Talk:Biomedical engineering/Archive 1

To Do List
Ok everyone, please have a look at the to do list, thanks to Biomedeng and comment here where necessary. Particularly, if there is anyone with actual direct knowledge about international programs, that would be great since some of us may not have the perspective (I'm in the US for example). Let's see if we can get this article up to Good Article specs. Thanks! -Cquan 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A good article to look at for guidance would probably be the Electrical engineering article, since it is already a Featured Article. -Cquan 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also here are the abbreviated criteria for Good Articles. The full expanded criteria are at What is a good article?:
 * 1. It is well written.
 * 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * 5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content. (Hopefully the latest edit war, see below on rankings, is over...I hope)
 * 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

External links cleanup/discussion
I've done a cleanup of the external links section and added (what I hope is not controversial) a link to an open directory for BME at dmoz (following in line with other articles such as Bioinformatics), but here are all the links from before for reference. If anyone wants one of the removed ones back (or wants one of the ones that I didn't get rid of removed), propose and discuss below:

Propose to add

 * I suggest you add the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)and the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE) to this page. Hfv (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Herbert Voigt, President, IFMBE.
 * .maselectromedicina.com/ Medical Technology Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.128.243 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * DO NOT ADD - news site, not specific to topic, linking would most likely be spam. -Cquan (after the beep...) 09:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you add founders of some Biomedial Companies such as Earl Baken for Medronic. In addition, I have never done anything but read and donate to Wick. Some suggestions on the correct protocol would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.160.91 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making this suggstion, and for donating to the project in the past. I suggest you create a user account which you do at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Wikipedia&returntoquery=&type=signup&fromhttp=1 (you can find it at the top right corner of the main page).  Once you do, you will presented with a whole bunch of advice about how to get started, and invitations to various pages within Wikipedia that will provide help and guidance. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose to remove

 * Add proposal here for discussion

External links reference list
 * American College of Clinical Engineering (ACCE)
 * Association of Institutions concerned with Medical Engineering (UK)
 * Biomed.org
 * Biomedical Engineering Meetings Calendar
 * Biomedical engineering at the NIH
 * Biomedical Engineering website
 * Danish Society for Biomedical Engineering
 * EBME - Biomedical and Clinical Engineering
 * Foundation supporting biomedical engineering research
 * The Biomedical Engineering Network
 * The Biomedical Engineering Society (US)
 * The Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society
 * The Clinical Engineering Society of Ontario (Canada)
 * BioMedicalWatch
 * Thai Biomedical Engineering Research Society(ThaiBME)
 * SouthEast Texas Clinical Engineering Society (SETCES)

Job finders
 * Biomedical Engineering Jobs
 * Biomedical and Clinical Engineering Jobs

Career advice
 * Medical Physicist or Clinical Engineer
 * Clinical Engineer in the UK

Graduate education?
Maybe I'm just nervous about more mini wiki wars, but I'm not entirely sure that it's a good idea to include a lot of content about graduate BME education. In general, graduate education in any field is either about expanding the depth of the undergraduate education (i.e. masters degree) or delving in depth into a very specific area of the field (i.e. doctoral). On the research side of things, a lot (if not most) of major research in BME is done at universities, powered by the tedious labor of slave...errr..."graduate researchers" :-P. On that note, it's probably not a bad idea to talk about the contributions made to the field by universities, especially at the graduate level, but we should probably steer away from talking about aspects of graduate programs since there is way too much variability and specialization at that level (IMHO). Any thoughts? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess what I was thinking was discussion of the necessity (or not) of a graduate BME degree for certain jobs. It seems to me that there are more BME grad students than those of other Engineering fields and it may lend itself to be more similar to life science programs in that sometimes an undergrad degree is job limiting.  Obviously this is my opinion and has a strong US slant.  I do think the article needs a few sentences/paragraph in the article about BME graduate education (even if it is to acknowledge that most universities with undergrad BME also offer MS and PhDs in BME, and maybe some graduate degree statistics).  Right now the article reads like BME is only an undergrad degree.  Also there are some statistics I was told once about how BME has the most minority and women of all other engineering programs...I can't remember if they were for undergrad/grad, but I'll do some digging.  Biomedeng 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've written a very small blip about graduate education which could definitely use a lot more, but it's a start. Also, I reverted a spam link just now that got me thinking...would it be worth/a good idea to include external links to open courseware projects? For example, MIT is in the process of putting all their courses online with open access to all. They aren't accredited in BME/BE, but since it's MIT, we can probably call that a technicality. Also, there's the Wikiversity project as Sadi pointed out. I'm a little hesitant about this since it could be viewed as spam-linking/not from a neutral point of view. However, as far as I know, there are very very few opencourseware projects that offer anything comprehensive in this field and having all the course material leading to a degree in BME/BE at a major institution would be a valuable resource. If a good one exists, we could also just link to a directory or list of opencourseware projects that have BME/BE material. Any thoughts? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For expansion
Biomedical engineers rule the world and they also operate under two basically different regulatory frameworks.

What are the two frameworks? The article as it currently stands does not mention them, unless it is the FDA versus European approach (which also needs expansion, since the European approach is not explicitly detailed).

Facts?
Is this a dictionary or a soapbox? Is the diatribe against the FDA really that important to define biomedical engineering?

US Bias
No European Universitys listed, lets see some european salery estimates too and labor estimates. Also ive read sources placing the UK as a world leader in Biomed engineering, it needs to be talked about along with other prominent countries in the field. Discordance 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the background to add information about other countries, but I did do a few edits to at least try and remove some of the US biased language... Cquan 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

University list
Would this not be better as a separate article? I'm also not sure what value it brings - it will go out of date quickly and is not encyclopedic. Comments? Jimmyfixme 18:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The field is still relatively new and since there is a section on training, a list of universties is useful since they serve as a good gateway to a lot of information as most of them have more information on their educational programs and research. Listing universities for other fields may not be as useful since who knows how many schools are accredited in say, electrical engineering...a lot. The number for BME is still pretty small, so it's worth listing imho. Cquan 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok on that line, listing the "top programs" is an inherently biased thing, especially without citations or reasoning for it (removed). I also go back on what I said about keeping a list...I think it's too tempting for people to mess with and doesn't especially add anything. I left the link to the ABET list and if anyone knows about BME/BE accrediting in other countries, please add a link so the coverage is more representative. Also having a selected list of schools to link to at the end is a bit biased unless every single school is listed, so that's gone. If anyone has a better idea how to handle this, please feel free. Hope this doesn't ruffle too many feathers.Cquan 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Biomed Bias

Please pardon my lack of experience with wikipedia except as a reference. I'm a BIOMED. I searched for BIOMED during the past six months and today I found this wonderful article. My second impression was oops, they've openned a can of worms. There are many studies and disiplines involved in this subject and it is too easy to get buried in subjects and credentials. In my humble view I would be interested in the vocation of Biomeds, the current work of hospitals, NASA, the US Navy, foriegn military, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. Thank you for your time. Mygtgorg 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Major revision needed
This article is in need of a serious overhaul. The intro needs to be shortened significantly to a single overarching paragraph with the details - the bit about universities, the large-ish bit about clinical engineering - and re-worded to sound more professional. There should be more talk about the specifics regarding the different types of bioengineering - biomaterials, biosignals, medical devices, imaging devices, implantable chips. The whole discussion about the FDA could probably be cut down to a single short paragraph. In general, the electrical engineering article, which has been a featured article, is a great template for what this article could be.

I'm not sure what the policy is around here for major revisions. I could re-write it, but I'd hate to go through all that work to have someone just revert it. I'm just thinking that making a bunch of small changes won't really cut it here, so we might as well change the whole thing at once. I'll watch this for a few days, and if no one objects, then I'll try to make some large changes. -eykanal, 4/24/06 16:07 EST

Is that template still necessary?
The artice has been changed and now seems to cover both Europe and the united states equally, eliminating the u.s bias which was the reason for the template.
 * I've added more material all over that (hopefully) expands the world view of the article and hopefully cuts back on any U.S. bias. This was with some difficulty as, being an American, I don't know as much about what BME is like elsewhere and had to rely on google to dig some sources up. If anything, the article may fall under the perview of a developed country-centric view, but I think that may be unavoidable. I'm removing the template for now and we'll see what people think. -Cquan 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pioneers in BME
I would appreciate expansion of the article with a section on the history of the field and pioneers in the field, including Einthoven, John Webster, Otto Schmitt, etc. Exploring a field's past is intrinsic to understanding how and why it is defined presently and the directions for its future. Robert K S 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Another person to consider is Y. C. Fung who is considered to be the founder of biomechanics. His textbooks on the subject were quite pioneering.  Also, BMES recently came out with an inaugural class of "fellows" who are supposed to be very highly respected biomedical engineers.  I've been looking for a complete list, but cannot find one online (only selected individuals who posted the honor on their sites).  Although it would definately have US bias, it might be a good starting point to better identify the leaders in the field.  Biomedeng 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mechanical Bias
When I majored in biomedical engineering, the curriculum emphasis was more on electrical and electronics aspects. I'm sure it depends on the school and your elective classes. Biomedical engineers are working on research and development of electronic applications such as myo-electric control of limbs, signal processing for imaging applications, biomedical instrumentation for EEG and EMG and cardiac vector imaging, etc. Basically there are two kinds of engineers in the world: mechanical and electrical. Engineers either identify with one or the other: so maybe we could recognize both in the introduction. I'd be glad to help if I may. Mbbradford 08:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anything you can do to reduce the bias of the article would, of course, be helpful, however, I think you will find little agreement that there are "two kinds of engineers" or that an appreciable percentage of engineers fall into electrical and mechanical categories. Software engineering, quality engineering, process engineering, industrial engineering, chemical engineering, etc. are all examples of engineering disciplines that fit neither category well. Robert K S 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to add some images (from other places in WK) which are examples of biomedical engineering. I think this would be a fun way to expand the article and would also address my thought about a mechanical bias.  I bet there are other images on WK also that others might like to add. mbbradfor d  07:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the images to the article today, and removed them from the discussion page here. mbbradfor d  14:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah I think if you go around calling all engineers either mech or electrical, a lot will get mad...I reworded the sentence in question in the article to remove all this engineering variety bias.Cquan 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no turf wars were intended, I was just making an observation about the bias, and thanks for the rewording. I should have ended the mech and EE comment with a ;-) Mbbradford 20:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy and disciplines
Could we discuss how biomedical engineering draws upon the knowledge and expertise of other areas of engineering? I'm in my second year of my combined degree of chemical engineering and biomedical engineering at the University of New South Wales. At UNSW, biomedical engineering is a postgraduate degree which can be combined with certain undergraduate engineering degrees. The combined biomedical engineering degrees offered are bioinformatics, chemical engineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, materials engineering, mechanical engineering, mechatronics engineering, software engineering and telecommunications engineering. When I was trying to decide what field of engineering I was going to combine biomedical engineering with, I spoke with the head of the school. I asked him whether or not some of the combined biomedical engineering degrees were really relevant to the field of biomedical engineering. He said that they would not have developed every combined degree if some of them did not offer students decent career prospects after graduation. Which explains the obvious reason why there isn't a combined civil engineering/biomedical engineering degree! In conclusion, I'd have to say that biomedical engineering is quite a broad field and isn't limited to single fields like electrical engineering and mechanical engineering.Just James 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am crossposting this from the chemical and biomedical engineering wikiproject talk page, but wanted to gather input from the users here.
 * BMES recently published a request for the NRC to consider expanding the taxonomy of BME research doctorate programs (see page 10).  The list is as follows:
 * Bioelectrical and neural engineering
 * Biomedical imaging and biomedical optics
 * Biomaterials
 * Biomechanics and biotransport
 * Biomedical devices and instrumentation
 * Molecular, cellular and tissue engineering
 * Systems and integrative engineering
 * Since there is always a question of what is biomedical engineering (is it mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineering) and what research encompases it maybe this would be a good starting point for discussion? Please share your opinions. Biomedeng 17:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats an excellent list to include within the BME article, perhaps in the biomedical disciplines section. All we need is someone to do the writing??  mbbradfor d  19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added an intro to the disciplines section, including the taxonomic list above with another type of listing. Please comment, correct, improve, etc... -Cquan 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Limbs
I just expanded the article on artificial limbs from a stub and could use some help improving it. This is my first article I've written on Wikipedia Thanks: Nfk17 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rankings
I may be beating a dead horse here, but personally I'm getting sick and tired of people insisting on listing "blah school is ranked #1 in blah field by blah", especially since it's usually U.S. News, with which there is more than enough controversy over the rankings to warrant being weary of including it in a general article that isn't about the particular institution or department. If people have the dire need to fulfill their fame and glory itch with regards to their school, I think they should try doing it with tangible factors that display something substantive, such as research volume, number of citations in papers, etc... Per my being irked by this greatly, I've removed the JHU ranking from the training section, which I would like to remain gone at least until there's more discussion about whether it's worth including. I'm done with my rant...for now. -Cquan 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cquan that the US News, or other rankings, are not objective enough to include in an encyclopedia articles. If anything they belong on the schools article in a section about how well the school's departments are perceived to be.  Is there any official wikipedia guidance on this?  Surely this issue has been addressed previously.  Biomedeng 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This topic seems to be absent on other engineering articles, like mechanical engineering, chemical engineering and electrical engineering, the last one being a featured article. I think that should be a cue that this topic does not belong on a general article on a field. Also, I've found in some cases, such as the similar section on the Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering page, the people adding these are usually associated with whatever university they are promoting...which in the BME case is almost always Johns Hopkins. Officially, the only relevant wikipedia guidance is a general caution to avoid: self-promoting, spam/advertising, citing unreliable or highly biased sources, or treading out of neutral point of view. I would very much like to see this page become a featured article some day, but it will not if it looks like a school advertisement. -Cquan 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any real need for rankings on any engineering article. For one, they change yearly.  Second, most engineers know basically what the top schools are.  Third, I hear the newly established engineering department at Wikiversity is ranked #3 in the world and gaining ground fast. --Sadi Carnot 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I did not know about JHU's bme ranking before actually applying, its hard to believe, but ranking is something that is becoming more and more suppressed as lesser schools also call their programs as biomedical engineering, further cheapening the degree--RCSIRCSIRCSI 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, since you are the only editor that wants it included, this discussion should reach a consensus among the editors before you re-insert the information, see Consensus. Also, since this information is about your alma mater, you may want to consider letting others make the edit if they feel it necessary, per Conflict of interest. -Cquan 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it is my alma mater, so I know it best, I should be allowed to edit. Ranking information is obviously pertinent to the content of the article, you should put your personal preferences aside and offer the reader more extensive information. I also disagree about reaching the consensus since I only see two other people voicing concerns, hardly a big deal.


 * I am of the opinion that rankings of universities should remain independent of any article outlining a certain field of science. This is something I believe regardless of the truth of the rankings. When someone is interested in educating themselves about a topic, I am fairly ceratin they will not be interested in which school may or may not have the best program. Further, rankings of schools should be listed in a rankings article, not in an arbitrary article about a certain aspect of science. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that this information is out of place in this article despite the truth of the statement. Grey Knight 1ce 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is an encyclopedia, it should contain all relevant information. Your "belief" should not factor into the content of this article. Readers are more interested in the wealth of the knowledge rather than your personal preferences. I do not believe ranking is out of the place. --Bme diddy 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your personal belief is what makes you want to put this bit of information in this article in the first place. What I'm trying to say is that our beliefs on this matter are relevent. A consensus has already been reached about whether or not this information is pertinent. That consensus says it is not. You have yet to list reasons why you feel it is pertinent. I'm saying that in an article designed to give a brief summary about a particular field of engineering, it is not important to list which schools have the best rankings. Such information should be put into an article that explains precisely that. The ranking system itself, is also flawed. These rankings are based on universities only in the US which may not be an accurate indicator of which universities are, indeed, the number 1 ranked in this field. The basic message I'm trying to portray here is that your ranking system is based on a sample much too small to have relevence to this article. If you'd like to include the rankings in this article, perhaps include a portion that says "For a current list of Biomedical Engineering rankings for US schools go here" perhaps include it under "External Links" or even "related information" but it does not belong in this article. Despite what you BELIEVE or not. Grey Knight 1ce 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another issue is that these rankings are US rankings, but this is meant to be a world-wide encyclopedia. I still oppose the use of these arbitrary rankings because they do not add value to the article on the subject or the article on the bachelors degree and the are simply do not provide objective information (this is coming from someone in one of the top 3 BME departments according to these surveys, so I am not bitter about the survey results).  Please if you want some kind of ranking come up with a useful, measurable, objective statistic (most governent research money, largest faculty, highest average standardized test scores, department with the most National Science/Engineering academy members, etc, etc). Biomedeng 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos from article


















The code for the photos from the article is below. Most are still on the article, but I removed some hoping we can get some better examples in there:



















Again, with the removal of images? How does this improve the quality of the article? Generally, readers love examples and images which show them, and the captions that go with them.

We might want to consider the target audience: is the article intended for students who want to know where to get training or certification (no, but those sections are still there) or is it for someone who knows nothing about the subject and wants to browse and be informed? mbbradfor d 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more clarity?
I thought it might be a good idea if some of the editors add a section or subsection or paragraph at least to clarify the differences between Medical Physics and BME. The two seem diffrent enough at first, but as someone in the field of Medical Physics, I see a LOT of overlapping between the two, and Im sure a lot of people are curious to know how the two are unique. Some areas like prosthetics are almost exclusively in the domain of BME, but I know "Medical Physicists" working in image processing or designing stents and implants, something which is thought to be in the BME domain. On the contrary, I have friends that are BME, and yet are working in MRI areas, something which is thought to be in the Medical Physics domain. There are a lot of folks whod like to know the differences. Perhaps we can address this issue a bit in detail?--Zereshk 03:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph
The statement made in the introductory paragraph of this page, "As a relatively new discipline, much of the work in biomedical engineering consists of research and development, " is incorrect in many different ways. First, the statement that "biomedical engineering is a relatively new discipline" is simply not true. Several formal university programs in BME date from the 1950's (e.g. Marquette University's program dates from 1958) and research identified as "biomedical engineering" predates World War II. Second, the assertion that "much of the work in biomedical engineering consists of research and development" may be true at universities, but that statement is true of ANY engineering discipline at a university. Much of the work in biomedical engineering consists of development of products and technologies at companies around the world, from giants such as GE Healthcare (US $11B in revenues) and Philips (~ $3B) to small innovative companies developing breakthrough technologies. I would like to take a stab at rewriting some of this stuff, but would like some input from those of you that have been working on this page longer. Dr. Matthew L. Severns (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

biomedbuddy.com
Do not delete link to BiomedBuddy. This is an educational site and a valid site to be referenced by this article. 70.168.177.130 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Links requiring registration are normally to be avoided, per WP:EL. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article already has enough links for the subject. This link is doesn't add to anything significant to a casual reader, as it is a community for professionals. So I would have to say no, this link shouldn't to be included. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical Engineering...
I'm pretty sure this is more CHEMICAL ENGINEERING focussed than Biomedical (which seems to be more mechanic). What do people think? Thanks Mileymileymiley19 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Biomedical Engineering
In the general idea, biomedical engineering has been know about for centuries and even perhaps for thousands of years. A 3,000-year-old mummy from Thebes was uncovered by German archeologists in 2000. This mummy had a wooden prosthetic tied to its foot to use as a big toe. Scientists stated that the wear pattern on the bottom surface shows that it could be the oldest known limb prosthesis. There has been proof that Egyptians used hollow reeds to listen and look in the internal human anatomy. The stethoscope was invented in 1816 by a French physician, Rene Laennec, by rolling up a newspaper to listen to a young woman’s chest.

Early devices in biomedical engineering include crutches, wooden teeth, platform shoes to modern day marvels, which include pacemakers, dialysis machines, artificial organs, and, prosthetics. There is an estimated 32,000 bioengineers working in the various fields of health technology according to data from the National Academy of Engineering.

The root of biomedical engineering dates back to 200 years ago and was based upon early developments in electrophysiology. Early publications by DuBois Reymond showed applications of engineering principles to problems in physiology and discovering the resistance of muscle and nervous tissues to direct current.

Wilhelm Roentgen discovered the cathode-ray tube accidently in 1895. This resulted in penetrating rays, which ended up being called “X” rays. Many studies into tissue-penetrating and tissues-destroying properties followed this discovery. This ultimately produced medical imaging technologies and this eliminated the need for exploratory surgery.

As a new field that emerged alongside biophysics and medical physics, biomedical engineering is an exclusive mixture of engineering, medicine, and science, which meant that in earlier times there were no formal trainings.

Formal trainings followed between World War I and World War II. After World War II, a biophysical society was formed in Germany in 1943. The first conference of biomedical engineering in the United States occurred in 1948 with only about 100 people attending the meeting. This was a fast growing field and the conference attendance grew to nearly 3,000 in 1961.

Many organizations and foundations supported the field of biomedical engineering. By 2002, there was more than $615 million contributed to universities and medical schools to support graduate students, program development, faculty research, and construction for facilities. In the 1950’s, academic programs formed and resulted in three institutions, John Hopkins University, University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Rochester, to be the first to win training grants from the National Institutes of Health for biomedical engineering.

A current organization called the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) was founded in Illinois on February 1, 1968. The sole mission of the society is: “To promote and enhance biomedical engineering knowledge worldwide and its utilization for the health and wellbeing of humankind.”  The initial membership of the society on had 171 founding members and 89 Charter members.

Career Section addition and reference of book
User Engineer2020 would like to add this section: "Careers - Numerous career development opportunities exist for biomedical engineers in traditional pathways including academia, industry, medicine and healthcare, government affairs, intellectual property law, medical device and drug entrepreneurship, and in such innovative alternative paths as public policy, health finance and economics, consulting, social entrepreneurship, litigation, writing, science and technology journalism, forensics, sports engineering, entertainment, environmental engineering, agricultural and food sciences, technology transfer, regulatory affairs, energy technology and policy, and legislative law making. " To me, this sounds like a (largely obvious) laundry list that is pretty much unsalvagably unencyclopedic. Also, this user would like to add the book used as a reference to the Further Reading section: Guruprasad Madhavan, Barbara Oakley, and Luis Kun (2008). Career Development in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. Springer Science+Business Media. This has been spammed across the Bioengineering and Biotechnology articles as well as here and the Career Development article, see. Further, this user created an article on the book itself, which was subsequently deleted as spam, see. It is a very recent title, and doesn't even seem to be by any author of note.
 * STRONG OPPOSE to adding reference (spamming) and career section (spam support, largely empty content). -Cquan (after the beep...) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical technology
Could someone please cleanup the page Medical technology and do proper linking to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.242.101 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bioengineering with Biomedical Engineering
What is the difference? Should we consider merging the two articles. At least there should be more mention of their relationship. Drsemage (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Medical electronics
I was a bit surprised and regret to see that medical electronics redirects to this article. I think it deserves its own article. If somebody more knowledgeable than I could start it then I would be very happy. Thanks. Andries (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Bioadhesive
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bioadhesive, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

edits today by Craziwiki
added a boatload of content in this dif. Per my edit note, there were no sources in this material. It violates WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Those are policies - your desire to contribute is great but you cannot write content based on your own authority. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The contributions were not based on "original research" or "non-verified" work (the reasons that you have cited while reverting the edits). All the information was from IEEE EMBS page (a highly reputed society), which was referenced right at the beginning of the section of Subdisciplines. This page needed huge improvements, and I spent huge amount of my time trying to do that. And I had clearly mentioned in my edit comments that this still needs more work. It was in no way complete; it still needed references, more information under each subdiscipline, etc. What I had done was created a starting template for more people to come and contribute, because clearly there were lot such offers in this Talk page before, but either disinterest or politics did not let those efforts materialize. Good luck getting this page in shape! Craziwiki (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see what you did now. See User_talk:Craziwiki.  Also, per WP:VERIFY you should bring sources as you go.  Sticking a source at the head of a long section doesn't fly. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)