Posted on 01/29/2014 11:10:09 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Because of rapid advances in 3D printing, the world is plunging towards ethical and political controversy fuelled by the use of the technology to generate living human tissue and organs.
Bioprinting will progress far faster than general understanding of the ramifications of the technology, according to analyst firm Gartner.
Last year researchers at Cornell University demonstrated an ear printer, and San Diego firm Organovo unveiled work on printing human livers, with scientists at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland developing a way to print blobs of human embryonic stem cells.
Gartner research director Pete Basiliere said bioprinting initiatives are well-intentioned but raise questions about quality and control and the possible development of complex enhanced organs involving nonhuman cells.
"The day when 3D-bioprinted human organs are readily available is drawing closer, and will result in a complex debate involving a great many political, moral and financial interests," Basiliere said in a statement.
Even 3D printing of non-living medical devices, such as prosthetic limbs, could cause an explosion in demand for the technology over the next two years.
Outside the application of 3D printing in medicine, Gartner is forecasting that at least seven of the world's top 10 multichannel retailers will be using the technology by 2018.
Not only will they be employing 3D printing to generate custom stock orders but they'll be developing new business models for it.
As well as consumers buying printers to output their own products, 3D copying and printing services will also emerge for high-end parts, not only in plastics but in ceramics, stainless steel, and cobalt and titanium alloys.
However, businesses will pay a heavy price in intellectual property theft sparked by the spread of 3D printing. Gartner thinks worldwide it will cost at least $100bn annually by 2018.
"The very factors that foster innovation — crowdsourcing, R&D pooling and funding of startups — coupled with shorter product life cycles, provide a fertile ground for intellectual property theft using 3D printers," Basiliere said.
"Already, it's possible to 3D print many items, including toys, machine and automotive parts, and even weapons."
In the report 3D printing at the inflection point, Gartner argues that 3D printing could create an environment where businesses and their IP licensees will struggle to make money out of their inventions.
So far, the size and inability to print more than one item per machine at a time are the barriers to this becoming a cottage industry for more than parts.
I think I have already seen printers that have multiple printing beds, so that barrier will be the first to fall. The size problem leads designers of inanimate objects to begin thinking in modules. You could print multiple tiles, for example, and then put them together to create whatever.
The jobs, though, will be in the software production, IMO.
I say this as someone who has spent my life in limited production of my own handmade designs in several media. IMO, the manufacturer must own something, either the process, materials or some unique aspect of the design.
As prices for a complete shop, including a laser scanner and multiple machines or a multiple bed machine, fall, the race will go to those capable of innovation the machines and the materials.
This is early days.
This may well yank the rug out from under the “Made in China” problem.
thatisabsolutelyunreadabledontyouknowaboutparagraphsandtheproperuseoftheshiftkey
If that's true, then what incentive is there to inventing new things and ideas?
I should have added an example to my question, so here, belatedly, it is:
Why should any company invest in advancing 3D printer technology by committing time and money to research and development of better printers if they can simply take it for free in a few years?
I know, it is counterintuitive...
But your same argument would apply to the internet. Why invest in internet infrastructure if it will end up making information that everyone has to pay dearly for now... not have to do that?
Why invest in advancing metal production if everyone can buy a 100 pack of razors for $10 when each hand crafted razor is worth $100 now?
There is money to be made, just not on the end it has been made on. Complete complex products will still be needed and that demand will never go away in our lifetimes. But simple items? Maybe there will be no market at all for single-material products in 30-50 years. You’ll just punch up a free design number from the internet for any one of a trillion items...
This is a mental exercise about as difficult as sitting around 25 years ago and trying to accurately imagine what we would be using the internet for today. The changes will be that vast. Back then, if you couldn’t get it in a library... ? Or instant ordering of almost anything on earth through Amazon? The internet has been a net gain for the world, even if it has caused horrible disruption and growing pains in certain areas. 3D printing will be the same way.
You’ve either purposely, or accidently avoided answering the question.
You say there will be money to be made, but not on the end it’s made on now. That’s nonsense, as there are no ‘ends’ unless something is invented first. Without an ‘end’ no money will be made by anyone.
The basic laws of economics can’t be changed, something the argument is trying to do.
To answer one of your challenges; “Why invest in advancing metal production if everyone can buy a 100 pack of razors for $10 when each hand crafted razor is worth $100 now?”
Today, that inventor who creates a way to manufacture that 100 pack at a price which can be profitable is rewarded with a sum that reflects the ingenuity of his creation. If he can get the cost down a little below that $10 then he get a little compensation. However if he gets the price significantly below $10 he has the opportunity to be handsomely compensated.
Under the system you describe, we don’t know how he will be compensated, and that’s understandable. However, he must be compensated, otherwise he won’t create a way to manufacture those blades more economically.
I would envision a system not unlike what we have with media now. When a product is first designed and released it will likely be on a protected type of “one download one use” thing. Just like music and other info now, sooner or later it stops being new and hot and makes its way onto everyone’s hard disk. Or someone reverse engineers the dimensions and makes a free version.
I can also envision groups of designers producing entirely IP free things... like an open source engine. You print it out of metal... the design is free. You might actually start to see MORE interchangable car parts (just a wild example) as people settle on good free standard part designs.
I’m just throwing theory around here.
It will be easy to design and make the parts at some point. The money is going to be in the printers and the raw materials.
Surely you aren’t trying to say that people in the media today do their jobs for no compensation, are you?
If they do, things will change, and according to the laws of economics, in the future they will be forced to demand compensation.
The ability to print tissue from cultures may allow us to transplant organs built from tissue samples from living relatives, instead of cadavers or subjecting kin to invasive surgery.
And the ability to transplant from organs built from stem cells could mean replacement organs from your own tissue, assuming you don’t have HIV or Hepatitis, so no rejection. And such transplants are an option even in a post-antibiotic world.
return ping gleeaikin. Are we talking zer0?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.