Design of Medical Devices and Implants

Instructor Insights

Instructor Interview

Below, Prof. Myron Spector describes various aspects of how he and Prof. Ioannis Yannas teach 2.782J Design of Medical Devices and Implants:

OCW: How and why was this course first conceived and developed? 

Myron Spector: The course was conceived and first offered in 1995 to teach a systematic approach to developing medical devices for the treatment of compelling medical problems. A key feature of this course that distinguishes it from other medical device courses is that the students, working in teams, identify and define the medical problem for which the medical device is to be designed. A second distinguishing feature of the course is that a method for codifying the biological processes (“Unit Cell Processes”) which underlie the medical problem is taught in order to clearly reveal targets for treatment to guide the design of the medical device. And a third aspect of the course is that the tools—biomaterials, cells, regulatory molecules—for the formulation of the device are considered for their value when used alone and in combination.

OCW: How do you and Prof. Yannas handle the shared teaching responsibilities in the courses you teach together? What has your experience of co-teaching been like?

Myron Spector: The co-teaching experience has been exceedingly rewarding because our academic backgrounds, experiences, and interests are complementary. To keep current in teaching newly acquired knowledge about our topics, we have invited other faculty to lecture. As our co-teaching has extended to faculty in other disciplines, we have found that not only do the students benefit, but we too learn from the different perspectives that they bring to medical device development.

We try to convey to the students how important the process of establishing a collaborative professional relationship with others is, whether it be in co-teaching a subject or in selecting collaborators for designing a medical device (as they do when they form their teams). Consideration of others as potential collaborators includes their background and experience in various aspects of the project; how engaged in the project they are likely to become, and to share in the work effort; how likely they are to selflessly share success with others on the team; and how much you like working with them.

OCW: What have been some of the more promising products/devices that the student teams have developed in the years that you have been teaching the course?

Myron Spector: Following is a selection of projects from the course that are compelling and have enough promise for me to continue to evaluate them and to consider reaching out to the teams to offer them assistance, if they have not already moved forward on their own:

• An injectable hydrogel containing a drug to suppress the process that results in radiation-induced fibrosis of the head and neck (2025)
• Injectable gel delivery of a drug to prevent kidney stone-induced renal fibrosis (2025)
• An injectable formulation of hyaluronic acid and botulinum toxin for the treatment of mid-foot osteoarthritis (2025)
• An injectable gel delivering bioactive agents to improve healing of episiotomy (2024)
• Prevention of intrauterine adhesions through a hyaluronic acid-based microsphere scaffold (2018)
• A butterfly intrauterine device (2015)
• An implantable bone strain sensing telemetry system (1997)

OCW: Your syllabus for this course and those for several other courses you have taught include an invitation for non-MIT-or-Harvard-affiliated learners to earn an unofficial credential letter by working through the course materials, taking the quizzes under your supervision, and completing the assigned reports. How many learners have taken advantage of this offer?

Myron Spector: In 2025, we had one non-MIT student credentialed in this course: a graduate student in molecular biology in Linz, Austria.

OCW: How much extra work has that credentialing process entailed for you, and what motivates you to offer that arrangement?

Myron Spector: The credentialing process for MIT/Harvard and non-MIT/Harvard students who cannot participate in the course contemporaneously benefits from the availability of video recordings of the lectures. My time is engaged in periodic Zoom meetings with the student to review certain elements of the subject, answer questions, and review practice quiz questions. In addition, for the three subjects which base the grade on three quizzes, I do the grading of the quizzes. Of course, to be able to sustain this option of credentialing, it will be necessary to engage other faculty and/or graduate students in the project, and I am working to do so.

OCW: What would you like to share about teaching 2.782J that we haven’t yet addressed?

Myron Spector: Graduate multidisciplinary courses in fields in which new knowledge is continually being acquired, such as this one, require regular updates of the subject matter being taught. To keep the MIT OpenCourseWare postings of our four subjects current, it is necessary to regularly edit the contents, and that has become readily enabled as the course contents are stored in Dropbox folders which I and my colleagues can access and edit. 

Curriculum Information

Prerequisites

One of the following courses, which fulfill the General Institute Requirement (GIR) in Biology:

• 7.012 Introductory Biology
• 7.013 Introductory Biology
• 7.014 Introductory Biology
• 7.015 Introductory Biology
• 7.016 Introductory Biology

one of the following courses, which fulfill the GIR in Chemistry:

• 3.091 Introduction to Solid-State Chemistry
• 5.111 Principles of Chemical Science
• 5.112 Principles of Chemical Science

and one of the following courses, which fulfill the GIR in Physics:

• 8.01 Physics I
• 8.011 Physics I
• 8.012 Physics I
• 8.01L Physics I

or permission of instructor

Requirements Satisfied

• 2.782J can be applied toward a graduate degree in Mechanical Engineering, a PhD in Medical Engineering and Medical Physics, or a PhD in Biological Engineering, but is not required.

Offered

Every spring semester

Assessment and Grading

Students’ grades were based on the following activities:

• 20% Quiz (written)
• 20% Oral progress report / oral quiz
  • 10% for team performance
  • 10% for the individual oral quiz
• 10% FDA report (written)
• 25% Final oral presentation
• 25% Final written report

Student Information

Enrollment

18 students

Student Background

Fourteen of the students were graduate students, either at MIT or Harvard. Two others were fourth-year undergraduates, and two were third-year undergraduates. The majority of the students were in engineering-related fields; a few were studying other topics such as management or business analytics. All the students had taken relevant subjects and several students had relevant lab experience.

How Student Time Was Spent

During an average week, students were expected to spend 12 hours on the course, roughly divided as follows:

Lectures

• Met twice per week for 1.5 hours per session; 26 sessions total; mandatory attendance.

Out of Class

• Outside of class, students studied for quizzes and worked in teams to develop designs for medical devices or combination products (incorporating drugs and/or biologics).