Simulation allows our learning errors to not be at the expense of real lives. Don't underestimate the breadth of what these simulators can do.
I first saw simulated bodies for trauma-training at I/ITSEC in 1999. At the time they were expensive (probably still are), somewhat limited compared to those described in the article, and tied to additional hardware. Nevertheless they could be programmed with a wide variety of responses. The eyes could dilate as needed, the pulse could be detected in the normal ways and be programmed to respond, injected drugs were detected by the system and the physiological response programmed, body panels could be substituted to simulate cuts and burns, etc. The programing could include an adverse reaction to a drug, for which the trauma team had to detect the response, provide response to counter the reaction, and provide an alternate to treat the original problem.
There were two companies providing these simulators for demonstration and one point the program included a panel discussion. I remember a lady from the audience, dressed in military officer clothing, stand and ask whether the programming range included the sometimes quite-different physiological response of the female body. In response, one of the panel members explained "I don't know about the other one, but ours has been pregnant twice already."
These modern ones appear much more portable and powerful. I have no doubt that trauma teams that have the opportunity to be trained using them are much more prepared for the real experiences that they encounter.
