On a warm spring afternoon in Leuven, Belgium, I sat down next to a stranger at a medical conference and asked what he did for a living. Quinten Veerman’s answer stopped me: he is a Technical Physician, a 3D specialist at OCON Orthopedic Center in the Netherlands. I had never heard the title before. By the end of the day, I had met a dozen more engineers who see patients, or clinicians who understand the physics of the tools they prescribe. These are practitioners who exist, formally and legally, at an intersection that the rest of the world’s healthcare systems have never bothered to pave.

A Profession the World Is Yet To Copy

The Technical Physician is a Dutch invention, born of a straightforward observation: hospitals everywhere had acquired extraordinary technologies, but few on the clinical staff truly understood them. The degree, developed at the University of Twente in 2003, was the Netherlands’ answer to that gap. More than a thousand graduates have followed since.

More precisely, a Technical Physician occupies a unique niche at the intersection of advanced engineering and direct patient care, working within hospital departments such as the ICU, operating rooms, and radiology to independently perform complex diagnostic procedures, surgical interventions, and AI-driven, personalized treatments (such as 3D-printed devices). Students complete an intensive six-year Master of Science program in Technical Medicine, offered through collaborations between Dutch technical universities and academic medical centers. The program integrates rigorous engineering theory, medical data science, and hands-on clinical rotations, training graduates to safely bridge the gap between complex technological innovation and the human body.

The gap it addresses isn’t unique to the Netherlands. It exists in every hospital system that has adopted imaging, robotics, or digital planning tools. Elsewhere in the world, individuals like Rashi Gupta and Dr. Tristan Ramcharan (a pediatric cardiologist I met at the same conference) bridge this divide through personal initiative rather than structured training. There are many of them in the 3DHEALS community. But self-taught hybrids are the exceptions. The Netherlands made them the rule.

One reason the model hasn’t spread is perhaps structural: the Netherlands had to adapt its national laws, establishing Article 36a of the BIG Act to grant these hybrid clinician-technologists independent authority to treat patients. As medical technology advances and healthcare complexity grows, the gap the Technical Physician fills is widening, not closing. Which makes it harder to explain why no other country has followed.

The conference that brought them here was hosted by Materialise and the kind of gathering a company can convene says something about the depth of the ecosystem it has built.

Materialise: From 3D Printing to 3D Solutions

Founded in 1990 with a single 3D printer, Materialise was built on a medical ambition from the start. Co-founders Fried Vancraen and Hilde Ingelaere wanted to be a dominant force in healthcare, a goal that would take three decades to prove. CEO Brigitte de Vet-Veithen said it plainly in a recent podcast with me: “The second shift that we’ve gone through at Materialize for the last 10 years in the medical arena …(is that) we’re not a 3D printing company anymore. Our customers don’t see us as a 3D printing or 3D technology company anymore. They see us as a person bringing or a partner to bring HIP solutions, shoulder solutions, cranial maxillofacial solutions, and structural heart solutions, but they don’t care what we 3D print. The technology doesn’t really matter to them. They need the right solution for their patient. So we are a medical company.”

That clarification matters.

In 2025, the company’s medical division helped more than 70,000 patients and had cumulatively produced over 700,000 patient-specific models, guides, and implants. Its Mimics imaging software has analyzed more than six million patient scans across hospitals, academic institutions, and device companies in 21 countries. About half of Materialise’s revenue now comes from its medical division — a share that has nearly doubled over four years, as the company has steadily shed broader ambitions and concentrated on the one market where 35 years of regulatory and clinical infrastructure are genuinely difficult to replicate.

That focus was not always obvious. The HQ in Leuven has a startup vibe that surprises first-time visitors. A flat org chart, an informal culture, and founder Fried Vancraen walking the conference floor like any other attendee. But the history visible there includes commercial experiments that didn’t survive: furniture, artistic lamps, consumer products that tested the technology’s limits and found them. What outlasted that period of exploration was a sharper thesis: scalable personalized surgical care.

Today, instead of pushing 3D printing into every hospital and procedure, Materialise is integrating its point solutions: surgical planning software, manufacturing services, and novel device creation as a connected system rather than separate offerings. The company calls its strategy a “Slow Revolution”, transformative in potential, gradual in adoption. The evidence suggests it has been patient enough to wait.

What is memorable about the Materialise conference wasn’t just about the technology; it was the people in the room. Several generations of hybrid physician-engineer practitioners from many different healthcare systems, countries, and with different journeys and stories to share.

The Community: Off The Zoom

Before the pandemic, 3DHEALS had more than 30 volunteer community managers hosting events in over 20 cities worldwide. The people who showed up shared something: a conviction that 3D printing wasn’t just a manufacturing technology, but a different way of imagining future medicine. That future also requires bridging the gap between physicians (or healthcare system) and engineers (or technology).

Being back in a room with familiar faces and new ones in Leuven was a reminder of something six years of Zoom calls had made easy to forget. The idea that meaningful change tends to start with understanding and trust.

This brings me back to the concept of Technical Physician, an entirely new kind of healthcare workforce that has demonstrated its value and established trust in the Netherlands. This also raises the question of why no other country has taken a similar step.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

The Blip Test

Technology has made surgical care faster and more personalized, but it has also widened the gap between what the tools can do and who knows how to use them. At conferences like this one, audiences are routinely awed by what presenters achieve, only to quietly recognize afterward how difficult it would be to replicate at their own institutions. Good tools need educated users. That gap doesn’t close by installing better software.

Consider what happens if Materialise vanishes entirely: its FDA clearances, its hospital software installations, its manufacturing capacity, its workflow expertise. A significant portion of the world’s 3D surgical planning will stop working. The field will be disrupted.

Now consider what happens if the people with know-hows at the hospitals vanish. Not disrupted. Paralyzed. The hardware still works. The software still runs. But there is no one in the room have the clinical and the engineering fluency to take responsibility for the outcome. The technology becomes a very expensive prop.

That asymmetry is the real finding from Leuven. Materialise is irreplaceable in many ways. The people using the tools are the other half of the equation. Good tools need educated users. That gap doesn’t close by installing better software.

Healthcare systems everywhere are acquiring hardware, installing software, and building 3D labs. What they have not done is train an updated workforce that can sit at the intersection and own the clinical outcome. The Netherlands has been tackling that problem for two decades. The rest of the world is still waiting for someone to tell them it’s an option.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 💡Healthcare 3D Printing💡 (@3dheals)

Related Links:

Episode 114: Interview With Brigitte de Vet-Veithen, CEO of Materialise

Episode 113: How 3D Printing Explains the Unexplainable With Dr. Tristan Ramcharan

The post The Technical Physician Will See You Now appeared first on 3DHeals.

How much should it actually cost to manufacture an implantable, biologics-based artificial organ? People reflexively ask when such a technology will arrive, but far fewer ask how much it should cost. That is the more uncomfortable question, and probably the more useful one. The silence likely comes from two assumptions: either the answer is so expensive that it feels irrelevant to ordinary people, or the task is technically impossible.

Fortunately, neither assumption is quite right. Tissue engineers and startup founders would reasonably argue that biologics-based artificial organs are not forbidden by first principles. No one has shown that an implantable artificial organ violates the laws of physics; the issue is cost, complexity, and time.

If there is a price tag, then how high might it be?

Because there has been far less progress and investment in whole-organ regeneration than in frontier AI, AGI is a useful proxy. Both AGI and artificial organs sit in a category of technologies people describe in near-mythic terms: they tackle unusually difficult problems, require enormous infrastructure, and promise effects that extend beyond engineering into economics and social organization.

(Subscribe to “The Lattice Podcast” for bonus episodes here.)

How much to AGI?

AGI is easier to use as a benchmark because there are already large, publicly available estimates. The five largest US cloud and AI infrastructure providers, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle, are projected to spend roughly $660–$690 billion on capital expenditure in 2026, nearly double 2025 levels (Futurum Group). Project Stargate has been described as a $500 billion effort targeting 10 gigawatts of AI infrastructure by 2029, with tens of billions in chip purchases alone before replacement cycles and upgrades (Stargate LLC).

Longer-range projections are even larger. Goldman Sachs has estimated about $7.6 trillion in AI infrastructure capital expenditure between 2026 and 2031 across chips, data centers, and power systems (Goldman Sachs via Economic Times). McKinsey forecasts 156 GW of AI-related data center capacity demand by 2030, which it estimates will require around $5.2 trillion in capital expenditure, with annual infrastructure funding needs exceeding $1.4 trillion by the end of the decade. (McKinsey)

The cost of operating a frontier AI lab is already measured in billions. Epoch AI estimated Anthropic spent roughly $9.7 billion in 2025, including about $6.8 billion on compute alone, with compute accounting for 57–70% of total spending at frontier AI companies. Even if training costs fall over time, frontier AI remains a deeply capital-intensive activity. (Epoch AI)

This spending is beginning to matter at the macroeconomic level. In Q1 2026, AI-sector capital expenditure reportedly reached about $174 billion, a 72.8% increase over the prior year, accounting for a significant share of US GDP expansion that quarter. Wells Fargo projections suggest this will rise to more than 3% of US GDP by the end of 2026, surpassing the investment share seen at the peak of the 1850s railroad boom.

This is just to reach AGI, potentially. These figures do not include the ongoing cost of inference and the energy constraints data centers face, which add a large recurring layer of spending.

There is also a harder accounting problem. There is no reliable estimate of how many dollars must be spent to generate one dollar of revenue at frontier AI companies, but it is almost certainly more than one. Most consumer AI use is heavily subsidized.

That said, revenue is not the same as usefulness. AI systems have improved remarkably, but they still make basic and sometimes costly errors. The progress has been real; the reliability has not.

How much to implantable artificial organs?

Artificial organs are not one category. Some will be far easier and cheaper than others. Products closest to commercial reality tend to be avascular or structurally simple tissues rather than dense, highly vascularized solid organs.

That pattern is already visible. Organogenesis has commercialized cell-based skin products. Nanochon is pursuing an acellular 3D-printed cartilage implant in clinical trials. Hemocyte is developing acellular vascular grafts, with ambitions to expand into other organ systems. In investment terms, the case for bladder, trachea, cartilage, or small vessels is far cleaner than the case for kidney or heart: lower manufacturing complexity, shorter timelines, a more navigable regulatory process, and clearer reimbursement pathways.

Solid organs such as the kidney, liver, and heart are different. They combine dense vascularization, multiple interacting cell types, demanding microarchitecture, and severe functional requirements. Among tissue-engineering targets, they remain the hardest and are widely described as the field’s holy grail.

Why the kidney is the right example

The kidney is a useful case study because the medical need is obvious and the economics are unusually stark. A kidney transplant in the US costs about $442,500, and recipients generally require lifelong immunosuppression while graft survival often falls in the 15–23 year range. Dialysis, the main alternative for end-stage kidney disease, costs roughly $90,000–$100,000 per patient per year in the US (NIH).

A Swedish real-world study found that kidney transplantation avoided 66–79% of expected healthcare costs over ten years compared with dialysis, corresponding to roughly €380,000 in savings per transplanted patient. For a patient who remains on dialysis for a decade while waiting for a transplant, direct treatment cost alone approaches $900,000 to $1 million before complications, hospitalizations, or lost productivity are counted.

At the system level, renal replacement therapy consumes a striking share of healthcare spending. Estimates suggest governments spend roughly 3–5% of annual healthcare budgets on renal replacement therapies, while the global ESKD population may reach 14.5 million by 2030 (PubMed Central). That makes kidney failure not just a scientific problem, but a very large and recurring budget problem.

What is being spent now

The ARPA-H PRINT program focuses on the kidney, heart, and liver because the kidney is the most transplanted organ and has the longest wait lists. There are roughly 120,000 people on the US organ waiting lists, while only about 45,000 transplants are performed each year. The 75,000-person annual kidney shortfall, at $90,000–$100,000 per year in dialysis costs, represents roughly $6.75 billion in excess dialysis spending that a scalable bioprinted kidney could theoretically displace.

Against that backdrop, the scale mismatch with AI spending is hard to ignore. OpenAI reportedly spent around $22 billion in 2025 to generate $13 billion in revenue, while the entire ARPA-H PRINT program, the most ambitious US government effort focused on transplantable organs, was funded at $65 million. The disparity between what is spent to generate AI responses versus what is spent to solve organ failure is more than 330:1!

The contrast becomes even more striking when set against the broader landscape of healthcare and regenerative medicine. US national health expenditure reached $5.3 trillion in 2024, equivalent to 18.0% of GDP, and CMS projections suggest it will approach 20.3% of GDP by 2033. The US spends more on healthcare as a share of its economy than any peer nation, and by a wide margin: the OECD average among high-income countries was around 11.2% of GDP in 2024 (OECD Health at a Glance 2025). Yet the regenerative medicine sector, the field most likely to structurally reduce that burden, is estimated at roughly $45 billion globally in 2025, growing toward $97 billion by 2035 (Market Research Future). That is less than 1% of US healthcare spending in a single year. NIH’s total extramural grant investment was about $35.3 billion in FY2025 across all of biomedical research (NIH), while ARPA-H’s most ambitious organ regeneration program was funded at $65 million. The spending priorities embedded in those numbers are worth examining.

Should more money go into tissue-engineered kidneys?

Maybe, but not automatically.

Development costs for a tissue-engineered or bioprinted kidney would likely reach the high hundreds of millions to multiple billions of dollars. Vascularization, maturation, integration, reproducibility, and manufacturing all remain unsolved at a clinically useful scale. Kidney bioprinting efforts are currently funded in the tens of millions per project, for example, an ARPA-H-supported program of up to $24.8 million over five years, while reviews continue to describe the field as preclinical. Bioprinters may range from roughly $5,000 to $400,000 each, but the dominant costs lie in cell manufacturing, bioinks, perfusion systems, quality control, animal studies, GMP-scale-up, surgery, and regulatory work.

The final per-patient price of a first-generation tissue-engineered kidney will almost certainly be high at launch, likely in the high six figures and possibly above today’s transplant cost, even if the economics improve with scale. One industry analysis argues that a 3D-printed organ could eventually compete with transplant costs and long-term care, but this remains speculative because no commercial bioprinted kidney exists yet. A useful analogy comes from stem cell–based tissue-engineered airway transplants: manufacturing costs were estimated at roughly $12,690–$27,490 per graft, but total patient costs ranged from about $133,140–$144,180 in modeled future trials and reached $553,140 or more in early real-world cases based on a 2015 paper. The fabrication step was only one part of the total bill.

The harder question

The parallel with AGI suggests a broader choice. Society may benefit more, at least for a time, by not pushing every ambitious technology to its physical limit as quickly as possible. Artificial organs are not impossible; it may still be rational to delay the most ambitious versions if the same capital could fund cheaper, scalable interventions that help far more patients in the near term. For example, drugs or devices that would decrease the total number of patients needing transplants.

That trade-off is uncomfortable but real. It may mean getting a fully tissue-engineered kidney decades later than is theoretically possible. It may also mean saving more lives sooner by reducing organ injury, offering alternative treatments like dialysis, improving transplantation logistics, developing simpler engineered tissues, and deploying other practical technologies that cost less and reach more patients faster.

I think the AI industry should consider such alternatives seriously as well to solve society’s immediate problems at scale, rather than AGI.

The post How Much Should Artificial Organs Be? Thoughts from AGI appeared first on 3DHeals.

This blog is a compilation of the show notes, transcript, and relevant links to our latest Lattice episode, number 97, where Jenny first experimented with the monologue style. In this episode of the Lattice Podcast, Jenny Chen explores the intriguing question, “Is ChatGPT making us stupid?” She delves into the complexities of cognitive offloading and cognitive miserliness, discussing studies from MIT and the University of Pennsylvania that highlight the potential cognitive costs of relying on AI tools like ChatGPT. Jenny also touches on the challenges and future of 3D printing technology, emphasizing the need for user-friendly innovations to make it accessible to a broader audience. The episode encourages listeners to find a balance between leveraging AI for productivity and maintaining cognitive independence.

Transcript (sort of):

Hello, hello, hello. Welcome to the Lattice Podcast, episode 97. This is a special episode because I have never done this before. And this will be my very first monologue episode. You can call this section Two Cents. Here, I aim to share some of my insights and thoughts on interesting topics, drawn from my own media consumption and conversations, as they are highly relevant and potentially valuable to our audience. 

The question I’m pondering is, is ChatGPT making me stupid?

Before we delve into this exciting topic, I would like to announce an upcoming in-person event, which is a rare occurrence for us due to its expense. But we’re planning on a fantastic event on January 11th, 2026. Yes, we’re already moving on to next year. And it will be the Sunday right before the JP Morgan event. This event is open to the public, but space is limited. Stay tuned for the official announcement, which will be shared through our newsletter, for ticket details and availability. Primarily, this event focuses on entrepreneurs and investors in the space of 3D technologies.  

Now back to the main programming.  

I have to come clean that we have published quite a few blogs on our website, using 95 % generated using chatGTP. For example, Four U.S. Dental Schools At The Frontier of 3D Printing Education

Weirdly, I am not particularly proud of it. Yes, the content is good. It is valuable to some people based on the number of likes I saw on social media after we posted it. But personally, I don’t feel proud of doing it because it felt like cheating. I haven’t put in enough hard work to earn applause. The first three people who can identify which other blog posts we have written using ChadGTP on 3DHEALS.com will receive a free ticket to our January event. 

Let’s talk about what I really want to talk about: Is ChatGTP making me stupid? 

You’re probably already going to guess what my answer is, but the truth is, this is a much more complicated question than it appears to be. I think that, if we want to follow the current trend of articles published in the media, the conclusion is that CHATGTP is not effective — no bueno — especially for students in the educational space. Students are not going to learn as much or struggle mentally as much. I can also discuss two articles I’ve seen recently to illustrate this point. However, I think it’s a nuanced question, and we should consider it slowly and carefully, because we are at a juncture of a technological revolution, and revolutions typically have casualties.

And many serious researchers are trying to determine the benefits and drawbacks of this potent tool. That is, how can we use this new tool effectively to maximize productivity without diminishing humanity and certainly not causing something unthinkable, like being ruled by an AI overlord? 

By the way, the latest scary scenario is not an AI Overlord, but that AI does not even need humans at all. They don’t need to rule over us because we’re of no use to them. 

Let’s pause and think about that. 

I have seen two fascinating publications in academia that I want to share here: 

The first study from the MIT Media Lab examines the impact of utilizing a large language model, such as ChatGTP, for essay writing. They grouped some students into three groups. One uses chatGTP to write the assigned essay, one group uses nothing as a control group, and one uses a search engine. Each group completed three sessions under the same conditions. 

To gather outcomes, the researchers utilized electroencephalography (EEG), a device that monitors brain waves, to assess cognitive load during essay writing. They also used NLP to analyze the writings, both human and AI judge,s to score the essays.

 Here is the finding: 

The “no-tool” brain-only group exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks based on EEG, while the CHATGTP users displayed the weakest connectivity. The search engine group is in the middle of the three groups. That means the more tools you use, the less the cognitive load. 

Makes sense.

But here is the kicker. 

The self-reported ownership of essays was the lowest in the large language model group and the highest in the brain-only group. Large language model users also struggle to quote their own work accurately. This is precisely how I felt after I published several ChatGPT-written blogs on our website. I honestly could not name all four schools as the top dental schools that focus on 3D printing education in my own blog.  

Therefore, in this scenario, while LLM offers immediate convenience, this shows potential cognitive costs. And over four months, large language model users consistently underperform at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. So obviously the conclusion of this article is that we need to exercise caution when using ChatGTP for creative writing. 

The second publication, which came out of UPenn, focuses on solving math problems and includes a study involving over 1,000 students. This study shows that students using ChatGTP initially outperformed their peers by 48% during practice; however, when tested without AI, their scores dropped 17% below those of their unassisted counterparts. 

This again suggests that a short-term productivity gain may have a long-term performance cost.

And if we, as a species that aspires to progress through innovations and creativity, rely on ChatGTP for near-term ROI, it could be detrimental to our long-term goals. 

And if we, as a species that aspires to progress through innovations and creativity, rely on ChatGTP for near-term ROI, it could be detrimental to our long-term goals. 

In other words, in the long run, you are not creating a more creative, robust mental labor group.

Here, I also want to introduce two interesting concepts: 

Cognitifive offloading and cognitive miserliness. (A bit tongue twist but important!)

 What is a cognitive load? 

Cognitive load refers to the total mental effort required in a person’s working memory at any given time. 

So, for example, after the invention of the calculator, we rarely need to do five-digit multiplication by hand. After the availability of GPS and mobile phones, I rarely need to memorize routes to my dog groomer, which is only 3 miles away. 

ChatGPT is one of the most powerful tools available to help us achieve cognitive offloading across various tasks in our daily lives. In fact, this is how AI enhances productivity. That is, we don’t have to expend too much mental energy on mindless, repetitive tasks, such as organizing emails or scheduling appointments. 

But here is where the second important concept comes in – cognitive miserliness. 

By the way, the word miserliness means excessive desire to save money (Extreme stinginess). 

 Mental miserliness is our tendency to do things that require less mental effort. So imagine that you have to write an article, and with the help of chatGTP mental offloading, you could finish your task in no time, and you really enjoyed that. And the next time you are tasked with writing an article, instead of struggling through this complex creative process, your brain yearns to chatGTP again. Over time, you will become more reliant on ChatGTP for a variety of tasks, and your ability to complete these tasks independently will atrophy. In fact, it is reported that some workers will use chatGTP for work against their employers’ ban on the tool. It’s almost like an addictive drug in a way. 

So, mental offloading can be beneficial, but cognitive miserliness can be detrimental. 

Where is the perfect balance? 

The verdict is out there, but I want us all to be aware of these because that’s the first step. Avoiding a new technology is never the smartest move. Hence,  I will not resort to learning to ride a horse so that I can avoid driving, even though car accidents certainly kill. 

But I will fight hard to maintain the optionality to pick and choose which mental offloading I can safely enjoy, so that no other intelligence system can choose it for me. 

Now, I would like to discuss 3D printing briefly. AI for 3D Printing is a lot more than LLM and is still in its infancy.  

I have personally owned more than five printers of various qualities and types in the past. And I have to say, I do not, I do not love the experience. I was mentally overloaded while tinkering with these machines. 

And for the moment, I have given up on these. 

However, 80% of our audience members are not natural tinkers. And that poses a problem for the industry. 

When your technology is complicated to use, you are not ready to scale. We now have consumer-based printers, such as Bambu Labs and Prusa 3D, that are gaining increasing traction among average people and hobbyists. But they are still working in the group with a predilection for being able to tinker. And the day that 3D printing really becomes a mass consumer product is when the machine is straightforward to use. That is where AI can really help us with some good cognitive offloading. 

Relevant Links:

Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

The post Is ChatGTP (or AI) Making Us Stupid? (Two Cents) appeared first on 3DHeals.

You must learn to think like a great investor to build a great company. The most successful entrepreneurs aren’t just skilled operators but master capital allocators, strategically investing their money, time, energy, and focus. In the early stages of a company, financial capital is often the least scarce resource; the real differentiators are insight, discipline, and the ability to place asymmetric bets on the future. Understanding the game of investing—whether in markets, people, or ideas—gives you a decisive edge in entrepreneurship. These five books have impacted my perception profoundly in 2024. They sharpen entrepreneurs’ ability to think probabilistically, navigate uncertainty, endure discomfort/pain, and maximize their chances of success in a field where most remain blind to the underlying rules. If you are willing to read, you already belong to the most exclusive club in the world. These five books deserve a spot on your bookshelf for future revisits.

The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future

This gem by Sebastian Mallaby explores the transformative role of venture capital in driving innovation. Typically, the VC community works behind the scenes, and no one wants to share his/her “secret sauce” of success. This is one of the rare books accounting for the history of this new asset class and the hyper-competitive individuals within it. No problem if you can’t get a VC meeting for your startup yet; read the insider rules first.

Key insights from the book include:

1. Embracing Uncertainty: Venture capitalists understand that the future cannot be predicted but can be discovered. They invest in groundbreaking ideas, acknowledging that while many will fail, a few will achieve extraordinary success, following the “power law” distribution.
2. Power Law Dynamics: A few investments yield disproportionately large returns in venture capital. This understanding drives VCs to seek high-risk, high-reward opportunities, aiming for “grand slams” rather than modest successes.
3. Overcoming Loss Aversion: Successful venture capitalists combat natural loss aversion by embracing the possibility of failure. They focus on the potential for outsized gains, understanding that significant breakthroughs often come from taking bold risks.
4. Cultural Adaptability: This book illustrates how entrepreneurial cultures can evolve. For instance, regions previously hesitant about entrepreneurship, like parts of India, have become vibrant startup hubs, demonstrating that cultural barriers to innovation can be overcome.
5. Venture Capital as a Pillar of Capitalism: The author suggests that venture capital represents a third pillar of capitalism, alongside markets and corporations. By funding and nurturing startups, VCs blend strategic guidance with market dynamics, fostering innovation that reshapes industries and societies.

Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts

In 2024, I developed a deep appreciation for the work of Annie Duke—a professional gambler, psychologist, and prolific author on decision-making. I’ve read all her books and found them invaluable. While I hesitate to draw direct parallels between life and a high-stakes poker game, the reality is undeniable: success often hinges on a calculated balance of skill and luck. As an investor, I recognize that every decision carries inherent uncertainty, and the ability to assess probabilities, manage risk, and adapt to new information is what separates those who consistently outperform from those who merely play the game.

Key takeaways:

1. Embracing Uncertainty: Duke emphasizes that decision-making involves probabilities rather than certainties. Recognizing the inherent uncertainties allows us to make more informed and flexible decisions.
2. Distinguishing Skill from Luck: The book highlights the importance of separating outcomes influenced by skill from those influenced by luck. We can improve our strategies by analyzing whether their successes and failures result from their decisions or external factors.
3. Avoiding Resulting: Duke warns against the tendency to judge decisions solely based on outcomes, a concept known as “resulting.” A good decision can lead to a poor outcome due to unforeseen events, and vice versa. We should focus on the quality of our decision-making process rather than just the results.
4. Adopting Probabilistic Thinking: Duke advocates for thinking about probabilities and assessing the likelihood of various outcomes. This approach helps us evaluate risks and potential returns more effectively, leading to better life/investment choices.
5. Learning from Outcomes: Duke encourages analyzing successful and unsuccessful investments to understand the role of decision quality and luck. This reflection enables us to refine our strategies and improve future performance. By integrating these principles, investors can enhance their decision-making processes and navigate the world’s complexities more effectively.

The Lessons of History

I picked up this book by historians Will and Ariel Durant after hearing multiple venture capitalists and seasoned investors recommend it to their students and followers. While I wouldn’t call myself a history buff, one thing has become increasingly clear—people tend to repeat history, particularly concerning mistakes. My goal in reading this was simple: to learn from the past and make fewer costly errors in business and life. What I found was far more than an investment framework—it offered profound insights into human nature, decision-making, and the patterns that shape societies. This book broadened my perspective, deepening my understanding of humanity, the cycles that govern markets and civilizations, and the larger context in which we operate. For any investor or entrepreneur, history isn’t just a record of the past—it’s a playbook for the future.

1. Human Nature and Competition: Durants emphasize that while human behavior evolves, human nature remains constant. Recognizing that competition is a fundamental aspect of human nature can guide us in understanding market dynamics and the drive for innovation.
2. Economic Cycles and Inequality: The book discusses how, regardless of who holds power, rewards tend to accumulate with the most clever and talented individuals. This perspective can help us identify and align with entities or individuals who demonstrate exceptional capabilities, understanding that economic cycles often favor such talent.
3. The Impact of Ideas: Ideas are portrayed as powerful forces that can be passed down and influence future generations. For investors, this underscores the importance of supporting innovative concepts and visionary thinkers who can drive long-term value.
4. The Balance of Freedom and Equality: Durants highlights the trade-off between liberty and equality, noting that efforts to enforce equality can sometimes restrict freedom. Investors can apply this lesson by recognizing the importance of maintaining a balance between regulation and entrepreneurial freedom to foster growth.
5. The Role of Geography and Environment: Geography is described as the matrix of history influencing the development of societies. We should consider geographical and environmental factors when evaluating opportunities, as these elements can significantly impact economic and business outcomes. Reflecting on these lessons, we Messi can gain a deeper understanding of the enduring patterns that shape human endeavors and apply this knowledge to make informed decisions.

The Status Game: On Human Life and How to Play It

This book by Will Storr is my all-time favorite for decoding human behavior within complex, high-stakes environments—political, corporate, or societal. It unpacks the intersection of psychological vulnerability and the evolving landscape of media, revealing how modern information channels shape perception and decision-making. In an era where misinformation spreads faster than truth, the ability to access and discern high-quality information isn’t just a luxury—it’s a prerequisite for making sound, strategic decisions.

Highlights:

1. Status as an Economic Driver – Storr argues that pursuing status is one of the most potent motivators behind human decision-making. In markets, consumer behavior, investment trends, and corporate culture are all deeply influenced by status dynamics. Understanding this can help investors identify emerging trends and entrepreneurs position their products more effectively.
2. The Three Status Games – The book categorizes status-seeking behavior into three main games: dominance (power and control), virtue (moral authority), and success (competence and achievement). Entrepreneurs and investors who grasp these frameworks can better craft narratives that resonate with their target markets, customers, and stakeholders.
3. Status and Market Positioning – Perceived status shapes purchasing behavior and brand loyalty. Investors who recognize how companies leverage status signals—whether through exclusivity, innovation, or social impact—gain an edge in evaluating potential opportunities.
4. Status as a Leadership Tool – How leaders distribute and recognize status directly impacts productivity and culture. Founders and executives who understand these dynamics can build high-performing teams and create environments where talent thrives.
5. The Digital Age and Status Arbitrage – With social media and online communities redefining how status is earned and displayed, industries are emerging around digital status symbols. Investors who can spot these shifts early—whether in luxury goods, fintech, creator economies, or decentralized networks—stand to gain significantly.

For investors and entrepreneurs, status isn’t just a social construct—it’s an economic force that shapes markets, drives innovation, and determines competitive advantage. Understanding how to navigate and leverage the status game is a strategic necessity in today’s business landscape.

How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius

I was familiar with stoicism as a philosophy. However, my perspective changed significantly after a brief cancer scare at the end of 2024. Thankfully, I don’t have cancer, but the experience led me to discover new ways to build mental resilience through reading this book and revisiting Marcus Aurelieus’ teaching. Surprisingly, many of my Silicon Valley entrepreneur friends read this book simultaneously.

Guess no one is having an easier time!

I also appreciate that the author wrote this book for his teenage daughter in a very personable tone, aiming to equip her with bravery and wisdom for life’s journey. The lessons, shared thousands of years ago, remain incredibly relevant today, highlighting the unchanging nature of humanity.

Key Points:

1. Mastering Your Mindset: Marcus Aurelius faced wars, plagues, and betrayals yet maintained a disciplined, rational mind. Stoicism teaches us that our thoughts shape our reality—control them, and you control your life experience.
2. Embracing Discomfort and Adversity: The Stoics saw challenges as opportunities for growth. Marcus viewed hardships as exercises in self-improvement, not obstacles.
3. The Dichotomy of Control: Inspired by Epictetus, Marcus focused only on what you can control. External events are not controlled, but our response to them is.
4. Emotional Resilience & Mental Toughness: Practicing negative visualization (imagining worst-case scenarios) helps build mental toughness. Journaling (as seen in Meditations) is a powerful tool for self-reflection and growth.
5. Humility and Leadership: Marcus Aurelius saw leadership as service, not power. A great leader must act with virtue, fairness, and patience, even when faced with criticism or opposition.
6. Memento Mori – Remember You Will Die: Life is short—Stoics use this awareness to focus on what truly matters. Rather than fearing death, Marcus saw it as a natural part of existence.

We can cultivate resilience, wisdom, and inner peace in a chaotic world by thinking like a Roman emperor. Robertson’s book is a powerful guide for your children, entrepreneurs, investors, and anyone seeking clarity and strength in adversity.

What would you recommend 3DHEALS community to read in 2025? Write to us: info@3dheals.com

Related Links:

Life Is A Poker Game, President Trump’s Healthcare Agenda

The Illusion of Permanence, SHPWQ

May Newsletter: “Chip War”, True Frontier

April Newsletter: Are You A Neophiliac?

Year of Dragon 2024: Everyone Was Wrong in 2023

Lattice October 2023 Newsletter: “Elon Musk”

Lattice September 2023 Newsletter: The Status Game

Newsletter Archive

The post Five Powerful Books Every Entrepreneur Must Read to Win-2025 appeared first on 3DHeals.

To be able to imagine the dramatic change in a system that has existed for thousands of years, stepping away to see the bigger picture is necessary. One important but the overlooked word, “healthcare”, needs to be clearly defined first. Based on Wikipedia (i.e. crowdsourced definition), healthcare is the “maintenance or improvement of health via the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairment in human beings.” As mentioned in “Decentralized Healthcare Part I”, the current healthcare delivery system is rather centralized. Therefore, an effective decentralized healthcare delivery system needs to serve all the existing roles, if not better, than the current centralized system.

In addition, it is necessary to discuss the concept of “decentralization” within the proper context. As suggested by in one article on bitcoin/computing [ref], there are several rather independent kinds of decentralization. In healthcare, perhaps we can break it down to the following three:

1. Physical Decentralization — A healthcare delivery system that is less dependent on physical location or number of the human healthcare provider. Achievements of the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease would require less and less physical conglomerate of technologies and human providers. As Vinod Khosla suggested in his paper, “’20 Percent Doctor Included’ & Dr. Algorithm: Speculations and Musings of a Technology Optimist “, Dr. Algorithm will likely take over “80%” of what doctors do today. The role of future doctors will dramatically change with the rising of technology and the ceiling of the healthcare budget. The role of hospitals and healthcare organizations will also have to change, and more likely towards physical decentralization. There are many existing innovations targeting physical decentralization of healthcare already:

     a.Prevention: Our progressively improved ability to easily (and cheaply) obtain and store data either from IoT and wearables or remote diagnostic labs and devices allow us to collect not only a lot more data but often continuous data from patients. This reduces the need for the patient to physically visit their doctors, clinics, hospitals for checkups and follow-ups.

    b.Diagnosis: Remote monitoring, remote diagnosis, telemedicine/teledentistry are more and more common and accepted. Patients are more open to cheaper, more accessible, but perhaps less intimate interaction with the new care delivery interface, ranging from robots to an iPhone with a human on the other end of the screen. What often started out as the target of skeptics is then accepted as a form of reimbursable procedure accepted by most major insurance companies. In the world of diagnostic imaging, handheld 3D scanner and ultrasound are fully commercialized. Other more portable imaging devices including MRI and CT, will surely appear as the decentralized care system matures. Many are already in the research and development phase. Perhaps with machine learning and better data management, the newer and smaller devices will provide even more accurate assessment than its larger and more expensive predecessor.

     c. Treatment: As a starter, ongoing innovations in remote prescription and automated prescription dispensing are rolling out. In dentistry, with the advancement in 3D scanning, 3D printing, and further optimized digital workflow, the clear aligner business is getting further physically decentralized with the appearance of products like Smile Direct Club, where there is a significant reduction of in-office time/cost for the patients. Decentralized manufacturing offered by 3D printing and milling allows for on-demand manufacturing of personalized medical devices, reducing the necessity of inventory or a central supplier. The 3D printed medical devices can range from arm braces to surgical implants. Additionally, “treatment” does not always mean surgery and dispensary of medications. Mental health, for example, can deliver effective therapy to patients via telemedicine, AR/VR, already.

2. Logical Decentralization — In the past, healthcare centralization became necessary because of the accumulation of medical knowledge and advancement in technologies. On top of a century-old healthcare education hierarchy, these resulted in growing knowledge asymmetry between patients and healthcare providers, and skill asymmetry among different groups of healthcare providers. However, with emerging healthcare technologies, such asymmetry will be reduced.

      a. Upskilling of a lower skilled worker to perform more complex work/procedure. For some care providers, this is possible because “skill amplification” or “upskilling”. The demand for more and better healthcare was not met with a growing aging population, and the healthcare cost is reaching an astronomical new high, such skill-augmentation or “upskilling” will be a reasonable solution to the crisis. In fact, the trend is already there: physician assistants and nurse practitioners are becoming a more dominant workforce in the primary and acute care setting. A significant portion of radiological interpretation is already currently not done by radiologists (often because of not enough radiologists available at a certain location or not available at certain hours). More dentists are now able to perform more complex dental surgeries with the help of 3D-printed surgical guides or robots without having to go through expensive and often exclusive training. The examples are and will be everywhere.

      b. Informed patients with more data to choose. With less knowledge asymmetry, the patient can play a bigger role in making a decision on his/her own care, thus decreasing the authority of a healthcare organization or provider. This can be done by providing patients with more tools and channels to digest their healthcare data. Various consumer-based healthcare and wellness startups are now playing the role of the healthcare educator, from genomics, biometrics, to various diagnostic tests. Perhaps one day, Dr. Google can generate search results that are actually based on the individual patient’s existing healthcare data, therefore directing one’s next step in care more accurately. Informed patients will translate to more responsible patients, who will also decrease medical errors either at the level of a healthcare provider or at the level of the healthcare system.

3. Political Decentralization — Physical and logical decentralization of healthcare is already taking place. However, the degree of decentralization will eventually depend on the degree of political decentralization. Currently, it is hard to imagine decentralizing the role played by many government entities (like FDA), large professional organizations (such as AMA) that setup practice guidelines, or the civil law relevant to healthcare delivery. These authorities play critical roles to protect patients’ safety and safeguard consumer rights. That said, layers of bureaucracy and lobby groups often form around these authorities. These byproducts of political centralization are often obstructionists to change, since maintaining status-quo is their primary responsibility. Will a nurse one day perform an appendectomy with robotic assistance? Will computer replace 80% doctors? Technically possible, but politically not. Or not yet.

https://3dheals.com/decentralized-healthcare%e2%80%8a-%e2%80%8apart-i-cooler-than-bitcoins-but-what-is-it/

https://3dheals.com/idea-to-implementation-tactical-issues-image-acquisition-and-protocoling/

The post Decentralized Healthcare — Part II: Breaking It All Down appeared first on 3DHeals.

Want to write a piece for 3DHEALS Expert Corner? Email us: info@3dheals.com

Throughout history, advancements in science and technology invariably resulted in new societal power shifts. Because of technology, groups aggregated, and countries formed.

Similarly, as technology progresses, the challenges posed by cultural differences, language barrier, and physical distance are now disappearing. The birth rate is dropping in the developed countries, and individualism is prevailing in many cultures. There has been a time when only major universities are equipped with giant computers, which could only perform a fraction of work what can be done in our palms today.

Concurrent with this observation is the impact of technology on healthcare delivery system. At the beginning of this century, doctors typically took house calls and treated patients at home. [1] They carried just a bag filled with whatever herbs or instruments available to treat their patients. There were few complex operations, much less surgical teams, or subspecialties. With the advancement of medical technology, hospitals became the latest most sensible care delivery financial models, where more sophisticated coordination among care providers can be accomplished and more advanced (and expensive) equipment can be housed. Increasingly, as a result of both population growth and technology advancement, there is now a daunting challenge to meet growing demand based on this financial model, and the pendulum is swinging to the other direction. Healthcare delivery system will need to be more decentralized (or distributed) to meet the demand.

It is no longer hard to imagine that soon we can get 90% of our healthcare at home, from a physical exam, diagnostic tests, personalized pharmacy, to minor procedures. 3D Printing, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, wearables, telemedicine, the blockchain, and more can all play a role in this future as the enabling technologies. This vision can be summarized as decentralization of healthcare delivery system. Similar concepts on “centralized”, “decentralized”, and “distributed” systems are often discussed in computing and bitcoin industry. The following diagram is commonly referenced [3]:

(Often, in healthcare, the term “decentralized” and “distributed” are used interchangeably.)

Decentralization, as opposed to a centralized process, “is the process by which the activities of an organization, particularly those regarding planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group.” [4] One can also argue that there are many kinds of decentralization in healthcare by borrowing concepts from other decentralized systems [3]. Namely:

· Architectural decentralization

· Political decentralization

· Logical decentralization

To give a few examples of existing decentralized care delivery system:

1. Urgent care centers (often staffed with nurse practitioner) scattered throughout a city reduces the demand for ER visits.

2. Digital health apps that allow for automated prescription (or via telemedicine) without an actual doctor’s visit.

3. Smile Direct Club allows cheaper dental aligner at home without high cost and time spent with the orthodontic profession.

4. 3D-print prosthesis can be made in third world country where traditional prosthetists are not readily available or enough to meet the demand.

References:

1. https://orionhealth.com/us/knowledge-hub/blogs/what-is-distributed-healthcare-and-why-is-it-so-important-to-put-the-patient-at-centre-of-their-own-care/

2. https://catalyst.nejm.org/hospitals-case-decentralization-health-care/

3. https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization

https://3dheals.com/2019-j-p-morgan-post-event-thoughts%e2%80%8a-%e2%80%8a3d-printing-off-the-menu/

https://3dheals.com/five-things-in-2018-that-shook-our-world%e2%80%8a-%e2%80%8aof-healthcare-3d-printing-and-bioprinting/

The post Decentralized Healthcare — Part I. Cooler than Bitcoins, But What Is It? appeared first on 3DHeals.

(Originally published on “Two Cents” by Jenny Chen, M.D.)

J.P.Morgan Healthcare Conference attracts thousands of healthcare startups and investors from all over the world to San Francisco each January and is possibly one of the most impactful healthcare technology investment forums in the world. The city is overwhelmed with a slew of startup founders, investors, and service providers, each with their own ambitions and hopes and their best games in networking. Every SF bar is occupied by corporate receptions, and even hotel lounges start to charge a hefty hourly fee so that people can simply sit down and have a meeting. (Secret: The Westfield Mall food court is free.)

In addition to the main conference hosted by JP Morgan, many other conferences with related themes also took place with the same goal of connecting healthcare startups and investors, and in between service providers. Some of the notable events include RESI (Redefining Early Stage Investment), many medtech events organized by WSGR, and high-level healthcare forums by McDermott Will & Emery. By Tuesday, I was already exhausted from all the networking, conferencing, and receptions, but I took as many notes as I could, and here are some trends and tips I observed. Hopefully, these will be helpful to the 3DHEALS community, which also hold our first successful JP Morgan reception with our partners at Nixon Peabody.

1. Less “Disruption” and more “Integration”.

Throughout all the conferences I attended, there is a definite trend towards a change in presentation. In the homeland of Disrupt SF (TechCrunch) and rebellious history of the bay area, the switch of attitudes shows a new level of humbleness and wisdom after years of attempted, and perhaps unsuccessful, “disruptive” healthcare innovations. There is a growing trend of startups being more “inclusive” towards healthcare providers throughout product development and a lot more emphasis on technology integration with existing healthcare workflow. This is especially obvious in the realm of AI (artificial intelligence) based startups, since replacing the healthcare workforce used to be a more touted endpoint.

2. Artificial Intelligence, or “Neural Learning”?

No, not 3D printing (or bioprinting). A.I. remains to be the buzzword in healthcare this year. But people in industries focusing on decentralized manufacturing, automation, and robotics should all take notes.

As one investor tweeted, “ After hearing “We use AI” 4,345,812 times at #jpm19, I just got told by a company “oh no we’re not just another AI company…we use neural learning” and my eyes rolled so far back in my head they popped out the back and rolled down market street. If seen please return them to me…” (@geoffclapp)

The fervor is fueled a general dissatisfaction with existing healthcare systems (anywhere in the world), a number of tech giant’s involvements lately, an economic drive of democratizing high-level skills to lower-skill workers, and a more well-defined FDA clearance pathway. An A.I. based startup can now reportedly get FDA 510(k) clearance 5–8 months. Reportedly. The main challenge to investors will now be over-valuation. The main challenge to startups will be real returns, from reimbursement to non-incremental clinical benefits.

3. Money from Asia

During JPM19, there appears to be a sudden surge of Chinese and Asian investors. Even in a city like SF, it is unusual. There were several sessions during RESI focusing on fundraising from China or Asia. China/Asia clearly has a surplus of capital, and U.S./European based startups seem to be the safer bets due better-defined political, legal, and economic structures. However, not all money is equal. Notably, CFIUS was repeatedly mentioned during several of my meetings. It is a government entity authorized to review investment/transactions involving foreign investment in the United States, in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States. Given the current volatile China-US relationship, and volatile international relationships in general, tread carefully is probably the best advice to startups and investors alike, since no one seems to know where the world is going next.

https://3dheals.com/decentralized-healthcare%e2%80%8a-%e2%80%8apart-i-cooler-than-bitcoins-but-what-is-it/

The post 2019 J.P. Morgan Post-Event Thoughts — 3D Printing Off the Menu appeared first on 3DHeals.

Want to write a piece for 3DHEALS Expert Corner? Email us: info@3dheals.com

(Orignially published on “Two Cents” by Jenny Chen, M.D.)

This year 3DHEALS have organized about 38 local and global events and shared more than 550+pieces of news on social media, and more than 1400+ photos and videos about our universe on Instagram. Out of all these, 3DHEALS team has picked the following news in 2018 to be revisited.

1. Love and hate relationship between Align Technology and Smile Direct Club: The giant in the clear aligner industry is seeing a little slow down recent months, and some speculate that a rising competitor Smile Direct Club (SDC), a company focusing on at-home clear aligner market, could contribute to that slowdown. However, Align Tech. acquired ownership of 19% of SDC in 2016. However, the pair appears to be in disputes this year, especially in terms of new Invisalign stores that SDC considered a breach of a non-compete clause. Currently, the cost of SDC is 60% less to the consumers, and largely due to a decentralized care strategy using teledentistry. Its effectiveness is not yet widely accepted, especially among dental professionals. Some even spoke out against DIY solutions. While being cautious is important in healthcare, the paranoid side of me thinks the tendency of healthcare professional’s job insecurity could play a role in slowing down the progress towards a decentralized, cheaper, and high-quality care many outside of the industry have.

2. United Therapeutics marches forward with its lung transplant ambition: Following last year’s new partnership with 3D Systems on scaffold development, the Maryland biotech’s organ manufacturing and transplantation subsidiary, Lung Biotechnology PBC, strike another deal with Isreal-based CollPlant and obtained an exclusive license to CollPlant’s recombinant human collagen (rhCollagen) and its Bioink. The license agreement is not limited to lung tissues only. With the clock ticking for many desperate patients on the transplant list, bigger players like UT leading the way give the patients a thread of hope.

3. Two words: Digital Dentistry (3D Systems, Stratasys, Carbon): Digital dentistry is forecasted to be around 37 billion dollars in 2021, and 3D printing will be at least 2.5% of that. I don’t believe in the forecast, but I know how many dentists and dental labs post daily on Instagram about #dental3dprinting and #digitaldentistry daily. In 2018, Carbon, 3D Systems, Stratasys all tapped into the dental market. 3D Printing industry is finally waking up to the fact that the dental market is the next frontier for growth in the healthcare sector, after 20 years of Align Technology success story! Earlier this year both 3D Systems and Stratasys announced new solutions to the dental market, offering not just new printers but materials and services surrounding the solutions. Later, Carbon announced its partnership with the largest dental lab network National Dentex Lab, after receiving FDA clearance of two class II materials, DENTCA Denture Base II and DENTCA Denture Teeth. As predicted by many, the final winner may be dictated by the success of consumables and not the printers, and behind that smart partnership and business strategies.

4. Regulatory Landscape: Wins and Fights. After FDA published its finalized version of its guidance for 3D printed medical device in 2017, Australia (TGA), China (CFDA), Canada also voiced their views on the subject in 2018 and are actively soliciting feedback from the public. However, just as countries and organizations continue to struggle with regulating emerging technology, in November, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottliebandannounced the modernization of the 510(k)-clearance pathway, limiting comparison to predicates less than 10 years old. The impact of this new law on healthcare 3D printing is still out. Interested parties can follow 3DHEALS blog “Expert’s Corner” on the subject in near future. Despite the muddy waters on the regulatory fronts, those who are determined had been a few “wins”:

a. Materialise became the first company to receive FDA clearance for diagnostic 3D-printed anatomical models for its Mimics inPrint software in March this year. Later in September, South Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) licensed the medical use of 3D planning software Mimics Medical and ProPlan CMF.

b. In September, the American Medical Association (AMA) CPT® Editorial Panel accepted the proposal led by the American College of Radiology (ACR) for 3D anatomic modeling. The new Category III codes will be effective July 1, 2019.

5. Fundraising: (It is likely the following list is incomplete, however, you can add any interesting startups to our 3DHEALS company directory.)

Some notable rounds in the healthcare 3D printing and bioprinting startup world include the following:

a. Biomodex raised added $15 million to its Series A funding round, bringing the total raised to $18.5 million to support its patient-specific 3D-printed synthetic organ platform designed for pre-operative planning.

b. Cellink, a Swedish bioprinting company, received a €2.5 million EU grant for the development and commercializing of its TumorPrint project.

c. Prellis Biologics, a bioprinting startup focusing on laser-based printing technology and aiming to overcome the vascularization challenge in bioprinting, raised an undisclosed amount from Plug and Play, and a few other investors this year.

d. Standard Cyborg , raised $2.4 million this year and pivoted to 3D Scanning API from software for 3D printed prosthetics.

e. Pandorum Technologies, a human organ on demand startup, raised $3.6 million this year from a series A round from Indian Angel Network Fund, 021 Capital, 500 Startups and the Karnataka government backed Karnataka Information Technology Venture Capital (KITVEN) fund. It’s the first startup to bioprinting Indian’s first artificial liver tissue.

f. Poietis, a bioprinting startup in France, completed fundraising of €5 million this year. Currently, Poietis aims to use its laser-based bioprinting technologies to produce implantable skin, but possibly other tissues in the longer term.

g. OxSyBio, a bioprinting startup based in London, United Kingdom, raised £10M this year, completing its series A round.

Happy 2019!

https://3dheals.com/decentralized-healthcare%e2%80%8a-%e2%80%8apart-i-cooler-than-bitcoins-but-what-is-it/

The post Five Things in 2018 That Shook Our World — of Healthcare 3D Printing and Bioprinting appeared first on 3DHeals.

Want to write a piece for 3DHEALS Expert Corner? Email us: info@3dheals.com

Originally published on “Two Cents”

When the co-founders of Airbnb first approached Paul Graham (a famous Silicon Valley VC who co-founded Y Combinator), they were right out rejected from the accelerator program. However, after Paul heard the story about how the team survived on money generated from selling boxes of cereal during the Obama/McCain campaign, he accepted Airbnb into his program. Airbnb is now a well-known unicorn. When Airbnb was founded, it was in the midst of an economic recession. Things cannot be harder for startups, and investors were also timid. What first convinced Paul to take the risk to invest was the team behind Airbnb rather than the actual business idea behind Airbnb. Paul believed that the founders had an incredible ability to “hustle” and amazing “grit” to stand the nuclear winter of startups.

Healthcare 3D printing is still a very young industry, but a few names quickly show up in mind as great examples of “hustle and grit”: Rik Jacob from NextDent, Paul D’Urso from AnatomicsRx, Nick Dechev from Victoria Hand Project, Jae Yoo from Aprecia, and many more. Their fights last decades long, and they are not done yet.

Another group of people with an incredible ability to “hustle” and amazing “grit” is very close to home. In the past two years, I have worked with more than 20 3DHEALS community managers, who are unpaid volunteers. Their only drive is to realize a shared vision that 3D printing can re-invent healthcare and the need to network in a cross-disciplinary fashion, breaking down the traditional industrial barriers. Often our community managers have to run a one-person show, from catering to sending out hundreds of emails, to put on amazing educational programs and social activities for our members. A shout out to our 2018 community event managers:

· Jess Charlap (Boston)

· Sam Lindsay (Boston)

· Fernanda Valentina (Chicago)

· Aida Kafai (London)

· Sarah Fink (Melbourne)

· Hannah Riedle (Munich)

· Ben Salatin (Albuquerque)

· Annabelle Drault (Paris)

· Mayra Vasques (San Paulo, Brazil)

· Collrane Frivold (Seattle)

· Lisa Zeng (Shanghai)

· Mahendran Reddy (Singapore)

· Jana Waldes (San Francisco)

· Kate Clancy (Toronto, Canada)

· Kuan-Lin Chen (Taipei, Taiwan)

· Tyler Scherr (Nebraska, Omaha)

· Ben Holmes (Washington, D.C.)

· Dan Ortiz (Washington, D.C.)

· Pedro Martinez Seijas (Vigo, Spain)

Many of our community managers and our past event speakers have served as my personal inspirations when the time becomes tough with 3DHEALS. That’s when I remind myself:

“Sell cereals if you have to, great businesses are not built in 3 years, they are measured in decades.”

Happy holidays! & I wish you a productive and satisfying 2019.

The post “Hustle and Grit” appeared first on 3DHeals.

Want to write a piece for 3DHEALS Expert Corner? Email us: info@3dheals.com

(Originally published on “Two Cents“)

A lot of unicorn startups don’t have the flashiest keywords.

At a cocktail party, if someone introduces themselves as a software developer for a payroll company, you probably will think, “that’s really boring!” and will probably try to figure out how to survive the next five minutes of small talk. But what if that company is called Gusto, one of the fastest growing HR company in the valley, officially in the billion-dollar valuation? This company is probably replacing a lot of recumbents and traditional jobs.

Think about the words “accounting”, “records”, “tooling”, etc. Super “boring” words that are probably not trending on Google. These nonetheless represent industries with trillion-dollar potential that few people are chasing after.

Perhaps, focusing on the most “unsexy” application is the way to go.

3D Printing is “sexy”, braces, hearing aids are not, but that’s where unicorns were born.

The post Unsexy Unicorns appeared first on 3DHeals.