Biomedical Engineering

In December of 2014, an anonymous working group under the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a draft of the first-ever federal recommendations regarding male circumcision. In accordance with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ circumcision policy from 2012 - but in contrast to the more recent 2015 policy from the Canadian Paediatric Society as well as prior policies (still in force) from medical associations in Europe and Australasia - the CDC suggested that the benefits of the surgery outweigh the risks. In this article, we provide a brief scientific and conceptual analysis of the CDC’s assessment of benefit vs. risk, and argue that it deserves a closer look. Although we set aside the burgeoning bioethical debate surrounding the moral permissibility of performing non-therapeutic circumcisions on healthy minors, we argue that, from a scientific and medical perspective, current evidence suggests that such circumcision is not an appropriate public health measure for developed countries such as the United States.

The articles in this issue look at how the development and use of free and open source hardware (FOSH or simply “open hardware”) are changing the face of science, engineering, business, and law.

Free and open source software (FOSS) has proven very successful and now dominates the development of software on a global scale. It is available in source code (open source) and can be used, studied, copied, modified, and redistributed either without restriction or with restrictions only to ensure that further recipients have the same open source rights.
Similarly, FOSH provides the “code” for hardware—including the bill of materials, schematics, instructions, computer-aided designs, and other information needed to recreate a physical artifact. Use of FOSH can improve product innovation in a wide range of fields. In this issue authors from a variety of disciplines and work environments discuss how this open model of innovation will drive the future of engineering.
First, Alicia Gibb, founder and executive director of the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) and director of the ATLAS1 Blow Things Up (BTU) Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder, argues that hardware is the next step to open sourcing everything. She touches on intellectual property (IP) issues, cites the benefits of open source hardware, introduces and explains the role of OSHWA, and hints at the future of open hardware.

The open source paradigm is already making deep inroads in the hardware space in 3D printing. With the development of the open source RepRap project (a 3D printer that can print itself) the cost of 3D printers has dropped to a point where nearly anyone can afford one for rapid prototyping and small batch manufacturing.

Ben Malouf and Harris Kenny of Aleph Objects describe their company’s approach to the use of open hardware in every aspect of their business to create the popular Lulzbot 3D printer. Their primary product is open—and consistently wins one of the top spots in Make: Magazine’s annual 3D printer shootout, ahead of proprietary 3D printers from much larger companies with far greater resources. Lulzbot printers, and those of many other manufacturers, are rapidly increasing in sales as the number of free and open source 3D printable designs erupts on the Web, making distributed manufacturing a reality.

In this context, law professor Lucas Osborn at the Campbell University School of Law takes us on a deep dive into how IP law will need to change in this new 3D printing era. After summarizing the basics of IP law and explaining why it was created, he discusses how it could both benefit and hinder 3D printing technology. His arguments will challenge readers independent of their views on patent law. For those with conventional IP leanings, he shows how IP law can hinder innovation. For those born in the Internet age, where sharing is second nature and little thought is given to licenses as long as the code is posted on Github, he offers some important lessons. He ends with a challenge for engineers to make more of an effort in helping form IP law that will benefit innovation.
If these lessons on IP and open hardware replication with 3D printers are turned to experimental research in science and engineering, there is an important opportunity to radically reduce the costs of experimental research while improving it. In the next article I argue that by harnessing a scalable open source method, federal funding is spent just once for the development of scientific equipment and then a return on this investment (ROI) is realized by digital replication of scientific devices for only the costs of materials. With numerous examples I show that the ROI climbs into the thousands of percent while accelerating any research that the open paradigm touches. To harness this opportunity, I propose four straightforward and negative-net-cost policies to support FOSH development and improve access to scientific tools in the United States. The policies will directly save millions in research and STEM education expenditures, while providing researchers and students access to better equipment, which will promote advances in technology and concomitant benefits for the American economy.

Thinking about the future and the changes needed to support this development in STEM education, AnnMarie Thomas and Deb Besser of the St. Thomas School of Engineering consider how engineers and engineering educators can use maker methods to introduce students to engineering and build their technological literacy. They show that the maker movement is closely tied to open hardware and sharing as well as the traits of successful engineers. Makerspaces and fabrication (fab) labs (what Gibb calls hackerspaces) are physical hubs of the maker culture.
Although these trends are clearly important for the United States, this cultural change and open hardware ethos can have dramatic impacts in the developing world. Matthew Rogge, Melissa Menke, and William Hoyle of TechforTrade explain the potential for open source and 3D printing to produce many needed items in low-resource settings, where lack of infrastructure makes local production impractical and high tariffs, unreliable supply chains, and economic instability make importation costly. Saving 90 percent on medical or scientific tools is nice in my lab, for instance, but it literally saves lives in a developing world context.
The issue concludes with an op-ed by Tom Callaway, a senior software engineer at Red Hat, Inc., an open source software company with revenue over $2 billion last year (up 15 percent year over year). What makes this business accomplishment so impressive is that all of the company’s software products are available for free. Although old ways of thinking demand that companies secure a monopoly and certainly not give away “intellectual property” for free, Red Hat’s success comes from offering its customers support, collaboration, control, and a high-quality product. Tom argues that the proven open source software mentality is porting to hardware, opening up incredible opportunities for humanity. He concludes, “open source and open innovation work…. They also empower society and make it possible to push the limits of what is possible. When the barriers to collaboration are lifted, people can accomplish incredible things.”

As all of the articles show, open source tools in the hands of this and future generations of engineers will be incredible indeed.

This book contains Volume 5 of the proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC 2017): Health Informatics 2017. This conference is sponsored by the Institute for Systems and Technologies of Information, Control and Communication (INSTICC), in cooperation with the ACM Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (ACM SIGKDD), the EUROMICRO, the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISfTeH), the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), the International Society for Computational Biology (iSCB) and the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES).

This study discusses the production of briquettes as an alternative household fuel. Briquettes were produced from sawdust collected from one of the saw-mills in Akure, Ondo State. Water and cow dung were used both as binders in the production. Five briquettes were produced at 100%, 120%, 140%, 160% and 180% weight of water to sawdust while the other five were produced at water to cow dung ratios of 80:20, 60:40, 40:60, 20:80 and 0:100 percentages added to 1.5kg of sawdust. Combustion related properties of the briquettes viz: moisture content, dry density, percentage volatile matter, percentage fixed carbon and heating values were determined. Also, the cost analysis of producing 1000 briquettes was carried out. The results show that briquettes made from sawdust using solely water as binder has good combustion capacity than those produced from sawdust using the mixture of water and cow dung as binders. The cost analysis carried out shows the economic viability of using briquettes as a good substitute of the current ever increasing conventional cooking fuels available. Therefore, the use of wood residues for briquette production will reduce deforestation and environmental degradation by minimizing waste in the sawmill industry

Front, full, and parallel squats are some of the most popular squat variations. The purpose of this investigation was to compare mean and peak electromyography (EMG) amplitude of the upper gluteus maximus, lower gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and vastus lateralis of front, full, and parallel squats. Thirteen healthy women (age = 28.9 ± 5.1 years; height = 164 ± 6.3 cm; body mass = 58.2 ± 6.4 kg) performed ten repetitions of their estimated 10-repetition maximum of each respective variation. There were no significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences between full, front and parallel squats in any of the tested muscles. Given these findings, it can be concluded that the front, full, or parallel squat can be performed for similar levels of EMG activity. However, given the results of previous research, it is recommended that individuals utilize a full range of motion when squatting, assuming full range can be safely achieved, in order to promote more favorable training adaptations. Furthermore, despite requiring lower loads, the front squat may provide a similar training stimulus to the back squat.