The Lattice (Official 3DHEALS Podcast)
Welcome to the Lattice podcast, the official podcast for 3DHEALS. This is where you will find fun but in-depth conversations (by founder Jenny Chen) with technological game-changers, creative minds, entrepreneurs, rule-breakers, and more. The conversations focus on using 3D technologies, like 3D printing and bioprinting, AR/VR, and in silico simulation, to reinvent healthcare and life sciences. This podcast will include AMA (Ask Me Anything) sessions, interviews, select past virtual event recordings, and other direct engagements with our Tribe.
While there is no rule for our podcast content, the only rule we follow is to provide our listeners with a maximized return on their attention and time investment.
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram @3dheals, and check out the links in the show notes.
3DHEALS Links: https://linktr.ee/3dheals
The Lattice (Official 3DHEALS Podcast)
Episode #81 | From J&J to the Future: Sam Onokori's 30-Year Adventure in 3D Printed Medical Devices
Sam Onokori takes us through his remarkable 30-year journey at Johnson & Johnson, where he transformed the landscape of medical devices through pioneering work in 3D printing technology. As a material scientist who led the development of J&J's Center of Excellence for additive manufacturing, Sam offers rare insights into how a global healthcare giant approached innovation and personalized medicine.
The conversation reveals the fascinating evolution of medical 3D printing from basic prototyping to FDA-approved implants. Sam shares the story behind breakthrough products, such as the TrueMatch graft cage – a PCL-based, bioabsorbable scaffold for bone reconstruction that has dramatically improved patient outcomes. His candid assessment of where personalization succeeds (craniomaxillofacial implants) and where it falls short (knee replacements) provides a nuanced perspective rarely found in technology discussions.
We examine the unexpected challenges that have shaped the industry, including the complex regulatory landscape, the emergence of surgical robots, and the economic realities that have tempered some early expectations. Sam's firsthand experience with point-of-care printing initiatives and customized surgical instruments provides valuable lessons about striking a balance between innovation and practicality in healthcare settings.
Looking toward the future, Sam identifies promising frontiers, including bioprinting, advancements in materials science, and the integration of AI with 3D printing technologies. For students and professionals considering careers in this field, he emphasizes the importance of strong engineering fundamentals and experiencing both startup and corporate environments to develop a comprehensive skill set.
Whether you're a healthcare professional, engineer, investor, or simply curious about how medical innovation occurs, this conversation offers an authentic glimpse into the triumphs, setbacks, and unrealized dreams that continue to shape the future of personalized medicine and additive manufacturing.
Subscribe to our premium version and support the show.
Follow us:
Twitter
Instagram
Linkedin
3DHEALS Website
Facebook
Facebook Group
Youtube channel
About Pitch3D
In this episode, I had the pleasure to interview Sam Onokori, a pioneering force in the world of 3D printed medical devices with over 30 years of experience in R&D and commercialization. A trained material scientist, Sam has led transformative work during his 30-year tenure at Johnson Johnson, where he spearheaded 3D printing integration across medical, consumer and pharma sectors. Today, he continues to push the boundaries of healthcare innovation through various advisory and consulting roles. Join me as we explore Sam's extraordinary journey, the future of personalized care and the promise of additive manufacturing in medicine. Hi there, Hi Sam, Hi Jenny, how are you Good? Thanks for taking time to talk to us Absolutely.
Speaker 1:You're one of the few first speakers to test this podcast out, so thank you very much for having faith in me. But while I was doing research to interview you, I realized just how much you have done for the industry and your name is obviously very well known, and I mean not just in 3D printing but also in my tech in general. So you have spent 30 years at J&J, which is a crazy amount of time for a lot of people. So I want to kind of organize this interview into before J&J and then the bulk of this interview. We definitely want to dig deeper in what happened during that journey, that fantastic journey of yours, and then now, which is post-J&J, which is equally exciting. So why don't we start with the before-J&J story?
Speaker 2:Okay, okay, yeah, no, that's great. I think J&J has been a big, big part of my life. So you know, I think other than a little bit of you know engineering work in General Electric with appliances. Most of my life has been in medical devices and healthcare.
Speaker 2:So, I started out in Baxter Healthcare in Chicago after my, you know, graduation in the graduate program. A lot of it in the medical devices, laparoscopic products, those days it was starting out, I think A lot of it was manual assembly, a lot of CNC machining and these are all the long catheters and, you know, endocutters and things like that. So it was very inexpensive times when we, you know, when we used to do things like that. So, and then I spent time in quality bulk coverage and R&D supply chain and then eventually I think it was like maybe after seven or so years there that I moved into J&J. So there's a lot of learnings from there. But also, you know, funny things was those were the days when people, you know engineers, were wearing neckties into the job and dealing with machines, with those, so things like that. So things have changed quite a bit. And then I came to J&J around 1996, something like that. It's a long time Right being there for around 26 or 27 years or so in there. So how did you.
Speaker 1:So you were in Baxter that's in healthcare sector and you were doing sounds like very technical role. How did you transition from Baxter to J&J? And then how did you get into the 3D world?
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, no, that's a great question. So even Baxter, even though I started as an engineering roles in quality and engineering. I was leading a team in R&D. It was kind of a limited type of team. We were working mostly on arthroscopic products and more on all our machines. You know, those days were like it takes a long time to do those things. So, uh, and then eventually when it came to j and j, it was more about just getting into um, you know, um a different role. I was like I was doing the same things, same product portfolio and everything else. So I just decided that when I look for something, j&j came up with a great opportunity.
Speaker 2:I did a little bit of a teaching in the middle, mostly the engineering design type of things, very short duration, with one of the engineering schools, but in Ohio, and then J&J opportunity came on.
Speaker 2:It was a very good opportunity because during that time I think a lot of the companies were, you know, moving production into Mexico and other areas in Canada, a lot of capitalizing on the efficiencies and then stuff like that. So my first role was, you know, moving some of those, transferring those, those product families, into into Mexico. Eventually the J&J gave up all those to J-Ball. Eventually the J&J gave up all those to J-Bowl. It was a big transfer but it was a big journey in there. So it got me an opportunity to learn a lot about clinical side of things making sure that when we transfer the lines they do not make sure we understand the product intent, design intent and when we transfer them the technology transfers seamlessly and it is done on time. So it gives me good exposure to not only just a specific technology but also widely different type of product platforms, so how they work, how they impact the patient and stuff like that.
Speaker 2:So that was kind of starting role and then bulk up and then I was in supply chain and then went back to R&D. For a long time In R&D I was doing a lot of work around non-invasive stuff, right. There was like there was a trend during those days to say, you know, right now, if you look at endoscopic and a lot of laparoscopic surgeries, we always have, you know, at least three different port access. So you'll have like a three or four wound, a little bit of a puncture, right. But there was a trend to see that maybe we can access through the natural orifices, so either mouth or rectum and stuff like that. So there are a bunch of procedures going on. So I spent a lot of time doing that, working around you know, certain transoral and transvaginal and transvectoral type of procedures for various type of things. And then eventually from there it was mostly in the supply chain side, but the CEO then was 3D printing was a lot of the patents were expiring at the time.
Speaker 1:So what time was that? That was like around 2000 or something like that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, approximately. And then there were a lot of metal printings that were coming up, but mostly the focus was on prototyping. At the time A lot of people were excited about prototyping and the technology was not ready for end product at that time also. So that's when there was a CEO a previous CEO, his name is Alex who kind of created this little group to figure out change as an organization, how we can do some inroads into this, into the technology, and how the applications of the med tech, pharmaceuticals or consumer space. So that's, they created a little bit of a governing body maybe. And then I think we all, the strategy wise, decided that having like a central, central COE approach as organizationally might be a-.
Speaker 1:Center of excellence.
Speaker 2:Yeah yeah, and that was kind of the starting of it and it was only like me and a couple other people for a few months and then eventually we grew quite a bit with a lot of you know, but there were a lot of full-time employers, leaders and stuff, but also there were like a bunch of contracting resources.
Speaker 1:So it was a.
Speaker 2:It was a good, good journey during that time.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, so was 3D printing before the Center of Excellence. Before all this work was 3D printing on your radar.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so I think I was the reason I was kind of pulled into that was I was involved with certain metal prototyping at the time.
Speaker 2:Oh, okay, we had like we had one printer, a very old metal printer in Warsaw, indiana, which we've seen these, and there were some work going on in that space. And then I was also involved in what is called a metal center of excellence and we were some potential materials development and different type of implants. So it just kind of went in together that way and it just kind of my name was popped up and started from there. It was nothing anything large, but potentially there would be. But if I think about those days it was everything was very limited and then mostly prototyping, mostly polymer machines, and everybody would be less just doing whatever they, you know, buy their printers, and there was no standardization, anything like that.
Speaker 1:That was 20 years ago. We're talking about. Yes, a lot of that goes, so it's amazing where the world is now right, that was 20 years ago we're talking about.
Speaker 2:Yes, it's amazing where the world is now.
Speaker 1:I will be glad to hear what your thought on the comparison, the contrast that you were talking about. You know, back then engineering was very manual, labor intensive, and then did 3D printing back then changed anything?
Speaker 2:in this equation for you Just from that perspective. Yeah, I think when we were developing the strategy, one thing I realized, at least when I was in J&J, is that because J&J had multiple type of platforms pharmaceuticals to medtech and consumer so if you really want to make an inroads and at that time we were using the word how do we leap beyond some of the people already doing good work, right? So at that time we believed that putting some more effort into the materials development specifically, there's polymers or metals or biomaterials, whatever that might be yeah, take a little bit more time into developing, customizing it for 3d printing would be a good journey. To start with, I think that's we spent like a couple years.
Speaker 2:It's not just everything was done internally, everything a lot of it was partnerships. We had a great network of partners Universities, there were a bunch of contract research houses, just even our own suppliers and stuff like that. So it was a good partnership. And then there was a good journey in, you know, building some IP portfolio involving those designs but also the material side of things too. So I think that enabled some rapidly, you know, deploying it into multiple product families.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so of these portfolio of new material you guys figured out, I would assume, some kind of new metal material for 3D printing or polymer. That's a home run for you.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think there were some from metals and stuff like that. Right, the two things metals was definitely the osteointegration portion of it on the implants was a starting journey for a lot of people. If you remember that we had that Arcan machine I think we still had that and there was a good start with respect to the porous structures. But the other DMLS machines and stuff like that came later on. But really getting into the nitty-gritty of that and getting the right optimal metal structures along with the right type of materials, so it's a combination of both the surface properties, what we can bring, plus also the alloys themselves, plus a combination of it.
Speaker 2:So, and then from polymer side, a lot of effort was around. There was a lot of prototypes, but what does it take to really make an implantable polymer, high strength polymers, right engineering side? And also, really how do we, if ever we want to do a lot of combination products, meaning like introducing some of the you know active pharmaceuticals, things like that how does that, how does that need to look like, both from you both from the material side? So there was a lot of effort in this space. And then bioprinting was very, very new at the time, I mean, I think very few people were even thinking that direction. So I mean, there was a good start there. But you know, we had a lab up in Ireland. Yeah, orchid, I met Orchid. I was heading a lab up in Ireland.
Speaker 1:Yeah, orchid, I met Orchid.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, I was heading the lab up there yeah. She's still with. J&j Still is, yeah, she's doing the biomaterial side of things. So, yeah, that was a good starting point there. I think we were able to make some good partnerships at the bioprinting and good strategy too. How do you start with a similar approach, very systematic approach, respect to don't jump into full organs, right?
Speaker 1:So how do you I think everybody is learning that now after 20 years. So now going back to the Center of Excellence, when it started, was it just a kind of exploratory project? You got like a little bit of funding and they're like, well, just go have this money and go explore, or was there some kind of overall business agenda governing it?
Speaker 2:Yeah, it was when the CEO sat down. They were already atD at the time and in the group with the you know the counselor, the executive committee, the R&D and supply chain, and you know those folks were there. But they decided to start the group within the supply chain, typically within R&D, but it was a very strong partnership between those two. So even though we started in supply chain, a lot of the funding came out of the supply chain, sent corporate, but they were also contributed by each business unit. So it worked out that way.
Speaker 2:The reason being R&D is very operating company specific, meaning each organization has had at the time their own R&D so there was kind of reporting into that company presidents and so on and so forth was J&J White. It had one leadership and it was able to be a part of the conversation in the other operating company and make execute. So that's why they kind of picked it, which made complete sense because we were at that time starting out and applications are across multiple. So there is always a swing between total decentralization versus centralization. So J&J do that every few years.
Speaker 1:So which direction are we going? I mean tell us how this changes over time, because I definitely heard about it, yeah yeah, definitely I think, since I mean more towards the end of it.
Speaker 2:right, j&j definitely swung more towards decentralization, so that's what's happening still now, right. So now we have, you know, farmers, you know definitely, consumer was spun off and then pharma and Meta got together, but even then they are very separated out and decentralized quite a bit supply chain and everything else. So the corporate structures were reduced at the time and a lot of the headcount was a lot of people left J&J, things of that nature. But everything has an efficiency.
Speaker 2:I think when we started the journey, of the COE setting up in a centralized supply chain was a very good starting point. I don't know if you remember there was Wim Apollo. I think you may have met him. He was a leader and he was kind of one of the leaders was owning that and then he went to Philips Medical, I think, and he's still there, so in Netherlands, but he was also one of the supply chain leaders, made a big difference and Kathy, who was at the time you know the leader of the supply chain they did a lot of good for this. I mean, when you start a new center of excellence, you just you can't deliver results every year, right. So you're really building that. So it's very supportive.
Speaker 1:So supportive leadership helps so what were some of the metrics that you need to deliver from this center, like do you have to invent certain number of devices or get fda approved for certain things, or what, what, some stuff that you're measuring? I?
Speaker 2:think that was one of the good outputs which came out of center of excellence for us. We had a very clear portfolio of things and we always had, you know, with each operating company or group we would have so many, we would go sit down with them and figure out where we can apply and those becomes projects, you know, and then we use the TRL technology readiness levels to really deliver that. So from my team, we are responsible to deliver TRL 5, which is more about feasibility, you know, and then we hand it over for commercialization to the operating company. So we will still support them. But so the metrics were based upon that.
Speaker 2:Like you know, when can you deliver once it gets into that and also do the initial research as as anybody else. Any R&D portfolio, right, almost 80% of it is gone. Ideas, yes, well, the funnel, so yeah, once it clicks into that, once it gets chartered, then we track them and, like any other organization, so um, so, with the, it took, took a couple of years and then, uh, each of the launches came about and then and then sped up to have like maybe like 13 or 14 different products which were launched, and you could talk more about that, psis and that, yeah, you know, cm upside up products and so on, so forth.
Speaker 1:So yeah, so all those 14 and 15, they're all 3D printed devices.
Speaker 2:Yes, yes, yeah, yeah definitely. The big one was that implants like the knee implants which were launched with that new off-street integration structure.
Speaker 1:Which one is this? Is this the TrueGraft? Yeah?
Speaker 2:Which one is this? Truematch was one of them, truematch For a brand, but also the Attune. Which one is this? True Match was one of them for a brand, but also the Attune. Attune was a system knee system which is completely a 3D printed knee system, and I mean there was more effort starting into the hip side, but we didn't launch anything specific on the implant side. But most of this True Match is all the CMF side, also some of the cutting guides for the knee surgeries too. So CMF was a good application because one it has some. It fits very well. A lot of it is customized and also a lot of it needs customization because in the Right right it's too unique yeah exactly.
Speaker 1:You can't. You can't name number five face.
Speaker 2:You're gonna get me number five face it's very, very, uh, very, very unique, and so it was a good application for it. It was also one of the very growing areas at the time and so, um, definitely a lot more needs and need in in driving that space, so, uh, so there's good application there.
Speaker 1:So so, of these 14, 15 products, which one do you think um made your day?
Speaker 2:Well, there was one product which is part of the TrueMatch family. It's a graft cage. It's a TrueMatch graft cage and it was a PCL-based product. It's a cage for people who have a lot of bone degradation, whether it's cancers or other type of you know, debilitating diseases. So, or even trauma-like too, people might have, you know, limb injuries, and so it's like a cage which goes around a broken bone.
Speaker 2:And then it has, you know, 3d printed to the particular trauma area and then it is filled with more sliced bone from the same person. I see it definitely improves a lot of and that thing was unique because it had some bone-promoting actives and the scaffold itself was a very good design. It was kind of one thing. We first part one of the first ones FDA was, you know, going back and forth and they were learning a lot to, you know, in that whole area. So a lot of the questions coming out of it, and so that was really, I think, end to end, a good product which is very unique. If you take like a big structural elements, like a knee or a hip, it takes many, many years. This was very. The cycle time was very quick. A lot of innovation went into it.
Speaker 1:So, because a lot of listeners don't know what true match is and what body part are we talking about. Are we talking about long bone? It's a long bone.
Speaker 2:Yeah, long bone graft cage, so it used to be. They would, you know, they would use like a sheet and then wrap around the sheet and then and then, uh, you know around that this one is like customized, improved, uh, improve the critical outcomes and the uh, the integration of the bone and stuff like that.
Speaker 1:So and this is pcl base scaffold it is a pcl-printed. Yeah, Interesting, Because I've been hearing a lot of startups pitching to me these days. I mean, obviously there are bone scaffold like this for various purposes, but also breast implants there are a bunch of PCL breast scaffolds out there? Is this TrueMatch PCL bioabsorbable or they're not? They are yes, yes, okay yeah, absolutely yeah.
Speaker 2:I think pcl is a good product for it. I think also you can fine tune, uh, the piece you know pcl, sometimes it's more. Some of the lactic acid polymers are also involved. But you can find, if I can fine tune when this, you want it to get totally degraded.
Speaker 1:That's what I heard about it too. It's amazing, amazing synthetic material, not natural.
Speaker 2:Also it is. Another advantage to the PCL was that the scaffolds for any biologics you want to include, whether it is some tissues, cellular products or tissue products or even other type of actives and stuff like that.
Speaker 1:And so this long bone. Then what I was assuming, the final integrated device or, you know, bone graft, is actually they can actually bear weight.
Speaker 2:It's a weight bearing no, I think, um no, they still have the you know other nail system okay for a while, but this kind of accelerates the you know integration a lot more, a lot better, okay outcome and stuff.
Speaker 1:So and how much customization is there with TrueMatch? I mean, is it like 100% one-for-one? Oh, for that particular defect.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, I think there was this one-to-one because it's fully, you know, very personalized to that patient. Because injury is always going to be different between child versus adult, I see the injury itself is going to be. They all fairly look pretty similar to look at, but definitely from the final dimensions perspective they're different.
Speaker 1:So it doesn't matter if it's like super long bone defect or a super short one. You can make a scaffold plus all the anchoring screws and fixation devices.
Speaker 2:Yeah, for anyone Got it. Yeah, that's definitely an interesting point.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's definitely a personalized device, for sure. Yeah definitely.
Speaker 2:And then there were a bunch of effort around, even on the consumer side. Even though that was spun off and went away, there were a lot of little things we were trying out Fully personalization right. I mean various things like the oral cleaning stuff. There was facial mask things.
Speaker 1:Yeah, is that still on the market?
Speaker 2:I don't think so.
Speaker 1:I mean I have I would love to get one, if it is still on the market.
Speaker 2:There were facial masks In Korea. Actually, south Korea actually makes a bunch of films that are decent. They have actives, but also have some light-based, infrared or LED based effect on it. Korea had some things. They had various actives too. They're definitely advancing the cosmetic side, but I'm not very sure currently where Canview. Is the company doing anything from that space?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think this kind of brings up a really interesting topic, which is customization, and I think at different webinars that we hosted and also in-person events like, the opinions kind of vary depending on who you talk to. Some people said 100% customization doesn't make any sense, it's costly and it's not scalable at the moment, Whereas other people have the true vision to say you know, I think everybody deserves personalized device down the line. We're not there yet, but we should get there. That should be the end point. What do you think about that conversation?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think it was a journey, right. I mean, when we started the journey on personalization, we thought, okay, end of the day, it's going to be everything we can personalize. You know everybody has their unique things and it was a great vision. But I think that, like you said, the economics of it and the various factors too. So I'll give a couple examples, for example, on that, if you look at, you know the implants, for example, any implant or hip implant. There is one you mentioned. That too is for it's a hip implant called Triplange which has like the three different things on it.
Speaker 2:If you try to, you can do a perfect job of customizing to a certain injury on a person. But what happens is there's so many other factors tend to create the final outcome, meaning that you know surgeon has a lot of play in it. A lot of things can happen once you take the scan, make it versus when the person really goes into the surgery Right, and what happens if they discover other type of defects when they're at surgery. So I think what happened was you know a lot of the cases just to show one-to-one correlation between 100% customized product to the patient outcome. It becomes a little difficult, especially on the spine side, you know even more.
Speaker 2:Sometimes the outcomes are very qualitative Right, so that was definitely a struggle with it. The other thing is 100% customization is more expensive for sure. Yeah, the technology you take, and then if there is the last mile customization, which is have one standard size all the way to the end, and then just make some fine tweaks specific to the patient, while starting to have a better economic viability and again it comes back to certain areas are perfect for customization. Certain things probably not. It's not. So you just need to figure out what does the customer need, what does it want, and then if it really just helps. So that was a good journey for that.
Speaker 1:So yeah, that's a very interesting take in terms of outcome tracking. You know when I started to like learn about 3d printing. The number one case study was the conjoined twin separation where they got anatomical model and male clinic. Yeah, I bet 100 that it was very useful for them 100 absolutely, yeah, yeah but then how many conjoined twin can you have?
Speaker 1:that's the question. Can you actually build a business around it and can you cut down Absolutely yeah a printing process to create completely, a hundred percent customized implants for people who are desperately in need, because these people cannot have stuff on the market. You can just pull out the shelf.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Our biggest question is you know, we're definitely solving a problem that needs to be solved, but how big of this population? Is there and is there a possibility of growth in the future? What's your take on this kind of approach in terms of business? Is there actually a business that can be built around this kind of market?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think certain therapeutic platforms have better application than others, right, For example, CMF. Right, it kind of leans in really well into the customization space.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:You know, we talked about various CMF type of implants on the face, mandible structures, even the cranial plates. Things of that nature could definitely could be more done. Um, I think, I think the difficulty was in the large joints, like when you go with the big knee joints or hip hip joints. Um, now, I again I think, the reason being that they do have a certain level of customization. They have different sizes, you know, you can try it out.
Speaker 2:But going with the 100% on it because of the various factors, like I said, that how the surgeon preferences and how the surgeon works with the patient. Not always you can show a better outcome compared to a standard device in order to be standard to that patient size. The second is finding the right. I think some areas like spine might be a lot more conducive. Small joint areas, like you know, foot and ankle, shoulder. Yeah, it could be an opportunity for us to do that With respect to spine. I think there's a lot more. We need to have a lot more understanding of the procedures. We need to have a lot more understanding of the procedures. And then you know, because it is complex and there could be a lot of things could happen in the surgery. You know that how well this could make a difference from a standard versus a non-standard. So I think it's different.
Speaker 2:On therapeutic area, how the product looks like One area I'm really excited about potential customers. I mean, if we haven't made a big progress you know there's some, but not as much was in the pharmaceutical space. Yes, you know two areas. One is you know disease-based. You know if you have multiple diseases, you have multiple actives Right, and how do you drug release profiles on? You can have multiple profiles and be able to personalize all of that into one dosage form of some kind.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's an area that a few people are doing some work, but it definitely can grow quite a bit.
Speaker 1:I invested in two actually companies. One went away this year. As just, you know, the 80-20 rule. They're a very interesting different approach to 3D printed pharmaceutical. Actually, one is called Craft Health in Singapore Door's open still, it's still working and the other one is Curin 3D. It's incredible technology with large FDA approved or cleared food 3D printer, large scale and they make these incredible beautiful sugar 3D printed decorations or foods and they can definitely be, you know, repurposed to pharmaceutical.
Speaker 2:But unfortunately, business there's also a company in um, italy or uk, and working a lot in italy. They were making a lot of pediatric dosage forms, like you know. Yeah, yes, and because you can use a gummy bear technology, I guess, really, but using 3D printing and the layering that often, and stuff. There are a few good ones. The other area was, like some of the what do you call the combo products which are, like you know, absorbable, you know med device products which have also actives in them in a reservoir, yeah, and that is that could be truly customized or personalized to the particular anatomy and how it fits. You know it could be implanted or sub-dermal, I don't know.
Speaker 1:Is the approval process, though, going to be a pain? Is it going to be painful for these?
Speaker 2:clinicians. It still is painful the way we go through, but one approach we took was some countries have a fast-track approval, like Japan and South Korea.
Speaker 1:Oh, I'm surprised to hear that Japan and Korea Really.
Speaker 2:They did have on certain things, not on everything. So we were trying to collect a lot of the data from there and then apply within the US and the Europe side and then apply within the US and the Europe side.
Speaker 1:And then going back to the pharmaceutical side, was J&J also kind of interested in this area, or tackled this problem before too? The 3D printed pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 2:I think we made. I mean. So, yeah, I mean, I'm sorry, Maybe just clarify a little bit for me. They had issues with it. No, so, yeah, I mean I'm sorry, maybe just clarify a little bit for me. They had issues with it no, no, no.
Speaker 1:Did they actually try to also do some R&D in the space to figure it out? Yeah, absolutely. Oh, they did Okay.
Speaker 2:My group we did a lot of pharmaceutical printing stuff. Initial advantage they were trying to do is some of the dosage forms. If you do it a traditional way like granulation techniques and standard manufacturing processes, certain type of APIs can't be done. They either, you know, crystallize or they just get degraded in the potency of it. So we were trying to use this technology in those cases and create certain opportunity for it. Also, just this whole. You know, like I mentioned, that alternate multiple, you know, polypill or whatever they call it Polypill.
Speaker 1:yeah, that's what they said.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you're right, so doing that also as another area, kind of exploring on their space, but they've made some good progress. I'm not sure where J&J is doing in that space anymore, but it's been a few years.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean I'm pitching ideas to Kraft Health. It's like why don't you make because all the compound pharmacy stuff which they're going for, after, right now, you could do. And one of the actually area that's kind of similar to compound pharmacy but not for humans, is the veterinarian's side of things and these are the dogs, the pets. They're so variable in size and you know weight and their needs they're almost. They're equally good market to go for. But nobody is taking that advice right now. No, no, I agree with you.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I remember visiting them two last time I was there. Um, yeah, there's a lot of good potential in that. But even that whole, um, the genome-based medicine right, if that, if there is a good progress there are a few companies who are doing like, if you're setting taking multiple antibiotics, they tell you exactly for your body type and size and everything else, what you should be taking instead of standard dosage forms. So integrating those into this type of compounding opportunities would be a good idea. I mean, I think pain management would be a great area, oh, yeah definitely.
Speaker 1:Even vitamins I take like 12 different pills. They're all gin and rum.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely, and a lot of times. If you can have some kind of an optimization routine that you can figure out exactly how much vitamins you really need, you know, instead of taking the standard pills.
Speaker 1:Yeah, figure out exactly how much vitamins you really need, you know. Start taking the standard pills. Yeah, I've been taking vitamin d religiously every day and I ended up with vitamin d intoxication. Wow. So, yes, everybody processed differently, you know yeah, yeah, that's, uh, definitely isn't that crazy.
Speaker 1:It can't happen. So anywho, I digress, um, but let's go back to the center of excellence again. I mean you've done sounds like you've done a lot of research, trial and error and stuff like that. What are some of the what, the ideas that look really great at the beginning but then kind of it became a flop? Do you have any of those from? Product side or yeah, product side or yeah, product side.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think I'm trying to think Well, I think this whole thing around personalization right, yeah, at one. When you started out the journey, I mean, we look at the technology, what is in there. There is also a limitation as you go through that technology is also limited to. At the time we didn't have all what we have now, but the economic model for complete personalization was a big learning. Like I was talking about, it is just economically and also speed to the market, right. So a combination of those Certain areas work really well and other ones really didn't work well because they did not make any difference compared to standard solutions.
Speaker 2:So there was also an effort around, you know, at least on the consumer side, to last mile customization, like we used to have a lot of warehouses and every company has it and we were going to make standard products to get there. And then you 3D print the final portion, customize it whether it could be packaging, it could be some of the shapes of the products themselves. That was a good model. You just need to find the right products and stuff. I don't know how far it went neither since then, but personalization was one big learning for sure. The other one was on these implants, too, I was going to say that at one point we believed that we could customize it. And the other one was this on this implants, too, I was going to say, yeah, at one point we believed that we could customize it for patient you know, the knees or hips and stuff like that, and that also did never provide the clear clinical evidence to Right Hard to prove that it's better.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So, and then you know from more from organizational side. Uh, big learning for me is it's um, especially when you're doing innovative things, like in the big companies uh it is, it becomes a full-time job to really always, you know, justifying your existence. You know the group's existence and every year as the budgets go through. So that's also good learning. For any organization which does this emerging area as a center of excellence concept, you know that's equally important, even more than how much innovation you can bring through getting it through to the end.
Speaker 1:I guess, yeah, so I mean, I know quite a few of the products that you developed or helped develop are still in the product portfolio in J&J today. Are they still developing more in this space?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think they are. There's definitely a swing back towards more you know instead of the COE concept, more into the operating companies. So they definitely J&J has built up COE type of concepts within the R&D organizations of each company and they're continuing to do like every other product. So instead of doing anything special using what we have already, they're trying to incorporate a lot of products in through that. One Like, for example, orthopedics, has a team which kind of pulls in the 3D printing. It also has a lot of operational benefits and efficiencies, not just the product, therapeutic benefits. So a combination of those two it makes sense and definitely they're doing that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, this is like a ginormous organization that I'm naturally not used to talk to. To be honest with you, Usually the people I talk to belong to a team of four. That's true. The other thing I kind of want to talk to you about is you wrote an article about point-of-care 3D printing. And this has been a hot topic, I would say, for the last three years or so, but this year kind of more quiet. But I kind of you know this always comes in waves.
Speaker 2:And.
Speaker 1:I kind of want to know where things are. You think things are, yeah, and what was the vision before? Where you think the things are, and can we? What is the ultimate you think the reality is going to land with?
Speaker 2:this kind of point of care 3D printing. So it is. It is just definitely, you know, struggle between the regulatory process, which is a little bit of it's different. You know the FDA was learning through that and we have some good partners there too and also the hospital systems you know the hospital leadership on where they want to do and the thirdly, where, where is it more applicable? Uh, um, process and the procedures are good or worse. And then the whole robotics piece too. The robotics really took a big chunk of that.
Speaker 1:I totally want to talk to you about that part.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah yeah. So I think those are the factors which really drove it. I'm sorry, I'm going to drink some water. Yeah, may have connected to the budget efforts there, but that's, I think that's what it is. I think cutting guides and we knew that, even though we're printing cutting guides, we knew that's going to be gone with robotics, right, I mean, that is robotics, is no robotics is going to take over that area especially on a lot of the knees A lot more efficient, and I mean depending upon the scan quality.
Speaker 2:You know typically that CT scan is coming into that the robot is pretty good. If it is, then it navigates pretty good. So, and also there is a lot of freedom for the surgeon. Uh, I mean, they also have a pride in I know what I'm doing. I don't need a guide, right? So it's changed quite a bit. And then other factor was this um, digital, uh, you know viewers and the PDF or whatever it's called. Viewers have come a long way with respect to the anatomical models and everything else. They're able to plan it. That's one of the bigger areas. But I think these point-of-care centers eventually became a speeding process, meaning that if I have something like that in my hospital close to me on a guide or anatomical model, it could be just an educational model, sometimes on the oncology side, building a model with the margins and everything else, and able to use it during the surgery or even to educate the patient's family. Those are definitely still good applications to go through. What was that? Axial 3D is one of the companies, right?
Speaker 2:Yes it is. They have an opportunity.
Speaker 1:I almost invest in that. They do. It was a close call. One of the investors I know actually invested in them John Hartner. I don't know if you know, but he's an investor. He's a great team, it's a great company. Yeah, it's a great company.
Speaker 2:I mean, yeah, absolutely. And then so J&J worked with one company in the UK I can't think of the name of it. They created small centers and stuff. They called themselves something else and I'll find out, but I think, unless they can be like a point of care, but in certain specific applications you know John Morris, I mean what's his name? Dr Morris. He has done a good job. He set it up, but it's not as a point of care. It's more about providing the anatomical or the product surgical models on time, and the budgeting makes a big difference too. If there are codes Medicare codes that would be awesome. If not, it's always a struggle with respect to how do you justify it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm actually kind of skeptical about the CPT code actually is going to help the industry. I think the market dictates. But what do you think of RICO is doing? Rico is trying to do, point of care. I agree, I agree.
Speaker 2:They have made. They're making some good intros. Yes, I'm not close enough to I mean, when they start out they're making really good intros, but I'm not close enough to say what exactly they are, how exactly they're doing and what exactly are they doing. But the website looks really good and what exactly are they doing?
Speaker 1:but the website looks really good. I think they're trying to speed up the turnaround time of providing all the printing needs like anatomical models, surgical guides, and they're probably the closest to the hospital system than I have seen with many. I know some startups are also trying to embed themselves inside of the hospitals.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:But selling to hospitals is a pain.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 2:The other thing is, just because you have a site in the hospital doesn't mean that it's a true point of care. You know what I mean. It is a, you know, close and localized in center, which can provide 3d printing right versus you know, is it truly a personalized workflow that you know you get it on time for the stuff? I think it's a combination of all of it, right? So there was a hospital in the UK under the NHS system. The problem with NHS is that you have a limited funds. I mean, you have all you know public funded systems and we set one up there and eventually it became only for the. Eventually we were only using it for very complex revision surgeries. Yeah, when something is totally off, either if you want to do a surgical planning side or do some kind of customization, especially on the triflans type of things, that may be a unique application that it can find its way into.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's just, the market size is so small.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:For good reasons.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the Reco thing is not a bad idea, it's just instead of calling it a point of care, but what they're really doing is providing. It's like when we used to do Xerox services put that very close to the each plant. You know we used to have that Having the capability close to the surgeons makes a difference. Sometimes surgeons come in and ask for they have a, not just the surgeons, any clinical person. They come and say they have a really great idea, want you to see if you can model it for me, and they can just, you know, model it quickly and provide a prototype in the next few hours, and that brings a lot of innovation to the hospital space too. So, anyway, yeah, mayo Clinic is a great.
Speaker 1:Mayo Clinic is a great system to do any all the stuff that we have talked about. I almost went there for a residency. You know. The reason why it's good is it's in the middle of nowhere and the winter is long and cold and you got nothing else to do but just practicing medicine and trying to figure out, inventing stuff. So you really focus on what you're doing.
Speaker 2:That's my theory why they're so thriving, and also the personalities too. Dr Morris is like a life on its own. He just, you know, he's able to justify and he's a very good salesman. Keeping that together budget in the central place.
Speaker 1:He's got a good team. He's got a good team around him. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Me and everybody else. There's some great people, but he's doing the budget metal 3D printing also. So the other disadvantage of metal was metal. Could you know? It's very hard to get metal close to the hospital with all the powders and stuff at the time. Yeah, because even if you do a lot of filtration and everything but always you have some kind of metal dust and qualifying that and everything was.
Speaker 1:You know I was shocked when I was visiting Children's Hospital of Boston that they have a metal printer in their 3D printing center.
Speaker 2:Is it inside?
Speaker 1:Inside, yes, Not inside of the hospital, but in their research center.
Speaker 2:So I don't know.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah. No, they're not going to put explosive in the hospital. That would be a bad idea. Yeah, but I was still kind of pretty impressed that they were able to do that.
Speaker 2:Well, even Singapore did that. When we had the J&J, had their 3D printing lab, whatever that was in that National Institute of Work yeah, nih hospital, maybe it's called. I'm not sure, don't know.
Speaker 1:There are a couple there are like maybe two or three major hospitals there. Yeah, so let's go back to the surgical guide, because I remember you're saying surgical guide is going to go away when everyone else still are pretty excited about it.
Speaker 2:Oh, I'm not saying it can go away.
Speaker 1:Well, I think people, first of all people outside of orthopedic or surgery, they don't really know what robots can do these days, unless you actually look into it, unless you have to do the surgery yourself. Do you mind if you just share with us what robots now can do to help the surgeon.
Speaker 2:Well, I think there are the navigational robots too, I think in navigational words what I'm meaning is that once you have the CT scan, it's overlaid with the procedure. What you want to do, taking your end effector, whether it's cutter, whatever that might be, the arm to the location, can be done a lot more precisely with the robot than what we can do. I mean, the thing is, there may be some unique applications, unique procedures. The cutting guide still will be there, right, Because of whatever that reason might be, but it slowly.
Speaker 1:I have an application. I have an application for why cutting guy may need to exist. It's to convert bad surgeons into better surgeons, that is true, you know the ones that you always work with. The ones that you always work with are the best. And those guys don't even need anything.
Speaker 2:That true, they can do their surgery close eyes okay it's close eyes the people like you know, I would need some assistant yeah, no, definitely I think that they're.
Speaker 2:The other area is that the whole. It doesn't have to be a cutting guide. The guides right, the anatomical models, the surgical models. From a planning perspective, especially complex surgeries, makes a huge difference. You can print, especially if there's a cancer surgery in a very close-knit area close-knit areas, able to print that you know the model and then have a space to do the planning. You know, with instruments and stuff like that, yeah, See what the margins are.
Speaker 1:That's still going to be there.
Speaker 2:I think, yeah, I believe so too. Yeah, and it's still. I mean there are some, many other guides. It could, like you said, depending upon the experience of the surgeon, could be very, very valuable for them too, and the robots could go down. You know there are.
Speaker 1:Robots are expensive as well.
Speaker 2:I think they're like on average it's a $1 million each right On average, yeah yeah, absolutely they're not, and there are so many countries globally you know, hospitals who don't have any guys.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:These areas can definitely bring a big, big difference in it. So this is the company I work with for the prosthetics and all this stuff in Jordan.
Speaker 1:Right, so 3D4Me, is that what it is? 3d4me, yeah. 3d4me, yes, yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean, it's very they're doing some good. So they started out the hearing aids and they're now doing some prosthetics the below-the-knee prosthetic and then they're trying the above-the-knee stuff too. But you can see that how minimal you know things are in a region like that.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Type of materials you can get, so things you do there, you would need basic things.
Speaker 1:Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 2:Different population.
Speaker 1:Different population definitely have different needs. Low resource populations probably would need the guides a little bit longer than somewhere like here. So, speaking of making surgeons happy, you also have a project have customized surgical instruments.
Speaker 2:Yes, yeah, tell us about that, yes, Tell us about that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so it was mostly focused on the DPs, especially synthese, and there was when synthese got integrated with Depew. There were two different centers One was within Depew, one was synthese. So we combined them later on. What that is is that. Remember that. I don't know if you remember that, how the rules have changed, but there was a custom designation within the FDA. You could do like 10 or 15 of them instruments per year, and using that particular regulation, custom device regulation and using that particular regulation, custom device regulation, the surgeons would either. They would be like a special cases Maybe some person is very obese and they need some special instruments.
Speaker 2:Or it could be a special area, that they want to access some of the pelvic areas and stuff. They want to access some of the pelvic areas and stuff. So they used to, you know, send the request Actually it's pencil sketches and say this is what I need, or I'm trying out a new procedure, a new way to do the same thing, and then we would take that, we would scan it in, design it and print it and then give it to them. You know, so it it was just an engagement, but 3d printing really made a big difference with respect to helping them on very unique, yeah, procedural needs or patient need, uh, and very custom and not a big volume. Like I said, there was a limitation on how many you can make on those.
Speaker 2:There were a lot of variety of things that were done through that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, maybe for like left-handed, if a surgeon is left-handed they need, like a different set of instruments yeah, instruments and stuff.
Speaker 2:Just reversing the hand.
Speaker 1:Or the surgeon is really big size or really small size themselves, because I know a colleague she's tiny yeah and you know, nothing fits basically.
Speaker 2:Especially some of the orthopedic surgeons right, I mean surgeries like if you're dealing with, you know, large bone. It's just some of the using the bone, impactors and stuff like that. You need a lot of you know, need a lot of strength in that. So definitely human factors is a big, big portion of it. That was a very good application. I think J&J had a really good success in it and the inefficiency there was because of all the little companies. Everybody were doing their own little things and then eventually that got integrated into one center.
Speaker 1:They would provide you know services that way, so, which is a good move so if I want my own personalized instruments these days, is that still possible to?
Speaker 2:request these? Yeah, they specific ones they can definitely ask for. There are full trays too, like, depending upon procedure, you would have a full tray and then if you need a, you know personally, if you need a customized tray for yourself, they will do that and that they'll mark it and get it to you.
Speaker 1:So yeah, so, yeah, great, um, I mean, if we can, we can talk forever about these different applications, on and on forever. But I want to kind of bring us to the present moment. Um, so are you like spending four hours per week working now, or how do you spend your time?
Speaker 2:yeah, these days I think um and enjoy you know, enjoy your, your life yeah, definitely, I've been traveling a lot more, uh, spending some time with my you know, family and stuff like that, um, but, um, maybe I I'll spend like a day or so per week on these things. Nice, it's been good. Yeah, it's like, it's like a variety of engagements. I mean there's one add up on the advisory board.
Speaker 1:Yeah, tell us about add up what company, where is this company located and what do they do.
Speaker 2:Add up makes 3d printers Okay like fully integrated metal printers, big ones. The advantage with them is they have the entire system is fully closed loop, like the powders.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:And they have fine powders and stuff like that, they can do it on their own, so that brings some advantages to them. There's some good software interface which does a good job, so that brings some advantages to them. There's some good software interface which does a good job of print efficiencies and things, but they're a French-based company. Remember that Michelin tires.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And Michelin actually invested in a startup called Adap, along with another company called Thieves, who are more on the industrial side, and this came out of it. So they headquartered in France near Paris, and then they have US R&D and distribution stuff out of Cincinnati. So that's why Ohio connection again.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and distribution stuff out of Cincinnati Got it Ohio connection again.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, so it's not too far from me. So they, you know, I think my role is to really I'm along with an expert who is on the quality side. Another person is more a business person. We kind of meet every twice a year, sometimes three times, Just kind of help them review what has happened, the medical side, provide feedback on some of the strategy, technical side, you know.
Speaker 1:When you say they're closed loop, does that mean they also do post-processing in the same location, in the same box?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think the powders are all contained, don't? It's like I say from feeds back and forth, so there is no, and then um, when they say post, that is no, they get rid of the powder.
Speaker 1:Yeah, like get rid of the powder of the implant, for example. Do they do that? Or surfacing yeah, those are all internalized, oh okay.
Speaker 2:But if you have to cut something off or wire edm stuff like that and then finish some stuff grinding and those are all done outside, so it's a very good system, I think um, but it is. It's a big, big system and then it just trying to get um, it's more expensive, uh, compared to then it just trying to get more expensive compared to others, but it does have a lot of benefits. So one of the things, what we provide feedback to them is how do you position yourself, where to go that type of thing, especially on the medical side, trying to generate evidence on how it is better. It's definitely more efficient. You can get an implant out faster compared to other traditional machine 3D systems.
Speaker 1:Like US, for example, or Trump Troop, or Trump Trump, trump. Sorry, not the president, but Trump Not the president, no, no, yeah Trump.
Speaker 2:No, no, yeah Trump. There are other ones too in this space. Velo 3D is another company.
Speaker 1:Yeah, velo yeah.
Speaker 2:But mostly this comparison with 3D systems machines. At the time we were comparing a lot of the things, especially the spinal implants, right, having that benchmark and how much it takes. So that is quite a bit close to 30%, I think don't quote me on that time but 30% improved in the cycle times and stuff. So there is some advantages to it. There are a lot of companies that are taking advantage. There are small companies or small contract manufacturers or small companies. They work with them. They can't afford the machine themselves. Sometimes they just have them do the work for them and pay for it, or they'll band together and buy a machine. You know those type of things are they focusing mostly the us?
Speaker 2:no, they're the france deals with all the europe, so they have their own setup there in asia. It's the us. Us is done from here, from here, from these guys in Cincinnati.
Speaker 1:I think the biggest elephant in the room when we talk about these metal 3D printers is the Chinese printers are getting pretty good.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, they are, they definitely are.
Speaker 1:How do you get a competitive edge over that?
Speaker 2:Definitely Some of the aerospace too. They have advantage on the large scale, large printers, large-format printers. I think I can't think of it. It starts with the blue something company and they do some really big aeronautical printers and really comparable in every way. So cost-wise it's definitely valuable.
Speaker 1:Yeah, like three times less.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Or something like that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so yeah, it's going to, and also this all the back and forth on trade wars going on, so see what happens, right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I kind of just turn off my news these days. I'm going to let it simmer for another 90 days and see where the world is. Um. So I mean, other than the trade war, sam, what do you think of the future of 3d printing us? Let's just say, if there is no trade war, um, everything, as it was like the healthcare space yeah, where? Where do you think like the future winners are coming from?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think a few areas right. One would be the people. Like some of the procedures, if we can continuously work with other emerging technologies as well, right, for example. And then a lot of the improvements which can come through AI, whether it's the manufacturing side or on the hospital setting itself. 3d printing can be very well integrated into that. So I think if people, if they can start working in context of, instead of saying we are separate, there will be a lot more opportunities if you can integrate into the emerging ones.
Speaker 2:The other one is underutilized is the capabilities around that whole bioprinting space. It takes a while because of clinical studies and everything else, but it can bring that along with a combination of products, a combination of biologic and pharma and the medtech. So I know it's a longer cycle type stuff, but the value-wise 3D printing can bring a lot of value in it. But if I look at the metal space, right, purely in the metal space, definitely it has come a long way that some of the complex structures we use to CNC machine them. You don't even need to go back there. Right. Printing has come such a long way Very little secondary finishing in a cut and go type of a lot of the fine powders people are using now comes with very good results. So there's gonna be a lot of manufacturing efficiency from the metal perspective that need to be continued to drive. So I think that's one space that's going to continue.
Speaker 2:The other one is taking advantage of material science for various surface effects right, whether it is the coatings or integrating some of the HA coatings for sure they do that but also incorporating some of the actives into the structures, lattice structures and whatever that might be, definitely will bring big value to that. The polymer space I would say that high strength polymers for sure we don't have. We need to continue to work on driving cost on a peak and efficiency at the peak, but also other type of polymers and then absorbables, trying to really getting very precise with those and able to store actives right in polymers, whether it is for surface side or for drug delivery, whatever that might be. Is it a good area? We need to continue to work on that.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, that dream has been. I've had a lot of people have that dream for decades.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think what happened was there's so much, so many. I think there is, you know, a lot of turmoil in that right People were, we were all working towards it and then just kind of devoted to something else, and so I think we just need to find the right application and get something out. There were a few, actually JJ was working on I don't know if I could talk more on that, but there were unique things that could have progress. And then the problem with the big companies is that you put them in and then everything gets portfolio revisited and they cancel projects and then anything which is in the front end, like that, would die out. So the startups I think there's an opportunity for the startups. I did see one on your one of the startups you had.
Speaker 1:Pitch3D yeah.
Speaker 2:Which one is this?
Speaker 1:We have a couple with PCO, is it?
Speaker 2:PCO implants?
Speaker 1:Yeah, there was one with creating a mesh with PCO. Is it PCO implants?
Speaker 2:Yeah, there was one with creating a mesh type of stuff. There was like a breast mesh. There was one.
Speaker 1:They're all doing it. There is one that's using MEW, so Melt Electro-Writing. Is that the one, melt Electro-Writing?
Speaker 2:yeah.
Speaker 1:That's called the bio lattice AI yeah, melt electrolighting.
Speaker 2:I know I saw them also integrating into the regular bioprinter 3D which is a great idea because you can build a scaffold and then print the cells.
Speaker 1:It's even newer and also unproven than 3D printing, but yes, I think Paul Dalton is leading the academic side of things and he also recently funded a startup with the technology. I haven't really dug deep into it yet, but yeah.
Speaker 2:The other area is just the way the world is now. The other area is this, this the way the world is now. That, um, how much people are going to put money into that front end venture work too, right? Yes, people are like a little hesitant to do those stuff, but I think hopefully that will change and, uh, get a lot more innovation in the front end of it. So, anyway, just that's my few little thinking. But.
Speaker 1:But, um, no, that was very, very insightful um, especially from someone who has worked with ginormous corporation like change. I've never worked for any corporation so I don't know what that feels like, and the fact that you, you know, persist and accomplish so much is very admirable. Now, if a college student or younger person asks you you know what should they do to get into med tech and 3D world, what kind of advice do you have generally for the next generation?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think you know. I think the important thing is that you need to have get good engineering background. It could be mechanical engineering, it could be material science. Having good, strong in the fundamentals of something is always a good starting for them. I think that helps, it, doesn't? You know? 3d printing and every other technology will come and go, but having that good foundation would be really important for, as they go through, some of them do like they go jump right into business you know stuff, but, and then they want to come back, which is which is kind of kind of difficult, but and from a schooling perspective I would like to say that but um, the other one is um.
Speaker 1:You sound like my asian parents my Asian parents.
Speaker 2:Yeah, probably don't do this, but I'm probably a recipient of that. I mean, I did go through good school. It was pretty good, so it helped me all along my life. I guess the other thing I would say is that you know, like me, I was mostly in the big companies most of the time and most all the time. There's a lot of inefficiency there too. So you know, tasting both of them working in a small startup gives you the experience to do all different functions and then also trying the bigger companies. There's a little more structure. Probably there's more money in it. It's also a good thing to have them and try and try both of them. Specifically on the 3D printing, I would say that you know, having a good feel for it, going to to company which has a good 3d printing um, you know function and discipline but and then jumped into a product development, r, d, those type of roles. So taking that 3d printing technology knowledge into a research and development pipeline type of organization makes you a better engineer.
Speaker 1:Right, Working in that and bringing that into that, yeah, yeah, it definitely helps you with the way you think and process. Information for sure either engineering or going through these big systems. Information for sure either engineering or going through these big systems. And yeah, if I have to start, around you know my life again. Um, I definitely want to think what this job is going to do to like. What am I going to learn from this job?
Speaker 1:yeah, yeah rather than security money status. You know many other things that people typically focus on yeah, yeah, that is so true, so true, so true.
Speaker 2:So they say, like it takes like 10 000 hours or something to be good at something, right the procedures or whatever that might be. So people jump a lot too sometimes. Sometimes it's not the best.
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, this is a very insightful conversation with you, sam. Hopefully we can have another conversation some other time to focus on different topics, but thank you so much today again for joining us, and I'm sure our listeners will appreciate this very much.