Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Harvard's 'RoboBee' Project Finally Lifts Off as a Surgical-Tech Company (msn.com) 8

"When Robert Wood came to Harvard University 17 years ago, he wanted to design an insect-sized robot that could fly," reports the Boston Globe. And finally Last month, technology from Wood's "RoboBee" project was commercialized for the first time, "spinning out as a surgical-robot startup backed by venture capital firm 1955 Capital.

"RoboBee was funded by $10 million in grants from the National Science Foundation. Its evolution into a company says a lot about how schools like Harvard are doing more to encourage entrepreneurship." The RoboBee first took flight in 2012, connected to a tether that provided a power supply. In 2019, it became the lightest object to take off and fly on its own.... When it takes off, its little wings flap about 150 times per second, but a slowed-down video of the wings resembles a human treading water. Many wonder what tiny, flying robots that weigh less than one-tenth of a gram might be useful for. Pollinating crops? Surveillance? Wood said he never paid too much attention to that.

"It's never really been about, 'Oh, I'm going to start a company based upon this,'" he said. But that changed recently, he said, mostly because of a growing push at Harvard to move research from its labs into the real world.... Wood was connected to venture capitalist and Harvard alum Andrew Chung by the school's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences dean, Frank Doyle, during the pandemic. The managing partner of 1955 Capital said he's been investing in surgical-robotics companies for the past decade. "The one key thing that we have been dreaming about is how we can make the robotic arms a lot smaller," Chung said. "Not necessarily what other VCs might be thinking, which is maybe 15 to 20 percent smaller. We're thinking 90 percent smaller."

Chung noticed how the RoboBee was designed and manufactured — Wood got his inspiration from origami and children's-book layering and folding techniques — and thought it could help make better small-scale surgical robots. "Thinking about how to shrink these devices to insect size or smaller opens up a whole range of possibilities that even surgeons haven't quite imagined," Chung said. For now, the startup is called Project 1985, a reference to the year the first robotic-assisted surgery took place. The company will initially focus on neurosurgery, urology, and lung surgery. Wood will serve as an advisor.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harvard's 'RoboBee' Project Finally Lifts Off as a Surgical-Tech Company

Comments Filter:
  • by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot@nOSpam.keirstead.org> on Sunday January 15, 2023 @01:13PM (#63210618)

    " Many wonder what tiny, flying robots that weigh less than one-tenth of a gram might be useful for. Pollinating crops? Surveillance? Wood said he never paid too much attention to that."

    Mass assassinations?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • The National Science Foundation is taxpayer funded. I assume the public will recieve part of the profits? Of course not. The public will only suffer the unintended consequences.
    • Corporate vultures own it, unfortunately. Many great ideas and products are funded by schools and Government grants only to be swallowed by Vulture Capitalist investment phuckers to make money. For example, a drug patent created by researcher at UW (University of Washington) to potentially cure leukemia was purchased by a VC company. They're mentality is they can charge $500-$1m per shot if it works. Essentially a company that purchased a patent developed from your tax dollars will hold hostage the p
    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Governments encourage commercialization of grant funded research. They put in a bit of money that they would have anyway and they get out both a benefit to society and a whole bunch of taxes.

  • This story has almost zero content and as others have commented, reads like an advertorial. Nowhere is it even explained what on earth a surgeon might need a flying robot for, although it does say that this surgical robot (the term is used several times) wonâ(TM)t be used for surgery after all. It might be used for other environmentally, politically and ethically dubious purposes, though. Again, no real discussion of that. This article isnâ(TM)t even remotely journalism, itâ(TM)s just trash.

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Working...