Category: US Trip

Why the future of bioengineering is so bright

Sunset over Los Angeles from Griffiths Observatory
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
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.

‘Til next post

Jenna

UC Bioengineering

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.

20140308-152637.jpg

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

‘Til next post
Jenna

Build upon your strengths

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.

20140305-125236.jpg

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.

To find out more about Biodesign and bioengineering at Stanford check out this video from Professor Paul Yock, co-founder Biodesign and co-founding Chair of the Department of Bioengineering.

“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.

‘Til next post.
Jenna

Advance and translation

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.

20140303-175935.jpg

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.

Although not identical the NSF Advance programme shares some similarities with the Athena Swan programme in the UK.

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 .

‘Til next post
Jenna

We are bilingual

20140301-120730.jpg

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.

‘Til next post
Jenna

A well rounded student

In my first few months at Imperial I learnt that there is something quite special about our students. But I often wondered whether this was due to Imperial or to biomedical engineering. It’s probably a combination of the two, but what my discussion with Professor Clark Hung at Columbia illustrated to me was that there is something special about biomedical engineering students.

20140227-065716.jpg

The relative gender equality of undergraduate biomedical engineering is an anomaly in an engineering school that has been consistent at every institution I have visited so far. But it isn’t really that surprising that girl’s would be attracted to a discipline where they can apply their skills and interest in physics and maths to real-life scenarios such as developing a new prosthetic limb, rehabilitation device or an improved drug-delivery mechanism.

The real-life applications of bioengineering whether they are healthcare, sustainability or energy related are real and impactful contributions to society. It is not surprising that many aspiring medics are drawn to the discipline for their undergraduate major of choice pre-med.

At Columbia they take a similar approach to bioengineering as Imperial College London with an emphasis on the quantitative engineering skills first and the biology second. Biomedical engineering students have a wealth of educational demands on their time. At Imperial they cover mechanical engineering, electrical and electronic engineering, core engineering and biomedical engineering in their undergraduate degree. At Columbia they have to balance learning the maths, physics and engineering skills alongside the cell biology and physiology that biomedical engineering demands. They also have additional electives in a broad range of subjects on offer including liberal arts and at Imperial our students have the opportunity to do courses in business, science and society, globalisation through the Imperial Horizons scheme.

Personalised medicine is an area of great interest to the President of Columbia University where globalisation efforts are a focus which is great for the Department of Bioengineering which benefits from a number of cross-Department co-appointments.

Currently students at Columbia choose a track through their undergraduate in either biomechanics, bioimaging or cell and tissue engineering. Giving them more focus in a particular area of bioengineering at Imperial our students on MEng programme choose the mechanical or electrical and electronic engineering tracks for their third and fourth years.

What has become apparent through the institutions I have visited to far is the breadth of information that a biomedical engineering major will learn in their four years at university. I would say it is this wide knowledge base, ability to apply their engineering skills in combination with their strong interpersonal skills which are nurtured through working in a interdisciplinary environment which make bioengineers so unique.

Til’ next post
Jenna

Innovation, invention, industry and impact

Day 2 was the tale of the four I’s innovation, invention, industry and impact.
All words we are aware of in the UK but the people I met at Northeastern University and MIT today are doing things a little bit differently.

From a bioengineering perspective I have already realised that it is a very heterogeneous landscape here in the USA. MIT have their very specific approach BU theres and Northeastern a different approach again.

Northeastern’s Department of Bioengineering was officially founded in January 2014, that’s not a typo that really was last month. Previously there has been, as in other institutions a lot of biomedical engineering research undertaken in different engineering Departments. When considering what ‘bioengineering’ is to Northeastern it is still an evolving entity, but what is special about Northeastern is their co-op and educational outreach programmes.

20140225-222949.jpg

Their co-op programme is a 5 year undergraduate degree which involves three 6-month placements in industry. In total the students leave the programme with 18-months of work experience alongside their degree. Through these placements the students have the opportunity to experience different industries or to specialise in one discipline.

This system works well for Northeastern as it is a cross-University programme, they have the people and resources to support it and their location in Boston, surrounded by a number of big companies who can host students in this way. What will be interesting as the bioengineering undergraduate course develops will be how the biomedical engineers compete with the mechanical engineers and the electrical engineers who have, in the absence of biomedical engineers in the co-op scheme, been doing placements in orthopaedic companies, prosthetics, medical devices, etc.

20140225-222941.jpg

The key points I got from my meeting with Claire Duggan from the Centre for STEM education were that there are a lot of similarities in the UK and US systems regarding the presence of ‘outreach’ in research grants. Students, both undergraduate and postgraduate are great ambassadors and role models for high school students, students when given freedom and support to create new outreach activities can be really creative. STEM outreach in the US is a crowded party that everyone wants to be at, the Centre for STEM education’s approach is through a series of programmes as a framework of delivery. For any HE pathway to impact fanatics reading this you’ll also be pleased to hear that the US have the Broader Impacts programme that is spreading through US Universities at the moment.

20140225-222957.jpg

I also met with inventor and Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Michael Cima while at MIT. Professor Cima is based in the innovative cancer engineering centre at MIT, known as the Koch Institute. Aside from leading research in the cancer engineering field, for the past 6 years Professor Cima has also been the Faculty Director of the Lemelson-MIT programme. He had a clear passion for encouraging invention or the inventors mind set in young people. The programme of activities run as part of the Lemelson MIT programme has grown over time with Inventeens, inventeams and a number of notable awards. I was interested in Professor Cima’s description about the importance of role model inventors for young people to aspire to be like, when they grow up, and how involvement in the programme doesn’t just give students the practical hands on inventing skills and outlook, but also role models at a number of levels to inspire them.

I will finish of this blog with some wise words from Professor Cima about, in his view the three things that make a great inventor/ innovator:
– curiosity: collecting solutions to problems they haven’t encountered yet
– empathy: uncanny ability to see problem from the users eyes.
– leadership: no one person has all the solutions, they have the ability to recruit the right people with the right skills to solve those problems.

‘Til next post
Jenna

The beginning…

Monday February 24th marked the first day of my two week tour of US bioengineering institutions and a fascinating start it has been.

20140224-214204.jpg

I began my day at MIT where Professor Doug Lauffenburger had arranged a comprehensive schedule of meetings for me to gain an insight about bioengineering at MIT.

At MIT they approach bioengineering from the biological angle, as Professor Lauffenburger described to me in the morning each engineering discipline has a scientific knowledge base with a range of applications. However bioengineering has traditionally approached it differently with a broad foundation in a range of disciplines including maths, physics, chemistry and biology but with one primary application area of healthcare/ medicine.

This was an interesting approach that got me thinking about where Imperial fitted within these two approaches. In my opinion Imperial views bioengineering in a more ‘square’ than triangular approach with a broad foundation of science and engineering and a broad range of applications.

Although I sense a lot of similarities between Imperial and MIT the distinct difference between the two institutions was the biological basis of the undergraduate course at MIT compared to the engineering basis of the undergraduate course at Imperial.

While at MIT I also met with Professor Roger Kamm and Professor Ron Weiss, two professors who represent distinctly different areas of bioengineering. Professor Kamm biomechanics and Professor Weiss synthetic biology.

What struck me from the meeting with Professor Weiss was the recognised importance of design in engineering and particularly synthetic and systems biology. Weiss is also one half of the two professor team jointly teaching a course at MIT and UC Berkeley with Professor Adam Arkin via alternating video link.

Professor Kamm introduced the Institute for Medical Engineering and Health (IMES) to me as the MIT equivalent to the Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME) at Imperial College London. “IMES aims to accelerate innovation across a spectrum of activities that span discovery, design, and delivery of new medical devices and products” whereas “IBME draws together scientists, medics and engineers to apply their extensive expertise to create revolutionary progress in medical diagnosis and treatment.”

While at MIT I also met with Dan Darling the Industry Outreach Coordinator, Dr Agi Stachowiak and Dr Natalie Kuldell. What was clear from these meetings is the clear comparisons between Imperial and MIT, from provision of summer school programmes, social media management and industry engagement to embedding communication and other transferable skills within academic courses and having vision for development of outreach/ engagement activities. Including the importance of high school education on the development of undergraduate courses.

The second Institutional stop on the tour was Boston University (BU) and their Chair of the Department Professor Solomon Eisenberg. BU have a different approach to bioengineering to MIT, with a biomedical engineering focus and a high number of undergraduate students (545 in 2012-13) compared to the 178 biological engineering majors at MIT and 293 biomedical engineering undergraduates at Imperial.

20140224-214336.jpg

The BU Department of Bioengineering is also one of the earliest with foundations in the 1966, another interesting observation about the Department at BU is that it is only one of three engineering Departments at Boston University. The others being Electrical and Computer Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. The Department was also awarded one of the three Whitaker Foundation Leadership Awards back in 1996 alongside Johns Hopkins University and University of California- San Diego.

The Department of Bioengineering at BU also runs a course on Advanced Biomedical Design and Development Project as part of their postgraduate MEng in biomedical engineering. In this course students are immersed in the clinical environment for 6-8 weeks to gain an insight into the clinical area they will be developing a product for.

All in all its been a fascinating first day, lots of parallels with bioengineering in the UK and some expected differences. I for one am excited to see what further insight the rest of the trip has to offer.

‘Til next post
Jenna

Hello world!

The home of Imperial College London Bioengineering
The home of Imperial College London Bioengineering

Hello readers

Welcome to the Imperial Bioengineering Blog. This blog will evolve to cover a whole range of bioengineering, so if you are interested in finding out more about the research, innovations and generally cool stuff that is going on in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London and the discipline more globally then this is the blog for you.

But why, you may wonder has the Department decided to start a blog now? There is a very good reason for this, which I will dedicate the rest of this first blog to answering.

Bioengineering is the fastest growing discipline of engineering. Data from the USA shows that Biomedical Engineering is the “Best job in America” with 10-year job growth of 61.7% and a good median and top pay. But it is more than the job prospects and salary that make biomedical engineering such an attractive profession. Christine Schmidt, a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida was quoted in the CNN piece as saying “You can impact so many lives by creating technology that will repair a hip or help repair eyesight or allow somebody to breathe better.”

It is this that make biomedical engineering such an attractive, necessary and fast growing discipline. Now you have probably noticed I have used both biomedical engineering and bioengineering interchangeably in the last paragraph. I think it is useful in this first post to define what we mean by bioengineering in the Department of Bioengineering here at Imperial.

Bioengineering is the application of engineering principles to biological or medical problems. 

In the Department we go on to further define the three pillars of bioengineering:

Biomedical Engineering Developing devices, techniques and interventions for human health.

Biological Engineering Solving problems related to the life sciences and their applications for health.

Biomimetics Using the structures and functions of living organisms as models for the design and engineering of materials and machines.

Biomedical engineering is also the “most valuable College major” another US statistic, this time from Forbes. Which brings me onto the catalyst for this blog, my imminent trip to the USA to find out more about bioengineering over there.

I fly out on the 23rd February to America for two weeks of meetings to find out more from those at the centre of the discipline. The first few posts on this blog will be about what I learn as I meet some incredible bioengineers all around the US, beginning in Boston and travelling to New York, Baltimore, San Francisco and finishing up in Los Angeles. Please do comment on the blogs especially if you have questions or would like to know more. Below I have listed the Universities I will be visiting on my travels, to those reading this who I will be meeting, I look forward to seeing you soon, for others I look forward to telling you all about it.

  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Boston University
  • Northeastern University
  • Columbia University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Biomedical Engineering Society
  • University of California- Davis
  • Stanford University
  • University of California- Berkeley
  • University of California Los Angeles
  • University of Southern California
  • California Institute of Technology

‘Til next post.

Jenna

Outreach Manager, Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London.