Hey!
After our recitation session where we discussed how we can make engineering more visible in the world (or why engineers should even care about being visible) and they difference between individual health and public health, we talked about how we can lower the cost of the health care, which is driving some people insane this very moment. We did not come up with ten new technologies (we were told to do that on our own), but we did talk about the relationship between new medical technologies and the rising costs of health care. We said that new technologies can drive the cost of health care down but only after first making it spike; the newer technology will cost money to develop, test, and manufacture for hospitals and other health care providers. Also, as technology keeps progressing, there will always be a new "state-of-the-art" something that costs a lot of money will be wanted by the best hospitals and doctors. Also, people will want the state-of-the-art technologies as well because no one wants to risk his or her health.

So, after thinking about how it seems contradictory that new technologies can lower the cost of health care, I started thinking about new technologies anyway. Here is my list of potential new technologies. (I put technology in quotes because not every thing listed is a technology but more of an idea for how the cost of health care can be reduced).

10 Ways "Technology" Can Reduce Health Care Costs
1. better diagnostic technology: If we can diagnose people faster, and more accurately, we can treat the person for the correct disease sooner without a trial and error of different types of medications for a disease that the doctor isn't even sure the person has yet.

2. minimally invasive procedures: These procedures would require less time for patient recovery, which would mean less time in the hospital, which can be expensive. Also, less surgeons would be needed for the operation as well as less anesthesia; the risk of getting a disease or another complication from a much larger operation would also be reduced, which could also lower the cost for the patient and the hospital.

3. longer shelf life of medicines: This could reduce health care costs because it would stop the throwing away of medicine that costs money to produce.

4. stop research for "unnecessary" drugs: This isn't really a technology, but it more of a pet peeve of mine. I feel that too many drug companies are putting too much money into research for unnecessary drugs simply to make money. For example, the drug Latisse, which is produced by Allergan Inc., was created to help people grow their own eyelashes. The company says this medication is to treat hypotrichosis, but the commercials, at least to me, look like they are advertising to women for cosmetic purposes. I am sure having this disorder is not pleasant, but it is not like having cancer. I feel drug companies' main goals should be work for cures for the deadliest diseases first before worrying about people's eyelashes.

5. making health records digital: It would save a lot of time and money (and trees) if there was a central system where people's health histories could be stored for easy remote look-up in any hospital, doctor's office, or dentist's office. This system would also make looking up family histories of diseases much more simpler and reliable.

6. disinfecting everything: I know it is not possible, but killing disease-carrying germs will decrease doctor's visits, the need for medication, and health care costs. Soap and water-free disinfecting solutions are a great way for people to disinfect themselves and frequently used surfaces in only a few minutes or even seconds; every little bit counts when it comes to disease prevention.

7. personalizing medicine: This means that doctor's will create different doses or means of treating patients even if they have the same illness; new studies are starting to show that not every person reacts the same way to medicine. If doctor's start taking genetic factors into consideration, among other factors, then the success rate of diagnosing and treating illnesses will go up, and the time in a hospital or on medication will decrease. A group, the Personalized Medicine Coalition, or PMC, lists "promises" for personalized medicine; these promises are "better diagnoses and earlier interventions," "more efficient drug development," and "more effective therapies."

8. fixing insurance groups: Some insurance groups do not cover all procedures or all hospitals or doctors; this could be for financial reasons such as a group does not want to spend money on thousands of dollars of plastic surgery even if there is a medical reason. Insurance groups should work more like non-profit organizations; being benevolent and actually caring about the well-being of a person instead of worrying about whether someone's chemotherapy treatment is going to bankrupt them.

9. educating the public: This may seem trivial, but educating people about health and health-related issues can really make an impact. For example, the truth campaign, which seeks to educate people about the dangers of cigarettes and what cigarette companies don't want you to know, is only one such organization that is striving to help people make smart and healthy decisions for their lives. The more people make smart decisions, such as eating right, exercising, and avoiding drugs and alcohol, the more people can save their own money and reduce health care costs.

10. removing fees: There are so many associated with a doctor's visit that even people with insurance do not want to get a check-up. For example, to get health papers signed for my high school in order for me to play volleyball, my doctor charged us $20 just to sign what should have been signed for free! Removing these fees would make people happier, which could also make people more likely to go to the doctor if they are feeling sick before their sickness escalates into a more dangerous illness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many people have their own ideas of how to reduce the health care costs in the United States; some of these claims may actually be reasonable while others are scams. Health care providers, as well as the general public, who are looking to reduce their yearly spending should be wary of such scams. Here is a list of some people/groups/organizations that are making such claims.

1. Mindshift Technologies
Mindshift Technologies claims to provide IT support for thousands of doctors and hospitals all around the world in order to make data retrieval and storage easier for health care professionals. According to the website, "you [meaning health care providers] have a lot on your plate, without the added difficulty of managing a complex and mission-critical IT infrastructure." This group seems to have a good point; if health records are digitized, problems with computers and technology could create very expensive problems for health care professionals so having IT experts could save both time and money. At the same time, this group seems very interested in putting a few extra dollars in its pockets; they throw around fancy computer phrases such as "SAS 70 type II data centers" to people who may not know what they mean (such as myself) in order to look more appealing to potential customers who may be impressed by such terminology.

2. iRobot

iRobot, the same company who created the Roomba vacuum cleaner, is proposing that robot nurses can help reduce the growing health care costs in this country. The CEO stated that these "nurses" could help monitor patients, especially the elderly who are confined to their homes; the "nurses" would help doctors examine, diagnose, and make sure that the person is taking medications on time. I feel that this is wishful thinking as of today; these robots would be very expensive and not covered by any standard insurance policies, so few people would want to spend a lot of money on one. This technology does look promising for the future, however. As this technology becomes less and less expensive, people will start to want it in their homes even if it is only to show-off. This company, being a for-profit company, will obviously benefit financially from these robots; this company's main objective is to make a profit, not solve the health care crisis.

Hey!
This week in bioengineering we are going to be discussing engineering and how it almost seems invisible in the world, yet it is omnipresent and very important in people's everyday lives. To kick off this discussion, and to get a better understanding of what engineering is and what engineers created over the years, we were told to look up the "Greatest Engineering Achievements of the Twentieth Century" according to the National Academy of Engineering. Before I went to this website, I decided to come up with my own list of 20 greatest engineering achievements. (My list is the result of collaboration with two friends at 3 o'clock in the morning. They thought I was insane, and they made fun of some of my listed "achievements,"particularly credit cards...)

Jess's List of the Greatest Engineering Achievement's in the 20th Century
1. microwaves
2. television
3. refrigeration
4. air conditioning
5 computers
6. internet
7. calculators
8. GPS
9. cell phones
10. artificial hearts
11. commercial air planes and high speed trains
12. credit cards (the magnetic strip?)
13. LEDs
14. CFLs
15. laptops
16. nuclear bombs
17. hybrid cars
18. biofuels
19. water purification systems
20. space and things to do with space (transportation, exploration, imaging)

After I looked on the website, I realized that my list was more specific; for example, I put "artificial hearts" while the website had "health technologies." The following is the list from the National Academy of Engineering.

1. Electrification
2. Automobile
3. Airplane
4. Water Supply and Distribution
5. Electronics
6. Radio and Television
7. Agriculture Mechanization
8. Computers
9. Telephone
10. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
11. Highways
12. Spacecraft
13. Internet
14. Imaging
15. Household Appliances
16. Health Technologies
17. Petroleum and Petrochemical Technologies
18. Laser and Fiber Optics
19. Nuclear Technologies
20. High-performance materials

Hey!
So on Thursday we had our discussion about the Swine Flu; we had to discuss whether or not we would personally get a vaccine for it and who should be the first group of people to get it if only 500,000 vaccines are available at first.

The first question we discussed was "Should I get a swine flu shot?"
Initially, we took a poll to see who would get one; only two people stated that they would get a shot if it was made available to them and was considered safe and effective. We each stated our personal reasons for whether or not we would get the vaccine. Some of the reasons for each opinion are:

FOR "I would get the shot"
- "it is better to be safe than sorry"
- "even if I won't die from the swine flu, I can prevent it from spending to people who are more at risk"
- "if I had the chance to prevent a disease I would take it"
- "there doesn't appear to be too much risk involved"
- "I just would"
- "my parents would want me to get it"
- "I live in close quarters with other students, which makes disease transfer a lot easier"
- "I am prone to illness"

FOR "I would not get the shot"
- "the vaccine was made in a hurried fashion" <-- someone cited a source that stated that the process for approving this vaccine was cut short because the swine flu came under the category of "the flu;" if the swine flu was deemed an entirely new disease, then the process for approving a vaccine would have been much longer. As a result of this, this person was skeptical of a vaccine that did not experience the scrutiny and rigorous testing as did other vaccines which were approved by the FDA.
- "I feel I am a healthy individual"
- "I feel other people who are more at risk for having complications from this disease should get it"
- "I feel there is not enough research on the vaccine and the potential side effects from it"
- "I don't want to get nerve damage" <-- someone found information about the swine flu outbreak in the 70s and the corresponding vaccine; a potential harmful effect of that vaccine was a crippling nerve disease.
- "people are blowing this disease out of proportion" <-- according to Center for Disease Control's website, the seasonal flu contributes to the death of about 36,000 people a year in the United States; another 200,000 people are hospitalized (CDC). The Swine Flu, on the other hand, has contributed to the death of 2,625 people in the Americas according to the New England Journal of Medicine who cited the WHO for their statistics (New England Journal of Medicine).
- "if I am not required to get something then I am not going to get it"
- "I don't like shots"
- "I think I had the swine flu a few months ago"
- "I don't even understand why this disease is getting so much attention"

According to our discussion, it seemed like many people would not get the vaccine because they felt that it was not researched and tested thoroughly; people do not want to get a potential complication as a result of the vaccine. For example, someone cited a source that said that the vaccine in the 70s caused more complications than did the swine flu; people do not want a repeat of that situation. Others, myself included, believe that this is disease is being thrown out of proportion and do not understand exactly why. Part of our discussion was talking about why this disease is getting so much press time and attention, and I do not believe we came up with a solid answer to this question.

In concluding this question, I must stick to my original decision: I would not get a swine flu shot. I agree with what we discussed: the vaccine was hurried, the swine flu appears less dangerous than the seasonal flu, and that people with higher risks should get the vaccine. Also, as another student pointed out, I should not be the one responsible for preventing a disease from spreading; if someone is worried that he or she may get the disease, then he or she should do everything to protect his or herself and not worry about the choices of another people. (That may have sounded mean, but I did not mean for it to).
(Also, being stubborn, I must also add that the more people rely on antibiotics, antivirals, and vaccines, the more dangerous and deadly bacteria and viruses will become as they mutate to become resistant to these antibiotics, antivirals, and vaccines that some people believe will cure any disease in the world.)

The second question we discussed was "If there was only 500,000 swine flu shots available this fall, who should get them?
As a group, we came up with a list of different groups of people who should get the first shots and reasons for why we said that each group should get the shots first. Our list differs slightly from a list posted online by the state of Pennsylvania on the H1N1 virus.
According to the state of Pennsylvania, these groups are listed as "priority groups:"
+ persons 6 months to 24 years old
+ health care providers and EMS personnel
+ parents or caregivers of children under 6 months
+ pregnant women

1. CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 5
-- they are constantly in close contact with people
-- they are more likely to touch a lot of things with many germs and then touch other things, people, and there own mouths
-- if children get the swine flue, then they can spread it to their parents, other children, and pediatricians

2. HEALTH CARE WORKERS
-- the job of a health care professional or worker is to not only treat diseases, but to also prevent them, so they should take every measure available to prevent the spread of any illness
-- they are in close contact with people who are more likely to have complications as a result of the swine flu or are at higher risk of catching it (the elderly, people with poor immune systems, or people who currently have infections)

3. COLLEGE STUDENTS LIVING IN DORMS
-- they are in close contact with one another, which makes it easier to transfer germs, bacteria, and viruses
-- according to the CDC, the swine flu seems to be affecting people under the age of 25 more harshly than it affects older people (CDC)
-- students can be carriers of the disease to other people who may not have very strong immune systems
-- students sometimes ignore warming signs of a disease and do not seek medical attention (My mom said I am one of those people and therefore is convinced that I will die from meningitis because I will insist that nothing is wrong with me. For this reason, she calls everyday and asks how I am feeling).

After discussing the pros and cons of each specific group, I came to the conclusion that it would most beneficial if health care workers received the first vaccinations. They are supposed to help treat and prevent diseases, not spread it. I know I would be very angry if I went to the doctors for a routine check up and ended up catching the swine flu, or any other illness, from the nurse who took my blood pressure.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After discussing the two questions, we talked about how future technologies in medicine and bioengineering can help people prevent the swine flu pandemic and other highly contagious diseases in the world and, specifically, at Penn. Before we even started coming up with any ideas, we talked about how our ideas have be practical; we have to consider economic resources as well as the availability of resources needed for our new technology. We only had a few minutes to discuss how future technologies could help in the prevention of diseases. For managing the spread of disease of Penn, we only came up with standard means of prevention:
- washing hands
- cleaning surfaces
- disinfecting everything
- allowing to students to view a lecture online if he or she is sick and cannot attend a lecture

In terms of technologies, we come up with:
- an automated machine that disinfects a stall in a bathroom or shower automatically (kind of like the automatic shower cleaner that is currently on the market)
- a device that can detect certain diseases by touching it (sort of like a fingerprint scanner for security purposes)

An automated machine that disinfects public places can help prevent diseases from spreading from person to person; this machine would be practical because it would not cost an exorbitant amount of money to manufacturer (or one would hope anyway) and the current technology is available to create this type of device. A device that can detect a disease (such as a doctor's office or before a space with a lot off people in close contact with each other) can make diagnosing diseases much simpler and faster. Also, this could alert someone who may be sick before he or she starts to even experience symptoms of his or her illness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before coming to Penn, my high school stressed the importance of citing sources. (They made it seem like you would die if you forgot even one citation). After getting to Penn, I realized that citing sources is very important but so is the reliability and quality of the sources I choose to use. For example, I can cite one hundred sources, but if none of them are reliable then my paper or research is not very substantial, scholarly, or even all correct. I also learned that it is very important to question sources for possible motives, which can include economic or personal gain. Let me take researching the effectiveness of a new drug for the treatment of cancer for example. If I look on the website for the company who manufactures the drug, it only makes sense that they would post very good things about the drug, state that the side effects are rare, and basically "advertise" their drug to the public, including medical professionals. I learned that I can still use this source if I have sources, which can be critical, in order to back up my research or even show discrepancies between the two "reliable" sources. Also, it is important for me to find out where "reliable" sources got their statistics or data; data can be interpreted in different ways depending on what a person wishes to support. Basically, not only do I have to cite all of my sources (or else I will die, supposedly), I have to check the reliability of my sources, the date of publication (material could become outdated), and the possible motives of the people who create my sources.

BE Discussion - Swine Flu

Hey!
So my first assignment for my bioengineering class is to find credible information and sources about the swine flu vaccine in order for me to draw my own conclusions about whether or not I should get one or who should be the first group of people to receive the vaccine. This assignment is starting to sound like the time when I had an argument with my doctor because I refused to get two shots that she wanted me to take; I refused them because I do not want to take medicine/vaccine if I have a choice not to. I try to stay away from any type or medication because I do not believe that constantly pushing medicine on people whenever they have a cramp is the right path for the medical field (though I know many people would disagree with me). I wanted to post this before I went and researched the vaccine, the illness, and other related material so that I can see if perhaps my opinion changes after reading the information; also, I have no doubt that some very good points will be brought up in our class discussion tomorrow that also may influence my somewhat stubborn opinion that I currently have.

More information is soon to come!
(I am very stubborn so it will take some good debating skills and information to force me to change my mind!)

Hey! My name is Jess, and I am an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania studying bioengineering. In this major, I would like to learn how engineering skills and problem solving techniques are used in the field of biology, especially medicine. I am very interested in medicine because I am considering applying to medical school; I would like to have an engineering background, however, so I stand out in the application process and develop better problem solving skills. Specifically, I would love the opportunity to work in a research lab with a professor; I enjoy hands-on learning so learning the inner workings of a lab, including equipment and procedure, would be a dream come true. Besides the hands-on desire, I would also like to learn about the range of topics in which bioengineering covers; it is a vast discipline that currently overwhelms me with so many choices!

Initially, my major was mechanical engineering; I changed my major even before beginning my freshman year because I realized I liked biological "machines" better than the typical machine in, for example, cars. I came to this realization after talking to my cousin and her friends who were all starting medical school this fall; I enjoyed talking about the human body, new vaccines, and other related topics. Since I did not want to fully divorce engineering, I found a good fit - bioengineering. With bioengineering, I can apply engineering principles and ways of thinking and problem solving to biological and medical problems and mysteries. Though I was immediately fascinated by being able to merge engineering with biology, I never truly understood, and still do not understand, exactly what it is that bioengineers do on a day to day basis. Talking to a few professors in a panel during my Advancing Women in Engineering Pre-Orientation Program, I learned that bioengineers can work as scientists in some respects; they can work in labs, perform experiments, and draw their own conclusions about the workings of cells or other biological "machines."

As I explore the rapidly-expanding field of bioengineering, I begin to find many sub-fields that catch my interest; I would like to learn about each sub-field so that I can become more familiar with each one and decide exactly what I would like to do with my degree. Some options/fields/topics that intrigue me (as of today) are:
tissue engineering
pharmaceutical engineering
genetic engineering
This list will probably change in about a couple of weeks; I am constantly changing my mind about something or another.

As I was looking up some sub-fields in bioengineering, I came across an article that really shows how bioengineering is picking up speed in the technological world; cells are starting to be studied and even modeled using a computer according to Brandon Keim, who wrote an article entitled "Cellular Counter Brings Computer Programming to Life" for Wired Science. In this article, Keim states that counters combining different proteins are being used to better model different types of cells on a computer. An aspect of the article that I found was interesting was that, in order to be able to model cells, different computerized components were being used one by one to "build" a cell, just as different machine parts or circuits are built piece by piece. I found this interesting because it shows the connection between the different types of engineering; bioengineers can work like electrical engineers, as suggested by James Collins of Boston University, while using mechanical ideas in order to study something that is living. This aspect of engineering interests me specifically; I am the type of person who cannot do the same thing on a day to day basis, so having the opportunity to study and work on projects using different approaches and processes appeals to me greatly.

Reading this article, I could not help but think about how far the bioengineering field has progressed even in the last couple of years. New advances in medicine and technology have greatly propelled this somewhat new field. One of the most exciting aspects of entering such an expanding field is that I have the chance to become a part of a project or research team that can stumble on a breakthrough that drastically changes people's understanding of biology or another aspect in medicine. For example, the creation of the artificial heart for transplants was a milestone for both the medical and engineering worlds. I would love to have been a part of the team of scientists, doctors, and researchers who developed the the first usable heart; I would like to have the feeling that all my hard work, countless hours spent in the lab, and tedious experiments were all worth something to someone who benefited from my work. I feel that working as a bioengineering should not be for fame or glory but for the advancement of technologies that can save lives, make lives easier, and prevent illnesses.