Skip to main content
Log in

Outcomes from a Postgraduate Biomedical Technology Innovation Training Program: The First 12 Years of Stanford Biodesign

  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Stanford Biodesign Program began in 2001 with a mission of helping to train leaders in biomedical technology innovation. A key feature of the program is a full-time postgraduate fellowship where multidisciplinary teams undergo a process of sourcing clinical needs, inventing solutions and planning for implementation of a business strategy. The program places a priority on needs identification, a formal process of selecting, researching and characterizing needs before beginning the process of inventing. Fellows and students from the program have gone on to careers that emphasize technology innovation across industry and academia. Biodesign trainees have started 26 companies within the program that have raised over $200 million and led to the creation of over 500 new jobs. More importantly, although most of these technologies are still at a very early stage, several projects have received regulatory approval and so far more than 150,000 patients have been treated by technologies invented by our trainees. This paper reviews the initial outcomes of the program and discusses lessons learned and future directions in terms of training priorities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armstrong, D., W. Marston, A. Reyzelman, and R. Kirsner. Comparative effectiveness of mechanically and electrically powered negative pressure wound therapy devices: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Wound Repair Regen. 20:332–341, 2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Byers, T., R. Dorf, and A. Nelson. Technology Ventures: From Idea to Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010, 704 pp.

  3. Estrin, J. Closing the Innovation Gap. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2008, 272 pp.

  4. Fong, K., D. Hu, S. Eichstadt, D. Gupta, M. Pinto, G. Gurtner, M. Longaker, and H. Lorenz. The SNaP system: biomechanical and animal model testing of a novel ultraportable negative-pressure wound therapy system. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 125:1362–1371, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Golish, S., L. Fielding, V. Agarwal, J. Buckley, and T. Alamin. Failure strength of lumbar spinous processes loaded in a tension band model laboratory investigation. J. Neurosurg. Spine 17:69–73, 2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Immelt, J. R., V. Govindarajan, and C. Trimble. How GE is disrupting itself. Harv. Bus. Rev. 87:56–65, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kelley, T., and J. Littman. The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. New York: Random House, 2001, 320 pp.

  8. Pugh, S. Concept selection—a method that works. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. 81:497–506, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Radjou, N., J.Prahbhu, and S. Ahuja. Jugaad Innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012, 275 pp.

  10. Sattar, A., D. Drigalla, S. Higgins, and D. Schreiber. Prevalence of arrhythmias in ED patients discharged using a novel ambulatory cardiac monitor. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 59:E642–E642, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tuckman, B. W. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol. Bull. 63:384–399, 1965.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wasden, C. Medical technology innovation scorecard: the race for global leadership. PricewaterhouseCoopers Report, 2011, 49 pp.

  13. Yock, P. G., J. Makower, S. A. Zenios, T. J. Brinton, U. Kumar, T. Krummel, and L. Denend (eds.). Biodesign: Innovating New Medical Technologies. London: Cambridge Press, 2009, 742 pp.

  14. Yock, P. G., T. J. Brinton, and S. A. Zenios. Teaching biomedical technology innovation as a discipline. Sci. Transl. Med. 3:92–109, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to recognize the core staff of Biodesign for the excellence and diligence of their work in service of the program: Ari Chaney, Roula El-Asmar, Mary Gorman, Justina Kayastha, Linda Lucian, Andrea Mattison and Athena Reyes.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Q. Kurihara.

Additional information

Associate Editor Andrew DiMeo oversaw the review of this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brinton, T.J., Kurihara, C.Q., Camarillo, D.B. et al. Outcomes from a Postgraduate Biomedical Technology Innovation Training Program: The First 12 Years of Stanford Biodesign. Ann Biomed Eng 41, 1803–1810 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0761-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0761-2

Keywords

Navigation