national academy of engineering of the national academies 1 engineering in a global economy lance a....

1

National Academy of Engineeringof the National Academies

Engineering in a Global Economy

Lance A. DavisNAE Executive Officer

2


• The National Academy of Sciences was incorporated in 1863– Intended to be in the European, honorific, model– Private non-profit corporation, 501-c(3)– BUT chartered by US Congress to be both honorific, and unbiased,

authoritative advisor to the nation

• The Congressional Charter– Academies to advise the government on any issue of science or

technology, whenever asked, without compensation (not for profit)

• Fast forward to today– Three honorific organizations under the same corporate charter:

NAS (1863), NAE (1964), IOM (1970)– The National Research Council (1916) is the “operating arm” of,

and governed by the academies

The U.S. National Academies

3


• Rough sizing information:– Members: NAS ~2100, NAE ~2100, IOM ~1600– National Research Council

• 700+ committees, boards and panels • 6,000-10,000 “volunteers” (mostly non-members)• 500 studies in progress; 200-250 reports/year• 1200 employees • $250 million revenue, 85% from US Government

• Strengths of the Academies– Stature of the membership– Ability to get the “very best” to serve– Reputation for independence and objectivity– Quality control– Engineering, science and medical expertise

The Academies Today

4


5


Engineering Research andAmerica’s Future:

Meeting the Challengesof a Global Economy

James DuderstadtPresident Emeritus –

University of Michigan


Report is available at:http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11393.html

6


The Engineer of 2020

• Phase I: Visions of Engineering in the New Century

•Phase II: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century

7


Some Context

• Growing national concern about economy– Globalization– Out-sourcing & off-shoring– Rise of other nations

• Friedman: The World is Flat– 58+ weeks on the list of top selling books– Communicated the “message”

8


Some Competitiveness Indicators

• The United States is today a net importer of high-technology products. Its trade balance in high-technology manufactured goods shifted from plus $54 billion in 1990 to negative $50 billion in 2001.

• Chemical companies closed 70 facilities in the United States in 2004 and tagged 40 more for shutdown. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.

• In 2005, only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporate recipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

9


More Competitiveness Indicators

• Fewer than one-third of US 4th grade and 8th grade students performed at or above a level called “proficient” in mathematics; “proficiency” was considered the ability to exhibit competence with challenging subject matter. Alarmingly, about one-third of the 4th graders and one-fifth of the 8th graders lacked the competence to perform even basic mathematical computations.

• US 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of 40 countries that participated in a 2003 administration of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) examination, which assessed students’ ability to apply mathematical concepts to real-world problems.

• In 1995 (the most recent data available), US 12th graders performed below the international average for 21 countries on a test of general knowledge in mathematics and science.

10


Yet More Competitiveness Indicators

• In South Korea, 38% of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47%, in China, 50%, and in Singapore 67%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 15%.

• Some 34% percent of doctoral degrees in natural sciences and 56% of engineering PhDs in the United States are awarded to foreign-born students.

• In the U.S. science and technology workforce in 2000, 38% of PhDs were foreign-born

• Federal funding of research in the physical sciences, as a percentage of GDP, was 45% less in FY 2004 than in FY 1976.

11


Federal vs. Non-Federal R&Das a Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998Year

%G

DP

Total R&D Federal Funded Non-Fed FundedNote: Non-Federal sources of R&D tracked by NSF include industrial firms, universities and colleges, nonprofit institutions, and state and local governments.

Source: NSB 2004

11

12


Trends in Federal Researchby Discipline

12

13


Rising Above the Gathering Storm Charge to the Committee

Senators Alexander and Bingaman with endorsement of House Science committee requested National Academies to:

• Identify top actions federal policy makers could take so US can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the 21st Century

• Determine an implementation strategy with several concrete steps

14


Findings

• Concern that the S&T building blocks critical to economic leadership are eroding when many other nations are gathering strength.

• “Death of Distance” means that skilled labor with strong drive to succeed is just a mouse-click away in growing economies and does not have to be in close proximity.

• Worldwide strengthening is good, but will the United States be able to compete when great minds and ideas exist throughout the world—at a lower cost—so greater return to investor.

• If do not have high-quality jobs, then do not have means for a high standard of living.

• Fear abruptness with which lead can be lost and challenging of recovering if lost.

15


Ten Thousand Teachers, Ten Million Minds

• Recruit 10,000 teachers, Educate 10 million minds: Attract bright students through competitive 4-yr. merit-based scholarships for BS in sciences, engineering, or math with concurrent K-12 science & math teacher certification in exchange for 5 years public service teaching in K-12 public schools

• Strengthen 250,000 current teachers’ skills: Summer institutes, Master’s program, AP/IB (Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate) training

• Enlarge the Pipeline: Create opportunities and financial incentives for pre-AP/IB and AP/IB science & math courses

16


Sowing the Seeds

• Increase federal investment in long-term basic research--10%/year over next 7 years focusing on physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, information sciences and DOD basic research funding.

• Provide early-career researcher grants— 200 grants at $100,000/year over 5 years to outstanding researchers.

• Institute National Coordination Office for Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities-- $500 million/year over 5 years.

• Catalyze high-risk, high-payoff research— Technical program managers allocated 8% federal research agency budgets for discretionary spending.

• Institute Presidential Innovation Award— Recognize persons who develop unique scientific and engineering innovations in the national interest when they occur.

• Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy— Modeled on DARPA, this agency would focus on creative out-of-the-box transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support

17


Best and Brightest

• Increase US citizens earning science, engineering, and math degrees:

– 25,000 new 4-year undergraduate scholarships per year– 5,000 new portable graduate fellowships per year

• Encourage continuing education of current scientists and engineers: Federal tax credits to employers

• International students and scholars– Less complex visa processing and extensions– New PhDs in S&E: 1-year automatic extension and (if find job)

automatic work permit and expedited residency status– Skills-based, preferential immigration points system to prioritize US

citizenship• Reform "deemed exports" policy: Allow access to information

and research equipment except those under national security regulations

18


Incentives for Innovation

• Enhance IP protection for global economy, while allowing research– Sufficient resources for Patent and Trademark Office – Institute “first-inventor-to-file" system and administrative review

after patent granted– Shield research uses of patented inventions from infringement

liability– Change IP laws that discourage innovation in some industries

• Increase Research & Experimentation tax credit from 20 to 40% of qualifying increase

• Provide financial incentives so US is competitive for long-term innovation-related investment

• Affordable broadband access

19


Conclusion

• Actions needed not only by federal government, but state and local levels, and each American family

• Need to avoid complacency by assuming US will remain competitive and preeminent in science and technology

• World is changing and need to take action to renew nation’s commitment in education, research, and innovation policies so nation’s children have jobs

20


Response to ReportBudget

FY 2006 Funding

$ in millions

$ inmillions

% changevs FY 2006

$ in millions

% changevs FY 2006

$ in millions

% changevs FY 2006

$ in millions

% changevs FY 2006

Basic Research(Recommendation 1)

NSF 5,581 6,020 7.9 6,020 7.9 5,992 7.4

Dept. Energy, Science 3,596 4,102 14.1 4,132 14.9 4,241 17.9

NIST, R&D only 395 467 18.2 467 18.2 467 18.2

DOD, 6.1 Basic Research 1,470 1,422 -3.3 1,571 6.9 1,479 0.6 1,552 5.6

DOD Defense Wide, 6.1Basic Research 260 283 8.8 335 28.8 255 -1.9 299 14.8

Education (Recommendations A-1, A-2, A-3)

AP Program 32 122 281.3 80 150

NSF Robert Noyce Program 10

Innovation(Recommendation D-1)Patent and Trade Office 1,682 1,843 9.6 1,771 5.3 1,771 5.2

Appropriations(As of Oct 2006)

Senate FY 2007 Appropriations

House FY 2007 Appropriations

Administration’s FY2007 ACI Research FY 2007 Conference

21


Engineering Research and America’s Future Recommendation 1

The U.S. federal R&D portfolio should be rebalanced by increasing funding for research in engineering and physical science to levels sufficient to support the nation’s most urgent priorities, such as national defense, homeland security, health care, energy security, and economic growth. Allocations of federal funds to support these priorities should be based on analysis that recognizes the complementary and interdependent nature of advances in different scientific and engineering disciplines.

21

22


The Engineer of 2020Phase I: Creating the Vision

• Phase I: Visions of Engineering in the New Century

Goals:•To develop possible scenarios of what the world will look like in 2020

•To determine the roles of engineers in that world and to specify the skills necessary to match those roles

23


Selected Recommendations

Educating theEngineer of 2020:AdaptingEngineering Educationto the New Century

24


• Whatever other creative approaches are taken in the 4-year engineering curriculum, the essence of engineering - the iterative process of designing, building, and testing - should be taught from the earliest stages of the curriculum, including the first year.

Recommendation

25


Recommendation

• The engineering education establishment should embrace research in engineering education as a valued activity for engineering faculty as a means to enhance and personalize the connection to undergraduate students, to understand how they learn and to appreciate the pedagogical approaches that excite them.

26


Recommendation

• Engineering schools should exploit the flexibility of the outcomes-based accreditation (EC 2000) approach to experiment with novel models for baccalaureate education. Evaluators should look for innovation and experimentation in the curriculum and not just hold institutions to a strict interpretation of the guidelines as they see them.

27


Recommendations

• The baccalaureate degree should be recognized as the “preengineering” degree or bachelor of arts in engineering degree, depending on the course content and reflecting the career aspirations of the student.

• U.S. engineering schools must develop programs to encourage/reward domestic engineering students to persist through the M.S. and/or Ph.D. degree.

28


Recommendations

• The engineering education establishment should participate in a coordinated national effort to promote public understanding of engineering and technology literacy of the public.

• Engineering schools and employers of engineers should lend their energies to a national effort to improving math, science and engineering education at the K-12 level.

29


The Engineer of 2020Summary

• The world is changing rapidly – driven by globalization that was accelerated through the deployment of technology.

• The role of the engineer is changing and must change in response.

• Engineering Education must proactively change to provide engineering students with the skills, knowledge and behaviors that will be required for success – Now, in 2020, and beyond.

30


• BACKUP CHARTS

31


Response to ReportSenate

• Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (Senators Domenici, Alexander, Bingaman, Mikulski): PACE-Energy (S.2197); PACE-Education (S.2198); PACE-Finance (S.2199)– 70 cosponsors (35 Democrats/35 Republicans)

• National Innovation Act (S.2109) (Ensign/Liberman; Based on Council on Competitiveness Innovate America report)

• Advanced Research Projects Energy (ARPA-E) Act (S.2196)• Right "TRACK" Act (S.2357)• Energy Competitiveness Act (S.2398)• Research Competitiveness Act (S.2720) (Baucus)• American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006 (S.2802 –chairman’s

markup of S. 2109; S. 2390)• National Competitiveness Investment Act (S. 3936)

(Senators Frist, Reid, Domenici, Bingaman, Stevens, Inouye, Kennedy, Ensign, Liberman, Alexander, Mikulski, Hutchinson)

--Merger of PACE and National Innovation Act/American Innovation and Competitiveness Act--39 cosponsors (20 Republicans/19 Democrats)

32


Response to ReportHouse

• 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act ( H.R. 4434)

• Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) Act (H.R. 4435)

• Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act. (H.R. 4596)

• Innovation and Competitiveness Act (H.R. 4845)• Accelerating the Creation of Teachers of Influence for Our

Nation Act (H.R. 5141)• National Science Foundation Scholars Program Act. (H.R. 5152)• Science and Mathematics Education for Competitiveness Act

(H.R. 5358)• Research for Competitiveness Act (H.R. 5356)

33


• The Congressional Charter– Calls on Academies to advise the government on any issue of

science or technology, whenever asked, and to do so without compensation (not for profit)

• Elaborated by Executive Order and Public Law– non-competitive contracting with USG– not subject to the Freedom of Information Act– special Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions

• meetings open for information gathering, but closed for deliberations

• process controlled by Academies, not federal official

• The NAE Mission Statement is more proactive– “To promote the technological health of the nation ….”

The Mission of the Academies

34


Federal vs. Non-Federal R&Das a Percent of Total R&D Funding

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 2000Year

% o

f T

otal

R&

D

Non-Federal Federal Defense Space CivilianSource: NSB 2004

34

35


Trends in Federal Research, FY 1970-2003Obligations in Billions of FY 2002 Dollars

35

36


Demographics ofEngineering Students at US Institutions

36

37


FS&T by Discipline

% Change

Field 1982-2003Math & computer science 718.7%

Life sciences 504.2%

Other sciences 454.7%

Psychology 337.4%

Environmental Sciences 237.8%

Social sciences 172.2%

Engineering 170.5%

Physical Sciences 108.0% 37

38


Regarding Innovation

Study after study (including Solow’s 1957 Nobel Prize work) have linked over 50% of economic growth in the past 50 years to technological innovation.

Question: Will flat-lining R&D funding for physical science and engineering research hinder U.S. innovation? What will be the impact on standard of living and national security? 38

39


Challenges

• Attrition rate in engineering education is unacceptably high.

• 24/7 Engineering and outsourcing– Value and productivity issues– Innovation and entrepreneurialism

• Preparation and awareness of HS Graduates

40


Challenges

• Diversity and Demographic shifts

• Rapidly increasing knowledge base and the increasing need for interdisciplinary understanding

• Assessing the effectiveness of teaching/learning of engineering concepts

41


Attributes of theSuccessful Engineer of 2020

• Possess strong analytical skills

• Exhibit practical ingenuity; possess creativity

• Good communication skills with multiple stakeholders

• Business and management skills; Leadership abilities

• High ethical standards and a strong sense of professionalism

• Dynamic/agile/resilient/flexible

• Lifelong learners

• Ability to frame problems, putting them in a socio-technical and operational context

42


Phase II: Educating the 2020 Engineer

• Phase II: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century

This is the most exciting period in human history for science and engineering. The explosive advances in knowledge, instrumentation, communication, and computational capabilities create a mind-boggling playing field for the next generation . . . It is important to remember that students are driven by passion, curiosity, engagement and dreams.

-- Charles M. Vest,

President Emeritus, MIT

. . . lays down the broad strategies needed to meet the education challenges that lie ahead. The primary activity of Phase II was a national summit of 100+ current and emerging leaders in engineering and engineering education.

43


Comparative Historiesof Professional Programs

Source: Russell, J. S., B. Stouffer, and S. G. Walesh (2001). Business case for the master's degree: The financial side of the equation. Pp. 49-58 in Proceedings of the Third National Education Congress, Civil Engineering Education Issues, D. E. Hancher, ed. Reston, Virginia.

national academy of engineering of the national academies 1 engineering in a global economy lance a....

Documents

national academies report

national concern

national academy of

national research council

engineering research

visions of engineering

academies stature

adapting engineering