
Introducing our smart contact lens project (for diabetics) - dboyd
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-contact-lens.html
======
awolf
As a type 1 diabetic I can say this would be a huge improvement over current
continuous glucose monitoring systems. No expensive disposable parts. No
needing to inject a new sensor each week. No strange, uncomfortable, and
(often) painful bulge stuck to your abdomen.

>We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to
turn this technology into a system that people can use

I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could
possibly be available?

~~~
klapinat0r
As a fellow type 1 diabetic, I'm thrilled with any new projects - especially a
project like this which would benefit not only type 1, and is not only
targeted for type 2.

> _how soon this could possibly be available?_

I've been following various type 1 research for as long as I can remember
(runs in the family, myself etc.), and I remember a similar enthusiasm back
when glucose watches were first in production. I recall it taking years before
they had an actual product (this was before the _Panic Room_ featured watch,
which wasn't a glucose measurement, but anyway.. to give you a time
reference), and sadly, even when they were available from more than one
manufacturer, they were still not widely available to patients (i.e. wanting
to get one).

None the less, I will be following this eagerly.

On a personal note, awolf: how do you like your current monitoring system
(apart from the mentioned downsides)? I've considered needle monitoring many
times, but never gone for it (for idle office work I wouldn't mind, but I see
it as a hinder in my personal life re: flexibility)

PS: Accuracy is not even a factor until the technology is further along, and
that was one of the main issues with the watches back in the day: measuring
glucose levels through human skin was not accurate or reliable enough. So I'd
add years of testing at least, and maybe tweaking aswel (as the watch project
did).

~~~
morganherlocker
Oh, Panic Room.

The movie in which a child has a severe low blood sugar, on the edge of death,
and her mother administers here a large shot of... insulin! I could not
believe it when I saw it. The treatment given in the movie would have killed
her in no time.

For future reference, in case anyone comes across a diabetic experiencing a
seizure. Do not give insulin in this case. This will lower blood sugar
further. What they need is to consume anything with sugar, if conscious. If
not, they need a glucagon injection. These typically come in a clunky red
container, containing a large needle filled with saline and a vile containing
a white powder. Shoot the saline into the vile, shake up the vile, extract the
solution, then shoot the solution into the affected person's leg ASAP. Do not
give anyone insulin under any circumstances. If you give someone glucagon with
a high blood sugar, they will probably be ok. If you give someone insulin with
a low blood sugar, they will likely be dead. /PSA

~~~
zaider
Why shoot it into the leg? Aren't most injections given in the arm? If it
needs to go into a vein is it an issue of it reacting faster there?

~~~
morganherlocker
For diabetics, you are usually injecting insulin, which should be rotated
around parts of the body (any fatty area) to avoid scar tissue build up.

In this case, however, I was talking about glucagon, which is only given in
emergencies (to messed up to ingest sugar). Glucagon needles are much larger
than insulin needles, and can be shot straight into the leg through jeans. The
arm would work too, but might be more likely to leave soreness. The main thing
is to administer it as quickly as possible.

------
fesja
All my praise to these Google engineers and scientists. Another completely
crazy idea that will really help millions of people every day. Thanks Google!

We have discovered a lot of Google X technologies in the last months. It seems
that Google X is really working. We may have to stop having fun of Google+.

~~~
IBM
You've discovered a lot of Google X technologies because it is a deliberate
strategy by Google to publicize these projects regardless if they will ever
reach a commercial stage.

They are attempting to stay relevant and perceived to be an innovative company
in the eyes of their various stakeholders (employees, potential employees,
shareholders, tech press, the general public, regulators, etc.) while
transitioning to today's Microsoft.

~~~
psbp
Every announced Google X project has been rolled out to some capacity. Self-
driving cars, Glass, Loon are all actively being tested in the real world.

------
dshankar
Microsoft was working on similar technology 3 years ago [1]

It looks like Google poached MSFT's engineers to work on this -- Babak Parviz
was working on this at Microsoft 3 years ago, and is now cofounder of the
smart contact lens team at Google.

[1]: Functional Contact Lens Monitors Blood Sugar Without Needles
([http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832](http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832))

~~~
psbp
This has very little to do with MSFT research. Microsoft collaborated with
Parviz's research at University of Washington. He wasn't a MSFT engineer. He
was a Professor at UW before he left for Google. His affiliation with
Microsoft, and Microsoft's contribution, seems minimal.

~~~
kathleenj
That's not what Babak said according to this pdf.

[http://research.microsoft.com/en-
us/collaboration/stories/nu...](http://research.microsoft.com/en-
us/collaboration/stories/nui_contactlens_cs.pdf)

>Tan and Microsoft Research Connections have been great supporters of the
project, Parviz said. Their willingness to explore and invest in the project
was critical to advancing research and development of the functional lens. “A
lot of people considered it science fiction,” Parviz says. “Desney and
Microsoft Research were actually, very early on, convinced that this is
perhaps a worthy cause. And they were willing to work with us, and support us.
And I’m very grateful they did.”

~~~
psbp
By no means did I mean financial contribution, but the design and
implementation of the project which seems to have been established by Parviz
since at least 2009: [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/ar-contact-
lens/](http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/ar-contact-lens/)

------
cargo8
Google never ceases to amaze me for taking the initiative to really pursue and
commercialize these things.

If people are interested, here is a relevant research paper in IEEE about the
massive potential contact lenses have to mate technology and bioinformatics:
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-
realit...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-
contact-lens)

------
psbp
Solve for X talk about this technology:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM)

This particular implementation:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s)

------
morganherlocker
Type I diabetic here. Assuming current tech stays where it is (not saying it
will), this could easily tack 10 years on to my lifespan. For many who watch
their diabetes less closely (something I cannot fault anyone for), this could
add 20-30 years.

For anyone who does not know, type I diabetes is not something you can just
follow a doctor's direction on and be ok. Even if you follow your doctor
perfectly, there can still be serious complications, and type I diabetics with
the best control are actually more likely to die from severe low blood sugars.

The reason for this is that the optimum blood glucose level is around 100. <70
and you start to be severely mentally impaired, making it difficult at times
to seek treatment (finding and eating sugar, in a nutshell). On the flip side,
if you are lax on insulin, your blood sugar might hover around 250 for months,
and you will feel close to normal. Having a blood glucose this high on a long
term basis will have long term effects that are what kill most diabetics in
the long run. A low blood sugar, however, can be fatal within minutes to
hours.

Either way, a continuous feedback mechanism would help tight control
diabetics, and diabetics who do the minimum. Tight controllers could get
faster feedback about when they are going into the serious danger zone without
having to initiate any action (checking blood sugar), and lax diabetics would
get a constant reminder of how they are letting there life slip away (which
they normally would rarely see, since they hardly ever check their blood sugar
anyway).

I have to say though, I am still a bit skeptical for a few reasons:

\- One, I have been told about this sort of miracle technology ever since I
was diagnosed 15 years ago.

\- Two, the medical complex locks down their tech and extracts the maximum
value out. There is not a single glucose device on the market that lets you
extract the data out of your glucose monitor and crunch the data how you want.
I have worked on hacking these devices to extract data and the legal verbiage
around these activities has strongly discouraged me from releasing anything.
Previous continuous glucose monitoring systems. These companies would prefer
you rot in the dark, than to lose one bit of profit.

\- Three, if one of these devices is not 100% perfect, it gets shot down and
banned from the market. This is probably a combination of profit-motivated
industry and caution-motivated government. A great example of this is a
continuous glucose monitoring, non-invasive watch that came out ~ a decade
ago. It was on the market for several years, before being banned. I, like just
about every person in the thread I linked, would pay $10k+ for one of these,
despite the reduced accuracy over traditional devices. Entrepreneurs in the
health industry take note.

[1] [[http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-
sugar/61908...](http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-
sugar/61908-glucose-watch/)]

~~~
MrFoof
>type I diabetics with the best control are actually more likely to die from
severe low blood sugars.

I'm very much in this crowd. Type 1, AIC of 6.3, LDL cholesterol around 100,
BP of 110/72-75. This is with completely manual testing and subcutaneous
insulin injections.

The problem of keeping your blood sugar towards an A1C of 6 is you have
insulin reactions. Quite often, as you're being rather aggressive in keeping
on top of your blood sugar. Worse, is I don't show or feel any real
physiological symptoms until I'm at 60 mg/dL or below, which is getting fairly
dangerous. I can be as low as 25-30 mg/dL and still be conscious and
functioning. My tipoff is realizing that I either feel tired or that I can't
think straight. It's hard to realize you're not thinking straight when you
can't think straight, and have the cognizance to then test and get some carbs
in you.

I've had a few close calls. One where I was driving a supercar north on Route
24 in Boston rush-hour traffic. I subconsciously took an exit and drove 5
miles into a suburb, and managed to not hit anything and the police officer
told me I mostly obeyed traffic laws, aside from weaving about (but was
completely incoherent) -- I was at 21 mg/dL when the EMTs tested me.

I once didn't compensate for alcohol, passed out on my couch, and when I
finally came to in a pool of my own sweat, it took me 3 hours to traverse 30
feet to the kitchen to attempt to drink (and wear at least half) of a half-
gallon of orange juice. When I finally tested 30 minutes after consuming an
entire carton of OJ, I was barely in the 40s -- I have no idea how low I was,
and I was lucky I ever regained consciousness.

~~~
trekky1700
Just curious, how old are you and how long have you had it? I've had it for 11
years this February, and while my A1C is pretty terrible (high), the idea that
I might not be able to detect lows eventually is pretty terrifying.

~~~
bigtunacan
Not speaking for the parent, but I'm a 35 year old T1D who has been diagnosed
for only about 7 years and I am already nearly asymptomatic when I have low
blood sugars. The risk of becoming asymptomatic for low blood sugars increases
over time, but it is completely inconsistent. Some diabetics have always been
asymptomatic for low blood sugars, others will go their whole lives and always
have easy to detect symptoms. I have a friend who is in his mid forties and is
also a T1D; he was diagnosed about 30 years ago and he still consistently gets
the shakes when he is any lower than 70.

~~~
coldpie
I was diagnosed when I was 12, about 13 years ago, and I can usually still
detect when I'm under 60 or 70. I'm one of the tight-control types that the OP
mentioned (6.4 A1c), so this happens a few times a week. I usually notice it
when I can't think, and instead wander over the same two thoughts back and
forth. Suddenly I realize I'm thinking in the tiniest of circles and go have
some yogurt or something.

The first thing my endocrinologist asks when I see him (literally, before he
even asks how I'm doing today) is if I can still feel lows. I think he'd get
me on a CGM pretty quick if I reported I couldn't.

I'm super interested in this contact lense solution.

------
caseydurfee
Continuous glucose monitors have been around for a while. I'm not sure who
this would help.

The fundamental problem is that glucose levels in non-blood fluids do not
exactly match blood glucose. The current monitor solutions use interstitial
fluid in the skin. They still require the user to test themselves several
times a day and recalibrate the monitor based on blood glucose, and they can't
alert the user if their blood sugar is low until it's already a serious
situation. They also frequently give false positives.

This is a new (but very clever!) way to do something that has been around for
a while, not a revolution, unless tears track blood glucose much closer than
interstitial fluid does. Simply based on first principles, that seems
unlikely.

And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep,
which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to
make contact lenses that you can wear 24*7 without getting ulcerative
keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar.

~~~
magicalist
> _And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you 're asleep,
> which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology
> to make contact lenses that you can wear 24/7 without getting ulcerative
> keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood
> sugar_

overnight and extended-wear contacts (for up to a month, I believe) have been
available for many years now.

~~~
lhc-
I have these, and they are indeed good for a month. To be honest, I sometimes
dont even notice and wear them longer.

------
_paranoia
This seems like a prototype of what Google Glass will evolve into. The medical
device will offer a first generation of solutions to several major problems
for augmented reality contact lenses: fitting "an antenna for wireless data
communications, a chip to process data, and tiny battery onto a tiny, thin,
curved surface..."[1]

Then, a later version will need to solve the problem of projecting crisp
images from the contact lens onto the user's retina. Google's experience with
Glass seems like it could inform that effort. Perhaps we'll see this product
on the market with significant usage within 10 years.

Augmented reality contact lenses have other implications. For example: what
does it mean for privacy and advertising to not being able to shut one's eyes?

1\. [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517476/google-glass-
tod...](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517476/google-glass-today-smart-
contact-lenses-tomorrow/)

------
kamens
Would immediately — and significantly — improve my life.

Crossing my fingers very hard. Want this to be reality.

~~~
caseydurfee
What would this do for you that a current CGM wouldn't?

~~~
kamens
I've experimented with multiple CGMs and have been plagued with severe
accuracy issues. I know this isn't the case for all people, but I found myself
constantly recalibrating the CGM only to be given readings that were — no joke
— 100% different than the "normal" meter's. I'm talking CGMs giving "30" or
"300" when my trusted tester claimed "150."

I was careful w/ calibrations, tried for months, spoke w/ people at the
company, etc etc...it just wasn't worth the effort for me. Maybe they're
better now, haven't tried in about 3 years.

That was the final straw for me, but the _effort_ around these CGMs is also
not to be understated. Calibrations, extra items to lug around attached to
your body, extra pieces that can break / not work, etc etc. Anything that
helps with this is huge.

When I think of the big picture I realize that Type I Diabetes is nothing
compared to the health issues many people deal with, and I consider myself
_extremely_ lucky. That being said, it's a daily battle that you never, ever
get a break from. Personally, the CGMs didn't make the battle (or my results)
much better.

Who knows if this technology would be any better, but I can cross my fingers.
I would gladly pay almost all spare money I have for a CGM guaranteed to be
both accurate (keep me healthy) and reliable/simple (keep me sane).

~~~
matznerd
Switch to a ketogenic diet.

~~~
Adirael
Doing keto for a T1 diabetic is hard and it doesn't change that much. Sure,
you don't use as much insulin but there's also no effective way of getting
your glucose level up without going out of ketosis. There's also the
ketoacidosis problem, which is even harder to avoid while being on keto and
being a T1 diabetic.

It's a great diet for T2. And I would dare to say that paleo is even better,
you keto guys (going by what I see on /r/keto) need to eat more vegetables.

------
inetsee
I am encouraged by the fact that Google is working in this area. If any
company can overcome the obstacles to this technology becoming available soon
and at a reasonable price, it would probably be Google.

I am discouraged by the fact that the underlying technology (measuring glucose
from tears) was first reported more than two years ago. There is another (sort
of) non-invasive glucose measuring technology that involves injecting a
biofluorescent dye under the skin, then using a device that measures the
fluorescence that varies with the blood glucoe levels. This technology was
also first reported years ago, and is also apparently nowhere near being
available.

------
mortov
I'm amazed at how many people on HN are diabetic !

Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens
contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents
are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ?

It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes
the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick
readings up to 4 times a day can leave your fingers in a real mess and pretty
painful so even sticking something to your eyeballs sounds attractive !

~~~
berkes
Please don't confuse Type I with Type II.

Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old
age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other
genetic variations).

Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of
lifestyle, health, country and whatnot.

Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You
can have "very severe Type II" or "just a little Type II", but you cannot have
"severe Type I", Type I is binary: you have it or you don't.

As a Type I, I'd love to see the medical world and then the rest of us, using
a different term for Type I Diabetics, because the deseases are entirely
different: the cause is different, the effect is similar.

As a Type I, people often blame me for my desease. Often people think it is
because of unhealty lifestyle. "Ah you are a diabetic, many programmers have
Diabetes, guess its because they sit around all day, haha". This is
infuriating. No matter how healthy I am, whether I am a programmer or bycicle-
courier, I'd have gotten my Diabetes anyway. Type I is one of these deseases
that you can do absolutely nothing against, other then not passing on your
faulty genes to children.

Edit: clarified the sentence where I am blamed for having Type I. Edit2: As
pointed out below, Type II can be influenced by genetics too, made that more
clear.

~~~
dagw
How easily and how severely you get Type II is however also influenced by
genetics.

~~~
berkes
Yes, By no means did I mean to say that getting Type II is always "the
person's own fault". Not at all!

I included "other medical conditions" which includes "genetics" too. But I
guess that was not entirely clear. I've edited my comment to point that out
more clearly.

Sorry if I hurt anyone, it was not intended!

------
TeMPOraL
This is why I still love Google. Between this, self-driving cars and other
world-changing projects, I say take my data if you need it. You're one of the
few companies in this world that seems to bring a big, direct net benefit to
humanity.

------
jerryhuang100
One major concern I would have is that, in diabetic patients their eyes
experience more dryness than non-diabetic patients. This might lead to more
scratches on the cornea and prone to further infections and ulcers. As
diabetics care 101, diabetics patients have mucher high risk of systematic
infections. And this is all way before any diabetic retinopathy develops in
those patients. So why Google[x] thinks it's a good idea to have diabetics
patients wear contact lens?

~~~
berkes
AS a Type I, my doctor advised me strongly to start wearing glasses and stop
wearing lenses. Because they would apparently increase the risk of early
blindness even more.

~~~
Zimahl
I'm not sure whether you or my wife need a new eye doctor. Hers knows she is
diabetic and is doing extra screening watching for any possible damage from
the disease but has never said anything about her contact lenses being a
problem. Other than while sleeping she always wears her contacts.

~~~
berkes
There's a whole story to this, but that is a little too private to share on
the web :)

The larger story is, that lenses can damage the eye (tiny scratches, little
infections); regardless of Diabetes. Diabetics have increased risk of badly
healing damage, especially wrt fragile nerves (toes, eyes, hearing). The
increased risk that anyone has for infections and problems when wearing
lenses, is only so more dangerous to Diabetics.

------
oh_sigh
Where's all the FUD about collecting user data and doing evil things with it
that we've been seeing in the Google+Nest stories lately?

"But what about when google sells your data to insurance companies, who then
penalize diabetics for not maintaining specific glucose levels?'

"Do you really want google to know every single thing you put into your body?"

"Can we trust google to not put advertisements in the contact lens, making you
watch a 15 second commercial before being able to read your gluose levels?"

~~~
trekky1700
I will wear an ankle bracelet for Google if it means I get my hands on this.

~~~
Geee
That's exactly what their strategy is ;)

------
f-debong
I think this is one of many such implementations which we will see in the next
few months. Not long ago, the FDA posted their guidelines on mobile health,
which will most likely be part of the system, finally establishing a hint of
what they will require to give an approval to a mobile system in the medical
field. I have some experience in this, and can tell you it is very exciting.
No blatant ad here, sorry!

Since the risks for ventures in this field have dropped significantly, devices
such as this lens now have a much higher probability to actually see the light
of day and not just be hidden in the archives, on thrown away napkins and
spreadsheets.

Yes, Microsoft worked on it a few years back – yet seem to have dropped the
ball or shifted their focus, I have also heard of such a project at Sanofi and
research institutes around the world – yet a google X project may potentially
be what this concept needs to make progress and actually have an impact. My
sincere gratefulness to you guys at X for going at it!

Forgot to mention, like many others in this thread I am a type 1 diabetic
since 30 years, so my gratitude goes a tad further than only thinking it's
cool.

~~~
selimthegrim
Where has the FDA posted them? I thought the final ones weren't going to be
ready until this summer? Is this a draft or RFC?

------
cpeterso
A few years ago, there was research into nano ink tattoos that can
continuously monitor glucose, but I haven't heard any recent news.

[http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/glucose-
tattoo-0528.html](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/glucose-tattoo-0528.html)

------
j_s
Diabetics will find Scott Hanselman's posts and the comments there useful.
Three or four of them are linked from here:

[http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HackingDiabetes.aspx](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HackingDiabetes.aspx)

------
ginzaerin
Type 1 also, and I fully admit that part of what prevents me from using pump
therapy is the CGM technology and how invasive and frustrating it is. The lens
project gives me hope, but as others in the thread have mentioned - I've
gotten my hopes up on several occasions about potential technologies and agree
that it seems like a lot of it comes down to profit. Full disclosure, I'm the
COO of a tech company and I love data - so a constant frustration is lack of
consistent data that can be manipulated in usable ways. (Also mentioned by
others in the thread.)

------
lazerwalker
I don't at all want to downplay the honest importance of this project — this
is the true sort of real "tangibly improving people's lives" technology that
not enough people are aspiring to these days — but the timing of this
announcement is very strategic on Google's part. Days after people get VERY
upset at Google for buying Nest, and moaning about Google's evil surveillance
state, Google turns around and announces something that's a legitimate force
for good in the world. Very clever.

~~~
throwawaay
Please. Like this project was just sitting there, waiting for a media
shitstorm to pop up. The knee-jerk cynicism on these threads is truly getting
stupid.

The timing is almost certainly because the project's secrecy had been recently
compromised by the FDA revealing a meeting with the engineering team on its
public calendar.

[http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5297216/google-x-
team-m...](http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5297216/google-x-team-meets-
with-fda-over-unnamed-medical-device-bloomberg)

------
fjcaetano
At first, I thought this could be quite intrusive. I mean, you're putting
something in your eye! It's the same discussion as the biometry authentication
systems (retina scanning, saliva, etc).

But then I realized: the alternative is to put a piece of hardware under your
skin! It will be embeded in you "forever" and can only be removed via surgical
procedures...

These contact lens, if ever available, will in fact revolutionize the diabetes
scene and may open precedent to new "wearable" technologies targeting health.

~~~
Zimahl
Maybe. You need to understand that diabetes equipment is a lot like a Segway -
it's interesting and solves a problem but it's expensive and somewhat
infeasible.

Many things could contribute to this not being as revolutionary as it sounds.
Everything from cost down to accuracy is a concern. Diabetics do like to have
hope that this will be the game-changer but they've heard that many times
before.

------
notatoad
How is this powered? are they generating electricity from the body somehow?

~~~
ewolfe
Good question. Maybe from body heat. A polymer thermoelectric converter seems
like it could be a good candidate.

~~~
neumann
This is the most interesting question. And failsafe. You couldn't rely on
this, unless there was a way to ensure it is working or had a fixed lifespan.

I believe the thermoelectric converter works by exploiting a temperature
gradient, which I suspect would not be sufficient at this scale and location.

------
ctrl
Type I also, Looks like its time to get over that huge fear of contact lenses.

I dont care if i have to clockwork orange my eyelids, this sounds awesome

------
prawn
Anyone else have a problem where if they read an interesting story like this
about potential future technology, they are virtually incapacitated and
unproductive for the rest of the day thinking about the potential?

Obviously, a Google Glass or Oculus Rift equivalent but with contact lenses
has to be one thing everyone's long thought of. But what about activating a
contextual display by closing one eye briefly (a map or information about a
person you're meeting), or seeing a definition of a word spoken in
conversation by closing the other eye, or watching a movie with both eyes
closed, reading a book the same way, getting song recognition data at any
point, etc.

Could we see high-res displays worked into lenses so that they worked, were
eventually cheap enough and able to operate in a "pass through" mode so they
didn't other interrupt regular vision?

Are any companies working on it? Is it possible? What would be the key
challenges?

~~~
tjmc
Building a VR contact lens is orders of magnitude harder than this. Key
challenges would be:

1\. Component size.

2\. Power. The glucose monitor is similar to an RFID that can be powered by
radio waves. Driving a screen or laser would require much more power. So you'd
probably need some sort of inductive coil matched to regular eyewear.

3\. Focus. You can't at that distance. So you'd probably have to beam an image
directly onto the retina with a laser.

4\. Occlusion of the pupil. Really hard to avoid this one. You might have to
pair with a camera to add sight back as a feed. However there could be
benefits with this too - eg. night vision

5\. Health. Beaming power could be a cancer risk. Also contact lenses need to
breath to prevent corneal neovascularization and other nasty effects of
hypoxia. Modern contacts are gas permeable but adding electronics would hinder
the flow.

~~~
prawn
What's a more likely next best bet? Goggles with projectors? Or something
tapping straight into the brain?

------
benjvi
This is really awesome, and sounds like a great thing for people with diabetes
(if the accuracy issues are solved).

Further down the line, technologies like this could be a great thing for the
rest of us too. We all experience peaks and troughs in our blood glucose and
in those troughs we often feel tired, without really knowing why. It would be
great to be able to have continuous feedback like "your blood glucose spiked
and now is low after you drank that bottle of lemonade an hour ago". Something
like this would really help people to make better decisions and would be a
great boon for general public health.

------
luuio
Nothing new under the Sun: January 5, 2012 - [http://www.gizmag.com/microsoft-
electronic-diabetic-contact-...](http://www.gizmag.com/microsoft-electronic-
diabetic-contact-lens/20987/)

------
lowglow
Am I the only one that thinks Google[x] is just the arm of google that looks
for far future intellectual property to patent and never really produces
usable tech?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

~~~
nl
Hopefully Google patents lots of useful stuff before anyone else. Google's
record on patents is pretty responsible.

~~~
lowglow
Until when? Until they decide not to be?

------
blueskin_
Coming Soon: Targeted advertising based on blood sugar levels.

With a google lens, they could even project adverts directly onto people's
eyes.

~~~
mortov
Being diabetic, I would be quite happy to receive an image saying, hey your
blood sugar is low, why not get some sugary snacks right across the road at
Acme Candy Store - get 10% off during the next 10 minutes.

------
jisaacks
> integrating tiny LED lights that could light up

So wait a minute, your eyes will start flashing when your glucose levels are
spiking?

------
RA_Fisher
For those that are interested, I'm a data scientist and I spent a bit of time
visualizing my Type 1 partner's data:
[http://statwonk.github.io/blog/2014/01/05/visualizing-
diabet...](http://statwonk.github.io/blog/2014/01/05/visualizing-diabetes-
data/)

------
azernik
To take this to a purely business/tech place - this is an interesting market
for prototyping contact-lense electronics; maybe in 10 or 20 years the new
Glass will just be a contact, but for now this looks like one of the few
applications where a sensor and two LEDs (high and low) can provide a lot of
user value.

------
sytelus
As always, my question for all miniature cool looking devices is just this:
How do you power this thing?

~~~
BenoitP
I think it would be just like RFIDs and NFCs: you send power to the antenna,
the chip uses it to make a measurement, and to send it back.

Maybe it can take enough energy from the ambient RFs. Maybe we will see a lot
of people bringing their phones close to their faces from time to time, and
people would be confused. "What are you doing with your phone, do you have an
ear in your eye?"

------
nfoz
This is a legitimately fantastic project. Can't wait for some details about
how it works.

------
dia473
We have developed a non-invasive system for measuring blood glucose (patent
protected, many publications in peer reviewed magazines, working prototype).

If someone has contacts in the VC scene or is working in the VC scene and is
interested please let me know.

(throw away account)

------
chany2
Sooner or later a competitor technology will come out to lines of Google Glass
for contacts; ultimately the 3rd episode of Black Mirror, where you can record
24-hours of your life via your eye contacts.

------
efremjw
ohhhh, because it's just so comfortable to have contacts in the first place.
what's wrong with embedding somewhere else?

------
sarojt
All diabetics really would appreciate this innovation - my grandmother was
delighted to hear it.

------
BrainInAJar
Jeez, Google really has no limits on how much data about you they want

~~~
psbp
For what company would this not be the case?

------
ericthegoodking
Wonderful news! I hope this thing works!

------
kimonos
Wow! This is great news for my father!

------
guidefreitas
Great. Now your are going to sign up with Google+ to blink.

~~~
bsherrill
What about a pill that just cures diabetes?

