Category Archives: Radar

In My “Drafts” Pile

M-BLEM Workshop at UMich

This winter has been a rough one for my family. Lots of family crises, illness, injury, etcetera. What that means is that the blog slows down, projects slow down, I get way (WAY) behind on things I wanted to do and wanted to share. In the past month, my collection of unfinished (“draft”) blog posts has exploded. What normally happens then, is that I actually finish a couple that someone asked for, whatever else is most fresh in my mind, and the rest never happen. I thought it was about time to give folk a chance to comment on what they want, so that I do write up things people have asked about. Also, several of these were planned to be brief expansions of Storifys or Slideshare decks that I made or found and wanted to share, so for those, I’ll just put links in for now, and will expand on them later, maybe, if you ask.

#a2wiad – Ann Arbor’s Stake in World Information Architecture Day

Anonymous Social Media Overview, Part Four: More on Risks, Opportunities, Benefits, Ethics

Biobanks & Biobanking

Comics & Healthcare

Cool Toys U: September 2014 Notes

Cool Toys U: October 2014 Notes

Designing a Tablet Computer for the Elderly & Technophobic

Design plus Business [NOTE: There is a LOT more I need to add into this story! Cool stuff!]

#HCSMCA on “Is Academic Peer Review a Dead Man Walking?”

Infographic of the Week: Public Attitudes to Science 2014

“Live Long & Prosper”: Can Emotional Intelligence Be Taught? #HCLDR [NOTE: Linked is Joyce’s Storify on this, but I wanted to do one with a different focus]

MBLEM Workshop

MEDLIBS on the Horizon Report 2015

My Physical Therapy & My Tech

Peer-to-Peer Sex Education in Social Media & Games

Phoebe Gloeckner

Random Round-up: Cool Things Tech is Doing with Poop

Report Out: The Happiness, Health, and Stories of Populations (#umcscs)

Selecting Online Resources for MOOCs

Sexpertise 2015

Should She? Or Shouldn’t She? Sharing YOUR Pics

Strategies for Better Science Blogging, Part 2

Symposium: Thirty Years of “Thinking Sex”

Reverse Innovation — Hashtags of the Week (HOTW): (Week of March 31, 2014)

Ethnic Box

Reverse innovation is a concept I’ve been tracking closely recently, and which is critical in global health. The idea, in health anyway, is that we have as much to learn from developing nations as they have to learn from us. I heard a story of a visiting faculty member here from Ghana who saved a baby’s life because he knew how to manually reposition babies in the womb during delivery when there isn’t enough time to get the machines that are sometimes used here for the same purpose. That’s just one small, local example. Last week’s Twitter chat on reverse innovation brought up several others. You can find the complete chat and cited articles in this Storify:

Do low-income countries hold the key to health innovation?:

Here are a few selected tweets from the chat.

First posted at THL Blog:

On My Radar: “Reverse Innovation”

Ethnic Box

“Reverse Innovation” is a concept that came across my horizon a few months ago, and for which I immediately went into high alert. This is important. I want to push today’s Twitter chat on this topic, so I’m going to keep this post very short, and hope to come back to this more soon.

Briefly, then. What first brought this to my attention was a blogpost at Biomed Central which was closely followed by an article in Smart Planet.

Reverse Innovation in Global Health Systems: Building the Global Knowledge Pool

Dehydration cure from developing countries comes to U.S. hospitals

The basic idea of “reverse innovation” is this, as expressed through my ill-informed novice point of view. The past century or two have largely seen scitech and research and cultural innovation flow from the first world countries to the third world countries. This has resulted in unrealistic expectations and unsustainable processes which are making life harder for all of us, everywhere across the planet. In the interests of increased sustainability and the desire to create innovation that will integrate more efficiently with the broader systems of the planet, the idea is that problem-solving partnerships between first world and third world researchers can result in innovations that are both effective and sustainable, with the innovations flowing from the third world countries to the first world, thus reversing what has been the recent pattern.

You can discover more information about reverse innovation through these resources.

Globalization and health:

Developed-developing country partnerships: Benefits to developed countries?


“Developing countries can generate effective solutions for today’s global health challenges.”

Reverse innovation in global health systems: learning from low-income countries

– Primary
– Other

ECigs: ETech Meets Public Health Again (Part Two)

[For information on why I’ve been missing-in-action here, please see this post at my personal blog: I expect to be back in business next week.]

So, in Part One, the eCig conversation was largely framed through health and legislative perspectives, with concerns hooked substantially on potential use by minors and young adults. In part two, I want to dig a little deeper into some of these issues, and spin off in new directions, mostly workplace use, more about minors, and issues of DIY and unintended uses of e-cigs.

I keep saying how complicated is the issue of electronic cigarettes. This tweet illustrates part of that.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is one of the organizations most strongly advising caution with respect to e-cigs, and perceived as “the opposition” by the e-cig and vaping communities. Obviously, given that at least one person at their event was using an e-cig, this is not a topic with complete consensus, but it is also close enough to consensus to raise eyebrows and warrant comment. The issues are further complicated by the ACS accepting donations from e-cig manufacturers.

Similarly, despite the prolific and prominent vitriol from the vaping community regarding any suggestion that e-cigs warrant further research or concern or caution, there are elements of that community willing to work with the government and professional medical organizations on exactly those areas.

Growing Electronic Cigarette Manufacturer “Welcomes” FDA’s “Reasonable Regulation” Of Category:

Given that e-cigs are an emerging technological alternative to the issue of smoking and that smoking in public spaces and the workplace has been a major issue over the past few decades, it’s no real surprise that there are guidelines and suggestions being created to advise employers about best practices for managing e-cigs in the workplace. Given that my own campus, University of Michigan, only recently went smoke-free (July 1, 2011), and that several of my friends are still struggling to make the switch, I expect that this is an issue worthy of local attention.

What employers need to know about electronic cigarettes? Fact Sheet, September 2011. (pdf)
Main points:
Quick Facts About E-Cigarettes
• Not an FDA-approved tobacco cessation device.
• Contain nicotine and detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals.
• Look very similar to regular cigarettes (especially from a distance).
• Manufactured using inconsistent or non-existent quality control processes.
Actions for Employers
• Determine whether the use of e-cigarettes is allowed in their jurisdictions, including in the workplace.
• Understand whether unions, works councils, or other laws can raise barriers to implementing workplace
policies regulating e-cigarettes.
• Stay informed on any new laws and emerging scientific evidence regarding e-cigarettes.

Please note the date on those tips, and that they haven’t been updated, although the conversation is far from over!

Sullum, Jacob. Boston Bans E-Cigarettes in Workplaces, Just Because. Dec. 2, 2011

American Society for Quality: Should e-Cigarettes Be Allowed in the Workplace? April 15, 2013

One marketing firm addressed a sort of a case study of why one life insurance firm in Britain banned e-cigs at work, arguing against each of the points.

Should electric cigarettes be allowed in the workplace

Here are a couple links with pro and con information about the Standard Life policy decision. A major point seems to be the psychology of e-cig use, that because of their resemblance to real cigarettes they give the message that smoking is a good thing or at least permissible. I am not aware of any research into this assumption, although there is substantial evidence on the related concept of candy cigarettes.

The Scotsman: Standard Life bans employees from smoking electronic cigarettes at work (2012):

Daily Mail: Safety fears over electronic cigarettes because they are ‘unclean’ and unregulated:

And a couple pieces about the psychological impact candy cigarettes. Consider, though, that the research on candy cigarettes is looking explicitly at the impact on children, not adults.

Klein JD, Forehand B, Oliveri J, Patterson CJ, Kupersmidt JB, Strecher V. Candy cigarettes: do they encourage children’s smoking? Pediatrics. 1992 Jan;89(1):27-31.

Klein JD, Clair SS. Do candy cigarettes encourage young people to smoke? BMJ. 2000 Aug 5;321(7257):362-5.

Klein JD, Thomas RK, Sutter EJ. History of childhood candy cigarette use is associated with tobacco smoking by adults. Prev Med. 2007 Jul;45(1):26-30. Epub 2007 Apr 24.

Back to the American Cancer Society, and the issue of minors having access to e-cigs.

Anti-THR Lies and related topics: Who leads the fight against banning e-cigarette sales to minors? Guess again: it is the American Cancer Society:

As with everything surrounding the e-cig controversies, it’s never straightforward, and there are always multiple views with value. This tweet was in response to my Part One blogpost on e-cigs.

The links highlight the work of Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health.

Dr. Siegel:
“I do not question the need to balance the benefits of enhancing smoking cessation among adult smokers with the costs of youth beginning to use this nicotine-containing product. But show me at least one youth using the product before you call for a ban. This recommendation makes a mockery out of the idea of science-based or evidence-based policy making in tobacco control.”
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: American Legacy Foundation Sounds Alarm About Electronic Cigarette Use Among Young People, Calling for a Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes, But Fails to Document a Single Youth Using These Products

In response to:

““While most candy-flavors – such as chocolate, vanilla and peach – were banned in 2009 from cigarettes, flavored tobacco products like cigars, hookah, snus and e-cigarettes persist in more than 45 flavors and are still legally on the market,” said Andrea Villanti, PhD, MPH, CHES, Research Investigator for Legacy. “These products can be just as appealing to young people as flavored cigarettes, offering a product appearing to be more like candy to those most at-risk of becoming lifelong tobacco users,” she added.”
FDA Should Extend Ban on Flavors to Other Products to Protect Young People, April 3, 2013

“Overall, 18.5% of tobacco users report using flavored products, and dual use of menthol and flavored product use ranged from 1% (nicotine products) to 72% (chewing tobacco). In a multivariable model controlling for menthol use, younger adults were more likely to use flavored tobacco products (OR=1.89, 95% CI=1.14, 3.11), and those with a high school education had decreased use of flavored products (OR=0.56; 95% CI=0.32, 0.97). Differences in use may be due to the continued targeted advertising of flavored products to young adults and minorities. Those most likely to use flavored products are also those most at risk of developing established tobacco-use patterns that persist through their lifetime.”
Villanti AC, Richardson A, Vallone DM, Rath JM. Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among U.S. Young Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(4):388-391, April 2013

Dr. Siegel:
“But I don’t think most anti-smoking groups or advocates care about the actual evidence. They’ve already made up their minds. Vaping looks too much like smoking. So forget about the fact that not a single nonsmoking youth could be found who has even tried the product. The advocates must continue to follow the party line and warn about the danger of electronic cigarettes as a gateway to nicotine addiction. Never mind that the gateway just doesn’t exist.”
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study on Electronic Cigarette Use Among Youth Fails to Find a Single Nonsmoking Youth Who Has Even Tried an Electronic Cigarette:

In response to:

“E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that look like cigarettes and deliver a nicotine vapor to the user. They are widely advertised as technologically advanced and healthier alternatives to tobacco cigarettes using youth-relevant appeals such as celebrity endorsements, trendy/fashionable imagery, and fruit, candy, and alcohol flavors [2], [3]. E-cigarettes are widely available online and in shopping mall kiosks, which may result in a disproportionate reach to teens, who spend much of their free time online and in shopping malls.”
Grana, Rachel A. Electronic Cigarettes: A New Nicotine Gateway? Journal of Adolescent Health 52(2):135-136, February 2013.
[NOTE: Check out the bibliography]

“Only two participants (< 1%) had previously tried e-cigarettes. Among those who had not tried e-cigarettes, most (67%) had heard of them. Awareness was higher among older and non-Hispanic adolescents. Nearly 1 in 5 (18%) participants were willing to try either a plain or flavored e-cigarette, but willingness to try plain versus flavored varieties did not differ. Smokers were more willing to try any e-cigarette than nonsmokers (74% vs. 13%; OR 10.25, 95% CI 2.88, 36.46). Nonsmokers who had more negative beliefs about the typical smoker were less willing to try e-cigarettes (OR .58, 95% CI .43, .79)."
Pepper JK , Reiter PL , McRee A-L , Cameron LD , Gilkey MB , Brewer NT . Adolescent males' awareness of and willingness to try electronic cigarettes. J Adolesc Health . 2013;52:144–150.

Wow. All smart people, working in or from the peer-reviewed literature, but with varying interpretations. For more information about flavors in e-cigs, check out these e-cig review and information sites.

Vapor Rater:
Vapour Trails:

The first thing I saw that actually sparked a moment of interest in e-cigs for me personally was the idea that you can make your own at home. I’m not a smoker, but I’m also not much of a drinker. I am, however, addicted to canning, pickling, and otherwise preserving produce and home goods. I go so far as to even make my own fruit shrubs as beverage mixes for my friends who do drink, even though I don’t partake. If you could convince me that e-cigs were safe and healthy and all that, you could tempt me to want to learn how to mix the vaping liquid for my friends, even if I don’t use it myself.

RTS Vapes: Lab Safety when Mixing Liquid Nicotine:

A brief detour down memory lane. When I was in high school I remember vividly a change in what and who was “cool” between sophomore and junior years. During freshman and sophomore years, the cool kids, the influencers, were those who snuck off into corners to make out and have sex. In junior and senior years it was no longer sex but drugs that was cool, and a lot of the smartest kids in school adopted drugs, creating and using intellect, technology, and creativity to explore this “counter-culture” area. In chemistry class, one of the top students used the chem lab to gold-plate a baby marijuana leaf into a pickle fork. A pair of National Merit Scholars broke into the high school academic system to do a statistical analysis comparing the IQs of known street drug users compared to street drug ‘virgins’ among the student population, with the drug users ‘proven’ to have the highest IQs. There was a perception that drugs weren’t just cool, but smart. I don’t know, but it would not surprise me to find that high school students today are also inquisitive and creative with exploring new technologies that allow them to buck the status quo. It is with that in mind that I read these next tweets.

Portable Vaporizer – Marijuana Pot Herbal Portable Vaporizers

For the record, I am a supporter of the legalization of marijuana, and it makes sense that if e-cigs are safer to want to extend those health benefits to persons who smoke anything recreationally. I’m not opposed to e-cigs, either, but do think there are benefits to information, education, and appropriate legislation. There are really two main questions. One, this is a new technology, and we don’t know that much about it. E-cigs were invented in 2004, and there simply hasn’t been time to fully research the technical, physical, and psychological health impacts of use. That is a problem for most new and emerging technologies, and we don’t have a solution for that at this point. The other main question is really about minors. So, the argument from Dr. Siegel is that youth don’t use e-cigs. Are you sure?

Guest Post: Enriching Scholarship 2013: Tech Talk

I’m trying to catch up with promised blogposts for the various Enriching Scholarship sessions I coordinated or in which I participated. Lucky for me, Shannon Murphy attended one of the sessions and blogged about it so beautifully that I am just reposting here, with her very kind permission and a very small number of copy-edits. You can see the original post at:

ES 2013 Tech and Trends:

ES13 Tech Talk (#UMTTC)

ETech guru Patricia Anderson presented. As usual, there are tons of resources.

The mind map for this is available at

Members of the UM community may want to sign up for the Cool Toys Conversations email group in MCommunity. You can also follow the Cool Toys blog or the ETechLib blog

The talk follows the mindmap, starting from the upper right and working around clockwise.

What is emerging tech?

It’s what’s new and hot and relavant and important.

New Media Consortium’s Horizon report is a good resource, and is what they usually focus on in the Cool Toys email group. Find out more about the project at Download the higher ed report in English from

The future is here (at UM)

Examples – last year’s ES poster winners

Would have liked to have this year’s winners too. Our instructors are doing amazing things with today’s technology, and we’re developing things that can be next year’s tech.


Many of these are issues we face year after year. For example, do students with the money for laptops or tablets to bring to class have an advantage over those who can’t afford portable tech? Should we be introducing students to high end computers and software if they won’t have access to those things in the jobs they get when they leave here? What competencies do the students actually need in the future?

How we answer those questions now will determine what higher ed looks like and whether or not we survive.

Resources and past years

The Resources bubble provides a lot of resources for exploring further.

The 2011 and 2012 Tech Trends are provided so you can compare where we were a year or two ago, and where we are now.

Tech Trends 2013

“My Take”

Wearable tech generated a lot of chatter on the cool toys email group However, what was is the Cool Toys chatter was not the same as what was in the horizon report. The Horizon report focused on things like the much hyped Google Glass, and smart watches like Pebble. But there are all sorts of things, like biometric tattoos that can warn diabetics if their blood sugar is too low, or buttons for your jacket that detect if you’ve had too much to drink. Also, some slightly disturbing options, like the tattoo that vibrates when you got a phone call. (This tattoo is not MRI safe. And what do you do when the technology changes??) Wearable tech can be big too, like the scarf with sensors so it you crash on your bike, it turns into an airbag bike helmet, or the power suit designed for soldiers but usable by paraplegics to allow them to walk again.

Patricia also discussed the power of technologies like Personal genomics, Personalized medicine, Quantified self and Biohacking. These let the individual learn more about themselves and their health through things like developing a personal genetic profile, tracking exercise goals or finding correlations between symptoms and diet. Lots of data helps the user and their doctor diagnose problems more quickly and treat them more effectively.

3D printing was also a big item. These bring their own set of questions and issues. What will it mean if everyone had the ability to print whatever they want? WILL everyone be able to do this, or will this be another thing that separates groups (those who can afford it and those who can’t). Are there things you shouldn’t be allowed to print, and how would a ‘bad’ be enforced? Bioprinting is also an emerging technology, with things like replacement bones and ears already possible.

Related to the 3D printing is the Maker Culture. Here in A2 we have MakerWorks and All Hands maker space There’s also the Maker Faire Detroit each year at The Henry Ford Groups like make it easy for designers and makers to make their designs available to other makers, and to anyone with a 3D printer.

Gartner Hype Cycle

Handy for checking on what might be overhyped right now (like 3D printing, social analytics, and gamification), under-hyped, what’s likely to be a hot topic next year, and what we are seeing turn into practical, usable, and realistic tech (and as a slow typist, I’m rather glad to see speech recognition finally becoming useful!)

10 Breakthrough Technologies 2013

A list by the MIT Technology Review.

See the list at

Again, wearable tech like smart watches and 3D printing apear on the list.

Also on the list are memory implants. While intended for people with cognitive dysfunction, could these be used by “normal” people who want a better memory.

Deep (machine) learning – AI is closer to reality. This have some unintended consequences too. For example, programs were designed to make spam look more like normal human speech, so it could get around the spam filters. However, it was still mostly gibberish. Poets found some of it interesting and started using the “creative” content from the computers to generate Spam Poetry (is that plagiarism?)

Big data from cheap phones also has some potentially profound implications. In Kenya, a database that used text messages from users to track the location of prescription medications eventually lead to (democratic) political upheaval. The Boston Marathon bomber was caught largely due to cell phone video. These open up privacy questions. According to David Brin, that can be OK as long as there is data equality. However, we will face serious problems if one side is transparent and the other is not.

Buzzwords of the Day: Biohacking, DIYbio, and Quantified Self

Convenient title generator

One of the things I’ve noticed in my emerging technologies explorations is that buzzwords are super important in identifying trends and the evolution of concepts over time. Often the same idea will reappear over decades, but with different terms applied. Those in the field know it is a rebranding of the idea, but people outside don’t know this and may very well believe it is a new idea or that two related terms are distinct rather than overlapping. I started thinking maybe it would be helpful to others if I occasionally have brief blogposts highlighting specific terms I’m tracking in the e-tech or em-tech world. This would be the first post of this sort.

I’ve been increasingly involved with personal genomics over the past year. It started with being a subject of a campus research study, and has only become more important.

Personal Genomes: what can I do with my data?, by lablogga

I’m finding that it isn’t enough. When you start getting information that makes a HUGE difference in the quality of your life, you want more. You start to realize that good can become better. Even without aspiring to “ideal” or “perfect”, you realize that so much more is possible. In digging for more options, I found first the quantified self movement (in which I am stumbling around trying to find my way), then DIYbio, and finally biohacking. What all of these have in common is generating data and performing experiments to improve your own personal health and quality of life. They are closely related to the earlier terms of mobile health and e-health, but extend and focus those concepts. Between these three terms — biohacking, DIYbio, and quantified self — lines blur. There is substantial overlap as well as distinct differences between these terms, the technologies they use, their goals and methodologies. These are just a few slidedecks to give you quick introductions to these concepts. I hope to blog more about them in the future, as I truly believe these are very important, and even essential to the future of healthcare.


Biohacking refers to the practice of engaging biology with the hacker ethic.[1] Biohacking encompasses a wide spectrum of practices and movements ranging from Grinders who design and install DIY body-enhancements such as magnetic implants to DIY biologists who conduct at-home gene sequencing.

Quantified Self & Biohacking, by Teemu Arina.


“As molecular tools get cheaper, and the know-how for using them more widely distributed, I think we’re going to see a renaissance in science. The peculiar feature of this renaissance is that its going to take place outside of “science proper”, away from the universities which dominate now, and funded out-of-pocket by enthusiasts without PhDs.” Science without scientists,

Singularity University July 2010: DIYbio Demo Workshop, by Mac Cowell

On Experimenting with Others. The Rise of D-I-W-O Science, by Eli Gentry.

Quantified Self

“The Quantified Self is a movement to incorporate technology into data acquisition on aspects of a person’s daily life in terms of inputs (e.g. food consumed, quality of surrounding air), states (e.g. mood, arousal, blood oxygen levels), and performance (mental and physical). Such self-monitoring and self-sensing, which combines wearable sensors (EEG, ECG, video, etc.) and wearable computing, is also known as lifelogging or sousveillance. Other names for using self-tracking data to improve daily functioning are “self-tracking”, “auto-analytics”, “body hacking” and “self-quantifying”.”

Self tracking, Sensors, and mHealth: Trends and Opportunities, by C Torgan

At the Movies: 3D Printing

If you haven’t already heard of 3D printing, then we need to fix that right away. If you have heard of 3D printing, this post will probably be fun for you, and will hopefully still include some new information. I have talked about 3D printing here before, and still am hoping that in the renovation of the library where I reside there will included be a small makerspace complete with 3D printer. We wouldn’t be the first medical library to do so! At least one other medical library is currently in the position of deciding which model to purchase.

What is commonly called 3D printing was probably something you first heard about in the guise of a Star Trek replicator. Actually, it has been a real emerging technology about as long as Star Trek has been around, and was called “additive processing” (or so I’ve learned by watching the TED Talk video of Lisa Harouni and her “Primer on 3D printing”).

Lisa Harouni: A primer on 3D printing:

The earliest patents on this came out of efforts to print circuit boards, and were instrumental in the rapid decline of the cost of computers. There are now patents for how to print with biological materials instead of simply plastic and metal. Enormous advances. There is a fair amount of talk that this may be the year that 3D printing hits mainstream. Let’s just say that if the President of the United States is talking about it in his State of the Union address, that just might be a very realistic possibility.

President Obama on 3D Printing

3D printing is becoming so ubiquitous that one of the grad students currently working in our library showed me the delightful 3D printed Valentine she received from husband, a box-puzzle that turns into a heart. There are so many amazing, wonderful, and scary things being made right now with 3d printing. Bicycles. Cars. Houses. Guns. Ammo. Jaws. Cartilage. Kidneys. Spaceships. Yes, really. Well, little ones, at least for the spaceship, anyway. We cannot imagine what will be created with 3D printing in the future.

Bicycles. Cars. Houses. Guns. Ammo. Jaws. Cartilage. Kidneys. Spaceships.

Microscale 3D printing of a spaceship:

3d Printing – 3d Cloning A Bicycle – YouTube:

Rational automotive design for the human race:
Urbee 2 is the 3D printed Car of the Future:
ExtremeTech: The First 3D Printed Car is as Strong as Steel and Half the Weight:

Fully-customized modular solar house is 3D printed prefab.

3D Printing Gun Revolution:

Breaking Gamechanger: Printable Gun Magazines:

Printing a Full new 3D Jawbone for Belgian Patient – Worlds First (Europe Innovation):

3D printer and living “ink” create cartilage:

Anthony Atala: Printing a human kidney:

What’s next? What’s here?

Can we print a human body?

Well, and it isn’t like this doesn’t already happen on campus. In many places, most notably the 3D Lab and the Fab Lab. And has for many years. That last video right above is from UM. Here are some more. And look at the dates. Several of these are from within the past few weeks, but others go back years. We do this.

3D Printing: An Additive Solution:

expoSItion: 3D printing in the developing world:

And you know the Cube? As in the sculpture of the cube on Regent’s Plaza, in front of the Fleming Building, the one that spins around? Want one?

Endover Sculpture Puzzle:

And the newest answer to what 3D printer is in the University Libraries? Right now they are praising the Dimension Elite. I’ve seen several different 3D printers there over the years, from MakerBots on up. I still want something accessible beyond the 3D lab, in a regular campus library, on the main campus, and preferably on the Medical Campus.

Want more videos about 3D printing?

Rapid Prototyping (playlist from UMich):

Bad Brad’s Bad Channel: 3d Printing Videos: