The article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please improve the article to make it accessible to non-experts, without removing the technical details.

Maybe since there are at least two definitions of biocompatibility this article should have a disambiguationarticle? //BedrupsBaneman

[edit] Merger

I would say do NOT merge the articles on biocompatibility and biocompatible material. For three reasons: 1. There are no biocompatible materials. See biocompatibility. So the article biocompatible material should be deleted or renamed. 2. The scope of an article on materials to be used for biomedical devices (biomaterials) is quite a lot as it is. 3. They (biomaterial and biocompatility) have their own specific meaning. Benkeboy 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction/definition

This article begins with an definition, then refutes it without citing sources, with what seems to me to be a personal agenda. I have added tags which I feel are appropriate in this case. Unfortunatly I do not have enough knowledge in this subject to re-write it. For example "The critique againts this definition..." has no context as to who critiques it. If it is totally disputed by the scientific community, don't put that definition in. If only a handfull disagree with it, the dispute should not be presented as fact. The introduction should state the widly accepted definition of biocompatability, and if that definition is disputed, such a critique should go in the body of the article. In fact, I'll move it there now.

Now I have expanded the introduction to make the context a bit more clear. I have also added in-text links to external sources, as well as added reference and comments on a new article by Williams, 2008. The in-text referencing provided by wikipedia sucks (in-text and actual list of reference is completely independent... think about that for a second ... ) so I prefer to use (name, year) since it is much easier to edit and would more often not lead to mistakes! Benkeboy (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What?

This article talks quite a bit, but doesn't seem to be saying very much. It is badly in need of a subject-matter expert that has the ability to rewrite it in a manner that is targeted at the general populace. As it is now, it's a slice of a debate between members of the same profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.209.142 (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I started tidying this up, but I gave up when I realised that it really only had one source. While I am in the biological sciences, this is not my field so i marked it as needing expansion Ethidium (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is Professor Williams? His credentials certifying him as the authority on the definition of "biocompatibility" are never clarified.209.76.214.200 (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article definitely needs more sources, rather than simply choosing one source and fêting that person as "an authority" Ethidium (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)