Cheap Fast Eyeglasses from a Desktop Fabricator

purduephotog writes "Doctoral candidate Saul Griffith of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and inventor of the Lego powered chocolate printer was awarded the Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for inventing a device that molds eyeglasses rapidly and cheaply. Best of all, he's motivated for the good of humanity."

Comments

Making a difference

[BWJones]

Griffith's thesis research is actually on "programmable self-assembly, how to make things automatically make things," he said.

This is the really interesting scientific angle of his work, and based on this, I would say that this small $30k prize is only the beginning for this guy. This approach demonstrates a unique perspective to problem solving that shows how innovative folks like Saul are. But perhaps more importantly for the future of science, science education, and the overall good, he has a social conscience that allowed him to identify a problem that affects people worldwide and has found an innovative solution that does what we all should aspire to do: Make a difference.

And he also makes the rest of us scientists look good. :-)

Good on you Saul.

The Home-Insudtrial Revolution?

[American AC in Paris]

Desktop fabrication is going to be an interesting one to watch.

Imagine downloading and printing a new bowl for your food processor, or a new toy for your kid.

Imagine, too, the anguished hand-wringing of corporations over the illegal distribution of copyrighted object designs over the Internet.

Imagine, too, the anguished hand-wringing of governments when the technology reaches a point where you can print parts for an AK-47.

My bet is it's going to be quite the roller-coaster ride when it gets here, and that it's closer than we think...

Re:The Home-Insudtrial Revolution?

[ktanmay]

I wonder how you're planning on getting the raw materials for all that, this isn't about turning straw into gold.

Re:The Home-Insudtrial Revolution?

[StrawberryFrog]

Imagine, too, the anguished hand-wringing of governments when the technology reaches a point where you can print parts for an AK-47.

A desktop robot that can mould and carve soft plastic is one thing, but machining a gun barrel from iron alloy is another. It's much harder in both senses.

And unless you want to design a desktop iron smelter, you'd also need to give it just the right lump of metal alloy.

"motivated for the good of humanity."

[Anonymous Coward]

and this folks is what being a real team player is all about, in society where we tell our children that greed and selfishness is bad yet buisnesses teach us the exact opposite , that greed is good and if you are not making 500$ a second profit you are failing, these sorts of things dont come round enough, ask yourself why are you here ? to be a wage slave or to make a real difference to peoples lives

A>S

Re:Fool

[Eagle5596]

He is patenting the device, and I for one applaud him for letting people use it. Where has our world gone that we call humanitarians fools? Last I checked, "you can't take it with you", and when it comes down to it, with the brains he has, I am sure he will find a job, especially as a Doctoral candidate. I applaud him for thinking of the wellfare of others before thinking of a new sports car like most of america.

The real cost of glasses?

[Hoi Polloi]

I hope his next machine makes the frames. The experiences of folks I know who wear glasses (I don't) has been that the lenses are not the biggest cost, it is the frames. Why do frames cost so damn much? I know super cheap frames would be fine for charitable aid to poor people just so they can see but the cost of your average frames, something that strikes me as pretty simple to make, is way too high in the US.

Are frames really that complex and hard to make or is there a lack of competition in the marketplace?

Wrong kind of idealism

[e.m.rainey]

Get your mod points ready...

I "like" how the story posters of slashdot are blinded by these bland phrases like "good of humanity". What exactly does that mean here? Is he giving it away for free? No, but it will be cheap. Is he opening the IP up? No, it's patent pending. In fact he's begining to sound like a (*gasp*) capitalist! And we all know they been knocked around here enough to be demonized. But unsuprisingly when a capitalist helps the poor by helping himself he's a put up on a pedastal as the savior of humanity, but if he helps himself by helping the rich or even just the middle class he's deridded as a scum sucking bottom feeder business man. Why the double standard, slashdot? Why? Is it because the motives seem more pure or somehow more righteous? That perhaps, because poor people get the short end of the stick all over the world that they don't just need help, but somehow deserve it too? That we are compelled to serve them? And when we don't feel compelled by this directive we've somehow failed at an obvious yet never stated goal of life?

What this guy has done is great, not because it will help poor people but because he's been extremely clever. I hope he makes an assload of money. Of course once he does make a reasonable sum, some people will complain that his motives aren't pure anymore. One can only hope they can synthesize becoming rich and helping poor people in the same thought.

Re:Wrong kind of idealism

[YellowBook]

I think you may be missing the point. It's good to help people. It's very good to make money by helping people. This is what's called Right Livelihood in Buddhism. It's one of the components of the Noble Eightfold Path.

I don't think most Slashdotters have anything against a free market. I certainly don't. What I do object to, however, are business models that rely on distortions of the free market: state-enforced private monopolies in land, raw materials, and information; the externalization of the costs of production (e.g., pollution, paying less than a living wage so that the state is forced to step in to prevent poverty, not paying health care so that the cost of the uninsured is pushed off on the state and on hospitals), the exploitation of workers (as above, but also lockouts, the use of private or state violence to break strikes, company towns, slavery, etc.), and the use of deceptive marketing to avoid the free-market ideal of a fully-informed consumer. All of these things are part of capitalism, but they're not part of a free market. Rather, they are deviations from a free market that benefit the class of people that already own property. For a look at what a real free market would look like, read up on Mutualism.

What's good about this story is that the business plan uses a real free-market solution to do well by doing good. Not only should it dramatically reduce the cost of glasses in underserved parts of the world, it will also provide "micro-entrepeneurs" in poor areas to make a living while doing so. When done properly, a free market can benefit everyone. However, the non-free market we call corporate capitalism doesn't do this.

Re:Automatic vision testers! hooray!

[lish2]

You are correct, they do have machines that can automatically determine your prescription. However, they aren't 100% accurate. Generally a good optometrist will do that, then also use that as a factor in where to start the "flip the lenses" bit. Since they have a suggestion of where to start, so it goes much faster. But they still do the manual proceedure. If the two agree, great. But relying on the automated one without any sort of "sanity check" on its accuracy isn't a good idea.

Also I'm not sure the machines work on determining astigmatism.