A few quick impressions from last week’s FutureMed extravaganza put on by Singularity University at the Museum of Computer History, a stone’s throw from Google’s Mountain View headquarters.

The event featured an exhibition session where emerging digital health companies (with some others) demo’d their initial products, followed by a plenary session introduced by FutureMed Executive Director (and former MGH medicine colleague) Daniel Kraft, and featuring presentations to the packed house by several leading innovators – including one of the developers of IBM’s Watson, which is pivoting from Jeopardy to clinical medicine.

Given the high density of reporters there – to say nothing of innovators, would-be innovators, VCs, and assorted poseurs (categories not mutually exclusive) – I expect there should be lucid coverage available elsewhere on the web.

Instead, I want to capture the three sequential reactions I had, which strike me as somewhat analogous to Haeckel’s Law (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), as each response seems to reflect a distinct stage of professional development.

The inevitable initial, and most visceral reaction to this sort of event, is that technology is wicked cool, and will deliver us all; I think this two minute introductory video captures the vibe more effectively than any description I could offer.   I’m also certain any student of semiotics would find it especially rewarding.

Accordingly, even much of the informal discussion at the event seemed to revolve around Big Questions, lofty ideas, and the Next Big Thing.  New technologies and approaches – artificial organs from stem cells!  Computers that can read your mind! Bottom-up innovation!  Exponentials! – were discussed expectantly, the key question being not if, but when.  The remarkable progress many in the tech crowd had seen in other disciplines suggested that technology advances in health would be similarly achievable, and just as inevitable.

My second reaction to this event — arriving only moments after the first, and perhaps reflecting my experiences in the trenches of clinical medicine and drug development — was far more critical; it was not difficult to see the event as a celebration of technology for its own sake.  For many in attendance, technology was regarded as both driver and consequence of human progress and human advancement, an almost unassailable good in its own right.

The problem with this, as I’ve discussed extensively before, is pragmatic: there’s a huge gap between the way many technologists envision medical problems and the way problems are actually experienced by physicians and patients.  For example, I am curious to see how Watson does on the MGH ward service where I trained; the discrete questions of Jeopardy will almost certainly provide limited preparation for the ambiguities and complexities of this experience.

The worry more generally is that innovators are focused primarily on developing cool technologies, rather than solving actual problems; a century and a half ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. famously commented, “If the whole materia medica [available medications] as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be better for mankind-and all the worse for the fishes.”  It’s tempting to speculate that the same might apply today to the estimated 15,000 medical apps now available on iTunes.

At a minimum, it’s clear there remains an urgent need to more efficiently connect those with problems and those interested in developing solutions – as I discussed in this recent column, and will be working on in the coming months with colleagues at Rock Health.

Upon further consideration, however, it occurred to me that reflexive skepticism isn’t really justified either.  Consequently, my third perspective on the event, and the one I’m carrying with me, is that it’s a great thing that so many smart people are not only developing powerful new technologies (even if currently not as powerful as typically portrayed), and seek to deliver improvements in health (even if the aim remains a bit off).  What’s clear is that there is a critical mass of people who are converging, and who bring a range of expertise, experiences, and capabilities – to say nothing of their war stories and battle scars.

While the vision of medicine preached at FutureMed remains far removed from the way medicine is practiced daily in the clinics right down the street, I think the worlds may be getting closer – the simple act of using an iPhone highlights the power of easily accessible personal technology, and more physicians and patients are starting to explore, and recognize, what technology might offer them.

Similarly, technologists, having learned from the experience of Amazon and Zappos, increasingly appreciate the need to listen to the voice of the customer – even while realizing that, as compellingly demonstrated by Steve Jobs – customers might occasionally want something they cannot currently imagine.

Although the future of medicine is unlikely to be either as close or as glorious as Daniel Kraft and his colleagues enthusiastically proclaim, I’ve little doubt that he’s doing a world of good in catalyzing its ultimate arrival.

David Shaywitz is co-founder of the Harvard PASTEUR program, a research initiative at Harvard Medical School. His a strategist at a biopharmaceutical company in South San Francisco. You can follow him at his personal website. This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Share on Twitter

4 Responses for “Medicine’s Tech Future: the View from the Valley”

  1. BobbyG says:

    Dr. Shaywitz, that is some funny stuff — the “Technorati” characterizations. I’ll be quoting some of that.
    __

    “it was not difficult to see the event as a celebration of technology for its own sake. For many in attendance, technology was regarded as both driver and consequence of human progress and human advancement, an almost unassailable good in its own right.

    The problem with this, as I’ve discussed extensively before, is pragmatic: there’s a huge gap between the way many technologists envision medical problems and the way problems are actually experienced by physicians and patients…

    The worry more generally is that innovators are focused primarily on developing cool technologies, rather than solving actual problems; a century and a half ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. famously commented, “If the whole materia medica [available medications] as now used, could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be better for mankind-and all the worse for the fishes.” It’s tempting to speculate that the same might apply today to the estimated 15,000 medical apps now available on iTunes.”
    __

    Ding, ding, ding, we have a Winner.

    I just had a hand in writing a CMMI “Innovations Grant” proposal for my QIO. It’s pretty mundane, in a way. Self-Management Support for a defined cohort of costly Chronics. (e.g., DM’s and Cardiometabolics, Asthmatics, and COPD). Really akin to “Hot Spotters” kind of stuff.

    I like the way you end up on a positive note, all healthy and necessary dubiety notwithstanding.

    Great post. Thank you.

  2. Thanks for sharing your impressions. I worked for over 20 years in the medical device industry and witnessed how the innovations that get the greatest traction are always championed by experienced clinicians- I totally support your comment on the “urgent need to more efficiently connect those with problems and those interested in developing solutions”. The tech innovators won’t get anywhere without a network of practitioners.

  3. John says:

    Thanks for this post. As a researcher in healthcare policy innovation, I find one of the greatest problems facing the U.S. healthcare system is the FDA review process and subsequent taxes required by medical innovators to pay for developing new life saving technologies. At a recent hearing on the reauthorization of Medical Device User Fee Act, questions on behalf of industry were raised regarding the new medical device excise tax, which encourages economic growth abroad.

    While the FDA is likely to see a severe rise in the financial resources needed to review new medical devices so that they can enter the market more rapidly, we must create a friendlier environment for businesses to spur job growth and development in the U.S.

    Check this review to new medical device tax and a discussion of the recent MDUFA hearing: http://bit.ly/A4HgbG http://bit.ly/xpJgh6

  4. Hi!
    Thanks so much for this post. I agree with your statement ‘that innovators are focused primarily on developing cool technologies, rather than solving actual problems’.

Leave a Reply

FROM THE VAULT

The Power of Small Why Doctors Shouldn't Be Healers Big Data in Healthcare. Good or Evil? Depends on the Dollars. California's Proposition 46 Narrow Networking
MASTHEAD STUFF

MATTHEW HOLT
Founder & Publisher

JOHN IRVINE
Executive Editor

JONATHAN HALVORSON
Editor

JOE FLOWER
Contributing Editor

MICHAEL MILLENSON
Contributing Editor

ALEX EPSTEIN
Director of Digital Media

MICHELLE NOTEBOOM Business Development

MUNIA MITRA, MD
Clinical Medicine

Vikram Khanna
Editor-At-Large, Wellness

THCB FROM A-Z

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
@THCBStaff

WHERE IN THE WORLD WE ARE

The Health Care Blog (THCB) is based in San Francisco. We were founded in 2004 by Matthew Holt and John Irvine.

MEDIA REQUESTS

Interview Requests + Bookings. We like to talk. E-mail us.

BLOGGING
Yes. We're looking for bloggers. Send us your posts.

STORY TIPS
Breaking health care story? Drop us an e-mail.

CROSSPOSTS

We frequently accept crossposts from smaller blogs and major U.S. and International publications. You'll need syndication rights. Email a link to your submission.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR

Op-eds. Crossposts. Columns. Great ideas for improving the health care system. Pitches for healthcare-focused startups and business.Write ups of original research. Reviews of new healthcare products and startups. Data-driven analysis of health care trends. Policy proposals. E-mail us a copy of your piece in the body of your email or as a Google Doc. No phone calls please!

THCB PRESS

Healthcare focused e-books and videos for distribution via THCB and other channels like Amazon and Smashwords. Want to get involved? Send us a note telling us what you have in mind. Proposals should be no more than one page in length.

HEALTH SYSTEM $#@!!!
If you've healthcare professional or consumer and have had a recent experience with the U.S. health care system, either for good or bad, that you want the world to know about, tell us about it. Have a good health care story you think we should know about? Send story ideas and tips to editor@thehealthcareblog.com.

REPRINTS Questions on reprints, permissions and syndication to ad_sales@thehealthcareblog.com.

WHAT WE COVER

HEALTHCARE, GENERAL

Affordable Care Act
Business of Health Care
National health policy
Life on the front lines
Practice management
Hospital managment
Health plans
Prevention
Specialty practice
Oncology
Cardiology
Geriatrics
ENT
Emergency Medicine
Radiology
Nursing
Quality, Costs
Residency
Research
Medical education
Med School
CMS
CDC
HHS
FDA
Public Health
Wellness

HIT TOPICS
Apple
Analytics
athenahealth
Electronic medical records
EPIC
Design
Accountable care organizations
Meaningful use
Interoperability
Online Communities
Open Source
Privacy
Usability
Samsung
Social media
Tips and Tricks
Wearables
Workflow
Exchanges

EVENTS

TedMed
HIMSS South x South West
Health 2.0
WHCC
AHIP
AHIMA
Log in - Powered by WordPress.