20.380J | Spring 2010 | Undergraduate

Biological Engineering Design

Projects

Applying the two-dimensional matrix organization structure commonly found in consulting companies, each student will be placed in one Disease Group team (e.g. cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular) and one Business Speciality Group (e.g. clinical description of disease, mathematical modeling, in vitro studies).

Project teams progress through the following deliverables during the term; specific guidelines are provided for some of them.

DELIVERABLES DUE at
Ses #
Technical paper presentation 7-8
Peer review of technical paper presentations 10
Design pitch presentation 11-13
Draft final report 20
Peer review of draft final report 22
Final report 24
Final presentation 26

In Ses #12 and Ses #13, we will have in-class presentations by each of the 6 project teams giving their “design pitch”- a relatively short description of the problem you are tackling and the solution you are proposing. These presentations will help you formalize your initial ideas, and the entire class (and staff) will ask questions and provide comments on the concept you present. Presentation should be 20 minutes in length, followed by 10-15 min of discussion.

Content

Your design pitch should address the following issues:

  • Statement of the problem, and motivation
    • What are you working on and why?
  • Background
    • Provide necessary background information, which either helps further explain the motivation or gives us key facts necessary to understand your approach
    • What other approaches have been tried in this area, if any, and why is your approach better?
  • Approach
    • Describe your concept in some detail
  • Potential issues and alternative solutions
    • What are the challenges that may arise, and what are the expected outcomes? Based on possible outcomes, what alternatives can you propose to ensure your idea moves toward success?
  • Summary
    • Summarize in 1-2 slides your concept and the overall goal

Format

50-page (single-spaced, 12-point font, 1" margins on all sides) team document, in sections outlined below. Use Nature style to cite all in-text citations and references with complete titles. Final report should be accompanied by a letter of transmittal that explains which portions of the document were contributed by each team member.

Grading

Each team member receives both a team and individual grade, with the team grade weighted 25%, the individual grade 75%.

Deadlines

Post draft by Ses #20; hard copy of final group document due on Ses #24. The document should read like it has been written by a single author. Upload as one document and assign one person to proofread for consistency across the entire design report.

Overview

Your final report is a team-authored document that describes your therapeutic/diagnostic design and contains the five sections listed below. Please use visuals wherever appropriate, and use subsections to organize the major sections described below. You should presume an audience of fellow biological engineers, who would make a funding decision based on your document. Keep this audience in mind as you choose what information to present and in what detail.

Sections of the Report

Please include the following front matter, in this order:

  • Abstract — informative abstract (500 words maximum)
  • Title Page
  • Table of Contents — the paper will be divided into sections as indicated below, which should be further subdivided as needed. One person will be the principal author of each section (e.g., Section 3.a.i, dose-response of nanodevice against cancer cells in cell culture … by John M. Essigmann).
  • List of Figures and Tables
    1. Clinical Motivation and Review of Available Treatment Technologies
    2. Design Overview
    3. Design Description
    4. In vitro and in vivo Preclinical Testing
    5. Clinical Testing
  • Acknowledgements
  • References

1: Clinical Motivation and Review of Available Treatment Technologies (5-6 pages)

Introduce clinical context of your disease and disease etiology (cite sources to support your claims here). Briefly discuss current therapies and problems with current approaches (what they don’t address points to your approach). Support your claims with data from the literature.

2: Design Overview (3-4 pages)

Provide an overview of your approach. Describe the basic features of your team’s design. Is it hypothesis-driven or a proof-of-principle experimental therapeutic, and why? If project is hypothesis-driven, does the design work? If project is proof-of-principle, how does the design work? How would you “prove” that the design works? (Save specifics about proposed therapeutics for Section 3.)

3: Design Description and Rationale (15-20 pages)

Detailed description of how your design works. Explain why have you selected this design? Be sure to address your rationale in terms of the science involved, intellectual property issues, and clinical considerations. How does your design improve on existing design or set a novel approach to treatment? Modeling/calculations carried out by your team to support your design rationale or guide in vitro/in vivo preclinical or clinical testing plans should be included in sections 3, 4, or 5 as appropriate for your team.

4: In vitro and in vivo Testing (6-7 pages)

What critical experiments would you suggest to test your design? Discuss both in vitro and in vivo tests. Explain why a particular test was chosen,limitations, and expected outcomes. What animal models are relevant for preclinical testing?

5: Clinical testing: Testing the Experimental Therapeutic (6-7 pages)

How will you validate your own methods? What about subsequent trials? How will you demonstrate efficacy (in comparison to other therapeutics and relative to cancer-appropriate measurements)? How will you prove the stated mechanism of action? What experimental methods would you use to test for safety?

6: Timeline for Development & Conclusion (5 -6 pages)

Were this therapeutic to be commercially developed, what stages would you establish for its development? What milestones would you need to reach in each stage in order to move on to the next stage? Address scientific, safety, scale-up, and funding-related stages and milestones. What about patents?

Acknowledgements

Acknowledge useful discussions you may have had with people within/outside MIT (other than the teaching staff), or other key resources you have employed.

References

Please include a properly formatted style list of all references cited. A good target for number of references would be 50-60 sources with an emphasis on primary scientific literature.

Similar to the presentation peer reviews earlier in the term, each team will prepare (collectively) one bulleted critique of their assigned draft project paper. Critiques should be 2-3 pages in length (0.75 inch margins, 12 pt times font, single-spaced), and be subdivided into the following subsections:

Motivation/Significance

  • For example: was the motivation for the proposed approach well presented, were existing approaches clearly described and compared to the proposed solution? Will the proposed strategy provide a significant advance if it is successful?

Design Description

  • For example: was the concept clearly described? Were the necessary components/technologies clearly spelled out?

Approach

  • For example: were the in vitro, in vivo, and if applicable, clinical studies needed to pilot and test the ideas clearly spelled out? Are there flaws in the experimental designs proposed? Are alternative solutions for potential problems discussed?

Each subsection should provide bullet responses highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. A great critique will not only point out flaws, but also suggest optional approaches at might correct the problem. The objective of a successful critique is to provide guidance to the reviewed team on how to make their project proposal as strong as possible.

In Ses #7 and Ses #8, we will have two class sessions of technical paper presentations. Six articles from the recent scientific literature, relating inflammation to cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes will be posted on the class Web site shortly. Each article will be assigned to one of the 6 project teams. Each team will present a powerpoint presentation analyzing and critiquing their (one) assigned paper. Presentations should be 20 min, and will be followed by 15-20 min of questions/discussions. Your presentation should address some of the following key points:

  • Briefly cover any key background information needed to understand the study.
  • What were the objectives of the study?
  • What were the main findings?
  • Why were these findings important?
  • What are the potential IP aspects that could be employed by a company to move the technology/approach toward treatment of patients?
  • What experiments would you suggest could have/should have been done on addition to those described in the paper?

The entire team should participate in preparing the presentation and each memeber of the team should participate in the presentation itself-typically each student will present 1-2 slides. A good rule of thumb is to assume 1 minute per slide in a presentation.

Two important items of note:

  • Everyone should read each of should read each of the 6 papers. Each team will critique one other team’s presentation, and prepare a 1-page bullted summary of strengths/weaknesses of the presentation. Critique assignments will be blinded (we will tell each team which presentation they are critiquing, but you will not know which team was assigned to critique your presentation). you review will be reurned to the team that you critiqued, and the CI staff will give you feedback on that critique.
  • In addition, bear in mind that the mid-term exam will be on the 6 technical papers-further motivation to carefully read these and try to glean insights from the in-class discussion during the presentations.

Some helpful criteria to consider when reviewing another team’s paper:

  • Does this analysis of the literature tell a story—e.g., how this article relates to other articles published in the field, how this research advances our understanding of the topic, etc.
  • Is this analysis of the literature complete?
  • Does this analysis of the literature add to existing knowledge?
  • Are the conclusions definitive?
  • Are supporting figures chosen effectively?
  • Is it well presented?
  • Does it have proper documentation?