“Now is the time. We’ve proven that it works in the clinic…multiple times and multiple ways. Now is the time that virtual reality (VR) needs to move out of the lab and into every clinic and hospital to deliver the clear benefits.” So began a pointed rallying call from Dr. Walter Greenleaf, who along with Jaron Lanier, pioneered the use of VR in clinical settings.

Known mainly for failing to live up to its potential, a recent conference “Medicine Meets Virtual Reality” (MMVR) highlighted how this label is fading…fast.

It’s a good bet that your surgeon has honed her skills on a VR-enabled simulator before she slices you open. Just like airline pilots are required to log simulator hours to train for unanticipated events, simulator time is now de rigueur for many health professionals.

But how are these technologies being applied to patients? MMVR highlighted some excellent examples.

Training children, even toddlers to manipulate their wheelchairs effectively in a safe environment was exhibit #1. Seeing video of the tiny patients zipping around with smiles on their faces, was a conference highlight.

Another VR elder statesman, Dr. Skip Rizzo, was represented with the PTSD SimCoach. The agent (video here) is currently used to treat veterans by exposing them, in a safe and graduated way, to the traumatic situations responsible for their distress.

Other groups are using this type of VR-enabled exposure therapy to teach skills and provide safe practice opportunities for substance abuse patients.

Another hot topic at the conference, was a session titled “Analysis of Honest Signals for Psychological Health Assessment” . Researchers presented their findings and promised that emotion detection technology is almost ready for prime time. That’s good news for VR users craving a more realistic experience. Not so good news for anyone with something to hide.

Stay tuned for next year’s conference–the confluence of better/faster/cheaper hardware and renewed enthusiasm for the field promises to bring even more innovation.

photo courtesy of MMVR organizers

A recent discussion at Swissnex San Francisco provided insights into the challenge of making robots more human. This goal holds profound implications for healthcare and the treatment of injuries to the body and brain.

One of the core principles in this endeavor is the exploitation of passive dynamics. For example, when a person walks, the brain doesn’t control every muscle, every movement, all aspects of posture, etc. Instead, each leg acts as a pendulum that causes a cascade of reactions to propel the body forward.

The same dynamics can be exploited in even the simplest of robots. Rolf Pfeifer, director of the Artificial Intelligence Lab at the University of Zurich showed a simply structured robot known as the Cornell Ranger. By leveraging passive dynamics, the Ranger can walk 60 km on a single battery charge.

Another key principle in making robots more like humans is that of task distribution. Dr. Pfeifer broke it down into three components–the brain (control), body (morphology, materials) and the environment. To demonstrate, he offered the simple, yet elegant example of picking up a glass of water.

Although the brain controls coordination of major muscle movements, the soft pads of the fingertips flatten by virtue of their composition, passively assisting the process. He contrasted the ease of picking up a glass of water in a slightly humid environment with having thimbles on the fingers in a perfectly arid one.

His point illustrated that there is no clear separation between control and hardware because part of the control is now in the “soft parts” (muscles, morphology). He further posited that robots must have similar gray areas (soft robotics) in order to perform more human-like functions.

In addition to a live demonstration of the “super compliant” Ecce robot (pictured), Pascal Kaufmann (University of Zurich and CEO of Starmind) offered another highly entertaining example via video. “Stumpy” is an almost brainless robot with two actuated joints, springy materials, and not much else. However simple Stumpy’s structure, he’s certainly able to give America’s Best Dance Crew a run for the money! Check out Singapore Technology University’s Stumpy Can Dance video here.

All speakers agreed that the issue of soft robotics is becoming more important and will impact manufacturing and then other industries in a major way. For example, iPads are now assembled by hand in China. What are these humans doing that other manufacturing robots cannot?

Cornell professor Hod Lipson offered one explanation, saying that current robots don’t adapt well to unforeseen circumstances. He spoke of his own challenges with five room cleaning robots in a house filled with irregularly shaped and spaced obstacles.

This poses an essential question–how can robots learn to handle new situations and coordinate with each other? A New York Times article featuring Dr. Lipson sheds some light.

In his early work at Cornell, Lipson’s robots learned how to walk by being bombarded with a number of programs that turned on and off randomly. Some programs produced more productive motions than others and thus got to cross breed with other programs, resulting in the robot “learning” how to walk.

Lipson gave other examples of how this “motor babbling”–seemingly random and uncontrolled actions– works as effectively in the brain development of babies as it does in the cognitive development of robots. By using these sensory inputs to make hypotheses about what to do, robots develop an emergent self image. According to Lipson, when the self image changes, so does the behavior, proving that you can teach a robot (or a reluctant humanoid) new tricks.

That’s good news for us all!

See Swissnex San Francisco’s complete slideshow of the event here

[Editor's note]:

As cognitive robotics becomes more and more sophisticated in taking on human-like intelligence, it naturally calls for ethics concerns.  Just like a question posed to Dr. Lipson from the audience in this event, about potential implications of such powerful robotics and scientists’ responsibilities to take such implications into consideration.  Dr. Lipson acknowledged such concern and responded thoughtfully.  “I used to think people concerned about dangerous science should focus on genetically modified foods or things like that, since we were just making toys.  Now I have realized that this stuff can indeed be very powerful.  I think as scientists we do have responsibilities to society for our work, and I think the best way is to be open about it.  We should do the work in the open, and allow society to monitor and openly debate about it.”

That pretty much represents our philosophy following and reporting on this field as well.

G. Steven Burrill is biotech’s unofficial spokesperson. Involved in creating industry stalwarts such as Genentech, Amgen and Chiron, he’s expanded his influence through a $1B+ venture capital fund and a successful merchant bank.

His annual State of Biotech report is eagerly anticipated by the entire industry.

This year’s address underscored the value of “Understanding how the world is, how it’s going to change and how to build companies for the future. There’s no magic formula…just perspective.”

“The world is a little messy,” Burrill quipped. He expressed particular concern that the global readjustment of capital markets, due to debt problems in Europe and elsewhere, could drag on. Until the underlying problems of this debt overhang are solved, capital availability will remain low and rates high.

Not all is lost, however, and he predicts that the impact of personalized medicine will create multiple opportunities for smaller, leaner companies focused on innovating rather than trying to find the next one-size-fits-all blockbuster.

He praised the FDA’s new “user friendliness” and pointed out that more drugs were approved on 2011 than in any other year.

Although the supply side may be contracting, the demand side will rapidly expand because of an aging population. This holds true in both the US and Europe as well as in emerging markets such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). These emerging markets hold particular interest because as standards of living increase, healthcare is one of the first benefits expected by populations.

Domestically, Burrill pointed to an interesting statistic–within the next two years, 80% of drugs in the US will be purchased by the federal government. “Yes, the market is huge, but the government is a tough buyer with no interest in paying for innovation…just want to pay the cheapest price. Generic drugs are what’s selling.”

The question of “who’s going to pay for this” will remain salient with branding and extracting value from existing patents becoming more important. He also pointed out that big pharma will continue reinventing itself, shifting away from R&D and spinning off pieces if more value can be created by functioning separately. He cited Abbott’s spin-off of its diagnostic division as one example.

He also pointed to companies outside of the life sciences as analogs for what can drive value outside of traditional products. “Swarmology (company mining online conversations for health data) created value from the analytics…just like Twitter, Angry Birds and Google.”

Another trend he identified is that early stage funding is “coming from rich people…high net worth individuals are now subbing for VCs.” He pointed to several examples of celebrity disease advocacy funding including Michael J. Fox’s investment into early stage companies focused on Parkinson’s disease.

In closing, he pointed out that 22% of the current GDP spent on healthcare. “This will continue to go up because of the aging population and the need to keep everyone alive…no one is going to vote themselves off the island.”

Thus, realigning incentives throughout the entire ecosystem so that patients are economically incented to stay well, is key. According to Burrill, companies who provide tools to support this will be the ones that remain in the future.

Written by Connie Li; photography by BeiBei Song

为期27天的“天下第一灯”中国四川自贡灯会在感恩节后的第二天, 在美国硅谷圣塔克拉拉市的大美国游乐园正式亮相。 圣诞前后，灯会再次进入高潮，为旧金山湾区各族裔的民众 提供了节日期间一个新鲜、热闹的娱乐去处。

灯会本是一种中国传统民间文化活动, 四川自贡地区早在唐宋年间就有了新年赏灯的习俗并沿袭至今。 近年来自贡灯会开始在世界各地进行展出并广受好评, 还被新加坡总理赞誉为“天下第一灯”。

与以往传统灯会不同的是, 这次走进美国的“天下第一灯”更为注重“绿色环保”这一主题。  在传播和弘扬中华文化的同时也带出 “绿色”的理念。 并希望借助展出, 让更多的人关注环保, 爱护地球。

利用一些特殊材料制作灯具对于自贡的灯艺大师来说并非首次。 不过这次主办方却是要求从“绿色”的角度出发, 所有的设计都要首先考虑到节能, 环保这两个主题。

灯会上, 大家可以一眼就看出的是“龙舟画舫” , “九凤宝瓶” “生命之树”这几个彩灯的独特之处。 因为龙身上闪闪发亮的鳞片是用废弃CD制成的, 不论是在白天的阳光下还是夜晚的灯光下都熠熠生辉, 选材用料可谓独到。 而所谓的“宝瓶”其实是大家都非常熟悉的青霉素药瓶。 这些空瓶被彩灯师傅们染成不同颜色后, 再串起来固定成大家看到的宝瓶状, 一共用了3万5千个青霉素空瓶才完成, 可真是独具匠心。 主题为呵护, 爱护地球的“生命之树”则是由回收的塑料瓶制成。 一圈圈整齐地排成伞状, 在灯光的映衬下为“树叶”更添了几分精致。

更深层了解后才发现, 除了利用可回收的环保材料，   灯会上所用的灯, 在不影响艺术表现的情况下都替换成了LED灯来节省能耗。 我们都知道相比普通的光灯, LED灯具有节能、抗高温、防潮防水、防漏电的优点。  并且是由无毒的材料作成, 不像荧光灯含水银会造成污染, 同时LED也可以回收再利用, 寿命也是普通灯管的10倍以上。 绿色环保的半导体电光源, 光线柔和, 光谱纯, 有利于身体健康。 6000K的冷光源给人视觉上清凉的感受, 人性化的照度差异设计, 更有助于集中精神, 提高效率。 但也因为LED属于冷光源, 穿透能力也不及普通灯泡, 所以不能完全替代灯会所需要的灯泡。

30,000 low-powered LED and Florescent bulbs light the structures. © BeiBei Song

由于灯会在大美国游乐园举办, 没办法直接采用城市供电来支持会场的所有电能需求。 主办方只好采用自给自足的供电方式, 调了七、八台发电机为整个嘉年华供电。 虽然不能和城市供电相比, 但为了实现“绿色”灯会, 他们特意选用了低噪, 低能耗, 无污染的发电机, 并采用生物柴油供给。 同时还在会场以及237高速公路旁放置了太阳能电板, 并在一旁展示着利用太阳能发电而点亮的彩灯, 希望通过这种方式向大家传递一种“绿色环保”的理念。

Sunpod solar panel, collecting energy during the day to light the Fortune God at night. © BeiBei Song

Generators running a mix of bio-diesel and diesel fuel. © BeiBei Song

虽然“天下第一灯” 是中国的传统文化, 却也在这次的展出中很好地融合了当今“绿色环保”概念。  而且主办方还希望在今后的活动中有更多的环保人士或机构参与协助, 在美国当地搜集民众捐赠的废物, 传播环保理念。 让更多的人了解中国, 参与绿色环保建设。

Editor’s Note:

Dr. Ida Sim detailed a buzz-making project at the Silicon Valley Health Tech’s “mega-meetup”.

Sim is a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, where she directs the Center for Clinical and Translational Informatics and is Co-Director of Biomedical Informatics for UCSF’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute. She’s also the co-founder of Open mHealth.

Open mHealth was founded on the principle that there are “certain things we shouldn’t have to build over and over ” for mobile health applications.

She made the case for integrating data from and making sense of three key feedback loops: participant self-care, clinical care and research evidence.

One of the problems with current mobile solutions collecting data on these feedback loops is that if data “lives” on the phone and doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not useful to physicians to guide treatment or to researchers who may wish to study interventions across populations.

So, one of the first components developed by the Open mHealth project is one involving data stream processing as well as an architecture (Infovis) to provide tools for data analysis and visualization. The Infovis architecture is a set of common principles and practices by which these modules can communicate and build on each other.

Participants are urged to use the components and modules that are common and develop some of their own to contribute.  The goal is to keep everything open, modular and flexible enough to reuse out of box or to be easily customized.

“As long as you fit in like Lego blocks…build your own and contribute, the project will be a success,” says Sim.

All companies and organizations are invited to participate–for profit, non profit, academic, government–and Sim makes a solid case for keeping the project open source. “There‘s a great need for improving individual and population health. We have huge problems that need solutions, so why not do it together?”

She stresses, however, that this is not an attempt to develop, set or impose standards. Rather, it’s to rectify the mistakes of previous large scale health data initiatives like electronic health records (EHRs).

“The EHR companies didn’t play together…and as a clinician it is painful. UCSF just implemented EHRS and it was painful to pull out data and integrate components.”

Open mHealth is taking aim at these pain points…for everyone’s benefit.

photo courtesy of Pronoy Saha

While details vary, the story is basically the same for nuclear power, natural gas turbines, solar panels, and wind turbines — pretty much every significant energy technology since World War II. That’s because the private sector alone cannot sustain the kind of long-term investments necessary for big technological breakthroughs in the midst of volatile energy markets and short-term pressure to produce profits.”

By Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, Published in Washington Post, December 16

Since the high-profile bankruptcy of Solyndra, the solar company that received $535 million in federal loan guarantees, many have concluded that government efforts to promote energy technologies are doomed to fail. Critics cite the abandoned synthetic fuels program, attempts to capture carbon pollution from coal plants and next-generation nuclear reactors as further proof of this conclusion.

Many often point to the shale gas revolution as evidence that the private sector, in response to market forces, is better than government bureaucrats at picking technological winners. It’s a compelling story, one that pits inventive entrepreneurs against slow-moving technocrats and self-dealing politicians.

The problem is, it isn’t true.

The breakthroughs that revolutionized the natural gas industry — massive hydraulic fracturing, new mapping tools and horizontal drilling — were made possible by the government agencies that critics insist are incapable of investing wisely in new technology.

This will surprise those steeped in the hagiography of George Mitchell, the tenacious Texas oil man who proved that gas could be drawn from shale rock at a profit. The popular telling has Mitchell spending 20 lonely years pursuing the breakthroughs to tap the Barnett Shale, an underground expanse.

While Mitchell did face skepticism from industry, and from many of his employees, he overcame the myriad obstacles to cheap shale gas extraction with help from technologies developed with taxpayer money.

Slick-water fracking, the technology that Mitchell used to crack the shale gas code, was adapted from massive hydraulic fracturing, a technology first demonstrated by the Energy Department in 1977. Over the next two decades, Mitchell and others, with government support, tinkered with the technology, exploring ways to use fewer chemicals and more water, which substantially reduced the cost of extraction.

Mitchell learned of shale’s potential from the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a partnership begun in 1976 between the Energy Department’s Morgantown Energy Research Center and dozens of companies and universities that sought to demonstrate natural gas recovery in shale formations and to map and test core samples from unconventional natural gas deposits. Starting in 1981, Mitchell’s geologists drew heavily on that research to guide their explorations.

Mitchell’s success depended on a revolution in monitoring and mapping technologies driven largely by government labs. The new technologies allowed geologists to more precisely map and understand shale formations. In 1991, Mitchell asked the publicly funded Gas Research Institute, then funded by a tax on gas production, and the Energy Department for help. Sandia National Labs provided Mitchell with many critical microseismic tools. Mitchell also benefited from 3-D imaging, which the Energy Department had long supported.

The third critical technology was horizontal drilling and well installation, a breakthrough that captured much more shale gas than conventional vertical wells had. The government had supported innovative drilling methods since the ’70s; in 1976, two government engineers, Joseph Pasini III and William K. Overby Jr., patented an early-stage directional drilling technology that became the precursor to horizontal drilling. A decade later, a joint venture between the Energy Department and industry drilled the first horizontal Devonian shale well, which allowed gas to be extracted from multiple fractures and wells.

The Energy Department also pioneered better drill bits and air-based drilling, which better protected the gas assets of geological formations. And in 1991, the publicly funded Gas Research Institute recommended that Mitchell experiment with horizontal drilling and even subsidized his first horizontal well.

Ultimately, Mitchell and other gas developers’ decision to spend millions of dollars and nearly two decades pioneering techniques that few thought would result in commercially viable extraction is less quixotic than it might have appeared. The federal government generously subsidized drilling for non-conventional gas throughout the 1980s and 1990s, when oil and gas were cheap. While the rise in natural gas prices in the late 1990s sparked the shale gas revolution, it was the federal non-conventional gas tax credit that made Mitchell’s experimenting possible in the early years, when there was no market for more expensive shale gas.

Giving the federal government credit where it is due takes nothing away from Mitchell, who was determined and tenacious. But the lesson of the shale gas revolution is that we should not be so quick to judge government investments in energy technology. Between 1978 and 2007, the Energy Department spent $24 billion on fossil energy research. Billions more were spent through the Gas Research Institute and non-conventional gas tax credits. Those investments were widely panned as a failure during the ’80s and early ’90s, when gas was plentiful and cheap.

Whatever one thinks about shale gas today — we worry about its environmental consequences — there’s no denying the extraordinary economic return on taxpayer investments. Shale gas is likely to allow the United States to go from net gas importer to a net gas exporter over the next decade.

While details vary, the story is basically the same for nuclear power, natural gas turbines, solar panels, and wind turbines — pretty much every significant energy technology since World War II. That’s because the private sector alone cannot sustain the kind of long-term investments necessary for big technological breakthroughs in the midst of volatile energy markets and short-term pressure to produce profits.

No doubt, government energy innovation investments could be made more efficiently and effectively. But it would be a mistake to imagine that we’d be better off without them.

Michael Shellenberger is president and Ted Nordhaus is chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland-based, nonpartisan public policy think tank focused on progressive politics.

The official topic at the BIOMEDevice conference was “speed to market”.

However, four leaders from diverse parts of the medical device industry offered solid and practical advice for all aspects of device design and development.

When asked to name the greatest challenge for device manufacturers in getting products to market, the leaders offered answers similar to those heard elsewhere in life sciences and healthcare.

Mir Imran, Chairman & CEO, InCube Labs and Modulus (drug delivery and medical device technologies) cited regulatory and funding as the keys and illustrated the point by asking for a show of hands from early stage companies. Seeing none, he quipped, “Obviously, it’s too hard and you guys have given up.”

Roger A. Stern, PhD, President & CEO, Stellartech Research Corporation (contract research and development to support minimally invasive procedures) agreed and added that reimbursement was the third leg of the stool. “You can have a great product, get it through regulatory, but if you can’t get paid, it‘s a problem.”

He added that entrepreneurs as well as experienced manufacturers need to give this more consideration, starting in the design and planning phase. He also stressed the importance of keeping current on the landscape throughout the design and development process “…something might have come along in the past month and not even been there when you started.”

Joe A. Heanue, PhD, President, Triple Ring Technologies, Inc. (develops proprietary technology that can be integrated into customer projects for medtech, life sciences and other industries) was asked to discuss project management methods to keep costs under control and speed products to market.

He said that manufacturers have successfully used techniques from lean manufacturing, but the simplest answer is that it comes down to risk management. “The surest way to run up budget and delay a project is to not have considered risks and knowledge gaps before beginning design…flagging these early in the process helps to avoid very expensive re-dos.”

Stacey Chang, Healthcare Director, IDEO (global design consultancy) expanded on the point by underscoring the need to have the “anchor” discussion early on. He challenged that companies must decide which three of the four are most important: product cost, product features project cost, project timeline. “You can’t get all four…a big mistake is to fool themselves into thinking they can have them all…they can’t.”

Stacy kicked off the discussion on industry trends by saying that the computerization of healthcare has raised expectations about “what things should look and feel like”. He explained that these needs generally aren’t met like on consumer side so it has opened the door for consumer electronic companies to move into med device space because they understand how to design products to meet unmet needs.

He offered an interesting example of how the daVinci robotic surgical system was designed for the surgeon, but made life “hell” for the OR staff. Why? Because the staff had to show up an hour early to prep the system, making for a miserable experience. He added that the systems didn’t get traction until the issue was addressed and cautioned other companies to “answer the question of who is the broad set of users interacting with it holistically”.

Joe added that products must be wrapped into the overall experience and service delivery–the iPod makes sense only because iTunes exists. “The real challenge is to figure out how these mobile devices fit into a meaningful service.”

With more than ten billion neurons, each connected thousands of times, the brain has been described as the ultimate social networking tool.

Two of the world’s top neuroscientists took center stage at the Bay Area Science Festival to discuss this complex topic, co-sponsored by Swissnex SF.

David Eagleman is a neuroscientist and director of the Laboratory for Perception and Action at Baylor College of Medicine. He’s also a popular author whose most recent book is Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.

Henry Markram is director of the Blue Brain Project at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) as well as a coordinator of the Human Brain Project.

Eagleman kicked off the discussion by explaining that most of cognition happens under the hood and away from our general awareness. Like worker bees in the background, he explained, there is a big gap between what our brains have access to and our experience of consciousness.

He also talked about how competing networks of neurons battle to drive behavior. Heads nodded all around the room when he offered the example of a self-argument over whether or not to have that piece of chocolate cake!

Eagleman added that understanding the connections and relationships between these “warring parties” is critical to answering the evening’s central question. He also said that while he believes that we’ll understand pieces and parts of the brain, what’s lacking is a theory about consciousness. He stressed that even if we understand the brain’s components and connections, we can’t turn it into an algorithm that replicates the experience of consciousness across different people.

Markram agreed with Eagleman that there is a more important question than simply understanding the brain. His Human Brain project is currently integrating everything known about the brain into computer models and using these models to simulate the actual working of the brain. His work has expounded on the basic connection rules for neurons.

Markram says that the major unsolved challenge of understanding the brain is to understand the eye, since the eye is only a “little filter that sends in some clues…the brain creates the representation”.

During the Q&A, the two discussed consciousness as well as simulations.

Eagleman posed several questions about the possibility of consciousness arising as a meta phenomenon and byproduct of a well-designed simulation. Markram said that this was a possibility, but there’s no way to know until it’s actually tried. He added that we are still a long way from understanding the physics of consciousness, but that simulations are a great tool to explore this uncharted territory. Both agreed that there is a raging debate in neuroscience communities about the utility and validity of simulations.

While there was no resolution to the evening’s central question, many new questions were raised. We are sure to hear more in the near future–stay tuned.

photo: (l to r) Christian Simm, Executive Director, Swissnex SF; David Eagleman, Henry Markram

From The Stanford Center on Longevity
Age Structure by Race and Ethnicity

Under the direction of Senior Research Scholar Adele Hayutin, the Stanford Center on Longevity has produced a study of California’s changing demographics. The report includes demographic profiles of more than 200 communities in California, illustrating shifts in age structure and changes in ethnic and racial composition. The project was developed for the California State Library to facilitate greater understanding of how demographic characteristics differ across the state and to help inform decisions regarding changing needs of local communities.

The Demographic Profiles, developed for the state library jurisdictions, the state overall, and selected reference areas, include charts and data tables covering key demographic variables, such as population growth, age structure, racial and ethnic mix, household type, income and educational attainment. Each profile incorporates data from the 2010 Census to illustrate the ten-year population shifts, and data from the five-year American Community Survey, 2005-09, for other variables, including education, income and immigration. By focusing on library jurisdictions, most of which coincide with city or county boundaries, the profiles illustrate demographic characteristics that are not always evident when looking at larger regions.

This project was supported in whole by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act, administered in California by the State Librarian. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services or the California State Library, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services or the California State Library should be inferred.

Click to watch video

A few days ago I interviewed David Rockefeller, Jr., Founder and Chairman of Sailors for the Sea, a non-profit organization which educates and engages the boating community in the worldwide protection of the oceans. Sailors for the Sea is the official sustainability partner to the 34th America’s Cup, which makes sustainability and ocean conservation an important component of its sailing events.

Sailors for the Sea monitors the Clean Regatta status of various boating events to reduce their impact on oceans and coastal waters; and educates young sailors around the country on marine ecology via Rainy Day Kits, environmental lesson plans taught in yacht clubs and sailing schools.

A new initiative the organization is developing is Certified Sea Friendly, which will create a voluntary certification program to transform the marine manufacturing industry and make the construction, maintenance and operation of vessels more environmentally friendly.

The idea is inspired by LEED. That made me curious as to how LEED is now faring. Has it been effective? Is it serving its intended purpose? What makes it successful? What weaknesses does it have, if any, especially those that are common to standards or certification of this kind?

In preparing for the interview, I conducted a quick survey soliciting some comments on LEED.

Below are some of the responses I received:

“Couple of thoughts:

• Sustainability needs to translate to some kind of ROI or it won’t be adopted. In the case of LEED it is mostly about 1) energy efficiency (reduced opex) and 2) employee productivity (softer harder to quantify)

• Metrics need to be supported by industry as credible

• Need to be easy for adopters to get the data / measurements required”

(- Michael Zimmerman, CEO, BuildingIQ Pty Ltd.)

“I think if anything has come out of the analysis of LEEDS buildings is that “operation” is much more important than design standards. Most LEEDs platinum are performing below expectations because they are operated by engineers and property managers not trained in achieving the potential of the buildings. So while the standards are good, without implementation follow up the result can end up being so much less than expected.”

(- Jeff Poetsch, President at JC Poetsch Advisors)

One thing to be aware of: Some LEED platinum buildings are NOT very energy efficient. They gain points by reusing materials, using sustainable materials, etc., but don’t meet common best practices for efficiency. Same thing could happen in boats.

( – Dick Zeren, Principal, Richard Zeren Consulting)

• Successful in reaching:
  • 10% of building stock (sqft) / 5% of buildings are LEED certified (Source: Kok, McGraw, Quigley, “The Diffusion of Energy Efficiency in Building,” UC Berkeley, January 2011)
  • 442 localities have adopted/referenced LEED in policies and legislation (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1852)
• Effective in getting spurring thinking about sustainability beyond energy efficiency (categories include water, materials, site, etc).
• Weakness in that it measures compliance at a point in time

BeiBei Song

PS: After this interview video was posted, we continue to receive comments, on the concept of “LEED for vessels”.  If you have more thoughts along these lines, please share them below.