----- Original Message -----

From: Kevin Caves

To: RE-PSG List

Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:14 AM

Subject: [RESNAre-psg] Re: re-psg name change vote

hello all -

over the past few months a group of psg members have been discussing a
proposal to change the name of the psg to:

paul schwartz led the discussion and the members of this group included:

jerry weisman
doug hobson
bill amrstrong
dave law
matthew scholtens
craig wadsworth
andy lin
ray grott
maureene linden

Motion:
The recommendation of this group is to change the name of the RE-PSG
from "Rehabilitation Engineers" to "Rehabilitation Engineers and
Technologists."

Rationale:
The name of the PSG needs to recognize the work of all its members who
provide custom or integrated devices, whose background may not include a
formal engineering degree (e.g., Industrial Design, Human Factors).

Discussion:
The RE-PSG is comprised of members who have the common work of providing
custom-fabricated devices and providing systems comprised of components
from different manufacturers.  Issues facing these members include
professional recognition, payment for services, and continuing
education.  A volunteer group discussed the issue during the year, and
considered other options including the start-up of another PSG for
Rehabilitation Technologists.  Ultimately, it was felt that the name
change would enable all members to be recognized, and that work on
issues which face the entire group could proceed.

please feel free to discuss this on the list.  if there are no major
objections or modifications, i've asked dave jaffe to moderate an
up/down vote.  the vote would be open starting next friday, june 18,
closing 5 pm eastern time wednesday june 22.

thanks for your thoughtful consideration and thanks for paul and his
team for bringing a proposal before us.

kevin caves

------ Original Message ------
Received: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:55:16 AM EDT
From: john_anschutz@shepherd.org
To: RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg] Re: re-psg name change vote


Hello,
I very much appreciate this effort. A few weeks ago I had to return the
RESNA membership application and without this proposed change there just is
not a category that I can honestly fit in. People have called me a rehab.
engineer but I prefer not to use that term because I have not yet passed
the RET and don't have a PE or engineering degree. I went to the Georgia
Institute of Technology took calculus, physics, statics, dynamics, some EE
coursework etc., ...however, my degree is in computer science. It was a
couple years later that the college of computer engineering was formed and
the degrees moved from computer science to computer engineering. Out of
respect to those who have engineering degrees, a PE or RET, I prefer to be
called a technologist. I am also proud of the tremendous help that
technologists can offer a rehab. team and the individual clients. I
also can interact well with and learn from the Rehab Engineers from Resna
better when included in the professional group.
John Anschutz, ATP, Manager
Assistive Technology Center
Shepherd Center
2020 Peachtree Rd. N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30309
phone: (404)350-7720
fax: (404)350-7356
email: john_anschutz@shepherd.org

Kevin Caves
<kevin.caves@duke
.edu> To
Sent by: RE-PSG List
RESNAre-psg@yahoo <RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com>
groups.com cc

Subject
06/10/05 09:14 [RESNAre-psg] Re: re-psg name
change vote

Please respond to
RESNAre-psg@yahoo
groups.com




RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com

My suggestion would be to keep it simple.  I am an engineer and speech pathologist(not speech-language pathologist).  One simplified name would be Rehabilitation Professionals and maybe there are more.  How do we get these 3 line acronyms; we keep on adding words onto titles and labels until they become non-functional and/or confusing.

hello all -

over the past few months a group of psg members have been discussing a
proposal to change the name of the psg to:

paul schwartz led the discussion and the members of this group included:

jerry weisman
doug hobson
bill amrstrong
dave law
matthew scholtens
craig wadsworth
andy lin
ray grott
maureene linden

Motion:
The recommendation of this group is to change the name of the RE-PSG
from "Rehabilitation Engineers" to "Rehabilitation Engineers and
Technologists."

Rationale:
The name of the PSG needs to recognize the work of all its members who
provide custom or integrated devices, whose background may not include a
formal engineering degree (e.g., Industrial Design, Human Factors).

Discussion:
The RE-PSG is comprised of members who have the common work of providing
custom-fabricated devices and providing systems comprised of components
from different manufacturers. Issues facing these members include
professional recognition, payment for services, and continuing
education. A volunteer group discussed the issue during the year, and
considered other options including the start-up of another PSG for
Rehabilitation Technologists. Ultimately, it was felt that the name
change would enable all members to be recognized, and that work on
issues which face the entire group could proceed.

please feel free to discuss this on the list. if there are no major
objections or modifications, i've asked dave jaffe to moderate an
up/down vote. the vote would be open starting next friday, june 18,
closing 5 pm eastern time wednesday june 22.

thanks for your thoughtful consideration and thanks for paul and his
team for bringing a proposal before us.

kevin caves





Yahoo! Groups Links






ForwardSourceID:NT0004252A



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/PMYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RESNAre-psg/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

hello all -
over the past few months a group of psg members have been discussing a
proposal to change the name of the psg to:
paul schwartz led the discussion and the members of this group included:
jerry weisman
doug hobson
bill amrstrong
dave law
matthew scholtens
craig wadsworth
andy lin
ray grott
maureene linden
Motion:
The recommendation of this group is to change the name of the RE-PSG
from "Rehabilitation Engineers" to "Rehabilitation Engineers and
Technologists."
Rationale:
The name of the PSG needs to recognize the work of all its members who
provide custom or integrated devices, whose background may not include a
formal engineering degree (e.g., Industrial Design, Human Factors).
Discussion:
The RE-PSG is comprised of members who have the common work of providing
custom-fabricated devices and providing systems comprised of components
from different manufacturers. Issues facing these members include
professional recognition, payment for services, and continuing
education. A volunteer group discussed the issue during the year, and
considered other options including the start-up of another PSG for
Rehabilitation Technologists. Ultimately, it was felt that the name
change would enable all members to be recognized, and that work on
issues which face the entire group could proceed.
please feel free to discuss this on the list. if there are no major
objections or modifications, i've asked dave jaffe to moderate an
up/down vote. the vote would be open starting next friday, june 18,
closing 5 pm eastern time wednesday june 22.
thanks for your thoughtful consideration and thanks for paul and his
team for bringing a proposal before us.
kevin caves
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/PMYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RESNAre-psg/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Greetings,
    Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute was one of the principal founders (including financial) of RESNA.  Names and titles are not necessarily forever--quite understandably.
    The goal as stated in your June 10 e-mail indicated a motion recommending changing the name of RE-PSG from "Rehabilitation Engineers"
to "Rehabilitation Engineers and Technologists."
    In the rationale and discussion one speaks to the issue of including "human factors" and of the common thread of "custom-fabricated" devices and providing systems comprised of components from different manufacturers."
    The "ultimate" goal was to "enable all members to be recognized . . ." so why not recognize the man/machine interface sometimes included in the term human factors--but overtly these are visual physiologists and the softer disciplines.
MY SUGGESTION IS AS FOLLOWS:  Why not a name change that is truly inclusive such as "Rehabilitation Sciences."  I hope this suggestion is helpful and timely.
    Thanks for your consideration.
Cordially,
Arthur Jampolsky, MD
Founder

P.S.:  I'd appreciate your copying the rest of the group members.  Thanks.

---

Kevin Caves wrote on 6/10/05:

hello all -

over the past few months a group of psg members have been discussing a
proposal to change the name of the psg to:

paul schwartz led the discussion and the members of this group included:

jerry weisman
doug hobson
bill amrstrong
dave law
matthew scholtens
craig wadsworth
andy lin
ray grott
maureene linden

Motion:
The recommendation of this group is to change the name of the RE-PSG
from "Rehabilitation Engineers" to "Rehabilitation
Engineers and
Technologists."

Rationale:
The name of the PSG needs to recognize the work of all its members who
provide custom or integrated devices, whose background may not include a
formal engineering degree (e.g., Industrial Design, Human Factors).

Discussion:
The RE-PSG is comprised of members who have the common work of providing
custom-fabricated devices and providing systems comprised of components
from different manufacturers.  Issues facing these members include
professional recognition, payment for services, and continuing
education.  A volunteer group discussed the issue during the year,
and
considered other options including the start-up of another PSG for
Rehabilitation Technologists.  Ultimately, it was felt that the
name
change would enable all members to be recognized, and that work on
issues which face the entire group could proceed.

please feel free to discuss this on the list.  if there are no
major
objections or modifications, i've asked dave jaffe to moderate an
up/down vote.  the vote would be open starting next friday, june
18,
closing 5 pm eastern time wednesday june 22.

thanks for your thoughtful consideration and thanks for paul and his
team for bringing a proposal before us.

kevin caves



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> 
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!

http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/PMYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RESNAre-psg/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   

RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


  

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RESNAre-psg/
•  
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
• RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
•  
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

This should be of concern to the RE/RETs. If you have an opinion about it...let someone know...here..on the RESNA Listserve or contact someone on the BOD or Government Affairs Committee.
Jerry
Dear BED members, There are two important items within this email:
AIMBE Proposed Reorganization of the Engineering Directorate at NSF
& AIMBE's formal response
=======================
Dear Council of Societies Representatives:
Re: Draft reorganization plan of the Engineering Directorate (ENG) within
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the proposed elimination of the
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) Division. Deadline for
public comment: October 1, 2005.
Over the past two weeks the AIMBE Board of Directors and the Advocacy
Committee have analyzed and thoroughly discussed the proposed
reorganization of the Engineering Directorate at NSF. On Friday September
23, 2005, AIMBE submitted its official statement regarding the Strategic
Directions for Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education plan.
There is still time for you to register your individual comments on the
proposed plan. The address for you to do so by e-mail is
engquality@nsf.gov. The person collecting these responses is Glenn Larsen,
ENG Quality Management Chair. Please pass along this information to your
societies membership and leadership as well as act individually.
The AIMBE official response included the following talking points, if you
will:
1.	The conceptual framework for the proposed reorganization of the
Engineering Directorate is flawed by eliminating the bioengineering
discipline from the Division titles. The discipline of bioengineering is
drawing highly talented young people to universities all across the
nation. The number of women entering this field of engineering is
historically significant and bioengineering programs are struggling to
accommodate the number of applicants.
2.	Bioengineering is a well-established term among the nation's technical
community. It includes biological and medical engineering and, to some
minds, provides products of biotechnology. Bioengineering products,
processes and devices enhance healthcare, stimulate the economy, provide
jobs and ensure industry has a positive balance of payments. The more
inclusive term of bioengineering should be retained over a change to
biological engineering. The reorganization proposes the mergers of the
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) division with the Chemical
and Transport Systems (CTS) division to create a broader Chemical,
Biological, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET) division. The
planned combined division, if a change is to be made, would be better
described as the "Bioengineering, Chemical, Environmental and Transport
Systems (BCET)".
3.	Bioengineering is important to the nation's health and to the economy.
Bioengineering students are the lifeblood and future of the bioengineering
industry. Therefore it is essential that the discipline of bioengineering
be highly visible within the structure of the National Science Foundation.
4.	Sections of effort that have traditionally grown from computer,
electrical and electronic engineering are being neglected in the list.
Persons who read and publish in respected journals such as IEEE
Transactions in Biomedical Engineering or in Imaging or the Journal of
Biomechanics would not recognize this as a home for their efforts in
"biomedical engineering."
5.	An alphabetical listing of specialties in any system should be applied
because this neutral stylistic form is a traditional sign that all
elements are equal. The proposed division title would violate this
tradition.
Below is AIMBE's formal response.
We urge you to let your voice be heard as soon as possible. You can send
your comments directly by clicking here. Please copy the AIMBE office
jrivkin@aimbe.org in your comments to the Engineering Directorate.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Sincerely,
Pat Ford-Roegner, RN, MSW, FAAN
Executive Director
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)
1901 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006
202-496-9660
=============================
AIMBE Official Response Statement to the National Science Foundation’s
Strategic Directions for Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education:
Coordinating NSF Bioengineering Research, Innovation and Education
Recommendation
The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)
recommends that the National Science Foundation (NSF) use the planned
period of strategic reorganization to establish a mechanism for
coordinating bioengineering research, innovation and education throughout
the Foundation and with other Federal
Agencies. This will facilitate the implementation of NSF’s top research
priority while providing the required visibility for this important
emerging field.
Background
The medical and biological engineering community, represented by the
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) applauds
the strategic plan of the NSF and the identification of “Biology in
Engineering” as its top research priority. AIMBE agrees that “research is
needed to develop engineering
principles that are based in biology.” It also recognizes that biology has
become pervasive throughout engineering in general. It concurs with the
statement in the Strategic Plan that “engineers from all
disciplines have the opportunity to integrate and exploit biology in their
respective disciplines.” These principles are shared by AIMBE and are
reflected in the accomplishments of close to 1,000 scientists
and engineers who have been recognized by AIMBE and elected to the AIMBE
College of Fellows.
However, AIMBE wishes to add that bioengineering is a unique emerging
discipline with its educational objectives and research capabilities that
differ from other engineering disciplines. Bioengineering is currently
attracting the brightest and best young women and men to careers in
engineering. Inspired by the altruism
of bioengineering, these students are our country’s finest. They enter
study in bioengineering departments and programs and other engineering
disciplines that provide opportunities for specialization in
bioengineering. Discoveries and technologies developed by
AIMBE Official Response Statement to the National Science Foundation’s
Strategic Directions for
Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education (continued):
by bioengineers as well as engineers from other disciplines who integrate
biology into their research activities will have tremendous potential
application in biological sciences, medicine, healthcare, homeland
security, quality of life, and other areas. AIMBE is concerned with the
implications to bioengineering of the proposed reorganization of the
Engineering Directorate. It is troubling that bioengineering is the only
identified discipline from the current organizational chart that does not
appear in the new conceptual framework while every other
discipline such as chemical, civil, mechanical, electrical and industrial,
which automatically connote “engineering,” remain in the proposed new
conceptual framework. The term biology by itself does not
imply or encompass any engineering aspect of bioengineering. It believes
that placing biology as part of
Chemical, Environmental and Transport Systems and eliminating the term
bioengineering will have a
negative effect on the bioengineering academic and research community. It
will diminish or completely
eliminate the visibility of bioengineering and decrease the ability of the
Engineering Directorate to
implement its top research priority. Further, it narrows the definition of
engineering in biology to a
subset of (admittedly important) activities related to chemical
engineering and does not include broader
issues that have come from electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,
computing and imaging
science. Universities take cues from the NSF for resource allocation and
programmatic organization.
Eliminating the visibility of bioengineering at NSF would lead to
diminished emphasis and support for
the discipline on many campuses that have yet to recruit the faculty
needed to match the student interest
in the field. Today, more than ever the NSF needs to demonstrate the
importance of bioengineering to
the cutting edge of science and engineering. To facilitate the
implementation of “Biology in Engineering,” AIMBE recommends that the NSF
establish a mechanism for coordinating bioengineering across the NSF. To
maintain the visibility of the field that NSF has established, it is
suggested that the new coordinating unit include bioengineering in its
title. Thus bioengineering could become one of the “cross-cutting” units
shown in the top figure of page seven in the NSF report Conceptual
Framework for Reorganization Overview and Rationale. The unit could
include representatives from each engineering division, from other NSF
Programs and Directorates and from other agencies interested in
bioengineering research. It will coordinate new
research, innovation and educational efforts between divisions and
programs across NSF and with other
Agencies. AIMBE believes that to meet this mandate the unit should report
directly to the Assistant
Director of Engineering and have authority for some portion of the
engineering budget.
Submitted September 22, 2005
The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) was
founded in 1991 to establish a clear and comprehensive identity for the
field of medical and biological engineering - which is the bridge between
the principles of engineering science and practice, and the problems and
issues of biological and medical science and practice. Representing over
75,000 bioengineers, AIMBE serves and coordinates a broad constituency of
medical and biological scientists and practitioners, scientific and
engineering societies, academic departments and industries. AIMBE
membership includes 1,000 peer reviewed Fellows, 19 scientific and
professional societies through its Council of Societies, 88 universities
through it’s Academic Council and 9 industrial corporations through its
Industrial Council.
This email was sent to you as being a member of ASME Technical Divisions. If you wish not to recieve any emails from your division, please sent a blank email to leave-asme_td01091st-5467909L@list.asme.org
----------------------------------------------------
Email From: ASME, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/PMYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RESNAre-psg/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jerry et al.

Where does human factors engineering fall in the new ENG structure?  (I assume it exists somewhere, but perhaps not.).

Wherever it lies, perhaps this might be a place for us to advocate for mention of rehab engineering.  H.F. would be a much closer fit for us than the Bio, Enviro, Chem, and Transport grouping.

Jim



Jerry Weisman wrote:

This should be of concern to the RE/RETs. If you have an opinion about it...let someone know...here..on the RESNA Listserve or contact someone on the BOD or Government Affairs Committee.
Jerry
Dear BED members, There are two important items within this email:
AIMBE Proposed Reorganization of the Engineering Directorate at NSF
& AIMBE's formal response
=======================
Dear Council of Societies Representatives:
Re: Draft reorganization plan of the Engineering Directorate (ENG) within
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the proposed elimination of the
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) Division. Deadline for

public comment: October 1, 2005.
Over the past two weeks the AIMBE Board of Directors and the Advocacy
Committee have analyzed and thoroughly discussed the proposed
reorganization of the Engineering Directorate at NSF. On Friday September
23, 2005, AIMBE submitted its official statement regarding the Strategic
Directions for Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education plan.
There is still time for you to register your individual comments on the
proposed plan. The address for you to do so by e-mail is
engquality@nsf.gov. The person collecting these responses is Glenn Larsen,
ENG Quality Management Chair. Please pass along this information to your
societies membership and leadership as well as act individually.
The AIMBE official response included the following talking points, if you
will:
1.	The conceptual framework for the proposed reorganization of the
Engineering Directorate is flawed by eliminating the bioengineering
discipline from the Division titles. The discipline of bioengineering is
drawing highly talented young people to universities all across the
nation. The number of women entering this field of engineering is
historically significant and bioengineering programs are struggling to
accommodate the number of applicants.
2.	Bioengineering is a well-established term among the nation's technical
community. It includes biological and medical engineering and, to some
minds, provides products of biotechnology. Bioengineering products,
processes and devices enhance healthcare, stimulate the economy, provide
jobs and ensure industry has a positive balance of payments. The more
inclusive term of bioengineering should be retained over a change to
biological engineering. The reorganization proposes the mergers of the
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) division with the Chemical
and Transport Systems (CTS) division to create a broader Chemical,
Biological, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET) division. The
planned combined division, if a change is to be made, would be better
described as the "Bioengineering, Chemical, Environmental and Transport
Systems (BCET)".
3.	Bioengineering is important to the nation's health and to the economy.
Bioengineering students are the lifeblood and future of the bioengineering
industry. Therefore it is essential that the discipline of bioengineering
be highly visible within the structure of the National Science Foundation.
4.	Sections of effort that have traditionally grown from computer,
electrical and electronic engineering are being neglected in the list.
Persons who read and publish in respected journals such as IEEE
Transactions in Biomedical Engineering or in Imaging or the Journal of
Biomechanics would not recognize this as a home for their efforts in
"biomedical engineering."
5.	An alphabetical listing of specialties in any system should be applied
because this neutral stylistic form is a traditional sign that all
elements are equal. The proposed division title would violate this
tradition.
Below is AIMBE's formal response.
We urge you to let your voice be heard as soon as possible. You can send
your comments directly by clicking here. Please copy the AIMBE office
jrivkin@aimbe.org in your comments to the Engineering Directorate.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Sincerely,
Pat Ford-Roegner, RN, MSW, FAAN
Executive Director
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)
1901 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006
202-496-9660
=============================
AIMBE Official Response Statement to the National Science Foundation’s
Strategic Directions for Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education:
Coordinating NSF Bioengineering Research, Innovation and Education
Recommendation
The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)
recommends that the National Science Foundation (NSF) use the planned
period of strategic reorganization to establish a mechanism for
coordinating bioengineering research, innovation and education throughout
the Foundation and with other Federal
Agencies. This will facilitate the implementation of NSF’s top research
priority while providing the required visibility for this important
emerging field.
Background
The medical and biological engineering community, represented by the
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) applauds
the strategic plan of the NSF and the identification of “Biology in
Engineering” as its top research priority. AIMBE agrees that “research is
needed to develop engineering
principles that are based in biology.” It also recognizes that biology has
become pervasive throughout engineering in general. It concurs with the
statement in the Strategic Plan that “engineers from all
disciplines have the opportunity to integrate and exploit biology in their
respective disciplines.” These principles are shared by AIMBE and are
reflected in the accomplishments of close to 1,000 scientists
and engineers who have been recognized by AIMBE and elected to the AIMBE
College of Fellows.
However, AIMBE wishes to add that bioengineering is a unique emerging
discipline with its educational objectives and research capabilities that
differ from other engineering disciplines. Bioengineering is currently
attracting the brightest and best young women and men to careers in
engineering. Inspired by the altruism
of bioengineering, these students are our country’s finest. They enter
study in bioengineering departments and programs and other engineering
disciplines that provide opportunities for specialization in
bioengineering. Discoveries and technologies developed by
AIMBE Official Response Statement to the National Science Foundation’s
Strategic Directions for
Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education (continued):
by bioengineers as well as engineers from other disciplines who integrate
biology into their research activities will have tremendous potential
application in biological sciences, medicine, healthcare, homeland
security, quality of life, and other areas. AIMBE is concerned with the
implications to bioengineering of the proposed reorganization of the
Engineering Directorate. It is troubling that bioengineering is the only
identified discipline from the current organizational chart that does not
appear in the new conceptual framework while every other
discipline such as chemical, civil, mechanical, electrical and industrial,
which automatically connote “engineering,” remain in the proposed new
conceptual framework. The term biology by itself does not
imply or encompass any engineering aspect of bioengineering. It believes
that placing biology as part of
Chemical, Environmental and Transport Systems and eliminating the term
bioengineering will have a
negative effect on the bioengineering academic and research community. It
will diminish or completely
eliminate the visibility of bioengineering and decrease the ability of the
Engineering Directorate to
implement its top research priority. Further, it narrows the definition of
engineering in biology to a
subset of (admittedly important) activities related to chemical
engineering and does not include broader
issues that have come from electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,
computing and imaging
science. Universities take cues from the NSF for resource allocation and
programmatic organization.
Eliminating the visibility of bioengineering at NSF would lead to
diminished emphasis and support for
the discipline on many campuses that have yet to recruit the faculty
needed to match the student interest
in the field. Today, more than ever the NSF needs to demonstrate the
importance of bioengineering to
the cutting edge of science and engineering. To facilitate the
implementation of “Biology in Engineering,” AIMBE recommends that the NSF
establish a mechanism for coordinating bioengineering across the NSF. To
maintain the visibility of the field that NSF has established, it is
suggested that the new coordinating unit include bioengineering in its
title. Thus bioengineering could become one of the “cross-cutting” units
shown in the top figure of page seven in the NSF report Conceptual
Framework for Reorganization Overview and Rationale. The unit could
include representatives from each engineering division, from other NSF
Programs and Directorates and from other agencies interested in
bioengineering research. It will coordinate new
research, innovation and educational efforts between divisions and
programs across NSF and with other
Agencies. AIMBE believes that to meet this mandate the unit should report
directly to the Assistant
Director of Engineering and have authority for some portion of the
engineering budget.
Submitted September 22, 2005
The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) was
founded in 1991 to establish a clear and comprehensive identity for the
field of medical and biological engineering - which is the bridge between
the principles of engineering science and practice, and the problems and
issues of biological and medical science and practice. Representing over
75,000 bioengineers, AIMBE serves and coordinates a broad constituency of
medical and biological scientists and practitioners, scientific and
engineering societies, academic departments and industries. AIMBE
membership includes 1,000 peer reviewed Fellows, 19 scientific and
professional societies through its Council of Societies, 88 universities
through it’s Academic Council and 9 industrial corporations through its
Industrial Council.
This email was sent to you as being a member of ASME Technical Divisions. If you wish not to recieve any emails from your division, please sent a blank email to leave-asme_td01091st-5467909L@list.asme.org
----------------------------------------------------
Email From: ASME, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/PMYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RESNAre-psg/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I haven't seen it expressed explicitly.  However....as far as I'm concerned...it would fit under the general Bioengineering rubric.  Of course you can make the case that HF spans many more disciplines, i.e. transportation.   I don't necessarily agree with you that rehab engineering does "fit" under bioengineering.  Bioengineering is the primary root of rehab engineering.  Certainly, in matters of job accommodation and accessibility, HF makes more sense...but...I haven't seen that kind of emphasis in the NSF Engineering Directorate.

Jerry

Jim Lenker wrote:

Jerry et al.

Where does human factors engineering fall in the new ENG structure?  (I assume it exists somewhere, but perhaps not.).

Wherever it lies, perhaps this might be a place for us to advocate for mention of rehab engineering.  H.F. would be a much closer fit for us than the Bio, Enviro, Chem, and Transport grouping.

Jim



Jerry Weisman wrote:

This should be of concern to the RE/RETs. If you have an opinion about it...let someone know...here..on the RESNA Listserve or contact someone on the BOD or Government Affairs Committee.
Jerry
Dear BED members, There are two important items within this email:
AIMBE Proposed Reorganization of the Engineering Directorate at NSF
& AIMBE's formal response
=======================
Dear Council of Societies Representatives:
Re: Draft reorganization plan of the Engineering Directorate (ENG) within
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the proposed elimination of the
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) Division. Deadline for
public comment: October 1, 2005.
Over the past two weeks the AIMBE Board of Directors and the Advocacy
Committee have analyzed and thoroughly discussed the proposed
reorganization of the Engineering Directorate at NSF. On Friday September
23, 2005, AIMBE submitted its official statement regarding the Strategic
Directions for Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education plan.
There is still time for you to register your individual comments on the
proposed plan. The address for you to do so by e-mail is
engquality@nsf.gov. The person collecting these responses is Glenn Larsen,
ENG Quality Management Chair. Please pass along this information to your
societies membership and leadership as well as act individually.
The AIMBE official response included the following talking points, if you
will:
1.	The conceptual framework for the proposed reorganization of the
Engineering Directorate is flawed by eliminating the bioengineering
discipline from the Division titles. The discipline of bioengineering is
drawing highly talented young people to universities all across the
nation. The number of women entering this field of engineering is
historically significant and bioengineering programs are struggling to
accommodate the number of applicants.
2.	Bioengineering is a well-established term among the nation's technical
community. It includes biological and medical engineering and, to some
minds, provides products of biotechnology. Bioengineering products,
processes and devices enhance healthcare, stimulate the economy, provide
jobs and ensure industry has a positive balance of payments. The more
inclusive term of bioengineering should be retained over a change to
biological engineering. The reorganization proposes the mergers of the
Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) division with the Chemical
and Transport Systems (CTS) division to create a broader Chemical,
Biological, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET) division. The
planned combined division, if a change is to be made, would be better
described as the "Bioengineering, Chemical, Environmental and Transport
Systems (BCET)".
3.	Bioengineering is important to the nation's health and to the economy.
Bioengineering students are the lifeblood and future of the bioengineering
industry. Therefore it is essential that the discipline of bioengineering
be highly visible within the structure of the National Science Foundation.
4.	Sections of effort that have traditionally grown from computer,
electrical and electronic engineering are being neglected in the list.
Persons who read and publish in respected journals such as IEEE
Transactions in Biomedical Engineering or in Imaging or the Journal of
Biomechanics would not recognize this as a home for their efforts in
"biomedical engineering."
5.	An alphabetical listing of specialties in any system should be applied
because this neutral stylistic form is a traditional sign that all
elements are equal. The proposed division title would violate this
tradition.
Below is AIMBE's formal response.
We urge you to let your voice be heard as soon as possible. You can send
your comments directly by clicking here. Please copy the AIMBE office
jrivkin@aimbe.org in your comments to the Engineering Directorate.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Sincerely,
Pat Ford-Roegner, RN, MSW, FAAN
Executive Director
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)
1901 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006
202-496-9660
=============================
AIMBE Official Response Statement to the National Science Foundation’s
Strategic Directions for Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education:
Coordinating NSF Bioengineering Research, Innovation and Education
Recommendation
The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)
recommends that the National Science Foundation (NSF) use the planned
period of strategic reorganization to establish a mechanism for
coordinating bioengineering research, innovation and education throughout
the Foundation and with other Federal
Agencies. This will facilitate the implementation of NSF’s top research
priority while providing the required visibility for this important
emerging field.
Background
The medical and biological engineering community, represented by the
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) applauds
the strategic plan of the NSF and the identification of “Biology in
Engineering” as its top research priority. AIMBE agrees that “research is
needed to develop engineering
principles that are based in biology.” It also recognizes that biology has
become pervasive throughout engineering in general. It concurs with the
statement in the Strategic Plan that “engineers from all
disciplines have the opportunity to integrate and exploit biology in their
respective disciplines.” These principles are shared by AIMBE and are
reflected in the accomplishments of close to 1,000 scientists
and engineers who have been recognized by AIMBE and elected to the AIMBE
College of Fellows.
However, AIMBE wishes to add that bioengineering is a unique emerging
discipline with its educational objectives and research capabilities that
differ from other engineering disciplines. Bioengineering is currently
attracting the brightest and best young women and men to careers in
engineering. Inspired by the altruism
of bioengineering, these students are our country’s finest. They enter
study in bioengineering departments and programs and other engineering
disciplines that provide opportunities for specialization in
bioengineering. Discoveries and technologies developed by
AIMBE Official Response Statement to the National Science Foundation’s
Strategic Directions for
Engineering Research, Innovation, and Education (continued):
by bioengineers as well as engineers from other disciplines who integrate
biology into their research activities will have tremendous potential
application in biological sciences, medicine, healthcare, homeland
security, quality of life, and other areas. AIMBE is concerned with the
implications to bioengineering of the proposed reorganization of the
Engineering Directorate. It is troubling that bioengineering is the only
identified discipline from the current organizational chart that does not
appear in the new conceptual framework while every other
discipline such as chemical, civil, mechanical, electrical and industrial,
which automatically connote “engineering,” remain in the proposed new
conceptual framework. The term biology by itself does not
imply or encompass any engineering aspect of bioengineering. It believes
that placing biology as part of
Chemical, Environmental and Transport Systems and eliminating the term
bioengineering will have a
negative effect on the bioengineering academic and research community. It
will diminish or completely
eliminate the visibility of bioengineering and decrease the ability of the
Engineering Directorate to
implement its top research priority. Further, it narrows the definition of
engineering in biology to a
subset of (admittedly important) activities related to chemical
engineering and does not include broader
issues that have come from electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,
computing and imaging
science. Universities take cues from the NSF for resource allocation and
programmatic organization.
Eliminating the visibility of bioengineering at NSF would lead to
diminished emphasis and support for
the discipline on many campuses that have yet to recruit the faculty
needed to match the student interest
in the field. Today, more than ever the NSF needs to demonstrate the
importance of bioengineering to
the cutting edge of science and engineering. To facilitate the
implementation of “Biology in Engineering,” AIMBE recommends that the NSF
establish a mechanism for coordinating bioengineering across the NSF. To
maintain the visibility of the field that NSF has established, it is
suggested that the new coordinating unit include bioengineering in its
title. Thus bioengineering could become one of the “cross-cutting” units
shown in the top figure of page seven in the NSF report Conceptual
Framework for Reorganization Overview and Rationale. The unit could
include representatives from each engineering division, from other NSF
Programs and Directorates and from other agencies interested in
bioengineering research. It will coordinate new
research, innovation and educational efforts between divisions and
programs across NSF and with other
Agencies. AIMBE believes that to meet this mandate the unit should report
directly to the Assistant
Director of Engineering and have authority for some portion of the
engineering budget.
Submitted September 22, 2005
The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) was
founded in 1991 to establish a clear and comprehensive identity for the
field of medical and biological engineering - which is the bridge between
the principles of engineering science and practice, and the problems and
issues of biological and medical science and practice. Representing over
75,000 bioengineers, AIMBE serves and coordinates a broad constituency of
medical and biological scientists and practitioners, scientific and
engineering societies, academic departments and industries. AIMBE
membership includes 1,000 peer reviewed Fellows, 19 scientific and
professional societies through its Council of Societies, 88 universities
through it’s Academic Council and 9 industrial corporations through its
Industrial Council.
This email was sent to you as being a member of ASME Technical Divisions. If you wish not to recieve any emails from your division, please sent a blank email to leave-asme_td01091st-5467909L@list.asme.org
----------------------------------------------------
Email From: ASME, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/PMYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RESNAre-psg/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/