Saturday, September 9, 2017

The End of Optometry As We Know It

The selected readings for this week cover a variety of innovations in a wide array of fields around the globe, ranging from Education to Energy.  One of these particularly struck a chord with me: the self-adjusting eyeglasses presented in Honor Whiteman’s article “Self-Adjustable Eyeglasses: How One Man's Vision Is Helping Others to See Better.”

Firstly, I was struck by the simplicity of the glasses.  As stated, the concept of self-adjusting glasses was first proposed in 1879, but was not actually realized until 1985, when Joshua Silver was asked if he could create an adjustable focus lens. “My initial response was ‘no,’… Then I said, ‘oh yes,’ and I made one that afternoon, and I've still got it.”[1] It only took someone questioning the way things were traditionally done to create a product that has the potential to change countless lives. The glasses, called Adspecs, as well as more recent models, are easily produced; the only roadblock to making them completely accessible to all in developing countries is the cost of production (and, therefore, the price). Through continued testing, the glasses are becoming less and less expensive to produce, but are still above Silver’s stated goal of $1 per pair.[2]

As I continued reading, I could not help thinking of my own family. Just three years ago, my father’s eyesight deteriorated so much that he had to undergo the Lasik procedure. Though successful at first, his vision has once again quickly deteriorated since then, almost as if he had never undergone the pricey surgery. I know that my family would have appreciated a low-cost alternative to Lasik, especially considering its volatile results – which led me to consider accessibility of the self-adjusting glasses to consumers in countries like the US. What would be the consequences to tapping into a market of individuals who often do have access to optometric care, with regards to price and accessibility to the product in developing countries? And, as Whiteman asks in his article, “Would self-adjustable eyewear work in such countries? And would opticians be willing to sell such a product?”[3]

It’s interesting to see what technologies have emerged since the unveiling and implementation of these glasses, some of which may be more fitting for a market of individuals in developed countries. One example is Deep Optics’ self-adjusting lens, which would use the same basic idea as Silver’s lenses (a liquid layer between lenses which shifts to refocus the viewer’s eyes), but would adjust focus nearly automatically thanks to an internal processor.[4] Though this is only a prototype for now, similar products could ultimately open self-adjusting lenses to a market that can afford more than just the bare basics. In fact, similar products, such as dial-adjustable glasses, are already available in stores such as Walmart and on sites like eBay for an affordable price. For example, Walmart offers “Adlens Adjustables Unisex Variable Focus Eyewear” for only $23.97.[5] It may not be anywhere near Silver’s proposed $1 mark, but it’s a start.




[1] Whiteman, Honor. "Self-Adjustable Eyeglasses: How One Man's Vision Is Helping Others to See Better." Medical News Today. November 12, 2015. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/302550.php.
[2] Whiteman, Honor. "Self-Adjustable Eyeglasses: How One Man's Vision Is Helping Others to See Better." Medical News Today. November 12, 2015. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/302550.php.
[3] Whiteman, Honor. "Self-Adjustable Eyeglasses: How One Man's Vision Is Helping Others to See Better." Medical News Today. November 12, 2015. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/302550.php.
[4] Metz, Rachel. "Glasses that Continuously Adjust their Focus May Help Aging Eyes and Virtual-Reality Lovers, Too." MIT Technology Review. March 09, 2016. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600963/eyeglasses-that-can-focus-themselves-are-on-the-way/.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Human-Centered Design: Applications for Government-led International Aid?

“Design Thinking for Social Innovation”, by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, identifies a process for design thinking that can be applied to social innovation initiatives to improve our solutions and increase impact. The article outlines a process for design thinking that includes 3 “overlapping spaces”[1]: inspiration, ideation, and implementation.

In college, I had the opportunity to intern with the United States European Command (US EUCOM), in the Humanitarian Assistance Program. The US EUCOM is a joint command aimed at achieving strategic missions to fruition in Europe. The Humanitarian Assistance Program was created, along with similar programs in Africa, the Pacific Rim and South America, to create resiliency in local communities by building infrastructure, training for disaster preparedness, and promote health and human services. This is, of course, a mechanism to provide aid in communities that are under-served in a way that will deter regional instability.

As it stands, aid applications are submitted by foreign service officers working in US Embassies across Europe. The aid applications outline the specific problem and ideal solution, what the cost would be, and the benefits it will provide to the community. In the Humanitarian Assistance Program office, an officer would review, revise, and forward the applications to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would sign off on the project.

This method leaves little room for the three stages of design thinking outlined in IDEO’s Field Guide on Human-Centered Design and Brown’s article. The Foreign Service Officer may be using the Inspiration place, but it would be difficult to move through the ideation and implementation spaces with any ease when using such an opaque and bureaucratic approval system. The IDEO Field Guide encourages social innovators to “Fail early to succeed sooner”[2], but the limitations on the Humanitarian Assistance Program forces results to come slowly, and significant resources would be lost before confirmation of the project’s success or failure.

Perhaps the best model for US EUCOM’s aid program to adopt is to expand a currently small aspect of the program. Projects with a total cost of under $10,000 can be funded without approval from the Joint Chiefs. If the Humanitarian Assistance Program can work with Embassies to use these smaller projects to test the efficacy of the projects before committing to a larger investment, the program would be able to utilize the design thinking framework to create long-term value for the communities involved.



[1] Brown  , Tim; Wyatt, Jocelynn. “Design Thinking for Social Innovation.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2010, p. 33.
[2] “The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design.” IDEO.org, 2015, p. 21. 

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Government Policy Must Be Nimble to Leverage Benefits of New Technologies

The readings for this week point to disruptive technologies that will likely dramatically alter societies and economies. The potential of these technologies is incredibly exciting, but government policies could stand in the way of us leveraging all of the benefits. It’s not just economies that need to adapt to these disruptions; government policy needs to adapt, too-- and sooner rather than later to unleash the potential of these technologies.

The think tank I worked at prior to coming to Heinz frequently focused on ways to promote medical innovation. Our scholars argued that the vast amounts of data available about patient responses to drugs combined with advances in our understanding of genetics have the potential to find personalized cures for seemingly incurable diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s. Advances in big data and gene sequencing (both referred to in the McKinsey report) have allowed researchers to pinpoint the specific genetic variations that determine whether a patient responds to a treatment or not. While a drug might fail to cure the majority patients (and therefore flunk existing FDA approval standards), it could work on a small subset of them with similar genetic variations (see the 2010 Sloan Kettering trial referenced in “What Failed, the New Cancer Treatment or Regulators?” below). The technology to match subsets of patients with treatments that will cure them has existed for years—yet Congress only passed a bill encouraging the FDA to allow this technology to be incorporated into clinical trials last year, and the timeline for implementation extends through 2025.[1] Patients lying in hospital beds today could be on the path to better health tomorrow if these regulatory barriers had adapted sooner.

All of this feet-dragging is within the United States; how long will it take for other countries to implement similar procedures? Will they all be able to? Aggregating data across multiple countries would lead to even more powerful results, but as the Global Trends 2030 report points out, the potential for multilateral cooperation is not high in the current political climate.

Even technologies that don’t face governmental barriers now could face them in the future; for instance, many states are in the process of deciding how they will address self-driving cars.[2] While governments do have a role in promoting safety, if we’re to see the full benefits of emerging technologies, they must be prepared to be nimble in their regulatory and legislative responses to changing technology.

Recommended further reading:

Peter Huber and Paul Howard, “Personalized Medicine is Here,” The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2017
Peter Huber and Paul Howard, “What Failed, the New Cancer Treatment or Regulators? ,” The Wall Street Journal, February 4, 2015



[1] "Proposed FDA Work Plan for 21st Century Cures Act Innovation Account Activities," U.S. Food and Drug Administration, accessed September 3, 2017, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/scienceboardtothefoodanddrugadministration/ucm556618.pdf.
[2] "Autonomous Vehicles: Self-Driving Vehicles Enacted Legistlation," National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed September 3, 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx.