My Experience with Biomechanics(BMED 3410) As a Biomedical Engineer

 

If you have ever entered into a STEM major at Georgia Tech, or at any other school, you know that it is not easy business. Sleepless nights, tears, wanting to rip your hair out (It’s an expression don’t worry!) are all parts of the package. You end up learning a lot of useful information for your future career, and for your personal life that you will definitely utilize to achieve your goals. Nevertheless, along the way, there are plenty of times that you will doubt yourself and your capability to survive your major. Being a Biomedical Engineering major, a major that combines elements of pre-med, and Engineering, I know first hand how this feels. I have had more challenging classes throughout this major than I can count from Conservation Principles of BME, to Intro to MATLAB, to Organic Chemistry I, to Organic Chemistry II, to Statics, to Biotransport, to Systems Modeling this semester. It is constant stress, and hardwork! It is rewarding hardwork, but it is hardwork nonetheless. One of the things that helped me every semester when I felt overwhelmed through this workload was to know that other people were also going through what I was going through, and were as stressed out as I was. So, being a fifth year BME and STEM student at Georgia Tech, I wanted to write this article to provide solace to people who felt overwhelmed, so they feel like there are people who have gone through what they have gone through and that they are not alone in the challenges that they face. So sit back and relax, as I take you through my journey as a STEM student taking Biomechanics and the hurdles and misery I felt as I went through the class.

To start off, throughout high school and most of my life, I was good at math and science. Others looked at subjects like AP Chemistry with dread, while those subjects gave me joy. After all, there was nothing more fun than working on Stoichiometry problems on a Friday night, right? Others would walk into Chemistry class, with a look of dread on their face, while I would walk in with a feeling of excitement. Making solutions in the lab was my jam. We would have quizzes every Friday, and I could see the feeling of dread on my peers’ faces afterward as they turned in their papers with half-empty work, not confident that they had solved the problem correctly, while I had solved the problem confidently from start to finish. I was riding a sugar high, and it felt great to be at the top. There was a great feeling that came with feeling so confident about science and I really enjoyed what I was learning as well. Unfortunately, little did I know that this was just a positive moment, and that, in the grand scheme of things, I was in for a tough reality.

Fast forward to my senior year of college. I had registered to take Biomechanics. It was a course that was required for my major. I had heard awful things from some of my friends who had taken it before me, but I went in with an open mind. The first few lectures went by, and I already felt slightly confused, but I had been able to clarify concepts that I was struggling with. I was able to do the practice problems. Nothing seemed too concerning.  Then came the day of the quiz on Wednesday. Most people had not done the practice problems, and I was feeling ready. It was approaching the last 25 minutes of the lecture, and the professor and TA’s began handing out the papers. I knew it was not going to be easy, but I felt prepared, or so I thought.

I flipped the paper over, only to see a diagram with a lot of text that I could not comprehend. I tried to calm myself down and reread, but I just could not understand. It was then that I saw the time on the screen going down, 20 minutes, 19:59, 19:58, 19:57. With each passing second that went by, I was losing time, and I was still not able to understand the question prompt or the way my Free Body Diagram should look. With each second that went, I could feel a ticking time bomb going off in my head. My stomach began to burn like lava. My chest began to feel constricted, and I felt like I could not breathe. To make matters worse, I heard the sounds of chairs moving in and out beside me, as people began to turn in their quizzes and leave. People were writing so loudly that it almost made the desks shake, and it just made me feel even more nervous than I already was. In the last 10 minutes, I wrote down some work and formulas, hoping to get some credit. However, I did not get a good feeling about how this was going to go, and my gut feeling was usually correct. Seeing as my approach to studying for this quiz had probably failed, I decided to modify my studying approach for the next quiz, next Friday.

Unfortunately, modifying my approach did not change the outcome of the next quiz. The next quiz also felt just as impossible, and now that it had been two quizzes like this, I began to think I was just screwed in this class, no matter what I did. I then went home, tired, and not aware of what to do. I took a break from Biomechanics because, after all, I was going to suck no matter what, right? The grade for the first quiz came that Sunday, and it was even worse than I could have ever expected. I had gotten a 0. It seems I had managed to not even get any partial credit. As dramatic as this sounds, I then began to contemplate all my life decisions, including coming out of state to Georgia Tech to study BME. Maybe I was just not cut out for it? I had already spent many semesters before this, feeling dumb about struggling in classes at Tech, having a lower GPA than some others, and not getting a single internship until the summer after my junior year. In truth, I was doing fine, but I still doubted myself because BME was a hard major. Any Engineering was a hard major, and there were plenty of people that had quit before me and that had not even made it nearly as far as I had made it. It is extremely common, unfortunately, for people in STEM majors to drop out and some classes make many people more tempted to drop out than to stick it through.

In the second half of the class, I began to make up ground. I began to get 80’s and 90’s on the quizzes, and I even got a 98 on the second test. I had not changed much at all about the way I studied, except I had become calmer, as I had decided that the worst thing that would happen was that I would fail. I was not prepared to drop the class, in the rare chance that I passed. I finally finished the class, and it was still not my best grade, but I ended up with a way better outcome than I thought I was going to end up with in the beginning. I persevered, and that is when I realized that I was good at self-learning, even if I did not think so initially. I was proud of myself, and I felt a sense of joy as to what I was able to accomplish. So, I just want to say, for anyone coming from a STEM background who feels intimidated and hopeless about being successful in your major, you will encounter difficult times and difficult situations. However, if you are motivated to push through and persevere, you can not only find success, but you can enjoy your major while going through the challenge.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.