10 ms·

Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics)

638 points by dboyd 13y ago

benjvi 13y ago
This is really awesome, and sounds like a great thing for people with diabetes (if the accuracy issues are solved). Further down the line, technologies like this could be a great thing for the rest of us too. We all experience peaks and troughs in our blood glucose and in those troughs we often feel tired, without really knowing why. It would be great to be able to have continuous feedback like "your blood glucose spiked and now is low after you drank that bottle of lemonade an hour ago". Something like this would really help people to make better decisions and would be a great boon for general public health.
chany2 13y ago
Sooner or later a competitor technology will come out to lines of Google Glass for contacts; ultimately the 3rd episode of Black Mirror, where you can record 24-hours of your life via your eye contacts.
fesja 13y ago
All my praise to these Google engineers and scientists. Another completely crazy idea that will really help millions of people every day. Thanks Google! We have discovered a lot of Google X technologies in the last months. It seems that Google X is really working. We may have to stop having fun of Google+.
- nfoz 13y ago
  Google+ still sucks irrespective of how much cash the company can spend buying cool projects.
  - psbp 13y ago
    Google+ is actually a really good product.
  - dannyr 13y ago
    I'ma regular Google+ user and my experience is more superior than Facebook or Twitter.
- IBM 13y ago
  You've discovered a lot of Google X technologies because it is a deliberate strategy by Google to publicize these projects regardless if they will ever reach a commercial stage. They are attempting to stay relevant and perceived to be an innovative company in the eyes of their various stakeholders (employees, potential employees, shareholders, tech press, the general public, regulators, etc.) while transitioning to today's Microsoft.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - psbp 13y ago
    Every announced Google X project has been rolled out to some capacity. Self-driving cars, Glass, Loon are all actively being tested in the real world.
  - morganherlocker 13y ago
    ... and when they stop, we can swoon over the tech advances of the new player. The fact that Bell Labs no longer puts out tech hardly detracts from their contributions.
- blhack 13y ago
  This year I've challenged myself to use all of google's services and see if they actually improve my life. Google+, honestly, is awesome. The auto-awesome feature is the coolest thing ever.
luuio 13y ago
Nothing new under the Sun: January 5, 2012 - http://www.gizmag.com/microsoft-electronic-diabetic-contact-lens/20987/ http://www.gizmag.com/microsoft-electronic-diabetic-contact-...
psbp 13y ago
Solve for X talk about this technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM This particular implementation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s
awolf 13y ago
As a type 1 diabetic I can say this would be a huge improvement over current continuous glucose monitoring systems. No expensive disposable parts. No needing to inject a new sensor each week. No strange, uncomfortable, and (often) painful bulge stuck to your abdomen. >We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to turn this technology into a system that people can use I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could possibly be available?
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  How do you know it's not expensive or disposable?
  - awolf 13y ago
    I said expensive [AND] disposable parts, not OR. I'm sure it will be expensive, but doubt it would need to be disposable: current CGMs rely on injecting a metal sensor into subcutaneous fat. After about a week your body starts to heal around it and the sensor becomes ineffective. Do to the nature of the application process, there is no way to re-inject a sensor once used. The sensors are on the order of $50 each, so $50/week.
  - morganherlocker 13y ago
    Expensive hardly matters to me. As long as it is less than ~$30k per 10 years, I would pay. Insulin pumps already cost $10k+, and do not provide as much value. This kind of tech is life extending for those of us who need it, so price kind of moot (up to a point). How much would you pay per year to get an extra decade of life?
- simcop2387 13y ago
  likely on the order of years they have to prove that the monitoring it provides is accurate, measures what they think it does (I.e. no false positives or negatives), and doesn't v endanger the users lives (I.e. doesn't blind them I see the proposed led being an issue here since it can go off at night, and likely that it doesn't have a severe lag time that would reduce the likelihood of a life saving response because the user isn't checking blood sugar otherwise). I think all of these are definitely solvable issues so I would be surprised if it doesn't get anywhere. the specialized nature of the contact is likely not going to be an issue since the market is desperate for something better (every diabetic I know would switch to this in a blink). what I wonder is what the communication with the device is going to be like, smartphone would be nice but some of the smart watches I think would be better, and how is it powered too.
nfoz 13y ago
This is a legitimately fantastic project. Can't wait for some details about how it works.
cargo8 13y ago
Google never ceases to amaze me for taking the initiative to really pursue and commercialize these things. If people are interested, here is a relevant research paper in IEEE about the massive potential contact lenses have to mate technology and bioinformatics: http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-realit...
kamens 13y ago
Would immediately — and significantly — improve my life. Crossing my fingers very hard. Want this to be reality.
- caseydurfee 13y ago
  What would this do for you that a current CGM wouldn't?
  - klapinat0r 13y ago
    I'm just speculating, but the physical presence of the device itself has been a dealbreaker for me, and I've heard of similar issues from a couple of athletes (with diabetes).
  - morganherlocker 13y ago
    The current solutions I am aware of are invasive (put a big needle into your gut and redo it again every few days), and do not allow for real time feedback. Useful in that you can analyze the data later, but hardly helps when you are currently experiencing an issue (which could be life threatening).
  - kamens 13y ago
    I've experimented with multiple CGMs and have been plagued with severe accuracy issues. I know this isn't the case for all people, but I found myself constantly recalibrating the CGM only to be given readings that were — no joke — 100% different than the "normal" meter's. I'm talking CGMs giving "30" or "300" when my trusted tester claimed "150." I was careful w/ calibrations, tried for months, spoke w/ people at the company, etc etc...it just wasn't worth the effort for me. Maybe they're better now, haven't tried in about 3 years. That was the final straw for me, but the effort around these CGMs is also not to be understated. Calibrations, extra items to lug around attached to your body, extra pieces that can break / not work, etc etc. Anything that helps with this is huge. When I think of the big picture I realize that Type I Diabetes is nothing compared to the health issues many people deal with, and I consider myself _extremely_ lucky. That being said, it's a daily battle that you never, ever get a break from. Personally, the CGMs didn't make the battle (or my results) much better. Who knows if this technology would be any better, but I can cross my fingers. I would gladly pay almost all spare money I have for a CGM guaranteed to be both accurate (keep me healthy) and reliable/simple (keep me sane).
notatoad 13y ago
How is this powered? are they generating electricity from the body somehow?
- ewolfe 13y ago
  Good question. Maybe from body heat. A polymer thermoelectric converter seems like it could be a good candidate.
  - neumann 13y ago
    This is the most interesting question. And failsafe. You couldn't rely on this, unless there was a way to ensure it is working or had a fixed lifespan. I believe the thermoelectric converter works by exploiting a temperature gradient, which I suspect would not be sufficient at this scale and location.
- nfoz 13y ago
  I'm wondering this too. Could it pick up on an electrical potential from the eye itself? Or could the reading be gathered with only as much of a signal as an RFID tag gets?
- eqdw 13y ago
  Few years ago I saw a feature in IEEE spectrum about contact lens displays/computers. Apparently, because they're so small and have such low power requirements, they can power themselves off of the ambient radio / wifi / cell / etc signals
- beernutz 13y ago
  This one is actually powered by RF transfer, so the power is all external. This link explains it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s
guidefreitas 13y ago
Great. Now your are going to sign up with Google+ to blink.
- bsherrill 13y ago
  What about a pill that just cures diabetes?
dshankar 13y ago
Microsoft was working on similar technology 3 years ago [1] It looks like Google poached MSFT's engineers to work on this -- Babak Parviz was working on this at Microsoft 3 years ago, and is now cofounder of the smart contact lens team at Google. [1]: Functional Contact Lens Monitors Blood Sugar Without Needles (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832 http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832)
- mikeyouse 13y ago
  Notably, Babak was also the project lead for Google Glass until this past December.
- psbp 13y ago
  This has very little to do with MSFT research. Microsoft collaborated with Parviz's research at University of Washington. He wasn't a MSFT engineer. He was a Professor at UW before he left for Google. His affiliation with Microsoft, and Microsoft's contribution, seems minimal.
  - kathleenj 13y ago
    That's not what Babak said according to this pdf. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/stories/nui_contactlens_cs.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/stories/nu... >Tan and Microsoft Research Connections have been great supporters of the project, Parviz said. Their willingness to explore and invest in the project was critical to advancing research and development of the functional lens. “A lot of people considered it science fiction,” Parviz says. “Desney and Microsoft Research were actually, very early on, convinced that this is perhaps a worthy cause. And they were willing to work with us, and support us. And I’m very grateful they did.”
    - psbp 13y ago
      By no means did I mean financial contribution, but the design and implementation of the project which seems to have been established by Parviz since at least 2009: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/ar-contact-lens/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/ar-contact-lens/
caseydurfee 13y ago
Continuous glucose monitors have been around for a while. I'm not sure who this would help. The fundamental problem is that glucose levels in non-blood fluids do not exactly match blood glucose. The current monitor solutions use interstitial fluid in the skin. They still require the user to test themselves several times a day and recalibrate the monitor based on blood glucose, and they can't alert the user if their blood sugar is low until it's already a serious situation. They also frequently give false positives. This is a new (but very clever!) way to do something that has been around for a while, not a revolution, unless tears track blood glucose much closer than interstitial fluid does. Simply based on first principles, that seems unlikely. And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24*7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar.
- joeconway 13y ago
  There are severe drawbacks to CGM like scarring, infection and most importantly the expense. In the UK CGMs and even insulin pumps are almost impossible to get most places on the NHS.
- magicalist 13y ago
  > And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24/7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar overnight and extended-wear contacts (for up to a month, I believe) have been available for many years now.
  - lhc- 13y ago
    I have these, and they are indeed good for a month. To be honest, I sometimes dont even notice and wear them longer.
morganherlocker 13y ago
Type I diabetic here. Assuming current tech stays where it is (not saying it will), this could easily tack 10 years on to my lifespan. For many who watch their diabetes less closely (something I cannot fault anyone for), this could add 20-30 years. For anyone who does not know, type I diabetes is not something you can just follow a doctor's direction on and be ok. Even if you follow your doctor perfectly, there can still be serious complications, and type I diabetics with the best control are actually more likely to die from severe low blood sugars. The reason for this is that the optimum blood glucose level is around 100. <70 and you start to be severely mentally impaired, making it difficult at times to seek treatment (finding and eating sugar, in a nutshell). On the flip side, if you are lax on insulin, your blood sugar might hover around 250 for months, and you will feel close to normal. Having a blood glucose this high on a long term basis will have long term effects that are what kill most diabetics in the long run. A low blood sugar, however, can be fatal within minutes to hours. Either way, a continuous feedback mechanism would help tight control diabetics, and diabetics who do the minimum. Tight controllers could get faster feedback about when they are going into the serious danger zone without having to initiate any action (checking blood sugar), and lax diabetics would get a constant reminder of how they are letting there life slip away (which they normally would rarely see, since they hardly ever check their blood sugar anyway). I have to say though, I am still a bit skeptical for a few reasons: - One, I have been told about this sort of miracle technology ever since I was diagnosed 15 years ago. - Two, the medical complex locks down their tech and extracts the maximum value out. There is not a single glucose device on the market that lets you extract the data out of your glucose monitor and crunch the data how you want. I have worked on hacking these devices to extract data and the legal verbiage around these activities has strongly discouraged me from releasing anything. Previous continuous glucose monitoring systems. These companies would prefer you rot in the dark, than to lose one bit of profit. - Three, if one of these devices is not 100% perfect, it gets shot down and banned from the market. This is probably a combination of profit-motivated industry and caution-motivated government. A great example of this is a continuous glucose monitoring, non-invasive watch that came out ~ a decade ago. It was on the market for several years, before being banned. I, like just about every person in the thread I linked, would pay $10k+ for one of these, despite the reduced accuracy over traditional devices. Entrepreneurs in the health industry take note. [1] [http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-sugar/61908-glucose-watch/ http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-sugar/61908...]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lowglow 13y ago
Am I the only one that thinks Google[x] is just the arm of google that looks for far future intellectual property to patent and never really produces usable tech? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- matznerd 13y ago
  You are wrong.
- dclara 13y ago
  You have a point. But I think Google's vision and mission and intention is to move forward the technology in every area. Financially possible, not necessarily intelligently possible. The acquisition of Nest shows they may not have the gene for building hardware systems, devices are ok, but it's not a long-terms solution without a system in place.
- nl 13y ago
  Hopefully Google patents lots of useful stuff before anyone else. Google's record on patents is pretty responsible.
  - lowglow 13y ago
    Until when? Until they decide not to be?
- fatjokes 13y ago
  You are wrong. They spin off the tech that they do want to commercialize. E.g., Brain use to be part of X, but now it's its own group. Same with Glass.
inetsee 13y ago
I am encouraged by the fact that Google is working in this area. If any company can overcome the obstacles to this technology becoming available soon and at a reasonable price, it would probably be Google. I am discouraged by the fact that the underlying technology (measuring glucose from tears) was first reported more than two years ago. There is another (sort of) non-invasive glucose measuring technology that involves injecting a biofluorescent dye under the skin, then using a device that measures the fluorescence that varies with the blood glucoe levels. This technology was also first reported years ago, and is also apparently nowhere near being available.
kimonos 13y ago
Wow! This is great news for my father!
ginzaerin 13y ago
Type 1 also, and I fully admit that part of what prevents me from using pump therapy is the CGM technology and how invasive and frustrating it is. The lens project gives me hope, but as others in the thread have mentioned - I've gotten my hopes up on several occasions about potential technologies and agree that it seems like a lot of it comes down to profit. Full disclosure, I'm the COO of a tech company and I love data - so a constant frustration is lack of consistent data that can be manipulated in usable ways. (Also mentioned by others in the thread.)
_paranoia 13y ago
This seems like a prototype of what Google Glass will evolve into. The medical device will offer a first generation of solutions to several major problems for augmented reality contact lenses: fitting "an antenna for wireless data communications, a chip to process data, and tiny battery onto a tiny, thin, curved surface..."[1] Then, a later version will need to solve the problem of projecting crisp images from the contact lens onto the user's retina. Google's experience with Glass seems like it could inform that effort. Perhaps we'll see this product on the market with significant usage within 10 years. Augmented reality contact lenses have other implications. For example: what does it mean for privacy and advertising to not being able to shut one's eyes? 1. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517476/google-glass-today-smart-contact-lenses-tomorrow/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517476/google-glass-tod...
jerryhuang100 13y ago
One major concern I would have is that, in diabetic patients their eyes experience more dryness than non-diabetic patients. This might lead to more scratches on the cornea and prone to further infections and ulcers. As diabetics care 101, diabetics patients have mucher high risk of systematic infections. And this is all way before any diabetic retinopathy develops in those patients. So why Google[x] thinks it's a good idea to have diabetics patients wear contact lens?
- dclara 13y ago
  Totally agree. Don't know how the doctors say.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I know there are sprays available for people with dry eyes who are prone to infection. Would those help in this situation or is it more complex than that?
- berkes 13y ago
  AS a Type I, my doctor advised me strongly to start wearing glasses and stop wearing lenses. Because they would apparently increase the risk of early blindness even more.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    I'm not sure whether you or my wife need a new eye doctor. Hers knows she is diabetic and is doing extra screening watching for any possible damage from the disease but has never said anything about her contact lenses being a problem. Other than while sleeping she always wears her contacts.
    - berkes 13y ago
      There's a whole story to this, but that is a little too private to share on the web :) The larger story is, that lenses can damage the eye (tiny scratches, little infections); regardless of Diabetes. Diabetics have increased risk of badly healing damage, especially wrt fragile nerves (toes, eyes, hearing). The increased risk that anyone has for infections and problems when wearing lenses, is only so more dangerous to Diabetics.
ctrl 13y ago
Type I also, Looks like its time to get over that huge fear of contact lenses. I dont care if i have to clockwork orange my eyelids, this sounds awesome
azernik 13y ago
To take this to a purely business/tech place - this is an interesting market for prototyping contact-lense electronics; maybe in 10 or 20 years the new Glass will just be a contact, but for now this looks like one of the few applications where a sensor and two LEDs (high and low) can provide a lot of user value.
jisaacks 13y ago
> integrating tiny LED lights that could light up So wait a minute, your eyes will start flashing when your glucose levels are spiking?
cpeterso 13y ago
A few years ago, there was research into nano ink tattoos that can continuously monitor glucose, but I haven't heard any recent news. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/glucose-tattoo-0528.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/glucose-tattoo-0528.html
fjcaetano 13y ago
At first, I thought this could be quite intrusive. I mean, you're putting something in your eye! It's the same discussion as the biometry authentication systems (retina scanning, saliva, etc). But then I realized: the alternative is to put a piece of hardware under your skin! It will be embeded in you "forever" and can only be removed via surgical procedures... These contact lens, if ever available, will in fact revolutionize the diabetes scene and may open precedent to new "wearable" technologies targeting health.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  Maybe. You need to understand that diabetes equipment is a lot like a Segway - it's interesting and solves a problem but it's expensive and somewhat infeasible. Many things could contribute to this not being as revolutionary as it sounds. Everything from cost down to accuracy is a concern. Diabetics do like to have hope that this will be the game-changer but they've heard that many times before.
sarojt 13y ago
All diabetics really would appreciate this innovation - my grandmother was delighted to hear it.
BrainInAJar 13y ago
Jeez, Google really has no limits on how much data about you they want
- psbp 13y ago
  For what company would this not be the case?
oh_sigh 13y ago
Where's all the FUD about collecting user data and doing evil things with it that we've been seeing in the Google+Nest stories lately? "But what about when google sells your data to insurance companies, who then penalize diabetics for not maintaining specific glucose levels?' "Do you really want google to know every single thing you put into your body?" "Can we trust google to not put advertisements in the contact lens, making you watch a 15 second commercial before being able to read your gluose levels?"
- trekky1700 13y ago
  I will wear an ankle bracelet for Google if it means I get my hands on this.
  - Geee 13y ago
    That's exactly what their strategy is ;)
prawn 13y ago
Anyone else have a problem where if they read an interesting story like this about potential future technology, they are virtually incapacitated and unproductive for the rest of the day thinking about the potential? Obviously, a Google Glass or Oculus Rift equivalent but with contact lenses has to be one thing everyone's long thought of. But what about activating a contextual display by closing one eye briefly (a map or information about a person you're meeting), or seeing a definition of a word spoken in conversation by closing the other eye, or watching a movie with both eyes closed, reading a book the same way, getting song recognition data at any point, etc. Could we see high-res displays worked into lenses so that they worked, were eventually cheap enough and able to operate in a "pass through" mode so they didn't other interrupt regular vision? Are any companies working on it? Is it possible? What would be the key challenges?
- tjmc 13y ago
  Building a VR contact lens is orders of magnitude harder than this. Key challenges would be: 1. Component size. 2. Power. The glucose monitor is similar to an RFID that can be powered by radio waves. Driving a screen or laser would require much more power. So you'd probably need some sort of inductive coil matched to regular eyewear. 3. Focus. You can't at that distance. So you'd probably have to beam an image directly onto the retina with a laser. 4. Occlusion of the pupil. Really hard to avoid this one. You might have to pair with a camera to add sight back as a feed. However there could be benefits with this too - eg. night vision 5. Health. Beaming power could be a cancer risk. Also contact lenses need to breath to prevent corneal neovascularization and other nasty effects of hypoxia. Modern contacts are gas permeable but adding electronics would hinder the flow.
  - prawn 13y ago
    What's a more likely next best bet? Goggles with projectors? Or something tapping straight into the brain?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dia473 13y ago
We have developed a non-invasive system for measuring blood glucose (patent protected, many publications in peer reviewed magazines, working prototype). If someone has contacts in the VC scene or is working in the VC scene and is interested please let me know. (throw away account)
ericthegoodking 13y ago
Wonderful news! I hope this thing works!
sytelus 13y ago
As always, my question for all miniature cool looking devices is just this: How do you power this thing?
- BenoitP 13y ago
  I think it would be just like RFIDs and NFCs: you send power to the antenna, the chip uses it to make a measurement, and to send it back. Maybe it can take enough energy from the ambient RFs. Maybe we will see a lot of people bringing their phones close to their faces from time to time, and people would be confused. "What are you doing with your phone, do you have an ear in your eye?"
blueskin_ 13y ago
Coming Soon: Targeted advertising based on blood sugar levels. With a google lens, they could even project adverts directly onto people's eyes.
- mortov 13y ago
  Being diabetic, I would be quite happy to receive an image saying, hey your blood sugar is low, why not get some sugary snacks right across the road at Acme Candy Store - get 10% off during the next 10 minutes.
f-debong 13y ago
I think this is one of many such implementations which we will see in the next few months. Not long ago, the FDA posted their guidelines on mobile health, which will most likely be part of the system, finally establishing a hint of what they will require to give an approval to a mobile system in the medical field. I have some experience in this, and can tell you it is very exciting. No blatant ad here, sorry! Since the risks for ventures in this field have dropped significantly, devices such as this lens now have a much higher probability to actually see the light of day and not just be hidden in the archives, on thrown away napkins and spreadsheets. Yes, Microsoft worked on it a few years back – yet seem to have dropped the ball or shifted their focus, I have also heard of such a project at Sanofi and research institutes around the world – yet a google X project may potentially be what this concept needs to make progress and actually have an impact. My sincere gratefulness to you guys at X for going at it! Forgot to mention, like many others in this thread I am a type 1 diabetic since 30 years, so my gratitude goes a tad further than only thinking it's cool.
- selimthegrim 13y ago
  Where has the FDA posted them? I thought the final ones weren't going to be ready until this summer? Is this a draft or RFC?
TeMPOraL 13y ago
This is why I still love Google. Between this, self-driving cars and other world-changing projects, I say take my data if you need it. You're one of the few companies in this world that seems to bring a big, direct net benefit to humanity.
mortov 13y ago
I'm amazed at how many people on HN are diabetic ! Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ? It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick readings up to 4 times a day can leave your fingers in a real mess and pretty painful so even sticking something to your eyeballs sounds attractive !
- berkes 13y ago
  Please don't confuse Type I with Type II. Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations). Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot. Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very severe Type II" or "just a little Type II", but you cannot have "severe Type I", Type I is binary: you have it or you don't. As a Type I, I'd love to see the medical world and then the rest of us, using a different term for Type I Diabetics, because the deseases are entirely different: the cause is different, the effect is similar. As a Type I, people often blame me for my desease. Often people think it is because of unhealty lifestyle. "Ah you are a diabetic, many programmers have Diabetes, guess its because they sit around all day, haha". This is infuriating. No matter how healthy I am, whether I am a programmer or bycicle-courier, I'd have gotten my Diabetes anyway. Type I is one of these deseases that you can do absolutely nothing against, other then not passing on your faulty genes to children. Edit: clarified the sentence where I am blamed for having Type I. Edit2: As pointed out below, Type II can be influenced by genetics too, made that more clear.
  - anon104 13y ago
    I'd like to add that there isn't always a clear cut delineation between the types. For example, MODY is highly penetrant, heritable diabetes that fits neither classification. The idea that type 1 == genetic and type 2 == external is really no longer the prevailing view. The better description is the production of insulin where in type 1, there is a lack of insulin production and typically in type 2 insulin resistance (and possibly deficient insulin). The causative factors are complex and a combination of genetics and environmental factors. I'm a type 2 diabetic with none of the traditional risk factors (typical diet, and underweight), from a family with a high diabetes frequency (sister and father).
RA_Fisher 13y ago
For those that are interested, I'm a data scientist and I spent a bit of time visualizing my Type 1 partner's data: http://statwonk.github.io/blog/2014/01/05/visualizing-diabetes-data/ http://statwonk.github.io/blog/2014/01/05/visualizing-diabet...
efremjw 13y ago
ohhhh, because it's just so comfortable to have contacts in the first place. what's wrong with embedding somewhere else?
j_s 13y ago
Diabetics will find Scott Hanselman's posts and the comments there useful. Three or four of them are linked from here: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HackingDiabetes.aspx http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HackingDiabetes.aspx
lazerwalker 13y ago
I don't at all want to downplay the honest importance of this project — this is the true sort of real "tangibly improving people's lives" technology that not enough people are aspiring to these days — but the timing of this announcement is very strategic on Google's part. Days after people get VERY upset at Google for buying Nest, and moaning about Google's evil surveillance state, Google turns around and announces something that's a legitimate force for good in the world. Very clever.
- throwawaay 13y ago
  Please. Like this project was just sitting there, waiting for a media shitstorm to pop up. The knee-jerk cynicism on these threads is truly getting stupid. The timing is almost certainly because the project's secrecy had been recently compromised by the FDA revealing a meeting with the engineering team on its public calendar. http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5297216/google-x-team-meets-with-fda-over-unnamed-medical-device-bloomberg http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5297216/google-x-team-m...
- wmeredith 13y ago
  Eh, I think that's a bit cynical. Google is a huge company. They put out tons of press releases.

638 points by dboyd 13y ago

This is really awesome, and sounds like a great thing for people with diabetes (if the accuracy issues are solved). Further down the line, technologies like this could be a great thing for the rest of us too. We all experience peaks and troughs in our blood glucose and in those troughs we often feel tired, without really knowing why. It would be great to be able to have continuous feedback like "your blood glucose spiked and now is low after you drank that bottle of lemonade an hour ago". Something like this would really help people to make better decisions and would be a great boon for general public health.

chany2 13y ago

Sooner or later a competitor technology will come out to lines of Google Glass for contacts; ultimately the 3rd episode of Black Mirror, where you can record 24-hours of your life via your eye contacts.

fesja 13y ago

All my praise to these Google engineers and scientists. Another completely crazy idea that will really help millions of people every day. Thanks Google! We have discovered a lot of Google X technologies in the last months. It seems that Google X is really working. We may have to stop having fun of Google+.

nfoz 13y ago
Google+ still sucks irrespective of how much cash the company can spend buying cool projects.
- psbp 13y ago
  Google+ is actually a really good product.
- dannyr 13y ago
  I'ma regular Google+ user and my experience is more superior than Facebook or Twitter.
IBM 13y ago
You've discovered a lot of Google X technologies because it is a deliberate strategy by Google to publicize these projects regardless if they will ever reach a commercial stage. They are attempting to stay relevant and perceived to be an innovative company in the eyes of their various stakeholders (employees, potential employees, shareholders, tech press, the general public, regulators, etc.) while transitioning to today's Microsoft.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- psbp 13y ago
  Every announced Google X project has been rolled out to some capacity. Self-driving cars, Glass, Loon are all actively being tested in the real world.
- morganherlocker 13y ago
  ... and when they stop, we can swoon over the tech advances of the new player. The fact that Bell Labs no longer puts out tech hardly detracts from their contributions.
blhack 13y ago
This year I've challenged myself to use all of google's services and see if they actually improve my life. Google+, honestly, is awesome. The auto-awesome feature is the coolest thing ever.

luuio 13y ago

Nothing new under the Sun: January 5, 2012 - http://www.gizmag.com/microsoft-electronic-diabetic-contact-lens/20987/ http://www.gizmag.com/microsoft-electronic-diabetic-contact-...

psbp 13y ago

Solve for X talk about this technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM This particular implementation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s

awolf 13y ago

As a type 1 diabetic I can say this would be a huge improvement over current continuous glucose monitoring systems. No expensive disposable parts. No needing to inject a new sensor each week. No strange, uncomfortable, and (often) painful bulge stuck to your abdomen. >We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to turn this technology into a system that people can use I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could possibly be available?

thrownaway2424 13y ago
How do you know it's not expensive or disposable?
- awolf 13y ago
  I said expensive [AND] disposable parts, not OR. I'm sure it will be expensive, but doubt it would need to be disposable: current CGMs rely on injecting a metal sensor into subcutaneous fat. After about a week your body starts to heal around it and the sensor becomes ineffective. Do to the nature of the application process, there is no way to re-inject a sensor once used. The sensors are on the order of $50 each, so $50/week.
- morganherlocker 13y ago
  Expensive hardly matters to me. As long as it is less than ~$30k per 10 years, I would pay. Insulin pumps already cost $10k+, and do not provide as much value. This kind of tech is life extending for those of us who need it, so price kind of moot (up to a point). How much would you pay per year to get an extra decade of life?
simcop2387 13y ago
likely on the order of years they have to prove that the monitoring it provides is accurate, measures what they think it does (I.e. no false positives or negatives), and doesn't v endanger the users lives (I.e. doesn't blind them I see the proposed led being an issue here since it can go off at night, and likely that it doesn't have a severe lag time that would reduce the likelihood of a life saving response because the user isn't checking blood sugar otherwise). I think all of these are definitely solvable issues so I would be surprised if it doesn't get anywhere. the specialized nature of the contact is likely not going to be an issue since the market is desperate for something better (every diabetic I know would switch to this in a blink). what I wonder is what the communication with the device is going to be like, smartphone would be nice but some of the smart watches I think would be better, and how is it powered too.

nfoz 13y ago

This is a legitimately fantastic project. Can't wait for some details about how it works.

cargo8 13y ago

Google never ceases to amaze me for taking the initiative to really pursue and commercialize these things. If people are interested, here is a relevant research paper in IEEE about the massive potential contact lenses have to mate technology and bioinformatics: http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-realit...

kamens 13y ago

Would immediately — and significantly — improve my life. Crossing my fingers very hard. Want this to be reality.

caseydurfee 13y ago
What would this do for you that a current CGM wouldn't?
- klapinat0r 13y ago
  I'm just speculating, but the physical presence of the device itself has been a dealbreaker for me, and I've heard of similar issues from a couple of athletes (with diabetes).
- morganherlocker 13y ago
  The current solutions I am aware of are invasive (put a big needle into your gut and redo it again every few days), and do not allow for real time feedback. Useful in that you can analyze the data later, but hardly helps when you are currently experiencing an issue (which could be life threatening).
- kamens 13y ago
  I've experimented with multiple CGMs and have been plagued with severe accuracy issues. I know this isn't the case for all people, but I found myself constantly recalibrating the CGM only to be given readings that were — no joke — 100% different than the "normal" meter's. I'm talking CGMs giving "30" or "300" when my trusted tester claimed "150." I was careful w/ calibrations, tried for months, spoke w/ people at the company, etc etc...it just wasn't worth the effort for me. Maybe they're better now, haven't tried in about 3 years. That was the final straw for me, but the effort around these CGMs is also not to be understated. Calibrations, extra items to lug around attached to your body, extra pieces that can break / not work, etc etc. Anything that helps with this is huge. When I think of the big picture I realize that Type I Diabetes is nothing compared to the health issues many people deal with, and I consider myself _extremely_ lucky. That being said, it's a daily battle that you never, ever get a break from. Personally, the CGMs didn't make the battle (or my results) much better. Who knows if this technology would be any better, but I can cross my fingers. I would gladly pay almost all spare money I have for a CGM guaranteed to be both accurate (keep me healthy) and reliable/simple (keep me sane).

notatoad 13y ago

How is this powered? are they generating electricity from the body somehow?

ewolfe 13y ago
Good question. Maybe from body heat. A polymer thermoelectric converter seems like it could be a good candidate.
- neumann 13y ago
  This is the most interesting question. And failsafe. You couldn't rely on this, unless there was a way to ensure it is working or had a fixed lifespan. I believe the thermoelectric converter works by exploiting a temperature gradient, which I suspect would not be sufficient at this scale and location.
nfoz 13y ago
I'm wondering this too. Could it pick up on an electrical potential from the eye itself? Or could the reading be gathered with only as much of a signal as an RFID tag gets?
eqdw 13y ago
Few years ago I saw a feature in IEEE spectrum about contact lens displays/computers. Apparently, because they're so small and have such low power requirements, they can power themselves off of the ambient radio / wifi / cell / etc signals
beernutz 13y ago
This one is actually powered by RF transfer, so the power is all external. This link explains it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s

guidefreitas 13y ago

Great. Now your are going to sign up with Google+ to blink.

bsherrill 13y ago
What about a pill that just cures diabetes?

dshankar 13y ago

Microsoft was working on similar technology 3 years ago [1] It looks like Google poached MSFT's engineers to work on this -- Babak Parviz was working on this at Microsoft 3 years ago, and is now cofounder of the smart contact lens team at Google. [1]: Functional Contact Lens Monitors Blood Sugar Without Needles (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832 http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832)

mikeyouse 13y ago
Notably, Babak was also the project lead for Google Glass until this past December.
psbp 13y ago
This has very little to do with MSFT research. Microsoft collaborated with Parviz's research at University of Washington. He wasn't a MSFT engineer. He was a Professor at UW before he left for Google. His affiliation with Microsoft, and Microsoft's contribution, seems minimal.
- kathleenj 13y ago
  That's not what Babak said according to this pdf. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/stories/nui_contactlens_cs.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/stories/nu... >Tan and Microsoft Research Connections have been great supporters of the project, Parviz said. Their willingness to explore and invest in the project was critical to advancing research and development of the functional lens. “A lot of people considered it science fiction,” Parviz says. “Desney and Microsoft Research were actually, very early on, convinced that this is perhaps a worthy cause. And they were willing to work with us, and support us. And I’m very grateful they did.”
  - psbp 13y ago
    By no means did I mean financial contribution, but the design and implementation of the project which seems to have been established by Parviz since at least 2009: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/ar-contact-lens/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/ar-contact-lens/

caseydurfee 13y ago

Continuous glucose monitors have been around for a while. I'm not sure who this would help. The fundamental problem is that glucose levels in non-blood fluids do not exactly match blood glucose. The current monitor solutions use interstitial fluid in the skin. They still require the user to test themselves several times a day and recalibrate the monitor based on blood glucose, and they can't alert the user if their blood sugar is low until it's already a serious situation. They also frequently give false positives. This is a new (but very clever!) way to do something that has been around for a while, not a revolution, unless tears track blood glucose much closer than interstitial fluid does. Simply based on first principles, that seems unlikely. And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24*7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar.

joeconway 13y ago
There are severe drawbacks to CGM like scarring, infection and most importantly the expense. In the UK CGMs and even insulin pumps are almost impossible to get most places on the NHS.
magicalist 13y ago
> And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24/7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar overnight and extended-wear contacts (for up to a month, I believe) have been available for many years now.
- lhc- 13y ago
  I have these, and they are indeed good for a month. To be honest, I sometimes dont even notice and wear them longer.

morganherlocker 13y ago

Type I diabetic here. Assuming current tech stays where it is (not saying it will), this could easily tack 10 years on to my lifespan. For many who watch their diabetes less closely (something I cannot fault anyone for), this could add 20-30 years. For anyone who does not know, type I diabetes is not something you can just follow a doctor's direction on and be ok. Even if you follow your doctor perfectly, there can still be serious complications, and type I diabetics with the best control are actually more likely to die from severe low blood sugars. The reason for this is that the optimum blood glucose level is around 100. <70 and you start to be severely mentally impaired, making it difficult at times to seek treatment (finding and eating sugar, in a nutshell). On the flip side, if you are lax on insulin, your blood sugar might hover around 250 for months, and you will feel close to normal. Having a blood glucose this high on a long term basis will have long term effects that are what kill most diabetics in the long run. A low blood sugar, however, can be fatal within minutes to hours. Either way, a continuous feedback mechanism would help tight control diabetics, and diabetics who do the minimum. Tight controllers could get faster feedback about when they are going into the serious danger zone without having to initiate any action (checking blood sugar), and lax diabetics would get a constant reminder of how they are letting there life slip away (which they normally would rarely see, since they hardly ever check their blood sugar anyway). I have to say though, I am still a bit skeptical for a few reasons: - One, I have been told about this sort of miracle technology ever since I was diagnosed 15 years ago. - Two, the medical complex locks down their tech and extracts the maximum value out. There is not a single glucose device on the market that lets you extract the data out of your glucose monitor and crunch the data how you want. I have worked on hacking these devices to extract data and the legal verbiage around these activities has strongly discouraged me from releasing anything. Previous continuous glucose monitoring systems. These companies would prefer you rot in the dark, than to lose one bit of profit. - Three, if one of these devices is not 100% perfect, it gets shot down and banned from the market. This is probably a combination of profit-motivated industry and caution-motivated government. A great example of this is a continuous glucose monitoring, non-invasive watch that came out ~ a decade ago. It was on the market for several years, before being banned. I, like just about every person in the thread I linked, would pay $10k+ for one of these, despite the reduced accuracy over traditional devices. Entrepreneurs in the health industry take note. [1] [http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-sugar/61908-glucose-watch/ http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-sugar/61908...]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lowglow 13y ago

Am I the only one that thinks Google[x] is just the arm of google that looks for far future intellectual property to patent and never really produces usable tech? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

matznerd 13y ago
You are wrong.
dclara 13y ago
You have a point. But I think Google's vision and mission and intention is to move forward the technology in every area. Financially possible, not necessarily intelligently possible. The acquisition of Nest shows they may not have the gene for building hardware systems, devices are ok, but it's not a long-terms solution without a system in place.
nl 13y ago
Hopefully Google patents lots of useful stuff before anyone else. Google's record on patents is pretty responsible.
- lowglow 13y ago
  Until when? Until they decide not to be?
fatjokes 13y ago
You are wrong. They spin off the tech that they do want to commercialize. E.g., Brain use to be part of X, but now it's its own group. Same with Glass.

inetsee 13y ago

I am encouraged by the fact that Google is working in this area. If any company can overcome the obstacles to this technology becoming available soon and at a reasonable price, it would probably be Google. I am discouraged by the fact that the underlying technology (measuring glucose from tears) was first reported more than two years ago. There is another (sort of) non-invasive glucose measuring technology that involves injecting a biofluorescent dye under the skin, then using a device that measures the fluorescence that varies with the blood glucoe levels. This technology was also first reported years ago, and is also apparently nowhere near being available.

kimonos 13y ago

Wow! This is great news for my father!

ginzaerin 13y ago

Type 1 also, and I fully admit that part of what prevents me from using pump therapy is the CGM technology and how invasive and frustrating it is. The lens project gives me hope, but as others in the thread have mentioned - I've gotten my hopes up on several occasions about potential technologies and agree that it seems like a lot of it comes down to profit. Full disclosure, I'm the COO of a tech company and I love data - so a constant frustration is lack of consistent data that can be manipulated in usable ways. (Also mentioned by others in the thread.)

_paranoia 13y ago

This seems like a prototype of what Google Glass will evolve into. The medical device will offer a first generation of solutions to several major problems for augmented reality contact lenses: fitting "an antenna for wireless data communications, a chip to process data, and tiny battery onto a tiny, thin, curved surface..."[1] Then, a later version will need to solve the problem of projecting crisp images from the contact lens onto the user's retina. Google's experience with Glass seems like it could inform that effort. Perhaps we'll see this product on the market with significant usage within 10 years. Augmented reality contact lenses have other implications. For example: what does it mean for privacy and advertising to not being able to shut one's eyes? 1. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517476/google-glass-today-smart-contact-lenses-tomorrow/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517476/google-glass-tod...

jerryhuang100 13y ago

One major concern I would have is that, in diabetic patients their eyes experience more dryness than non-diabetic patients. This might lead to more scratches on the cornea and prone to further infections and ulcers. As diabetics care 101, diabetics patients have mucher high risk of systematic infections. And this is all way before any diabetic retinopathy develops in those patients. So why Google[x] thinks it's a good idea to have diabetics patients wear contact lens?

dclara 13y ago
Totally agree. Don't know how the doctors say.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
I know there are sprays available for people with dry eyes who are prone to infection. Would those help in this situation or is it more complex than that?
berkes 13y ago
AS a Type I, my doctor advised me strongly to start wearing glasses and stop wearing lenses. Because they would apparently increase the risk of early blindness even more.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  I'm not sure whether you or my wife need a new eye doctor. Hers knows she is diabetic and is doing extra screening watching for any possible damage from the disease but has never said anything about her contact lenses being a problem. Other than while sleeping she always wears her contacts.
  - berkes 13y ago
    There's a whole story to this, but that is a little too private to share on the web :) The larger story is, that lenses can damage the eye (tiny scratches, little infections); regardless of Diabetes. Diabetics have increased risk of badly healing damage, especially wrt fragile nerves (toes, eyes, hearing). The increased risk that anyone has for infections and problems when wearing lenses, is only so more dangerous to Diabetics.

ctrl 13y ago

Type I also, Looks like its time to get over that huge fear of contact lenses. I dont care if i have to clockwork orange my eyelids, this sounds awesome

azernik 13y ago

To take this to a purely business/tech place - this is an interesting market for prototyping contact-lense electronics; maybe in 10 or 20 years the new Glass will just be a contact, but for now this looks like one of the few applications where a sensor and two LEDs (high and low) can provide a lot of user value.

jisaacks 13y ago

> integrating tiny LED lights that could light up So wait a minute, your eyes will start flashing when your glucose levels are spiking?

cpeterso 13y ago

A few years ago, there was research into nano ink tattoos that can continuously monitor glucose, but I haven't heard any recent news. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/glucose-tattoo-0528.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/glucose-tattoo-0528.html

fjcaetano 13y ago

At first, I thought this could be quite intrusive. I mean, you're putting something in your eye! It's the same discussion as the biometry authentication systems (retina scanning, saliva, etc). But then I realized: the alternative is to put a piece of hardware under your skin! It will be embeded in you "forever" and can only be removed via surgical procedures... These contact lens, if ever available, will in fact revolutionize the diabetes scene and may open precedent to new "wearable" technologies targeting health.

Zimahl 13y ago
Maybe. You need to understand that diabetes equipment is a lot like a Segway - it's interesting and solves a problem but it's expensive and somewhat infeasible. Many things could contribute to this not being as revolutionary as it sounds. Everything from cost down to accuracy is a concern. Diabetics do like to have hope that this will be the game-changer but they've heard that many times before.

sarojt 13y ago

All diabetics really would appreciate this innovation - my grandmother was delighted to hear it.

BrainInAJar 13y ago

Jeez, Google really has no limits on how much data about you they want

psbp 13y ago
For what company would this not be the case?

oh_sigh 13y ago

Where's all the FUD about collecting user data and doing evil things with it that we've been seeing in the Google+Nest stories lately? "But what about when google sells your data to insurance companies, who then penalize diabetics for not maintaining specific glucose levels?' "Do you really want google to know every single thing you put into your body?" "Can we trust google to not put advertisements in the contact lens, making you watch a 15 second commercial before being able to read your gluose levels?"

trekky1700 13y ago
I will wear an ankle bracelet for Google if it means I get my hands on this.
- Geee 13y ago
  That's exactly what their strategy is ;)

prawn 13y ago

Anyone else have a problem where if they read an interesting story like this about potential future technology, they are virtually incapacitated and unproductive for the rest of the day thinking about the potential? Obviously, a Google Glass or Oculus Rift equivalent but with contact lenses has to be one thing everyone's long thought of. But what about activating a contextual display by closing one eye briefly (a map or information about a person you're meeting), or seeing a definition of a word spoken in conversation by closing the other eye, or watching a movie with both eyes closed, reading a book the same way, getting song recognition data at any point, etc. Could we see high-res displays worked into lenses so that they worked, were eventually cheap enough and able to operate in a "pass through" mode so they didn't other interrupt regular vision? Are any companies working on it? Is it possible? What would be the key challenges?

tjmc 13y ago
Building a VR contact lens is orders of magnitude harder than this. Key challenges would be: 1. Component size. 2. Power. The glucose monitor is similar to an RFID that can be powered by radio waves. Driving a screen or laser would require much more power. So you'd probably need some sort of inductive coil matched to regular eyewear. 3. Focus. You can't at that distance. So you'd probably have to beam an image directly onto the retina with a laser. 4. Occlusion of the pupil. Really hard to avoid this one. You might have to pair with a camera to add sight back as a feed. However there could be benefits with this too - eg. night vision 5. Health. Beaming power could be a cancer risk. Also contact lenses need to breath to prevent corneal neovascularization and other nasty effects of hypoxia. Modern contacts are gas permeable but adding electronics would hinder the flow.
- prawn 13y ago
  What's a more likely next best bet? Goggles with projectors? Or something tapping straight into the brain?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dia473 13y ago

We have developed a non-invasive system for measuring blood glucose (patent protected, many publications in peer reviewed magazines, working prototype). If someone has contacts in the VC scene or is working in the VC scene and is interested please let me know. (throw away account)

ericthegoodking 13y ago

Wonderful news! I hope this thing works!

sytelus 13y ago

As always, my question for all miniature cool looking devices is just this: How do you power this thing?

BenoitP 13y ago
I think it would be just like RFIDs and NFCs: you send power to the antenna, the chip uses it to make a measurement, and to send it back. Maybe it can take enough energy from the ambient RFs. Maybe we will see a lot of people bringing their phones close to their faces from time to time, and people would be confused. "What are you doing with your phone, do you have an ear in your eye?"

blueskin_ 13y ago

Coming Soon: Targeted advertising based on blood sugar levels. With a google lens, they could even project adverts directly onto people's eyes.

mortov 13y ago
Being diabetic, I would be quite happy to receive an image saying, hey your blood sugar is low, why not get some sugary snacks right across the road at Acme Candy Store - get 10% off during the next 10 minutes.

f-debong 13y ago

I think this is one of many such implementations which we will see in the next few months. Not long ago, the FDA posted their guidelines on mobile health, which will most likely be part of the system, finally establishing a hint of what they will require to give an approval to a mobile system in the medical field. I have some experience in this, and can tell you it is very exciting. No blatant ad here, sorry! Since the risks for ventures in this field have dropped significantly, devices such as this lens now have a much higher probability to actually see the light of day and not just be hidden in the archives, on thrown away napkins and spreadsheets. Yes, Microsoft worked on it a few years back – yet seem to have dropped the ball or shifted their focus, I have also heard of such a project at Sanofi and research institutes around the world – yet a google X project may potentially be what this concept needs to make progress and actually have an impact. My sincere gratefulness to you guys at X for going at it! Forgot to mention, like many others in this thread I am a type 1 diabetic since 30 years, so my gratitude goes a tad further than only thinking it's cool.

selimthegrim 13y ago
Where has the FDA posted them? I thought the final ones weren't going to be ready until this summer? Is this a draft or RFC?

TeMPOraL 13y ago

This is why I still love Google. Between this, self-driving cars and other world-changing projects, I say take my data if you need it. You're one of the few companies in this world that seems to bring a big, direct net benefit to humanity.

mortov 13y ago

I'm amazed at how many people on HN are diabetic ! Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ? It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick readings up to 4 times a day can leave your fingers in a real mess and pretty painful so even sticking something to your eyeballs sounds attractive !

berkes 13y ago
Please don't confuse Type I with Type II. Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations). Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot. Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very severe Type II" or "just a little Type II", but you cannot have "severe Type I", Type I is binary: you have it or you don't. As a Type I, I'd love to see the medical world and then the rest of us, using a different term for Type I Diabetics, because the deseases are entirely different: the cause is different, the effect is similar. As a Type I, people often blame me for my desease. Often people think it is because of unhealty lifestyle. "Ah you are a diabetic, many programmers have Diabetes, guess its because they sit around all day, haha". This is infuriating. No matter how healthy I am, whether I am a programmer or bycicle-courier, I'd have gotten my Diabetes anyway. Type I is one of these deseases that you can do absolutely nothing against, other then not passing on your faulty genes to children. Edit: clarified the sentence where I am blamed for having Type I. Edit2: As pointed out below, Type II can be influenced by genetics too, made that more clear.
- anon104 13y ago
  I'd like to add that there isn't always a clear cut delineation between the types. For example, MODY is highly penetrant, heritable diabetes that fits neither classification. The idea that type 1 == genetic and type 2 == external is really no longer the prevailing view. The better description is the production of insulin where in type 1, there is a lack of insulin production and typically in type 2 insulin resistance (and possibly deficient insulin). The causative factors are complex and a combination of genetics and environmental factors. I'm a type 2 diabetic with none of the traditional risk factors (typical diet, and underweight), from a family with a high diabetes frequency (sister and father).

RA_Fisher 13y ago

For those that are interested, I'm a data scientist and I spent a bit of time visualizing my Type 1 partner's data: http://statwonk.github.io/blog/2014/01/05/visualizing-diabetes-data/ http://statwonk.github.io/blog/2014/01/05/visualizing-diabet...

efremjw 13y ago

ohhhh, because it's just so comfortable to have contacts in the first place. what's wrong with embedding somewhere else?

j_s 13y ago

Diabetics will find Scott Hanselman's posts and the comments there useful. Three or four of them are linked from here: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HackingDiabetes.aspx http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HackingDiabetes.aspx

lazerwalker 13y ago

I don't at all want to downplay the honest importance of this project — this is the true sort of real "tangibly improving people's lives" technology that not enough people are aspiring to these days — but the timing of this announcement is very strategic on Google's part. Days after people get VERY upset at Google for buying Nest, and moaning about Google's evil surveillance state, Google turns around and announces something that's a legitimate force for good in the world. Very clever.

throwawaay 13y ago
Please. Like this project was just sitting there, waiting for a media shitstorm to pop up. The knee-jerk cynicism on these threads is truly getting stupid. The timing is almost certainly because the project's secrecy had been recently compromised by the FDA revealing a meeting with the engineering team on its public calendar. http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5297216/google-x-team-meets-with-fda-over-unnamed-medical-device-bloomberg http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5297216/google-x-team-m...
wmeredith 13y ago
Eh, I think that's a bit cynical. Google is a huge company. They put out tons of press releases.