Explore the vast range of titles available.

Undergraduate education in biomedical engineering (BME) and bioengineering (BioE) has been in place for more than 50 years. It has been important in shaping the field as a whole. The early undergraduate programs developed shortly after BME graduate programs, as universities sought to capitalize on the interest of students and the practical advantages of having BME departments that could control their own resources and curriculum. Unlike other engineering fields, BME did not rely initially on a market for graduates in industry, although BME graduates subsequently have found many opportunities. BME undergraduate programs exploded in the 2000s with funding from the Whitaker Foundation and resources from other agencies such as the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. The number of programs appears to be reaching a plateau, with 118 accredited programs in the United States at present. We show that there is a core of material that most undergraduates are expected to know, which is different from the knowledge base of other engineers not only in terms of biology, but in the breadth of engineering. We also review the role of important organizations and conferences in the growth of BME, special features of BME education, first placements of BME graduates, and a few challenges to address in the future.

This study investigates career intentions and students’ engineering attitudes in BME, with a focus on gender differences. Data from n = 716 undergraduate biomedical engineering students at a large public research institution in the United States were analyzed using hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis. Results revealed five clusters of intended post-graduation plans: Engineering Job and Graduate School, Any Job, Non-Engineering Job and Graduate School, Any Option, and Any Graduate School. Women were evenly distributed across clusters; there was no evidence of gendered career preferences. The main findings in regard to engineering attitudes reveal significant differences by cluster in interest, attainment value, utility value, and professional identity, but not in academic self-efficacy. Yet, within clusters the only gender differences were women’s lower engineering academic self-efficacy, interest and professional identity compared to men. Implications and areas of future research are discussed.

The Stanford Biodesign Program began in 2001 with a mission of helping to train leaders in biomedical technology innovation. A key feature of the program is a full-time postgraduate fellowship where multidisciplinary teams undergo a process of sourcing clinical needs, inventing solutions and planning for implementation of a business strategy. The program places a priority on needs identification, a formal process of selecting, researching and characterizing needs before beginning the process of inventing. Fellows and students from the program have gone on to careers that emphasize technology innovation across industry and academia. Biodesign trainees have started 26 companies within the program that have raised over $200 million and led to the creation of over 500 new jobs. More importantly, although most of these technologies are still at a very early stage, several projects have received regulatory approval and so far more than 150,000 patients have been treated by technologies invented by our trainees. This paper reviews the initial outcomes of the program and discusses lessons learned and future directions in terms of training priorities.

This paper provides a synopsis of discussions related to biomedical engineering core curricula that occurred at the Fourth BME Education Summit held at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio in May 2019. This summit was organized by the Council of Chairs of Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering, and participants included over 300 faculty members from 100+ accredited undergraduate programs. This discussion focused on six key questions: QI: Is there a core curriculum, and if so, what are its components? QII: How does our purported core curriculum prepare students for careers, particularly in industry? QIII: How does design distinguish BME/BIOE graduates from other engineers? QIV: What is the state of engineering analysis and systems-level modeling in BME/BIOE curricula? QV: What is the role of data science in BME/BIOE undergraduate education? QVI: What core experimental skills are required for BME/BIOE undergrads? s. Indeed, BME/BIOI core curricula exists and has matured to emphasize interdisciplinary topics such as physiology, instrumentation, mechanics, computer programming, and mathematical modeling. Departments demonstrate their own identities by highlighting discipline-specific sub-specialties. In addition to technical competence, Industry partners most highly value our students’ capacity for problem solving and communication. As such, BME/BIOE curricula includes open-ended projects that address unmet patient and clinician needs as primary methods to prepare graduates for careers in industry. Culminating senior design experiences distinguish BME/BIOE graduates through their development of client-centered engineering solutions to healthcare problems. Finally, the overall BME/BIOE curriculum is not stagnant—it is clear that data science will become an ever-important element of our students’ training and that new methods to enhance student engagement will be of pedagogical importance as we embark on the next decade.

Opportunities to provide clinical immersion experiences to bioengineering undergraduate students have expanded over the last several years. These programs allow students to observe the clinical environment in order to better understand workflow processes, the context in which medical equipment is used, and identify unmet needs firsthand. While each program focuses on identifying unmet needs, these experiences vary in content and implementation. Here we discuss features of clinical immersion programs, share details of our program after six years, and present data regarding post-graduation employment of our participants. Students who participated in the University of Illinois at Chicago Clinical Immersion Program are not more likely to pursue careers in industry as compared to non-participants, nor do they demonstrate an ability to find a job more quickly than non-participants. However, participants who did enter into industry self-reported that the program was impactful to both their career interests and ability to find their first employment position.

Boron nitride nanotubes (BNNTs) represent an extremely interesting class of nanomaterials, and recent findings have suggested a number of applications in the biomedical field. Anyhow, extensive biocompatibility investigations are mandatory before any further advancement toward preclinical testing. Here, we report on the effects of multiwalled BNNTs in freshwater planarians, one of the best-characterized in vivo models for developmental biology and regeneration research. Obtained results indicate that BNNTs are biocompatible in the investigated model, since they do not induce oxidative DNA damage and apoptosis, and do not show adverse effects on planarian stem cell biology and on de novo tissue regeneration. In summary, collected findings represent another important step toward BNNT realistic applications in nanomedicine.

We describe a new model of graduate education in bioengineering innovation and design- a year long Master’s degree program that educates engineers in the process of healthcare technology innovation for both advanced and low-resource global markets. Students are trained in an iterative “Spiral Innovation” approach that ensures early, staged, and repeated examination of all key elements of a successful medical device. This includes clinical immersion based problem identification and assessment (at Johns Hopkins Medicine and abroad), team based concept and business model development, and project planning based on iterative technical and business plan de-risking. The experiential, project based learning process is closely supported by several core courses in business, design, and engineering. Students in the program work on two team based projects, one focused on addressing healthcare needs in advanced markets and a second focused on low-resource settings. The program recently completed its fourth year of existence, and has graduated 61 students, who have continued on to industry or startups (one half), additional graduate education, or medical school (one third), or our own Global Health Innovation Fellowships. Over the 4 years, the program has sponsored 10 global health teams and 14 domestic/advanced market medtech teams, and launched 5 startups, of which 4 are still active. Projects have attracted over US$2.5M in follow-on awards and grants, that are supporting the continued development of over a dozen projects.

Programming and automation continue to evolve rapidly and advance the capabilities of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. However, physical computing (the integration of programming and interactive physical devices) integrated within biomedical contexts remains an area of limited focus in secondary STEM education programs. As this is an emerging area, many educators may not be well prepared to teach physical computing concepts within authentic biomedical contexts. This shortcoming provided the rationale for this study, to examine if professional development (PD) had a noticeable influence on high school science and technology and engineering (T&E) teachers’ (1) perceptions of teaching biomedical and computational thinking (CT) concepts and (2) plans to integrate physical computing within the context of authentic biomedical engineering challenges. The findings revealed a significant difference in the amount of biomedical and CT concepts that teachers planned to implement as a result of the PD. Using a modified version of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-A) Riggs and Enochs in  Science Education, 74 (6), 625–637 ( 1990 ), analyses revealed significant gains in teachers’ self-efficacy toward teaching both biomedical and CT concepts from the PD. Further analyses revealed that teachers reported increases in their perceived knowledge of biomedical and CT concepts and a significant increase in their intent to collaborate with a science or T&E educator outside of their content area. This study provides implications for researchers and educators to integrate more biomedical and physical computing instruction at the secondary education level.

Abstract The biomedical engineering (BME) programme at the Politecnico di Milano (POLIMI) is characterized by a strong interdisciplinary background in a broad range of engineering subjects applied to biology and medicine. Accordingly, the undergraduate level (3 years) provides a general education, which includes mechanics, chemistry and materials, electronics, and information technology both in the context of general engineering and within BME foundations. In contrast, the postgraduate programme (2 years) offers a broad choice of specializations in BME fields in close connection with the BME research activities and laboratories of the campus and with active interchange with the other engineering disciplines. The history of BME development at POLIMI is briefly recalled, together with the characteristics of educational and research work, which is strongly biased by a large polytechnic university with no medical school within the same campus; points of strength and weakness due to this background are discussed. The introduction of a double cycle (undergraduate and postgraduate) according to the Bologna process (2000) and the effects on the programme structure is considered. An early phase in which professional education was emphasized at undergraduate level is recalled, which was followed by the actual revision fostering basic engineering and BME education at the first level while leaving in-depth specialization to postgraduate studies or to on-the-job training.

To accelerate the development of an inclusive culture in biomedical engineering (BME), we must accept complexity, seek to understand our own privilege, speak out about diversity, learn the difference between intent and impact, accept our mistakes, and learn how to engage in difficult conversations. In turn, we will be rewarded by the ideas, designs, devices and discoveries of a new generation of problem solvers and thought leaders who bring diverse experiences and perspectives.