When you think of big data you probably think of powerful computers crunching numbers, not a brain biosensor. Tonight the lead story on the BBC Bang goes the Theory episode on Big Data is about the traumatic brain injury research by Professor Martyn Boutelle in the Department of Bioengineering, here at Imperial.
Here’s this link to a preview clip of tonight’s episode which gives you a taste of what is in store for tonight’s episode.
If you’re interested in finding out more about the science and engineering behind the biosensors, I would recommend this paper written by Professor Martyn Boutelle and Dr Michelle Rogers about “Real-Time Clinical Monitoring of Biomolecules” and how continuous monitoring of clinical biomarkers offers the exciting possibility of new therapies that use biomarker levels to guide treatment in real time. The review considers measurements in body fluids by a range of analytical methods and discusses direct tissue measurements performed by implanted sensors; sampling techniques, including microdialysis and ultrafiltration; and noninvasive methods.
The monitoring kit is now in the intensive care unit
Sunset over Los Angeles from Griffiths Observatory
The last stop on my US tour was the inspirational California Institute of Technology. Based in Pasadena, Caltech has been reported as the top university in the world for the last three years in the Times Higher Education University Global Rankings. Although these rankings usually focus on a particular area I would agree that there is something pretty special about Caltech. The Caltech outlook was epitomized for me by Professor Frances Arnold who said they are not just training students to become scientists or engineers, they are training them to become Nobel Prize winners.
With that ambition laid on the table it was refreshing to hear such a senior academic speak so enthusiastically about her research and the development of her research over time from her mechanical & aerospace engineering roots through chemical engineering to her current research on protein engineering.
Broad the home of the Division of Biology and Biological Engineering at Caltech
I also met with Professor Michael Elowitz while at Caltech, a physicist by background Michael now works in synthetic and systems biology and is the Executive Director of Bioengineering in the Division of Biology and Biological Engineering.
I was interested in the naming of the division as this was the first time that bioengineering had been partnered with biology. Although the meaning of biological engineering at Caltech does have similar origins to MIT. Rather than use any of the MIT or Imperial-inspired triangle or square analogies Professor Elowitz sees biology and bioengineering as two sides of the same coin.
“It’s not the things that will be found out, but the way we approach the problems and the solutions we will come up with.”~ Professor Michael Elowitz
An example of this is Professor Michael Elowitz’s circuit approach to molecular biology. It’s not what the molecules do in isolation it’s what they do in combination, in a physiological environment that he finds most fascinating. With medicine the greatest successes will not be discovering the origins of disease, but will be creating new interventions to assist or in a more ideal world prevent disease before it starts.
“Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.” ~Albert Einstein
While speaking to Professor Michael Elowitz he mentioned Sean R. Eddy’s paper about “Antedisciplinary” Science, published in 2005. I would recommend reading this article as although now nearly ten years on a lot of the ideas still hold true today. Caltech also supports and encourages individual interdisciplinary people, there seemed to be a lot of fluidity between the loose Department and division structure with academics given the space to follow their research interests. An environment, which given the calibre of the students that attend Caltech, is a healthy and inspiring environment to be in.
“When I think of new fields in science that have been opened, I don’t think of interdisciplinary teams combining existing skills to solve a defined problem—I think of single interdisciplinary people inventing new ways to look at the world.”~ Sean R. Eddy
In my opinion bioengineers are a prime example of ‘interdisciplinary people’, and the field attracts equally ‘interdisciplinary people’ from other scientific or engineering backgrounds. We need to utilise the tools, technology and techniques that we have and will create for bioengineering to fulfill its potential contribution to society.
This trip has made me wonder what the future bioengineering department would look like. It’s hard to say because the options are endless. I had thought that as bioengineering matures as a discipline bioengineering graduates will fill up our bioengineering departments. I don’t think that will entirely be the case though. As Professor Frances Arnold talked me through her journey to her current protein engineering research something consistently came up in her explanation. “It’s exciting.” Researchers from all fields will be pulled to bioengineering research because it’s intellectually exciting. This diversity doesn’t dilute, it only enriches the discipline.
I was also interested to hear that 15% of the undergraduates at Caltech are majoring in bioengineering or chemical engineering, with students who previously would have chosen biology or mechanical engineering in particular attracted to the new major.
“We are creating the future of engineering, not following it.”~ Professor Frances Arnold
This trip has certainly fueled my excitement, and I believe that now is the time for bioengineering to cement it’s central engineering role, whether it’s from the foundations of biology or a broader combination of sciences, bioengineering is here to stay.
Over the last couple of days I have been to UC Berkeley, UCLA and USC, three University of California campus, and I think that the diversity within one state encapsulates the heterogeneous bioengineering landscape I have observed on my US tour.
At UC Berkeley they look more broadly at bioengineering, with particular expertise in synthetic biology, systems biology. The Department was founded in 1998 and is the youngest Department in engineering. UC Berkeley doesn’t have a medical school so they utilise the UC San Francisco medical school for clinical/engineering collaborations, biomedical engineering research at PhD level and through the translational medicine masters program.
At UCLA their focus is more molecular and mechanistic based, but research spans all scales. The Departments developed in more of a grass roots approach compared to other institutions I have visited with faculty brought in to build breadth of expertise, for example Professor Daniel Kamei who I met with has a chemical engineering background. The Department was formed in 2002, with the undergraduate major beginning in 2004.
Biomedical Engineering at the University of Southern California began in 1963 initially as a PhD option (in Systems Physiology) within the Electrical Engineering Department. The undergraduate major in biomedical engineering was initiated in 1974 and the Department was established in 1976 making it one of the first Departments of Bioengineering.
What was evident across these three institutions was that the research themes and the Departments definition of bioengineering change over time, depending on the faculty involved and their focus.
UC Berkeley had some useful concentric circle diagrams to illustrate the interplay between the research themes, and the academics working between or within research themes.
A benefit of the location of these institutions in California is the array of bioengineering industry that they have on their door step, this is not a coincidence, with faculty at all three institutions involved in start-ups and Silicon Valley close by. Industry is a key market for all of these universities, with students typically going into industry, graduate studies (such as medicine) or research.
From building links with industry to links with the community. University of California have taken an interesting approach to the latter through the creation of the Onward California website, which highlights the real-life applications of research by academics at University of California insitutions.
What was also great to hear at UCLA was that Professor Daniel Kamei, who grew up in Los Angeles continues to go back to his elementary and high schools to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers. This close association with the community is really important as it makes the person a much more accessible role model. This is a form of outreach I would particularly encourage undergraduate and graduate students to do.
While I was at USC I had the opportunity to explore the Medical Device Development Facility. A workshop for medical device invention and innovation created by Professor Jerry Loeb in 1999. Professor Loeb had a different take on bioengineering to many others that I spoke to, having come from a medical background. To him engineering is applied physiology with the aim of creating treatments for disease. He also highlighted the importance of defining the distinction between engineering and science, something I equally feel strongly about. He expanded to discuss that to him the difference between biomedical engineering and biological engineering is that the former uses science for engineering and the latter uses engineering for science.
This reminded me of a quote I often use in presentations to illustrate the difference between engineering and science.
“Engineering is the use of technical and scientific knowledge for the benefit of humanity. Scientists study the world as it is; engineers create the world that has never been.” – Theodore von Kármán
Yesterday I was at Stanford University and a key message came through in all three of my meetings, which was ‘build upon your strengths’.
The Department of Bioengineering was founded in 2003. But what I think is particularly unique about Stanford’s approach is that prior to the formation of the Department the cross-Faculty Bio-X was formed in 1998 and Biodesign in 2001. In most other universities the research theme has driven the formation of the Department, Stanford is different.
In my post about Johns Hopkins I mentioned that the Department of Bioengineering was part of both the School of Medicine and the School of Engineering, which I thought was unusual. This is also the case at Stanford and the Department is conveniently located between the Medical and Engineering buildings.
The building that houses the Department of Bioengineering was built and is managed by Bio-X. Known as the James H. Clark Centre, the building celebrated its tenth anniversary last year, but it still looks brand new. The custom designed to encapsulate and encourage the interdisciplinary working that Bio-X is founded on. There are core facilities in optogenetics, imaging and microfluidics as well as a number of Faculty-specific labs. It was described to me in one meeting as a ‘science mall’ with windows on the inside opening into the central courtyard and different wings of the building dedicated to different groups such as the Department of Bioengineering in the South East corner, Bio-X Head Office in the South West and Biodesign on the East Wing. There’s also a restaurant, cafe, auditorium, seminar rooms and numerous meeting spaces on every floor.
Bio-X is a unique Stanford University initiative that promotes interdisciplinary life science research. Founded in 1998 Bio-X brings together biomedical and life science researchers, clinicians, engineers, physicists and computational scientists to unlock the secrets of the human body. There are many democratic layers to Bio-X with strong leadership from Heideh Fattaey who alongside her colleague Hanwei are great examples of the transferable skills, understanding and added value a PhD brings to their roles.
One programme of particular interest to me was the seed funding initiative. With $150,000 dollars of investment up for grabs for interdisciplinary teams of Stanford Faculty with the caveat that there must be at least two different Departments represented in the team that applies for funding. The funding last for 2-3 years and since the launch in 2000 the program has already seen a 10-fold return on investment. The model has been so successful that industry are now funding their own seed funding initiative, tapping into the interdisciplinary and translation talent of the Stanford Faculty.
From one innovative initiative to another the Biodesign programme at Stanford was the first programme to recognise the need for researchers to be trained in innovation, entrepreneurship and design alongside academic engineering, medical or science education. With an expanding range of programmes from Fellowships to graduate student and undergraduate student courses. The Biodesign programme/ process was created by Professor Paul Yock and Dr Josh Mackower. Paul Yock is an inventor and cardiologist who navigated his own way through the minefield of IP that faces an inventor with the ambition of getting a medical device to market. At the same time that Paul was navigating this medical device minefield Josh Mackower was running an internal innovation programme at Pfizer. Through this meeting of minds the idea of an innovation training process came about which resulted in the fellowship and the beginning of biodesign.
“Cool inventions aren’t cool unless they make it into patient care.” – Paul Yock
What is great about the Stanford Biodesign approach is that they are keen to help others implement or take inspiration from the process and programme that they run, not just in the USA but also internationally.
The Department of Bioengineering, is unusually the youngest of the three initiatives I have covered in this blog. Bioengineering is described as ‘fusion of engineering and life sciences’ by the current Chair Professor Norbert Pelc. They are both engineering with biology and engineering for biology, with applications including healthcare, environment and energy. They have a growing undergraduate major in bioengineering but also support a number of customised majors available through Stanford School of Engineering in Biomechanical Engineering and Biomedical Computation. They also offer courses across medicine, law and business.
I think we can all learn something from the Stanford approach, you don’t have to do things a certain way just because they have been done that way in the past. The best approach is one the pulls upon and utilises your strengths.
UC Davis was my first stop on the Californian portion of my US trip. At UC Davis I met with Professor Angelique Louie and Professor Anthony Passerini.
The UC Davis bioengineering encapsulates a similar breadth to that of Imperial Bioengineering with opportunities for undergraduates to specialise in particular aspects of bioengineering as they progress to their senior years.
An interesting new addition to the undergraduate course is the TEAM prototyping lab which contains an exciting combination of six 3D printers, a 3D scanner, dedicated CAD computers, printed circuit board manufacturing, and laser machining on a range of materials.
TEAM stands for Translating Engineering Advances to Medicine, and the design course that utilises the facility is also innovative. A collaboration between business students and bioengineering undergraduates this team design project puts the students’ communication and team-working skills to the test as they work together to develop, design, produce and market their chosen ‘medically inspired’ project.
Translation seems to be the buzz word of the moment in US bioengineering. A number of the institutions that I have visited on my trip have been recipients of Coulter Foundation awards which funds translational research in biomedical engineering.
Another interesting initiative that I learnt about today was the National Science Foundation (NSF) Advance program, which aims to increase the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers. The flagship programme at University of Michigan was highlighted as a programme that illustrates the impact that investment in institutional change can bring, with the University now funding the continuation and expansion of the programme. The ADVANCE Program aims to improve the University of Michigan’s campus environment in four general areas:
• Recruitment — focuses on development and use of equitable recruiting practices
• Retention — focuses on preemptive strategies to prevent the loss of valued faculty
• Climate — focuses on improvement of departmental climate
• Leadership — focuses on support for development of leadership skills and opportunities as well as on support for development of skills among all academic leaders to encourage supportive climates.
Women in science and engineering is an issue I feel very strongly about, which is why I am supportive of grass roots initiatives such as Science Grrl who are tackling the low numbers of women and girls in STEM from the grass roots up. I have the privilege of being the March Science Grrl you can read the guest blog that I wrote for them here .
I have now finished my first week of the US bioengineering trip. This post is a synopsis of what I have learnt so far.
1. The UK and the USA landscape of bioengineering isn’t as different as I had expected.
2. There is heterogeneity in the bioengineering departments, with different Departments focusing on different aspects of bioengineering. Most interestingly on this front was the different meaning of bioengineering to each institution, sometimes subtle other times less so in the case of MIT where they have taken a unique approach to biological engineering.
3. Invention, innovation and design are all growing areas of interest in bioengineering education out here. My meetings with Michael Cima at MIT and Youseph Yazdi at Johns Hopkins particularly highlighted this. It is an area that Imperial are up there with alongside the american institutions with the MRes in Medical Device Design and Entrepreneurship which Professor James Moore launched in October 2013.
4. Impact, the buzz word of 2013 is also big in the US, although they generally refer to it as ‘broader impact’. As in the UK the funders, particularly the NSF, are now providing grants for outreach as part of research.
5. Industry perception, although I think generally US awareness of bioengineering is higher than that of the UK there is still work to be done in industry. Particularly industry perception of the skillset of bioengineers vs. mechanical or electrical and electronic engineers. I am looking forward to working on this survey with some of my new US contacts that I have met with during this trip.
Overall my views of the future growth of the discipline have only been encouraged through this trip. I have met many inspirational individuals on the trip so far who are leading the discipline academically and innovatively, and I feel very privileged to have had the honour to meet them all.
Special thanks to:
Professor Doug Lauffenburger, MIT
Professor Roger Kamm, MIT
Professor Ron Weiss, MIT
Daniel Darling, MIT
Professor Scott Manalis, MIT
Dr Agi Stachowiak, MIT
Dr Natalie Kuldell, MIT
Professor Michael Cima, MIT
Professor Solomon Eisenberg, Boston University
Professor Sandra Shefelbine, Northeastern University
Claire Duggan, Northeastern University
Karen Kelley, Northeastern University
Professor Clark Hung, Columbia University
Doug Beizer, Biomedical Engineering Society
Dr Karen Borgsmiller, Johns Hopkins University
Christine Newman, Johns Hopkins University
Alisha Sparks, Johns Hopkins University
Professor Youseph Yazdi, Johns Hopkins University
Professor Youseph Yazdi, Executive Director of the Centre for Bioengineering Innovation and Design at Johns Hopkins University describes biomedical engineers as bilingual with an ability to speak both the language of medicine and the language of engineering, a hybrid in the engineering world.
Recognition of this bilingual nature comes through the Department of Bioengineering at Johns Hopkins University being both in the School of Medicine and the School of Engineering. For Professor Yazdi biomedical engineering is the application of engineering tools and mindset to biological problems. He really believes, and I would agree, that bioengineers think differently. Johns Hopkins is reported as the top biomedical engineering/ bioengineering department in the USA. Given its strength in basic science and roots in engineering and medicine it is not surprising, but what really interests me about bioengineering at Johns Hopkins now and in the future is the Centre for Bioengineering Innovation and Design which is adding a new dimension of translation and innovation to the discipline.
I was also pleased to meet with the Centre for Educational Outreach while at Johns Hopkins. They are another recipient of NSF funding under the broader impacts programme and I will be excited to see the evaluation from their STEM Achievement in Baltimore Elementary Schools (SABES) programme. In particular I was rather taken with the Engineering Adventures programme they mentioned for 8-10 year olds. I love the idea of local Baltimore city school children being tasked with identifying an issue in their community and then coming up with engineering solutions to it. It encourages invention, creativity, problem solving and uses science and maths in real-world scenarios. In a brochure they ask the question ‘how do engineers make the world a better place?’ I would answer this by saying they create a world that has never been. Engineering is the creative, innovative, inventive cousin of science and a field that is both exciting and fulfilling. A message I think the Johns Hopkins team are doing a great job of communicating to their local Baltimore community.
