status and trends in biomedical engineering education

Status and Trends in Biomedical Engineering Education

The0 C. Pilkington, Francis M . Long, Robert Plonsey, John G. Webster, and Walter Welkowitz Duke University (T.C.P.. R.P.1 University of Wyoming (F.M.L.1 University of Wisconsin - Madison (J.G . W . ) Rutgers University ( W . W . )

HE FIRST TRAINING GRANTS for biomedical engineering T were awarded almost thirty years ago 111. These first awards were funded t o broaden the scope of engineering education, t o support the new technology being introduced into the health care system, and t o bring to the system persons trained in a blend of medical and engineering technologies. This new idea was the subject of much discussion and debate, sometimes heated, between those who favored and those who objected t o the use of resources in this endeavor. The intervening years have seen a steady growth in biomedical engineering and its acceptance as a body of knowledge soundly based in both the biomedical and engineering disciplines. Today, biomedical engineering is "here to stay" and is an important contributor t o the health care system. Still, wi th in the ranks of educators and practi- tioners of biomedical engineering, a continuing dialogue exists on many issues. Such a dialogue, once viewed as divisive, is now perceived as a strength that contributes in many ways to the positive g rowth of the field. Major indications of the magnitude of the change and acceptance of biomedical engineering education programs are the more than thirty universities wi th independent Departments of Biomedi- cal Engineering and the number of textbooks available today. Appendix A, which was prepared for this article and represents an update of previous surveys [2, 31, presents the most recent compilation of biomedical engineering textbooks.

One important aspect of today's educational programs in biomedical engineering is the apparent stability of the match between the number of degrees granted and the number of career opportunities available. During the first years of growth of the educational programs, the fewer available positions resulted in an oversupply of engineers wi th biomedical engineering specialty. Students were eager to become involved in this new, somewhat idealistic field. According to recent discussions, this mismatch seems to have been corrected so that a steady, stable job market exists for graduates. Employment today may be more stable than in some of the more well-known fields of engineering, e.g. chemical, and is likely to continue over the next decade. Today's employers are much more knowledgeable about the

t training and capabilities -of biomedicat -engineers than they were t w o decades ago.

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS Historically, the first programs were master's degrees

programs, wi th Ph.D. programs following shortly thereafter [41. The master's programs accepted applicants who pos- sessed a bachelor's degree or higher in an engineering or biomedical field. The undergraduate programs most often followed after some experience wi th a graduate program. However, in order t o place the education, training, and philosophy in a current setting, this discussion wil l begin wi th the relatively newer bachelor's degree programs. As one example of the differences between today's programs and

those of t w o decades ago, today's faculty is composed of a significant number of individuals who have graduated from formal biomedical engineering programs, whereas the faculty in the early years came from traditional medical and engineering fields. These early faculty accumulated their expertise by practice, combining their formal training wi th a large measure of self-education in allied branches of knowledge. In the future, ever greater percentages of faculty wil l have come from formal biomedical engineering programs.

Accreditation. The first undergraduate programs were organized as options in the traditional engineering undergraduate departments (typically, electrical engineering). In some of these programs, the faculty became convinced that they could provide a better preparation for a career in biomedical engineering by having a separately accredited program and a separate department wi th its o w n budget and its o w n administration. Many of these separately organized programs have applied for accreditation of their bachelor's program from the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and so far 1 8 have been accredited. A list of the presently accredited programs wi th the year of initial accreditation is shown in Table 1.

The 18 programs that have received accreditation repre- sent approximately 50 percent of the total number of American undergraduate degree programs [21. Over the next decade, w e may expect t o see the number of programs remain constant or increase only slightly, perhaps by one to three. However, greater recognition of accreditation by institutions and peer pressure are likely to lead to a propor- tionately greater increase in the number of accredited pro-

TABLE 1 Bio-Engineering Group Accredited Programs

(IEEE Lead Society, with AIChE, ASAE, ASME, and NICE)

(Programs in this group are accredited according to the program criteria for bio-engineering and similarly named engineering programs. Year of accreditation is shown.)

Bio - Engineering

Arizona State University, 1985 University of Illinois at Chicago, 1976 University of Pennsylvania, 1982 Texas A&M University, 1977

Biomedical Engineering

Boston University, 1983 Brown University, 1973 University of California at San Diego, 1987 Case Western Reserve University, 1977 Duke University, 1972 University of Iowa, 1985 John Hopkins University, 1983 Louisiana Tech University, 1978 Marquette University, 1983 Northwestern University, 1982 University of Pennsylvania, 1986 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1972 Tulane University, 1981 Wright State University, 1988

0739-5175/89/0900-0009$01 .OO c: 1989 IEEE SEPTEMBER 1989 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE 9

grams, perhaps t o the mid t o high twenties. Although accreditation is the subject of ongoing discussion

in the engineering community I51, it seems clear t o us that accredited biomedical engineering programs are here t o stay.

Accreditation by ABET is often cited as stifling to innovation, but a perusal of the biomedical engineering departments wi th accreditation and the ABET guidelines (Appendix B) shows that such criticism is not well-founded. These programs of ten fol low the philosophy that the graduate must f irst be "a good engineer" in a particular field of engineering, and only then can add some measure of training in biomedi- cine. A 1982 study by White and Plonsey [61 concluded that "there is enough training in engineering principles to produce highly qualified engineers." A reasonable number of these graduates go on to graduate school in biomedical engineering and, for the most part, have established a good reputation for preparation and dedication t o the field. However, in some cases, the graduates f rom the traditional engineering programs have been perceived t o perform better in graduate school than the graduates of some undergraduate departments of biomedical engineering [51. These opinions are diff icult t o evaluate because of the lack of objective criteria.

The majority of undergraduate option programs have not moved t o separate department status. This points up one major philosophical split within the community of biomedical engineers: whether undergraduate education should be in a separate department or included as an option within a traditional department. Some administra- tions have been reluctant t o form a new department because of costs and perhaps because they are not certain that biomedical engineering is a true branch of engineering. These arguments have been waged for t w o decades. However, wi th the current stability of enrollments and the demographic projections of the near future for college-age youth, the move to departmental structure has nearly ceased. Few, if any, new departments are expected to be formed. The actual number of programs in existence today in each category is not available but is probably not significantly different f rom that of the last published survey results, listing approximately 37 undergraduate departments and 41 minors or formal options [21. Enrollment figures are also not precise, but again are probably not significantly different f rom those published earlier because of the stability cited by most educators today.

Employment. The major employer of students after grad- uation, the medical device industry, is facing very real pressure by government and third party reimbursers t o contain health care costs [71. This containment wil l likely reduce the growth rate of the industry, leading t o little additional demand for students, or growth in number of programs or enrollment.

However, the industry's increasing recognition of the value of biomedical engineers compared t o engineers f rom other disciplines should continue. Whether this recognition wil l lead t o greater hiring of bachelor's level students remains t o be seen. The industry's preference has been for students wi th advanced degrees, and this is not likely t o change, especially wi th in the R&D environment.

One i tem that perhaps shows that there is still some maturing to come for the baccalaureate programs is the current lack of demand for separate registration for biomedical engineers. Applicants for professional registration must select f rom a series of questions that are predominantly from the traditional engineering fields. Undergraduate enrollment by curriculum (including "Bioengineering") has been monitored by the Engineering Manpower Commission (EMC) of the American Association of Engineering Societies since 1975. In 1975, BMEs were 0.7 percent of all undergraduate engineering enrollments, while by 1987 there was a s low

Department Structures.

Registration.

increase t o 1.0 percent. (In actual numbers, it has been relatively steady at approximately 3,600 new enrollments per year for the last f ive years). Percent of Ph.D. enrollment has been stable at approximately 2 percent since 1975. The opinion is that there are just t w o few biomedical engineers to warrant separate registration, especially as the demand to state boards has become non-existent. Until sufficient numbers of biomedical engineers become motivated to seek registration, registration wil l not become an issue. The medical industry, like any other engineering industry, often does not encourage employees t o register. Thus, biomedical engineers wil l remain relatively small in number, w i th an even smaller percentage likely to become small company entrepre- neurs or consultants, or otherwise self-employed, the traditional motivators for registration. The disincentives for self employment are many and include the FDA regulatory process, which is especially burdensome for small companies, medical liability, and the federal and third party reimburse- ment process.

Medical and Professional School Opportunities. In all undergraduate programs, whether departments or options, a number of students elect to use the program as a premedical or other pre-health-related professional program. The place- ment of these graduates into the professional program of their choice has been very successful. While the great majority of medical school admissions committees profess t o no preference in baccalaureate studies, perhaps as an at- tempt t o have a reasonable cross-section of backgrounds in admissions, the rate of admissions of biomedical engineering graduates is very high. In the early 1970s, f ew students wi th an engineering background applied to medical school, so that this wish for diversity led t o a higher success rate for engineers. Whether this is still the case is diff icult t o ascertain, and data are hard to discover.

Some biomedical engineering programs have high rates of acceptance into graduate school, often because of the institutional mission t o emphasize graduate studies. Cer- tainly, not all institutions have the same mission so that one institution's bachelor's degree graduates primarily take employment, while another institution's graduates seek additional education. Stability in the number of programs, enrollments, and employment opportunities provide evidence that few changes in decisions made by graduates are likely in the next decade.

GRADUATE PROGRAMS The first formal programs in biomedical engi-

neering began at the master's level, the program at Drexel, which began in 1959, being a prime example; Johns Hopkins and the University of Pennsylvania began Ph.D. programs shortly thereafter. The master's programs admitted students wi th a variety of bachelor's degree backgrounds and provided "remedial" courses to raise the level of competence in engineering, if necessary. Engineering students were provided wi th similar alternatives t o raise their competence in the biological and medical sciences. The success of these early programs is a tribute t o the faculty who pioneered and improved them. Many of the programs today are using the proven experiences from these early programs. For example, courses were "team" taught by engineers and physicians who brought together the "flavor" and methods of approach of separate disciplines t o produce health care professionals w i th a new type of competence.

One change introduced recently by some graduate programs is the abandoning of special "remedial" courses. Instead, the applicants are required either t o take the standard course offerings or the standard courses for majors, whether it be engineering for non-engineers or physiology and

Historical.

Diversity.

10 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 1989

medicine for the engineers. The purpose is said to be that physiology should be taught by professional physiologists, engineering by engineers, etc., so that the depth of under- standing wi th appropriate breadth is emphasized. Not every- one agrees wi th this assessment, but the trend is dominant today. Cost-related efficiencies in academia are likely to maintain this trend in coming years.

Graduate programs, because they are either research oriented or in some cases clinically oriented, are very much cast in the "image" of the particular faculty forming the program. In this respect, graduate programs often have different directions. Thus, very different areas of specializa- t ion are available to the student at different institutions, and the student has only to seek these out. For example, some institutions have a basic research effort in physiological system modeling, others emphasize instrumentation and devices, while still others may have a clinically based program or one that emphasizes rehabilitation engineering. This diversity is appropriate because no one program can possibly provide the depth of education and training required to be competent in all fields. Further, many faculty members continue t o v iew achieving the Ph.D. as an activity that requires a demonstrable contribution t o a research area, but believe that the major purpose of a doctorate is t o enhance the student's problem-solving competencies. This prevailing viewpoint is not likely to change in the near future.

For most of those students who wish t o be employed in the clinical field or the rehabilitation field, the master's degree is the terminal degree. For those who wish to lead relatively independent research programs in academia, industry, or government, or who might wish to be a faculty member in a biomedical engineering program, the doctoral degree is required. The Ph.D degree is reasonably standard in that great importance is placed upon the development of independent research skills, but local requirements at individual institutions differ significantly. This degree places major emphasis upon faculty evaluation and its standards, and wil l continue to do so, because the research has a very personal element requiring a great deal of interaction between the faculty advisor and the student.

ENROLLMENT TRENDS The overwhelming number of biomedical engineering grad-

uate students today have undergraduate engineering degrees. The remainder primarily have degrees from the physi- cal and life sciences [21. As such, graduate student

Terminal Degrees.

enrollment trends should depend largely on t w o factors: the numbers and the majors chosen by engineering graduates wi th the bachelor's degree and the fraction of those selecting graduate study in biomedical engineering.

A description of engineering demographics, provided by Vetter [81 reveals a doubling of graduates at the bachelor's level f rom 1975 to 1985. Approximately 8 percent of the total 1985 graduating class were f rom engineering, an increase from 4 percent in 1975. All of these numbers reached a peak in 1 9 8 3 and have been declining since then. For example, freshman engineering enrollment had dropped 1 4 percent by Fall 1986.

College-age population in the next decade is a prime factor affecting enrollment and is predicted to shrink 25 percent by 1996 and to hold at that figure unti l 2005. By 1987, 5.6 percent of this decline had occurred, and the 1 4 percent decrease in enrollment listed above included this decrease in student population. The remaining 9 percent loss appears to reflect a declining interest in engineering and a leveling of f of interest f rom women. The proportion of women freshmen engineering enrollees went f rom 4.7 percent in 1973 to a peak of 17 percent in 1983. By 1986, the figure had dropped t o 16.5 percent. Among freshmen men, 22.3 percent chose engineering in 1982 while 19.7 percent planned engineering majors in 1986.

In Table 2, the actual number of students enrolled both in engineering and in biomedical engineering for the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. is shown. A t the undergraduate level, the total engineering enrollment peaked in 1983, as explained above. Undergraduate biomedical engineering represents one percent of the total number, and although the data are noisy, the drop in biomedical engineering enrollees does not seem to be as great as for other engineers. On the other hand, the percentage of BME students has remained fairly steady in recent years on both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and on this basis the expectation is for BME to fo l low engineering enrollments as a whole.

The demographic effect is not noted in the graduate enrollment figures. One reason is the lag time between graduate and undergraduate study; the effect of diminishing freshmen enrollment in 1983 will not appear unti l 1987 in the M.S. figures. A second factor is the increasing dependence on foreign graduate students. The fraction of all M.S. and Ph.D. students choosing biomedical engineering seems more or less flat over the past decade.

Projections for the future suggest that graduate engineer- TABLE 2

Total Engineering and Biomedical Engineering Enrollments -Years Indicated

Fall (Yr) BS-BME BS-Eng

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1610 1954 2355 2654 2724 3252 3420 3478 3747 3701 3518 3627

231 300 257800 289300 31 1200 340500 365 100 387600 403400 406 1 44 394635

369520 384191

Percent

0.70% 0.76% 0.81 % 0.85% 0.80% 0.89% 0.88% 0.86% 0.92% 0.94% 0.92 % 0.98%

0.81 % ~ ~~

Full-Time Enrollments (Total for indicated degree)

~ _ _ MS-BME MS-All Percent PhD-BME PhD-All

341 302 452 451 464 48 1 459 510 679 693 64 1 660

Aver age

~

26004 2551 6 26107 25360 24349 28571 30679 32709 37769 37718 38499 42664

1.31% 1.18% 1.73% 1.78% 1.91 % 1.68% 1.50% 1.56% 1.80% 1.84% 1.66% 1.55%

1.61 %

~ _ _

233 210 2 94 243 279 256 287 287 300 283 348 423

11281 10963 12359 12321 13461 14465 15472 16442 18540 19559 2 1494 24227

Percent ~

2.07% 1.92% 2.38% 1.97% 2.07% 1.77% 1.85% 1.75% 1.62% 1.45% 1.62% 1.75%

1.93%

SEPTEMBER 1989 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE 11

ing enrollments of U.S. students wil l fall by 25 percent, and probably a similar, or slightly reduced, decline wil l be seen in BME graduate students. While some of the "slack" could be made up by an increase in foreign BME graduate students, educators (including the authors of this article) differ about the desirability of this action. A n additional potential source of students is the 65 percent of the college-age population that is not white and not male. The degree t o which this pool may be tapped is uncertain but wi l l probably not be significant wi thout special enrollment efforts.

CONCLUSIONS The status of biomedical engineering today can be best

described as satisfactory and improving for both the separately accredited, stand-alone departments, and for options within traditional engineering and graduate departments. Supply and demand are in good balance, wi th employment possibilities adequate and of satisfactory quality. The faculty of today differs f rom those who began the programs, partly because they are products of the early programs themselves. Many of the physicians n o w involved in the programs have engineering degrees and, upon completion of medical school, wished t o apply their combined training t o the education of the new generation of biomedical engineers. The Ph.D. appears to be firmly established as a hallmark of engineering research programs in many of our research universities.

In the near future, f ew changes in the current status of biomedical engineering education are foreseen.

It should be noted, however, that the information pre- sented herein does not include the possibility of sizeable increases because of foreign student enrollment. Some programs already have a substantial number of foreign graduate students in biomedical engineering. In a recent visit t o China by one of the authors, he was informed that China eventually expects t o need tens of thousands of biomedical engineers. This expectation has led to the establishment of many biomedical engineering programs in that country, and has also led t o many graduate students f rom China coming into programs in the United States.

The more likely areas for change are in the number of programs seeking accreditation and in graduate enrollments. While the number of accredited programs wil l probably increase, graduate enrollments wil l probably decrease unless special enrollment efforts are made. Industry will continue to prefer graduate-level students, especially for assignments in R&D. As a result, bachelor's degree students wil l continue t o seek advanced training in engineering or the professional schools, perhaps in greater percentages than other bachelor's degree engineering students.

APPENDIX A: BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING TEXTBOOKS

The American College of Physicians published the highly successful, "A Library for Internists" [l]. It has a list from which an internist or a small hospital library can select a few "core texts" or f rom which a large hospital or medical school library may select a comprehensive set of reference texts. It seemed desirable to develop a similar list for biomedical engineers.

In a previous survey of textbooks, John Webster extracted data f rom a comprehensive Biomedical Education Survey sponsored by the education committee of four biomedical engineering societies I651. (Numbers in brackets refer t o the List of References which appears at the end of this Appen- dix.) This resulted in a list of 101 textbooks [811.

In July 1988 Webster sent a list of the 101 textbooks [81] and a checkoff list t o each of the 104 schools that responded to the previous survey [651. In addition to identifying those texts on the list that they have used in the previous t w o

years, he asked them t o list any that were not on the list. He received 33 replies and processed the data by looking up each in "Books in Print" [5a] in order t o compile the complete bibliographic entry shown in the List of References. The price is included when available, and books not listed in "Books in Print" are followed by an asterisk ( 1.

Also provided is the following Listing by Schools. This shows all text books listed by each school. Textbooks are listed alphabetically by name of author only, because the complete bibliographic listing is provided in the List of References. This listing by schools has t w o purposes: (a) a teacher considering a particular text can contact the schools that use the textbook t o determine their experience in using it, and (b) students considering attending a particular school can gain a feeling for the types of textbooks used there and the emphasis of the program.

Finally, the following Listing by Textbook is also provided. This shows all textbooks used at t w o or more schools and the number of times each is used. This constraint reduced the 100 textbook list t o 23. These are placed in the same categories used by the Biomedical Engineering Education Survey 1651. Thus, a teacher considering a new course may identify and consider several of the more widely used textbooks. A company or university library may wish to obtain all the textbooks on the list. A n individual may wish one or t w o books from particularly interesting categories. The List of References provides a complete listing of all 100 textbooks used at one or more schools. It also contains listings for a recent encyclopedia on physics in medicine [501 and one on biomedical engineering, which also contains an article on "biomedical engineering literature," and also lists textbooks [821.

Listings by Schools Boston University: Basmajian and DeLuca, Fung (1 981 1, Grinnel and Moody, Marr, McMahon, Normann, Webster (1 978). Dartmouth College: Dowdey and Christensens, Hench and Ethridge, Hendee.

Hartford Graduate School: Bronzino (1 9821, Bronzino (1 9861, Cohen, Kandel and Schwartz, Schmidt, Tompkins and Web- ster, Webster and Cook.

Kansas State University: Ferris (1 9791, Geddes and Baker, Guyton, Milhorn, Norman, Welkowitz and Deutsch.

Louisiana Tech University: Beil, Bird et al., Conney Geddes and Baker, Guyton, Smith, Stanley, Van de Vegte. Webster ( 1 9781, Webster et al.

North Dakota State University: Bahill, Sinha and Kuzsta, Swan.

Purdue University: Geddes, Geddes and Baker, Guyton.

Ohio State University: Bahill, Webster ( 1 978). Queen's University: Brown, Cobbold.

Rice University: Lightfoot.

Rutgers University: Brown et al., Deutsch and Micheli- Tzanakou, Guyton, Li, Noordergraaf, Silver, Welkowitz, Welkowitz and Deutsch.

San Diego State University: Bergel, Burton, Fung (1 981 1, Fung (1984), Fung et al., Mirsky et al., Selkurt, Van Vlack, Welkowitz and Deutsch, West.

Southern Illinois University: Cromwell et al., Webster ( 1 978). Southern Methodist University: Webster ( 1 978). Syracuse University: El-Hawary, Horowitz and Hill, Katz,


Kinsler et al., Kuo, Mountcastle, Seagrave, Vander and Sherman, Webster (1 978) , Zemansky et al.

University of Arizona: Doebelin, Feinberg, Graham, Sy- denham, Webster (1 978) , Webster and Cook.

University of Bridgeport: Bahill, Cromwell et al.

University of British Columbia: Feinberg, Webster (1 9781, Webster and Cook.

University of California at Berkeley: Cobbold, Junge, Lewis.

University of Connecticut: Guyton, Mohler, Ogata, Tompkins and Webster, Webster (1 978) .

University of Illinois at Chicago: Cobbold, Lin, Macovski, Michaelson and Lin, Milsum, Oppenheim et al., Webster (1 978) .

University of Illinois at Urbana & Champaign: Bronzino (1 9861, Webster (1 978) .

University of Iowa: Bullock et al., Cooney, Frankel and Burstein, Fung et al., Guyton, Park, Vander and Sherman, Webster (1 978) .

University of Miami: Fung et al., Kline, Tompkins and Webster, Webster (1 978) , Webster and Cook.

University of Minnesota: Hobbie.

University of New Brunswick: Cromwell et al., Webster ( 1 978) .

University o f New Hampshire: Feinberg, National Electric Code, Webster (1 978) , Webster and Cook.

University of Rhode Island, Polk.

University of Southern California: Carnahan et al., Casti and Kalaba, Fung et al., Ganong, Guyton, Kagiwada and Kalaba, Katz, Strong, West.

University of Texas-Austin: Cooney, Ganong, Geddes and Baker, Guyton, lncroprere and DeWitt, Webster (1 978) .

University of Toronto: Despopoulos and Silbernagl.

University of Utah: Boretos and Vanhoutte, Christensen, Eisenberg and Crothers, Franklin and Powell, Israelachvili, Shepard and Vanhoutte, Winter.

University of Virginia: Fung (1 984) , Guyton, Oppenheim and Willsky, Webster (1 978) .

University of Wisconsin-Madison: Schmidt, Strong, Tornpkins and Webster, Webster (1 978) , Webster e t al.

University of Wyoming: Cromwell et al., Ferris (1 974) , Ferris (1 9791, Geddes and Baker, Guyton, Hoenig and Scott, Katz, Millrnan and Halkias, National Electric Code, Roth et al., Stanley and Dougherty.

Wright State University: Cooney, Holman, Park, Webster (1 978) .

Listings by Textbooks

of schools that use the textbook, i f t w o or more.

MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION

J. G. Webster (ed.), 1978, $46.95, 17. L. A . Geddes, and L. E. Baker, 1975, $47.95, 5. L. Cromwell, F . J. Weibell, and E. A . Pfeiffer, 1980, $40.33,

W . J. Tompkins and J. G. Webster (eds.), 1981, $58.67 , 4. R. S . C. Cobbold, 1974, $55.50, 3. W. Welkowitz and S . Deutsch, 1976, $36.00, 3. J. D. Bronzino, 1986, $40.00, 2.

The author's name is followed by the price and the number

4.

C. D. Ferris, 1979, $ 1 9.50, 2. National Electric Code, NFPA70-1987, 1987, $ 1 8.50, 2. R. A . Normann, 1988, SNA, 2 . J. G. Webster, et al, 1985, $46.00, 2. PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS/MODELING

A. C. Guyton, 1986, $55.00, 11. D. Cooney (ed.), 1976, $26.50, 4. W . F. Ganong, 1987, $24.00, 2. B. Katz, 1966, $22.95, 2. R . F. Schmidt, 1978, $22.00, 2. A . J. Vander and J. Sherman, 1985, $42.95, 2.

BIOMATERIALS

Y. C. Fung, 1981, $39.50, 2. J. B. Park, 1979, $22.50, 2.

BIOMECHANICS

Y. C. Fung, et al, 1972, $37.50, 3.

CLINICAL ENGINEERING

J. G. Webster and A. M. Cook (eds.), 1979, $56.00, 4. B. N. Feinberg, 1986, $56.00, 3. A . T. Bahill, 1981, SNA, 3.

List of References

1.

2.

2a.

3.

4.

5.

5a.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

1 Oa.

11.

R. Allyn, A Library for Internists Ill, Ann. Internal Med., 90:446-447 (No. 3), March. 1979.

A . T. Bahill, Bioengineering, Biomedical and Clinical Engineering, En g le w ood C I i f f s , N J : P re n t i ce -H a I I, 1981. "

J. V . Basrnajian and C. J. DeLuca, Muscles Alive (5 th ed.), Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1985, $49.95.

D. Beil, Using Applications Software, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986. *

D. H. Bergel (ed.), Cardiovascular Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, $93.00, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1973.

R. B. Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot, Transport Phe- nomena, New York: Wiley, 1960.

Books in Print, 1987-1988, New York: R . R . Bowker, 1987.

J. W . Boretos and M . Eded (eds.), Contemporary Biomaterials, Noyes, 1984, $84.00.

J. D. Bronzino, Biomedical Engineering and lnstru- mentation, Boston, PWS Engineering, 1986, $40.00.

J. D. Bronzino, Computers for Patient Care, Reading, M A : Addison, Wesley, 1982. *

J. H. U. Brown, J. E. Jacobs, and L. Stark, (eds.), Biomedical Engineering, Philadelphia: F. A. Davis, 1971."

R. G. Brown, Electronics for the Modern Scientist, New York: Elsevier, 1982. $33.50.

T. H. Bullock, R. Orkand, and A. Grinnell, lntroduc- tion to Nervous Systems, San Francisco: W . H. Freeman, 1977, $33.95.

A . C. Burton, Physiology and Biophysics of the Circulation, (2nd ed.) Bks Demand UMI, 1972, $60.00.


12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

20a.

20b.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

25.a

26.

27.

28.

29.

B. Carnahan, H. A . Luther, and J. 0. Wilkes, Applied Numerical Methods, New York: Wiley, 1969, $49.95.

J. Casti and R. Kalaba, Imbedding Methods in Applied Ma thema tics, Read i ng , M A : Addison -W es- ley, 1973."

D. A . Christensen, Ultrasonic Bioinstrumentation, New York: Wiley, 1988. *

R. S. C. Cobbold, Transducers for Biomedical Mea- surements: Principles and Applications, New York: Wiley, 1974, $55.50.

A . Cohen, Biomedical Signal Processing, Vol. 1, $77.00, and Vol. 2, $85.00, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1986.

D. Cooney (ed.), Biomedical Engineering Principles: An Introduction to Fluid, Heat and Mass Transport Processes, New York: Dekker, 1976, $26.50.

L. Cromwell, F. J. Weibell, and E. A . Pfeiffer, Biomedical Instrumentation and Measurements (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980, $40.33.

A. Despopoulous and S. Silbernag, Color Atlas of Physiology, New York: Thieme Med Pubs, 1986, $17.00.

S. Deutsch and E. Micheli-Tzanakou, Neuroelectric Systems, New York: NYU Press, 1987, $55.00.

E. 0. Doebelin, Measurement Systems: Application and Design (3rd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983, $48.95.

C. Dowdey and M. Christensens, Introduction to the Physics of Diagnostic Radiology, Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1984. *

M . E. El-Hawary, Control System Engineering, Re- ston, VA: Reston, 1984, $32.95.

D. Eisenberg and D. M. Crothers, Physicalchemistry with Applications to the Life Sciences, Menlo Park, CA : Benjamin-C ummings , $42.9 5.

B. N. Feinberg, Applied Clinical Engineering, Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986, $56.00.

C. D. Ferris, Introduction To Bioelectrodes, New York: Plenum, 1974, $32.50.

C. D. Ferris, Introduction to Bioinstrumentation, Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1979, $ 1 9.50.

V . H. Frankel and A. H. Burstein, Orthopaedic Biomechanics: The Application of Engineering to the Musculoskeletal System, Philadelphia: Lea & Febi- ger, 1970.

G. F. Franklin and J. D. Powell, Digital Control of Dynamic Systems, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980.

Y. C. Fung, Biodynamics: Circulation, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984, $39.50.

Y . C. Fung, Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1981, $39.50.

Y. C. Fung, N. Perrone, and M. Anliker (eds.),

30.

31.

32.

32a.

32b.

33.

33a.

33b.

34.

34a.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Biomechanics, Its Foundations and Objectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall, 1972.

W . F. Ganong, Review of Medical Physiology (13 th ed.), Los Altos, CA: Appleton & Lange, $24.00.

L. A . Geddes, Cardiovascular Devices, New York: Wiley, 1986.

L. A . Geddes and L. E. Baker, Principles of Applied Biomedical Instrumentation (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley, 1975, $47.95.

R. A . Graham, An Introduction to Engineering Mea- surements, E ng l e wood C l i f f s , N J : P ren t ice -H a l l, 1975.

A. D. Grinnel and W. J. Moody, Physiology of Excitable Cells, New York: A. R. Liss, 1983, $80.00.

A . C. Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology (7 th ed.), Philadelphia, Saunders, 1986.

L. L. Hench and E. C. Ethridge, Biomaterials: An Interfacial Approach, New York: Academic Press, 1982, $49.50.

W . R. Hendee, Radiation Therapy Physics, Chicago: Yearbook Medical, 1981, $38.75.

R. K. Hobbie, Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, New York: Wiley, 1978, $43.50.

S. A . Hoenig and D. H. Scott, Medical lnstrumenta- tion and Electrical Safety, Melbourne, FL: Krieger, 1977, $26.95.

J. P. Holman, Heat Transfer, (5 th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981, $44.95.

P. Horowitz and W. Hill, Art of Electronics, Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1980, $34.50.

J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, New York: Academic Press, 1985, $79.00.

D. Junge, Nerve and Muscle Excitation (2nd ed.), Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1981, $18.75.

H. Kagiwada and R. Kalaba, Integral Equations via Imbedding Methods, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1 974. * E. R. Kandel and J. H. Schwartz (eds.), Principles of Neural Science (2nd ed.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1985, $47.50.

B. Katz, Nerve, Muscle and Synapse, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966."

L. E. Kinder, Frey, Coppens, Sanders, Fundamentals of Acoustics, New York: Wiley, 1982."

J. Kline, Biological Foundations of Biomedical Engi- neering, Boston: Little, Brown, 1976. *

B. C. Kuo, Automatic Control Systems (5 th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987, $48.00.

E. R. Lewis, Network Models in Population Biology, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1977, $41 .OO.

J. K-J. Li, Arterial System Dynamics, New York: NYU Press, 1986, $30.00.

E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena and Living Systems, New York: Wiley, 1974.


48.

49.

49a.

50.

50a.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

J. C. Lin, Microwave Auditory Effects and Applica- tions, Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1978. " .

A. Macovski, Medical Imaging Systems, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983, $50.67.

D. Marr, Vision, New York: W . H. Freeman, 1982, $25.95.

T. F. McAnish (ed.), Physics in Medicine and Biology Encyclopedia, Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1986, $175.00 . *

T. A . McMahon, Muscles, Reflexes, and Locomo- tion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1984, $17.50.

S. M. Michaelson and J. C. Lin, Biological Effects and Health Implications of Radio frequenc y Radia- tion, New York: Plenum, 1987, $79.50.

H. T. Milhorn, The Application of Control Theory to Physiological S ysterns, S au nders , 1966. *

J. Millman and C. Halkias, Electronic Fundamentals and Applications for Engineers and Scientists, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. "

J . H. Milsum, Biological Control Systems Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966."

I . Mirsky, D. N. Ghista and H. Sandler (eds.), Cardiac Mechanics: Physiological, Clinical, and Mathemati- cal Considerations, New York: Wiley, 1974.

R. R. Mohler, Bilinear Control Processes with Appli- cations to Engineering, Econolog y and Medicine, New York: Academic, 1973, $71 .OO.

V. B. Mountcastle (ed.), Medical Psysiology (14 th ed.), St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1979, $75.95.

National Electric Code, NFPA70-1987, Boston: Na- tional Fire Protection Association, 1987, $18.50.

A. Noordergraaf, Circulatory System Dynamics, New York: Academic, 1979, $45.00.

R. A. Norman, Principles of Bioinstrumentation, New York: Wiley, 1988. *

K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

A. V. Oppenheim, A. S. Willsky and I. T. Young, Signals and Systems, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice-Hall, 1982, $51.33.

J. B. Park, Biomaterials: An Introduction, New York: Plenum, 1979, $25.50.

C. Polk, CRC Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1986, $195.00. * A. R. Potvin, F. M. Long, J . G. Webster, and R. J . J end rucko, Biomedical Engineering Education: En- rollment, Courses, Degrees, and Emplo yment, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., BMR-28:22-28, Jan. 1981.

H. H. Roth, E. S. Teltscher, and I. M. Kane, Electrical Safety in Health Care Facilities, New York: Aca- demic, 1975, $62.50.

R. F. Schmidt et al. (eds.), Fundamentals of Neuro- physiology, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1 978,

Phi I ade I p h i a :

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

75a.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

$22.00.

R. C. Seagrave, Biomedical Applications of Heat and Mass Transfer, Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1971, $9.95.

E. E. Selkurt, Physiology (5 th ed.), Boston: Little, Brown, 1984, $34.00.

J. T. Shepard and P. M. Vanhoutte, Human Cardio- vascular System: Facts and Concepts, Ranen Press, 1979, $19.50.

F. H. Silver, Biological Materials: Structure, Mechan- ical Properties, and Modeling of Soft Tissues, New York: NYU Press, 1986, $42.50.

R. J. Smith, Electronics: Circuits and Devices (3rd ed.), New York: Wiley. *

W. D. Stanley, Operational Amplifiers with Linear Circuits, Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1984, $34.95.

W. D. Stanley and J. Dougherty, Digital Signal Processing (2nd ed.), Reston, VA: Reston, 1984, $42.67.

P. Strong, Biophysical Measurements, Beaverton, OR: Tektronix, 1970. *

P. H. Sydenham, Handbook of Measurement Sci- ence, Vol. 1, New York: Wiley, 1982, $100.00.

W . J. Tompkins and J . G. Webster (eds.), Design of Microcomputer-Based Medical Instrumentation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981, $58.67.

A. J . Vander and J . Sherman, Human Physiology (4th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985, $42.95.

J. Van de Vegte, Feedback Control Systems, Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.

L. H. Van Vlack, Elements of Materials Science and Engineering (5 th ed.), Reading, MA: Addison-Wes- ley, 1985.

J. G. Webster (ed.), Medical Instrumentation: Appli- cation and Design, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1978, $46.95.

J. G. Webster, A Biomedical Engineer's Library, J. Clin. Eng., 7(1):67-72, January 1982.

J. G. Webster (ed.), Encyclopedia of Medical De- vices and Instrumentation, New York: Wiley, 1988, $425.00. *

J. G. Webster and A. M. Cook (eds.), Clinical Engineering: Principles and Practices, Eng le w ood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979, $56.00.

J. G. Webster, A. M. Cook, W . J. Tompkins and G. V and er he i d e n (ed s. ) , Electronic De vices for Reha bili- tation, New York: Wiley, 1985, $46.00.

W . Welkowitz, Engineering Hemodynamics: Applica- tion to Cardiac Assist Devices (2nd ed.), New York: NYU Press, 1986, $35.00.

W. Welkowitz and S. Deutsch, Biomedical lnstru- mentation: Theory and Design, New York: Aca- demic, 1976, $36.00 .

J . B. West, Respiratory Physiology: The Essentials (3rd ed.), Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1979, $17.50.


88. D. A . Winter, Biomechanics of Human Movement, New York: Wiley, 1979, $41.95 .

M. W. Zemansky, Abbot, VanNess, Basic Engineer- ing Thermodynamics (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, 1975, $46.95 .

89.

APPENDIX B: ABET CRITERIA FOR BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION ACCREDITATION

A s biomedical engineering has become an accepted subdi- vision of the general field of engineering (in the same manner as electrical engineering or civil engineering), employers have begun t o expect the same reviews of curricula and degree requirements that exist in other fields. This has led t o the establishment of formal accreditation review procedures for biomedical engineering by the Accreditation Board for Engi- neering and Technology (ABET).

Usually, accreditation is requested for B.S . degree programs, although ABET procedures permit requests for accreditation at more advanced levels. The criteria for accreditation provide a common minimum standard of quality that guarantees an acceptable level of competence for the graduates. This is important to employers in the field.

As is typical in other fields of engineering, both general and specialized criteria for accreditation must be established. The specialized criteria for biomedical engineering fol low.

PROGRAM CRITERIA FOR BIO-ENGINEERING AND SIMILARLY NAMED ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

Submitted by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (Lead Society, in cooperation w i th the Ameri- can Institute of Chemical Engineers, The American Society of Agricultural Engineers, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the National Institute of Ceramic Engineers)

1. Applicability These program criteria apply t o bio-engineering programs

and others including "biomedical" and similar modifiers in their titles (w i th the exception of agriculturally-based biological engineering programs.)

2. Faculty A faculty must be large

enough t o provide experience and capability in a significant portion of the broad range of biomedical engineering interests and t o provide meaningful technical interaction among the faculty members so as to support these interests. The biomedical engineering program must be the responsibility of a faculty of at least four persons w h o by training and/or practice are competent in biomedical engineering and whose primary commitment is t o the program.

b. Teaching Loads. Teaching loads must leave enough t ime for professional development of the faculty. Such professional development may include engineering research, instructional innovation, engineering consulting, and related activities.

3. Curriculum a. Curricular Objective and Content. Programs must re-

quire a substantial portion of work in engineering courses related t o biomedical engineering, but some engineering coursework must be outside the major program and some interdisciplinary biomedical engineering programs may include a considerable spectrum of basic engineering course work.

A t least one of the fol lowing additional topics is highly desirable: linear algebra and matrices, proba- bility and statistics, numerical analysis, advanced calculus, and complex variables.

a. Faculty Size and Qualifications.

b. Mathematics.

c. Basic Sciences. A minimum of one-fourth year of biology and one-fourth year of chemistry is expected.

d. Engineering Design. The requirement for "one course which is primarily design, preferably at the senior level, and predicated on the accumulated background of the curricular components" can be satisfied in several ways. As a minimum, a course that satisfies this requirement must have a content that is more than one-half engineering design and must be in the junior or senior year of the program. It must not be a beginning course in the program but must have as a prerequisite at least one course in the discipline.

e. Laboratory Experience. The biomedical engineering program must provide the student w i th a meaningful laboratory experience, which implies an emphasis on practical engineering problems, as well as on the basic functioning of living and non-living systems. In particular, biomedical engineering laboratories must include the unique problems associ- ated w i t h making measurements and interpreting data in living systems and should emphasize the important of considering the interaction between living and nonliving materials. The objective of the laboratory experience should be t o educate engineers t o be proficient in experimental work.

REFERENCES 1.

2.

The Future of Training in Biomedical Engineering. I f f € Trans Biomedfng, 19(2) : 148-55, 1972.

Potvin AL. Long FM, Webster JG, Jendrucko, RJ: Biomedical Engineering Education: Enrollment, Courses, Degrees, and Employment. /€E€ Trans Biomed fng, 28(1):22-27, 1981.

3. Webster JG: A Biomedical Engineer's Library. J Clin fng , 7(11:67-72, 1982.

4 . Schwan HP: The Development of Biomedical Engineering. Historical Comments and Personal Observations. I f f € Trans Biomed fng , 31 :730-738, 1984.

5. Mann Robert: Biomedical Engineering: A Cornucopia of Challenging Engineering Tasks-All of Direct Human Significance, I f f € f n g . Med Biol Mag, 3(3!:43-45. 1985.

6. White JL. Plonsey R: Does Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Education Produce Real Engineers? I f f € Trans Biomed fng, 2915):374-378, 1982.

7 Thurow LC: Can We Afford the New Medical Technologies. /€E€ €ng Med Biol Mag, 7(2):70-73. 1988

8 . Vetter BM: DEMOGRAPHICS of the Engineering Student Pipeline. Engmeering Education, 78(8):735-740, 1988.

The0 C Pilkington received a B.E.E. degree from North Carolina State University, and M . S . and Ph.D. degrees from Duke University, Durham, NC. He has done postdoctoral work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was a Fellow-by-Courtesy at Johns Hopkins University.

He has been a member of the Duke Univer- sity faculty since 1961 and was the founding Chairman of the Department of Biomedical Engineering. He presently serves as Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Electrical Engi-

neering and as Director of the National Science FoundationlEngineer- ing Research Center in Emerging Cardiovascular Technologies.

Dr. Pilkington was active in the development of critical faculty mass standards while serving as an accreditation visitor for the Engineers Council for Professional Development (ECPD). He chaired the task forces that developed the ECPD Biomedical Engineering accreditation Guidelines and the Supplemental Criteria, which were jointly sponsored by IEEE, ASME, and IEChE.

Dr. Pilkington has served as Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering and CRC Critical Reviews in Bioengineering and presently serves on the Editorial Board of the Proceedings of the IEEE.


Correspondence to: Professor The0 C. Pilkington, Duke University, 301 Engineering, Durham NC 27706.

Francis M. Long (S'52, A'58, SM'63) received the BSEE degree in 1953 and the MS degree in 1956 from the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and the Ph.D. degree from Iowa State Univer- sity, Ames, in 1961. He initiated and served as director of the bioengineering program at the University of Wyoming for 10 years and subsequently served as Head of the Depart- ment of Electrical Engineering for 10 years.

Dr. Long began research activity in biomedical engineering in 1955 and has been active on many national committees, including serv-

ing as President of the Alliance for Engineering in Medicine and Biology. He has served as Chairman of the Biomedical Engineering Division of the American Society for Engineering Education, Chairman of the Electrical Engineering Division of the American Society for Engineering Education, and Vice-president of the Board of Directors of the American Society for Engineering Education.

Dr. Long received the first Outstanding Biomedical Engineering Educator Award from the Biomedical Engineering Education Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. He has also received a Western Electric Fund Award from the American Society for Engineering Education for excellence in teaching of engineering. At the University of Wyoming he has received the G. D. Humphrey Outstanding Faculty Award.

Robert Plonsey (Fellow, IEEE) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1956.

From 1957 to 1983 he was with Case Institute of Technology, Case Western Re- serve University, Cleveland, OH, where he was first a member of the Electrical Engineer- ing faculty and then was one of the founders of the Department of Biomedical Engineering. From 1976 to 1980 he served as Department Chairman. In 1983 he was appointed Profes- sor of Biomedical Engineering at Duke Univer-

sity, Durham, NC. His research interest are in electrocardiography, electrophysiology, and functional electrical stimulation

Dr. Plonsey has served on committees and has been a consultant to the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and National Research Council. From 1970 to 1972 he was President of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; from 1981 to 1982 the President of the Biomedical Engineering Society; and 1982 to 1983 the President of the Biomedical Engineering Division of the ASEE. he is a Fellow of the IEEE and AAAS, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

John G. Webster (M'59-SM'69-F'86) received the B.E.E. degree from Cornell Univer- sity, Ithaca, NY, in 1953, and the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, in 1965 and 1967, respectively.

He is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. In the field of medical instrumentation he teaches undergraduate, graduate, and short courses, and does research on elec- trodes, biopotential amplifiers, impedance

measurements, and tactile sensors for medicine and robotics. He is coauthor, with B. Jacobson, of Medicine and Clinical

Engineering (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977). He is editor of Medical Instrumentation: Application and Design (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1978). He is coeditor, with A.M. Cook, of Clinical Engineering: Principles and Practices (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1979) with W. J. Tompkins, of Design o f Microcomputer-Based Medicallnstrumentation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981 1, with A. M. Cook, of Therapeutic Medical Devices: Application and Design (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982). with A. M. Cook, W. J. Tompkins, and G. C. Vanderheiden, of Electronic Devices for Rehabilitation (New York: Wiley, 1985). and with W. J. Tompkins of Interfacing Sensors with the IBM PC (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1988). He is editor of Encyclopedia of Medical Devices and Instrumentation (New York, Wiley: 1988). and Tactile Sensors for Robotics and Medicine (New York, Wiley: 1988).

Dr. Webster has been a member of the IEEE-EMBS Administrative Committee and Associate Editor, Medical Instrumentation, of the IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. He is a member of the NIH Surgery and Bioengineering Study Section.

Walter Welkowitz was born in Brooklyn, NY, on August 3, 1926. He received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Cooper Union, New York, NY, in 1948, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Illinois, Urbana, in 1949 and 1954, respectively.

He was a Research Associate at Columbia University, New York, NY, from 1954 to 1955. He joined Gulton Industries, Inc.. in 1955, and worked in various phases of medical instrumentation until 1964. He then joined

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, where he is currently Professor and Chairman of the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Surgery (Biomedical Engineer- ing) and Graduate Director of the Program in Biomedical Engineering.

Dr. Welkowitz is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Xi, the American Heart Association, the New York Academy of Sciences, the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs, and is a fellow of the IEEE. He received the IEEE Centennial Medal in 1984.


status and trends in biomedical engineering education

Documents