Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Education Science

MIT Certifies Biological Engineering Major 305

Posted by timothy from the we-can-build-you dept.
chrisd writes "In same week that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney reitereates his opposition to stem cell research, MIT has certified its first new major in 29 years, Biological Engineering. The boston globe has a solid writeup about the biotech major."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MIT Certifies Biological Engineering Major More

MIT Certifies Biological Engineering Major

Comments Filter:

  • Rat-rights people just as bad. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eunuch ( 844280 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:22PM (#11690811)
    This is fascinating, but the writeup is pure flamebait. I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).
    • Does this negate my degree in Phernology? The Dean did mention there might be a few bumps in the road...
    • Rat-rights? Who the hell are these people?

      Relgion needs a "hot topic" to stay relevent. It is a great PR idea created centuries ago to keep this man-made idea of relgion in the spotlight. It is to keep the people's minds off the absurdity of "god" creating light before he "made" stars.

      • It is to keep the people's minds off the absurdity of "god" creating light before he "made" stars.

        And you seriously think that in the Big Bang heavy protons and neutrons to build He to build stars were created BEFORE photons/radiation/light?

        Paul B.

        P.S. But I agree with your "PR plot" idea...
      • Two things, from someone fairly "center":

        1) I'd be willing to bet a majority of the rat-rights people are peace-nick lefties, not right-wing nut-jobs.

        2) The general concensus, as far as I've read, is that at the beginning of the universe, before atoms had formed, there were subatomic particles, and a whole heckuva a lot of electromagnetic waves (a.k.a. light, for the physics-challenged). And that was hundreds of thousands of years before any stars formed.

    • Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @02:38PM (#11691791)
      This is fascinating, but the writeup is pure flamebait. I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).

      Speaking of flamebait... sheesh!

      Have you ever taken an ethics class? Saying that other people will commit evil to get ahead is never a justification for doing it yourself. Should we torture prisoners to get information about terrorists? Why not? Many people would object on moral grounds, but would you agree that we should "ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway?" After all, "this stuff will just move to [Syria] or the like as the backwards people oppose it."

      Why don't we experiment on the homeless (or whoever else we decide not to care about currently)? What basis do your ethics have for supporting or rejecting this idea? Are humans special in your philosophy compared to animals? What makes your moral and ethical decision (which is not based on religion) any more valid than that of someone else?

      (My stance on these issues is irrelevant to this; I just can't stand a blowhard whether they're a rabid fundamentalist Christian or a rabid fundamentalist Atheist who is convinced that they're views are inherently morally, ethically, and logically superior to everyone else's.)
    • I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).

      You're telling me! Between the rat-rights people on the political Left, and the religious cranks on the political Right, I'm

  • What Romney Said. (Score:5, Informative)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:23PM (#11690818) Journal
    Romney said last week he favors allowing research on existing embryonic stem cells taken from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics , but he would seek to outlaw the creation of embryos specifically for research.

    ''Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation and destruction," Romney wrote in a letter to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini.

    • Re:What Romney Said. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:27PM (#11690874) Homepage Journal
      It's just moreau the same...
    • I fully support making embryos for research. I would rather cure cancer than have another screaming baby in my favorite theater.
      • Well, if the embryo wasn't made in the first place, then there's no way it could become another screaming baby anywhere, let alone your favorite theator.

        I do think there's an inherent difference between making embryos explicitly with the intention of killing them and using them for research, compared to making embryos with the intention of allowing infertile couples to have children, and giving the ones that would otherwise die unused to the researchers.

        Although that brings to light the question of whet

  • In other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:24PM (#11690828)
    All MIT geeks rushed to change their major in the hopes that they could engineer the perfect female obje^H^H^H^H companion that would get them laid.
  • This would have been a degree that I would have been interested in. This is a field that has a whole lot of growth potential. Hopefully with students flocking to this profession we will see some major innovation.

  • Well well.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by PopeAlien ( 164869 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:25PM (#11690840) Homepage Journal
    I for one welcome our genetic engineering overlords.

    now lets get on that woodchuck problem [popealien.com]

  • Wahoo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Leroy_Brown242 ( 683141 )
    This is one of the technologies that really do scare me. But I'm excited to see it moving forward

  • Submitter majored in reading comprehension (Score:4, Informative)

    by cpeikert ( 9457 ) <cpeikert AT alum DOT mit DOT edu> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:25PM (#11690847) Homepage
    It says (right in the headline!) that BME is a minor, and BE might become a major.
    • ...the Boston Globe article says that it comes up to a vote of the faculty today. So it hasn't been approved yet, but probably will ... (?)

      The real question is which course number it would take! My guess is XIII (formerly ocean engineering), which was dropped late last year. Yep, lucky Course 13.

  • Nice writeup. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by helix400 ( 558178 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:27PM (#11690870) Journal
    Hmm...starting your article with a misleading flamewar rant against a politician? It's right on par with Slashdot's level of professionalism.

    • Re:Nice writeup. (Score:5, Informative)

      by operagost ( 62405 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:53PM (#11691204) Homepage Journal
      In case anyone is confused because they didn't RTFA, here's the opening paragraphs (emphasis mine):

      WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday blasted Governor Mitt Romney's proposal to ban the cloning of embryos for stem cell research, saying the governor's approach would rob Massachusetts of the benefits of one of the most promising areas of scientific research.

      Romney, meanwhile, indicated he is open to new research as a compromise on the thorny ethical issue. On Friday, he is scheduled to be briefed on a method of generating embryonic stem cells without creating embryos.

    • Re:Nice writeup. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by anonicon ( 215837 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:55PM (#11691217)
      "Hmm...starting your article with a misleading flamewar rant against a politician? It's right on par with Slashdot's level of professionalism."

      Oh, lighten up Francis. Slashdot is a glorified blog. It is neither a newspaper nor a professional media outlet a la Time, Fox, CNN, etc. Why do you expect it to be?
  • Georgia Tech has had Biomedical Engineering [gatech.edu] offered as a major for a few years now. It's a pretty popular new major.

  • DNA Hack (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheSync ( 5291 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:32PM (#11690931) Journal
    For those who want to start early to get ready for this, check out DNAhack [dnahack.com], the website for amateur genetic engineering.

  • Ummm... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Combuchan ( 123208 ) * <sean@@@emvis...net> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:35PM (#11690965) Homepage
    So, MIT is essentially doing what Rice, SUNY Stony Brook, Lehigh, Rice, Syracuse, and even Mesa Community College [google.com] have been doing for a very long time now?

    Yes, this is MIT, and they have a potential to become the leading institution in the field, but respected universites have already established programs. When MIT comes out with something revolutionary from their new program, then I'll be interested.

    • Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Informative)

      by amabbi ( 570009 )
      Yes, this is MIT, and they have a potential to become the leading institution in the field, but respected universites have already established programs. When MIT comes out with something revolutionary from their new program, then I'll be interested.

      RTFA, please. MIT is already a leader in what you call "bioengineering," particularly in interdisciplinary fields integrating biology and engineering. In addition, MIT already has a joint program with Harvard medical school (the Health Sciences and Technology p [mit.edu]

    • Actually, as a Biomedical Engineering at UVa right this moment, I can tell you that the field is still extremly new, and thus quite revolutionary by the very definition of the word. Just pick up the Journal of Biomedical Engineering, it's worth the read, if only just to see how phenomenal the research seems. Imagine the day when your Biomedical Engineering friend can sit down with your torn muscle and inject a polymer that repairs the damage. That's tomorrow, in today's research labs at UVa.

      The pushes
      • I would argue that Biological Engineering, as outlined at MIT, is a superset of Biomedical Engineering (BME). BME, as implemented in most BME programs, primarily concerns the application of engineering technology to medical problems. As described, Biological Engineering is both interested in the application of engineering technology to biological (including medical) problems, AND the application of biological knowledge to engineering problems (e.g. biomemetics). The latter is usually considered a special
    • The significance of this news is hardly that MIT is setting any standard and only those with MIT-envy would be prone to such a mis-reading. What I see this as signaling is a furtherance of the trend which brought Susan Hockfield, a distinguished neuroscientist, to the helm of the institution, not a physicist, EE or mathematician and only coincidentally, not a man. The trend away from being a hardware hackers haven has long been afoot. If you hit their home page [mit.edu] today, you will probably see a headline abo
      • The significance of this news is hardly that MIT is setting any standard and only those with MIT-envy would be prone to such a mis-reading. What I see this as signaling is a furtherance of the trend which brought Susan Hockfield, a distinguished neuroscientist, to the helm of the institution, not a physicist, EE or mathematician and only coincidentally, not a man. The trend away from being a hardware hackers haven has long been afoot.

        Not to be a killjoy, but back in 1990, when MIT was looking for a presid

  • Tired: Student Loans (Score:5, Funny)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:35PM (#11690973)
    Wired: Student Clones

  • Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Concern ( 819622 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:38PM (#11690996) Journal
    I have a question, I am seriously, honestly just looking for more knowledge about this.

    Leaving aside your religious or personal beliefs about the rights of stem cells and embryos, about which reasonable people can disagree... and about whether federal funding should pay for something versus should it be allowed at all (another entirely lively discussion)... is it true that there is a double standard for fertility clinics?

    I have been reading about fertility clinic procedures that involve activities with embryos, on quite a large scale, that should seem objectionable to RtL advocates concerned with stem cell research. But I don't perceive the same kind of advocacy against IVF activities that result in the destruction of microscopic life, as I do against stem cell research.

    I am not a doctor. I know that IVF [wikipedia.org] involves harvesting eggs and fertilizing them en masse, then transplanting a few back to the mother and discarding the rest.

    So:

    Assuming you consider microscopic human life sacred, is this morally distinguishable somehow from stem cell research?

    Is it actually the case that RtL advocates do oppose IVF as much as stem cell research?

    • Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics (Score:5, Informative)

      by Avallach ( 228083 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:54PM (#11691212)
      Most people that I know of who are familiar with the process of IVF and stem cell research and consider a zygote to be a human being (A fairly narrow group, but one you seem to be asking about.) do regard IVF as unethical as stem cell research. The short version is that any time you're creating a human being with the knowledge that it will be destroyed, you're on shaky ethical ground. Whether that's the embryos lost in implantation, freezing, thawing, stem cell research, contraimplantational devices, or what have you, it's ethically the same.

      This is the heart of the stem cell debate for most people that I know. If an ethical method of harvesting stem cells that doesn't involve creating embryos to kill them can be found, then I'm all for it! There have been several promising stories on /. in that direction, and I sincerely hope that scientists manage to accomplish that goal. Stem cell research is a technology with incredible potential, but it must be pursued in line with ethical guidelines.
      • Thank you. I do appreciate moral issue and regardless of specifics I respect the seriousness with which many people take life in any form.

        But, if you don't mind, I'm trying to understand something specific. It could be just me, but I don't see the same level of concern about these three apparently equivalent things: stem cell research, abortion, and fertility clinics.

        I don't think it's quite what you said so far, but is it your belief that IVF does receive the same amount of protest as stem cell research?
    • I can't speak for all RtL advocates, but I do know that the Catholic Church is very opposed to IVF. I suppose that RtL advocates are just generally smart enough to know to pick their battles. They can tug at people's heartstrings and say "Abortion is killing babies," and get people to agree. It's a harder sell that IVF, which results in a couple with a happy healthy baby (or babies) is in fact also "killing babies."

  • Before someone starts about "the ban"... (Score:5, Informative)

    by djh101010 ( 656795 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:38PM (#11691001) Homepage Journal
    I'd like to mention at this point that the "ban on stem-cell research" that so many people get worked up about, doesn't exist. There is nothing saying "don't do that" (it's being done). There is nothing saying "don't start any new embryonic stem cell lines for research" (anyone who wants to, can). There is nothing saying "The federal government (US) won't pay for embrionic stem cell research" (they do). What the US government won't pay for is for any additional embrionic stem cell lines to be created for research.

    While it's all well and good to disagree with various politicians on a topic or two, people are pretending there's an outright ban on something, when it's really a "we won't pay you to do (thing) in (mode) with (condition)" situation.
    • Soon enough it will be possible to obtain the necessary stem cells without the termination of a pregnancy and it will become a non issue, since this is mainly why certain groups oppose it.
    • This argument had a lot more validity before it was reported that all the "approved" stem cell lines were contaminated.
      • This argument had a lot more validity before it was reported that all the "approved" stem cell lines were contaminated.

        So, sloppy research methods (contaminating a sample? Come on, this is junior high stuff guys.) Why should someone get _more_ federal funding when they've shown they're not capable of not polluting their own research? Sorry, but if anything, the fact that they screwed that up says they deserve _less_ federal funding, not more.

        • Oh man, are you serious? Come on. That's gonna be a pretty fruitless argument, unless you want to argue that false hypotheses, trial and error, etc. never contribute to scientific progress.

          Besides, this isn't evidence of sloppiness. It's actually evidence that we need more research [signonsandiego.com]:

          The cells' contamination has been caused by how scientists grow them in the lab.

          The cells cannot multiply by themselves in a petri dish, so researchers typically grow them on top of a "feeder" layer of embryonic cells taken f

          • Two minutes with Google could have set you straight.

            I understand the techniques involved. You can't tell me that they can't differentiate between a polluted sample and a non-polluted one. Like I said, disagree with the government not wanting to pay to start new lines, that's fine, but don't pretend there's a ban on embrionic stem cell research, because there is no ban. I'm convinced that Kerry lost votes because people who know that didn't like him lying and talking about it as if it existed. I'm also
    • Not only are existing lines contaminated, but there just plain aren't enough of them to keep research progressing smoothly. Also, it's not just "we won't pay you to do (thing)", it's "if you do (thing), we'll cut off your funding for all ongoing projects, whether they're related or not." For institutions like research universities and labs who derive significant funding from the federal government, this is tantamount to depriving them of oxygen. (It's the same tactic Congress used with transportation fundin

    • Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @02:33PM (#11691728) Homepage
      While it's all well and good to disagree with various politicians on a topic or two, people are pretending there's an outright ban on something, when it's really a "we won't pay you to do (thing) in (mode) with (condition)" situation.

      Technically, no, it is not an outright ban. You won't get thrown in prison for doing it; it's not in violation of the law. You could use only non-federal funds and perform this research with impugnity.

      When the federal government pays the lion's share of your lab's bills with a big grant, though, you can be damned sure that to do anything that might cost you that funding is, quite simply, professional suicide. The minute you use a single dollar of federal funds--say, some disposable plastic pipettor tips paid for by a federal grant, or five minutes' time of a lab tech whose salary is paid for by a government grant--the government can withdraw every penny of that grant. Goodbye, lab, livelihood, and years' worth of hard work.

      ...so, what do you do--carefully sequester your new stem-cell research and hope and pray that one of your postdocs doesn't accidentally grab a reagent from the wrong shelf, or that your first-year rotation student doesn't unknowingly save a dataset to a shared volume on a server paid for by federal funds? Hell, no. Not if you like having a lab, care about your research, and want your fifteen-odd researchers to stay productive and employed.

  • "I didn't go to college, and look at me...I'm kick-ass." - Jack Black, Orange County
  • in increasing numbers...That is, we have had a net exodus of skilled workers, even though we have the schools that train them and a contingent of biotech powerhouses [Biogen, Genzyme, Millenium Pharm. etc] and start-ups that many states would be happy to host. Most people in high tech in MA. groaned when Mitt's misguided missive hit the news last night. I only see this accelerating the departure of companies and jobs for more hospitable climates. I wonder at what point these policies, whatever their act

  • OT, but needs to be said (Score:5, Interesting)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:42PM (#11691048) Homepage Journal
    A line from TFA: At the same time, the government, which funds most scientific research in the country,
    Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong with that? I agree that the government should play a LIMITED role in R&D ie financing the stuff that nobody else is willing to take the risk and finance, but there is somethin fundamentally wrong with this country when the government needs to finance most of the scientific research in this country.
    What ever happened to private R&D? Or is this just a symptom of the long term wrath of Carly Fiorna's, Sam Walton's, and Micheal Dell's actions: You don't need to make stuff, just market stuff. That is how you will get rich!
    Dangerous precedent IMO.

    • Re:OT, but needs to be said (Score:4, Insightful)

      by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @02:19PM (#11691516) Homepage
      Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong with that? I agree that the government should play a LIMITED role in R&D ie financing the stuff that nobody else is willing to take the risk and finance, but there is somethin fundamentally wrong with this country when the government needs to finance most of the scientific research in this country.

      It depends, in part, on what you think government should do. If you think that government should play a minimal role in the advancement of society, then yes, this is wrong. If you think that government should play an active role in the advancement of society, then no, this is an excellent thing.

      That said, I'd personally much rather have the government fund pure scientific research than the private sector. The private sector simply can't afford to aggressively fund overarching scientific research; instead, they fund applied scientific research. They're interested in getting something they can sell, whereas the government is interested in making more generalized advances in scientific knowledge.

      These two types of science are separate, but they both rely heavily on the other. Without pure science, applied science would suffer for lack of new ideas and the breakthroughs that only come from decades and decades of careful, dedicated, uninterrupted, expensive research. Without applied science, pure science would suffer for lack of general interest in (and application of) the fruits of their labor.

      Not counting altruism, there's little reason for the private sector to engage in the kinds of large-scale, high-risk, long-term research projects that typefy pure research--simply put, the risk isn't worth the return. That research still needs to happen, though, or scientific progress will slow significantly.

      How do you convince a private corporation to embark on a scientific experiment that'll take four decades, cost tens of millions of dollars, and will quite likely result in inconclusive or useless results? It just doesn't make sense--and yet these types of projects are central to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

      Add to all this the fact that private enterprise tends to jealously guard their discoveries--after all, how do you make money off your discoveries if you give the recipe for your secret sauce to the world for free? Top it off with a sprinkling of companies who actively supress or distort scientific research that could be detrimental to the health of their business (but invaluable to, say, the health of the public,) and you've got another reason why the government should take a keen interest in advancing scientific knowledge.

    • Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong with that?

      No, not in the least. Your question itself suggests a profound misunderstanding of what it means to conduct research.

      The private sector has one objective, and that is to make a profit. Some will conduct limited research, but only because they view it as a means to an end. The problem is, of course, that basic research which would be overlooked by companies with a short-term view often pay off tremendously more in the long run.

      Take a classic ex

  • Still not engineers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by James McP ( 3700 )
    Call it what you want but until they develop a reliable, reproducible, and generally accepted set of practices they still aren't engineers.

    Skillfull and amazing, yes. Artisans maybe.

    Engineers no.

    It's the same reason ABET doesn't certify software engineering; it's still more art than science. Good engineering is science, great engineering is scientific artistry.

  • Historically misleading (Score:3, Informative)

    by gkuz ( 706134 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:46PM (#11691088)
    While the Globe's writeup may be "solid", it implies that a new major ("course") was created 29 years ago, and that's misleading. Yeah, like anybody here cares. But "Linguistics and Philosophy" was just a merger of the pre-existing "Linguistics" and "Philosophy" departments, each with their own major ("course"). Philosophy was 24, I don't remember what Linguistics was. The last completely new major was, I think, well before then.

  • Check out VaNTH.org (Score:2, Informative)

    by goldragon ( 170416 )
    It's a collaboration between Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Texas, and Harvard/MIT, using a $10mill NIH grant, to establish a curriculum for Biomedical/Biological Engineering. Vanderbilt is leading the group, mostly because of the fine Peabody School of Education that is part of the university, and I interned over one summer with the group ('02 graduate with a BE in BME). vanth.org [vanth.org]]

  • Not the first school to have this program (Score:3, Informative)

    by MacGod ( 320762 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @01:47PM (#11691108)

    MIT is obviously one of the biggest engineering schools in North America, but it should be noted that my school [uoguelph.ca] has had a Biological Engineering Program [uoguelph.ca] for quite some time.

    Don't get me wrong, good on MIT for adding this new major, but it should be noted that others have already done so.

    • I think that it's pretty much assumed that MIT isn't the first to think of this major. They're just a notable school in related fields and for them, a Respected Institution, to create the major not only lends credence to the field but also to schools (such as yours) who have already created the major. That's why it's news. If Podunk School of Mooing adds it, so what? Even if it's a great program, that's only minor news. But when MIT adds it, well it not only makes a splash in the industry but it also lends
    • Define "quite some time." I can't find any information about the history of the Biological Engineering program at Guelph, but the University of California, San Diego [ucsd.edu] has had a Bioengineering [ucsd.edu] program since 1966 [ucsd.edu]. Furthermore, research and teaching in fields that would currently be classified as bio/biological/biomedical engineering have been going on at MIT in various departments for "quite some time," they just never bothered to formalize it as its own department or degree program. Personally, I think it
  • On one hand, Bush must be anxious to let companies bring in foreign biological engineers to keep any American from being employed as such. But on the other hand, as a radical right wing Christian, he doesn't believe in biology, so he must also want to keep them out of the country.

    But then again, both of these scenarios assume that Bush actually keeps abreast of the news, which is a pretty ridiculous proposition in itself.
  • Err I didn't realize Biology was only stem cell research, learn something new everyday...

  • Over in Canada... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by UlfGabe ( 846629 )
    At Guelph University, we have had biological engineering for quite some time.

    It is focuses on two streams, bioreactions, and biomedical.

    The Bio-reactions would deal with:

    membranes
    bio reactors(beer creation!)
    remediation techniques (this is a mix with enviro eng)
    food creation / processing

    Bio Medical:
    Custom Prosethetics
    Imaging technologies
    Different therapies (gene, radiation, chemical, natural)
    Cyborg creation 101
    Android Manipulation (must be taken with AI*4503)

    ect.

    Guelph is largly a non traditional Engin
  • Of course, question that all of want to know is, what Roman numeral did they give to the new course?

    I think the highest existing number is Course XXIV, Linguistics and Philosophy, so presumably Biological Engineering is Course XXV... or is it?

    This web page, [mit.edu]alas, is not up-to-date.
  • Several of the engineering majors at MIT already had bio-engineering options for several decades. The most well known was option VI-2 in Electrical Engineering, but mechanical and materials science had these too. This latest development formalizes it.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.

Close