CARVING NICHES IN BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

Roy E. Young, Professor
Agricultural and Biological Engineering Dept.
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0357

Rapid advances are evident daily in both technology and life sciences. Interdisciplinary synergism is also increasingly evident between these two areas of expanding knowledge. In fact, Panitz (1996) identified in Prism , the journal of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), a growing need for more academic programs to apply engineering principles to biological systems. She also noted that such programs have already started to emerge from at least two origins: biomedical engineering and an expanding focus of agricultural engineering beyond traditional production agriculture. One wonders how the contents of these programs might be varying between the origins from whence they come?

Curricula designed to apply engineering principles to living systems first began around 1912 and were called agricultural engineering because they focused on production agriculture. Curricula designed to apply engineering to living systems beyond production agriculture first emerged in the 1960s. Biomedical-oriented engineering programs were initiated primarily for the graduate level at a few institutions such as the one at Johns Hopkins University in 1965 (Panitz, 1996). Two biological-oriented engineering programs, however, emerged also in the early 1960s from traditional agricultural engineering programs. They were designed for the undergraduate level at North Carolina State University and at Mississippi State University. In fact, these departments were at that time named Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department and Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, respectively.

During the past decade, several additional undergraduate engineering curricula focusing on living systems applications have been established from both the biomedical and the agricultural engineering origins. Those with the biomedical engineering orientation have often developed as undergraduate extensions of existing graduate programs. The 1989 establishment of the Development Awards by the Whitaker Foundation to promote biomedical engineering as a profession has enabled nearly $30 million annually in grants to universities for undergraduate programs, graduate fellowships, research, and industrial internships. These funds, which the governing board of the Whitaker Foundation in 1992 decided to deplete by 2006 (Panitz, 1996), have been a very strong stimulus to the development of new undergraduate biomedical engineering programs at numerous institutions in the past five to eight years. Most of these institutions have already had a graduate biomedical engineering (often called bioengineering) program and are teaming their faculties and facilities with other engineering resources to offer undergraduate programs. In fact, 12 of 32 institutions (41%) currently known to offer undergraduate biomedical engineering programs are doing so through existing mainstream academic departments such as mechanical, chemical and electrical engineering, and engineering sciences.

Concurrent with the proliferation of biomedical engineering undergraduate programs in recent years, a notably dynamic transition has occurred in traditional agricultural engineering undergraduate curricula. Currently 33 of 42 traditional agricultural engineering institutions (81%) are offering biologically-oriented curricula broader than production agriculture. They concentrate on the undergraduate level of studies first but usually offer complementary graduate programs as well.

This study examined the academic contents of both the biomedical engineering and the agricultural engineering-origin programs at the undergraduate curriculum level. The primary objective was to identify distinctions between the two approaches. A secondary objective was to examine nomenclature used for departments, curricula and options in both areas.

Procedure:

Copies of undergraduate curricula were solicited from institutions who offered either traditional agricultural engineering curricula and/or biomedical engineering, or bioengineering, curricula. Comparisons were made in program requirements for 20 courses beyond the common English, basic calculus, general chemistry and introductory engineering topics found in most freshmen years. These course titles were grouped into four categories:

* life sciences;

* core engineering;

* advanced engineering;

* mathematics/statistics.

Nomenclature of academic departments and program offerings were also solicited and tabulated. Moreover, names of curricula options were recorded. Name changes have been very dynamic and diverse, particularly in the programs and departments of traditional agricultural engineering origin.

Content:

Course content was identified primarily by semantics utilized in the semester or quarter listings of courses for suggested plans of study for undergraduate programs. The investigation was not able to determine if sub-course length modules of the selected 20 titles were embedded within other courses of less explicit titles. Less explicit titles, however, were infrequently observed.

Table 1 compares the relative percentages of requirements of the selected 20 courses in programs of both agricultural and of biomedical engineering origins. For example, 79.1% of the "bio" programs of agricultural engineering origin require organic chemistry while 48.2% of the biomedical engineering programs require it.

Six course titles were included under the subject area of Life Sciences: biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, physiology and advanced biology. With the exception of physiology, agricultural engineering-based curricula required considerably higher percentages of life sciences courses than the biomedical engineering-based curricula. Agricultural engineering-origin academic curricula included introductory biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, and advanced biological sciences more frequently than the biomedical engineering curricula by 21%, 31%, 33%, 58% and 40%, respectively. On the other hand, physiology is included in the biomedical engineering curricula 53% more often than in the agricultural engineering-origin curricula.

Table 1. Percent of curricula of biomedical and agricultural engineering origins requiring 20 selected course topics. 

Subject Area               Topic               AgE          Biomed 

Life Sciences 			Biology 		88.4 		67.9 
				Organic Chemistry 	79.1 		48.2 
				Biochemistry 		51.2 		17.9 
				Microbiology 		58.1 		0 
				Physiology 		11.6 		64.3 
				Advanced Biology 	39.5 		0 


Core Engineering 		Engr Graphics 		55.8 		28.6 
				Physics 		100 		100 
				Statics 		81.4 		51.8 
				Dynamics 		48.8 		44.6
				Fluids 			86.0 		50 
				Thermodynamics 		90.7 		50 
				Electrical Engr 	76.7 		82.1 


Advanced Engineering 		Biochem Engr 		32.6 		12.5 
				Instrumentation 	2.1 		55.4 
				Transport Phenomena 	32.6 		33.9 
				System Modeling 	27.9 		16.1 


Math/Statistics 		Differential Eqn 	97.7 		98.2 
				Engineering Math 	9.3 		42.9 
				Statistics 		32.6 		42.9 

Core Engineering

Engineering graphics, physics, statics, dynamics, fluids, thermodynamics and introductory electrical engineering were seven courses considered as a Core Engineering category. Physics was included in all curricula from both origins, although the number of required physics courses per program varied from one to four. Introductory electrical engineering, or circuits, and dynamics were required with similar frequency (within 5%) in curricula of both origins, although circuits was included nearly twice as often as dynamics. Agricultural engineering-origin curricula required engineering graphics, statics, fluids and thermodynamics more frequently than biomedical engineering curricula by 27%, 30%, 36% and 41%, respectively. Engineering graphics as a distinct course is currently included in only 56% of the agricultural engineering-origin curricula and only 29% of the biomedical engineering curricula, although modules of instruction might be included in courses with other titles such as introductory engineering and/or design.

Advanced Engineering

The four course titles categorized as Advanced Engineering were biochemical engineering, instrumentation, transport phenomenon and systems modeling. Instrumentation was required with frequencies of 72% in agricultural engineering-origin curricula and 55% in biomedical engineering. Transport phenomenon (not traditional heat and mass transfer) was required with essentially equal frequently in both curricula (~33%). Biochemical engineering and systems modeling were included more frequently in the agricultural engineering-origin curricula, 33% versus 13% and 28% versus 16%, respectively.

Mathematics/Statistics

Differential equations, advanced engineering mathematics and statistics were the three titles categorized as Mathematics/Statistics. Nearly all curricula required mathematics through differential equations (~98% in both origins). Advanced engineering mathematics and statistics were more frequently required in biomedical engineering curricula, 34% and 10% more, respectively.

Nomenclature:

Nomenclature is often reflective of what something is. Consequently, Table 2 offers a summary of the nomenclatures for departments and curricula from both biomedical and agricultural engineering origins. Perhaps these names also help reflect distinctions between these two origins of engineering applied to biological systems.

Table 2. Names and frequency of use for department and curriculum nomenclature. 

Origin 			   Names 				    #Departments	#Curricula 

Biomedical			Biomedical Engineering					16			18
				Bioengineering						6			8
				Chemical, Biological, & Materials Engineering		1				
				School of Engineering					1
		Chemical Engineering, Material Science, & Mining Engineering		1	
				Biomedical and Environmental Engineering		1
				Electrical Engineering and Computer Science		1
				Bioengineering and Neuroscience				1
		Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Science		1
				Electrical Engineering					2			2
				Biomedical & Human Factors Engineering			1
				Human Factors Engineering							1
				Engineering Science								2
				Engineering									2
				Cellular and Biosurface Engineering						1
				Premedical Bioengineering 							1

Agricultural 			Biological and Agricultural Engineering			7			2
				Agricultural Engineering				5			8
				Agricultural and Biological Engineering			5			2
				Biological Systems Engineering				4			7
				Bioresources Engineering				4			3
				Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering			4			3
				Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering			3			2
				Biosystems Engineering					2			5
				Biological Engineering					1			1
				Biological Resources Engineering			1
				Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resources Engineering	1
				Chemical and Bioresources Engineering			1
				Civil, Agricultural, and Geological Engineering		1
				Natural Resources Management and Engineering		1
				Biological and Irrigation Engineering			1
				Civil Engineering					1
				Bioresources and Agricultural Engineering					1
				Food Processing Engineering							1
				Food Engineering								1
				Bioenvironmental Engineering							1
				Horticultural Engineering 							1

Department:

Academic departments from the biomedical engineering orientation are most frequently designated Biomedical Engineering (16 of 29, or 55%) with Bioengineering (6) second in frequency. Electrical Engineering Department is listed twice, while eight other names are singularly designated according to other disciplines, e.g., computer science, electrical, mechanical, materials engineering, depending upon the department where the biomedical program resides.

The names for departments of agricultural engineering origin are considerably more diverse since they have been recently or are currently being transformed from the traditional Agricultural Engineering name. In fact, at the time of this survey, there were 16 different departmental names among the 42 departments of traditional agricultural engineering origin. Thirty-four of these departments were identified as offering curricula with "biological" engineering orientation as opposed to exclusively traditional agricultural production engineering orientation. The most frequently used name was Biological and Agricultural Engineering (7) followed closely by Agricultural and Biological Engineering (5) and Agricultural Engineering (5). Biological Systems Engineering, Bioresources Engineering and Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering were each used four times. Next in frequency of use were Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering (3) and Biosystems Engineering (2). Eight other departmental names were used only once each. Eighty-one percent (34 of 42) of the departments currently include "Bio -" terminology with their departmental name. This dramatic departure from the almost universal Agricultural Engineering Department of a decade ago reflects the reality of a metamorphosis in the discipline.

Curriculum

Curriculum nomenclature is not always synonymous with departmental nomenclature. They frequently parallel, however, for curricula of biomedical engineering origin. Biomedical Engineering is used 18 times and Bioengineering is used eight times. Six other curriculum names are used once or twice each.

Again the curriculum names are more diverse for programs from an agricultural engineering origin. The most frequently used curriculum names in descending order are as follows: Agricultural Engineering (8), Biological Systems Engineering (7), Biosystems Engineering (5), Biological Engineering (5), Bioresources Engineering (3), Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (3), Biological and Agricultural Engineering (2), Agricultural and Biological Engineering (2) and Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering (2). Six other curriculum names are used only once each. Seventy-two percent (31 of 43) of the curriculum names incorporate a "Bio-" nomenclature. A true metamorphosis has again occurred from the traditional "Agricultural Engineering Curriculum. "

Options/Emphases

Because of their evolution through larger engineering departments, many curricula from the biomedical/bioengineering origin have option names such as bioelectrical, biomechanical, biomaterials and biochemical, or they are electrical, mechanical, material science, chemical and computer science options of a designated biomedical engineering/bioengineering program. In other cases, the options may be named similar to specialty courses or specialities found in graduate biomedical engineering programs such as the following: biocomputing, biofluids, bioelectronics, bioimaging, biomedical signals and imaging, biocontrols, bioinstrumentation/biosensors, clinical, optics, quantitative physiology and cellular engineering and biotransport processes. The occasionally offered pre-medical option includes the two physics, organic chemistry and two biological science courses required by most medical schools.

Option names in curricula having a traditional agricultural engineering origin tend to evolve from areas of application such asbioenvironmental, bioprocessing, biosystems, biological systems, biomechanics, biotechnology, biological, food processing, biochemistry, biotechnical, bioresources, pharmaceutical, aquaculture, and food and biological materials. A few options are titled pre-medical or pre-veterinary for preparing undergraduates for professional schools.

What Are the Niches?

Undergraduate curricula of both biomedical and agricultural engineering origins share a mission of applying engineering principles to living systems. Yet they hold clear distinctions between them.

Undergraduate biomedical engineering curricula have been derived almost exclusively from existing graduate level programs, while curricula from the agricultural engineering origin have been initially designed for the undergraduate level. Motivations for development, however, have been distinctly different.

Biological engineering adaptations for traditional agricultural engineering curricula have been motivated by a growing demand for value-added applications associated with biological systems beyond the farm gate and a declining demand for production agriculture applications. Many of the imposing problems of the maturing production agriculture industry have been resolved and solutions have been adapted by large producers in a highly mechanized industry. Meanwhile, however, new biological processing and biotechnology advances have created the potential for value-enhanced biological products well beyond the production phase into food, pharmaceutical, environmental bioremediation and health areas. Needs for engineering scale-up of laboratory processes and products are rapidly growing with numerous genetic manipulations of living systems.

On the other hand, the primary motivator for establishing undergraduate biomedical engineering programs has been the financial incentive offered through the Whitaker Foundation and rapidly evolving medical procedures and diagnostic technologies. Until the availability of lucrative funds from the Whitaker Foundation, many biomedical engineering professionals had subscribed to the philosophy that the specialization demands of their profession were beyond undergraduate training.

Design criteria for the curricula of the agricultural and biomedical engineering origins have also been distinctively different. The modified agricultural engineering curricula have been designed (1) to strengthen the basic biological knowledge of the engineer and (2) to maintain a broad perspective of potential career opportunities ranging from movement into industry with the baccalaureate degree to pursuit of advanced studies. The objective tends first to be education of an accredited engineer and second to be supplementation with sufficient knowledge of life sciences to enable effective communication with biologists on interdisciplinary teams. The curricula do not train biologists. This philosophy translates in academic terms as an "engineering major with a potential life sciences minor." Course content in these curricula are stronger in requirements of basic biological sciences like organic chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology and selected advanced biology topics in plant, animal or microbial areas. Because of the undergraduate engineering priority, demands for the core engineering courses such as engineering graphics, statics, dynamics, fluids and thermodynamics are considerably greater than in biomedical engineering. These curricula are more apt to require introduction to biochemical engineering and biological systems modeling.

In contrast, the design criteria for biomedical engineering curricula tend to be a melting of engineering sciences with biomedical specializations for a particular focus on human medical treatment. The approach often seeks to create an undergraduate complement to already existing graduate biomedical engineers for the purpose of accommodating a limited number of job opportunities for a baccalaureate graduate in the human health field. Degrees range from undergraduate minors offered through traditional engineering disciplines like electrical, chemical, mechanical or materials sciences and afforded through newly adapted undergraduate courses taught by biomedical engineering graduate faculty to stand-alone biomedical engineering undergraduate majors. Course content in undergraduate biomedical engineering stresses specialized biomedical and physiology topics more than the basic life sciences courses. Life sciences courses are usually in specialized areas such as artificial organs and limbs, blood and biofluid mechanics, biomaterials for compatibility with living tissue, medical imaging and instrumentation, biomedical sensors and biomechanics to simulate kinematics and dynamics of human motion. Core engineering courses such as engineering graphics, statics, fluids and thermodynamics are required less than one-half as frequently as in curricula originating through traditional agricultural engineering. About equal emphasis is placed on core dynamics and introduction to electrical engineering courses and on the advanced engineering topic of transport phenomenon, although the applications may be more focused on human health. Advanced engineering courses like instrumentation and biological systems modeling are required less frequently. Yet these curricula tend to require appreciably more engineering mathematics, particularly linear algebra and statistics.

A final distinction between the two origins of "biological" engineering curricula lies in the breadth of applications for the graduate. The biomedical engineering curricula is specifically focused on applications associated with the medical industry, particularly human health. In contrast, the biological engineering curricula from agricultural engineering are much broader in applications of engineering to life sciences. For example, the array of opportunities envisioned for these baccalaureate graduates may span across biotechnology scale-up, bioenvironment and bioremediation, bioprocessing, pharmaceutical, food processing, aquaculture and agriculture, as well as biomedical.

In summary, the niche of the curricula evolving from agricultural engineering is clearly a terminal baccalaureate degree with job opportunities targeted to the broader biological industry and with primary emphasis on an accredited engineering major and a potential minor in basic life sciences. The niche of the biomedical engineering degree is engineering specialization in the medical and human health arenas. One might submit that the former has sufficient synergism with the latter to form a logical sequential education with a broader undergraduate experience and a potentially specialized graduate experience. The time has arrived for the two approaches to explore their synergisms and to seek complementary efficiencies.

References

Panitz, B. 1996. Bioengineering - a growing new discipline. ASEE Prism 6(3):22-28.

Return to Resource Magazine Issues Page

Return to the Resource Home Page | Return to ASAE's Home Page