Nick Holonyak, Jr.
M. George Craford
Russell D. Dupuis
Isamu Akasaki
Shuji Nakamura
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.
Graeme M. Clark, Erwin Hochmair, Ingeborg J. Hochmair-Desoyer, Michael M. Merzenich, and
Blake S. Wilson “for engineering cochlear implants that enable the deaf to hear.”
Graeme M. Clark
Erwin Hochmair
18
Ingeborg J.
Michael M.
Hochmair-Desoyer Merzenich
Blake S. Wilson
For additional information about the NAE awards,
please visit our website, www.nae.edu/awards.
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
an inscribed certificate and a commemorative medallion.
Simon Pitts and Michael B. Silevitch “for
developing an innovative method to provide
graduate engineers with the necessary personal skills to become effective engineering
leaders—Northeastern University.”
Simon Pitts
Michael B. Silevitch
Simon Ramo Founders Award
The Simon Ramo Founders Award is given in recognition of an NAE
member or foreign member who has exemplified the ideals and
principles of the NAE through professional, educational, and personal achievement and accomplishment. It is presented annually
during the NAE annual meeting, and the recipient receives an
inscribed certificate and a commemorative medal.
Linda P.B. Katehi “for visionary leadership in engineering
research, entrepreneurship, and education, and for national advocacy of higher education as a major driver of the US economy.”
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, the recipient receives
an inscribed certificate and a commemorative medal.
William F. Banholzer
William F. Banholzer “for his extraordinary record of new
products commercialization and improvement in universityindustry relationships through innovative intellectual property treatment and joint industry-academic funding.”
19
Linda P.B. Katehi
2015 NEW MEMBERS AND FOREIGN MEMBERS
In February, NAE elected 67 new members and 12
foreign members, bringing the total US membership to 2,263 and the number of foreign members
to 221. 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
members follows, with their primary affiliations at
the time of the induction ceremony, October 4,
2015.
NEW MEMBERS
Atwater, Jr., Harry A.
California Institute of Technology
Balakrishnan, Hari
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bardasz, Ewa A.
Zual Associates in Lubrication LLC
Bhatia, Sangeeta N.
Blanchard, Cheryl R.
Microchips Biotech, Inc.
Bowcutt, Kevin G.
The Boeing Company
Bray, Jonathan D.
University of California, Berkeley
Brown, Emery N.
Harvard Medical School/Massachusetts General
Hospital
Bush, Wesley G.
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Caulkins, Jonathan P.
Carnegie Mellon University
Chandrakasan, Anantha P.
Das, Santosh K.
Polymer Technologies, Inc.
Daubechies, Ingrid
Duke University
Divan, Deepakraj M.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Elsworth, Derek
Pennsylvania State University
Evans, Eric D.
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Fonck, Raymond J.
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ghani, Tahir
Intel Corporation
Gharib, Morteza (Mory)
Girod, Bernd
Stanford University
Gleason, Karen K.
Goebel, Dan M.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of
Technology
Grubbs, Robert H.
Guha, Supratik
University of Chicago
Hamburger, Ronald O.
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Henry, Robert E.
Fauske & Associates, LLC
Hering, Janet G.
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and
Technology (Eawag)
Hsieh, J. Jim
Sheaumann Laser Inc.
Hsieh, Ming
Fulgent Therapeutics
Hu, S. Jack
University of Michigan
Jahns, Thomas M.
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jovanovic, Milan M.
Delta Products Corporation
Kleinberg, Robert L.
Schlumberger-Doll Research
Klier, John
The Dow Chemical Company
Konikow, Leonard F.
US Geological Survey
20
NAE
Tsapatsis, Michael
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Van Trees, Harry L.
George Mason University
Wagner, Norman J.
University of Delaware
Wiesner, Mark R.
Duke University
Wood, Eric F.
Princeton University
Wynne, James J.
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Yang, Vigor
Yao, David D.
Columbia University
Yoganathan, Ajit P.
NEW FOREIGN MEMBERS
Couvreur, Patrick
University of Paris-Sud XI, France
Freeze, R. Allan
R. Allan Freeze Engineering Inc., Canada
Gladden, Lynn F.
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Jameson, Graeme John
University of Newcastle, Australia
Liñán, Amable
Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain
Martins, Nelson
Electrical Energy Research Center (CEPEL), Brazil
Nakashima, Masayoshi
Kyoto University, Japan
Nethercot, David A.
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
Nørskov, Jens Kehlet
Stanford University
Shahidi, Ghavam
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
van Loosdrecht, Mark C.M.
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Vetterli, Martin
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Switzerland
21
2 015
Kullman, Ellen J.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Liu, Philip Li-Fan
Cornell University
Lonberg, Nils
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
McClendon, Brian
Google Inc.
Mitragotri, Samir
University of California, Santa Barbara
Muellner, George Kenneth
The Aerospace Corp.
Myers, Kyle J.
Food and Drug Administration
Perlman, Radia
EMC Corporation
Powers, Dana A.
Sandia National Laboratories
Radke, Clayton J.
University of California, Berkeley
Ravichandran, Guruswami
Reddy, J.N.
Texas A&M University-College Station
Reif, L. Rafael
Rometty, Virginia M.
IBM Corporation
Rus, Daniela
Srolovitz, David J.
University of Pennsylvania
Stephens, Graeme L.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of
Technology
Sulzberger, Virginia C.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Szeliski, Richard
Microsoft Corporation
Temes, Gabor C.
Oregon State University
Theodorou, Doros N.
National Technical University of Athens
Todd, Michael J.
Cornell University
Towler, Gavin P.
UOP LLC
NAE ANNIVERSARY MEMBERS
50 YEARS
Simon Ramo
45 TO 49 YEARS
Names in bold celebrated
their 45th year in 2015.
Gene M. Amdahl*
Leo L. Beranek
R. Byron Bird
Harold Brown
Arthur E. Bryson
Ray W. Clough
Edward E. David, Jr.
Don U. Deere
Jay W. Forrester
John S. Foster, Jr.
Earnest F. Gloyna
Richard J. Grosh
Jerrier A. Haddad
William J. Hall
Woodrow E. Johnson
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.
J. Ross Macdonald
John J. McKetta, Jr.
Brockway McMillan
George E. Mueller*
Hilliard W. Paige
William J. Perry
Dean A. Watkins
Robert M. White*
40 TO 44 YEARS
William G. Agnew
Betsy Ancker-Johnson
Arthur G. Anderson
Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr.
Donald L. Bitzer
B. Paul Blasingame
Andrew H. Bobeck
Bruno A. Boley
Lewis M. Branscomb
P.L. Thibaut Brian
Norman H. Brooks
J. Fred Bucy
Robert H. Cannon, Jr.
Joseph V. Charyk
Stuart W. Churchill
Edward Cohen
Malcolm R. Currie
Robert M. Drake, Jr.
Mildred S. Dresselhaus
James L. Everett III
Robert M. Fano
A.J. Field
Morris E. Fine*
Peter T. Flawn
Robert A. Frosch
Ivar Giaever
James F. Gibbons
Ralph E. Gomory
Roy W. Gould
Paul E. Gray
John C. Hancock
Thomas J. Hanratty
John P. Hirth
Nick Holonyak, Jr.
Arthur E. Humphrey
James R. Johnson
T. William Lambe
Salomon Levy
C. Gordon Little
Robert G. Loewy
Alan M. Lovelace
Fujio Matsuda
Gordon H. Millar
Joseph H. Newman
Robert Plunkett
David S. Potter
Leslie E. Robertson
Harold A. Rosen
Ivan E. Sutherland
Morris Tanenbaum
Ping King Tien
Myron Tribus
James G. Wenzel
Robert L. Wiegel
Herbert H. Woodson
Lotﬁ A. Zadeh
35 TO 39 YEARS
Egil Abrahamsen
H. Norman Abramson
Andreas Acrivos
Clarence R. Allen
John G. Anderson
Alfredo H-S. Ang
Seymour Baron
Wallace B. Behnke
C. Gordon Bell
Daniel Berg
Donald C. Berkey
Elwyn Berlekamp
Erich Bloch
John E. Breen
William B. Bridges
Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.
Per V. Bruel*
Lloyd S. Cluff
Fernando J. Corbato
Harvey G. Cragon
Charles Crussard*
Jose B. Cruz, Jr.
Elio D’Appolonia*
John F. Davidson
Robert C. Dean, Jr.
Raymond F. Decker
Anthony J. DeMaria
John E. Dolan
Ira Dyer
Rex A. Elder
Leo Esaki
Von R. Eshleman
Robert R. Everett
Thomas E. Everhart
Joseph Feinstein
Steven J. Fenves
James L. Flanagan*
Merton C. Flemings
Douglas W. Fuerstenau
Yuan-Cheng B. Fung
Theodore V. Galambos
Robert G. Gallager
William J. Galloway
*Deceased
22
NAE
Carl L. Monismith
Gordon E. Moore
James J. Morgan
Walter E. Morrow, Jr.
Karl H. Norris
Simon Ostrach
Norman F. Parker
C. Kumar N. Patel
Harold W. Paxton
J.R. Anthony Pearson
Marc J. Pelegrin
Stanford S. Penner
Jacques Peters
Karl S. Pister
John M. Prausnitz
Ronald F. Probstein
John A. Quinn
James R. Rice
Herbert H. Richardson
Lawrence G. Roberts
Anatol Roshko
Dale F. Rudd
Allen S. Russell
Jean E. Sammet
Roland W. Schmitt
Oleg D. Sherby*
Paul G. Shewmon
Masanobu Shinozuka
Mete A. Sozen
Roger W. Staehle
Morris A. Steinberg
Theodore Stern
Lawrence E. Swabb, Jr.
George W. Swenson, Jr.
Charles E. Taylor
Daniel M. Tellep
Kenneth Thompson
Marshall P. Tulin
Thomas A. Vanderslice
Gregory S. Vassell
Anestis S. Veletsos
Andrew J. Viterbi
John B. Wachtman, Jr.
William M. Webster
Wilford F. Weeks
Johannes Weertman
James Wei
Jasper A. Welch, Jr.
Lloyd R. Welch
Robert H. Wertheim
Albert R.C. Westwood
Gerald L. Wilson
Amnon Yariv
Alfred A. Yee
Laurence R. Young
30 TO 34 YEARS
Jan D. Achenbach
Mihran S. Agbabian
Dell K. Allen
William A. Anders
Arthur Ashkin
Norman R. Augustine
Lionel O. Barthold
Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Nicolaas Bloembergen
John G. Bollinger
Klaus D. Bowers
Alfred Y. Cho
Anil K. Chopra
John V. Christiansen
John L. Cleasby
W. Dale Compton
Philip M. Condit
Paul M. Cook
Robert C. Crooke
L. Eric Cross
James W. Dally
Daniel B. DeBra
F. Paul de Mello
Robert H. Dennard
James M. Duncan
Peter S. Eagleson
Charles A. Eckert
Richard E. Emmert
Joseph F. Engelberger*
John V. Evans
John C. Fisher
C. David Forney, Jr.
Charles A. Fowler
Donald C. Fraser
Harry C. Gatos
Ralph S. Gens
Richard J. Goldstein
George S. Graff
*Deceased
23
2 015
Richard L. Garwin
Welko E. Gasich
Ronald L. Geer
Solomon W. Golomb
John B. Goodenough
George W. Govier
Andrew S. Grove
Robert N. Hall
Stephen E. Harris
George N. Hatsopoulos
Robert W. Hellwarth
Joseph M. Hendrie
Edward E. Hood, Jr.
Charles L. Hosler, Jr.
Michel Hug
Noel Jarrett
George W. Jeffs
Paul C. Jennings
Robert L. Johnson
Eneas D. Kane
William M. Kays
Bernard H. Kear
Herbert H. Kellogg
Jack L. Kerrebrock
Gordon S. Kino
Leonard Kleinrock
Herwig Kogelnik
Henry Kressel
William W. Lang
Griff C. Lee
Milton Levenson
Edwin N. Lightfoot, Jr.
William R. Lucas
Robert W. Lucky
Louis C. Lundstrom*
John D. Mackenzie
Artur Mager
Enrique A.J. Marcatili
Hans Mark
Robert D. Maurer
John S. Mayo
Perry L. McCarty
William J. McCune, Jr.
Ross E. McKinney
Charles J. McMahon, Jr.
James D. Meindl
Harry W. Mergler
James K. Mitchell
Johannes Moe
Paul Eliot Green, Jr.
Hermann K. Gummel
Robert S. Hahn
Kent F. Hansen
Robert D. Hanson
Dean B. Harrington
George A. Harter
Kenneth E. Haughton
Robert C. Hawkins
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
Cyril Hilsum
David A. Hodges
William G. Howard, Jr.
John W. Hutchinson
Erich P. Ippen
Irwin M. Jacobs
Trevor O. Jones
Thomas Kailath
C. Judson King
Leonard J. Koch
Max A. Kohler
James N. Krebs
Butler W. Lampson
J. Halcombe Laning
Ronald M. Latanision
Shih-Ying Lee
George Leitmann
John W. Leonard
Peter W. Likins
Raymond C. Loehr
Joseph C. Logue
Dan Luss
John W. Lyons
John B. MacChesney
Robert Malpas
James W. Mar
Hudson Matlock*
Alan L. McWhorter
Carver A. Mead
Robert Mehrabian
Seymour L. Meisel*
Richard C. Messinger
Franklin K. Moore
Norman A. Nadel
Hyla S. Napadensky
Robin B. Nicholson
Thomas K. Perkins
Lawrence R. Rabiner
Raj Reddy
Eli Reshotko
Gustavo Rivas-Mijares
Walter L. Robb
Stanley T. Rolfe
Ronald E. Rosensweig
James F. Roth
Donald G. Russell*
Irwin W. Sandberg
John H. Schmertmann
Lucien A. Schmit, Jr.
William R. Schowalter
John H. Seinfeld
Eugene Sevin
Charles V. Shank
Eugene D. Shchukin
John Brooks Slaughter
George E. Smith
Kenneth A. Smith
Ponisseril Somasundaran
Fred Sterzer
Henry E. Stone
Joseph F. Sutter
Nickolas J. Themelis
Joseph F. Traub*
George L. Turin
Walter J. Weber, Jr.
Vern W. Weekman, Jr.
Sheldon Weinig
John F. Welch, Jr.
Willis S. White, Jr.
Sheila E. Widnall
Edward L. Wilson
Theodore Y. Wu
Takeo Yokobori
Dante C. Youla
Paul Zia
25 TO 29 YEARS
Zhores I. Alferov
Richard C. Alkire
Frances E. Allen
Stig A. Annestrand
Thomas R. Anthony
Frank F. Aplan
Minoru S. (Sam) Araki
Ali S. Argon
John A. Armstrong
Michael F. Ashby
Bishnu S. Atal
David Atlas*
David H. Auston
Earl E. Bakken
William F. Ballhaus, Jr.
Robert G. Bea
George A. Bekey
Alexis T. Bell
John A. Betti
David P. Billington
Joel S. Birnbaum
Richard E. Blahut
Kenneth A. Blenkarn
Geoffrey Boothroyd
H. Kent Bowen
Donald A. Brand
James E. Broadwell
Robert W. Brodersen
Walter L. Brown
Robert D. Burnham
Robert L. Byer
James D. Callen
Robert P. Caren
Michael M. Carroll
William J. Carroll
Edwin L. Carstensen
John R. Casani
Kenneth E. Case
John F. Cashen
Ben H. Caudle
Nai Y. Chen
Herbert S. Cheng
William A. Chittenden
Richard M. Christensen
Jon F. Claerbout
Robert P. Clagett
Rodney J. Clifton
G. Wayne Clough
Keith H. Coats
James M. Coleman
Harry M. Conger
Robert W. Conn
Lynn A. Conway
Richard A. Conway
*Deceased
24
NAE
Edward A. Hiler
Narain G. Hingorani
Yu-Chi Ho
Lester A. Hoel
John E. Hopcroft
John H. Horlock
Chieh-Su Hsu
Lee A. Iacocca
Izzat M. Idriss
Anthony J. Iorillo
Stephen C. Jacobsen
Robert B. Jansen
Marvin E. Jensen
James O. Jirsa
Ellis L. Johnson
G. Frank Joklik
Angel G. Jordan
Frank D. Judge
Robert E. Kahn
Melvin F. Kanninen
Charles K. Kao
George E. Keller II
Makoto Kikuchi
Robert H. Kingston
Albert S. Kobayashi
Bernard L. Koff
Roger Lacroix
James Lago
Louis J. Lanzerotti
Kaye D. Lathrop
Gerald D. Laubach
L. Gary Leal
James U. Lemke
Martin P. Lepselter
Norman N. Li
Barbara H. Liskov
John D.C. Little
Benjamin Y.H. Liu
Daniel P. Loucks
Albert Macovski
George A. Maneatis
John L. Mason
Robert F. Mast
James F. Mathis
Shiro Matsuoka
Adolf D. May
Bill B. May
John C. McDonald
Chiang C. Mei
David G. Messerschmitt
William F. Miller
Keith K. Millheim
Marvin L. Minsky
Harold Mirels
James W. Mitchell
Sanjoy K. Mitter
Joe H. Mize
Joel Moses
C.D. (Dan) Mote, Jr.
Roddam Narasimha
Albert Narath
Stuart O. Nelson
George L. Nemhauser
Robert M. Nerem
Arun N. Netravali
J. Nicholas Newman
William D. Nix
Ronald P. Nordgren
J. Tinsley Oden
William G. Oldham
Alan V. Oppenheim
Robert B. Ormsby, Jr.
Carel Otte
Morton B. Panish
Jacques I. Pankove
Frank L. Parker
Ronald R. Parker
Bradford W. Parkinson
Donald R. Paul
J. Randolph Paulling
Val P. Peline
Arno A. Penzias
Donald E. Petersen
Emil Pfender
Dennis J. Picard
R. Byron Pipes
Robert Plonsey
John William Poduska, Sr.
Michael Prats
William R. Prindle
Donald E. Procknow
Edwin P. Przybylowicz
Robert A. Rapp
Robert H. Rediker
Jerome G. Rivard
Ronald L. Rivest
*Deceased
25
2 015
Harry E. Cook
Edward J. Cording
Lawrence B. Curtis
Ernest L. Daman
Morton M. Denn
Frederick H. Dill
Stephen W. Director
Irwin Dorros
James J. Duderstadt
Russell D. Dupuis
Lloyd A. Duscha
Dean E. Eastman
Robert J. Eaton
James Economy
Helen T. Edwards
Charles Elachi
Gerard W. Elverum
Tony F.W. Embleton
Thomas V. Falkie
Frank F. Fang
Edward A. Feigenbaum
Robert E. Fischell
John W. Fisher
Robert C. Forney
Alan B. Fowler
Judson C. French
Elsa M. Garmire
David B. Geselowitz
Jerome B. Gilbert
Alastair M. Glass
George J. Gleghorn
W. Barney Gogarty
Marvin E. Goldstein
Mary L. Good
Joseph W. Goodman
Arthur C. Gossard
William W. Graessley
Paul R. Gray
Keith E. Gubbins
Bacharuddin J. Habibie
Donald L. Hammond
Juris Hartmanis
Michael Hatzakis
Siegfried S. Hecker
L. Louis Hegedus
Adam Heller
Robert J. Hermann
Arthur H. Heuer
Enders A. Robinson
Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe
Larry A. Roesner
Ronald A. Rohrer
Robert K. Roney
Murray W. Rosenthal
Herbert B. Rothman*
Della M. Roy
Eli Ruckenstein
T.W. Fraser Russell
Elbert L. Rutan
Chih-Tang Sah
Eugene C. Sakshaug
Gavriel Salvendy
Harold N. Scherer, Jr.
Alan Schriesheim
Frank J. Schuh
Charles D. Scott
Norman R. Scott
Laurence C. Seifert
Don W. Shaw
Michael L. Shuler
William H. Silcox*
Leonard M. Silverman
Merrill I. Skolnik
Henry I. Smith
Leroy H. Smith, Jr.
James J. Solberg
Ephraim M. Sparrow
William J. Spencer
Fred I. Stalkup
Charles V. Sternling
Richard G. Strauch
William D. Strecker
Ben G. Streetman
John H. Sununu
Chung L. Tang
Byron D. Tapley
Robert E. Tarjan
David A. Thompson
Larry F. Thompson
Charles E. Till
Neil E. Todreas
Jeffrey D. Ullman
Walter G. Vincenti
Raymond Viskanta
Daniel I.C. Wang
Dianzuo Wang
Kuo K. Wang
William J. Ward III
Julia R. Weertman
Irwin Welber
Arthur W. Westerberg
John A. White, Jr.
Robert M. White
Janusz S. Wilczynski
Forman A. Williams
James C. Williams
Ward O. Winer
John J. Wise
Eugene Wong
Jerry M. Woodall
David A. Woolhiser
Israel J. Wygnanski
Loring A. Wyllie, Jr.
Moshe Zakai
Abe M. Zarem
Jacob Ziv
*Deceased
26
NAE
I am pleased to report on a healthy fundraising year. Thanks to the
generosity of more than 730 members and donors, we were able
to raise over $3.7 million in new cash and pledges in 2015 to support our efforts to strengthen the engineering profession and engage
the public about the opportunities that arise from engineering. Over
$1.7 million (almost 50 percent of the funds raised) was for unrestricted purposes, including $1.3 million to the NAE Independent
Fund and $377,000 for the President’s Initiatives Fund. This would
Corale Brierley
equate to a $38 million endowment equivalent assuming a 4.5 percent draw that could be used as flexible funds.1 These unrestricted funds are vital to the NAE. They not
only provide core support but allow us to initiate important new projects that lack federal funding and
help expand the scope and impact of current programs.
We also received $2 million for projects (restricted) including EngineerGirl, the Next MacGyver, public
awareness and understanding of engineering, K–12 education, the Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) symposia, prizes, and other programs. Approximately $1.4 million (74 percent) of the restricted funding
came from corporations and/or foundations. We also had 100 percent giving participation from the
NAE Council—a sincere gesture of commitment by our leadership.
This extraordinary philanthropic support provides for 30 percent of the NAE’s annual budget, and we
are grateful for our donors’ confidence in our ability to use their contributions to serve the engineering
community, students, policymakers, and the public. Below is a sampling of what the NAE accomplished with philanthropic support in 2015:
• With support from Chevron, created LinkEngineering, a new website (www.linkengineering.org) to
help preK–12 educators in the United States implement engineering education in classrooms and
out-of-school settings. It provides the first-ever platform for K–12 teachers and informal educators
to work and learn as a community toward improving the reach and quality of US precollege engineering education.
• With support from the Lockheed Martin Corporation, we successfully cohosted the second annual
Global Grand Challenges Summit with the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) and Royal
Academy of Engineering (RAE). It was held in September 2015 in Beijing and had record attendance of 600. Increased philanthropic support allowed us to expand the program to include a
student business plan competition where 15 undergraduate teams presented entrepreneurial ideas
tackling one or more of the NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering.
• We hosted the second E4U Video Contest that encouraged students and the public to learn about
and get interested in engineering. Funded by a $250,000 gift from ExxonMobil, the winners were
announced at the 2015 annual meeting.
• We published four highly acclaimed issues of The Bridge. This popular publication is primarily
funded by your contributions to the NAE Independent Fund. In 2015 your support allowed us to
make it more visually appealing by providing the resources to print this flagship publication in color.
1
It would be $34 million assuming a 5 percent draw.
27
2 015
2015 PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS
A Message from NAE Vice President
Corale Brierley
• With support from the United Engineering Foundation (UEF), we launched the Next MacGyver
Competition. Top Hollywood producers teamed with the NAE, the University of Southern
California’s Viterbi School of Engineering, and the MacGyver Foundation to engage the worldwide
public in a competition to crowdsource ideas for a scripted TV series featuring a female engineer as
the leading character. Less than 20 percent of engineering bachelor degrees are granted to women
and recent trends have been declining. White House officials have asked, “What could Hollywood
and our creative talent do to help make engineers and entrepreneurs the rock stars of the 21st century?” Much like CSI did for forensic science, positive portrayal of engineers in popular culture can
help young people consider themselves in such a role. The top 5 finalists are currently shopping
their scripts to various networks to pilot their scripts.
After the blockbuster year of 2014, contributions slowed in 2015, especially in the first two quarters. This could be attributed to donor fatigue after the 50th Anniversary 4-year fundraising effort, for
which many donors stretched their giving, and the tumultuous stock market at the end of December
and into January.
Some Highlights from 2015
The Fran and George Ligler Challenge for Section 2 got off to a great start in 2015. NAE member Fran
Ligler and her husband George created this challenge to raise $100,000 by 2019 from Section 2 members and hopefully inspire other members to fund challenges for their sections. Of the 51 Section 2
members who gave in 2015, 22 increased their giving from 2014, 11 were new or lapsed donors, and
33 qualified for the Ligler Match. With close to $35,000, we are 1/3 of our way to reaching the goal—
and this is only the first year of the 5-year effort. This is great news, and if we can keep up this pace of
contributions we will exceed the goal for this challenge by the end of 2017.
We launched the Ming and Eva Hsieh $250,000 Challenge at the annual meeting. This is a wonderful first gift from the Hsiehs, especially since Ming was just inducted in October 2015—it is great to
see that they decided to get involved early. Their gift benefits the President’s Initiatives Fund. Over
$800,000 is eligible to be matched by the Hsieh Challenge, surpassing the $250,000 goal. In response
to the challenge 291 members made gifts; 140 were new or lapsed donors and 151 increased their
giving from 2014. This was also a good tool to spur contributions at the end of the year, and helped
bring about several new pledges, including four $80,000 pledges to reach the Einstein Society for a
total of 8 new Einstein members and 25 new Golden Bridge Society members for the year.
FEBRUARY COUNCIL DINNER AND FINANCIAL, TAX, AND ESTATE PLANNING SESSION
In February 2015 the NAE hosted its annual council dinner in Newport Beach the night before the
National Meeting with over 100 attendees. This dinner has become a tradition where members,
donors, and friends in the area can interact with the NAE Council and meet, socialize, and hear about
developments at the NAE. Art Geoffrion was presented with his Heritage Society Medal. For the third
time, the NAE also hosted a Financial, Tax, and Estate Planning seminar just before the dinner, led by
Cindy Sterling, certified financial planner. This seminar has become popular during the annual meeting
and we wanted to offer members on the West Coast opportunities to learn more about making taxwise estate plans and how best to incorporate their philanthropic priorities.
GOLDEN BRIDGE SOCIETY DINNER
In conjunction with the 2015 annual meeting, President C. D. Mote, Jr. and his wife Patsy hosted
some of the NAE’s most generous members and friends at the Golden Bridge Society Dinner at the
Organization of American States on October 4. Among the supporters present, the newest donors
were welcomed into the Academy’s three lifetime recognition societies, including 3 Einstein, 1 Golden
Bridge, and 1 Heritage.
28
NAE
The NAE received some remarkable gifts in 2015. While all contributions are greatly appreciated and
make a difference in the work of the NAE, the following gifts show extraordinary leadership and commitment to the NAE.
• Dan (’76) and Frances Berg for pledging $80,000 to benefit the NAE Independent Fund in honor of
his 40th anniversary as a member.
• Virginia Bugliarello for making a gift in memory of her late husband, NAE member George
Bugliarello, in support of EngineerGirl.
• Chevron Corporation, which generously provided over $330,000 for EngineerGirl and
LinkEngineering.
• Ross (’02) and Stephanie Corotis for pledging $80,000 to benefit the NAE Independent Fund.
• The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory for contributing $236,000 to cover operating costs of the
Draper Prize for the advancement of engineering and public education about engineering.
• Dotty and Gordon (’12) England for their $60,000 gift in support of the NAE Independent Fund.
• Martin E. (’96) and Lucinda Glicksman who pledged $80,000 to benefit the NAE Independent Fund.
• Ming and Eva Hsieh who generously funded a $250,000 giving challenge to encourage others to
support the NAE. Their gift benefitted the President’s Initiatives Fund.
• The William R. Kenan Institute at NC State for a $150,000 pledge in support of EngineerGirl.
• Lockheed Martin for a $500,000 pledge payment for the 2015 Global Grand Challenges Summit
in Beijing.
• Robin (’07) and Rose McGuire for $50,000 in support of K–12 engineering education.
• Microsoft for its annual gift to support the Frontiers of Engineering (FOE) program.
• Jane and Alan (’97) Mulally for directing Alan Mulally’s $50,000 prize monies from the J.C. Hunsaker
Award back to the Academies.
• Ohio University Foundation for contributing $636,000 to cover operating costs associated with
awarding the Russ Prize recognizing engineering achievements that have a significant and widespread impact on society.
• James M. Tien (’01) and Ellen S. Weston for pledging $80,000 to help increase the public’s awareness and understanding of engineering.
• United Engineering Foundation for a $150,000 gift in support of the Next MacGyver, a project that
leverages the power of Hollywood to get students interested in engineering.
If you are interested in making a gift to the NAE, please contact Radka Nebesky, NAE director of
development, at 202.334.3417 or [email protected].
Loyal Donors
Gifts made regularly each year to the NAE demonstrate genuine commitment to our mission and
goals. As a long-time donor who understands that every donation to the NAE is a choice to support an
organization whose work I believe matters greatly, I thank the Loyalty Society members (page 36) who
have contributed to the NAE for 20 years or more.
Looking Ahead
In 2016 we will focus on building the endowment to ensure the NAE’s long-term financial strength
and to provide a sustained stream of income for keystone programs. We plan to offer more opportunities to learn about deferred giving and estate planning by hosting seminars in conjunction with selected regional meetings in addition to the estate planning brunch during the NAE annual meeting and
other regular communication. If you are interested in making a planned gift to the NAE, or if you have
already made a gift provision in your estate plans but have not yet notified us, please contact Jamie
Killorin, director of gift planning, at 202.334.3833 or [email protected].
29
2 015
NOTEWORTHY CONTRIBUTIONS
Without your philanthropic support, the NAE would not have a solid foundation from which to sustain
its most successful projects and spearhead the creation of new and timely programs. The energetic
participation of our members has always driven the NAE forward with crucial time, effort, and ideas.
Our members are also vital to our fundraising success, both by making financial contributions of their
own and by serving as advocates for the NAE and engineering to their peers. We sincerely appreciate
your generosity and continual support.
On behalf of the NAE Council, President Dan Mote, and myself, thank you very much for your contributions in 2015. Our supporting members, friends, partner corporations, foundations, government
sponsors, and other organizations make all the difference in our ability to positively impact our world
by being an advocate for engineering. I am grateful for your contributions, and look forward to your
continued involvement in 2016.
2015 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 NAE, and those NAE members who supported the Committee on Human Rights,
a joint committee of the three academies, during 2015. The collective, private philanthropy of these individuals
has a great impact on the NAE and its ability to be a national voice for engineering. 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.
New member Ming Hsieh (’15) and his wife Eva challenged all members and friends to increase their giving to
the NAE in 2015 with a $250,000 challenge. This generous gift provides resources to programs aligned with
the new NAE Strategic Plan. Donors who participated in the Hsieh Challenge are noted with the 9 symbol.
Fran Ligler, a member of the NAE Council and Section 2, and her husband George pledged $100,000 to
encourage giving by Section 2 members over the next 5 years or until the $100,000 goal is reached. The
members who participated in the Ligler Challenge are noted with the # symbol.
CATALYST SOCIETY
$50,000+
Daniel and Frances Berg
George* and Virginia Bugliarello9
Ross and Stephanie Corotis 9
Dotty and Gordon England 9
Ming and Eva Hsieh
Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire9
Raymond S. Stata
Friends
John F. McDonnell 9
Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney9
Frances and George Ligler
Clayton Daniel and Patricia L.
Mote
Elisabeth Paté-Cornell
Henry and Susan Samueli9
David E. Shaw
Richard P. Simmons
ROSETTE SOCIETY
$25,000 to $49,999
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Bharati and Murty Bhavaraju
James O. Ellis, Jr.
George and Ann Fisher
9Hsieh
Challenge
Challenge
*Deceased
#Ligler
30
NAE
$10,000 to $24,999
Nadine Aubry and John L. Batton9
Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr.9
Gordon Bell
Thomas and Becky Bergman
Barry W. Boehm
Paul F. Boulos9
David E. Daniel9
Lance and Susan Davis9
Nicholas M. Donofrio9
Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman9
Paul and Judy Gray9
John O. Hallquist 9
Chad and Ann Holliday
Michael W. Hunkapiller
Kent Kresa
Narayana and Sudha Murty
Ronald and Joan Nordgren9
Roberto Padovani
Larry* and Carol Papay
Julie and Alton D. Romig, Jr.9
Howie Rosen and Susan
Doherty9#
Mendel Rosenblum and Diane
Greene9
Henry M. Rowan*
Richard J. Stegemeier9
Rosemary and George
Tchobanglous9
Andrew and Erna* Viterbi9
John C. Wall
Adrian Zaccaria9
John and Assia Cioffi9
Paul Citron and Margaret Carlson
Citron9 #
Philip R. Clark
Joseph M. Colucci
Rosemary L. and Harry M.
Conger
Stuart L. Cooper
Richard W. Couch, Jr.9
Arthur Coury9 #
Gary L. Cowger
Natalie W. Crawford
Robert L. Crippen
Steven L. Crouch
CHARTER SOCIETY
$1,000 to $9,999
Linda M. Abriola
Andreas and Juana Acrivos
Ronald J. Adrian9
John and Pat Anderson9
John C. Angus
Minoru S. Araki9
Ruth and Kenneth Arnold
Wm. Howard Arnold* 9
R. Lyndon Arscott 9
Kamla* and Bishnu S. Atal9
Ken Austin9
Wanda M. and Wade Austin
Amos A. Avidan9
Arthur B. Baggeroer 9
William F. Baker
William F. Banholzer 9
Craig H. Benson
Leo L. Beranek
Peter J. Bethell9
Mark and Kathy Board
Diane and Samuel W. Bodman9
Rudolph Bonaparte9
Lewis M. Branscomb9
Corale L. Brierley
James A. Brierley
Lenore and Rob Briskman
Andrei Z. Broder
Alan C. Brown9
Andrew Brown, Jr.
Thomas and Miriam Budinger 9 #
Stuart K. Card
François J. Castaing
Corbett Caudill9
Selim A. Chacour
Chau-Chyun Chen9
Josephine Cheng
Stephen Z.D. Cheng
Weng C. Chew9
Sunlin Chou9
Uma Chowdhry9
MING & EVA HSIEH
Many thanks to new member
Ming Hsieh (’15) and his wife Eva
for encouraging all members and
friends to increase their giving
to the NAE in 2015 by funding a
$250,000 challenge. We are very
grateful for those who supported
this exciting initiative; $812,196
was given in response by members and friends.
Proceeds will benefit programs
aligned with the NAE Strategic
Plan. Ming and Eva hope that
this challenge will inspire other
members and friends to give and
catalyze additional philanthropy,
just as Asad and Taj Madni and their 2013 Challenge spurred them to action.
Private contributions are an investment in the NAE and they enable us to
initiate projects that our members consider vital to the nation’s future. The
NAE strengthens the engineering profession, promotes engineering education,
and informs the public about the importance of engineering. Your gift, to any
NAE fund, will help the implementation of the new strategic plan and build a
stronger, more proactive NAE.
9Hsieh
Challenge
Challenge
*Deceased
#Ligler
31
2 015
CHALLENGE SOCIETY
Ruth A. David 9
L. Berkley Davis
Carl de Boor 9
Pablo G. Debenedetti
Mary and Raymond Decker
Thomas B. Deen
George E. Dieter9
Stephen W. Director9
Daniel W. Dobberpuhl
Elisabeth M. Drake9
James J. Duderstadt
Susan T. Dumais9
Robert and Cornelia Eaton
Derek Elsworth9
Gerard W. Elverum9
John V. Evans9
Robert R. Everett
Thomas E. Everhart
James A. Fay*
Robert E. Fenton
Leroy M. Fingerson
Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink9
Bruce A. Finlayson9
Anthony E. Fiorato
Edith M. Flanigen
Samuel C. Florman
G. David Forney, Jr.9
Heather and Gordon Forward
Charles A. Fowler9
William L. and Mary Kay Friend
Douglas W. Fuerstenau9
Elsa M. Garmire and Robert H.
Russell9
Donald P. Gaver
Arthur Gelb
Arthur and Helen Geoffrion
Penny and Bill George, George
Family Foundation9
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.
Nan and Chuck Geschke
Don P. Giddens9#
Paul H. Gilbert9
Richard D. Gitlin
Eduardo D. Glandt 9
Earnest F. Gloyna
Arthur L. and Vida F. Goldstein
Mary L. Good
Joseph W. Goodman
W. David Goodyear 9
Paul E. Gray
Hermann K. Gummel
Eliyahou Harari9
James S. Harris, Jr.9
Wesley L. Harris9
Juris Hartmanis9
Kenneth E. Haughton
Janina and Siegfried Hecker
John L. Hennessy
Janet G. Hering9
David and Susan Hodges
Grace and Thom Hodgson9
Urs Hölzle
Edward E. Hood, Jr.
John R. Howell
Evelyn L. Hu and David R.
Clarke9
J. Stuart Hunter
Ray R. Irani
Mary Jane Irwin
Kenji Ishihara
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
Wilhelmina and Stephen Jaffe
Leah H. Jamieson
George W. Jeffs
James O. Jirsa9
Barry C. Johnson
Michael R. Johnson
G. Frank Joklik
Anita K. Jones
James W. Jones9
Aravind K. Joshi9
Kahle/Austin Foundation9
Eric W. Kaler
Paul and Julie Kaminski
Melvin F. Kanninen
John and Wilma Kassakian
James R.* and Isabelle Katzer
Michael C. Kavanaugh9
Hossein Kazemi9
Leon M. Keer9
Mary and Howard* Kehrl9
Jon E. Khachaturian9
Chaitan Khosla and Susi EbertKhosla9
Judson and Jeanne King9
Diana S. and Michael D. King9
James L. Kirtley
Robert L. Kleinberg9
Albert S. Kobayashi
U. Fred Kocks9
Robert M. and Pauline W.
Koerner9
Charles E. Kolb, Jr.
Demetrious Koutsoftas9
Thomas F. Kuech
Ellen J. Kullman9
Michael R. Ladisch9 #
Richard T. Lahey, Jr.9
Louis J. Lanzerotti9
David C. Larbalestier 9
Ronald M. Latanision9
Cato and Cynthia Laurencin
Enrique J. Lavernia9
James U. Lemke
Ronald K. Leonard
Frederick J. Leonberger 9
Burn-Jeng Lin
Richard J. Lipton9
Jack E. Little
Robert G. Loewy
J. David Lowell 9
William J. MacKnight9
Thomas and Caroline Maddock
Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Jamal
Madni 9
Artur Mager 9
Arunava Majumdar
Thomas J. Malone9
Henrique S. Malvar
David A. Markle
W. Allen Marr
John L. Mason9
Robert D. Maurer
Jyotirmoy Mazumder 9
Larry V. McIntire9 #
Kishor C. Mehta9
Edward W. Merrill9 #
Richard A. Meserve
R.K. Michel
James J. Mikulski9
Richard B. Miles
Richard K. Miller
James K. and Holly T. Mitchell
Nandita and Sanjit K. Mitra
Sharon and Arthur Money9
Duncan T. Moore9
Edward and Stephanie Moses9
Joel Moses9
Cherry A. Murray
Dale and Marge* Myers
Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel
Albert Narath
Jaya and Venky Narayanamurti
David Nash
Robert M. and Marilyn R. Nerem
Paul D. Nielsen
William D. Nix
Matthew O’Donnell 9 #
Fran and Kwadwo Osseo-Asare
Bernhard O. Palsson
Norman F. Parker 9
Claire L. Parkinson
Neil E. Paton
P. Hunter Peckham9 #
John H. Perepezko9
Thomas K. Perkins9
William J. Perry9
Kurt E. Petersen9
Emil Pfender
Craig E. Philip
9Hsieh
Challenge
Challenge
*Deceased
#Ligler
32
NAE
Henry G. Schwartz, Jr.
Lyle H. Schwartz
Norman R. Scott 9
Martin B. and Beatrice E.
Sherwin9
Daniel P. Siewiorek
Kumares C. Sinha9
Alvy Ray Smith
Alfred Z. Spector and Rhonda G.
Kost
David B. and Virginia H. Spencer
Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull
Gunter Stein9
Kenneth E. Stinson
William D. Strecker
Yasuharu Suematsu9
Ronald D. Sugar 9
John and Janet Swanson
Charlotte and Morris Tanenbaum
David W. Thompson9
James M. Tien and Ellen S.
Weston9
Rex W. Tillerson9
Matthew V. Tirrell
Michael J. Todd 9
Henrik Topsøe9
John J. Tracy
James A. Trainham and Linda D.
Waters
Richard H. Truly
Ghebre E. Tzeghai
A. Galip Ulsoy 9
Raymond Viskanta
Thomas H. Vonder Haar
Robert and Robyn Wagoner
Kuo K. Wang 9
Darsh T. Wasan
Warren and Mary Washington9
Robert and Joan Wertheim9
Robert M.* and Mavis E. White9
Ward O. Winer 9
Herbert H. Woodson9
Edgar S. Woolard, Jr.
Richard N. Wright
Wm. A. Wulf
Israel J. Wygnanski
Beverly and Loring Wyllie
David D. Yao9
William W-G. Yeh
Paul G. Yock 9
Yannis C. Yortsos9
William and Sherry Young 9 #
Zarem Foundation
Elias A. Zerhouni
Ben T. Zinn 9
Mary Lou and Mark D. Zoback9
Stacey I. Zones 9
Anonymous (1)
Teresa and Harry Atwater 9
Jamal J. Azar 9
Donald W. Bahr
Ruzena K. Bajcsy 9
Margaret K. Banks9
Rodica A. Baranescu
Grigory I. Barenblatt
James E. Barger
Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch
James B. Bassingthwaighte 9 #
Zdenek P. Bazant
Marlene and Georges Belfort 9 #
Marsha J. Berger
Toby Berger 9
Philip A. Bernstein9
Vitelmo V. Bertero
Madan M. Bhasin9
Cheryl R. Blanchard 9
Ilan Asriel Blech 9
Paul N. Blumberg 9
Jack L. Blumenthal
Alfred Blumstein9
William J. Boettinger 9
George and Carol Born 9
Lillian C. Borrone9
Craig T. Bowman
Jonathan D. Bray 9
James P. Brill
Norman H. Brooks 9
Emery N. Brown9
Friends
Jodie Arnold 9
Jo F. Berg
M. Diane Bodman9
Kristine L. Bueche9
Bruce B. Darling9
Kathryn Farley9
Evelyn S. Jones
Gladys H. Knoll 9
Salem Stanley 9
Anonymous (1)
OTHER INDIVIDUAL DONORS
H. Norman Abramson
Hadi Abu-Akeel
Mark G. Adamiak 9
Kurt Akeley and Jenny Zhao
Montgomery and Ann Alger 9
Marilynn and Charles A.* Amann9
Cristina H. Amon and Carmelo
Parisi
James M. Anderson 9 #
John G. Anderson
Mary P. Anderson9
George E. Apostolakis
Ali S. Argon 9
Frances H. Arnold 9 #
James R. Asay
9Hsieh
Challenge
Challenge
*Deceased
#Ligler
33
2 015
Julia M. Phillips 9
William P. Pierskalla
James D. Plummer 9
Victor L. Poirier 9 #
H. Vincent Poor
Dana A. Powers9
William F. Powers
Donald E. Procknow
William R. Pulleyblank
Henry H. Rachford, Jr.9
Prabhakar Raghavan
Doraiswami Ramkrishna
Simon Ramo
Richard F. and Terri W. Rashid
Junuthula N. Reddy9
Kenneth and Martha Reifsnider
Gintaras V. Reklaitis
Eli Reshotko
Ronald L. Rivest 9
Anne and Walt Robb9
Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins
Bernard I. Robertson
C. Paul Robinson9
Thomas E. Romesser9
Murray W. Rosenthal
William B. Russel
T.W. Fraser Russell9
Vinod K. Sahney
Steven B. Sample9
Linda S. Sanford9
Maxine L. Savitz
Richard Scherrer
Jan C. Schilling9
John H. Schmertmann
Ronald V. Schmidt 9
Fred B. Schneider and Mimi
Bussan9
Howard J. Bruschi
Jack E. Buffington
Anne and John Cahn
James D. Callen
Joe C. Campbell 9
Max W. Carbon
E. Dean Carlson
Don B. Chaffin9
A. Ray Chamberlain
Douglas M. Chapin
Vernon L. Chartier
Gang and Tracy Chen
Shu and Kuang-Chung Chien 9 #
Andrew R. Chraplyvy9
Robert P. Clagett 9
John L. Cleasby
Richard A. Conway
Alan W. Cramb
Lawrence B. Curtis
Ernest L. Daman
Paul D. Dapkus9
Delbert E. Day
Robert H. Dennard
Armen Der Kiureghian 9
Joseph M. DeSimone 9
Frederick H. Dill
Robert H. Dodds9
Albert A. Dorman
David A. Dornfeld
Irwin Dorros
E. Linn Draper, Jr.
T. Dixon Dudderar 9
Ira Dyer
David A. Dzombak 9
Peter S. Eagleson
Helen T. Edwards
Bruce R. Ellingwood
Richard E. Emmert 9
Joel S. Engel
Lawrence B. Evans 9
Katherine W. Ferrara
Morris E. Fine*
Essex E. Finney, Jr.
Millard and Barbara Firebaugh
Peter T. Flawn
Christodoulos A. Floudas
Robert E. Fontana
Harold K.* and Betty Forsen
Eli Fromm
Shun Chong Fung
Zvi Galil 9
Gerald E. Galloway, Jr.9
Ronald L. Geer
Maryellen L. Giger 9 #
Jacqueline Gish
George J. Gleghorn
Dan M. Goebel 9
Solomon W. Golomb 9
John B. Goodenough9
David J. Goodman9
Richard E. Goodman 9
Roy W. Gould
Susan L. Graham 9
Robert K. Grasselli 9
Gary S. Grest
Karl A. Gschneidner
Jerrier A. Haddad 9
Donald J. Haderle
Edward E. Hagenlocker 9
Carol K. Hall 9
William J. Hall 9
Eugene E. Haller 9
Niels Hansen 9
Henry J. Hatch 9
Robert C. Hawkins 9
Victoria Franchetti Haynes9
Adam Heller
Martin Hellman
Robert W. Hellwarth
Robert E. Henry 9
Arthur H. Heuer
George J. Hirasaki
John P. Hirth
Lester A. Hoel
Allan S. Hoffman 9 #
Richard Hogg
Shixin J. Hu 9
Thomas J.R. Hughes 9
Arthur E. Humphrey 9
Salim M. Ibrahim
Izzat M. Idriss
Jeremy Isenberg 9
Akira Ishimaru
Andrew Jackson and Lillian
Rankel
Linos J. Jacovides
Paul C. Jennings 9
Donald L. Johnson 9 #
Marshall G. Jones 9
Angel G. Jordan
Chanrashekhar Joshi
Ahsan Kareem 9
Kristina B. Katsaros
Pradman P. Kaul 9
Edward Kavazanjian9
Marilyn and Justin Kerwin 9
Timothy L. Killeen 9
Sung Wan Kim
Carl C. Koch 9
Bernard L. Koff
Max A. Kohler
Leonard F. Konikow 9
Jindrich Kopecek 9 #
Bill and Ann Koros
Richard W. Korsmeyer 9 #
Fikri J. Kuchuk 9
Derrick M. Kuzak
Bruce M. Lake
James L. Lammie 9
David A. Landgrebe
Asta* and William W. Lang
Robert C. Lanphier III
Ronald G. Larson
Alan Lawley
Edward D. Lazowska
Margaret A. LeMone
Johanna M.H. Levelt Sengers
Herbert S. Levinson 9
Paul A. Libby
Peter W. Likins
Yu-Kweng M. Lin 9
Kuo-Nan Liou
Nathan and Barbara Liskov
Nils Lonberg 9
Daniel P. Loucks 9
Andrew J. Lovinger
Verne L. Lynn
John W. Lyons 9
J. Ross and Margaret* Macdonald
Alfred U. MacRae
Subhash and Sushma Mahajan 9
James W. Mar
William F. Marcuson III
Robert C. Marini
Hans Mark
David K. Matlock
William C. Maurer
William J. McCroskey
Ross E. McKinney
Diane M. McKnight 9
Robert and Norah McMeeking
Terence P. McNulty 9
Alan L. McWhorter
Antonios G. Mikos and Lydia
Kavraki 9 #
James A. Miller
Keith K. Millheim 9
Carl L. Monismith 9
Benjamin F. Montoya9
William B. Morgan
Walter E. Morrow, Jr.9
A. Stephen Morse
George Muellner 9
Richard S. Muller 9
Jan and E. Phillip Muntz
Earll M. Murman
Devaraysamudram R. Nagaraj
R. Shankar Nair
9Hsieh
Challenge
Challenge
*Deceased
#Ligler
34
NAE
Nambirajan Seshadri 9
F. Stan Settles
Ghavam G. Shahidi 9
Don W. Shaw
Ben A. Shneiderman
Neil G. Siegel 9
William H. Silcox* 9
Arnold H. Silver
Peter G. Simpkins
Jack M. Sipress
R. Wayne Skaggs
Soroosh Sorooshian
Thomas P. Stafford 9
James F. Stahl 9
Edgar A. Starke, Jr.9
George L. Stegemeier 9
Dale F. and Audrey Stein
Dean E. Stephan
Thomas G. Stephens
Kenneth H. Stokoe
Roger H. Stolen 9
Howard and Valerie Stone
Richard G. Strauch
Stanley C. Suboleski
Virginia C. Sulzberger 9
James M. Symons
Rodney J. Tabaczynski
Daniel M. Tellep 9
Lewis M. Terman
Charles H. Thornton 9
Spencer R. Titley
Richard L. Tomasetti 9
Alvin W. Trivelpiece
Marshall P. Tulin
Robert C. Turnbull 9
John M. Undrill
Theodore Van Duzer
Anestis S. Veletsos 9
Walter G. Vincenti
Irv Waaland
Wallace R. Wade
Steven J. Wallach
Don Walsh 9
C. Michael Walton
John D. Warner
Michael S. Waterman
John T. and Diane M. Watson 9 #
Julia and Johannes Weertman 9
Robert J. Weimer
Sheldon Weinbaum 9 #
Sheldon Weinig 9
Jasper A. Welch, Jr.
David A. Whelan
Robert M. White
J. Turner Whitted
Kaspar J. Willam 9
Sharon L. Wood
Richard D. Woods 9
David A. Woolhiser 9
James J. Wynne 9 #
Eli Yablonovitch
Ajit P. Yoganathan 9 #
Roe-Hoan and Myungshin Yoon 9
Les Youd
Paul Zia
Steven J. Zinkle
Charles F. Zukoski
Friends
Marguerite Adams 9
Frances Burka 9
JoAnn C. Clayton-Townsend 9
Sara Culver 9
Chadwick Davis 9
Jeffrey Dwoskin 9
Clara K. Ellert 9
Doug Ellison and Jenn Masunaga 9
Marlin and David Feldman 9
Harold and Arlene Finger 9
Joan R. Finnie9
The Fisher Family 9
Sheila C. Gentry 9
Gratia H. Griffith9
Sharon P. Gross
Carrie Harless 9
Bonnie L. Hartman9
Sally W. Hollman9
Jodie L. Janowiak9
Barbara Kennedy 9
Jamie M. Killorin9
Richard S. Maney 9
Charlotte D. McCall 9
Michele H. Miller
Joanne Morse9
Michael Murphy and Karen
Gundersen 9
Donald and Susan Nefseke9
Shawn Neil 9 and Marcus Shaw
Elena and Stuart Nightingale 9
Andrew Oakley 9
Sallie O’Neill
Brian Penak 9
Patricia Petrino 9
Bryan Quigley 9
Harriet Sarkaria9
Georgia Scordelis
Elizabeth W. Toor
Marianne Tropp and Chris
Loughner 9
Gloria Van Rooyen 9
Rhoda A.M. Weisz 9 #
Elizabeth Whiteman 9
9Hsieh
Challenge
Challenge
*Deceased
#Ligler
35
2 015
Tsuneo Nakahara
Alan Needleman 9
Stuart O. Nelson
Joseph H. Newman
James J. O’Brien 9
Babatunde A. Ogunnaike9
Robert S. O’Neil 9
Malcolm R. O’Neill 9
Elaine S. Oran 9
John K. Ousterhout 9
David H. Pai
Athanassios Z. Panagiotopoulos
Morton B. Panish
Stavros S. Papadopulos
Donald R. Paul
Arogyaswami J. Paulraj
Harold W. Paxton
Nicholas A. Peppas
Richard H. Petersen 9
George M. Pharr
Mark R. Pinto
Karl S. Pister
Stephen M. Pollock
Stephen and Linda Pope
Harry G. Poulos
Priyaranjan Prasad 9 #
Michael Prats
Ronald F. Probstein
Charles W. Pryor, Jr.
Roberta and Edwin Przybylowicz
Robert A. Pucel 9
Ekkehard Ramm
Robert A. Rapp 9
L. Rafael Reif 9
John R. Rice
Bruce E. Rittmann
Jerome G. Rivard 9
Stephen M. Robinson
Arye Rosen 9
Donald E. Ross 9
Eli Ruckenstein9
Yoram Rudy 9 #
B. Don and Becky Russell
Joseph C. Salamone
Peter W. Sauer 9
Robert F. Sawyer
Robert E. Schapire9
George W. Scherer
Jerald L. Schnoor 9
Walter J. Schrenk 9
Albert and Susan Schultz 9 #
Mischa Schwartz
Balraj Sehgal 9
Hratch G. Semerjian
Robert J. Serafin
Tributes
In memory of Charles A. Amann – Marilynn Amann
In memory of Jordan Baruch – Rhoda Baruch
In memory of Robert R. Berg – Jo F. Berg
In memory of Robert Creagan – Gloria Van Rooyen
In memory of Maurice Fuerstenau – Roe-Hoan and Myungshin Yoon
In memory of Howard Saint Claire Jones, Jr. – Evelyn S. Jones
In memory of Howard H. Kehrl – Mary Kehrl
In memory of William H. Lin – Burn-Jeng Lin
In memory of David W. McCall – Charlotte D. McCall
In memory of Catherine Ann Pucel – Robert A. Pucel
In memory of Eugene Rasmussen – Soroosh Sorooshian
In memory of Alexander C. Scordelis – Georgia Scordelis
In memory of Chang-Lin Tien – Arunava Majumdar
In memory of Charles M. Vest – Elsa M. Garmire and Robert H. Russell, Janina and Siegfried Hecker,
Stephen M. Pollock
In memory of Ed White – Robert J. Weimer
In memory of Robert M. White – Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr., Frances Burka, Carrie Harless, Marlin and David
Feldman, Harold and Arlene Finger, Sally W. Hollman, Richard S. Maney, Elena and Stuart Nightingale
In memory of Wayne Whiteman – Elizabeth Whiteman
In honor of Katro Bison – Doug Ellison and Jenn Masunaga
In honor of Mary Beth Monroe – The Fisher Family
In honor of John Prausnitz – Chau-Chyun Chen
In honor of Isaac and Anna Schultz – Albert and Susan Schultz
LOYALTY SOCIETY
In recognition of members and friends who have made gifts to the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine for at least 20 years. 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. Names
in bold are NAE members.
Herbert L. Abrams
H. Norman Abramson
Bruce and Betty Alberts
Clarence R. Allen
Barbara W. Alpert
Marilynn and Charles A.* Amann
Wyatt W. Anderson
John C. Angus
Edward M. Arnett
Wm. Howard Arnold*
Daniel L. Azarnoff
Jack D. Barchas
Jeremiah A. Barondess
John C. Beck
Richard E. Behrman
Gordon Bell
Paul Berg
Diane and Norman Bernstein
H. Kent Bowen
Lewis M. Branscomb
John and Sharon Brauman
Alan C. Brown
Donald D. Brown
Harold Brown
Kristine L. Bueche
George* and Virginia Bugliarello
William B. Carey
David R. and Jacklyn A. Challoner
Purnell W. Choppin
James McConnell Clark
John A. Clements
Michael D. Coe
Richard A. Conway
Max D. Cooper
Pedro M. Cuatrecasas
William H. Danforth
Igor B. Dawid
Roman W. DeSanctis
Irwin Dorros
W.G. Ernst
Harold J. Fallon
Gary Felsenfeld
Harvey V. Fineberg and Mary E.
Wilson
Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink
Robert C. and Marilyn G. Forney
T. Kenneth Fowler
Hans and Verena Frauenfelder
Carl Frieden
Joseph G. Gall
David V. Goeddel
Joseph W. Goodman
Richard M. Goody
Paul E. Gray
Robert B. Griffiths
Michael Grossman
Adam Heller
Ernest M. Henley
Joseph F. Hoffman
William N. Hubbard, Jr.
J. David Jackson
Andre T. Jagendorf
Anita K. Jones
Samuel L. Katz and Catherine M.
Wilfert
Seymour J. Klebanoff
Max A. Kohler
James S. and Elinor G.A. Langer
Louis J. Lanzerotti
Gerald and Doris Laubach
*Deceased
36
NAE
George Bugliarello (’87), and his widow,
Virginia, always valued education. George,
who died in 2011, spent most of his long and
distinguished career in academia, first as dean
of engineering at the University of Illinois at
Chicago and then as president and chancellor
of Polytechnic Institute of New York University.
And Virginia, who recently retired after serving
40 years as a librarian at the Port Washington,
NY public library, is a committed volunteer for
an adult literacy program.
So it seemed fitting to Virginia to honor George’s memory by making a generous gift to the
National Academy of Engineering’s EngineerGirl program, dedicated to encouraging girls and
young women to become engineers. “In the early ’70s, George organized a symposium when
he was at the University of Illinois that was one of the first efforts in encouraging women to go
into engineering,” Virginia said. “This gift to EngineerGirl felt perfect.”
The gift also recognizes George’s decades of service to the NAE. He was NAE foreign secretary
from 2003 to 2011, the “interim” editor of the Bridge for more than 10 years, and a member of
dozens of committees. “He was always involved because the NAE meant a lot to him. And by
osmosis, it means a lot to me.”
Judith R. Lave
Cynthia and Robert Lawrence
Robert G. Loewy
R. Duncan* and Carolyn Scheer
Luce
Anthony P. Mahowald
Vincent T. Marchesi
Hans Mark
James F. Mathis
Robert D. Maurer
Charles A. McCallum
Christopher F. McKee
Mortimer Mishkin
Joel Moses
Arno G. Motulsky
John H. Moxley III
Elaine and Gerald* Nadler
Philip and Sima Needleman
Elena and Stuart Nightingale
Ronald and Joan Nordgren
Peter O’Donnell, Jr.
Gilbert S. Omenn and Martha A.
Darling
Gordon H. Orians
George W. Parshall
Thomas K. Perkins
Gordon H. Pettengill
Frank Press
Donald E. Procknow
Simon Ramo
Janet and Lester* Reed
Jerome G. Rivard
Maxine L. Savitz
F. Stan Settles
Maxine F. Singer
Louis Sokoloff *
Raymond S. Stata
Joan A. Steitz
Thomas A. Steitz
Rosemary A. Stevens
Lubert and Andrea Stryer
F. William Studier
Paul and Pamela Talalay
Anita and George Thompson
George H. Trilling
Roxanne and Karl K.* Turekian
Martha Vaughan
Raymond Viskanta
Andrew and Erna* Viterbi
Peter K. Vogt
Irv Waaland
George D. Watkins
Julia and Johannes Weertman
Robert J. Weimer
Herbert Weissbach
Robert M.* and Mavis E. White
Gerald N. Wogan
Wm. A. Wulf
Anonymous (1)
*Deceased
37
2 015
GEORGE & VIRGINIA
BUGLIARELLO
LIFETIME GIVING SOCIETIES
We gratefully acknowledge the following members and friends who have made generous charitable lifetime
contributions. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of the academies as advisors to the
nation on issues of science, engineering, and medicine.
EINSTEIN SOCIETY
In recognition of members and friends who have made lifetime contributions of $100,000 or more to the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, or the National Academy of Medicine.
We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donoradvised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation. Names in bold are NAE members.
$10 million and above
Arnold and Mabel Beckman*
Bernard M. Gordon
Fred Kavli*
Daniel E. Koshland, Jr.*
George P. Mitchell*
Raymond and Beverly Sackler
William R. and Rosemary B.
Hewlett*
Peter O’Donnell, Jr.
Dame Jillian Sackler
Michael and Sheila Held*
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
Kenneth A. Jonsson*
Tillie K. Lubin*
John F. McDonnell
The Ambrose Monell Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore
Robert* and Mayari Pritzker
Richard L. and Hinda G.
Rosenthal*
Jack W. and Valerie Rowe
Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize
Fund of the Russ College of
Engineering and Technology at
Ohio University
Bernard* and Rhoda Sarnat
Leonard D. Schaeffer
Sara Lee and Axel Schupf
Penny and Bill George, George
Family Foundation
William T.* and Catherine
Morrison Golden
Alexander Hollaender*
Thomas V. Jones*
Cindy and Jeong Kim
Ralph and Claire Landau*
Ruben F.* and Donna Mettler
Dane* and Mary Louise Miller
Oliver E. and Gerda K. Nelson*
Darling
Shela and Kumar Patel
William J. Rutter
Herbert A. and Dorothea P.
Simon*
Raymond S. Stata
Roy and Diana Vagelos
Andrew and Erna* Viterbi
Alan M. Voorhees*
Anonymous (1)
William R. Jackson*
Robert L. and Anne K. James
Mary and Howard* Kehrl
Janet and Richard M.* Morrow
Ralph S. O’Connor
Kenneth H. Olsen*
Ann and Michael Ramage
Simon Ramo
Anne and Walt Robb
Stephen* and Anne Ryan
Henry and Susan Samueli
H.E. Simmons*
Judy Swanson
Ted Turner
Leslie L. Vadasz
Charles M.* and Rebecca M. Vest
$5 million to $10 million
Donald L. Bren
Bruce and Betty Alberts
Richard and Rita Atkinson
Norman R. Augustine
Craig and Barbara Barrett
Jordan* and Rhoda Baruch
Harry E. Bovay, Jr.*
Harvey V. Fineberg and Mary E.
Wilson
Cecil H. Green*
$500,000 to $1 million
Rose-Marie and Jack R.* Anderson
John and Elizabeth Armstrong
Kenneth E. Behring
Gordon Bell
Elkan R.* and Gail F. Blout
Carson Family Charitable Trust
Charina Endowment Fund
Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone
James McConnell Clark
Henry David*
Richard Evans*
Eugene Garfield Foundation
$250,000 to $500,000
The Agouron Institute
W.O. Baker*
Warren L. Batts
Clarence S. Coe*
Theodore Geballe
Jerome H.* and Barbara N.
Grossman
Ming and Eva Hsieh
*Deceased
38
NAE
Holt Ashley*
Francisco J. and Hana Ayala
William F. Ballhaus, Sr.*
Thomas D.* and Janice H. Barrow
H.H. and Eleanor F. Barschall*
Elwyn and Jennifer Berlekamp
Diane and Norman Bernstein
Bharati and Murty Bhavaraju
Erich Bloch
David G. Bradley
Lewis M. Branscomb
Sydney Brenner
George* and Virginia Bugliarello
Malin Burnham
Ursula Burns and Lloyd Bean
John and Assia Cioffi
Paul Citron and Margaret Carlson
Citron
A. James Clark*
W. Dale and Jeanne C. Compton
John D. Corbett*
Ross and Stephanie Corotis
Lance and Susan Davis
Roman W. DeSanctis
Robert and Florence Deutsch
Nicholas M. Donofrio
Paul M. Doty*
Charles W. Duncan, Jr.
Ruth and Victor Dzau
George and Maggie Eads
Robert and Cornelia Eaton
Dotty and Gordon England
Emanuel and Peggy Epstein
Olivia and Peter Farrell
Michiko So* and Lawrence
Finegold
George and Ann Fisher
William L. and Mary Kay Friend
Christopher Galvin
William H. and Melinda F. Gates III
Nan and Chuck Geschke
Jack and Linda Gill
Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman
George and Christine Gloeckler
Christa and Detlef Gloge
Avram Goldstein*
Robert W. Gore
Paul and Judy Gray
Corbin Gwaltney
John O. Hallquist
Margaret A. Hamburg and Peter
F. Brown
William M. Haney III
George and Daphne Hatsopoulos
John L. Hennessy
Jane Hirsh
Chad and Ann Holliday
M. Blakeman Ingle
Richard B. Johnston, Jr.
Anita K. Jones
Trevor O. Jones
Thomas Kailath
Yuet Wai and Alvera Kan
Leon K. and Olga Kirchmayer*
Frederick A. Klingenstein
William I. Koch
Gail F. Koshland
Jill Howell Kramer
Kent Kresa
John W. Landis*
Janet and Barry Lang
Ming-wai Lau
Gerald and Doris Laubach
David M.* and Natalie Lederman
Bonnie Berger and Frank
Thomson Leighton
Frances and George Ligler
Whitney and Betty MacMillan
Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Jamal
Madni
Davis L. Masten and Christopher
Ireland
Roger L. McCarthy
Robin K. and Rose M. McGuire
William W. McGuire
Burt and Deedee McMurtry
G. William* and Ariadna Miller
Stanley L. Miller*
Joe and Glenna Moore
David and Lindsay Morgenthaler
Clayton Daniel and Patricia L.
Mote
Ellen and Philip Neches
Susan and Franklin M. Orr, Jr.
David Packard*
Charles and Doris Pankow*
Larry* and Carol Papay
Jack S. Parker*
Edward E. Penhoet
Allen E.* and Marilynn Puckett
Richard F. and Terri W. Rashid
Alexander Rich*
Ronald L. Rivest
Matthew L. Rogers and Swati
Mylavarapu
Henry M. Rowan*
Joseph E. and Anne P. Rowe*
Maxine L. Savitz
Walter Schlup*
Wendy and Eric Schmidt
David E. Shaw
Richard P. Simmons
James H. and Marilyn Simons
Robert F. and Lee S. Sproull
Georges C. St. Laurent, Jr.
Arnold and Constance Stancell
Edward C. Stone
Peter and Vivian Teets
James M. Tien and Ellen S.
Weston
Gary and Diane Tooker
Martha Vaughan
John C. Wall
Robert and Joan Wertheim
Robert M.* and Mavis E. White
John C. Whitehead
Wm. A. Wulf
Ken Xie
Tachi and Leslie Yamada
Adrian Zaccaria
Alejandro Zaffaroni*
Janet and Jerry Zucker
Anonymous (2)
*Deceased
39
2 015
$100,000 to $250,000
GOLDEN BRIDGE SOCIETY
In recognition of NAE members and friends who have made lifetime contributions totaling $20,000 to
$100,000. 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. Names in bold are NAE members.
$75,000 to $100,000
Barry W. Boehm
James O. Ellis, Jr.
Michael W. Hunkapiller
Paul and Julie Kaminski
Rita Vaughn and Theodore C.*
Kennedy
Elisabeth Paté-Cornell
Jonathan J. Rubinstein
Jane and Norman N. Li
Darla and George E.* Mueller
Jane and Alan Mulally
Cynthia J. and Norman A. Nadel
John Neerhout, Jr.
Roberto Padovani
Ellen and George A.* Roberts
Warren G. Schlinger
Richard J. Stegemeier
Leo John* and Joanne Thomas
Julia and Johannes Weertman
Sheila E. Widnall
Ruth M. Davis* and Benjamin
Lohr
Pablo G. Debenedetti
Mary P. and Gerald P.* Dinneen
E. Linn Draper, Jr.
James J. Duderstadt
Gerard W. Elverum
Stephen N. Finger
Edith M. Flanigen
Samuel C. Florman
Bonnie and Donald N.* Frey
Elsa M. Garmire and Robert H.
Russell
Richard L. and Lois E. Garwin
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.
Paul H. Gilbert
Eduardo D. Glandt
Arthur L. and Vida F. Goldstein
Mary L. Good
Joseph W. Goodman
Paul E. Gray
Delon Hampton
Wesley L. Harris
Janina and Siegfried Hecker
Robert and Darlene Hermann
Bettie and Kenneth F.* Holtby
Edward E. Hood, Jr.
Evelyn L. Hu and David R. Clarke
Edward G.* and Naomi Jefferson
George W. Jeffs
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
Cato and Cynthia Laurencin
Yoon-Woo Lee
Jack E. Little
Artur Mager
Thomas J. Malone
James F. Mathis
Robert D. Maurer
James C. McGroddy
Richard A. Meserve
James J. Mikulski
James K. and Holly T. Mitchell
Van and Barbara Mow
Cherry A. Murray
Narayana and Sudha Murty
Dale and Marge Myers*
Simon Ostrach
Arogyaswami J. Paulraj
Paul S. Peercy
Lee and Bill Perry
Donald E. Petersen
Dennis J. Picard
John W. and Susan M. Poduska
Joy and George* Rathmann
Eberhardt* and Deedee Rechtin
Kenneth and Martha Reifsnider
Julie and Alton D. Romig, Jr.
$50,000 to $75,000
Jane K. and William F. Ballhaus, Jr.
Kristine L. Bueche
William Cavanaugh
Joseph V. Charyk
The Crown Family
Ruth A. David
Thomas E. Everhart
Robert E. Kahn
$20,000 to $49,999
Rodney C. Adkins
Alice Merner Agogino
Clarence R. Allen
Valerie and William A. Anders
John and Pat Anderson
Seta and Diran Apelian
Wm. Howard Arnold*
Kamla* and Bishnu S. Atal
Nadine Aubry and John L. Batton
Ken Austin
Clyde and Jeanette Baker
William F. Banholzer
David K. Barton
Becky and Tom Bergman
R. Byron Bird
Diane and Samuel W. Bodman
Kathleen and H. Kent Bowen
Corale L. Brierley
James A. Brierley
Rodney A. Brooks
Harold Brown
Corbett Caudill
Selim A. Chacour
Chau-Chyun Chen
Josephine Cheng
Sunlin Chou
Uma Chowdhry
G. Wayne Clough
Joseph M. Colucci
Rosemary L. and Harry M.
Conger
Malcolm R. Currie
David E. Daniel
*Deceased
40
NAE
Henry E. Stone
Rosemary and George
Tchobanglous
Daniel M. Tellep
David W. Thompson
James A. Trainham and Linda D.
Waters
Raymond Viskanta
Robert and Robyn Wagoner
Daniel I. Wang
Albert R.C. and Jeannie
Westwood
John J. Wise
Edgar S. Woolard, Jr.
A. Thomas Young
William and Sherry Young
Elias A. Zerhouni
HERITAGE SOCIETY
In recognition of members and friends who have included the National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, or National Academy of Medicine in their estate plans or who have made some other
type of planned gift to the Academies. Names in bold are NAE members.
Gene M. and Marian Amdahl
Betsy Ancker-Johnson
John C. Angus
John and Elizabeth Armstrong
Norman R. Augustine
Jack D. Barchas
Harrison H. and Catherine C.
Barrett
Stanley Baum
Clyde J. Behney
Paul Berg
Elkan R.* and Gail F. Blout
Enriqueta C. Bond
Daniel Branton
Robert and Lillian Brent
Corale L. Brierley
James A. Brierley
Lenore and Rob Briskman
Kristine L. Bueche
Dorit Carmelli
Peggy and Thomas Caskey
A. Ray Chamberlain
Linda and Frank Chisari
Rita K. Chow
John A. Clements
D. Walter Cohen
Morrel H. Cohen
Stanley N. Cohen
Colleen Conway-Welch
Ross and Stephanie Corotis
Ellis and Bettsy Cowling
Molly Joel Coye
Barbara J. Culliton
Malcolm R. Currie
Peter N. Devreotes
Gerard W. Elverum
Emanuel and Peggy Epstein
Paul H. Gilbert
Martin E. and Lucinda Glicksman
George and Christine Gloeckler
Christa and Detlef Gloge
Joseph W. Goodman
Chushiro* and Yoshiko Hayashi
Larry L. Hench
Nancy S. and Thomas S. Inui
Richard B. Johnston, Jr.
Anita K. Jones
Jerome Kagan
Diana S. and Michael D. King
Norma M. Lang
Daniel P. Loucks
R. Duncan* and Carolyn Scheer
Luce
Artur Mager
Pat and Jim McLaughlin
Jane Menken
Arno G. Motulsky
Van and Barbara Mow
Guido Munch
Mary O. Mundinger
Norman F. Ness
Darling
William* and Constance Opie
Bradford W. and Virginia W.
Parkinson
Zack T. Pate
Frank Press
Simon Ramo
James J. Reisa, Jr.
Emanuel P. Rivers
Richard J. and Bonnie B. Robbins
Eugene and Ruth Roberts
James F. Roth
Esther and Lewis Rowland
Sheila A. Ryan
Paul R. Schimmel
Stuart F. Schlossman
Rudi* and Sonja Schmid
Kenneth I. Shine
Robert L. Sinsheimer
Arnold and Constance Stancell
H. Eugene Stanley
Rosemary A. Stevens
John A. Swets
Esther Sans Takeuchi
Paul and Pamela Talalay
John C. Wall
Patricia Bray-Ward and David C.
Ward
Robert and Joan Wertheim
Maw-Kuen Wu
Wm. A. Wulf
Tilahun D. Yilma
Michael Zubkoff
Anonymous (1)
*Deceased
41
2 015
Howie Rosen and Susan Doherty
Vinod K. Sahney
Jerry Sanders III
Linda S. Sanford
Ronald V. Schmidt
Roland W. Schmitt
Donald R. Scifres
Martin B. and Beatrice E. Sherwin
David B. and Virginia H. Spencer
Joel S. Spira*
FOUNDATIONS, CORPORATIONS, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
LIFETIME
In recognition of foundations, corporations, and other organizations that have given gifts or grants totaling $1 million or more to the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, or National
Academy of Medicine. Names in bold have supported the NAE.
$25 million or more
Carnegie Corporation of New
York
The Ford Foundation
The Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation
The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
The Kavli Foundation
W.M. Keck Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
The Koshland Foundation
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
The John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation
The Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation
The Cynthia and George Mitchell
Foundation
Raymond & Beverly Sackler
Foundation
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Arnold and Mabel Beckman
Foundation
The Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory
The William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation
Kenan Institute for Engineering, Technology, and
Science (KIETS)
North Carolina State University’s Kenan Institute for Engineering,
Technology, and Science (KIETS) is partnering with the National
Academy of Engineering to support the Academy’s EngineerGirl program. KIETS’ mission is to develop partnerships in basic research,
education, commercialization, and public outreach with individuals
and organizations dedicated to the advancement of science, engineering, and technology as a force in improving the economic and
social well-being of the nation and the world.
Ruben Carbonell
EngineerGirl encourages middle and high school girls to consider
careers in engineering by providing fun, interactive content and connection with role models
and like-minded students. The Kenan Institute is providing $50,000 per year over three years
for a total of $150,000 to support this collaboration with the NAE. In addition to financial support, Kenan Fellows (www.kenanfellows.org), who are exceptional K–12 teachers in NC public
schools, are contributing to the program and encouraging their students to participate.
“The engineering profession certainly needs more women and diversity in its ranks, and one of
our most important goals is to encourage girls and young women to consider engineering and
technology as a viable career path,” said Ruben Carbonell, NAE member and director of KIETS.
“EngineerGirl has a proven track record of reaching these girls at a critical time in their development and demonstrating just how wonderful engineering can be.”
“Through this generous gift, EngineerGirl can continue to inspire thousands of girls and young
women all over the world to choose a profession that will reward them many times over for
their hard work, creativity, and talent,” said NAE President C. D. Mote, Jr.
42
NAE
Michael and Susan Dell
Foundation
The Grainger Foundation
The Irvine Company
Kaiser Permanente
The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Rockefeller Foundation
E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company
Eastman Kodak Company
The Ellison Medical Foundation
ExxonMobil Corporation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Ford Motor Company
General Electric Company
General Motors Company
GlaxoSmithKline
Google Inc.
William T. Grant Foundation
Great Lakes Protection Fund
The Greenwall Foundation
The John A. Hartford Foundation
Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley
Foundation
Hewlett-Packard Company
Intel Corporation
International Business Machines
Corporation
Johnson & Johnson
The JPB Foundation
JSM Charitable Trust
Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation
The Susan G. Komen Breast
Cancer Foundation
Daniel E. Koshland, Jr. Family
Fund
The Kresge Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Richard Lounsbery Foundation
Lumina Foundation for Education
Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation
Merck & Company, Inc.
Merck Company Foundation
The Ambrose Monell Foundation
Monsanto Company
Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation
National Multiple Sclerosis
Society
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Nuclear Threat Initiative
O’Donnell Foundation
The David and Lucile Packard
Foundation
Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Pfizer, Inc.
Research Corporation for Science
Advancement
Robert Pritzker Family
Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Richard & Hinda Rosenthal
Foundation
Raymond & Beverly Sackler
Foundation
Sanofi-Aventis
The Spencer Foundation
The Starr Foundation
The Wellcome Trust
Robert W. Woodruff Foundation
Xerox Corporation
Aetna Foundation
American Board of Family
Medicine
American Cancer Society, Inc.
American Legacy Foundation
American Public Transportation
Association
America’s Health Insurance Plans
Foundation
Amgen, Inc.
Laura and John Arnold
Foundation
Association of American
Railroads
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
AT&T Corporation
Atkinson Family Foundation
The Atlantic Philanthropies (USA)
Craig & Barbara Barrett
Foundation
Battelle
S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Blue Shield of California
Foundation
The Boeing Company
Breast Cancer Research
Foundation
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Burroughs Wellcome Fund
The California Endowment
California HealthCare Foundation
Margaret A. Cargill Foundation
Chevron Corporation
Chrysler Group LLC
The Commonwealth Fund
ANNUAL
In recognition of foundations, corporations, or other organizations that made gifts or grants to support the
National Academy of Engineering in 2015.
Allied Minds
Charles and Mary Anderson
Charitable Fund of the US
Charitable Gift Trust
Ruth and Ken Arnold Family
Foundation at the Houston
Jewish Community Foundation
The Baruch Fund
S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Bell Family Foundation
Benevity Community Impact Fund
Bodman Foundation
Boeing PAC Matching Gift Fund
Branscomb Family Foundation
Castaing Family Foundation
Citron Family Fund of the
Minneapolis Foundation
Cornell University
The Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory
Chevron Corporation
43
2 015
Chevron Humankind Matching
Gift Program
Cummins, Inc.
The Thomas and Bettie Deen
Charitable Gift Fund at the
T. Rowe Price Program for
Charitable Giving
Employees Charity Organization
of Northrop Grumman
Paul Galvin Memorial Foundation
Trust
Arthur and Linda Gelb Charitable
Foundation
General Electric Foundation
GLS Engineering
George Family Foundation
Geosynthetic Institute
Gerstner Family Foundation
Geschke Foundation at the
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Gratis Foundation
Hsieh Family Foundation
Innovative Catalytic Solution LLC
Innovyze
International Maritime, Inc.
Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund of the
Jewish Community Foundation
Kahle/Austin Foundation
W.M. Keck Foundation
The William R. Kenan Institute at
NC State University
Richard Lounsbery Foundation
Margaret and Ross MacDonald
Charitable Fund of the Triangle
Community Foundation
Medtronic, Inc.
Microsoft Matching Gift Program
The Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation
Dale and Marge Myers Fund at
the San Diego Foundation
Network for Good
Oracle Corporation
Orcas Island Community
Foundation
Pfizer Foundation Matching Gifts
Program
PJM Interconnection
The Procter & Gamble Company
PSEG Educational Matching Gift
Program
Qualcomm, Inc.
Raymond James Charitable
Endowment Fund
Robbins Family Fund at the
Seattle Foundation
Henry M. Rowan Family
Foundation
Henry & Sally Schwartz Family
Foundation
Shell Oil Company Foundation
Educational Matching Gift
Program
Ray & Maria Stata Family
Charitable Fund
Ken and Ann Stinson Fund of the
Omaha Community Foundation
The Ronald and Valerie Sugar
Family Foundation
Morris & Charlotte Tanenbaum
Family Foundation
Team Detroit
Texas A&M University
Tien Family Foundation
United Engineering Foundation
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
Weinig Foundation
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC
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.
44
NAE
2 015
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING FUND
December 31, 2015 and 2014
Independent Auditorҋs Report
To the Board of Trustees
National Academy of Engineering Fund
Washington, D.C.
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of National Academy of Engineering Fund (the
Fund) which comprise the statements of financial position as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the
related statements of activities and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to the
financial statements.
Managementҋs Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes
the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair
presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or
error.
Auditorҋs Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We
conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditorҋs judgment, including the
assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or
error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entityҋs
preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the entityҋs internal control. Accordingly, we 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 presentation of the financial
statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of National Academy of Engineering Fund as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the
changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Washington, D.C.
June 3, 2016
46
NAE
Statements of Financial Position
December 31, 2015 and 2014
2015
2014
Assets (Note 1)
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Contributions receivable
Prepaid expenses
Short-term investments (Note 3)
Investment draw receivable
Promises to give (Note 2)
Total current assets
$
Non-current assets:
Promises to give – long-term portion, net (Note 2)
Beneficial interest in split interest agreements (Note 3)
Investments (Note 3)
Total non-current assets
Total assets
866,005
154,561
34,596
2,970,062
577,884
1,056,231
5,659,339
$
876,464
100,109
49,327
1,859,009
4,058,462
1,584,614
8,527,985
2,828,724
413,045
64,445,161
67,686,930
2,410,457
346,517
64,379,511
67,136,485
$
72,795,824
$
76,214,915
$
1,015,422
$
1,132,446
Liabilities and Net Assets (Note 1)
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable – due to National Academy of Sciences (Note 6)
Net assets:
Unrestricted
Temporarily restricted (Note 4)
Permanently restricted (Note 4, 5)
Total net assets
Total liabilities and net assets
$
72,795,824
See notes to financial statements.
47
2 015
28,131,814
17,183,540
29,767,115
75,082,469
26,833,405
15,166,140
29,780,857
71,780,402
$
76,214,915
Statement of Activities
Year Ended December 31, 2015
Temporarily
Restricted
Unrestricted
Support and revenue:
Contributions (Note 1)
Realized gain on investments (Note 3)
Interest and dividends (Note 3)
Membership dues
Registration fees
Miscellaneous revenue
Net assets released from restrictions:
Satisfaction of program restrictions
Satisfaction of time restrictions
Total support and revenue
$
$
5,612,097
106,455
8,156,058
Expenses:
Program services:
Programs
Awards
Member programs
Support for NRC and NAS
Support services:
Operations
Fundraising
Total expenses
Change in net assets
before unrealized
(loss) gain on investments
Net assets:
Beginning
$
$
13,742
-
Total
$
13,742
3,798,751
817,241
281,077
717,980
146,485
3,988
5,765,522
3,798,566
1,959,986
504,443
262,312
6,525,307
-
-
3,798,566
1,959,986
504,443
262,312
6,525,307
1,330,250
1,039,385
2,369,635
8,894,942
-
-
1,330,250
1,039,385
2,369,635
8,894,942
(2,404,278)
(559,525)
2,678,256
467,863
168,155
(5,612,097)
(106,455)
(2,404,278)
(738,884)
Unrealized (loss) gain on investments (Note 3)
Ending
1,106,753
349,378
112,922
717,980
146,485
3,988
Permanently
Restricted
386,878
(1,298,409)
(2,017,400)
28,131,814
17,183,540
26,833,405
13,742
$
15,166,140
(3,129,420)
-
(172,647)
13,742
(3,302,067)
29,767,115
$
29,780,857
75,082,469
$
71,780,402
48
NAE
Statement of Activities
Year Ended December 31, 2014
Temporarily
Restricted
Unrestricted
Support and revenue:
Contributions (Note 1)
Realized gain on investments (Note 3)
Interest and dividends (Note 3)
Membership dues
Registration fees
Miscellaneous revenue
Net assets released from restrictions:
Satisfaction of program restrictions
Satisfaction of time restrictions
Total support and revenue
$
$
4,780,942
95,370
8,025,559
Expenses:
Program services:
Programs
Awards
Member programs
Support for NRC and NAS
Support services:
Operations
Fundraising
Total expenses
before unrealized
gain on investments
Unrealized gain on investments (Note 3)
Net assets:
Beginning
Ending
1,407,235
1,195,212
146,584
230,180
165,905
4,131
$
5,749,275
1,509,767
185,430
-
Permanently
Restricted
$
(4,780,942)
(95,370)
2,568,160
$
18,895
7,175,405
2,704,979
332,014
230,180
165,905
4,131
10,612,614
3,702,836
1,469,791
510,753
248,728
5,932,108
-
-
3,702,836
1,469,791
510,753
248,728
5,932,108
1,115,480
906,264
2,021,744
7,953,852
-
-
1,115,480
906,264
2,021,744
7,953,852
71,707
2,568,160
703,707
417,106
775,414
2,985,266
18,895
3,779,575
27,356,400
14,198,274
29,748,220
71,302,894
28,131,814
$
17,183,540
18,895
2,658,762
-
$
49
2 015
18,895
-
Total
29,767,115
1,120,813
$
75,082,469
Statements of Cash Flows
Years Ended December 31, 2015 and 2014
2015
Cash flows from operating activities:
Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash
used in operating activities:
Realized gain on investments
Unrealized loss (gain) on investments
(Decrease) increase in discount on promises to give
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
Prepaid expenses
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
Ending
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for taxes
(3,302,067)
2014
$
3,779,575
(817,241)
172,647
(31,112)
(13,742)
(2,704,979)
(1,120,813)
107,690
(18,895)
(54,452)
977,762
14,731
1,379,528
(2,836,341)
153,021
(12,032)
(117,024)
(3,170,498)
(185,670)
(1,458,916)
23,630,604
(23,827,518)
3,343,211
3,146,297
53,925,356
(49,469,834)
(2,655,765)
1,799,757
13,742
13,742
18,895
18,895
(10,459)
359,736
876,464
516,728
$
866,005
$
876,464
$
5,961
$
5,004
50
NAE
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1.
Nature of Activities and Significant Accounting Policies
Nature of activities: National Academy of Engineering Fund (the Fund) is an independent nonprofit
organization established by 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 NAEҋs 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 Fundҋs significant accounting policies follows:
Basis of accounting: The Fundҋs 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 unconditional support is recognized when notification of the contribution
is received, revenue is recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred.
Basis of presentation: The Fund follows the Not-for-Profit Entities 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 unrestricted 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 Fundҋs 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 Fundҋs 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.
51
2 015
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
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 NAEҋs
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.
Simon Ramo Founders Award represents an endowment requiring that the principal be maintained in
perpetuity and that the income be used to support the “Simon 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, 2015 and 2014.
Short-term investments: These investments consist of money market accounts that are used to fund
normal operations of the Fund. The money market accounts are not publicly traded and are therefore held
at cost.
Investment draw receivable: The Fund is eligible to draw 5 percent 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 rates commensurate with the risk involved applicable to
the years in which the promises are received. The discount rates used range from 0.21 percent to
2.27 percent for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014. Amortization of the discounts is included
in contribution revenue. Based on managementҋs evaluation of the collectability of receivables, there is no
provision for doubtful promises to give at December 31, 2015 and 2014. Conditional promises to give are
not included as support until the conditions are substantially met.
52
NAE
Note 1.
Beneficial interest in 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, where NAS, rather than the Fund, serves as the trustee of the assets
for all. The Fund has recorded an asset and contribution revenue equal to the present value of the
remainder interest.
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 donorҋs 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 splitinterest agreements included within unrealized (loss) gain on the statements 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 separately within the statements of activities.
Financial risk: The Fund maintains its cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments 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, exchange traded funds, hedge funds, fund of funds, a
limited partnership and private equity funds. Such investments are exposed to various risks such as
interest rate, market and credit risk. 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 statements 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.
53
2 015
Note 1.
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/NAM Committee on Human Rights, the African American History Program,
Community Service Projects and the International Visitors Office.
Operations: Includes the functions necessary to provide an adequate working environment, provide
coordination and articulation of the Fundҋs 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, 2015 and 2014, there was unrelated business
income of $995 and $72,210, 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 percent 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, 2015 and 2014. Generally, the Fund is no longer subject to U.S.
federal income tax positions by tax authorities for years before 2012.
Use of estimates: In preparing financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP, 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.
54
NAE
Note 1.
Adopted accounting pronouncement: In May 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU) No. 2015-07, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820); Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities
That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent). This ASU removes the requirement to
categorize within the fair value hierarchy all investments for which fair value is measured using the net
asset value per share practical expedient. The amendments also remove the requirement to make certain
disclosures for all investments that are eligible to be measured at fair value using the net asset value per
share practical expedient. Rather, those disclosures are limited to investments for which the entity has
elected to measure the fair value using that practical expedient. This ASU is effective for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is permitted. Upon adoption, the amendments shall
be applied retrospectively to all periods presented.
The Fund adopted this ASU for the year ended December 31, 2015, and it was retrospectively applied to
the year ended December 31, 2014. Prior year disclosures have been revised to reflect the retrospective
application of this ASU. The impact of adopting this ASU is reflected in Note 3.
Subsequent events: The Fund evaluated subsequent events through June 3, 2016, which is the date the
financial statements were available to be issued.
Note 2.
Promises to Give
Promises to give are unconditional and deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2015:
2015
Restricted
Unrestricted
Unconditional promises to give
Less unamortized discount
$
$
Amounts due in:
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
$
$
268,370
(2,776)
265,594
179,981
85,613
265,594
$
$
$
$
3,284,981
(83,887)
3,201,094
876,250
2,324,844
3,201,094
Total
$
$
$
$
3,553,351
(86,663)
3,466,688
1,056,231
2,410,457
3,466,688
Promises to give are unconditional and deemed fully collectible as follows at December 31, 2014:
2014
Restricted
Unrestricted
Unconditional promises to give
Less unamortized discount
$
$
Amounts due in:
Less than 1 year
1 to 5 years
$
$
180,970
(2,363)
178,607
58,470
120,137
178,607
$
$
$
$
4,350,144
(115,413)
4,234,731
1,526,144
2,708,587
4,234,731
55
2 015
Total
$
$
$
$
4,531,114
(117,776)
4,413,338
1,584,614
2,828,724
4,413,338
Note 3.
Investments
Investments consist of the following at December 31:
2015
Cash and money market*
Money market fund
Equity securities
Mutual funds
Exchange traded funds
Alternative investments
$
Less short-term investments
$
2,832,231
4,637,970
7,841,105
5,087,610
2,054,448
44,896,209
67,349,573
(2,970,062)
64,379,511
2014
$
$
2,755,492
3,667,297
7,280,458
5,296,496
1,863,675
45,440,752
66,304,170
(1,859,009)
64,445,161
*Cash and money market accounts held at cost.
Investment return consists of the following for the years ended December 31:
2015
Interest and dividends
Unrealized (loss) gain
Realized gain
$
$
281,077
(172,647)
817,241
925,671
2014
$
$
332,014
1,120,813
2,704,979
4,157,806
56
NAE
Note 3.
Investments (Continued)
The Fair Value Measurement Topic of 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-the-counter derivatives. A significant adjustment to a Level 2 input could result in
the Level 2 measurement becoming a Level 3 measurement.
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 investmentҋs level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level
of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Fundҋs 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.
57
2 015
Note 3.
Investments and other assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows at December 31,
2015:
Total
Investments:
Mutual funds:
International equity fund
Long-term bond fund
$
Equity securities:
Consumer goods
Services
Technology
Healthcare
Financial
Basic materials
Industrial goods
3,771,822
1,315,788
5,087,610
Level 1
$
Level 2
3,771,822
1,315,788
5,087,610
$
-
Level 3
$
-
1,851,464
1,993,441
1,161,419
1,129,169
634,194
596,995
474,423
7,841,105
1,851,464
1,993,441
1,161,419
1,129,169
634,194
596,995
474,423
7,841,105
-
-
Exchange traded funds:
High yield
2,054,448
2,054,448
-
-
Money market funds
4,637,970
4,637,970
-
-
19,621,133
19,621,133
-
-
Total investments held
at fair value
Beneficial interest in split interest
agreements
Total assets held at
fair value
Total investments:
Held at fair value
Held at net asset value (NAV) (a)
Held at cost
346,517
$
19,967,650
$
19,621,133
44,896,209
2,832,231
67,349,573
$
$
19,621,133
$
-
346,517
$
346,517
58
NAE
Note 3.
Investments and other assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis are as follows at December 31,
2014:
Total
Investments:
Mutual funds:
International equity fund
Long-term bond fund
$
Equity securities:
Consumer goods
Services
Technology
Healthcare
Financial
Basic materials
Industrial goods
Exchange traded funds:
High yield
Money market funds
Total investments held
at fair value
Beneficial interest in split interest
agreements
Total assets held at
fair value
3,995,405
1,301,091
5,296,496
Level 1
$
3,995,405
1,301,091
5,296,496
$
-
Level 3
$
-
1,874,924
1,777,817
1,012,992
899,085
641,381
615,185
459,074
7,280,458
1,874,924
1,777,817
1,012,992
899,085
641,381
615,185
459,074
7,280,458
-
-
1,863,675
1,863,675
-
-
3,667,297
3,667,297
-
-
18,107,926
18,107,926
-
-
413,045
$
Level 2
18,520,971
$
18,107,926
$
-
413,045
$
413,045
Total investments:
Held at fair value
$
18,107,926
$
45,440,752
2,755,492
66,304,170
Held at net asset value (NAV) (a)
Held at cost
(a) In accordance with Codification Topic 820-10, certain investments that are measured at fair value
using the net asset value (NAV) per share (or its equivalent) practical expedient have not been
classified in the fair value hierarchy. The fair value amounts presented in this table are intended
to permit reconciliation of the fair value hierarchy to the amounts presented in the statements of
financial position.
59
2 015
Note 3.
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, 2015 and 2014.
Mutual funds, equity securities, money market funds and exchange traded funds are publicly traded on
the exchanges and therefore are considered Level 1 items.
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 Fundҋs Level 3 assets, the beneficial
interests in split-interest agreements, for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014:
2015
Split Interest
Agreement
Balance, beginning of year
New split interest
agreement gifts
Payout of split interest
agreements
Change in value of split
interest agreements
Balance, end of year
$
413,045
2014
Split Interest
Agreement
$
-
8,807
-
$
(66,528)
346,517
702,297
(161,828)
$
(136,231)
413,045
60
NAE
Note 3.
The table below presents additional information for the Fundҋs investments, as of December 31, 2015,
whose fair value is estimated using the NAV per share (or equivalent) practical expedient and presents
the nature and risk of assets with fair values estimated using NAV held at December 31, 2015:
Fair Value at
December 31,
2015
Fair Value at
December 31,
2014
Unfunded
Commitment
$ 23,496,420
$ 25,049,774
$
Fund of hedge funds –
multi-strategies, multi-vehicles (b)
7,756,558
9,888,205
Hedge funds –
long equity (c)
7,648,293
3,600,000
Private equity –
multiple strategies (d)
2,830,102
3,441,547
Hedge funds –
restructuring and value (e)
2,665,390
Fund of hedge funds –
multi-strategies (a)
Limited partnership (f)
Private equity –
single strategy (g)
Total
Redemption
Frequency
Redemption
Notice
Period
Annually
75 days
Monthly – annually,
or upon dissolution of
the fund
30 – 125 days
Quarterly and after
lock-up period
30 days –
5 years
Upon liquidation
of the fund
None
203,297
2,616,393
455,679
Quarterly –
annually
60 – 90 days
277,184
428,869
29,286
Upon dissolution of
the partnership
None
222,262
$ 44,896,209
415,964
$ 45,440,752
44,164
$ 857,426
Upon dissolution of
the partnership
None
-
125,000
-
(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 fundҋs 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 limited to annual redemptions thereafter.
Withdrawals require a minimum 75 daysҋ 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. 11 percent of the investments in this category are available for redemption monthly,
60 percent of the investments are available for redemption quarterly, 14 percent of the investments
are available for redemption annually, and 15 percent of the investments are available for redemption
upon dissolution. Notice periods range from 30-125 daysҋ notice. Shares are redeemable at their NAV
as of the end of the respective month, quarter, year, or at the time of dissolution.
61
2 015
Note 3.
(c) Investment funds in this strategy invest primarily in publicly-traded common stocks but its investments
may, at times, include positions in publicly-traded, domestic or foreign common stocks, stock
warrants and rights. The Fundҋs investments may include investment in small capitalization
companies as well as mature companies. Investments representing approximately 22 percent of the
investments in this category are available for redemption quarterly with 30 daysҋ notice. The
remaining 78 percent of investments in this category are available for redemption without penalty
after an initial five-year lock-up period.
(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, 2015, it is probable that the investments in these categories will be liquidated at an
amount different from the NAV of the Fundҋs ownership interest in partnersҋ capital. Investments in
the underlying funds are reported at their estimated fair value, as determined in good faith by the fund
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 fundҋs share of the fair
value of the net assets of the respective underlying fund and any other relevant factors determined by
the fund 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 fundsҋ NAV without any further adjustments. The value reported by the Fund is the value
of its ownership share.
(e) 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 41 percent of the investments in this category
are available for redemption quarterly with 60 daysҋ notice. The remaining 59 percent of investments
in this category are available for redemption annually with 90 daysҋ written notice. Shares are
redeemable at their NAV as of the end of the respective quarter or year.
(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 Investmentsҋ 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, 2015, it is probable that the investments in these categories will be
liquidated at an amount different from the NAV of the Fundҋs ownership interest in partnersҋ capital.
Investments in the underlying funds are reported at their estimated fair value, as determined in good
faith by the fund 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
fundҋs share of the fair value of the net assets of the respective underlying fund and any other
relevant factors determined by the fund 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 fundsҋ NAV without any further adjustments. The
value reported by the Fund is the value of its ownership share.
62
NAE
Note 3.
(g) The fund invests in private equity companies that provide infrastructure. The fund seeks investments
that have a desirable risk return profile, which will deliver, in aggregate, a gross target internal rate of
return of 12 percent to 15 percent 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 assetsҋ 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, 2015, it is probable that the investments in these categories will be
liquidated at an amount different from the NAV of the Fundҋs ownership interest in partnersҋ capital.
Investments in the underlying funds are reported at their estimated fair value, as determined in good
faith by the fund 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
fundҋs share of the fair value of the net assets of the respective underlying fund and any other
relevant factors determined by the fund manager. The fund has applied the fair value guidance for
measuring its investments in the underlying funds, using the NAV practical expedient. As such, the
fund fair values its investments using the underlying fundsҋ NAV without any further adjustments. The
value reported by the Fund is the value of its ownership share.
63
2 015
Note 4.
Permanently and Temporarily Restricted Net Assets
Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2015:
2015
Permanently
Restricted
Gordon Prize
Draper Prize
Wm. A. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence
Capital Preservation
Senior Scholar
Young Engineers
Industry Scholar
Hollomon
Hans Reissner
Vest Opportunity Fund
Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation
Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years
Public Understanding
Global Grand Challenges
Engineer Girl
3UHVLGHQWҋV2SSRUWXQLW\IXQG
Urban Infrastructure
Futures/Chevron Guiding Implementation
Make Value for America
Others
Engineering for U
3UHVLGHQWҋV'LVFUHWLRQDU\
Noise Policy Development
Engineering Education
Russ Prize
Diversity in the Engineering Work Force
Engineering Education & Research
Engineering Ethics Center
CASEE
Communication with Public in Crisis
USIP Roundtable
Technology and Environment
Native Americans in Engineering
Engineering & Services
PUE Messaging
Information Technology
$
$
13,438,250
8,000,000
3,015,322
2,460,701
1,000,000
786,724
500,000
353,038
201,200
25,622
29,780,857
Temporarily
Restricted
$
$
853,377
1,019,580
524,014
193,245
173,079
69,799
200,537
444,630
15,030
5,213,496
2,690,945
604,692
582,415
555,756
387,932
377,165
358,386
277,374
214,903
107,592
82,626
71,239
54,123
50,002
9,312
8,519
7,050
5,963
4,781
2,331
1,917
1,729
1,046
1,016
509
19
11
15,166,140
64
NAE
Note 4.
Permanently and Temporarily Restricted Net Assets (Continued)
Permanently and temporarily restricted net assets consist of the following at December 31, 2014:
2014
Permanently
Restricted
Gordon Prize
Draper Prize
Wm. A. Wulf Initiative for Engineering Excellence
Capital Preservation
Senior Scholar
Young Engineers
Industry Scholar
Hollomon
Hans Reissner
Vest Opportunity Fund
Frontiers of Engineering – Grainger Foundation
Global Grand Challenges
Public Understanding
Futures/Chevron Guiding Implementation
Make Value for America
Unrestricted contributions to be received in future years
Frontiers of Engineering Education
Urban Infrastructure
50th Anniversary Support/E for U
Information Technology
Noise Policy Development
Others
National Engineering Forum
Engineering Education & Research
Diversity in the Engineering Work Force
Russ Prize
Technology and Environment
CASEE
Engineer Girl
Engineering Ethics Center
USIP Roundtable
Communication with Public in Crisis
Native Americans in Engineering
Engineering & Services
Bueche Award
Engineering Education
PUE Messaging
$
$
13,438,250
8,000,000
3,015,322
2,440,701
1,000,000
792,981
500,000
353,038
201,200
25,623
29,767,115
65
2 015
Temporarily
Restricted
$
$
1,225,021
986,057
615,965
229,823
189,742
75,409
195,944
450,740
16,289
5,305,607
3,154,691
1,018,748
503,915
679,765
600,966
577,975
319,948
310,829
432,554
64,666
59,612
53,832
44,415
22,157
10,190
9,770
6,452
6,413
5,391
2,458
2,137
2,124
1,917
1,149
508
222
121
18
17,183,540
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) The duration and preservation of the endowment fund
(2) The purposes of the institution and the endowment fund
(3) General economic conditions
(4) The possible effect of inflation or deflation
(5) The expected total return from income and the appreciation of investments
(6) Other resources of the institution
(7) 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 Fundҋs 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 U.S. GAAP,
deficiencies of this nature that are reported in unrestricted net assets were $1,132,664 and $624,763 as
of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
66
NAE
Note 5.
Endowments (Continued)
The following illustrates endowment net asset composition by type of fund at December 31, 2015:
2015
Temporarily
Restricted
Unrestricted
Donor-restricted endowment funds
Total funds
$
$
(1,132,664)
(1,132,664)
$
$
Permanently
Restricted
3,493,291
3,493,291
$
$
29,780,857
29,780,857
Total
$
$
32,141,484
32,141,484
Changes in endowment net assets for the year ended December 31, 2015, as follows:
2015
Temporarily
Restricted
Unrestricted
Endowment net assets,
beginning of year
Investment return:
Interest and dividends,
net of fees
Net (depreciation) appreciation
Total investment return
Amounts appropriated for
expenditure
Contributions received
end of year
$
(624,763)
$
(507,901)
(507,901)
(1,132,664)
3,984,990
$
29,767,115
(122,915)
467,863
447,149
792,097
$
Permanently
Restricted
3,493,291
$
-
(1,283,796)
$
Total
(122,915)
467,863
(60,752)
284,196
13,742
$
29,780,857
33,127,342
(1,283,796)
13,742
$
32,141,484
The following illustrates endowment net asset composition by type of fund at December 31 2014:
2014
Temporarily
Restricted
Unrestricted
Donor-restricted endowment funds
Total funds
$
$
(624,763)
(624,763)
$
$
3,984,990
3,984,990
Permanently
Restricted
$
$
29,767,115
29,767,115
67
2 015
Total
$
$
33,127,342
33,127,342
Note 5.
Endowments (Continued)
Changes in endowment net assets for the year ended December 31, 2014, are:
2014
Temporarily
Restricted
Unrestricted
beginning of year
Investment return
Interest and dividends,
net of fees
Net appreciation
Total investment return
Amounts appropriated for
expenditure
Contributions received
end of year
Note 6.
$
(808,621)
$
183,858
183,858
(624,763)
$
(249,061)
1,509,767
551,012
1,811,718
$
3,384,493
Permanently
Restricted
3,984,990
$
-
(1,211,221)
$
29,748,220
Total
(249,061)
1,509,767
734,870
1,995,576
18,895
$
29,767,115
32,324,092
(1,211,221)
18,895
$
33,127,342
Related Party Transactions
The National Academies Corporation: The National Academies Corporation (TNAC) is a nonprofit
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 National Academy of Medicine (NAM)
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, 2015 and 2014.
National Academy of Sciences: The Fund reimburses NAS by making periodic payments based on
NAEҋs estimated expenditures for the year. The Fund also receives contributions through NAS. This
resulted in a payable to NAS at December 31, 2015 and 2014, of $1,015,422 and $1,132,446,
respectively. Payments made to NAS by the Fund for the Fundҋs allocated portion of the expenditures
shared jointly by NAS, NAE and NAM were $1,031,697 and $1,154,992 for the years ended
December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
68
NAE
Officers
Councillors
Chair
Charles O. Holliday, Jr. (2016)
Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC
Retired Chairman of the Board and
CEO, E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Co.
John L. Anderson (2018)
Distinguished Professor of
Chemical Engineering, Illinois
Institute of Technology
President
C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr. (2019)
President, National Academy of
Engineering
Vice President
Corale L. Brierley (2018)
Principal, Brierley Consulting, LLC
Home Secretary
Thomas F. Budinger (2016)
Professor, University of California,
Berkeley; Senior Consulting
Scientist, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
Foreign Secretary
Ruth A. David (2019)
Retired President and CEO,
Analytic Services Inc.
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
Treasurer
Martin B. Sherwin (2017)
Retired Vice President, W.R. Grace
& Co.
C. Paul Robinson (2016)
President Emeritus, Sandia
National Laboratories
Wanda M. Austin (2018)
President and Chief Executive
Officer, The Aerospace
Corporation
Arnold F. Stancell (2015) ‡
Retired Vice President, Mobil
Oil; Turner Professor of Chemical
Engineering Emeritus, Georgia
Institute of Technology
Uma Chowdhry (2016)
Chief Science and Technology
Officer Emeritus, E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Co.
Richard H. Truly (2018)
Retired Vice Admiral, United States
Navy; Retired Director, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory
Paul Citron (2016)
Retired Vice President, Technology
Policy and Academic Relations,
Medtronic, Inc.
Ex Officio:
Ralph J. Cicerone (2016)
President, National Academy of
Sciences
David E. Daniel (2016)
Deputy Chancellor, The University
of Texas System
‡ Indicates term ended June 30,
2015. Year in parentheses indicates
the year term expires.
Anita K. Jones (2018)
University Professor Emerita,
University of Virginia
Frances S. Ligler (2017)
Lampe Distinguished Professor
of Biomedical Engineering,
UNC-Chapel Hill, School of
Medicine and North Carolina State
University College of Engineering
Arunava Majumdar (2017)
Jay Precourt Professor and Senior
Fellow, Precourt Institute for
Energy, Stanford University
Richard A. Meserve (2017)
President Emeritus, Carnegie
Institution for Science
H. Vincent Poor (2017)
Dean of Engineering and Applied
Science; and Michael Henry
Strater University Professor,
Princeton University
69
2 015
Staff
NAE Publications
Office of the President
C. D. Mote, Jr., President
Laura Mersky, Senior Executive
Assistant (through July)
Kelli Zingler, Senior Executive
Assistant (from November)
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 (through June)
Ruth David, Foreign Secretary
(from July)
Vivienne Chin, Administrative
Assistant (through June)
Executive Office
Corale L. Brierley, Vice President
Lance Davis, Executive Officer
(through February); Senior Advisor
(from March)
Alton Romig, Jr., Executive Officer
(from March)
Jatryce Jackson, Administrative
Assistant
Finance Office
Martin B. Sherwin, Treasurer
Mary Resch, Director (through
February)
Joan Zaorski, Director (from March)
Raymond Hart, Senior Accountant
Barbara Boyd, Administrative
Coordinator
Membership Office
Mary Lee Berger-Hughes, Director
Michaela Curran, Election Associate
Kim Garcia, Election Manager
Allison Gomes, Summer Intern
Pamela Lankowski, Council
Administrator
Jenney Resch, Senior Membership
Associate
Patricia Scales, Membership Associate
(through May)
Dennis Thorp, Graphic Designer
and Publications Coordinator
(through May)
Program Office
Proctor Reid, Director
Randy Atkins, Senior Public/Media
Relations Officer
Frazier Benya, Program Officer
Elizabeth Cady, Program Officer
Vivienne Chin, Administrative
Assistant (through June)
Phillip Coleman, Anderson &
Commonweal Intern (Summer)
Catherine Didion, Senior Program
Officer, Diversity in the Engineering
Workforce
Bernadet (Abby) Estabillo, College
Intern (from March)
Cameron Fletcher, Senior Editor
Nicole Flores, Media Specialist
Marthe Folivi, College Intern
(March-May)
Penelope Gibbs, Administrative and
Financial Associate
Amelia Greer, Associate Program
Officer
Emily Hoffman, Christine Mirzayan
Science and Technology Policy
Graduate Fellow (January-April)
Rachelle Hollander, Director, Center
for Engineering Ethics and Society
Michael Holzer, Senior Program
Assistant (from November)
Sherri Hunter, Program Coordinator
(from March)
Janet Hunziker, Senior Program
Officer, Frontiers of Engineering
Kenan Jarboe, Senior Program
Officer, Manufacturing, Design and
Innovation (from September)
Maribeth Keitz, Senior Program
Associate/Web Communications
Manager
Mary Kutruff, Financial Officer
Jacqueline Martin, Awards Associate
(through July)
Brianna Marshall, Anderson &
Commonweal Intern (Summer)
Greg Pearson, Scholar, K-12
Engineering Education and Public
Understanding of Engineering
Simil Raghavan, Program Officer
Emily Roberts, Christine Mirzayan
Science and Technology Policy
Graduate Fellow (January-April)
Katie Whitefoot, Robert A. Pritzker
Fellow and Senior Program Officer,
Manufacturing, Design and
Innovation (through August)
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 800624-6242, or from the National
Academies Bookstore, 500 Fifth Street
NW, Washington, DC.
All reports can also be read online.
Reports from 2015:
Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on
Leading-Edge Engineering from the
2014 Symposium
Making Value for America: Embracing
the Future of Manufacturing,
Technology, and Work
Educate to Innovate: Factors that
Influence Innovation
The Past Half Century of
Engineering—And a Look Forward
(2014 Annual Meeting Forum
Summary)
Effective Practices in Supporting
Transfer Students (workshop report;
NAE-ASEE)
The Bridge, the NAE quarterly journal,
is available from the NAE Program
Office or online at www.nae.edu/
thebridge. A PDF version is also available on the website.
Development Office
Radka Nebesky, NAE Director of
Development
Jamie Killorin, Director of Gift
Planning
70
NAE
Photo Credits:
Cover: background — Bigstock; circle images (L-R) — iStock,
Shutterstock, Shutterstock, iStock
Page 1: Cable Risdon
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an
Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related
to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers
for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone
is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964
under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring
the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are
elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of
Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health
issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize
outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
www.nae.edu

Report - National Academy of Engineering

Transcription

Similar documents

class poster - National Literacy Trust

PDF - National Academy of Engineering

Eclaro Academy PDF

slcda15

a guide to the dialect of the north east of scotland

Michael Pachelo

Math Tier 2

Business Academy - No Limit Empowerment

opportunities - SIM New Zealand

Former Ezell`s Catfish Cabin Former Ezell`s Catfish Cabin