TY - JOUR
T1 - Fifty Years of Biomedical Engineering Undergraduate Education
AU - Linsenmeier, Robert A.
AU - Saterbak, Ann
N1 - Funding Information:
The next large meeting, called the Third Biomedical Engineering Education Summit Meeting, was in June 2008, with one of the authors (RAL) as chair, supported by Professors Paul Benkeser (Georgia Tech), Gerald Miller (Virginia Commonwealth University), Richard Hart (Ohio State University) and Mary Verstraete (University of Akron). In the absence of funding from Whitaker, this meeting was funded by the CoC, ASEE BED, IEEE EMBS, BMES, NSF, and NIH. It had 185 attendees, and it was organized around breakout sessions similar to the workshops at earlier meetings, with a few plenaries, and was focused largely on undergraduate BME education. A set of breakouts on learning environments included sessions on women in bioengineering, minorities in bioengineering, and assessment of innovations. Another set of breakouts on the intersection of academia and industry brought in young alumni to discuss their experiences in industry, and had sessions on pharma/biotech, orthopedics/rehab, and medical devices. Another set of breakouts included discussions of ABET criteria, globalization, and professional licensure. This meeting engaged five minority serving institutions that did not yet have BME programs. After this meeting, it was hoped that an education workshop could be held on the day prior to the BMES Annual Meeting every other year, so that it would not be necessary to add a whole meeting to the calendar with its attendant travel costs. This occurred once, but it did not become a regular event.
Funding Information:
The authors thank Drs. Paul Fagette, Donald Gaver, Matthew Glucksberg, Eric Guilbeau, Paul Hale, David Reynolds, Steven Schreiner, and Gerald Saidel, and Ms. Charla Triplett, Lisa Waples, and Terry Young. Some work was supported by NSF EEC 9876363. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.
Funding Information:
The authors thank Drs. Paul Fagette, Donald Gaver, Matthew Glucksberg, Eric Guilbeau, Paul Hale, David Reynolds, Steven Schreiner, and Gerald Saidel, and Ms. Charla Triplett, Lisa Waples, and Terry Young. Some work was supported by NSF EEC 9876363.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Biomedical Engineering Society.
PY - 2020/6/1
Y1 - 2020/6/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Bioengineering curriculum
KW - Bioengineering education
KW - Bioengineering history
KW - Biomedical engineering curriculum
KW - Biomedical engineering education
KW - Biomedical engineering history
KW - Curriculum
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85083362640&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85083362640&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10439-020-02494-0
DO - 10.1007/s10439-020-02494-0
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32253615
AN - SCOPUS:85083362640
SN - 0090-6964
VL - 48
SP - 1590
EP - 1615
JO - Annals of Biomedical Engineering
JF - Annals of Biomedical Engineering
IS - 6
ER -