Monday, November 9, 2009
Design Project
I don't think we've heard the specific instructions for our design project yet, but I'm sure it will be very cool. I will do my best to follow Dr. Bogen's advice and avoid stupid mistakes like reinventing the broken wheel (that one really does make you sound stupid, doesn't it?), although this will be tough since there seem to be many mistakes that can be made in design projects. The design project will be a challenge for me because I am not usually very methodical, but I will have to be for the project. I hope it goes well. I seem to be the only person blogging about this but I'm not sure what else the topic would be this week.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Challenges of Writing a Research Paper
Writing my BE research paper was an excellent learning experience and a fun process. I went to the biomedical library and checked out the only three books I could find on the shelves about contact lenses, only to find that they were from the 1980s, largely outdated, and of minimal usefulness. I then struggled for hours to find sources online.
Once I actually started writing the paper, things only got worse. At one point, I came across two sources that disagreed on one of the causes for dry eyes among contact wearers. I looked further into the situation and found that among the 9 sources cited by those two sources on the subject, 3 supported one position, 3 others argued the opposite, and 3 were neutral. At this point I was completely confused. Finally, I concluded that the lack of scientific consensus indicates that this topic, the influence of lens dehydration on dryness in the eye, is not yet fully understood
Later on, I finished my detailed analysis only to find that my analysis was much more specific and detailed than my diagram to the point where the two seemed almost unrelated. I quickly rushed to create a second diagram exploring certain parts of the process in more detail to show the link between the analysis and the main diagram.
While I was concluding my paper with a more general discussion of the topic, my skepticism was aroused at the sight of a company (AC Lens) claiming that "some clinical studies" suggested that preservatives caused dryness and discomfort in patients' eyes. AC lens used this to endorse a specific brand, probably one that they sell. In my paper, I mentioned this information but warned of the dangers of blindly believing such dubious sources and went on to outline suggestions from more reliable authors.
Finally, I submitted my paper in the dropbox on Blackboard. This was possibly the most frustrating part of the process. My paper was titled Nelson-Sundaram-Report, as required, but when submitting it, I entered my name in the slot labeled "name" (seems logical, doesn't it)? I was promptly informed by my TA at recitation that this was incorrect and Nelson-Sundaram-Report, the DOCUMENT'S name, should go in the "name" slot while submitting document, even if the document itself had the proper name. Not surprisingly, several other students had similar problems with these confusing instructions, although I seemed to be the only student foolish enough to enter my own name in place of the document's. Most other students who messed up used the COURSE name, BE 100. If you ask me, when there are so many different names that could be used, everything would be much simpler if only Blackboard could specify "Document name" in the data entry field.
Seriously, though, the most challenging part was writing the actual paper. It was a refreshing feeling to be finished. I enjoyed writing the paper and I think I learned a lot.
Once I actually started writing the paper, things only got worse. At one point, I came across two sources that disagreed on one of the causes for dry eyes among contact wearers. I looked further into the situation and found that among the 9 sources cited by those two sources on the subject, 3 supported one position, 3 others argued the opposite, and 3 were neutral. At this point I was completely confused. Finally, I concluded that the lack of scientific consensus indicates that this topic, the influence of lens dehydration on dryness in the eye, is not yet fully understood
Later on, I finished my detailed analysis only to find that my analysis was much more specific and detailed than my diagram to the point where the two seemed almost unrelated. I quickly rushed to create a second diagram exploring certain parts of the process in more detail to show the link between the analysis and the main diagram.
While I was concluding my paper with a more general discussion of the topic, my skepticism was aroused at the sight of a company (AC Lens) claiming that "some clinical studies" suggested that preservatives caused dryness and discomfort in patients' eyes. AC lens used this to endorse a specific brand, probably one that they sell. In my paper, I mentioned this information but warned of the dangers of blindly believing such dubious sources and went on to outline suggestions from more reliable authors.
Finally, I submitted my paper in the dropbox on Blackboard. This was possibly the most frustrating part of the process. My paper was titled Nelson-Sundaram-Report, as required, but when submitting it, I entered my name in the slot labeled "name" (seems logical, doesn't it)? I was promptly informed by my TA at recitation that this was incorrect and Nelson-Sundaram-Report, the DOCUMENT'S name, should go in the "name" slot while submitting document, even if the document itself had the proper name. Not surprisingly, several other students had similar problems with these confusing instructions, although I seemed to be the only student foolish enough to enter my own name in place of the document's. Most other students who messed up used the COURSE name, BE 100. If you ask me, when there are so many different names that could be used, everything would be much simpler if only Blackboard could specify "Document name" in the data entry field.
Seriously, though, the most challenging part was writing the actual paper. It was a refreshing feeling to be finished. I enjoyed writing the paper and I think I learned a lot.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Dehydration Topic and Sources
I started off with the idea of researching contact lenses and how they react to chemicals, among other ideas. I began doing research on contact lenses in general, at which point I probably came across at least 20 different sources. I went through various topics about which I could choose to write my paper, including gas permeability of contact lenses and the scattering of light in imperfectly functioning contact lenses. I finally settled on the topic of dehydration of contact lenses for two reasons: When Dr. Bogen revealed the details of the machine diagram, this was the topic which made the most sense to diagram. Also, dehydration is a serious problem for contact lens wearers and is a highly relevant topic in current contact lens science. Below is a list of the sources I found on lens dehydration. Note that I have edited this post since I first wrote it, updating it to the APA format that Dr. Bogen prefers and removing some of my sources which turned out to be unnecessary.
Albarran C., Pons, A.M., Lorente, A., Montes, R., and Artigas, J.M. (1997). Influence of the tear film on optical quality of the eye. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 20(4), 129-135.
AC Lens (2009). Eye Health: Dry Eyes and Contact Lens Wear. Retrieved October 21, 2009 from http://www.aclens.com/dry-eyes.asp.
British Contact Lens Association (2009). Types of Contact Lenses. Retrieved October 21 2009 from http://www.bcla.org.uk/types_of_contact_lenses.asp.
Dorronso, Carlos, Barbero, Sergio, Llorente, Lourdes, and Marcos, Susana (2003). On eye measurement of optical performance of rigid gas permeable contact lenses based on ocular and corneal aberrometry. Optometry and Vision Science: The Journal of the American Academy of Optometry, 80(2), 115-125.
Fonn, Desmond (2007). Targeting contact lens induced dryness and discomfort: what properties will make lenses more comfortable. Optometry and Vision Science, 84(4), 279-285.
Hamano, Hikaru and Herbert E. Kaufman (1987). The Physiology of the Cornea and Contact Lens Applications. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Hartstein, Jack, Swanson, Kenneth V., and Harris, Charles R. (1991). Contemporary Contact Lens Practice. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book.
Larke, John (1985). The Eye in Contact Lens Wear. London: Butterworths.
N., Efron, and Morgan, P. B. (1999). Hydrogel contact lens dehydration and oxygen transmissibility. Eye and Contact Lens – Science and Clinical Practice, 25(3), 148-151.
Subbaraman, Lakshman N. and Jones, Lyndon (2009). What influences contact-lens related dry eye? Contact Lens Spectrum July 2009 document 164.
Tutt, Ron, Bradley, Arthur, Begley, Carolyn, and Thibos, Larry N. (2000). Optical and Visual Impact of Tear Break-up in Human Eyes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 41, 4117-4123.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2008). Focusing on Contact Lens Safety. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048893.htm.
Albarran C., Pons, A.M., Lorente, A., Montes, R., and Artigas, J.M. (1997). Influence of the tear film on optical quality of the eye. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 20(4), 129-135.
AC Lens (2009). Eye Health: Dry Eyes and Contact Lens Wear. Retrieved October 21, 2009 from http://www.aclens.com/dry-eyes.asp.
British Contact Lens Association (2009). Types of Contact Lenses. Retrieved October 21 2009 from http://www.bcla.org.uk/types_of_contact_lenses.asp.
Dorronso, Carlos, Barbero, Sergio, Llorente, Lourdes, and Marcos, Susana (2003). On eye measurement of optical performance of rigid gas permeable contact lenses based on ocular and corneal aberrometry. Optometry and Vision Science: The Journal of the American Academy of Optometry, 80(2), 115-125.
Fonn, Desmond (2007). Targeting contact lens induced dryness and discomfort: what properties will make lenses more comfortable. Optometry and Vision Science, 84(4), 279-285.
Hamano, Hikaru and Herbert E. Kaufman (1987). The Physiology of the Cornea and Contact Lens Applications. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Hartstein, Jack, Swanson, Kenneth V., and Harris, Charles R. (1991). Contemporary Contact Lens Practice. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book.
Larke, John (1985). The Eye in Contact Lens Wear. London: Butterworths.
N., Efron, and Morgan, P. B. (1999). Hydrogel contact lens dehydration and oxygen transmissibility. Eye and Contact Lens – Science and Clinical Practice, 25(3), 148-151.
Subbaraman, Lakshman N. and Jones, Lyndon (2009). What influences contact-lens related dry eye? Contact Lens Spectrum July 2009 document 164.
Tutt, Ron, Bradley, Arthur, Begley, Carolyn, and Thibos, Larry N. (2000). Optical and Visual Impact of Tear Break-up in Human Eyes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 41, 4117-4123.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2008). Focusing on Contact Lens Safety. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048893.htm.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Research Paper
At my last Chemistry 053 lab lecture, our professor told us that contact lenses were once banned in chemistry lab, but claims that contacts are extremely dangerous in laboratory conditions have since been strongly questioned, so the wearing of contacts is now up to our discretion. I was curious about why this should be so and looked up some information about contacts. Apparently, the materials out of which contact lenses are made have changed over time, and some of the newest types of contact lenses are manufactured specifically to transmit more oxygen between the eyes and the atmosphere [1]. It was once a common belief that, in laboratory conditions, gases could get trapped under contact lenses, dissolve into the water of the eyes, and cause permanent blindness, or that chemicals could get trapped beneath the lenses and similarly do serious damage. Many sources now suggest, however that this is a myth.
I found this information very interesting. I plan to research the structure and function of the latest types of contact lenses. The following are questions of interest:
1. What are the lenses made out of?
2. How are the lenses constructed?
3. How do the lenses improve vision?
4. What substances can pass through the lenses?
5. Can any substances pass through the lenses in one direction only?
6. How do lenses dry out? Why does this cause irritation? Can this be reduced?
7. What are the shortcomings of the best currently available lenses? How can the technology be improved?
[1] Segre, Liz. Contact Lens Basics. All About Vision. April 2009. Available: http://www.allaboutvision.com/contacts/contact_lenses.htm.
I found this information very interesting. I plan to research the structure and function of the latest types of contact lenses. The following are questions of interest:
1. What are the lenses made out of?
2. How are the lenses constructed?
3. How do the lenses improve vision?
4. What substances can pass through the lenses?
5. Can any substances pass through the lenses in one direction only?
6. How do lenses dry out? Why does this cause irritation? Can this be reduced?
7. What are the shortcomings of the best currently available lenses? How can the technology be improved?
[1] Segre, Liz. Contact Lens Basics. All About Vision. April 2009. Available: http://www.allaboutvision.com/contacts/contact_lenses.htm.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Structure
Below are three pictures of a concrete shelter that stands between Van Pelt Manor and Class of 1925, the two components of Gregory College House at 3909 Spruce Street.
The first picture, taken from several yards away, reveals a structure with steps, a roof, and walls, as well as two openings for entering and exiting. The whole structure is several yards in every dimension. The second picture, taken from a few feet away, shows that the walls are made of distinct concrete slabs attached to each other. Each slab is a few feet long and wide and several inches thick. The third picture, a closeup taken just inches from the surface of the concrete, reveals that the concrete is composed of sand and stones rigidly cemented together but loose enough that numerous air pockets are visible (if not in the low-resolution picture, at least upon close inspection of the structure itself). Most of the stones are less than an inch in every dimension.
The overall structure, with its rigidity and upright form, resembles a tree trunk. The thick trunk of an old hardwood tree supports the weight of the impressively tall verticals structure just as the concrete walls of the shelter hold up the roof. A tree trunk so powerfully resists compression that a car will crumple when driven into one, likely causing injuries for the passenger. The concrete would similarly resist deformity in a collision.
The uniform nature of the array of identical concrete slabs resembles the crystal structure of purified table salt (NaCl), which also has regularly spaced units tightly bonded together. A wall made of concrete slabs is strong and solid, just a salt crystal is also bonded strongly enough to resist melting until very high temperatures. Both concrete and salt, however, have their weaknesses. Salt dissolves easily in water at room temperature. Concrete displays an impressive resistance to compression, but cracks easily under tensile strain.
The concrete itself resembles glass. Glass is an amorphous solid that moves at room temperature, but not visibly. Similarly, concrete moves around when poured until it dries. Once it dries, however, concrete seems uniform from a large distance, although in truth it is a heterogenous mixture. Glass also contains several impurities that are not visible to the eyes.
The structure of the shelter at all three length scales has clues to its function. The concrete is a heterogenous mixture but it is frozen in place, which contributes to the rigidity of the concrete blocks. The uniformity of the blocks combines with the rigidity of concrete itself to lend to the shelter the strength which is so obvious to the viewer, and which is a key feature in a structure built for shelter.
I did not notice all of these fascinating aspects of the shelter until I did this assignment. As a resident of Van Pelt Manor house, I walk past the shelter every day on my way to classes and meals. I never stopped, however, to question how and why the shelter looks and functions as it does. Blogging about structure forced me to see this conspicuous object in a much more meaningful way.
The first picture, taken from several yards away, reveals a structure with steps, a roof, and walls, as well as two openings for entering and exiting. The whole structure is several yards in every dimension. The second picture, taken from a few feet away, shows that the walls are made of distinct concrete slabs attached to each other. Each slab is a few feet long and wide and several inches thick. The third picture, a closeup taken just inches from the surface of the concrete, reveals that the concrete is composed of sand and stones rigidly cemented together but loose enough that numerous air pockets are visible (if not in the low-resolution picture, at least upon close inspection of the structure itself). Most of the stones are less than an inch in every dimension.
The overall structure, with its rigidity and upright form, resembles a tree trunk. The thick trunk of an old hardwood tree supports the weight of the impressively tall verticals structure just as the concrete walls of the shelter hold up the roof. A tree trunk so powerfully resists compression that a car will crumple when driven into one, likely causing injuries for the passenger. The concrete would similarly resist deformity in a collision.
The uniform nature of the array of identical concrete slabs resembles the crystal structure of purified table salt (NaCl), which also has regularly spaced units tightly bonded together. A wall made of concrete slabs is strong and solid, just a salt crystal is also bonded strongly enough to resist melting until very high temperatures. Both concrete and salt, however, have their weaknesses. Salt dissolves easily in water at room temperature. Concrete displays an impressive resistance to compression, but cracks easily under tensile strain.
The concrete itself resembles glass. Glass is an amorphous solid that moves at room temperature, but not visibly. Similarly, concrete moves around when poured until it dries. Once it dries, however, concrete seems uniform from a large distance, although in truth it is a heterogenous mixture. Glass also contains several impurities that are not visible to the eyes.
The structure of the shelter at all three length scales has clues to its function. The concrete is a heterogenous mixture but it is frozen in place, which contributes to the rigidity of the concrete blocks. The uniformity of the blocks combines with the rigidity of concrete itself to lend to the shelter the strength which is so obvious to the viewer, and which is a key feature in a structure built for shelter.
I did not notice all of these fascinating aspects of the shelter until I did this assignment. As a resident of Van Pelt Manor house, I walk past the shelter every day on my way to classes and meals. I never stopped, however, to question how and why the shelter looks and functions as it does. Blogging about structure forced me to see this conspicuous object in a much more meaningful way.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Quantification
To condense my previous blog into a comprehensible list, here are 10 ways for bioengineers to cut healthcare costs:
1. Creative manipulation of existing technologies (like using cell phones for medical imaging [1])
2. Building new technologies with cost in mind, rather than addressing it as an afterthought
3. Going smaller:
nanotechnology could enable us to do more with less material. Although the development of such technology would be expensive, in the long run it could cut costs
4. Improve basic scientific knowledge.
Dr. Bogen noted that many people today question Vannevar Bush's insistence on fundamental knowledge as opposed to practical applications. Think, however, about the advantages of complete knowledge. If we could precisely model the behavior of molecules on a virtual level with advanced knowledge of biochemistry, we could bypass costly clinical trials since we would already know the exact outcome of the treatment.
5. Getting personal:
As I blogged about earlier, clinical trials provide knowledge about the population, not about a specific individual. Once we move beyond the clinical trial - based nature of medical research, we could personalize treatments for individuals' specific genotypes and phenotypes to achieve better results with the same effort.
6. Make technology more user-friendly.
As I noted in my last blog, the new cell-phone imaging technology produced at Berkely would allow anyone with some basic cell phone technology to do medical imaging, but not to interpret the results [1]. We need to be able to use technology not just to determine information but also to present information in comprehensible ways. This ties in with the importance of communication in engineering and in medicine.
7. Consider the impact on society.
Although it may be in the interests of one individual or company to conduct research in an expensive manner and then charge exorbitant fees for the resulting technology, society cannot bear the strain of many such individuals taking care of their own interests at the costs of everyone else. According to information from the American University Washington College of Law, "There are many examples of the successes of our super-charged pharmaceutical marketing system at shifting massive amounts of prescriptions toward newer, more expensive drugs that do not benefit patients" [2]. We have to realize that if we don't think from a societal perspective, we will all suffer.
8. Don't go after lofty but impractical goals.
Like I said before, we all want to solve the big problems like cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. There are, however, many approaches to all of these problems. We shouldn't dive into an avenue of research if it looks like there are more cost-effective options.
9. Common Sense.
This is actually less common than the name implies. Good old-fashioned efficiency could go a long way.
10. Making systems of technologies interact with each other more efficiently.
We see this every day in the real world when hardware and software made by different companies or even the same company don't interact in the way they were intended. In the medical world, combinations of drugs taken together can often be dangerous but can sometimes work properly. On another level, researchers using technologies not available to the general public may have problems transferring data from one format to another or interpreting and manipulating the data. This goes along with making research in general more user-friendly.
1. Creative manipulation of existing technologies (like using cell phones for medical imaging [1])
2. Building new technologies with cost in mind, rather than addressing it as an afterthought
3. Going smaller:
nanotechnology could enable us to do more with less material. Although the development of such technology would be expensive, in the long run it could cut costs
4. Improve basic scientific knowledge.
Dr. Bogen noted that many people today question Vannevar Bush's insistence on fundamental knowledge as opposed to practical applications. Think, however, about the advantages of complete knowledge. If we could precisely model the behavior of molecules on a virtual level with advanced knowledge of biochemistry, we could bypass costly clinical trials since we would already know the exact outcome of the treatment.
5. Getting personal:
As I blogged about earlier, clinical trials provide knowledge about the population, not about a specific individual. Once we move beyond the clinical trial - based nature of medical research, we could personalize treatments for individuals' specific genotypes and phenotypes to achieve better results with the same effort.
6. Make technology more user-friendly.
As I noted in my last blog, the new cell-phone imaging technology produced at Berkely would allow anyone with some basic cell phone technology to do medical imaging, but not to interpret the results [1]. We need to be able to use technology not just to determine information but also to present information in comprehensible ways. This ties in with the importance of communication in engineering and in medicine.
7. Consider the impact on society.
Although it may be in the interests of one individual or company to conduct research in an expensive manner and then charge exorbitant fees for the resulting technology, society cannot bear the strain of many such individuals taking care of their own interests at the costs of everyone else. According to information from the American University Washington College of Law, "There are many examples of the successes of our super-charged pharmaceutical marketing system at shifting massive amounts of prescriptions toward newer, more expensive drugs that do not benefit patients" [2]. We have to realize that if we don't think from a societal perspective, we will all suffer.
8. Don't go after lofty but impractical goals.
Like I said before, we all want to solve the big problems like cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. There are, however, many approaches to all of these problems. We shouldn't dive into an avenue of research if it looks like there are more cost-effective options.
9. Common Sense.
This is actually less common than the name implies. Good old-fashioned efficiency could go a long way.
10. Making systems of technologies interact with each other more efficiently.
We see this every day in the real world when hardware and software made by different companies or even the same company don't interact in the way they were intended. In the medical world, combinations of drugs taken together can often be dangerous but can sometimes work properly. On another level, researchers using technologies not available to the general public may have problems transferring data from one format to another or interpreting and manipulating the data. This goes along with making research in general more user-friendly.
Works Referenced
[1] Yang, Sarah. UC Berkely Researchers Bring Fluorescent Imaging to Mobile Phones for Low-cost Screeining in the Field. UC Berkely News. 21 July 2009. Available: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/07/21_cellscope.shtml.
[2] Flynn, Sean. Litigation Challenging Regulation of Data Mining. American University Washington College of Law: Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. 31 March 2008. Available: http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/litigation-challenging-regulation-of-data-mining.
[1] Yang, Sarah. UC Berkely Researchers Bring Fluorescent Imaging to Mobile Phones for Low-cost Screeining in the Field. UC Berkely News. 21 July 2009. Available: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/07/21_cellscope.shtml.
[2] Flynn, Sean. Litigation Challenging Regulation of Data Mining. American University Washington College of Law: Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. 31 March 2008. Available: http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/litigation-challenging-regulation-of-data-mining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
