Google Announces Smart Contact Lens Project For Diabetics 90
An anonymous reader writes "Google has announced on its official blog that it's working on a new way for diabetics to monitor their blood sugar: a 'smart' contact lens. Diabetes is a difficult condition to treat because blood sugar levels vary widely by a person's activity level and food intake. It's also hard to monitor without painful and intrusive measurements — people can feel normal at dangerously high blood sugar levels, while extremely low levels can impair their ability to seek treatment. Google says, 'Over the years, many scientists have investigated various body fluids—such as tears—in the hopes of finding an easier way for people to track their glucose levels. But as you can imagine, tears are hard to collect and study. At Google[x], we wondered if miniaturized electronics—think: chips and sensors so small they look like bits of glitter, and an antenna thinner than a human hair—might be a way to crack the mystery of tear glucose and measure it with greater accuracy. We're now testing a smart contact lens that's built to measure glucose levels in tears using a tiny wireless chip and miniaturized glucose sensor that are embedded between two layers of soft contact lens material. We're testing prototypes that can generate a reading once per second.' They're talking with the FDA and bringing in experts to help them figure out the best way to do it."
Re: (Score:3)
Excuses will be made that "Diabetics are only a small fraction of the total Google user base, so we just couldn't justify keeping those resources tied up on something we couldn't monetize with AdWords."
Re: (Score:2)
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore!"
Guys, these are medical devices. They won't be able to sell them in the US without FDA approval and in other countries with their governments' medical regulatory agencies' approval. And with these, unlike gMail or search, you are the customer, not the product.
For those of you who missed the significance of the first sentence, google it (although you shouldn't have to, you should already know).
Re: (Score:2)
Also, these will be designed to transmit the collected data, undoubtedly to a proprietary smartphone app (available for both iPhone and Android), which couldn't possibly send that data to Google for their marketing and tracking purchases?
Hmmm...blood sugar a little low? Suddenly
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that, somehow, the FDA would force Google to keep selling the product?
Of course not. Whoever owns CrystaLens now (Bausch&Lomb sold them, I don't remember to whom) could discontinue sales today and nobody could have one implanted until the patent runs out in nine years and anyone can manufacture them. The same goes for Google contacts.
Hmmm...blood sugar a little low? Suddenly all your adwords beside your google searches are for candy bars.
Illegal. [wikipedia.org]
And, as I mentioned in my first post, if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I, for one, etc, etc (Score:2)
Great (Score:3)
Can they make my ex GF's eye's turn red before she goes crazy and attacks me, while having a low blood sugar experience?
Re: (Score:1)
my ex GF's eye's turn red before she goes crazy and attacks me,
Kinky! So she's single now? Do you still have her number?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
but what is the frequency required for crazy to be considered an active state?
Re: (Score:2)
It's cute that you still buy the low blood sugar explanation,
but what is the frequency required for crazy to be considered an active state?
Maybe the low blood sugar issue should be considered a race situation :)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps your cleverness will be modworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. I'm diabetic and I've never heard of anyone behaving this way due to a low. Personally, I start shaking, I get weak, my heart starts pounding, and I break out in a sweat. The only thing I feel like attacking is a bag of gummy bears.
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's no lie. The lowest I've ever gotten was 31. I went to my kit and checked myself, then proceeded to grab a needle and my novolog and give myself a shot! Suddenly I thought, "Wait a second. That's not what I want to do," and I reached for the bottle of glucose tabs instead. It was like my brain knew I was supposed to do something, but didn't quite know exactly what.
Re: (Score:3)
Some folks do get belligerent, my father for one.
Re: (Score:3)
4 out of 5 fights with my fiance, a nurse, end before they begin with her telling me to not say anything else until she gets me a glass of fruit juice.
Re: (Score:3)
The belligerence is usually when they have high glucose levels. When the glucose is low they usually look sedated.
Where are they going? (Score:5, Funny)
Yesterday google glass... today google contact lenses... tomorrow google supository...insert the whole internet right up your ass!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you'll hear about is some dude blowing away someone in a movie theater for wearing their Google Glass.
Why not, people have been shot in theaters for less... recently in fact.
This will sell more ads (Score:1)
Google wants to know your blood sugar level so that they know when best to target ads to you.
hipaa will them smackdown Google very hard (Score:2)
hipaa will them smackdown Google very hard and I hope the fine is at least 3X-5X what they made off the ads.
Re: (Score:1)
nice job reading...you must have missed the clinical trials part, and the FDA part, so 'm guessing they will be hipaa compliant, that is al, you may now go ahead and continue you're circle jerk of useless commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Glass 2.0 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Once more, technology helping health care (Score:4, Interesting)
This is amazing news... I believe we might not be far from some sort of sensor that will monitor our main "health checks" (sugar level in blood, cholesterol, blood pressure, heart rate, etc) and give us an accurate, real time report, in a non-intrusive / painful way...
Re: (Score:1)
thanks for contributing nothing, you're making slashdot great!
Wow, nice of you to really add to the discussion, where are the citations for what you have found or know of?
He brings up a legit point, Google cannot be trusted, and he mentions other research that's been under way by varies Universities, and generalMedical Research. You to lazy to investigate the other methods?
If Google is smart [and I doubt it] they will help or assist in making this but stay of out of collecting the data. Make remote software [preferably by an trust open source community] for a laptop o
Re: (Score:3)
Something I'm sure insurance companies would love to know.
Oh, you're mostly in the green, but for 10 days in 2013, I see you went into the yellow for your health. That'll be a 10% unhealthy habits surcharge on your premium. Next time, go easy
Why transmit the information? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IDK maybe because they want to track levels via there smartphone vs to high or to low via a led. Combine it with other data to get a better picture of whats going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is focus, i suppose, but i'm not so sure how it works with i.e. google glass if you must watch something that you have pretty close to one of your eyes and other things far at the same time.
It's like with EVFs on digital cameras, or HUDs in airplanes. You use lenses to make the picture appear to have the same angular size, but much larger distance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have diabetes but I am fairly close to somebody who does have diabetes. Having a continuous log of sugar levels is something that is VERY useful in treating the condition. Sure, just having an alert would certainly be useful, not but really sufficient.
One issue I see with contacts is that they can't really be left in 24x7 without increased risk of complications. Of course, many people do just this all the same. Blood sugars dropping during sleep is definitely a scenario that you'd want your sens
Re: (Score:2)
Won't be cheaper/less bulky instead of antenna and cpu to send the information to simply show an icon in your vision and let the wearer decide what to do?
The optics to project that would be tricky. Also, what would happen if you were sleeping? Would you risk the possibility of the projection being insufficient to wake you up?
Cool, and probably realistic, but... (Score:3)
This is a lot more realistic than the ever-repeating "display integrated into a contact lens" stories. Continuous, non-invasive monitoring of blood sugar will be an enormous boon, especially if it can be integrated with insulin-pump control.
Having said that, though, wearing a contact lens actually is kind of invasive. I wore them happily for many years, but there were also periods where it wasn't a very happy experience. Contacts do increase certain risks to your eyes, and diabetics already face significant risks to their vision. (As far as I know, the cornea-related risks from contacts are independent of the retina-related risks from diabetes.) I can imagine many diabetics wouldn't be very enthusiastic about wearing a contact lens, especially if they don't need it for vision correction.
Re: (Score:3)
Diabetic here. I would wear the contact lens in a heartbeat. The idea is that this device would replace the finger pricks, otherwise known as holes in skin. And when you repeatedly test on your fingers (6-10/day), that's a lot of holes and a lot of blood. There is risk for infections, scabs and blisters. And long time diabetics develop callouses on their fingers from testing which means that they need to poke deeper to get blood.
Plus the checking isn't really "constant." You have to periodically check
Non-invasive glucose monitoring (Score:3)
This would be an excellent development, bit keep in mind the field is littered with many dozens of failed devices and startup companies.
Of the various http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noninvasive_glucose_monitor [slashdot.org]"> non-invasive glucose monitoring methods that have been tried, I am aware of only one that was approved in the US (a transcutaneous electroporation device), and that one was withdrawn from the market shortly after.
Shouldn't they... (Score:3)
Shouldn't they first determine if tears are an accurate way to measure glucose in the first place? That could be measured now, even if it would not be convenient. It would seem that if you are willing to wear a micro sensor in your eye, why not just inject it under the skin? If you did that, you could make it the size of an rfid tag.
Re: (Score:2)
I wondered about this myself. I'm skeptical that tears are as accurate as blood testing.
Oh, the irony . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing was that I showed a picture of this to a diabetic friend and told them that it measured blood sugar through the eye. They literally shrieked in horror thinking that it meant that it would be stabbing them in the eye.
If it's like the others.... (Score:2)
If it's like the other continuous monitoring devices, it will be priced in the stratosphere, with sensors "needing" to be replaced every few days, at $75 a pop.
Looks like old school thinking still prevails (Score:1)
Most people get "diabetes" on a regular basis, to some extent. Or rather insulin resistance. Best article I've read ever on diabetes http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237658613_New_Insights_and_New_Therapies_for_Insulin_Resistance [researchgate.net]
Rats (Score:2)
I can't wear contacts. This would be great for diabetics who can, though. I guess I'll still be waiting for some other non-intrusive method.
missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
I think many of the comments are missing the point, Diabetes testing supplies are worth a lot of money every year. If, and that's a big if, Google can introduce a market altering device, (patented, I'm sure) they will largely own the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Google allows engineers to have time to pursue their own products. It doesn't require someone at the top to approve it, just a talented engineering with an interest.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm trying to figure out why this was even developed at Google, and then it came to me. (this is pure speculation, please don't get all pissed off...)
Someone at the top of the Google food chain either has Diabetes, or has a loved one with Diabetes.
Considering the prevalence of diabetes in the US, that seems like a remarkably safe bet.
Maybe that did motivate someone at the top of Google. Or maybe they want to do some good in the world. Or maybe they want big bucks from health-care. Or all of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Need More Unicorn News Like This (Score:1)
Then I read all the AC comments about how much this sucks and they don't want it to succeed, because "Google bad!". Screw you guys.
d
Original research (Score:3)
Some of the original research in this area was carried out by Angelika Domschke (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/angelika-domschke/19/709/824). For example, this study happened back in 2006 - http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dia.2006.8.89 [liebertpub.com].
Fun fact - Google tried to recruit her and she turned them down after meeting their team.
Re: (Score:1)
As a Type-II diabetic, I applaud google's efforts (Score:2)
I wish I were working for google and could participate in the "beta" testing phase of it
Clarification (Score:2)
Before anyone gets the idea that Google did meaningful research, know that the real science and technology here has been demonstrated in labs for 20 years. The quotation from Google in TFS makes it look like Google solved a "mystery" and did science, but what they did is normal Google work: they packaged other people's publicly funded and disclosed work, slapped patent protection on it, and commercialized it. To some people this is the heart of innovation, but whether or not you think it's impressive, at
Job Interviews (Score:2)