We are happy to announce the TEDMED 2020 Hive Program, which will feature inspiring entrepreneurs and their organizations.
As always, this year’s Hive class is made of Innovators representing early- to mid-stage organizations across 6 categories: 1) Life Sciences & Therapeutics 2) Med-Tech & Med-Device 3) Mobile & Digital Health 4) Health Systems, Care Delivery, and Reimbursement Models 5) Advancing Science 6) Public Health
New this year, the Innovators will be a part of an interactive onsite experience powered by TBWA\WorldHealth. Through this awe-inspiring experience that invokes wonder, Delegates have the opportunity to explore the power of asking “What if?” in fields from AI-driven mental health care, to novel drug discovery and development, to new models of human and animal genomics, and much more.
We hope you’ll join The Hive Innovators and the rest of our impressive Delegation in Boston, MA from March 2–4 for TEDMED 2020. If you have not signed up yet, register today.
This year’s Innovators were carefully selected from hundreds of organizations doing groundbreaking work in health and medicine. If you’d like to nominate an organization for next year’s Hive you can do so here.
The TEDMED 2020 theme is Make Way For Wonder, and we are looking forward to convening our Community and embracing the wonders of our times, the astonishing accomplishments, incredible possibilities, and extraordinary potential for the future. So, we were thrilled when the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) decided to celebrate its 200th Anniversary with TEDMED. After all, today’s wonders are built upon a strong foundation of scientific discovery. And, humanity is especially eager for those innovations that will help people everywhere live longer and healthier lives. In anticipation of USP’s presence at TEDMED in March, we talked with Ronald T. Piervincenzi, Ph.D., chief executive officer, about the organization’s history, its current work, and its approach to building trust in the future of medicine, supplements, and foods.
TEDMED: We’re excited to have you and USP join the TEDMED Community, especially on the occasion of such a monumental milestone – USP’s 200th anniversary.
Ronald T. Piervincenzi: Thank you. I’m thrilled to introduce USP to TEDMED’s audience and look forward to meeting attendees in Boston in March.
TM: What made you choose TEDMED to celebrate this milestone anniversary?
RP: Today, we are observing an unprecedented transformation in healthcare. USP’s 200-year legacy is built on trust and confidence in healthcare systems and anticipating and responding to emerging health challenges. Our founders joined together in 1820 to protect patients from a prevalence of poor-quality medical products. The backdrop today is different in scale, geography, modalities and many other factors. But the value of our work is the same. We are exploring how to build trust in future medical breakthroughs. There are many in the TEDMED community we can learn from and engage with as we imagine what the future holds.
TM: That’s exactly what TEDMED is all about! Let’s dive in. What is a pharmacopeia and what does USP do?
RP: Simply put a pharmacopeia is an official publication that includes a list of medicinal drugs and contains how those medicines are to be prepared, directions for their use, and assays to assess medicinal quality. The United States Pharmacopeia–National Formulary, which USP publishes, is the official quality standard for medicines marketed in the U.S. It is also used in over 140 other countries. USP is the leading independent scientific nonprofit organization that collaborates with the world’s top experts in health and science to develop quality standards for medicines, dietary supplements, and food ingredients. Through our standards, advocacy and capability building, USP helps increase the availability of quality medicines, supplements and food for billions of people worldwide. As the world gets smaller and more connected, quality issues affect everyone. Diseases travel. Drug resistance grows. Fake medicines kill. The foundation of quality we’re building helps address these and other global health challenges. Whether decreasing the prevalence of substandard and poor-quality medicines or helping to curb antimicrobial resistance, we’re there across 10 global sites working to protect the health of people all over the world.
TM: This seems like a very modern approach to medicine. Why did the U.S. need a pharmacopeia in 1820?
RP: Today, people trust U.S. medicines to be among the safest in the world but that wasn’t always true. In 1820, the U.S. was a new country. Medicines were made individually and differently by physicians or apothecaries. There were no regulations or more importantly, standards, to ensure that what you received in one city was the same as another. A medicine’s strength, quality, and even its identity varied widely depending on where it was made. Simply put, before our founding in 1820, there was no way to ensure that what was on the medicine label was what was actually in the bottle. Our founders—11 independent, forward-looking physicians— were concerned about this lack of uniformity and acted to protect patients from poor-quality medicines. Three of our founders were not only physicians, but also U.S. Senators—they were the voice that the U.S. needed to ensure the quality of medicines Americans used. They established the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, which published the first U.S. Pharmacopeia. A great deal has changed since our founding but the importance of having quality standards for medicines and other new therapies remains—now, our work is much more global.
TM: This year’s TEDMED theme, “Make Way for Wonder,” explores how medicine and healthcare is changing. Is that a theme that resonates with you?
RP: Absolutely. Wonder and scientific discovery makes medical breakthroughs possible. But trust makes them popular. More than 800 independent volunteer scientists contribute their expertise to develop and approve USP’s standards. They help to build trust by setting clear quality expectations for medicines, dietary supplements, and foods. In turn, USP standards help manufacturers worldwide bring more quality and affordable products to market, which benefits people everywhere. A recent Johns Hopkins University study found that on average, drugs with a USP public quality standard had approximately 50% more generic manufacturers compared with medicines without such a standard. The study also found that quality standards helped facilitate pharmaceutical competition and reduce prescription drug costs in the U.S.
TM: How does a 200-year-old organization prepare for the future?
RP: New technologies and treatments—precision medicine, digital therapeutics, 3D printing, immunotherapy, gene and stem cell therapies, and artificial intelligence—have arrived or are on their way. As we prepare for dramatic breakthroughs, we must work to ensure trust and quality are established as a part of these advances. Unfortunately, trust broadly is in a precarious position across sectors. Our history has taught us that for an innovation to become a widespread reality, both quality and trust are critical to its broad acceptance. USP together with hundreds of our stakeholder organizations and partners are already working to build confidence in future breakthroughs and to anticipate and address where the gaps will be. We know that when a USP public standard is available, we help manufacturers be better able to adopt the new technology, which is often a significant cost savings. In addition to conducting workshops and roundtables on topics such as cell and gene therapies and digital therapeutics, USP is working with the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence and more than 100 leaders from health and science worldwide to explore the developments and role that trust will play in shaping people’s health between now and 2040. We will explore the project’s findings from this “Trust CoLab” with the TEDMED 2020 Community.
TM: We’ll look forward to learning more about the Trust CoLab. Until then, what else should the TEDMED Community know about USP?
RP: I mentioned our volunteer scientists earlier. I invite TEDMED community members who are committed to making the world healthier, being scientifically rigorous, and working independently from politics or the private sector, to consider becoming a Champion of Trust. They can learn more by visiting our website or by stopping by the USP Lounge in the Social Hub at TEDMED. I also encourage everyone to also learn more about USP’s past, present and future and opportunities for other collaborations with us at www.usp.org/200.
TM: Thank you, Ron and very best wishes on the beginning of USP’s third century.
TEDMED: You mentioned in your Talk that as you became more involved in medical robotics, you realized there are many non-traditional approaches to robotics. The exosuit, a soft wearable robot being a great example of a non-traditional robot. Are there any other innovative designs in the field of medical robotics that stand out to you, or that you have worked on recently?
Kathleen O’Donnell: There are tons of interesting robotics approaches out there! I recently read an article in Nature about a system that consists of individual robotic elements that come together and behave cooperatively to achieve locomotion and other complex tasks, similar to the way that the cells of living organisms work together to achieve complex functional behaviors. This example really helps to highlight the massive diversity in robotic approaches today.
TM: New technologies often require a lot of time and money to create. Are these things the biggest barriers to creating new innovations in medical robotics?
KO: One reason that it takes so much time and money to create new innovations in medical robotics is that designs need to be iteratively tested in representative use scenarios to properly develop and validate the designs. Then you still have to begin your summative clinical and engineering testing to ensure that everything is performing safely, effectively, and in compliance with relevant regulatory agencies (such as the FDA). One thing that has really helped to accelerate the development of the exosuit is that from the very early stages, we always were able to involve stroke patients and physical therapists in the device testing, through an IRB-approved protocol. This “early and often” approach to testing with actual users of the device (both the therapists and the patients) helped to ensure that each iteration of development was helping to move us closer to our end goals and allowed us to course-correct before we got too far off track.
TM: The exosuit was adapted to address mobility issues stemming from neurological disease. Do you think soft wearable robots like the exosuit will be used in a more widespread way in the future?
KO: Absolutely! The Exosuit for Stroke Rehabilitation that I discussed during my Talk recently achieved several major milestones, including completion of a clinical trial and achievement of FDA clearance and CE marking, meaning that the exosuit is now commercially available for clinics in the US and Europe to purchase for use in their stroke rehabilitation programs, making this the first (of many) widespread clinical applications for soft exosuits. Furthermore, the technology which comprises the core functionality of the soft exosuit is essentially a platform technology that can be adapted to a wide variety of applications. By leveraging the knowledge gained from developing the exosuit for stroke rehabilitation, we can more quickly develop systems to support additional joints, such as the hip or the knee, as well as additional patient populations, such as MS, Parkinson Disease, or TBI, for example. It’s really exciting to see how the first exosuits have lead to such a robust pipeline of innovation.
TM: In your Talk, you placed a great emphasis on the fact that the focus is always the people the technology is helping, do you think your experience as a patient plays a part in this mindset?
KO: I think my experience as a patient has certainly helped me to empathize with the patients we work with, and to understand why walking ability is such a powerful component of patients’ quality of life. However, even without this experience, I think it would be impossible to work as closely as we do with patients and therapists and not develop a deep sense of empathy and understanding for the challenges they encounter on a daily basis. The teams I have worked on have always placed an emphasis on going the extra mile to “get out of the lab” and better understand the people who are using these robots and understand what they are trying to achieve, and it is this mindset which continues to be instrumental to informing the design of exosuits throughout their evolution.
The scientific community is unwell. Worse, the hospital to which it has been taken is utterly unsuited to cure it. Young professionals feel that the system does not promote, but instead strangles, their creative dreams. The result: the most extraordinary potential for progress in history is being squandered.
Innovation is society’s engine of progress– our instrument for hope. Our modern love affair with innovation leads us to desire having as much of it as possible and to fear its loss. A quick web search for “innovation” yields about as many hits as the word, “boyfriend”. Yet, our system of science from its funders through its institutions, does not allow practitioners to reach their full creative potential. I know this firsthand because I have encountered so many of these frustrated scientists.. Nearly every time I lectured at a research university about how to improve innovative thinking, a young person would stand up at the back of the room during the question and answer period and say something like, “Dr. Ness, this was inspirational, but you are proposing really radical new ideas. If I tried to do what you counsel, I would never be able to get funded or be published.” I heard this lament perhaps a dozen times when finally it struck me, “duh– there’s a big problem here, and it is not due to these young, bright minds.”
The problem, I came to discover in writing my most recent book The Creativity Crisis is that caution has overtaken creation within the system of American science. Society begs for revolutionary advancement but spends its dollars on tangible products. Ideas are conceived as “individually owned” and intellectual property is shielded by patents rather than shared for the benefit of all. The hierarchy and insularity of science stymies rich collaborative possibilities, so, for instance, the historic opportunities offered by crowdsourcing goes unexploited. A suffocating burden of federal and state restrictions and regulations continue to grow as society becomes increasingly apprehensive about the harms that science can bring.
The result of this perfect storm is that the largest and most difficult problems science must solve-– climate change, emerging epidemics, social inequity, Alzheimer’s disease-– rage unabated. I believe we must find solutions to these disasters-in-progress that are far more radical than the current system permits.
Yet, not all is doom and gloom. Science continues to march forward at a prodigious pace, even if that march often produces things less necessary than nice. Some institutions such as the Howard Hughes Foundation and Google have incorporated a series of systems changes for the focused purpose of tending and nurturing creative innovation.
We need not be satisfied with a system of science that fails to achieve its full potential for advancing societal well-being. To implement original solutions to society’s most threatening problems, we must bring creation and caution into equipoise. The Creativity Crisis examines in detail the ills of modern science and multiple remedies that, by abandoning convention, may contribute to fixing the broken system. I can only hope that this book and related TEDMED talk will launch a discussion in which all of you will help to reinvent the scientific ecosystem. I believe that if you open your minds and your hearts to the potential for creative disruption, together we can solve the creativity crisis and unleash possibility.
In her TEDMED 2015 talk, innovation expert and physician-researcher Roberta Ness imparted her wisdom for combatting science’s creativity crisis and sparking the type of revolutionary innovations that science and medicine so desperately need.
At TEDMED 2014, Thomas Goetz, health journalist, science writer, and entrepreneur, shared a riveting story about one of the lesser-known heroes of medical research whose successes carried crucial implications for future health discoveries. Curious to learn more, we reached out to him with questions.
What motivated you to speak at TEDMED?
I spoke at TEDMED in 2010, and giving that talk had a profound impact on my work and my career. I knew that, given the chance, this was an invitation I couldn’t turn down!
Why does this talk matter now? What impact do you hope the talk will have?
“Innovation” is such a buzzword these days. Everyone wants to be an innovator, every organization feels compelled to be innovative. The word smacks of shiny technologies and slick strategies; it seems almost a facile topic. But innovation – true innovation – is hardly easy. It’s a struggle of ego and conflict and rife with failure. Most of all, it’s hard work.
To me, the story of Robert Koch’s scientific efforts shows that Koch was innovating on two levels at once. The first was science, with the investigations into the germ theory. But, just as difficult was the fact that he had to invent a process. He had to devise a rule set that allowed the pursuit of discovery, what we know now as “in vitro science.” This process, which we take for granted today, is received knowledge. It’s important to recognize that the process is as much a thing as the result of the process. What’s more, we’re in the midst of a new area of innovation today – the idea of “in vitae science,” which I discuss in my talk. My hope is that people will see that creating the rules that govern this new kind of science are as much for the making as the laboratory science of the 19th century. And, it could be just as impactful.
What’s next for you?
At my startup Iodine, we are actively trying to build the rules and technologies that might allow in vitae science to flourish. By giving people a forum to share their medical histories and creating a new dataset that can help drive better decisions for others, we are providing a quantitative assessment of subjective experience. It’s very much continuing what I spoke about at TEDMED, and putting these ideas into real life.
At TEDMED 2014, Mark Levatich urged us to imagine the possibilities of a world vivified by electricity. Inspired by his enthusiasm, we reached out to him with questions about his talk, and any tips he has for young innovators.
Why does your talk matter now? What do you hope people learn?
I knew my great-grandfather; he fought in WWI on horseback, and later lived in a household full of Apple products. We can imagine the transition of living in his world and expect the same scale of change in ours. The advances may not look rapid but we’re still rehashing the same tools of computers and programs. Leaps that challenge our imagination arise from fundamentally different abilities. That is why shape-changing plastic is primed to alter the course of human history. It can solve hundreds of existing problems, in unexpected, previously impossible ways. It also solves problems we didn’t recognize without an obvious solution. Nearly living plastic won’t be the final surprise during our lifetimes, but it’s primed to be the next.
In my talk, I described living plastic enhancing heart surgery, but I could have focused on braille, or keyboards, mice, drones, camera lenses, hearing aids, band-aid insulin pumps, capacitive batteries, bullet-sized tasers, electro-caloric heat sinks, ultrasonic tape, or woven sensors in clothes. The technology is already functional, but will see centuries of rehashing to creatively morph our world. It matters now because it will happen soon. It matters now because the pace of change is becoming mind-boggling, even for those of us now who are accustomed to surprise.
What advice would you give to other aspiring innovators and entrepreneurs?
If you are a young innovator, protect your naiveté and practice inception. As a budding innovator, you may find mentors and peers willing to help. I am sorry that their advice may be your greatest early challenge.
Any new skill takes repetition to master. Innovation by its nature should always yield conflicts with existing knowledge. To learn from a mentor’s advice, you must repeatedly sacrifice ideas. The sacrifice is active. It’s more than presenting concepts for appraisal. Ask your subject to share what their thoughts were just prior to their objection. Decipher the types of mental connections they used to crunch your idea, rather than source material. Meditating through and duplicating their thought process will permit you to absorb the strongest mental tools they have demonstrated. Repeating this process with diverse and accomplished people will allow you to compound the strengths of your mentors. In the end, the most important outcome is protecting your willingness to re-engage in deconstruction. Your naiveté makes your ideas vulnerable to overcorrection, and you must resist the social shock and keep practicing.
You may be presented with a plethora of unseen obstacles, a weakness of founding knowledge, an unrealistic sense of time, challenge, or concept placement in the existing landscape. All of these are irrelevant. The quality of your ideas matters only when you are primed to strike out and implement. Until that time comes, your goal should be to propose endless concepts. Exercise, through repetition, the mechanics of inception. The plentiful resource of criticism is not a crucible for your sword of conquest; it is, in fact, the hammer you wield to pound your innovation into shape.
Uzma Samadani is the cofounder of Oculogica, a neurodiagnostic company that, through eye movement tracking, specializes in detecting concussions and other brain injuries otherwise invisible on radiologic scans. She shared her journey of discovery on the TEDMED 2014 stage. We caught up with Uzma and learned more about her vision and methods of discovery.
Who or what has been your main source of inspiration that drives you to innovate?
Necessity was the mother of invention, and serendipity the father. We sought to develop an outcome measure for a clinical trial for severely injured vegetative patients when we developed the eye-tracking algorithm that we subsequently realized could detect concussion. We had expected to use the eye-tracking algorithm to calculate how well people could pay attention and fixate their gaze, but then were surprised to find that it actually showed us what was wrong with the brain. Now that we have discovered this technology, we understand its implications: it enables us to detect previously ‘invisible’ brain injury. We are inspired, driven even, to innovate and make this technology available to everyone who has sustained trauma. We can help people who previously would not have had objective measures indicating brain injury.
Why does your talk matter now? What do you hope people learn from your talk?
My talk is not so much about brain injury directly as it is about a moment of discovery – the rare shock of finding something remarkable and considering its implications, then the doubt, and the concern about artifact. And then, the gradual realization that we have discovered something real and potentially extremely helpful for humankind. I hope people who hear my talk are inspired to work hard and make their own discoveries.
What is the legacy you want your work to leave?
Brain injury is the single greatest cause of death and disability for Americans under the age of 35 years of age. By creating a biomarker and outcome measure for injury, we can test treatments and therapies and also evaluate prophylactics such as helmets. The true measure of our success will be its utility: to other researchers, to clinicians and to the people who sustain injury.
Engineer and entrepreneur Drew Lakatos, CEO of ActiveProtective, created a smart garment that uses airbag technology to protect the elderly from hip fractures when they fall. We caught up with Drew and learned more about his work and experience at TEDMED 2014.
What motivated you to speak at TEDMED?
We are introducing a new technology (that repurposes an old one) that most people will scratch their heads the first time they hear or see it. Only after studying the problem, as well as its size and scope, does it become clear that there really is no other way to prevent hip fractures in the frail elderly. By sharing it at TEDMED, we hope to raise awareness and begin familiarizing it as an intuitive treatment for those at highest risk.
Why does this talk matter now? What impact do you hope the talk will have?
This talk matters now because of the seismic shift required to shift our “sick-care” system to a “healthcare” one by introducing, proving, and promoting preventive technologies that can completely avoid these tragic, expensive, death-sentence episodes of injury.
What were the top TEDMED2014 talks that left an impression with you?
I was shaken watching Marc Koska’s hidden video of a healthcare worker sharing needles of HIV+ patients. I was moved by Debra Jarvis’ warmth and honesty, and inspired by her heartfelt talk. I was touched, confused, and still processing Bob Carey’s Tutu Project. I don’t know where to store the images in my head, and loved his raw honesty.
Resa Lewiss, Director of Point-of-Care Ultrasound and Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine and Radiology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, unlocked imaginations about ultrasound applications in her talk at TEDMED2014. She explained why and how ultrasound at the bedside has become a game changer for clinical care.
She recently took a moment from her duties in Denver to share more about her work and impressions of TEDMED.
What motivated you to speak at TEDMED?
I attended TEDMED2013 in Washington DC. I was inspired by the people, the space and the vision of TEDMED. I believe that the arts inspire creativity and innovation. And innovation begets innovation. I live the aphorism mens sana in corpore sano, [a sound mind in a sound body]. TEDMED does too.
Why does this talk matter now? What impact do you hope the talk will have?
This talk will hopefully deconstruct healthcare silos. Point-of-care in partnership with ultrasound can be a concept that is difficult to comprehend. I hope to have connected the dots between the technology and the resultant improvement in patient care- for health care providers, people in tech and people in the world. The safety profile, time efficiency and cost effectiveness are self-evident.
Tell us about the top 3 TEDMED2014 talks or performances that left an impression with you.
Jill Vialet: Sobering reminder for ourselves and loved ones. Play is healthy.
What kind of corporate culture makes innovation inevitable?
Thomas Graham, M.D., Chief of Cleveland Clinic Innovations, and Vinay Gidwaney, co-founder and Chief Product Officer of DailyFeats — two who should know — talked with Lisa Witter as part of Perspectives, a series of conversations with thought leaders co-produced by TEDMED and Fenton Studios and filmed at TEDMED 2012.
Achieving more medical innovation, more affordably is also one of TEDMED’s Great Challenges in health and medicine. The Challenges are persistent issues that demand collective understanding and discussion for management. Join this effort and help shape the future by sharing your thoughts now.