 I'm going to start off with the second panel here. So the second panel deals with health and medicine, and the integration of health and medicine with free printing. From closest to me, I guess, you all left to right. First half, yeah, left to right. First half, Dr. Gerald Hurt. Hurt is the chief acting of the biomedical and computational biosciences branch in the Office of Cyber Infrastructure and Computational Biology at the National Institute of Allergy and Affections. Dr. Hurt also leads the NIH 3D Print Exchange, an online portal to open source data and tools for discovering and creating and sharing 3D printable models related to biomedical science. The goal of this exchange is to provide researchers, physicians, and the public with high quality informative models that inspire new discoveries that transform science and health here. Dr. Hurt's research background focuses on computational structural biology and provides special expertise in 3D printing, visualization, and modeling. So it's background includes medical science and chemistry, master's science and PhD, and chemistry, right? That's right. Let's see. His doctoral work was recognized with the Pauling Award from the American Officialographic Association and is the author of several scientific research articles. Next to Dr. Hurt is John Scholl, the founder of Enable. Enable is a service where volunteers can design and deliver free 3D printing prosthetics worldwide, such as Dr. Scholl is this point right now. So I realized last night when going over some of the material that this panel features all PhDs. So I feel honored to moderate, and I will do my best to be sound intelligent while asking all the questions. But Dr. Scholl's background is a biological psychologist, inventor, an entrepreneur, and human-computer interaction researcher, and a digital community organizer. He is the creator of Enable, which I mentioned in an online film property community that designs, customizes, and fabricates open source, affordable 3D printing prosthetic hands on children and adults with upper limb differences. Next, Dr. Scholl is Dr. Matthew Primer. Dr. Primer received his bachelor's in material science engineering from Rice University. So we managed to pair him next to a fellow Rice University alum, George Miller, and he works as a regulatory scientist at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. I realized that the two government staffers have the longest titles. That's the way it is? Yeah. Among his many duties, he's the head of the additive manufacturing working group, which is spearheading efforts across the agency on how this technology affects medical devices and other medical products. These efforts include guidance and standard development, advice review, harmonization, and forming regulatory science to intend to foster innovative and high-quality products. Lastly, we have Jordan Miller. Dr. Jordan Miller is the assistant professor of Biology at Rice University, and no stranger to us at Public Knowledge and 3D-DC. I think he is a three-time 3D-DC attendee. So we thank you for joining us again. His primary research interests real-life regenerative medicine and combines synthetic chemistry, three-dimensional printing, micro fabrication, and molecular imaging to direct culture human cells to form more complex organizations of living vessels and tissues. His research project has also explored the mass-transported cell survival of a matrix model in a 3D context. So we wanted to create this panel and bring these panelists to 3D-DC because I know, for me, a lot of the most exciting news that I read about 3D printing involves medicine, involves health, involves people using 3D printing, 3D scanning technologies to take a more proactive control of their health. Project Enable, obviously, is very popular in the world-wide. When Michael Howard was planning this, there was a video that came out with Robert Downey Jr. working with a seven-year-old to have a prosthetic limb and Tony Stark guys. But we want to see what this looks like from the perspective of those scientists who work in federal agencies or those researchers who have educational background in art and academia, and what the intersection of academia and government currently is and what we've predicted will be. And also, where's the challenge that we're facing right now? Because we want to make sure that staffers and other public would follow and not only have that excitement that we have in seeing those headlines, hard-working stories, but also what about the redistribution we have forward. So I'll let the panelists deliver marks of five, seven minutes in terms of what they're doing in this field and then we'll have a few questions and we'll open up questions to the audience. So please. Okay, I guess I'm first. So again, my name is Darrell Hurt and I lead the NIH 3D Print Exchange project, which was really just kind of the introduction of an idea that started back in 2007 where we first considered using 3D printing to describe our very complicated three-dimensional structures that are inside of all of us, the proteins and enzymes that make us living things. These are very complicated shapes, incredibly small. We can't see them even on a microscope. And so it's really important to be able to understand these structures of all medicines, all drugs, all vaccines work on that molecular level. Wouldn't it be great if we could understand them better and therefore do better science? That was my thought. And so we got a 3D printer and I started to work out kind of the technological problems associated with transforming scientific data into 3D printable files. And then along came an opportunity to actually share that knowledge, that those recipes that would take me, even though I knew what I was doing an hour or more to do to automate that and democratize it. That is get it out into a public venue where anybody could be able to run these same recipes, computational recipes with their own data. Whether it be something from a microscope, something from a molecular and even share their lab tools that they might be creating unbeknownst to anybody else, custom labware that enables them to do better science and even their own biomedical data. So a CT scan for example. Wouldn't it be interesting if you happen to get a CT scan say of your arm to put it in and have our tools generate a 3D model for you? That's what the 3D print exchange is. It's a place to share and create 3D printable models and put into the hands of people more tools than they would have otherwise. Let's become much more than that actually. A 3D print exchange really is an opportunity to work with and become associated with some really fantastic people including people who are here on the panel with me. In fact, I feel like despite all the PhDs on the panel here that I am the young one here and although I may be older but in that really a lot of the innovation is happening in these labs and we are just happy that our services, our work is being adopted and is looking as a place for people to share and exchange ideas as well as the models. It's really become an example of how government agencies can work across agencies and across different domains of knowledge to accomplish something much greater than anyone could by themselves. We're so happy again to have actually one of our contributors on the exchange. So John, why don't you take it? Thank you very much. We're very happy to be on the exchange. We are, as of last week a 5,000 member volunteer community all over the world using 3D printers to produce these devices to design these devices to share these devices and then to give them away for free. We are a really open community creating open designs with open arms and hands and we didn't exist two years ago and at this point we have members that deliver it over 1500 hands to hundreds of children and families. We've gotten a vast amount of press independent of Robert Downey Jr and Ironman and it's become something of a movement in two short years and it occurs to me that one of the reasons we were able to do that is because of all of that openness and the fact that we found a way of skirting the usual hoops and hurdles that academia and government and business and contracts usually put in the way of actually getting a job done our devices are free that means they are whereas medically approved FDA regulated commercially available devices which are much better devices mechanically and probably functionally but they cost 5 to 20 or more thousand dollars free is infinitely cheaper no matter what the commercial price is and for the people we've focused on to begin with children our lightweight plastic superhero shaped and themed hands are the cats meow they don't actually like wearing the commercial medical prosthetics so it's an interesting story about the intrinsic costs of safety and regulation and business and contracts and yet we are very conscious that we could potentially do harm we are disrupting existing industries that serve a really important purpose that their intellectual property as well as social responsibility issues and while we used to say that our strategy was to make sure that the force got way out of the barn before anybody noticed at this point we're part of a really interesting development ecology in which I think all parties like what's going on and are being very careful to try not to step on each other's toes thank you John that's actually a really good segue for me to talk about what we're doing at the FDA as Martin mentioned we're the head of the Edited Manufacturing Working Group which is based out of the Center for Devices in Radiological Health most of all the most 3D printed medical products have come in as medical devices so my center is taking the lead we currently have a team of 58 people who are spread across all different specialties within the FDA including people from the biologics and devices that were brought in and we're primarily interested in how does additively manufacturing of the medical product affect what testing and safety requirements there are so we'd like to say that most of this is on the technical side the regulations don't stipulate how you made the device so the FDA if you mill it, cast it or if you 3D print it it can go through the same regulatory processes we care about what the risk is to the patient the benefit is indications for use and ant-homical location and claims and this last couple are really sort of FDA specific but if you're making a medical product we worry about that on the product that being said as you heard earlier there are all sorts of challenges getting consistent parts how you handle the material properties especially for 3D printing when you're printing metal it used to be you'd go to the store by a block of steel which should have consistent properties when you're doing metal 3D printing you start with the powder based on powder that can change from your final properties and you're creating your final alloy sometimes even at the same time you're creating that part so what sort of technical questions do we have to have companies show to us to make sure that that product is going to perform as expected what sort of validation requirements do they need to do for verification GE when they're making their fuel injector and nozzles they're testing every single part and they're doing that because they know if one of these fails it's going to be over for them at 3D printing that's not feasible nor is it necessary for every kind of device so there's this sort of trade-off that we're looking on the technical side between how well can you validate a system and how much verification you need so there's been a lot of sort of new properties change as you change the orientation with your print space and if you go to Larrow Eye save some awesome images showing how you can stack parts in different locations of your print space to maximize your build volume well if you're doing that nor are there any trade-offs on mechanical properties fatigue, you know part consolidation so this is primarily sort of what our group is focused on now my background is material science all to the mechanics and material properties of issues but we have people looking at compatibility how do you clean something that's coming out of powder of polymer now if you have an FDM and you have a sacrificial layer how do you make sure you get all that off so there's a lot of different specialties involved in looking at this technology to make sure it's brought to the consumer in the safest way possible so the last sort of story I'll tell is something my boss says everyone has a microwave oven at their house, mentioned earlier 30, 40 years ago could you imagine going someone saying you're going to cook food with radiation and you're going to have this radiation source in every kitchen the company that messes that up could have kept microwaves from being as ubiquitous as there are now so we're spending a lot of time right now to make sure that added manufacturing can present the full benefit to the American public to these innovative, now full prices alright, thank you all so I'm Jordan Miller I'm the assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice University and I'm running a research lab focused on bioprinting so why do we need bioprinting so if you fall down and use skin or knee you get a scar that forms and actually the same thing happens to our internal organs when they get damaged sufficiently they cannot regenerate in the short term we have organ donations and transplantations and those are the gold standard and those are really critical, we need a lot more people in the short term to be registered to donate organs when needed but in our lab we're focused on the long term trying to figure out are there technologies we can build in the lab that could take a sample of a patient's own cells and be able to recreate an organ for them that would be functional and could replace function in the long term and maybe if they get it when they're young we can go with them if it's made from their own cells so I think we can talk a lot about which technologies we're using to do that I think one of the most important things that we're doing is actually the approach that we're taking towards this goal and it's one of openness and I think that science and open source technology are inherently tied together science has historically always been about openness and about trying to describe your experiments so that other people can reproduce it and I think a lot of the things that we're seeing on the panel today things like the NIH 3.0 print exchange where it's helping people to standardize things in this burden so you know bio printing has been around for 10 or 15 years why hasn't it really taken off one of our theories about this is we don't have standards in our field yet we don't have standard bio printers themselves we don't know how to build them the same way from lab to lab we don't have a file format for a human organ what is the architecture of the organ that you need what are the materials you need to put down these are things that we're trying to figure out a lot of people in our field are trying to figure out but whoever gets there first we believe the only way to bring everyone there is to do it in an open way so I'm very interested in seeing and talking about more of the openness that Congress has been mandating and encouraging through incentives things like through the NIH and NSF through during funding through grants that you say that you need to put your data in an open way and I think that's really going to help our field you're seeing that really accelerate a lot of the things that we're doing and we're really excited to be part of it Excellent, thank you very much for your remarks I want to start with a question by asking particularly Matthew, Gerald to what extent are you all working with other federal agencies what are some of the other federal agencies you're working with that you mentioned throughout the government and follow-up questions what extent are you working with academic institutions like the University or the educational institutions I'm going to work backwards there so the very first thing we did for the print exchange was identify a nationwide network of experts in 3D printing in particular for the kinds of 3D printing that we wanted to do which was less of the bioprinting although that is on our mind, Gerald as you know the kind of printing that is used in more educational spaces and trying to get feedback from them on our ideas on the presentation of those ideas on how open the data should be the algorithms and recipes we were using and those people have continued actually with us and are some of our advisors for the project and some of our government collaborations have really happened because we were fortunate enough to receive so-called air cover from the highest levels at HHS through their so-called idea lab which is a place to kind of kick-start ideas that wouldn't necessarily get funded or backed in other ways but if you have a good idea you can propose it to them and they'll give you a little bit of money and a lot of air cover to do what you need to do and this way kind of like John was talking about trying to get work away kind of around the hoops and red tape and in fact early on one of our developers who has been a government employee for a long time and developed lots of software from the government told us you guys are breaking all the rules and this was somehow wrong and yet we were able to stand up I think a pretty nice product in large impact one of the largest things that our institute has ever done in terms of global facing tools is because we broke those rules and we did it in about a year, a year and a half through the HHS that air cover and through some contacts provided by Jordan the office of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy got hold of us and since that time we've had contacts with NIST, with the military various branches of the military in fact with with NHHS the CDC and the FDA to some degree also the Department of Education and several other government agencies not at the Department of the Secretary so one of the things that has really come out of this is that it's something we never anticipated but I guess we're at the nexus of a lot of these things people looked to the 3D print exchange as a almost experts in 3D printing in the government and we're scrambling to keep up and I would give share some more thoughts on that but I'll pass it over to Adam so my story is going to be fairly similar the FDA is in close contact with NIST and NHH for a couple of different groups for a couple of different projects there's also a government-wide additive manufacturing group called Go Additive which was a way for all the different government groups involved in this field to pool resources, pool knowledge talk about joining challenges facing everyone a lot of the same issues the FDA looks at in terms of medical device quality the FAA is asking the exact same questions in terms of flight readiness so there's a lot going on at that level for us to make sure that we're not doing anything too duplicative and everyone's aware of research projects and resources available within the government that's working on additive manufacturing FDA is also heavily involved with standards organizations which is usually a mix of other government agencies, industry and academia we're involved in STM specifically STM committee F42 for additive technologies we're hoping to develop some of the standards and again, biology and biological standards much further away but we're working on creating standards to assist the industry with understanding what you need to do when running devices in terms of universities and academia FDA has a research wing which is where I'm based out of we have academic collaborators on projects we often invite academics to come and talk about the research they're doing so we can understand what's coming next and where they see the technology going we do more with government and that's standards organizations but we are tied in with some universities Thank you and to John a question I want to ask you what are some of your goals for enabling you said 5,000 members of the past two years so it's obviously exploded in a great way but how did was this what you envisioned when you started out and where do you see it going forward some of us live in a fantasy world so I'm not going to talk about what I envisioned it wasn't this but you could do this kind of thing because it could become something like this you know it's a little odd to say but I think these are plausible goals for enabling right now the first goal is I think that we could create a situation in which inexpensive prosthetics are available to everyone everywhere we're sort of on track and that may put us put our initial mission out of business in five to ten years when 3D printers are as ubiquitous as you know laser printers or microwaves that's right but there's that one other thing we're trying to do is to nurture, support and celebrate a global community of volunteers using emerging technologies to develop innovative new solutions for underserved populations you know we're already ready to walk away from 3D printers and prosthetics but that sort of social model is of hands across the ocean if you will helping hands for the greater good so a really big mission for this kind of thing and 3D printing of prosthetic hands and 3D printing of other assistive technologies and development of other kinds of assistive technologies are all sort of within the scope of what's going on and then the third grandiose goal is to survive long enough to get a real sense of what iceberg we are the tip of in terms of all of these trends there's a lot that's new and interesting going on in this particular way of I was going to say doing business but that's really the point this way of getting the job done and that also could be really quite interesting in the long term thank you Jordan I would like to ask you what's some of the technology and the cheers that you've been working with I know when you showcased a couple of years ago and last year you used sugar but what are some of the other raw materials you work with currently in your lab so some of the exciting things we get to work with every day is trying to figure out what is the best kind of 3D printing to use for bioprinting and the answer is that there's really not the best type of technology so 3D printing out of the manufacturing are a huge suite of technology you can use lasers to melt metal you can use light to photocross link soft gel and we are trying to develop each of these different types of technologies in an open way and each of them could be used for different types of applications so the harder materials things made with laser centering those could be used more for bone scaffolds whereas other things like the one we'll be showing off later tonight is using light projection where we have a photosensitive gel that has the consistency of gel when it's hardened and that can match a lot of the compliance of the soft tissues and body things like the liver or maybe the lung and so we are trying to develop technologies that can print many different types of materials they could also print living cells and not kill them during the printing process a lot of manufacturing technologies have not been optimized yet for trying to keep cells alive during them so we're trying to do that as well and I think that a lot of these are we're still early in the field so we're trying to figure out how do we architect the tissues so one of the key challenges in our field is trying to get a sense of the imaging or the architecture of the solid organ so we're talking about this a little bit today but the technology that lets you see the trachea of the lung maybe like a CAT scan or MRI will not let you see the tiniest LVO line in the lung these scales are often and if you as the vice versa if you have a technology can let you see the tiniest LVO line in the lung you can't see the whole structure so part of our challenge is trying to identify what are the architectures of the living tissue to reconstitute in these new types of living tissues or brint that we're brinting and how do we keep these cells alive thank you and on the point of challenges I'm going to circle back with Daryl and Matthew to some of the challenges you all face and you also alluded to in your remarks from an agency perspective whether it's companies or with other agencies again like you said you break in all the rules and that sort of institutional mindset but what are some of the challenges you all face in IH and FDA and you just think about it in general if you're able to speak about it so I'll open with that one so when we originally started looking at a manufacturing we realized that there are lots of different technologies and as Jordan just said you can use a laser to melt the metals, center of polymer, cure of polymer, lots of different sort of technologies and we're looking at it and this is going to be a problem for us to understand all of it all at once so we ended up having a workshop back in October two days we had 200 in-person attendees 300 to 400 people online I don't always understand the web metrics I've had one person on our web team say 400 and another one say 300 lots of involvement from across industry, medical device manufacturers John was there, we had university professors, we had some drug companies show up and confused why someone from the devices weren't talking about drugs and we were able to get some really good feedback and pull a lot of these common issues if you're using a laser to center a metal, a polymer, cure of a polymer you still need to understand where that laser is going, how much control you have so we're able to distill a lot of this sort of common themes from the different technologies to sort of understand the best approach many of the hurdles that we had to come overcome are obstacles were somewhat technical in the way that that you do software development in the government but also one of the things that we wanted to really provide people the opportunity for was common what are called creative commons licenses to protect their intellectual property and this is one thing I guess we'll hear about this after lunch intellectual property panel but we found that as we got more and more people invested in the exchange that different people wanted different kinds of protection for their intellectual property the kinds of things that we thought would be sufficient ended up not being sufficient and so we had to add it was a simple thing but add people add to the choices that we were offering choices for additional license models of intellectual property I think we had several technical hurdles to overcome but really because of that high level support and I think this is the key point to drive home here at least this venue with policy makers is that by trying to do something really innovative something really different something that hasn't really been done in government before the only way to get it done quickly enough to make a difference and make an impact is to have really high level support I guess you get that from being able to very lucidly explain your idea and show the potential impact and then once you get going show real impact of your idea we were fortunate to be able to do that not every idea is going to make it that way but I think in a very aggressive entrepreneurial style you can really make innovative things happen in government if you have that support allowing you to experiment and do things that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do great thank you and you actually transitioned well into the last question I have for the rest of the panel thank you all very much for naturally transitioning from one full top to the next is better than I could have done but I want to ask the rest of you all what are some things that you want policy makers to go away with on this panel to keep in mind to keep it off and then after you all finish that question I'll open up the floor to Q&A for the audience I have one other thought I wanted to do that is one of the goals of the exchange is to be open the exchange is three things it's a database of models it's a website and it's a suite of tools that allow people to take their scientific data and turn it into 3D prints all of those need to be open and we've done that through what's called application programming interfaces or APIs that allow computers to talk to each other so that things can happen more quickly and in an automated fashion we've made the code available and are making it more and more available through Drupal, GitHub and other sources like this and I think that openness is a key part the kinds of policy issues that we are concerned about so on the one hand we've been very lucky actually that we began working in an area that falls within a discretionary category within Matthews organization because we're doing we're giving them away for free so we don't have some of the product liability concerns for a while we said these aren't even medical devices some of our members use mechanical costumes body powered for all of these reasons and their upper limb prosthetics those characteristics actually put us in a discretionary category as I understand it in which the regulatory constraints are not onerous at all but we're going to be adding motors to our limbs, people keep asking for legs in some cases we may want to begin charging in certain circumstances perhaps for medical grade devices and yet we are still a grossly underfunded organization we have been very lucky to get some pro bono legal support but this is actually keeping a lot of very good lawyers very busy trying to keep up and so those are concerns the burdens of regulatory concerns are something we worry about here's another example of an issue that we're wrestling with our biggest concern is to make sure that while we're doing this interesting thing we do know harm the device, we've heard about device quality so we try to make sure that the fabricators are competent that the devices they produce are reasonably sound that the cases we're giving them to are cases which are suitable for amateurs using consumer grade 3D predators we've come to realize that the attorneys favored us with this information recently that the more conscientious we become about this kind of thing the more libel we may be if something actually goes wrong right because certainly if I share with a crowd like this that we try our best not to do any harm it sort of implies that you can take one of these devices and be confident that they're not going to hurt you and if some kid has a bike accident while wearing one of our hands we may be more vulnerable for that purpose the point is it's a very complicated and confusing environment and as for as long as we can we're going to just keep on trying to do the right thing the right way but these legal regulatory concerns are ones that will slow us down or screw us up or shut us down so I'm not going to directly endorse anything that John just said but I am going to say there are regulatory requirements based on each type of device there is entire Code of Federal Regulation set saying if your device does this and has these characteristics this is the regulatory landscape beyond the federal government whenever you're making any sort of product there's also going to be local jurisdictional issues that you also have to comply with so for the FDA as everything stands right now none of our regulations call out method of manufacturing so whether you're adequately manufacturing it knowing or leaving it our regulations just look at what that final finish of the device is no matter sort of how you're making it you're responsible for following those regulations just to echo what Daryl was talking about definitely openness is one of the things that I think has already been working so all of the mandates and the recommendations by Congress and by various agencies to keep data open you're seeing that have broad waves in the scientific community people are getting more actively posting their data sharing and people have to reduce what they've been doing and then also to echo John funding is always a challenge so I do think our field would be able to go faster with more funding so I think that ways in which things can be incentivized for developing new types so by bringing technologies showcasing them talking about it and more getting more people excited one of the really exciting things that we've seen is that there are about 200,000 people out there in the world and these are the people that you want to come to science they have this new technology expertise that they are the people to come in and make these breakthroughs in the field so I see this as a really great area of overlap John, do you have a brief follow up? Yeah, I just thought I would comment on an emerging theme that I'm sure many of you have picked up on this word open and it turns out it means lots of different things on the one hand we're talking about transparency whatever is going on that will be exposed we're also talking about open source licensing that what we're doing is possible because all of the designs and all of the designers have decided to put out their designs as things that other people can pick up, use, modify, download share all of that stuff so there's that kind of open there's also the social open our community includes people very much like Jordan, for example like Jordan is specifically and it includes Becky Button a high school student who has come to our conferences and developed interesting techniques and puppet makers and HVAC installers and 10 year old kids who said, for example could my hand glow in the dark which is a really good idea so we're also open to input and output from all of these different parties and that's one of the big secrets of our success in the context of this panel I'll point out that when you have kids and amateurs doing the work that used to be that of high paid, highly trained and certified professional prosthetists that again creates all sorts of interesting challenges but these are good problems to have and I urge everyone in the audience to start addressing them because we know they're good problems to have we're currently at the end of a lot of time from the panel but I do want to open this up to at least two quick questions and some quick responses so we can break from lunch so I hand to the gentleman at the blue then hand to the back and then the gentleman over there and then we'll get you right there those are the four, right now so you serve with the glasses I was VP of R&D for a medical device company and I experienced firsthand the benefits of following and not following the FDA regulations I won't get into the detail of how we did not follow it but it was amazing how fast we were able to develop it by not following FDA regulations but then how it crashed eventually long term because the right procedures were not in place with the suppliers in terms of checking and the quality assurance and so forth so for Enable I like to I understand that but I've experienced both sides RIT from RIT I'm from RPI but I would like to know if you've taken into considerations of at least teaching your community so the basic FDA regulations not to hinder but to actually improve the quality not enough not as much as you would like but a little bit and it's part because they you know these are volunteers they're in quickly, they're often out quickly they're at short attention span theater in many cases and right now those issues have turned out not to be the FDA regulatory issues have turned out not to be pressing the liability issues the personal privacy issues those are ones that are immediately important so those are the ones that we're educating our community about more actively right now thank you for the question in the back I work for 4 labs and we manufacture 3D printers one question that I think is coming up that I mentioned in the panel addressing is where do you think the division of responsibility and roles should be or ought to be between manufacturers of 3D printers and then there are customers who are using this equipment to do things like prosthetic devices and other sorts of actual device manufacture we've talked about making from the customer's point of view making sure that the supplies are correct but here do you see the manufacturer's obligations following? I want to take just a quick crack I don't know if we have an answer response well or whoever else one of our earliest 3D printers was an old Z core machine and we this was an $85,000 machine we had a one time grant to get it we were very lucky, we had money but then it turns out that there's an $8,000 a year maintenance fee on this device and that's great and we paid that for a while and then we came up with an idea of printing what's called a phantom isn't that a great word a phantom it's used in CT to give standards for X-ray dose and the idea was is that we were going to inject iodine into the printing binder matrix and use that as a way to print features inside of objects that could be seen in a CT machine this totally violated all warranty and everything and yet we were able to work with Z core and they gave us approval to do this as long as we maintained the surface contract and it was all good so this was an example of how the manufacturer of the device and the people using the 3D printer were able to work together to accomplish something very innovative and different because there was good communication between them I don't know if that answers your question but that's a case of I would actually turn the question a little bit I think a division of labor is okay but I don't think division of responsibility is what you really want and I think the only way to get where everybody is understanding everything that's happening is to do it in an open way so I would encourage you guys to think about a source printer that you could share with people so for example if you guys change your build platform from Siligarde 184 to Siligarde 3D5 that could have dramatic ramifications for someone printing it for printing an organ type system or implant and those types of information pieces have to be shared with people to be able to make growth progress together so maybe you can do that with contracts and NDAs and that would be fine too but I think you guys think more about sharing information and sharing responsibility that way and having more eyes look at the problem and finding solutions Okay, so, sir, you have a question? Yeah I formed a partnership with MakerBot Corporation and we built a facility out in Herndon, Virginia called Monroe Street Studio it's focused on education around design and 3D printing so this summer one of our most popular summer camps is building prosthetic hands I'd say second only unfortunately to Minecraft for 3D printing but my question for all of you or whoever wants to take it is basically for this generation it's going to grow up with ubiquitous 3D printing in their lives, what should we be teaching them? What would you like to see people be learning if they're in let's say 12 to 17 year age range? So, despite being a material scientist and wanting everyone to be able to develop new materials for 3D printers really it's going to be the 3D design 3D imaging, that's where I think there's a lot more room for development and I think, you know, moving forward especially for medical products there's going to be a greater demand for understanding how to match a device to a patient's anatomy how to read complex 3D imaging modalities to determine what size device you need to make for that patient. As much as they should all be learning material science really I think the 3D imaging and 3D design is where you should be focusing on. In addition to the numbers I can cite there are hundreds or thousands of hands have been made by what I call Enables Dark Matter all of these projects that we were lucky to hear about after the fact there are 55 classrooms that have taken this on. My answer to your question would be that while using this new technology is a great way to learn about things and it can be really fun learning to use the technology to change lives and to enable the future is even more fun and even more meaningful. I think what's really interesting about what we're doing is that we're attracting in particular young girls to this technology because they're sort of interested in the devices but they're really interested in the notion that these devices can make big changes in people's lives and I think that's a really important thing to kids to learn especially as we're emphasizing technology learning which can make more problems than it solves.