participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
On behalf of the National Academies, we express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants of this meeting. We are indebted to Pete Engardio for preparing the draft introduction and summarizing the proceedings of the meeting. We are also indebted to Sujai Shivakumar and David Dierksheide of the STEP staff for preparing the report manuscript for publication.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REVIEW
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Rebecca Bagley, NorTech; Daniel Berglund, SSTI; Robert Geolas, Clemson University; Randall Jackson, West Virginia University; and Andrew Reamer, Brookings Institution.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the rapporteur and the institution.
Charles W. Wessner
Mary L. Good