2012 Innovation Hall of Fame Panel Discussion

DR. JEREMY HAEFNER: IT IS MY
DISTINCT PLEASURE TO
WELCOME YOU TO OUR
INNOVATION HALL OF FAME
PANEL DISCUSSION. IT IS A FIRST
OF MANY EVENTS ON A VERY BUSY
WEEKEND, ALL DEDICATED TO
INNOVATION AND WE ARE PROUD AND
EXCITED FOR THIS SPECIAL DAY AS
WELL AS TOMORROW. BEFORE I BEGIN
I ALWAYS LIKE TO START AND
ACKNOWLEDGE OUR AMERICAN SIGN
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS WHO
PROVIDE ACCESS TO ALL OF OUR
PROGRAMMING HERE AT RIT FOR OUR
DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
COMMUNITY HERE. THEY PLAY A DUAL
ROLE, ACTUALLY IN TODAY’S PANEL
DISCUSSION BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO
THEY PROVIDE A FUNCTION BUT THEY
ALSO ARE SYMBOLIC FOR OUR
COMMITMENT TO UNIVERSAL ACCESS,
WHICH WILL BE A TOPIC WITHIN
TODAY’S DISCUSSION. NEXT I’D
LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR VERY
DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF INVENTORS
AND INNOVATORS AND DESIGNERS.
I’M GOING TO START WITH PATTY
MOORE, RIGHT HERE TO MY
IMMEDIATE LEFT AND PATTY MOORE,
IF YOU DON’T KNOW HER, IS AN
INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED
GERONTOLOGIST AND DESIGNER
SERVING AS A LEADING AUTHORITY
ON CONSUMER LIFESPAN BEHAVIORS
AND REQUIREMENTS. SHE’S QUITE
NOTABLE FOR A PERIOD OF THREE
YEARS, FROM 1979 TO 1982 IN AN
EXCEPTIONAL AND DARING
EXPERIMENT SHE TRAVELED
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA DISGUISED AS WOMEN MORE
THAN EIGHTY YEARS OF AGE AND
WITH HER BODY ALTERED TO
SIMULATE THE NORMAL SENSORY
CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH AGING,
SHE WAS ABLE TO RESPOND TO
PEOPLE, PRODUCTS AND
ENVIRONMENTS AS AN ELDER. HER
BROAD RANGE OF EXPERIENCES
INCLUDE COMMUNICATION DESIGN,
RESEARCH, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN,
PACKAGE DESIGN, YOU GET A THEME
THERE? TRANSPORTATION DESIGN,
MARKET ANALYSIS AND PRODUCT
POSITIONING. WE’RE VERY PROUD OF
PATTY MOORE BECAUSE SHE HOLDS AN
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN
INDUSTRIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND
COMMUNICATION DESIGN FROM
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY AND SHE WAS
DISTINGUISHED AS THE ALUMNI OF
THE YEAR IN 1984. SHE ALSO HOLDS
ADVANCED DEGREES FROM THE
ADVANCED STUDIES IN BIOMECHANICS
AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY’S MEDICAL
SCHOOL AND RUSK INSTITUTE
GRADUATE DEGREES IN PSYCHOLOGY
AND COUNSELING AND IN HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT. SO PATTY, WE’RE
PLEASED TO HAVE YOU WITH US.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH (APPLAUSE).
TO PATTY’S LEFT IS A
DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN BY THE
NAME OF DEAN KAMEN. DEAN KAMEN
IS THE FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF
DEKA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION. MANY OF YOU
PROBABLY KNOW MR. KAMEN’S VAST
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE SEGWAY
HUMAN TRANSPORTER, BUT YOU MAY
NOT KNOW THAT OTHER EXAMPLES OF
THE TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPED BY
DEAN AND DEKA INCLUDE THE HOME
CHOICE PORTABLE DIALYSIS
MACHINE, THE IBOT MOBILITY
SYSTEM, A DARPA FUNDED ROBOTIC
ARM, A NEW AND IMPROVED STERLING
ENGINE AND THE SLINGSHOT WATER
PURIFIER. HE IS THE RECIPIENT OF
NUMEROUS AWARDS, WHICH WE WILL
HIGHLIGHT IN TONIGHT’S
INNOVATION HALL OF FAME
CEREMONY, BUT I WANT TO
PARTICULARLY DRAW OUT THE FACT
THAT HE WAS INDUCTED INTO THE
NATIONAL INVENTORS HALL OF FAME
IN 2005 AND HE’S A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
SINCE 1997. AMONG HIS PROUDEST
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IS THE FOUNDING
OF FIRST, WHICH STANDS FOR
FOR INSPIRATION AND RECOGNITION
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. IT’S
AN ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO
MOTIVATING THE NEXT GENERATION
TO UNDERSTAND, USE AND ENJOY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND WE
ARE PROUD SPONSORS OF FIRST HERE
AT RIT. DEAN, THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US (APPLAUSE). AND BY
THE WAY, DEAN HAS A CONNECTION
TO US FOR HE HOLDS AN HONORARY
DOCTORATE DEGREE FROM RIT.
FINALLY, OUR GOOD FRIEND KEVIN
SURACE, HE’S AN ALUM OF OUR
COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY IN THE ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
IN 1985. KEVIN IS CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF SERIOUS MATERIALS
AND HE HAS BEEN INNOVATING IN A
NUMBER OF TECHNOLOGY FIELDS
SINCE GRADUATING FROM RIT. FOR
THE LAST NINE YEARS HE HAS
DEVELOPED AND PATENTED A NUMBER
OF DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES THAT
REDUCE ENERGY USAGE IN
BUILDINGS, THE WORLD’S LARGEST
CONTRIBUTOR OF CO2. KEVIN HAS
BROUGHT HIGH TECH MATERIALS,
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO 70,000
PROJECTS, INCLUDING ICONIC
STRUCTURES SUCH AS THE EMPIRE
STATE BUILDING AND THE NEW YORK
STOCK EXCHANGE. HE’S A WELL
KNOWN SPEAKER AND ADVOCATE FOR
SUSTAINABILITY, ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, JOBS, DISRUPTIVE
INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP.
PRIOR TO JOINING SERIOUS
MATERIALS KEVIN SERVED AS CEO
AND PRESIDENT OF PERFECT
COMMERCE, AND AN EARLIER
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF
PRODUCTS AND NETWORK SERVICES OF
GENERAL MAGIC, WHERE HE BUILT
THE WORLD’S LARGEST INTERNET
TELEPHONE OPERATION CENTER,
SERVING MILLIONS OF USERS,
INCLUDING WEB AND VOICE
SERVICES. SO KEVIN, THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US TODAY (APPLAUSE).
WELL, THE THEME FOR TODAY’S
PANEL DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON THE
INTERPLAY BETWEEN DESIGN AND
INNOVATION AND OF COURSE IN
HONOR OF THIS THEME I CHOSE TO
WEAR THE STANDARD UNIFORM OF ANY
GOOD DESIGNER, WHICH IS A BLACK
SUIT, SO IN HONOR OF THAT, AND I
ALSO WORE MY LEGO WATCH SO WE’VE
GOT BOTH THEMES GOING ON HERE AS
WELL. BUT IT IS A THEME THAT IS
RIGHT AND FITTING TO DO AT RIT.
WHY? BECAUSE RIT IS A TECHNICAL
INSTITUTE, OF COURSE, WHERE WE
HAVE GEAR HEADS AND COMPUTER
JOCKEYS, WE HAVE MAKERS AND
BUILDERS AND PEOPLE WHO UNMAKE
AND UNBUILD SO THAT THEY LEARN
HOW SYSTEMS WORK. BUT, UNLIKE
OUR OTHER INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, OVER THERE IN THE
BOSTON AREA, WE’VE GOT REAL
DESIGNERS AND ARTISTS IN OUR
ARSENAL. SO THE WORK WE DO TODAY
WILL ACTUALLY INFORM US OF HOW
WE CAN LEVERAGE OUR UNIQUE
ASSETS HERE AT RIT; HOW CAN WE
MIX, AS PRESIDENT DESTLER LIKES
TO SAY, THE GEEKS WITH THE
ARTISTS AND REALLY GENERATE A
UNIQUE BRAND AND NICHE FOR RIT?
I WILL OCCASIONALLY THROW OUT
PERHAPS SOME QUOTES FROM STEVE
JOBS. MAYBE HE’S A LITTLE OVER
QUOTED RIGHT NOW, MAYBE WE
SHOULD JUST LET HIM REST IN
PEACE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, HE
HAD SOME GOOD THINGS TO SAY. ONE
I LIKED IS, “DESIGN IS NOT JUST
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND FEELS
LIKE; DESIGN IS HOW IT WORKS.”
SO LET’S GET STARTED. OUR FIRST
TOPIC THAT I’M GOING TO THROW
OUT TO THE PANEL, AND BY THE
WAY, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A FEW
TOPICS TO KIND OF GET THE
DISCUSSION FLOWING, IT’S A
CONVERSATION AS YOU CAN KIND OF
SEE, NOT A REAL PANEL
DISCUSSION, BUT AFTER A FEW
TOPICS I UNDERSTAND THAT WE’RE
GOING TO HAVE SOME TEXT MESSAGES
AND OTHER QUESTIONS BROUGHT
FORWARD FROM OUR AUDIENCE SO
THAT YOU’LL BE ABLE TO GET
ENGAGED WITH OUR PANELISTS AS
WELL. SO BE THINKING OF WHAT YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR
DISTINGUISHED GUESTS HERE. SO
WE’RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP WITH
JUST KIND OF A BROAD HAND
GRENADE INTO THE AREA OF DESIGN
AND INNOVATION IN THE MOST
GENERAL SENSE. SO PANELISTS I’M
GOING TO TURN TO YOU AND I WANT
TO SEE WHO WANTS TO DIVE RIGHT
INTO THIS. THE QUESTION IS WHEN
YOU THINK OF DESIGN AND
INNOVATION, WHAT ARE THE FIRST
THINGS THAT COME TO YOUR MIND?
WHAT ARE YOUR PHILOSOPHIES OR
WHAT’S YOUR APPROACH TO DESIGN
AND INNOVATION? WHO WOULD LIKE
TO GO FIRST? MOORE: WHEN SOMEONE
TELLS ME SOMETHING CAN’T BE
DONE, I KNOW I’M ON THE RIGHT
TRACK. WHEN SOMEONE TELLS ME WE
CAN’T AFFORD TO DO IT, I
DEFINITELY KNOW I’M ON THE RIGHT
TRACK. AND I LEARNED THIS LESSON
HERE AT RIT IN STUDIO WORK. I
WASN’T HAPPY WITH AN ASSIGNMENT
THAT WE WERE GIVEN AND I ASKED
IF I COULD COME UP WITH MY OWN
ASSIGNMENT AND WHAT I CHOSE WAS
TO GO INTO THE INNER CITY AND
WORK IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT WAS
REALLY NOT DOING WELL
HAEFNER: WE’RE NOT
GETTING SOUND HERE. MOORE: SO WE
WENT INTO A SCHOOL THAT
DELIBERATELY NEEDED HELP AND BY
THAT POINT I HAD STRONG ARMED A
COUPLE OF MY FELLOW STUDENTS.
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER WHEN I WAS
HERE WE WERE THE FIRST
GRADUATING CLASS OF THE NEW
CAMPUS AND I THINK THERE WERE
SEVEN OF US IN OUR CLASS AND WE
HAD THREE PROFESSORS. IT WAS
WONDERFUL! (LAUGHTER) AND I
LEARNED EARLY ON, AND DEAN, I
DON’T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WILL
AGREE WITH THIS, IF YOU BAKE A
MAN COOKIES OR A CAKE OR
SOMETHING, THEY TYPICALLY WILL
SAY OK (LAUGHTER) SO I LEARNED
THAT WITH TOBY THOMPSON AND
CRAIG MCART, MY TWO DESIGN
PROFESSORS AND I WAS ALLOWED TO
GO INTO A PRETTY ROUGH
NEIGHBORHOOD AND WORK WITH VERY
BELEAGUERED TEACHERS WHO THOUGHT
WE HAD ALL FORGOTTEN ABOUT THEM
OR GIVEN UP ON THEM. AND WHAT WE
DID WAS TO DESIGN A PROPER
ENVIRONMENT FOR PRESCHOOLERS AND
KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS TO HAVE
THEIR CLASS WORK AND THEIR CLASS
TIME AND THE KIDS WORKED WITH
US. WE TOOK THE SHADES DOWN FROM
THE WINDOWS AND THE CHILDREN
PAINTED EVERYTHING THEY WANTED
ON THESE HUGE CANVASES AND WE
MADE ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT
HUNG FROM THE CEILING AND WE
FILLED THE SPACE WITH TACTILITY
AND EXPERIENCE AND IT DIDN’T
LOOK LIKE AN IMPOVERISHED PUBLIC
SCHOOL WHEN WE WERE FINISHED AND
IT WAS MY FIRST PIECE OF PRESS,
TOO. AND IT WASN’T UNTIL I MET
RAYMOND LOEWY THAT I FOUND OUT
HOW IMPORTANT PRESS IS TO
GETTING YOUR POINT ACROSS,
BECAUSE IT’S A BLESSING AND A
CURSE, THE PAPARAZZI ARE
EVERYWHERE, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE
A WAY TO COMMUNICATE AND SO
THERE’S A VERY LONG WINDED
ANSWER.
HAEFNER: DEAN?
KAMEN: CAN YOU REPEAT THE
QUESTION?
HAEFNER: THE QUESTION IS JUST
GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, AROUND DESIGN AND
INNOVATION. WHAT’S YOUR
PHILOSOPHY?
KAMEN: WELL I WOULD
VIOLENTLY AGREE WITH ONE
PRINCIPLE WHICH IS IF PEOPLE
TELL YOU IT CAN’T BE DONE OR
YOU’RE NUTS, THAT’S WHAT YOU
SHOULD WORK ON. IF YOU GO TO
PEOPLE WITH AN IDEA AND THEY
SAY, OK, DO IT, THE ONLY THING
YOU KNOW FOR SURE OTHER THAN
IT’S PROBABLY DOABLE, WHICH IF
YOU’RE A RISK ADVERSE PERSON
THAT’S A GOOD THING, BUT WHAT
YOU KNOW IS WHATEVER YOU’RE
TRYING TO DO EVEN IF YOU
SUCCEED, WILL BE INCREMENTALLY
BETTER THAN WHAT WE DO NOW.
NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT; THE
WORLD TYPICALLY MOVES AT A NICE,
STABLE PACE, GETTING
INCREMENTALLY BETTER AT
EVERYTHING. THERE’S ALWAYS
HICCUPS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT REAL INNOVATION HAPPENS AT
THE INTERSECTION OF A WHOLE
BUNCH OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE
TYPICALLY BEEN DEVELOPED FOR
SOMETHING ELSE AND SOMEBODY
SAYING, NOW WE CAN DO SOMETHING
WHICH ISN’T GOING TO BE
INCREMENTAL. WE’RE GOING TO TAKE
THE SAME OLD PROBLEM THE WORLD
HAS ADDRESSED IN THIS WAY OR
HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS AT
ALL, AND WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO ADDRESS IT AND SOLVE IT IN A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY. IF IT
ALL WORKS, AND PEOPLE ACCEPT
THAT NEW WAY, THAT’S WHAT AN
INNOVATION IS, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM AN INVENTION. LOTS OF
PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY AT RIT AND
OTHER INSTITUTIONS, ARE TAUGHT
HOW TO MAKE INVENTIONS. THERE’S
MILLIONS OF PATENTS OUT THERE.
THE FIRST PATENT I GOT STARTED
WITH A THREE MILLION SOMETHING.
THE PATENTS WE GOT RECENTLY,
THIS YEAR, 2012, ALL START WITH
AN EIGHT, EIGHT MILLION
SOMETHING. TRUST ME, I’M NOT
THAT OLD AND THERE HAVEN’T BEEN
FIVE MILLION INNOVATIONS SINCE I
STARTED PLAYING WITH TECHNOLOGY.
AND BY THE WAY, THAT’S FIVE
MILLION THAT ARE JUST PATENTED.
THERE CERTAINLY AREN’T ALL THESE
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF
INNOVATIONS. INVENTIONS ARE
CLEVER WAYS TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO
CREATE SOMETHING THAT WAS NON
OBVIOUS, REQUIRED BY THE PATENT
OF IT, IT’S NON OBVIOUS AND
NOBODY DID IT BEFORE. YOU CAN
INVENT A LOT OF THINGS LIKE
THAT. TO BECOME AN INNOVATION,
IT HAS TO HAVE STARTED WITH
BEING A BIG DEAL BECAUSE MOST
PEOPLE EITHER COULDN’T EVEN
CONCEIVE OF IT OR WOULDN’T
BELIEVE IT’S DOABLE AND THEN IT
HAS TO BE DONE. AND IT HAS TO BE
DONE SO WELL, THAT PEOPLE WILL
ACCEPT IT. AND THE RUB, YOU SAID
ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS IS
YOU’VE GOT TO HAVE PRESS, THAT
IS A GOOD THING TO LEARN, BUT
WITH OR WITHOUT PRESS THERE’S
SOMETHING I HAVE FOUND EVEN MORE
FUNDAMENTAL ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES
TO MAKE INNOVATION AND IT ISN’T
THAT YOU SIMPLY SUCCEEDED AT
DOING THIS THING THAT MOST
PEOPLE SAID COULDN’T BE DONE,
BECAUSE IN REALITY, MOST PEOPLE
AND ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETIES
ARE BUILT AROUND KEEPING THINGS
STABLE, AND THAT’S NOT BAD, IT’S
REALLY NOT BAD, BUT IT’S GOT AN
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE. BY
KEEPING THINGS STABLE SO BAD
STUFF DOESN’T HAPPEN, IT ALSO
MAKES IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR
GOOD STUFF TO HAPPEN EVEN AFTER
YOU PROVE IT’S DOABLE AND IT
WORKS. I KNOW TODAY IS ABOUT
INNOVATION AND PEOPLE ALWAYS
TALK ABOUT THE WORD INNOVATION
AS A VERY POSITIVE THING. BUT
THAT’S NOT WHAT SOCIETIES
TYPICALLY WANT. PEOPLE, AND I
THINK IT’S GENETIC, IT’S WHAT
KEEPS US ALIVE, WHAT KEEPS
THINGS STABLE, PEOPLE ARE VERY
AVERSE TO CHANGE OF ANY KIND,
EVEN WHEN THEY DON’T LIKE WHERE
THEY ARE, IT’S THE DEVIL THEY
KNOW. EVEN WHEN THE INVENTION
WORKED AND COULD BECOME
INNOVATION, IT DOESN’T UNLESS A
LOT OF EFFORT GOES INTO IT AND
AGAIN, I MEAN WE COULD TALK
ABOUT INNOVATION AS BEING THIS
GREAT THING BUT THE LAST THING
YOU’D WANT TO HEAR, YOU’RE GOING
IN FOR THAT STANDARD SURGERY;
THEY’VE DONE IT TEN THOUSAND
TIMES, IT’S AN EASY ONE! THE
LAST THING YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM
THAT SURGEON BEFORE THEY PUT YOU
OUT IS, I’VE GOT A GREAT NEW
IDEA! (LAUGHTER) YOU GET ON A
PLANE TODAY TO GO HOME, AND YOU
HEAR, THIS IS A NEW KIND OF
PLANE AND IT’S NEVER BEEN FLOWN
BEFORE. GET ON! (LAUGHTER) MOST
PEOPLE IN MOST SITUATIONS ARE
VERY RISK AVERSE, SO AFTER YOU
SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT MOST
PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN
RECOGNIZED AS A PROBLEM OR
WOULDN’T HAVE BELIEVED COULD BE
SOLVED, THE ENERGY IT TAKES TO
MAKE THAT INNOVATION ACTUALLY
PART OF SOCIETY, WHICH IS WHAT
INNOVATION IS, THE ENERGY IT
TAKES TO TURN THE INVENTION INTO
SOMETHING THAT MEETS THAT HIGH
BAR, WHICH HAPPENS RARELY;
THERE’S FINE MILLION INVENTIONS.
IF YOU ASK ME ABOUT INNOVATIONS
IN THE RECENT PAST CONSIDER THE
WHOLE HUMAN TIME SCALE, LET’S
SEE, THERE WAS FIRE, MOVEABLE
TYPE, THE TV CLICKER (LAUGHTER),
I MEAN THE NUMBER OF THINGS I
CALL INNOVATIONS IN MY LIFETIME
ARE PRETTY SMALL SO I GUESS I
WOULD AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT
WORK ON THE BIG PROBLEMS IN A
BIG, NEW, DIFFERENT WAY, BE
PREPARED TO FAIL, I’LL DEFINE
FAILURE AS YOU COULDN’T MAKE
YOUR DESIGN WORK. IF EVERY ONCE
IN A WHILE YOU PASS THAT
THRESHOLD AND IT WORKS, BE
PREPARED TO TAKE A LONG TIME, TO
BE VERY PATIENT TO GUIDE A
GENERATION TO ACCEPT IT. I HAVE
NOW COME TO BELIEVE NO MATTER
HOW OBVIOUS IT IS AFTER YOU’VE
MADE IT WORK, AFTER IT GOES FROM
INDEFENSIBLE TO INDISPENSIBLE
BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT WORKS, I’VE
COME TO BELIEVE IT STILL TAKES
BY NO COINCIDENCE ABOUT TWENTY
YEARS, ALL THE BUSINESS SCHOOLS
WILL TELL YOU THAT, IT TAKES
ABOUT TWENTY YEARS FOR
INNOVATION TO BE ACCEPTED AND
THEY PUT IT IN ALL THESE NEAT
TERMS LIKE BUSINESS PLANS AND
SPENDING AND I THINK THAT’S A
LOT OF GARBAGE. I THINK THE
REASON IT TAKES TWENTY YEARS IS
BECAUSE THAT’S ABOUT ONE HUMAN
GENERATION AND I THINK WE SHOULD
JUST DEFINE TECHNOLOGY AS
ANYTHING THAT WASN’T AROUND WHEN
YOU WERE A KID. TO MY
GRANDPARENTS, THE TELEPHONE WAS
TECHNOLOGY. TO MY PARENTS, MAYBE
TELEVISION. SOME PEOPLE IN THIS
ROOM IT'S THE COMPUTER, SOME
PEOPLE, YOUNGER PEOPLE, IT’S NOT
EVEN THE INTERNET ANYMORE. I
MEAN MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE UNDER
TWENTY PROBABLY SEE THE INTERNET
AND TOILETS THE SAME WAY:
THEY’RE PART OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY’RE HERE
WHERE WE NEED THEM, WE DON’T
REALLY WONDER ABOUT HOW THEY
WORK, WHERE DOES THE STUFF COME
FROM, WHERE DOES THE STUFF GO,
IT’S JUST THERE AND IT WORKS,
BUT MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY OLDER THAN THAT
ARE STILL AMAZED BY THIS STUFF
AND THEY’RE RELUCTANT TO
TRANSITION TO DEPEND ON IT. SO
IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THE
REASON IT TAKES TWENTY YEARS FOR
ANY INNOVATION TO HAPPEN IS IF
YOU GREW UP WITH IT, YOU’RE
COMFORTABLE WITH IT, YOU ACCEPT
IT. IF YOU’RE NOT, YOU DON’T.
THAT’S HOW HARD IT IS TO GET
DESIGN TO BECOME INNOVATION. SO
WORK HARD, WORK ON THE BIG
PROBLEMS AND THEN AFTER YOU
SOLVE IT WHEN IT SHOULD BE AN
OVERNIGHT SUCCESS, IT PROBABLY
WILL BE IF YOU’RE LUCKY IN
TWENTY YEARS, SO BE PATIENT.
HAEFNER: THANK YOU. KEVIN, YOU
HAVE A UNIQUE KIND OF
PERSPECTIVE ON INNOVATION AND
DESIGN. SHARE WITH US YOUR
THOUGHTS.
SURACE: WELL, FIRST OF
ALL, WE’LL TURN BACK ON THIS MIC
THAT WAS ON EARLIER IF THEY
HEAR ME UP THERE. BUT FIRST OF
ALL, I AGREE WITH DEAN AND
PATTY. I HAVE ALWAYS DEFINED
INNOVATION AT TWO LEVELS: THERE
WE GO. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?!
THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD HEAR ME
WITHOUT THE MIC, A MIC IS AN
INNOVATION! THERE’S INNOVATION
THEN THERE’S DISRUPTIVE
INNOVATION AND IT’S RARE WHEN
THERE’S DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION.
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IS SO
INNOVATIVE IT DISRUPTS THE
MARKET AND YOU CAN SAY IT
DISRUPTS AND ENTIRE SOCIETY, IS
A LOT OF WHAT DEAN WAS TALKING
ABOUT. YOU COULD ARGUE THE
TELEPHONE VIRTUALLY DISRUPTED
THE WAY A SOCIETY COMMUNICATED.
THAT’S A PRETTY BIG-
MOVABLE TYPE DISRUPTED THE WAY
WE COMMUNICATE. THOSE
WERE BIT DISRUPTIONS.
THERE’S OTHER DISRUPTIONS. I’M
GOING TO BRING IT A LITTLE FULL
CIRCLE TO STEVE JOBS BECAUSE
MOST DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION
HAPPENS SOMETIMES AT
UNIVERSITIES, OFTEN AT STARTUPS,
RARELY AT BIG COMPANIES, THAT’S
JUST THE WAY IT IS. AND THEN YOU
GO, WELL WHY IS THAT? AND WHEN
YOU GO IN AND YOU STUDY THAT AND
YOU FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS IS
THAT AT LARGER COMPANIES YOU
START TO FORM TEAMS AND GROUPS
AND THEY ALL GET TOGETHER AND
TALK ABOUT WHAT THEIR NEXT
PRODUCT WILL BE AND THEY THINK
AND THEY’RE CAREFUL AND WHAT
HAPPENS IS SOMETHING IN THE
HUMAN EXPERIENCE TELLS US THAT
WE DON’T WANT TO THINK SO FAR
OUT OF THE BOX THAT THE PERSON
NEXT TO US IS GOING TO LAUGH AT
US, IS GOING TO CAUSE SHAME, IS
GOING TO MAKE US LOOK STUPID, OR
WE’RE GOING TO TRY SOMETHING
THAT FAILS AND FAILS AND FAILS
IN FRONT OF THEM. SO THAT’S WHY
YOU SEE A LOT OF DISRUPTIVE
INNOVATION TAKES PLACE IN YOU
KNOW, AT A BAR ON A NAPKIN WITH
TWO GUYS AND THEY’RE DRINKING
AND THEY GO, OH MAYBE THIS IS A
GOOD IDEA! BECAUSE THEY WERE
ABLE TO THINK OUT OF THE BOX AND
NEITHER ONE WAS WORRIED ABOUT
LAUGHING AT EACH OTHER. SO WHEN
YOU GET IN A LARGE COMPANY AND
ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK YOU
HAVE TO DO, CERTAINLY IN THE
UNITED STATES AND IN THE WORLD,
IS LEARN THAT INNOVATION IS
TAKING RISK AND THAT TAKING
THOSE RISKS IS OKAY AND CAN BE
REWARDED. SO WE HAVE SOMEHOW
BUILT OUR CORPORATIONS ON THE
FACT THAT IF YOU SIT AROUND THAT
TABLE AND YOU THINK WAY OUTSIDE
THE BOX AND THE CORPORATION
ACTUALLY DOES THAT AND THE THING
FAILS, YOU’LL BE FIRED. WELL WHO
WANTS TO TAKE THAT RISK?
INSTEAD, WHY DON’T YOU JUST GO
DO SOMETHING SIMPLE? I OFTEN USE
THE EXAMPLE OF KLEENEX, KIMBERLY
CLARK CORPORATION, WHO I LOVE,
AND HOPEFULLY THERE’S NO ONE
HERE FROM KIMBERLY CLARK OR THE
KLEENEX CORPORATION OR WHATEVER,
BUT YOU CAN IMAGINE A TEAM ASKED
BY THE CEO AT THE KLEENEX
CORPORATION TO GO INVENT THE
NEXT NEW KLEENEX AND THINK WAY
OUTSIDE THE BOX AND THEY GET
AROUND A TABLE AND THEY THINK
ABOUT IT FOR MONTHS AND YEARS
AND THEY DO FOCUS GROUPS AND
THEY DO DESIGN COMPETITIONS,
THEY DO ALL THESE KINDS OF
THINGS AND WHEN ALL IS SAID AND
DONE, THREE YEARS LATER, AFTER
LOTS OF WORK, THEY TOOK THE BOX
OF KLEENEX THAT HAD WHITE
KLEENEX IN IT AND THEY COME OUT
WITH PINK KLEENEX. INTERESTING,
BUT PROBABLY NOT DISRUPTIVE. A
LITTLE INNOVATIVE, IT’S
INTERESTING, BUT IT’S NOT
DISRUPTIVE. NOW TO BE TRULY
DISRUPTIVE I’M GOING TO ASK YOU
TO THINK WAY OUTSIDE THE BOX.
NOW YOU MIGHT GET FIRED FOR
THIS, BUT IF YOU WERE AROUND AT
THAT TABLE I WOULD HOPE WHAT YOU
WOULD SAY INSTEAD IS, WHAT
BUSINESS ARE WE REALLY IN? WELL,
WE’RE IN THE KLEENEX BUSINESS.
NO, NO, NO, YOU’RE SAYING THAT
BECAUSE WE HAVE PLANTS THAT TAKE
LOGS AND TURN THEM INTO WOOD
PULP AND YOU KNOW, BOIL IT AND
MAKE KLEENEX AND ALL THAT STUFF,
BUT THAT’S NOT THE BUSINESS
WE’RE IN. PEOPLE ARE BUYING OUR
TISSUES TO CLEAN THEIR NOSE. SO
IN FACT, WE’RE IN THE BUSINESS
OF CLEANING ONE’S NOSE. NOW IF
YOU REALLY WANTED TO CLEAN ONE’S
NOSE, MAYBE INSTEAD TO THINK WAY
OUTSIDE THE BOX WE WOULD INVENT
THE ONE MONTH SNOT SUCKER AND IT
WOULD BE THIS HUGE THING AND
YOU’D PUT IT UP YOUR NOSE AND IT
WOULD CLEAN IT FOR THIRTY DAYS
ALL AT ONCE, RIGHT? (LAUGHTER)
NOW YOU WOULDN’T SELL AS MANY
KLEENEX, BUT YOU’D HAVE A CLEAN
NOSE. NOW DEAN’S PROBABLY GOING
TO GO OUT AND INVENT THAT
BECAUSE HE’S THINKING, THAT’S
REALLY NOT A BAD IDEA!
(LAUGHTER) THIS IS ALL
FACETIOUS, THE POINT OF THE
STORY IS THAT NOBODY’S GOING TO
GO INVENT THAT SILLY THING, THE
POINT OF THE STORY IS THAT IF
YOU REALLY WANTED TO THINK
OUTSIDE THE BOX, YOU’D HAVE TO
THINK AWAY FROM TISSUES AND
REALIZE WHAT VALUE YOU’RE TRYING
TO BRING TO YOUR CONSUMER AND
THE VALUE WASN’T THAT YOU’RE
BRINGING TISSUES OR PINK TISSUES
OR PURPLE TISSUES OR ANYTHING
ELSE, THE VALUE WAS YOU’RE
CLEANING THEIR NOSE. ARE THERE
OTHER WAYS WE CAN ACCOMPLISH
THAT FOR THEM THAT’S WAY OUTSIDE
THE BOX AND MAYBE DOESN’T EVEN
USE OUR PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE?
NOW IF YOU’RE THE CFO, AND I SEE
THE CFO OF RIT SITTING HERE,
THAT YOU DON’T WANT TO USE THE
PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE, HE’S
GOING, EXCUSE ME? WE STILL HAVE
TO PAY FOR THAT PLANT
INFRASTRUCTURE. SO ANOTHER
REASON YOU SEE CORPORATIONS AND
PEOPLE IN CORPORATIONS RISK
AVERSE. SO STARTUPS TEND TO BE
RISK PRONE AND YOU KNOW, NINETY
SOMETHING PERCENT OF THEM FAIL,
BUT YOU’RE WILLING TO TAKE THOSE
RISKS AND YOU DON’T CARE IF
YOU’RE LAUGHED AT. SO DISRUPTIVE
INNOVATION IS ALL ABOUT TAKING
HUGE RISKS, WILLING TO
PERSONALLY TAKE THOSE RISKS AND
THIS IS WHERE I’M GOING TO
CIRCLE RIGHT BACK AROUND TO
STEVE JOBS, BECAUSE IN STEVE
JOBS WE HAD THE UNIQUE
EXPERIENCE, UNIQUE EXPERIENCE,
OF A LARGE, LARGER AND NOW VERY
LARGE CORPORATION, ALMOST MAYBE
THE MOST VALUABLE CORPORATION ON
EARTH, BUT IT WASN’T TEN, TWELVE
YEARS AGO WHEN STEVE CAME BACK.
THIS WAS A COMPANY THAT WAS
VIRTUALLY BANKRUPT AND STEVE
CAME IN AND HE WAS FIRED THE
FIRST TIME FOR BEING TOO
DISRUPTIVE AND TOO INNOVATIVE SO
THEY BRING HIM BACK AND THE
BOARD IS DONE AND IT DOESN’T
MATTER AT THIS POINT, THE
THING’S GOING TO GO BELLY UP IN
A FEW MONTHS AND HE GOES, WELL
YEAH, WE’RE GOING TO FIX OUR
COMPUTER LINE BUT YOU KNOW, I’M
GOING TO COME OUT WITH A MUSIC
PLAYER. IT’S GOING TO BE THE
FIFTIETH MUSIC PLAYER ON THE
MARKET BUT IT WILL HAVE A BETTER
INTERFACE AND I KNOW PEOPLE ARE
GETTING THEIR MUSIC FOR FREE,
BUT I’M GOING TO CHARGE PEOPLE
FOR THEIR SONGS. NOW IF I’M ON
THAT BOARD, I’M GOING TO SAY
STEVE, I’M SORRY; YOU’RE GONE
AGAIN. YOU’VE LOST IT, YOU’RE
CRAZY. BUT IN FACT HE HAD A
VISION OF REINVENTING THE MUSIC
BUSINESS IN A WAY IT HADN’T BEEN
INVENTED BEFORE AND THE THOUGHT
AT NINETY NINE CENTS PEOPLE
WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY THE
TUNES KNOWING THAT THEY’RE NOT
FULL OF VIRUSES AND BUGS OR
LOOKING FOR THEM ALL OVER THE
WEB. BY THE WAY, THAT VISION WAS
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON; ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT ON IN A WAY HE DISRUPTED
THE MUSIC BUSINESS, WHICH WAS
GOING TO BE DISRUPTED ANYWAY BUT
HE DISRUPTED IT IN A REASONABLE
WAY AND IT STARTED THAT COMPANY
ON A CONSUMER PRODUCT CATEGORY
THAT THEN HE SAID, WELL I CAN
PUT A REAL OPERATING SYSTEM
AROUND THIS AND MAKE THE IPOD
TOUCH AND THEN I COULD TAKE THAT
AND WHY NOT BUILD A PHONE? TODAY
WE SIT HERE AND GO, AN IPHONE,
OF COURSE. I MEAN, COMPUTER
COMPANIES DIDN’T MAKE PHONES
WHEN THEY CAME OUT WITH THE
IPHONE. IT WAS A RIDICULOUS
CONCEPT THAT A COMPUTER COMPANY
WOULD BE IN THE PHONE BUSINESS
BUT HE SAW THE INTERSECTION OF
THOSE AND SAID LET’S JUST DO IT.
AND BY THEN HE HAD THE MANDATE
FROM THE BOARD THAT SAID LOOK,
WE DON’T UNDERSTAND YOU, WE
DON’T AGREE, BUT YOU’RE USUALLY
RIGHT, SO JUST GO DO IT. SO WE
HAD THE RARE GLIMPSE OF SOMEONE
WHO HAD A MANDATE AT THE HIGHEST
LEVEL TO RISK THE COMPANY AT
EACH STAGE AND WHEN HE CAME OUT
WITH THE IPAD AND HE BUILT THREE
MILLION OF THEM, HE COULD HAVE
RISKED THE ENTIRE COMPANY ON IT,
NOW THEY’VE SOLD 67 MILLION AS
OF THE END OF LAST QUARTER,
WHICH IS UNBELIEVABLE, ON THE
WAY TO 100 MILLION IPADS AND 300
MILLION IPHONES, THE NUMBERS ARE
STAGGERING. THE VISION WAS RIGHT
AND HE HAD THE POWER OF A LARGE
ENOUGH CORPORATION AND BRAND TO
ACTUALLY EXECUTE IT. AND IF ALL
OF OUR CORPORATIONS COULD DO
THAT, IT WOULD BE AN AMAZING
THING. IF KODAK COULD DO IT, IF
XEROX COULD DO IT, IF BAUSCH AND
LOMB COULD DO IT, I COULD GO
RIGHT DOWN THE LINE, RIGHT? BUT
IT’S VERY HARD TO DO THAT AT
LARGE CORPORATIONS. HE HAD THE
UNIQUE MANDATE TO DO IT AND WE
CAN ALL LEARN FROM THAT ABILITY
TO TAKE RISK AND THAT ABILITY OF
A BOARD TO ALLOW HIM TO TAKE THE
RISK.
HAEFNER: VERY NICE. I’M
GOING TO PLAY ON THIS A LITTLE
BIT BECAUSE IN ONE OF THE TOPICS
I WAS GOING TO INTRODUCE A
LITTLE LATER IT TALKS ABOUT
DESIGN DRIVEN INNOVATION, SO
HERE’S ANOTHER QUOTE FROM OUR
FRIEND STEVE. HE SAID, “IT’S
REALLY HARD TO DESIGN PRODUCTS
BY FOCUS GROUPS. A LOT OF TIMES
PEOPLE DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT
UNTIL YOU SHOW IT TO THEM.” SO
ROBERTO VERGANTI, A FAMOUS
DESIGNER, BUT ALSO AN AUTHOR OF
“DESIGN DRIVEN INNOVATION: HOW
TO COMPETE BY RADICALLY
INNOVATING THE MEANING OF
PRODUCTS” HAS A THESIS THAT THE
LITERATURE ON INNOVATION RIGHT
NOW HAS FOCUSED EITHER ON
RADICAL INNOVATION PUSHED BY
TECHNOLOGY OR INCREMENTAL
INNOVATION PULLED BY THE MARKET.
AND I THINK WE’VE ALREADY SEEN
SOME OF THOSE PRINCIPLES IN OUR
DISCUSSION AS WELL, BUT VERGANTI
INTRODUCES A THIRD STRATEGY AND
THAT’S A RADICAL SHIFT IN THE
PERSPECTIVE OF INTRODUCING A
BOLD NEW WAY OF COMPETING.
DESIGN DRIVEN INNOVATIONS DO NOT
COME FROM THE MARKET, BUT RATHER
THEY CREATE NEW MARKETS. THEY
DON’T PUSH NEW TECHNOLOGIES,
THEY PUSH NEW MEANINGS. SO IT’S
ABOUT HAVING A VISION AND TAKING
THAT VISION TO THE CUSTOMERS.
KEVIN ALREADY MENTIONED THE
APPLE IPOD BUT ANOTHER EXAMPLE
IS NINTENDO’S WII PRODUCT. THEY
CREATED A WHOLE NEW MARKET WITH
ITS MOTION SENSITIVE CONTROLLER.
THEY OVERTURNED OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT VIDEO
GAMES MEAN AND HOW WE LISTEN TO
MUSIC. SO WITH THAT AS A
FRAMEWORK AND CONTINUING ON SOME
OF THESE COMMENTS ALREADY, PATTY
WHAT ARE SOME THOUGHTS YOU MIGHT
HAVE GIVEN YOUR WORK AROUND THIS
NOTION OF CREATING A NEW MARKET
WITH A VISION AND HAVING DESIGN
DRIVE INNOVATION?
MOORE: THIS IS
YOUR FAULT. I’M GOING TO TELL A
KIMBERLY CLARK STORY. I GOT
CALLED IN IN 1980 TO A VERY
SECRET MEETING OUTSIDE OF
ATLANTA. I WAS NOT TOLD WHO THE
COMPANY WAS, I WAS NOT TOLD WHAT
WE WERE WORKING ON UNTIL WE WERE
BILLETED IN A VERY, VERY
DISCREET SETTING. I COULD NOT
SHOW YOU WHERE IT WAS. WE WERE
NOT BLINDFOLDED BUT IT WAS
ALMOST LIKE THAT. AND WHEN I GOT
THE BRIEF AND OPENED THE FOLDER
WHAT I SAW BEFORE ME WAS A
DIRECTIVE TO CREATE A WAY THAT
ADULTS WITH INCONTINENCE COULD
BE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS. I THINK
THAT WAS THE TERMINOLOGY. AND MY
REACTION WAS A LITTLE SOUTH
BUFFALO AND A LITTLE IRISH AND
MAYBE A LOT IRISH AND I THOUGHT,
SWEET JESUS, THESE PEOPLE ARE
OUT OF THEIR MINDS! SO YOU HAVE
TO REMEMBER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
THIS TWENTY YEAR THING IT’S VERY
TRUE, BUT IN THIS CASE DEALING
WITH ADULT INCONTINENCE IS A
TOPIC, A SUBJECT, AN ARENA THAT
IS STILL AS TENDER TODAY AS IT
WAS IN 1980 AND I THINK WE MIGHT
BE LOOKING AT A COUPLE OF
GENERATIONS BEFORE WE GET THIS
ONE RIGHT. BUT I REALIZED THAT
AS TWISTED AS THIS POSITIONING
WAS, WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING
EQUALLY TWISTED, SO THEY GAVE US
THE PRODUCT THAT WAS BEING USED
IN SKILLED NURSING CENTERS SO
PEOPLE WHO WERE ESSENTIALLY AT
THAT POINT IN THEIR LIVES WHERE
THEY NO LONGER AMBULATED, THEY
WEREN'T ABLE TO GET UP
AND TAKE A WALK IN A GARDEN,
THEY WEREN’T ABLE TO TOILET
THEMSELVES. ONE OF THE GREAT
INDIGNITIES OF AN ADULT LIFE AND
WE TOOK THOSE PRODUCTS AND WE
MADE ALL THE BOYS, ME BEING THE
ONLY BROAD, PUT THEM ON AND
LET’S FACE IT LADIES, WE HAVE A
LEG UP, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE WE
MENSTRUATE, SO YOU GUYS, THIS IS
REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE TERRAIN
BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T HAVE A
PRECURSOR, YOU DIDN’T HAVE A
PERIOD OF YOUR LIFE WHERE YOU
UNDERSTOOD COLLECTION OF BODILY
FLUIDS LIKE WOMEN DO. ALTHOUGH I
ALSO HAVE TO SAY I ALWAYS FELT
SOMEHOW DENIED SOME RITE OF
PASSAGE BECAUSE MY MOMMY NEVER
WALKED ON A BEACH WITH ME AND
EXPLAINED MENSTRUAL CARE AND I
THINK SHE THREW SOME TAMPONS AT
ME AND SAID, “YOU’RE A WOMAN!”
(LAUGHTER) SO I REALLY FELT
DEPRIVED. ALL OF THIS IS TALKING
ABOUT THE HUMAN FACTOR IN HOW
DESIGN MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
THEY HAD A PRODUCT THAT
COLLECTED URINE AND FECES, BUT
YOU DIDN’T WANT TO GO OUTSIDE.
YOU DIDN’T WANT YOUR FRIENDS TO
SEE YOU, YOU COULD NOT
PARTICIPATE IN LIFE AND LIVING.
AND SO IT HAD TO BE DESIGNED,
THE TECHNOLOGY WAS THERE, BUT
THERE WASN’T REALLY A PRODUCT. I
HAVE WORKED WITH EVERY COMPANY
THAT HAS MADE PRODUCTS FOR
URINARY AND FECAL COLLECTION AND
ALSO WITH NASA AND YOU WANT TO
TALK ABOUT A NOSE PROBLEM? A
MENSTRUATING ASTRONAUT IS A BIG
PROBLEM IN SPACE! SO THIS
IS REALLY WHERE DESIGN-
HAEFNER: I HADN’T REALLY THOUGHT
OF THAT UNTIL JUST NOW!
MOORE: I KNEW WE
WERE GOING TO BE BEST FRIENDS!
AND YOU CAN CALL ME; I’M AT THE
DOUBLE TREE TONIGHT SO YOU CAN
CALL ME AT THREE WHEN YOU WAKE
UP FROM A NIGHTMARE BECAUSE
YOU’RE HAVING SPACE DREAMS AND
YOU’RE INCONTINENT AND YOU’RE IN
A NURSING HOME. YOU CAN CALL ME;
IT’S OKAY. I’LL TALK YOU DOWN.
BUT HOPEFULLY I’LL RAISE YOUR
SPIRITS BECAUSE THE POINT IS
THAT THAT’S THE ROLE OF DESIGN.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE WONDROUS
AND BEAUTIFUL AND INNOVATIVE
THAN DESIGN MELDED WITH KNOWHOW.
DESIGN AND MATERIAL TECHNOLOGY,
DESIGN THAT BECOMES INNOVATION
BECAUSE OF THE HUMAN CONNECTION.
THAT I THINK ULTIMATELY IS
DESIGN.
HAEFNER: THANK YOU;
THANK YOU. KEVIN OR DEAN DO YOU
WANT TO THROW ANY OF YOUR IDEAS
AROUND DESIGN DRIVEN INNOVATION
IN PARTICULAR?
SURACE: IS DR. DESTLER
HERE YET? MOST PEOPLE
DON’T KNOW THAT SINCE HE CAME TO
RIT HE’S BEEN WEARING DEPENDS
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY
HAVEN’T REALLY WANTED TO TALK
ABOUT! (LAUGHTER) I’M ABSOLUTELY
KIDDING.
MOORE: BUT YOU DIDN’T
KNOW IT BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED
SO WELL (LAUGHTER)!
SURACE: THAT IS THE POINT!
HAEFNER: KEVIN, BY
THE WAY, IS AN RIT TRUSTEE, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS (LAUGHTER).
SURACE: IT WAS A JOKE, GUYS. I
KNOW IT’S ON VIDEO, THEY’LL
ERASE THAT PART. WELL LOOK, IT
IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT DESIGN
OF PRODUCT MEANS THE WORLD,
ESPECIALLY IN THE CONSUMER
REALM. IT’S REALLY INTERESTING,
I CAN GIVE A COUPLE OF
ANECDOTES, BUT SAMSUNG I THINK
IS A GREAT ANECDOTE. YOU KNOW,
MANY OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THE
SAMSUNG OF TWENTY OR TWENTY FIVE
YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, SOUTH
KOREAN COMPANY TRYING TO PUSH
SOME CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INTO
THIS COUNTRY AND YOU KNOW, THE
DESIGNS WERE TERRIBLE AND THEY
MADE NO SENSE AND NOBODY WANTED
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM AND
THEY WOULD LOOK AT APPLE AND
SONY AT THAT TIME WHO HAD MUCH
MORE BEAUTIFUL DESIGNS AND
FINALLY THEY HIRED A REAL DESIGN
TEAM, AND IN FACT CONTRACTED
WITH SOME OF THE GREAT DESIGN
TEAMS IN THE US AND STARTED
COMING OUT WITH REALLY
BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED PRODUCTS TO
RIVAL SOME OF THE BEST STUFF WE
HAD EVER DONE HERE. AND THEN
THEIR BRAND TOOK OFF. THEIR
BRAND EQUITY TOOK OFF, THE
PRODUCTS TOOK OFF. IT’S REALLY,
REALLY INTERESTING TODAY YOU
DON’T THINK OF SAMSUNG AS SOME
BACKWARDS, TERRIBLE LITTLE SOUTH
KOREAN COMPANY. IT’S REALLY A
MAJOR BRAND THAT YOU WOULD BE
PROUD TO HAVE A SAMSUNG TV IN
YOUR LIVING ROOM AND THAT WASN’T
THE CASE FIFTEEN OR TWENTY YEARS
AGO AND SO I DON’T THINK YOU’RE
GOING TO GET EVEN DISRUPTIVE
PRODUCTS ACCEPTED WITH POOR
DESIGN. YOU COULD ARGUE THAT
WE’VE HAD TABLET COMPUTERS IN A
VARIETY OF WAYS, LONG BEFORE THE
IPAD. IN FACT ONE OF THE FIRST
WAS FROM APPLE, IT WAS CALLED
THE NEWTON AND THERE WAS A
PRODUCT FROM GENERAL MAGIC AND A
HANDFUL OF THINGS FROM FUJITSU
AND OTHERS THAT USED THE
MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM FOR
TABLETS, FOR TWO DECADES. THIS
IS NOT NEW. BUT WHAT APPLE DID
AND WHAT STEVE DID AND THAT TEAM
DID WAS SAY WE’VE GOT TO RAISE
THE LEVEL OF DESIGN AND MAKE
THIS SO USABLE AND SO
INTERESTING AND THERE’S THING’S
WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ON IT!
WORD, EXCEL, THAT WON’T BE ON
IT. THAT’S NOT IN OUR TARGET
MARKET ANYWAY. AND THEY HIT THAT
OUT OF THE PARK AND TO A GREAT
EXTENT THEY WERE DISRUPTIVE
BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF
DESIGN, BECAUSE OF THE SENSE OF
DESIGN AND STYLE AND THAT WAS
PROBABLY TRUE OF THE IPOD TOO.
THERE WERE LOTS OF MP3 PLAYERS
OUT THERE. SO I THINK THERE’S
GREAT EVIDENCE OF WHERE DESIGN
HAS TO COME TOGETHER WITH THESE
INVENTIONS AND IF THEY DON’T,
LIKE YOU SAID, THERE’S LOTS OF
WAYS TO ABSORB BODILY FLUIDS,
BUT THERE’S ONLY A FEW THAT YOU
CAN WEAR AND WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE
AND THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY KEY.
HAEFNER: DEAN, ANYTHING TO ADD
TO THE BODILY FLUID CONVERSATION
OR DESIGN IN GENERAL FROM THIS
PERSPECTIVE OF PUSHING TO NEW
MARKETS?
KAMEN: ACTUALLY IN MY
DAY JOB WE DO DESIGN LOTS OF
THINGS AND MY DAY JOB IS
BUILDING MEDICAL DEVICES FOR
PEOPLE THAT HAVE SOME PRETTY
SERIOUS CONDITIONS. WE DELIVER
TWO HUNDRED MILLION CASSETTES
FOR PEOPLE TO DO THEIR OWN
DIALYSIS, A LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM,
IN THE DIGNITY OF THEIR OWN
BEDROOM INSTEAD OF IN A CENTER
SOMEWHERE WATCHING THEIR BLOOD
CIRCULATE IN SOME EXTRACORPOREAL
PATH, SITTING NEXT TO FOUR OTHER
PEOPLE LIKE AN ASSEMBLY LINE AND
IN MANY PLACES YOU’D HAVE TO
DRIVE TWO HOURS TO GET THERE AND
YOU’RE FEELING PRETTY CRUMMY
WHEN YOU DRIVE HOME. SO THE
FUNDAMENTAL TECHNOLOGY OF
DIALYSIS HAS BEEN AROUND TWENTY
OR THIRTY YEARS, BUT DESIGNING
SOMETHING THAT I PERSONALLY
BELIEVED WOULD MAKE A BIG
DIFFERENCE AGAIN IS NOT EASY TO
SELL TO PEOPLE. IN FACT, OUR
CLIENT, ONE OF THE BIGGEST
COMPANIES IN THE WORLD FOR
DEALING WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY
CAME TO US BECAUSE THEY WANTED A
BETTER VERSION OF THE MACHINE
THEY HAD AND WE HAD A LOT OF
GOOD ENGINEERS AND WE LOOKED AT
THEIR PROBLEM AND I SAID, COULD
WE MAKE YOUR MACHINE BETTER,
SMALLER, QUIETER, MORE RELIABLE,
CHEAPER? PROBABLY, BUT I THINK
THAT’S A PERVERSE INCENTIVE. ALL
THAT WOULD DO IS KEEP THESE
PLACES GOING. YOU’RE TRYING TO
SOLVE THE WRONG PROBLEM. YOU’VE
GOT TO GIVE THESE PEOPLE
SOMETHING THAT WILL PROLONG
THEIR LIFE, NOT PROLONG THEIR
DEATH. YOU’VE GOT TO CHANGE YOUR
EXPECTATION AND WE SAID WE’RE
GOING TO GO OUT AND BUILD A
MACHINE THAT YOU COULD SELF
ADMINISTER A LIFE SUPPORT
THERAPY AND WE OF COURSE, BACK
IN THE BEGINNING WERE TOLD
CATEGORICALLY BY ALL THE EXPERTS
WE WERE NUTS, WHICH IS WHY OF
COURSE WE DID IT. BUT I WOULD
JUST BE REDUNDANT IF I AGREE
WITH EVERYTHING WE HEARD HERE.
MOST OF THE PROJECTS WE DO ARE
LIKE THAT, LIKE THE IBOT, WHICH
YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH. FOR TWO
HUNDRED YEARS, PEOPLE HAVE
GOTTEN AROUND IN WHEELCHAIRS AND
THE INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS IN
WHEELCHAIRS ARE PRETTY PATHETIC.
YOU POINTED OUT THAT OLD SAYING
THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS VITAL,
LISTEN TO THE FOCUS GROUPS. I
DON’T THINK YOU NEED TO GO TO
STEVE JOBS TO REALIZE THAT IS
GOOD WHEN YOU MAKE INCREMENTAL
IMPROVEMENTS. YOU GO TO THE
FOCUS GROUP TODAY TO MAKE NEXT
YEAR’S CAR AND THAT’S A PRETTY
GOOD WAY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU
WANT, BECAUSE EVERYBODY NOW
BELIEVES CARS ALL HAVE ENGINES
THAT WORK, THEY DON’T EVEN OPEN
THE HOOD BEFORE THEY BUY THEM,
THEY DON’T KNOW HOW MANY
CYLINDERS THE ENGINES HAVE.
THIRTY YEARS AGO THAT WAS A BIG
DEAL. THEY KNOW EVERYTHING
WORKS! THE BIG DECISION BETWEEN
THIS CAR AND THAT CAR IS WHERE
ARE THE CUP HOLDERS? AND IF YOU
WANT TO KNOW THE RIGHT PLACE FOR
CUP HOLDERS, YOU DO FOCUS
GROUPS. BUT YOU’RE NOT MAKING
INNOVATIONS IN CARS THESE DAYS.
IN ANY PLACE WHERE THERE’S
INNOVATION I DON’T THINK YOU
HAVE TO GO TO THE RECENT
EXAMPLES. I MEAN OVER A HUNDRED
YEARS AGO HENRY FORD SAID, “I’M
NOT GOING TO GO TO FOCUS
GROUPS!” BECAUSE OVER A HUNDRED
YEARS AGO IF YOU ASKED PEOPLE
WHAT THEY WANT, THEY’D SAY A
FASTER HORSE! THAT’S WHAT THEY
HAD, THAT’S WHAT THEY WANTED TO
IMPROVE. I WOULD TAKE THE
EXTREME POSITION WHEN IT COMES
TO INNOVATION, THE LAST PEOPLE
YOU WANT IS THAT FOCUS GROUP
BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE AREN’T
INNOVATORS. IF THEY WERE THEY
WOULDN’T BE IN THE FOCUS GROUP,
THEY’D BE ON YOUR TEAM TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT TO OFFER PEOPLE
AND I’D SAY THE FOCUS GROUP, BY
DEFINITION, IF YOU DO IT WELL,
WILL GIVE YOU INSIGHTS AS TO HOW
TO MAKE THOSE INCREMENTAL
IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT WHAT
THEY’VE GOT IS A LITTLE BETTER.
CATEGORICALLY I WOULD AGREE WITH
BOTH OF YOU AND SAY THE LAST ONE
I WOULD TALK TO IF I’M TRYING TO
COME UP WITH AN INNOVATION IS A
CUSTOMER THAT’S SORT OF HAPPY
WITH THE GARBAGE THEY HAVE NOW.
THAT’S NOT THE STANDARD THAT AN
INNOVATOR IS GOING TO LIVE WITH.
I’VE ALREADY LEARNED, BY THE
WAY, TWO BIG THINGS ABOUT THE
PROCESS SO FAR SITTING HERE, BUT
I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND UNTIL A FEW
MINUTES AGO I THOUGHT THAT WOULD
BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE AFTER ALL,
ALL PEOPLE ARE THE SAME, SO
UNIVERSAL DESIGN SHOULD FIT
EVERYBODY. BUT I’VE NOW LEARNED,
FOR INSTANCE, HOW DIFFERENT
PEOPLE ARE. WOMEN GET THERE BY
BAKING COOKIES; GUYS GET THERE
BY SITTING IN A BAR (LAUGHTER)
AND I DON’T THINK WE’RE EVER
GOING TO PASS THAT SO ANYWAY,
I’LL SHUT UP.
HAEFNER: THAT’S TERRIFIC.
WELL I THINK WE’VE SEEN
SOME GREAT EXAMPLES OF OUR
PANELISTS ARTICULATING WHERE
DESIGN DRIVES THE INNOVATION TO
A LARGE EXTENT AND OF COURSE
THEIR EXPERIENCES IN THE
INDUSTRY AND WORKING IN THE
FIELDS ARE GOOD EXAMPLES OF THAT
FROM THE SEGWAY TO THE DESIGNS
TO HELP THE ELDERLY TO THE
INNOVATIVE EFFICIENCY WINDOWS IN
THERE, SO I THINK THAT’S A
TESTIMONY TO VERGANTI’S THESIS
ON THAT. LET’S TURN TO UNIVERSAL
DESIGN. OF COURSE RIT IS BOTH
PROUD AND BLESSED TO BE THE HOST
FOR OUR NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF. WE’RE
PROUD BECAUSE WE’RE ONE OF TWO
FEDERALLY FUNDED INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER LEARNING FOR THE DEAF AND
HARD OF HEARING COMMUNITY, BUT
WE’RE REALLY QUITE BLESSED
BECAUSE IT MAKES RIT A LIVING,
LEARNING LABORATORY FOR
INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE. IT IS
THROUGH THE EMBRACING OF OUR
DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
STUDENTS THAT OUR HEARING
STUDENTS HAVE DEMANDED MORE
SECTIONS OF AMERICAN SIGN
LANGUAGE SO THAT THEY CAN LEARN
TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR DEAF AND
HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS THAN WE
CAN POSSIBLY OFFER ENOUGH OF. WE
HAVE A COMMITMENT TO
ACCESSIBILITY AS WITNESSED BY
OUR INTERPRETERS STANDING IN
FRONT OF ME AND WE HAVE A
COMMITMENT TO CAPTURE OUR VIDEOS
THAT WE USE IN OUR CLASSROOMS SO
THAT ALL STUDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO
THE LEARNING MATERIALS THAT OUR
FACULTY PRESENT. SO UNIVERSAL
DESIGN DOES REFER TO THIS BROAD
SPECTRUM OF IDEAS MEANT TO
PRODUCE BUILDINGS AND PRODUCTS
AND ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE
INHERENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE
WITHOUT DISABILITIES AND PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES. SO WE KNOW
THAT OUR PANELISTS IN SOME FORM,
IN SOME WAY, HAVE DEALT WITH
THESE ISSUES. LET ME START AGAIN
WITH PATTY, WHO PROBABLY HAS A
UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.
PATTY, TELL US A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON
UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND WHAT MIGHT
BE IMPORTANT FOR OUR STUDENTS
WHO ARE BUDDING DESIGNERS
OR OUR STUDENTS IN THE
ENGINEERING FIELDS TO THINK
ABOUT FROM THAT ANGLE.
MOORE: WELL, THE
STARTING POINT FOR ME
WOULD BE TO TELL YOU NO ONE’S
DISABLED AND I MEAN THIS FROM
THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. IT’S
ALWAYS TROUBLED ME THAT WHEN I
BEGAN MY CAREER IN 1972, WHICH
WAS MY FIRST PAID PROJECT FOR
XEROX, I WAS A SOPHOMORE AT THE
TIME, WORKING UPSTAIRS, I
CHALLENGED SOMETHING XEROX HAD
IN THEIR BRIEF. THEY SAID THEY
WANTED TO DO SOMETHING FOR
DISABLED PEOPLE, AND I SAID,
WELL I DON’T THINK THAT’S EVEN
POSSIBLE BECAUSE I DON’T
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. AND
THEN THEY WANTED TO TALK TO THE
DEAN BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY
GIVING THEM A SMART STUDENT
(LAUGHTER). AND I’M STILL
FIGHTING THIS BATTLE OF WORDS. I
DON’T BELIEVE WE SHOULD CALL
ANYBODY DISABLED. I GET VERY
EMOTIONAL ABOUT IT BECAUSE I
DON’T THINK WE CAN SAY SOMEONE
IS DISABLED UNTIL WE CAN SEE
THEM INTERFACING WITH SOMETHING
WE’VE CREATED. SOMEONE WHO CAN’T
AMBULATE, SOMEONE WHO CAN’T MAKE
A MEAL, SOMEONE WHO CAN’T
TOILET, SOMEONE WHO CAN’T GET
FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.
THAT’S HOW WE STARTED TO DEFINE
LEVEL OF ABILITY. SO I WOULD
RATHER ARGUE THAT EVERYONE HAS
PERSONAL, UNIQUE, SNOWFLAKE
INDIVIDUALITY AND CAPACITY AND
ABILITY AND I CAN TELL YOU IN MY
CAREER I’VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO
DESIGN ANYTHING FOR A
DISABILITY. I DESIGN FOR
CAPACITY, I DESIGN FOR ABILITY
AND I THINK DEAN WE AGREE ON
THIS POINT. I’VE NEVER DESIGNED
ANYTHING FOR DISABILITY. IT
MAKES NO SENSE, AND YET, AND I
DON’T WANT TO SOUND TOO
DISPARAGING, BUT HERE IT GOES.
WHEN THE BRAND BOYS ARE AT THE
TABLE, THIS IS WHERE THEY’RE
LIKE, “WHAT THE HELL IS SHE
TALKING ABOUT?!” AND WE STILL
ARE NOWHERE NEAR WHERE WE NEED
TO BE. I SEE THE ATTITUDE
TOWARDS CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUAL
ABILITY AS PERPLEXING AND AS
SEPARATIST AS RACISM, RELIGIOUS
INTOLERANCE, GENDER BIAS, I SEE
IT AS ONE OF THE MOST HURTFUL
FORCES IN OUR LIVES TODAY. AND
RIGHT NOW WE’RE WORKING WITH
WOUNDED WARRIORS AND THE LUKE
ARM IS BEING FEATURED IN A
SPECIAL ISSUE OF INNOVATION
MAGAZINE THAT I’M GUEST EDITING
THIS SUMMER. SO I KNOW DEAN’S
PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
WE DON’T SEE SOMEONE WHO’S
DAMAGED AND DISABLED. WE SEE
SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO ENHANCE
THEIR ABILITY LEVEL AND THAT’S
THE STARTING POINT FOR ME ON ANY
DESIGN. I’M PASSIONATE ABOUT
THIS, I WILL NEVER USE THE WORD,
I WILL NEVER HELP A CLIENT USE
THE WORD. I’D RATHER FOCUS ON
WHAT IS THE POSITIVE ASPECT OF
AN INDIVIDUAL’S LIFE, NOT WHAT
IS SUPPOSEDLY WRONG WITH THEM,
IT JUST DOESN’T TRANSLATE
FOR ME.
HAEFNER: THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
INSPIRING WORDS. GENTLEMEN?
KAMEN: TO ONCE AGAIN TO AGREE,
BUT TO GENERALIZE, THAT THE
WORDS SORT OF MATTER, BUT AGAIN
TO GENERALIZE THAT THE PUBLIC,
THE NON INNOVATORS THAT NEED TO
BE SHOWN SOMETHING SO THAT THEY
KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, ARE THE
ONES THAT CONTROL THE WORDS AND
EACH TIME THEY ATTEMPT TO FIX IT
I THINK THEY DON’T GET TO THE
HEART OF IT; THEY DON’T CHANGE
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE WORD
WHICH HAS THE SAME FLAW IN THE
LOGIC, NAMELY THEY’RE GOING
AFTER WHAT’S WRONG NOT WHAT’S
RIGHT, AND I THINK TO PROVE THAT
I’D SAY TO ALL OF YOU THAT
THEY’RE ALWAYS TRYING WITH THESE
INCREMENTAL CHANGES. WHEN I WAS
A KID, SOMEBODY WAS CRIPPLED AND
AFTER A WHILE THAT BECAME SUCH A
HORRIBLE WORD THAT NOBODY’D USE
THAT, SO WE WENT TO PEOPLE WERE
HANDICAPPED. WE WERE PROUD OF
THAT WORD! IT WAS ON EVERY SIGN
AND EVERY BUILDING AND THERE WAS
HANDICAP ACCESS. BUT AFTER A
GENERATION OF THAT, THAT WORD
CAME TO HAVE AS MUCH TAINT TO IT
AS CRIPPLED. SO WE WENT TO
DISABLED, AND THE PEOPLE THAT
SAID THAT NOBODY’S CRIPPLED SAID
THAT THEY WERE HANDICAPPED, BUT
AFTER A GENERATION, THEY’D LOOK
AT YOU AND SAY, “THEY’RE NOT
HANDICAPPED! THEY’RE DISABLED!”
AND NOW WE’VE GONE ABOUT ANOTHER
TWENTY YEARS AND THE WORD
DISABLED CARRIES THE SAME
NEGATIVE. WELL WHY SHOULDN’T IT?
BECAUSE ALL THREE OF THOSE WORDS
YOU’RE TRANSLATING INTO THE SAME
THING; THAT PERSON COULDN’T DO
SOMETHING. SO I KIND OF
INTERNALLY CHUCKLE HOW PEOPLE
THAT DON’T HAVE SOLUTIONS ALWAYS
HAVE BETTER WORDS AND
EUPHEMISMS. I DON’T REALLY GET
INTO THAT STUFF. I NEVER REALLY
DID. AS A KID I USED TO LISTEN
TO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE BIG
PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATES: IS THE
GLASS HALF EMPTY OR IS THE GLASS
HALF FULL? I REMEMBER AS A KID
SAYING TO SOMEBODY, SINCE WE ALL
KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD
HALF, IF IT’S REALLY AT THAT
POINT, YOUR QUESTION IS INANE,
IRRELEVANT, PATHETIC, AND
STUPID, BUT WHAT I'D
RATHER WORRY ABOUT IS THE
WATER IN THAT GLASS DRINKABLE,
IS IT SAFE? IF IT’S NOT, HOW DO
WE MAKE IT THAT WAY? DOES
EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET HAVE
ACCESS TO CLEAN WATER, AND IF
NOT, WHY NOT AND HOW DO WE FIX
IT? NOW THOSE ARE INTERESTING
QUESTIONS, BUT NOT FOR THE
PEOPLE THAT PLAY WITH
EUPHEMISMS. AND WE’RE NOT GOING
TO GET PAST THE PROBLEMS BY IN
TWENTY YEARS GETTING RID OF
CRIPPLED, HANDICAPPED, DISABLED,
WE’RE GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE
IBOTS, WE’RE GOING TO GIVE
PEOPLE PROSTHETIC LIMBS THAT
AREN’T A HOOK ON THE END OF A
STICK. WE’RE GOING TO USE
TECHNOLOGY TO EMPOWER PEOPLE IN
WAYS THAT MAKE THEM SMILE AND WE
DON’T NEED A LABEL FOR THAT,
WHICH IS THIS GENERATIONS
VERSION OF BEING CONDESCENDING
TO PEOPLE THAT WERE
UNCOMFORTABLE DEALING WITH AND
BY BEING UNIMAGINATIVE ABOUT HOW
TO DEAL WITH REAL PROBLEMS BY
GIVING THEM CUTE NAMES AND
THROWING THEM INTO DARK CORNERS.
I’VE SPENT MOST OF MY LIFE
TRYING TO MAKE THINGS LIKE IBOTS
TO HELP PEOPLE THAT CAN’T WALK
UP A FLIGHT OF STAIRS GET TO
WHERE THEY WANT TO GO! NOW WE’RE
WORKING WITH SOME OF THE MOST
INCREDIBLY BRAVE PEOPLE I’VE
EVER SEEN. WHEN WE WENT TO ONE
OF THE FIRST VISITS WHERE WE
TOOK ONE OF OUR LUKE ARMS, I
WARNED MY BUNCH OF ENGINEERS, I
HAD CONTROL ENGINEERS, SYSTEMS
ENGINEERS, THE GUYS MAKING THE
SENSORS. I SAID LOOK, WE’RE
GOING TO A MILITARY HOSPITAL.
WALKING DOWN THIS HALLWAY YOU’RE
GOING TO THINK YOU WENT INTO A
PLACE THAT’S A JUNKYARD FOR BODY
PARTS. IED’S HAVE REALLY BAD
EFFECTS ON PEOPLE. SOME OF THESE
YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN HERE
RECENTLY, THEY MAY STILL HAVE
OPEN LESIONS, THEY’RE GOING TO
BE ANGRY, FRUSTRATED DEPRESSED.
YOU HAVE TO HELP PERK THEM UP;
SHOW THEM THAT THERE’S HOPE
HERE! I WAS SO WRONG IT WAS
UNBELIEVABLE. BECAUSE WE WENT IN
THERE AND THESE AREN’T
OCTOGENARIANS OR OLDER PEOPLE
THAT WE’VE ALL COME TO
UNDERSTAND START TO HAVE MORE
LIMITED CAPABILITIES AND WHEN
YOU SEE THEM IN A HOSPITAL IT’S
KIND OF A NATURAL PROGRESSION.
SOME OF THESE WERE SPECIAL
FORCES KIDS; THEIR NECK WAS
BIGGER THAN MY BODY. THEY WERE
POWERFUL PEOPLE, BUT SOME OF
THEM WERE MISSING NOT ONE ARM
BUT BILATERAL, BOTH ARMS. OR NOT
ONE LEG, BUT BOTH LEGS. BUT
WE’RE SITTING THERE TALKING TO
THEM, THEY WERE SO ENERGIZED,
THEY WERE SO POSITIVE, THEY WERE
SO EXCITED BY WHAT WE COULD GIVE
BACK, THEY KEPT THANKING US FOR
BEING THERE AND I FELT SO GUILTY
BEING THANKED BY THESE PEOPLE
THAT HAD ALREADY LITERALLY GIVEN
UP THEIR ARMS. I DIDN’T KNOW
WHAT TO SAY, BUT WE LEFT THERE
AND I SAID TO EVERY ONE OF MY
ENGINEERS, WELL, I THOUGHT WE
WENT THERE AMONG OTHER THINGS TO
GIVE THESE PEOPLE SOME HOPE AND
INCENTIVE AND CONFIDENCE AND I
THINK THEY INSPIRED US. WE’VE
GOT TO GO BACK AND WORK HARDER.
THE LANGUAGE IS NOT THE WAY TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM. IT’S FOCUSING
ON USING TECHNOLOGIES TO DESIGN
THINGS SO THAT THE WORLD AND
PARTICULARLY SOME PEOPLE MORE
THAN OTHERS CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF TECHNOLOGIES TO HAVE BETTER
LIVES AND THE ONLY PLACE THAT
I’D SAY THE LANGUAGE IS
PROBLEMATIC IS BECAUSE WHEN MOST
PEOPLE HEAR THOSE WORDS THEY
ACTUALLY INTERNALIZE THEM AND
THEY LOWER THEIR EXPECTATIONS TO
THAT INCREMENTALISM AND THAT’S
WHY I THINK IT TOOK A HUNDRED
YEARS FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS
TO BE IN FACT PUTTING THOSE
HANDICAPPED ACCESS SIGNS ON
BUILDING EVERYBODY FELT GOOD
ABOUT IT WHEN THEY PASSED THE
ADA, PROBABLY PEOPLE IN THIS
ROOM FELT GOOD ABOUT IT. WHEN I
WAS HAVING TROUBLE GETTING
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE
IBOT, THE STAIR CLIMBING
WHEELCHAIR, THIS DEVICE THAT
COULD ALLOW YOU TO STAND UP AND
BALANCE AND LOOK PEOPLE IN THE
EYE. IT WAS FROM THAT
TECHNOLOGY, THAT ALMOST THE FUN
PROJECT, THE SEQWAY, EVOLVED.
WHEN I WAS HAVING TROUBLE AND WE
WENT TO WASHINGTON, WE WERE
PRETTY MUCH TOLD, PEOPLE DON’T
NEED THIS! WE HAVE ADA.
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WERE
DRINKING THEIR KOOL AID
BELIEVING ADA SOLVES THE
PROBLEM. I WAS SO FRUSTRATED I
DID SOMETHING PROBABLY NOT VERY
POLITICALLY CORRECT. I TOOK ONE
OF THOSE PICTURES THAT HAS THE
STANDARD SYMBOL OF THE WHEEL
WITH THE CHAIR, YOU SEE IT ON
BUILDINGS, HANDICAP ACCESS. I
TOOK THAT PICTURE AND WE PHOTO
SHOPPED IT WITH AN ARROW
POINTING ONE WAY INTO THAT VERY
FAMOUS PICTURE, I THINK IT WAS
BROWN VERSUS THE BOARD OR
WHATEVER IT WAS, FROM THE
1950’S, A BLACK AND WHITE
PICTURE FROM A HISTORY TEXTBOOK
THAT SHOWED A WATER FOUNTAIN AND
AN ARROW ON THE SIGN ABOVE IT,
COLORED PEOPLE, AND THEY SAID IT
WAS SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, THERE
WAS A SIGN IN A PUBLIC BUILDING.
I THINK THAT WOULD HORRIFY MOST
PEOPLE HERE. NO, NO! SEE THEY
HAVE WATER, WE HAVE WATER!
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? SEE THERE’S
A SIGN THAT SAID WATER FOUNTAIN.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, AND I
WOULD URGE YOU TO ALL GO LOOK AT
THAT, IT’S A PRETTY FAMOUS
PICTURE. I TOOK THAT PICTURE,
HANDICAPPED, I PUT
IT ON THERE AND
WENT BACK TO WASHINGTON, I WENT
BACK TO OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
AND I SAID YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY
CAN’T WALK IN THE FRONT DOOR OF
A RESTAURANT WITH ME EVEN IF
THEY ACTUALLY ARE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THESE GREAT RULES THAT
YOU’RE SO PROUD OF. I WALK IN
THE FRONT DOOR OF THE
RESTAURANT, I LEAVE THEM, THEY
GO AROUND THE BACK, MAYBE PAST
THE DUMPSTER, PAST THE GARBAGE,
UP A FLIGHT OF STAIRS WITH SOME
HELP FROM SOMEBODY AND THEY GET
PUT INTO A CORNER PROBABLY NEXT
TO THE KITCHEN OR THE RESTROOMS
WHERE THEY HAVE MET THE LEGAL
REQUIREMENT THAT SOMEBODY THAT
COULDN’T WALK IN THE FRONT DOOR
COULD SIT HERE. I DON’T KNOW WHO
MADE THAT STANDARD. IT WAS ALL
WELL INTENTIONED. BUT THIRTY
YEARS AGO PEOPLE WERE PROUD OF
THOSE HANDICAP SIGNS. THEY PUT
THEM UP BECAUSE, LOOK, SEE?
WE’RE DOING IT! NOW THAT’S LONG
GONE, IT’S DISABLED BUT I WOULD
BET IN THE LIFETIME OF ALL THE
STUDENTS HERE THE WORD DISABLED
WILL BE AS OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE
AS THE WORD CRIPPLED. BUT JUST
SOLVING THE LANGUAGE PROBLEM
ISN’T GOING TO SOLVE IT. WE’VE
GOT TO CHANGE PEOPLE’S
EXPECTATION ABOUT WHAT’S
POSSIBLE AND WE’VE GOT TO CHANGE
OUR EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WHAT WE
SHOULD ALL BE SPENDING OUR TIME
AND ENERGY DOING. IT’S EASY TO
GET DISTRACTED TO GO AND DO ALL
SORTS OF THINGS THAT ARE FUN OR
EVEN PROFITABLE THAT ARE AT BEST
MEANINGLESS AND IN THE END HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE
BAD. AND GOOD DESIGN STARTS WITH
SAYING IF WE SUCCEED WITH THIS,
WILL WE BE PROUD OF IT, NOT JUST
THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCE, BUT
DOWN THE ROAD WILL WE LOOK BACK
AT THIS AND BE PROUD OF IT, OR
WILL WE LOOK BACK AT THIS AND
WONDER WHY WE WASTED OUR TIME OR
WHAT WERE WE THINKING WHEN WE
IMPLEMENTED THAT?
HAEFNER: THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. THOUGHT
PROVOKING. BEFORE WE GO ON, I
WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE HERE
IN THE AUDIENCE AND THEN THOSE
OUT IN ETHER SPACE THAT THEY CAN
WRITE THEIR QUESTIONS AND
FORWARD THEM TO KELLY RITTER,
WHO IS HERE IN THE CORNER. THEY
CAN TWEET THEIR QUESTIONS TO
HASH MARK AT ASK IHF. ASK IHF.
SO HASH MARK ASK IHF. SO WE HAVE
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS COMING IN,
BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT I WANT
TO TURN TO KEVIN WAY DOWN HERE
AND I’M OBLIGED TO THROW IN THIS
LAST TOPIC HERE BECAUSE THIS IS
RIT, WE HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT
DRIVES AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE, OR
AN ELECTRIC HYBRID VEHICLE, WHO
RIDES HIS BIKE INTO CAMPUS, WHO
HAS BROUGHT SUSTAINABILITY TO
RIT IN A BIG WAY. OF COURSE WE
HAVE OUR ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM
WITH A FOCUS ON SUSTAINABILITY
AS WELL AND INSIDER INSTITUTE OF
SUSTAINABILITY. SO WE’RE GOING
TO MOVE TO SUSTAINABILITY AND
DESIGN AND INNOVATION. THE
GLOBAL WARMING TREND HAS
PROVIDED A NEED FOR INNOVATIVE
DESIGN FROM A SUSTAINABILITY
PERSPECTIVE. SO KEVIN I’M GOING
TO START WITH YOU. CAN
INNOVATION AND CAN DESIGN IN
PARTICULAR SAVE THE WORLD?
SURACE: UH, A MORE THAN ONE WORD
ANSWER? (LAUGHTER) WELL,
THEORETICALLY YES. I THINK THE
CHALLENGE FOR MANY OF US, AND
I’M NOT SURE DEAN FEELS THE SAME
WAY BUT I’M GOING TO BET HE
DOES. AS SORT OF AN INVENTOR AND
SOMEWHAT OF A SCIENTIST
BACKGROUND, YOU START TO ALSO
LOOK AT THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND
WHAT HUMANS HAVE TRADITIONALLY
DONE AND I CAN BRING UP ACCOUNT
AFTER ACCOUNT AFTER ACCOUNT.
EASTER ISLAND IS PROBABLY THE
EASIEST ONE TO UNDERSTAND. THE
POPULATION GOT BIGGER, CONTINUED
TO USE ALL THE RESOURCES,
EVENTUALLY THEY FOUGHT OVER THE
LAST TREE, CHOPPED IT DOWN AND
KILLED THEMSELVES. BECAUSE THERE
WAS NO MORE FOOD AND THERE WAS
NO MORE SHADE AND THEY COULDN’T
RAISE ANIMALS AND THE WHOLE
THING DIED. THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE
TEACHES US THAT IN ALMOST EVERY
CASE IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN
HISTORY THE SELFISHNESS OF
HUMANS, EITHER AS A COUNTRY, AS
A TOWN, AS A VILLAGE, AS A
TRIBE, WHATEVER IT IS,
ULTIMATELY WINS OUT OVER WHAT IS
BEST FOR THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF
HUMANITY. I HOPE THAT DOESN’T
HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT THAT’S
TRADITIONALLY WHAT’S HAPPENED.
AND SO I STRUGGLE WITH WILL
HUMANITY ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF
GLOBAL WARMING OR WILL WE INDEED
FIGHT OVER PULLING OUT THE LAST
DROP OF OIL OUT OF THE GROUND? I
MEAN FIGHT, TOOTH AND NAIL,
NUCLEAR BOMBS, EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND IT’S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE
WON’T BE FIGHTING SOMEWHERE OVER
THAT LAST DROP OF OIL. BY THE
WAY, I BELIEVE OIL IS COMPLETELY
A WONDERFUL THING TO HAVE TO
MAKE PLASTICS AND OTHER THINGS,
BECAUSE WE PROBABLY WON’T GET
ANYMORE. WE’RE GOING TO BURN IT
AND PUT IT ALL INTO THE
ATMOSPHERE WHERE IT’S POISON.
IT’S NOT POISON WHEN IT’S IN THE
GROUND, IT’S POISON WHEN IT’S IN
THE ATMOSPHERE AND WE BREATHE IT
AND MORE THAN THAT WHEN IT
CREATES A GREENHOUSE GAS
SITUATION FOR US. AND THE RECENT
EXPERIENCE WITH FRACKING, FOR
THOSE WHO KNOW WHAT THAT IS, I
THINK YOU KNOW SOME OF THIS IN
UPSTATE NEW YORK WITH NATURAL
GAS, IT’S DRIVEN NATURAL GAS
PRICES TO ARGUABLY ENERGY PRICES
THE LOWEST THEY’VE BEEN ALMOST
IN HISTORY UNDER TWO BUCKS PER
MILLION BTU. THESE ARE
HISTORICALLY INCREDIBLY LOW
COSTS. AND NATURAL GAS IS A
FOSSIL FUEL, DON’T KID YOURSELF.
IT’S ABOUT HALF THE CO2 IN AN
ELECTRIC POWER PLANT THAN COAL
IS, BUT YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT 99%
LESS AND NOW THERE’S A HUGE RUN
TO NATURAL GAS AND A HUGE RUN TO
BURN YOU KNOW, GAS FIRED PLANTS
AND TO EXPORT GAS NOW. AND SO
WHAT DAWNS ON ME IS THAT
ECONOMIC TRUMPS ALL AND UNLESS
WE CAN MAKE THE ECONOMICS
ABSOLUTELY WORK, ABSOLUTELY
WORK. AN EXAMPLE. THIS ENTIRE
CAMPUS COULD THEORETICALLY RUN
OFF OF SOLAR, THE ENTIRE CAMPUS.
IT WOULD NOT BE ECONOMICALLY
VIABLE TO DO SO IN ROCHESTER,
NEW YORK AND IN FACT THE AMOUNT
OF BATTERY STORAGE YOU’D NEED
AND EVERYTHING ELSE, IT WOULD BE
VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, EVEN WITH
WHATEVER INCENTIVES, WHAT FEW
INCENTIVES THERE ARE IN NEW YORK
STATE. IT DOESN’T MEAN SOLAR
WON’T GET THERE SOMEDAY AND
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,
BUT RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW GRID
PARITY, A SIMPLE CONCEPT: GRID
PARITY IS WHEN YOU CAN PUT SOLAR
IN AND IT’S THE SAME PRICE AS
WHAT YOU WERE BUYING FROM THE
GRID. OKAY, GREAT, YOU CAN DO
THAT IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE FOR A
FACILITY LIKE THIS YOU’D BE
PAYING THIRTY FIVE CENTS A
KILOWATT HOUR DURING THE DAY. SO
WITH SOME INCENTIVES, ABSOLUTELY
YOU COULD PUT IN SOLAR ALL DAY.
NOW LET’S SAY I’M A UTILITY THAT
GENERATES MOST OF MY POWER, I’M
A UTILITY NOW, NOT A USER, THAT
GENERATES MOST OF MY POWER FROM
OLD COAL PLANTS. IT COSTS ME
THREE CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR TO
GENERATE THAT POWER, THREE,
THREE AND A HALF CENTS OR
SO. AT THREE AND A HALF CENTS,
SOLAR IS NOWHERE NEAR GIVING ME
GRID PARITY, FOR ME, THE
GENERATOR OF ELECTRICITY. SO
WE’VE GOT A LONG WAY TO GO AND
ECONOMICS TRUMPS ALL AND
UNFORTUNATELY, HUMANS RUN
TOWARDS THE CHEAPEST THING. AND
SO, CAN DESIGN SAVE US? SURE.
CAN TECHNOLOGY SAVE US?
ABSOLUTELY. DO WE HAVE ALL THE
TECHNOLOGIES WE ALREADY NEED TO
BE YOU KNOW, FOSSIL FREE IN TEN
YEARS? THEORETICALLY. DO WE HAVE
THE ECONOMIC WILLPOWER TO DO IT?
NO, IN FACT WE DON’T EVEN HAVE
THE ECONOMIC MIGHT TO DO IT, LET
ALONE THE WILLPOWER TO DO IT,
ECONOMIC OR OTHERWISE. AND SO IT
REALLY GETS DOWN TO AN ECONOMIC
PROBLEM AND IT’S VERY HARD FOR
THE TECHNOLOGIES WE HAVE TO BOTH
SAVE ENERGY AND TO CREATE
ENERGY. TO COMPETE IN A WORLD
WITH OTHER THINGS THAT HAD A
HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS TO COME
DOWN THE COST CURVE, AND THEY’VE
GOT TO COME DOWN THE COST CURVE
IN TEN OR TWENTY YEARS. IT’S
JUST REALLY HARD TO GET ALL THE
WAY DOWN THERE. YOU CAN PULL A
BARREL OF OIL REGARDLESS OF WHAT
IT COSTS US TO BUY, PULL A
BARREL OF OIL OUT OF THE GROUND
IN MUCH OF THE WORLD FOR ABOUT
FIVE BUCKS A BARREL. SO THE
PRICE OF IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE COST OF PULLING IT OUT
OF THE GROUND. AND SO IF YOU’RE
AN ENERGY PRODUCER AND YOU’RE
GETTING YOUR ENERGY RAW AT FIVE
DOLLARS A BARREL, HARD TO
COMPETE WITH; HARD TO COMPETE
WITH. WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS
WORLDWIDE POLICY THAT DRIVES
THIS TO HAPPEN. THE SIMPLEST,
OBVIOUSLY IS ON A WORLDWIDE
BASIS, A CARBON TAX THAT SLOWLY
INCREASES EVERY YEAR AND YOU
KNOW WHERE IT’S GOING TO GO OVER
THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS, AND
ECONOMICS TRUMPS ALL AND IT WILL
ALL WORK FOR EVERYBODY. EVERY
COMPANY, EVERY UNIVERSITY, EVERY
POWER PRODUCER, EVERY ONE USING
POWER WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE
IT MORE EFFICIENTLY AND WE’LL
FIGURE OUT HOW TO GENERATE
CLEANLY, BECAUSE THERE’S JUST NO
CHOICE, NO CHOICE, BECAUSE YOU
KNOW WHAT’S COMING AND IT’S
GETTING WORSE EVERY YEAR. BUT
WITHOUT THAT ECONOMIC
IMPERATIVE, HUMANS HAVE
UNFORTUNATELY PROVEN THAT THEY
RUN THE CHEAPEST THING AND THE
CHEAPEST FUEL AND THE CHEAPEST
EVERYTHING AND SO IT’S
WORRISOME. BUT DEAN, YOU MAY
HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON
IT, BUT I WORRY ABOUT IT. SO
I’LL LEAVE YOU WITH THAT AND
HAND IT OVER TO MY GOOD FRIEND.
KAMEN: IT WON’T SHOCK YOU, I
DON’T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT,
BUT I WOULD ADD THAT IT ISN’T
JUST ECONOMICS THAT WE RUN TO
WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE SIMPLEST OR
THE FASTEST OR THE CHEAPEST
SOLUTION AND TYPICALLY GET IT
WRONG. AGAIN, I THINK MOST
PEOPLE AREN’T THAT SOPHISTICATED
IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
EVERYTHING THEY DO AND
FREQUENTLY MANAGE TO MAKE
DECISIONS THAT AREN’T IN THE
LONG RUN IN THEIR OWN
ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST AND
THE BEST SOLUTION TO THAT IS
GETTING PEOPLE REALLY EDUCATED,
HENCE UNIVERSITIES. IF EVERYBODY
IN THE WORLD WAS A GRADUATE OF A
UNIVERSITY AND LEARNED A LITTLE
BIT OF ANALYTIC THINKING AND
COULD PROJECT OUT THE
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WE ALL DO,
WE WOULD DO A LOT OF THINGS
DIFFERENTLY INSTEAD OF BEING AS
SELF DESTRUCTIVE, NOT JUST BY
WARS, BUT BY LOTS OF THINGS WE
DO. BUT I WOULD ADD TO GIVE ALL
OF YOU A HEADACHE, IT’S NOT JUST
THAT YOU CAN PULL OIL OUT OF THE
GROUND SO CHEAPLY THAT IT’S HARD
TO IMAGINE THESE OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURES BECOMING REAL
ANYTIME SOON BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN
MANIPULATE AS THEY WILL THE
MARKETPLACE. AMERICANS , OR
SOPHISTICATED TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE
HAVE A BAD HABIT, IT CAME FROM A
COUPLE OF HUNDRED YEARS OF
DOMINATING THE WORLD OF
INNOVATION AND BEING THE CULTURE
AND LITERALLY THE PLACE THAT THE
WORLD ADMIRED AND ASPIRED TO BE
LIKE, AND AT LEAST UNTIL THIS
GENERATION WE’VE BEEN PRETTY
GOOD AT DRINKING OUR OWN KOOL
AID AND WE THINK THOSE OF US
THAT I’LL MAYBE WITH A LITTLE
BIT OF DISPARAGEMENT CALL THE
TREE HUGGERS, THE NAÏVE SIDE TO
THINK THAT JUST IF WE PUT ENOUGH
PAINT ON OURSELVES WE’LL FIX THE
WORLD’S PROBLEMS. A LOT OF
RELIGIOUS ETHNIC BACKGROUND
CAUSES, I’VE GOT A JEWISH
MOTHER. YOU’VE GOT TO FEEL
GUILTY ABOUT EVERYTHING. BUT TO
PUT PERSPECTIVE ON HOW, LET’S
SAY, BIG THIS PROBLEM IS, I’LL
GIVE YOU TWO PIECES OF DATA
WHICH AREN’T EVEN WHAT THE PRICE
OF A BARREL OF OIL IS BUT WHY WE
HAVE TO THINK MUCH MORE GLOBALLY
ABOUT DESIGN TO SOLVE JUST THE
ENERGY PROBLEM. HERE’S TWO
PIECES OF DATA FOR YOU. AND I’M
PICKING THEM CAREFULLY TO MAKE A
POINT; I DIDN’T INCLUDE ALL
CLASS EIGHT TRUCKS. THOSE GREAT
BIG TRUCKS THAT USE A LOT OF
FUEL AND A LOT OF HORSEPOWER AND
THEY TYPICALLY RUN 16 OR 18 OR
20 HOURS A DAY. THE DATA IS
PASSENGER CARS IN NORTH AMERICA,
WHICH YOU MIGHT THINK IS MOST
OF, IT MIGHT BE MOST OF THE
VEHICLES AND I’LL BE THE FIRST
TO ADMIT, IT’S NOWHERE NEAR MOST
OF THE CO2 GENERATIONS, BUT
PASSENGER CARS IN NORTH AMERICA
MAKE GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE
FORM OF CO2. COWS PRODUCE MANURE
THAT MAKE GREENHOUSE GASES,
METHANE. FOR EACH GRAM OF
METHANE YOU PRODUCE, YOU HAVE 21
TIMES, NOT 21%, 21 TIMES MORE
NEGATIVE IMPACT IN TERMS OF
GREENHOUSE GAS THAN YOU DO WITH
CO2. BY THE WAY, THE METHANE,
CH4, EVENTUALLY DEGRADES, GOES
INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, LIGHTENING,
WHATEVER, TURNS CH4 INTO CO2 AND
H2O. IT BECOMES CO2 ANYWAY, BUT
BEFORE IT DOES THAT IT SPENDS A
LITTLE TIME WITH 21 TIMES THE
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON GLOBAL
WARMING. NOW, IF YOU ADDED UP
THE EFFECT OF ALL THE CO2
PRODUCED BY ALL THE PASSENGER
CAR TRAFFIC IN NORTH AMERICA,
YOU’D GET A NUMBER, YOU’D GET A
NUMBER. IT’S ABOUT 2% OF THE
GREENHOUSE GAS PRODUCED AND IT’S
A COUPLE OF YEARS OLD DATA; IT’S
AROUND 2%. I’M SURE THERE’S SOME
SMART PERSON THAT’S GOING TO
DECIDE NO, IT’S 1.6 OR 3.0. IT
ISN’T 82%, IT ISN’T NEARLY AS,
IT’S 2%. PEOPLE COULD SCOFF AT
THAT, BUT IF TOMORROW YOU COULD
LOWER BY 2% THAT WOULD BE A LOT.
SO IMAGINE US AMERICANS, WE WANT
TO LEAD THE WORLD AND WE FEEL
RESPONSIBLE AND WE’VE CONSUMED
SO MUCH OF ITS ENERGY FOR SO
LONG, WE WANT TO TAKE THE LEAD
SO WE’RE GOING TO SAY WE’RE
GOING TO REDUCE BY 2% ALL
GREENHOUSE GASES. OH, I KNOW HOW
TO DO THAT! MAYBE WE GET THE
PRESIDENT OR SOMEBODY TO COME
OUT AND SAY LISTEN, EVERYBODY IN
AMERICA, TO SHOW OUR LEADERSHIP
AND REAL CONCERN FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT, WE WANT EVERYBODY
THAT DRIVES A PASSENGER CAR TO
THROW THEIR KEYS AWAY AND NEVER
DRIVE AGAIN. MAYBE, WE’VE GOT A
POPULAR PRESIDENT, MAYBE HE
COULD PULL THAT OFF AND WE’LL
ALL DO THAT; I DON’T KNOW. I
DON’T THINK HE’D BE VERY
POPULAR. I DOUBT IT WOULD WORK.
BUT IF YOU COULD DO THAT, IT
WOULD BE 2%. IT TURNS OUT, AND
THE REASON I PICKED THE OTHER
NUMBER, IS IF YOU WENT TO ALL
THE DEVELOPING WORLD AND YOU
LOOKED AT ALL THE COWS MAKING
ALL THAT METHANE AND COULD GO
OUT AND COLLECT THAT METHANE,
AND INSTEAD OF LETTING IT GO
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, IT’S FUEL.
YOU COULD, ON A LOCAL BASIS,
COLLECT IT AND BURN IT TO
QUICKLY TURN IT INTO ELECTRICITY
IN SMALL PLANTS AND THEN CO2.
YOU WOULD HAVE
ABOUT THE SAME EFFECT,
REDUCING GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GASES
BY ABOUT 2%. SO INSTEAD OF
SAYING TO EVERYBODY IN THIS
RICH, HIGHLY TECHNICAL COUNTRY
WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO FEEL
GOOD ABOUT OURSELVES, GO DRIVE A
SMALLER CAR, WE COULD SAY THAT
THE ONLY REAL IMPACT IS THAT
YOU’LL FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF.
BUT REMEMBER, WE HAVE ABOUT 300
MILLION PEOPLE. THERE’S LET’S
SAY 7.3 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE
PLANET, SO 300 MILLION IS THE
POINT THREE, THE UNITED STATES,
OUR ENTIRE POPULATION IS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE DECIMAL POINT.
WE ARE IN THE ROUNDING ERA AND
WE COULD BE SWATTING AT THESE
FLIES WITH OUR MORE EFFICIENT
CARS, WE COULD BE SWATTING AT
THE FLIES, BUT WE’RE GOING TO
GET TRAMPLED BY THE ELEPHANTS
BECAUSE THOSE SEVEN BILLION
PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT
HIGHER QUALITY OF LIFE, A LITTLE
BIT BETTER STANDARD OF LIVING
OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS AND WHAT
IF THEY HAVE THE OUTRAGEOUS GOAL
OF GOING FROM LIVING WITH AN
AVERAGE INCOME OF A DOLLAR A DAY
TO TWO DOLLARS A DAY? WE ALL
KNOW WHAT THE EXTRA DOLLAR A DAY
FOR THOSE FEW BILLIONS PEOPLE IS
GOING TO BE SPENT ON? WATER AND
ENERGY. IF WE HAVE THE REST OF
THE WORLD FOLLOW OUR PATTERN OF
MAKING ENERGY THE WAY THAT WE
DO, IF YOU ALL GAVE UP YOUR
CARS, IT WOULD BE IN THE
INCIDENTAL ROUNDING ERAS. IF
INSTEAD WE AS A HIGHLY DEVELOPED
COUNTRY SAID LET’S MAKE
APPLIANCE SIZED THINGS THAT WE
CAN PUT OUT AROUND THE WORLD,
CREATING A WHOLE INDUSTRY FOR US
TO MAKE THESE THINGS, AND AROUND
THE WORLD IT WOULD PRODUCE
ELECTRICITY AT THE VILLAGE LEVEL
FOR EVERYBODY THAT’S NEVER USED
ELECTRICITY, WHICH IS A FEW
BILLION PEOPLE. BUT IN THE
PROCESS, BESIDES CREATING AN
INDUSTRY AND BESIDES CREATING
ALLIES AND FRIENDS AND EDUCATING
PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY’LL HAVE
ELECTRICITY TO RUN COMPUTERS AND
PHONES, LED LIGHTS, YOU CAN
THINK OF THESE LITTLE BOXES AS
ENVIRONMENTAL VACUUM CLEANERS
THAT ARE SUCKING OUT THE
GREENHOUSE GASES AND TURNING
THEM INTO A MUCH BETTER FORM.
BUT THAT’S A DESIGN ISSUE. WE’VE
GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT
TO DO, WE’VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A
WAY TO MAKE IT A WIN WIN FOR
EVERYBODY AND THEN IMPLEMENT IT.
AS YOU SAY, PEOPLE ALWAYS DO
WHAT THEY THINK IS IN THEIR BEST
ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE SHORT
RUN. BUT I WOULD BET IF IT WERE
PROPERLY DESIGNED AND WE GAVE
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THE CHOICE,
YOU CAN ALL GIVE UP DRIVING YOUR
CARS TO ACHIEVE A 2% REDUCTION
AND MAYBE THE WORLD WILL FOLLOW,
OR WE CAN BUILD A WHOLE NEW
INDUSTRY OF SUPPLYING SMALL
DISTRIBUTIVE POWER PLANTS TO THE
REST OF THE WORLD SO THAT
INSTEAD OF OUR 19TH CENTURY
MODEL OF BIG PLANTS THAT MAKE A
GIGAWATT OF WHICH 600 MEGAWATTS
IS KILLING FISH IN THE RIVER,
AND 400 MEGAWATTS IS GOING OUT
ON THE TRANSMISSION LINES.
INSTEAD, MAKE A MILLION
APPLIANCES A MONTH UNTIL
EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD HAS A WAY
TO MAKE ENERGY THAT’S
SUSTAINABLE, COST EFFECTIVE,
IMPROVES THE ENVIRONMENT,
GIVES THEM OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE AND
OH, BY THE WAY, YOU CAN STILL
DRIVE A CAR.
SURACE: DEAN, I’VE
GOT IT! DEPENDS FOR COWS!
(LAUGHTER) RIGHT, HUH? HOOK ‘EM
RIGHT UP?
KAMEN: SO HE’S JOKING?
I BUILT TWO OF THESE MACHINES, I
PUT THEM IN TWO SEPARATE
VILLAGES IN BANGLADESH AND FOR
SIX MONTHS WE RAN THESE TWO
ELECTRIC GENERATION SYSTEMS AND
ELECTRIFIED TWO LITTLE VILLAGES;
THEY WERE SMALL, 20, 30 FAMILY
VILLAGE, AND FOR SIX MONTHS THEY
HAD ELECTRICITY THAT THEY NEVER
HAD BEFORE AND FOR SIX MONTHS
THE ONLY FUEL THAT WENT INTO MY
LITTLE BOXES WAS COW DUNG AND
FOR SIX MONTHS THEY RAN. THERE
WAS NO OUTAGE. CON EDISON CAN’T
SAY THAT, AND IT WORKED AND WE
PROVED THE TECHNOLOGY, NOW WE’VE
GOT TO IMPLEMENT THE DESIGN OF
THE WORLD.
HAEFNER: THANK YOU. I
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET TO SOME
OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE
AUDIENCE. SO I’M GOING TO JUMP
RIGHT INTO THEM. HERE IS ONE OF
THEM. MAYBE WITH THIS ONE CAN BE
A QUICK RESPONSE. THE TERM
INNOVATION IS OVERUSED TODAY;
CAN EACH SPEAKER SUGGEST A
SYNONYM FOR THE WORD INNOVATION?
SURACE: DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION.
HAEFNER: OKAY.
SURACE: IT’S NOT
EXACTLY A SYNONYM, BUT.
MOORE: AND AGAIN
I’M SAYING THIS
SERIOUSLY. I WOULD SAY TO A
CLIENT WE’RE GOING TO MAKE YOU A
LOT OF MONEY. IT RESONATES,
I'M SORRY.
KAMEN: WOW.
HAEFNER: OKAY, ANOTHER
INDIVIDUAL HAS ASKED
ABOUT TAKING RISKS AND
FAILURES. SO THEY REALLY WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW WHAT ARE YOUR
FAVORITE FAILURES? WHAT'S YOUR
FAVORITE FAILURE?
SURACE: OH, WELL, WAS
IT A TECHNOLOGY FAILURE OR NOT,
IS THE QUESTION. MOST OF THE
TIME YOU EVENTUALLY GET THE
TECHNOLOGY TO WORK, BUT THEN THE
MARKET ISN’T READY FOR IT. I
MADE A PRODUCT BACK IN THE EARLY
90’S THAT COULD SURF THE WEB
WIRELESSLY FROM YOUR COMPUTER IN
1992. UNFORTUNATELY THERE WAS NO
WEB TO SURF, SO WE SORT OF
MISSED THAT POINT. ALL YOU COULD
GET TO WAS A BBS, WHICH MOST OF
YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY
WERE, SOME OF YOU DO, BULLETIN
BOARD SYSTEMS AND STUFF LIKE
THAT. IT WAS CALLED AN AIR
COMMUNICATOR. I WOULD BE AN
AIRPORT AND GETTING MY WEATHER
FORECAST FOR BOSTON AND PEOPLE
WOULD COME OVER AND SAY, HOW DO
YOU DO THAT? THERE’S AN ANTENNAE
HOOKED UP TO YOUR NOTEBOOK. AND
I WOULD SAY, YEAH, WE MAKE THIS
DEVICE CALLED AN AIR
COMMUNICATOR. WE WERE TEN YEARS
TOO EARLY AND OFTEN YOU CAN BE
WAY TOO EARLY OR WAY TOO LATE
WITH A SPECTACULAR TECHNOLOGY
AND IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER.
HAEFNER: A GOOD EXAMPLE.
MOORE: THIS ONE’S
PRETTY CURRENT. IT’S
A LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE DESIGN WE
DID AND I JUST FOUND OUT LAST
WEEK, ACTUALLY MAYBE IT’S NOT A
MISTAKE AFTER ALL, THERE’S A
COMPANY IN GERMANY THAT MIGHT
MAKE IT, BUT IT WAS A BIG
FAILURE FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS,
IT BOTHERED ME BECAUSE I KNOW
I’M RIGHT (LAUGHTER).
KAMEN: I HAVE WAY,
WAY TOO MANY FAILURES TO MAKE IT
SHORT, BUT I’LL JUST SAY THE WAY
I DEAL WITH THAT BECAUSE I AM
SELF DELUSIONAL, YOU HAVE TO BE
IF YOU WANT TO GET UP IN THE
MORNING AND TRY TO DO THINGS
THAT EVERYBODY’S TELLING YOU ARE
NUTS. SO MY DELUSION IS, NO,
THAT PROJECT DIDN’T FAIL. I’M
SURE IT’S GOING TO BE AN
OVERNIGHT SUCCESS IN ABOUT
TWENTY YEARS. AND WHEN WE HAVE
TROUBLE MAKING SOMETHING SUCCEED
BECAUSE WE EITHER DECIDE WE’RE
TOO EARLY OR TOO LATE, OR THE
TECHNOLOGY CAN’T REALLY DELIVER
WHAT WE WANT, WE DIDN’T FAIL, WE
JUST PUT IT ASIDE, WORK ON
SOMETHING ELSE AND WE’RE GOING
TO GET BACK TO IT WHEN IT’S THE
RIGHT TIME AND THE TECHNOLOGY’S
THERE. AND EVERYBODY HAS TO FIND
WAYS TO PROTECT YOUR EGO SO
INSTEAD OF JUST LOOKING IN THE
MIRROR AND SAYING, YEAH, YOU ARE
ACTUALLY AS DUMB AS EVERYBODY
SAID, WE JUST KEEP WORKING AT
IT, WE PUT IT ASIDE. THE ONLY
TIME WE ADMIT FAILURE IS IF WE
REALIZE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE HAS
ACTUALLY COME UP WITH A BETTER
DESIGN THAT SOLVES THIS PROBLEM
IN A WAY THAT WE NEVER THOUGHT
OF. IT’S NO LONGER A PROBLEM SO
WE STOP, THAT’S A FAILURE. BUT
MOST OF THE PROBLEMS WE WORK ON
ARE SO BIG, EVEN IF WE DIDN’T
SUCCEED YET, WE DON’T CONSIDER
IT A FAILURE, IT’S JUST A WORK
IN PROCESS AND WE’LL ONE DAY GET
THERE. I DIDN’T GO TO THE
BUSINESS SCHOOL, I DON’T HAVE
ALL THEIR WORDS, I DON’T HAVE
THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOW TO DO IT,
I THINK I’M JUST A DESCENDENT OF
A COCKROACH. YOU KEEP STEPPING
ON US BUT WE WILL NOT DIE! WE’LL
COME BACK.
HAEFNER: EXCELLENT,
EXCELLENT. ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL
WAS INTERESTED IN CROWD SOURCED
INNOVATION, REPLACING SINGULAR
INVENTORS AND INNOVATORS IN THE
FUTURE DUE TO SOCIAL MEDIA AND
TECHNOLOGY; THE IDEA THAT A
GROUP OF US ARE SMARTER THAN
JUST ONE OF US AT A TIME. ANYONE
HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT CROWD
SOURCE INNOVATION AS THE NEW
WAVE?
SURACE: IT’S A NEW FIELD,
I WOULD SAY IN IT’S VERY, VERY
INFANCY. PEOPLE ARE TRYING IT.
THERE’S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A GOLD
MINE THAT EVERYBODY SAID YOU
WON’T FIND GOLD IN THAT MINE AND
THEY WENT, JUST A FEW YEARS AGO
AND CROWD SOURCED THE FINDING OF
THE GOLD AND IN FACT THEY DID
FIND THE GOLD DOING THAT, USING
SOME SOFTWARE THAT LOTS AND LOTS
OF PEOPLE LOOKED AND DUG AND
WATCHED THEIR EYES AND DID ALL
THESE THINGS AND IT TURNS OUT
THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM THAT A
MILLION PEOPLE COULD SOLVE, BUT
ONE PERSON COULDN’T EASILY. I
DON’T THINK ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE
GOT SHARES IN THE COMPANY AND
THE COMPANY DID VERY WELL, SO
YOU HAVE TO DECIDE HOW THIS
CROWD SOURCING THING WORKS, BUT
BOY, IT’S A VERY, VERY UNIQUE
PERSPECTIVE ON HOW WE CAN
INNOVATE AND IT’S NEVER BEEN
AVAILABLE TO ANY KIND OF
INNOVATOR REALLY IN THE PAST
UNTIL THE TOOLS HAVE RECENTLY
BECOME AVAILABLE OVER THE LAST
FEW YEARS. SO I THINK IT’S GOING
TO BE EITHER A HUGE,
UNBELIEVABLE THING THAT HAPPENS
OR IT’S GOING TO BE A COMPLETE
DISASTER BECAUSE MAYBE YOU CAN’T
CROWD SOURCE INNOVATION, NUMBER
ONE, THE SECOND THING IS THERE’S
THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ISSUES. AND THOSE
CAN’T EASILY BE DEALT WITH
WHEN YOU’VE GOT A MILLION PEOPLE
TINKERING WITH SOMETHING. SO YOU
GET THINGS WHEN IT’S OPEN
SOURCED, YOU CAN ARGUE THAT IT’S
IN A WAY CROWD SOURCED
INNOVATION, BUT THOSE ARE TRULY
OPEN SOURCE AND JUST BECAUSE YOU
ADDED SOMETHING TO IT YOU DON’T
GET TO CLAIM SOME OWNERSHIP OF
IT. IT’S ALL OPEN. AND THE BEST
INNOVATIONS, BECAUSE THEY COST
MONEY AND TAKE TIME AND TAKE
REALLY SMART PEOPLE TO BE
INVOLVED AND TAKE HIM TO HIRE A
BUNCH OF PEOPLE, YOU HAVE TO
GIVE SOME MONEY BACK SOMEHOW AND
SO YOU SORT OF GET INTO THESE
TWO ISSUES. IT’LL BE INTERESTING
TO SEE HOW THEY’RE SOLVED.
MOORE: I THINK IT IS THE NEW
ECONOMY FOR A LOT OF PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW RYAN
EDER’S WONDERFUL EQUIPMENT FOR
PEOPLE WITH PARAPLEGIA BEING
ABLE TO GO TO A GYM AND LIFT
WEIGHTS. A STUDENT PROJECT,
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI WON
EVERY INDUSTRIAL DESIGN AWARD
POSSIBLE BEFORE HE GRADUATED AND
WE TRIED FOR FIVE YEARS TO GET
MONEY TO HELP HIM MAKE THIS
DREAM COME TRUE. WELL IT WAS
ONLY WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY AND
SENDING OUT A LOT OF TWITS AND
TWEETS AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT
HE FINALLY NOW HAS THE MONEY. HE
ALSO NOW OWNS A COMPANY THAT HAS
A LOT OF OWNERS. AND SO IT’S
GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE
HOW DO WE REALLY MAINTAIN
QUALITY AND HOW DO WE DRIVE GOOD
DESIGN WHEN YOU’RE ANSWERING TO
SO MANY COOKS AND THIS IS THE
PIECE OF IT THAT I’M WATCHING
WITH A LOT OF INTEREST BECAUSE I
DO THINK THESE NEW COLLABORATIVE
AND CONSORTIUMS ARE THE ONLY WAY
WE’RE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THE
BUDGETS THAT WE REQUIRE FOR
SUBJECT AREAS AND MATTERS THAT
PEOPLE JUST DON’T FIND SEXY
ENOUGH TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.
HAEFNER: DEAN, ANY COMMENTS?
KAMEN: I THINK CROWD SOURCE
STUFF ON THE INTERNET IS ONE OF
THE MANY AREAS THAT I’M NOT
COMPETENT TO HAVE AN INTELLIGENT
OPINION.
HAEFNER: FAIR ENOUGH.
THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS ARE
QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO SPECIFIC
PANELISTS. SO WE HAVE THREE OF
THEM FOR OUR THREE PANELISTS
HERE. SO PATTY, HERE’S A
QUESTION THAT SOMEONE IN THE
AUDIENCE, ACTUALLY A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS. THEY WRITE, DID YOU
WRITE A BOOK ABOUT YOUR THREE
YEAR STUDY OF BEING AN
OCTOGENARIAN? WHAT WERE A FEW OF
THE INSIGHTS YOU ACQUIRED THAT
HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR
LIFE AND WHAT ABOUT BECOMING
EIGHTY DO YOU NOW DREAD?
MOORE: YES, THERE’S
A BOOK CALLED,
“DISGUISED: A TRUE STORY”. WHAT
WAS THE SECOND ONE?
HAEFNER: WHAT ARE A FEW
OF THE INSIGHTS YOU
ACQUIRED THAT HAVE MADE A
DIFFERENCE?
MOORE: YOU WILL HAVE
MORE DATES WHEN YOU HIT EIGHTY
THAN WHEN YOU’RE 26 (LAUGHTER).
THERE’S NO CEILING ON
DEBAUCHERY. (LAUGHTER) I KNEW
GOING IN, SO I CAN’T REALLY
CLAIM I LEARNED IT, BUT IT WAS
REINFORCED THAT THERE’S NOTHING
TO BE AFRAID OF AND WE LIVE IN
SUCH A WACKY CULTURE WHERE WE’LL
NIP IT AND TUCK IT AND LIPOSUCK
IT AND DO ANYTHING BUT ENJOY
GRACEFUL AGING AND AGING WELL. I
FIND IT VERY HITLARIAN THAT NOT
JUST WOMEN BUT NOW MEN ARE
CUTTING UP THEIR BODIES INTO
SOMEONE ELSE’S IMAGE OF
ACCEPTABILITY SO THAT FACET OF
THE AMA JUST LOVES ME. THE THIRD
ONE?
HAEFNER: THE THIRD ONE WAS
WHAT ABOUT BECOMING EIGHTY DO
YOU MOORE: WELL I’M ALL FOR IT.
I’M 60 THIS YEAR, SO I’M REALLY
LOOKING FORWARD TO EIGHTY.
HERE’S HOW I THINK WE HELP THE
ECONOMY. WE NEED TO START REALLY
START CELEBRATING OUR BIRTHDAYS
PROPERLY, ONE LOUSY DAY IS NOT
GOING TO CUT IT AND I HAVE NEVER
LIVED BY THIS PRINCIPLE. SO IN
YEARS WHERE YOU HAVE A ZERO OR A
FIVE AT THE END OF YOUR NUMBER,
YOU GET TO CELEBRATE FOR THE
ENTIRE YEAR. YOU NEED TO BE YOUR
OWN BEST ADVOCATE FOR THIS
CELEBRATION. YOU HAVE TO TELL
TOTAL STRANGERS IN LINE AT THE
GROCERY STORE THAT IT’S YOUR
BIRTHDAY. I FIND IF YOU DO THIS
TO ME LIKE DEAN AND SAY, YOU
KNOW, IT’S MY BIRTHDAY, THEY
INNOCENTLY WILL SAY SOMETHING
CUTE AND QUICK LIKE, I DIDN’T
GET YOU ANYTHING! (LAUGHTER) TO
WHICH YOU CAN START BOBBING YOUR
HEAD TOWARDS THE PEANUT M&M’S
AND I CAN HONESTLY TELL YOU I
HAVE NO SHAME IN ACCEPTING CANDY
FROM STRANGERS (LAUGHTER). I
THINK THAT WHAT THE BABY BOOM
COHORT IS DOING IS REDEFINING
WHAT IT IS TO BE EIGHTY. EIGHTY
IS NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF.
EIGHTY FOR ME WILL BE SO
DIFFERENT THAN FOR MY MOM AND MY
GRANDMOTHER AND MY GREAT
GRANDMOTHER. EVERY TIME I’M ON
THE GINSA I SEE WOMEN IN JAPAN
IN THEIR 70’S, 80’S AND BEYOND
AND THEY ARE FASHIONISTAS, THEY
ARE DRESSED TO THE NINES, THEY
ARE GLORIOUS AND I’M ALWAYS
STOPPING THEM IN THE STREET AND
SCARING THEM BECAUSE I NEED TO
KNOW WHERE DID THEY GET THAT
COAT. SO I THINK THAT’S ALL OF
THE GOOD STUFF. AND I THINK
EXPOSING AGEISM, AS I HOPE I DID
WITH THAT PIECE OF WORK AND THEN
WHAT HAS COME SINCE, IS YET ONE
MORE WAY OF MAKING SURE WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE THE SAME;
WE ALL HAVE LOVES AND LIKES AND
DISLIKES AND FEARS AND PAIN AND
AGONY AND ANGST AND JOY AND
RAPTURE. WE ALL WANT TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE, WE ALL WANT TO LEAVE
THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. AND
WE’RE ALL GOING TO DO IT IN OUR
OWN UNIQUE WAY, SO THAT’S WHAT
MAKES US ALL THE SAME. WHAT I
FIGHT FOR, OF COURSE, IS FOR ALL
OF OUR YEARS TO HAVE A LIFESPAN
OF QUALITY BASED IN EQUALITY
BY DESIGN.
HAEFNER: WONDERFUL;
INSPIRATIONAL. KEVIN, THE NEXT
ONE’S YOURS AND I DID NOT WRITE
THIS. THIS COMES FROM OUR
AUDIENCE. THEY WROTE, BESIDES
GRADUATING WONDERFUL, TALENTED
STUDENTS SUCH AS YOURSELF, WHAT
ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO RIT AND
OTHER UNIVERSITIES IN GENERAL TO
HELP THEM AUGMENT MUCH NEEDED
INNOVATION IN THE UNITED STATES?
SURACE: YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
OF ALL THE UNIVERSITIES I’VE HAD
A CHANCE TO WORK WITH, RIT IS
REALLY, TRULY, HONESTLY UNIQUELY
POSITIONED TO CONTINUE TO REALLY
PUSH INNOVATION. I THINK RIT FOR
DECADES NOW HAS REALLY FOCUSED
ON ACTUAL HANDS ON WORK IN EVERY
PROGRAM THAT YOU’VE GOT. YOU
KNOW WE WERE LOOKING AT THE
INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH SCIENCES
OVER HERE TODAY AND YOU KNOW,
EVEN THE PA PROGRAM THERE IS,
WHAT DIFFERENTIATES THAT FROM
OTHERS IS HANDS ON, HANDS ON,
HANDS ON. WE’RE GOING TO PUT
YOUR HANDS ON A CADAVER, WE’RE
GOING TO PUT YOUR HANDS ON
SOMETHING, SO YOU KNOW, RIT’S
COMPLETE MENTALITY OF LET’S
PREPARE THESE PEOPLE FOR WORK,
WITH ACTUAL HANDS ON LAB WORK
AND A LITTLE LESS ETHEREAL AND
LET’S MAKE IT MORE HANDS ON. I
THINK IT’S REALLY PAID OFF AND I
THINK THAT’S TRUE IN EVERY
PROGRAM HERE. I THINK ANY OF WHO
WENT HERE WOULD SAY THAT.
GENERALLY, YOU GET BACK TO
CULTURES. YOU KNOW, AS DEAN
SAID, THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA HAS HAD ALMOST A
COMPLETE STRANGLEHOLD ON THE
VAST MAJORITY OF INNOVATION ON
THE PLANET FOR ABOUT 150 TO 200
YEARS AND CERTAINLY SINCE WE
TOOK THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
FROM ENGLAND IN SAY THE MID
1800’S. AND WITH THE INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION HERE CAME MONEY, CAME
GREAT UNIVERSITIES, REMEMBER,
BEFORE THAT THE GREAT
UNIVERSITIES WERE IN EUROPE AND
THEN THEY CAME HERE, AND SO WE
BUILT GREAT UNIVERSITIES, STILL
THE BEST UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN
THE WORLD IS IN THE UNITED
STATES, PERIOD, BAR NONE. NO
QUESTION ABOUT IT. AND OUR
CULTURE WAS ONE THAT INSPIRED
INNOVATION. WE ACCEPTED RISK;
RISK WAS GOOD, IT WAS GOOD TO
TAKE. WE ALSO BUILT AN
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM
THAT PROTECTED YOU IF YOU TOOK
THAT RISK AND IT WORKED OUT. AND
ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO WORK
TOGETHER. YOU NEED A GREAT
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM WITH
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING, WITH THE
ABILITY TO PROTECT THE THINGS
THAT YOU DO AND WITH THE ABILITY
TO TAKE RISK AND BE OKAY WITH
THAT RISK. NOW WHAT WE RISK IN
THE UNITED STATES IS THAT OTHER
COUNTRIES HAVE NOTED THAT THAT
WORKED QUITE WELL FOR US. WE HAD
DECADES AND DECADES AND DECADES
OF WEALTH. NOW WE CONTINUE TO
LIVE AS A COUNTRY AS IF WE’RE
GROWING THAT WEALTH, ALTHOUGH
THE WEALTH SEEMED TO STOP
GROWING ABOUT FIFTEEN OR TWENTY
YEARS AGO AND THE WEALTH IS NOW
GROWING IN OTHER NATIONS AND
CHINA’S ECONOMY MAY SURPASS OURS
IN THE NEXT HANDFUL OF YEARS,
DEPENDING ON WHOSE NUMBERS YOU
BELIEVE AND SINCE THEY DON’T
FLOAT THEIR CURRENCY WE DON’T
KNOW WHICH NUMBERS TO BELIEVE
WHICH IS A LONGER CONVERSATION.
THE PROBLEM IN CHINA, REAL
QUICKLY, AS SCARED AS WE ARE OF
THAT AND WE SHOULD BE, IS THAT
THEY DON’T REALLY PROTECT THEIR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE WAY
WE DO, THEY DON’T HAVE A TRULY
OPEN CULTURE WHERE YOU CAN TALK
ABOUT ANYTHING YOU WANT IN THE
WAY WE DO, AND YOU KNOW, THOSE
THINGS ARE PROBABLY REQUIRED.
YOU CAN’T CLOSE OFF TWITTER AND
FACEBOOK AND SAY TO YOUR
POPULATION GO INNOVATE! THERE’S
JUST SOMETHING THAT SAYS, I
MIGHT GET SHOT IF I INNOVATE IN
THE WRONG WAY. I MIGHT BE A
LITTLE MORE CAREFUL HERE. SO I
SUSPECT IN THE LONG RUN THE US
WINS THIS GAME AND IT IS A GAME
AND IT IS A GAME WE HAD BETTER
WIN, BUT WE NEED TO FOSTER
INNOVATION THROUGH ENCOURAGING
RISK, THROUGH ENCOURAGING THE
EXPERIENTIAL EDUCATION LIKE YOU
GET AT RIT AND CONTINUING TO
HAVE A WORLD CLASS INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS
THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO INVENT
THINGS AND GIVES THEM A
SEVENTEEN TO TWENTY YEAR HEAD
START ON MAKING PROFITS. AND
THERE’S A REASON THAT TIME IS
TWENTY YEARS BECAUSE IT TAKES
TWENTY YEARS BEFORE IT’S REALLY
A BIG DEAL.
HAEFNER: GOOD. GREAT.
THIS QUESTION’S FOR MR.
KAMEN. I’D LIKE TO THANK MR.
KAMEN FOR INVENTING THE LIFE
CHANGING INSULIN PUMP, MAKING
THE LIVES OF DIABETICS BETTER.
WILL YOU PLEASE TALK ABOUT THIS
A BIT?
KAMEN: SO, TO REITERATE,
IT TAKES TWENTY YEARS TO DO FROM
INDEFENSIBLE TO INDISPENSIBLE.
THE INSULIN PUMP IS A PERFECT
EXAMPLE BECAUSE THERE ARE ALL
SORTS OF MYTHS ABOUT HOW I DID
THAT AND WHY WE DID THAT AND HOW
IT CAME TO BE AND HERE’S THE
REALITY. AND YOU’LL SEE WHERE
THE TWENTY YEARS COMES IN. I
HAVE AN OLDER BROTHER WHO’S A
BRILLIANT GUY. HE LEAVES HIGH
SCHOOL, HE’S ONLY THREE YEARS
OLDER THAN I AM, BUT HE’S
WORKING IN MED SCHOOLS AND DOING
CRAZY STUFF AND NEXT TIME I LOOK
HE’S GETTING AN MD AND A PHD.
HIS PHD IS IN PHARMACOLOGY; HE’S
DEVELOPING DRUG THERAPIES FOR
BABIES WITH REALLY PRETTY BAD
CONDITIONS, DIFFERENT KINDS OF
CANCERS IN PARTICULAR. HIS
EXPERTISE IS LEUKEMIA. SO HE’S
THIS MD PHD CANDIDATE AND HE’S
DOING HIS RESIDENCY AT A LOCAL
TRADE SCHOOL DOWN IN CONNECTICUT
CALLED YALE AND HE’D COME HOME
WEEKENDS AND WHINE AND COMPLAIN
ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE HAS SOME
NEW THERAPIES THAT HE THINKS
WILL BE FANTASTIC, BUT THESE
BABIES THAT ARE BORN, HE’S A
NEONATOLOGIST, HE’S A
HEMATOLOGIST, A PEDIATRIC GUY,
SOME OF THESE BABIES ARE BORN
ALREADY PRETTY FRAIL. THEY WEIGH
TWO KILOS OR LESS; THREE OR FOUR
POUNDS AND BACK THEN THIS IS
PRETTY TOUGH STUFF. AND ALL THE
EQUIPMENT IN THE HOSPITAL IS
MADE FOR ADULTS. NOT
SURPRISINGLY IT’S MARKET DRIVEN.
MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT GET
REALLY SICK AND SPEND LOTS OF
TIME IN THE HOSPITAL ARE ADULTS,
IN FACT, THEY’RE OLDER ADULTS.
THEY DON’T HAVE A BIG ENOUGH
MARKET TO MAKE CUSTOM, SPECIAL
WAYS TO GIVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF
A DRUG TO A BABY WHOSE ENTIRE
VASCULAR SYSTEM IS A COUPLE OF
TABLESPOONS, RIGHT? SO AFTER
LISTENING HIM COMPLAIN ABOUT THE
FACT THAT THEY DON’T MAKE STUFF
THAT WILL DELIVER VERY, VERY
SMALL AMOUNTS, WHICH AREN’T
SMALL RELATIVE TO A BABY, I SAID
WELL INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE DRUG
IN THE SYRINGE AND THEN STICKING
IT IN THE IV BAG, WHY DON’T YOU
LEAVE IT IN THE SYRINGE, A TINY
SYRINGE, AND PUT IT INTO SOME
LITTLE DEVICE AND JUST DELIVER
IT DIRECTLY. HEY, THAT’S A GOOD
IDEA. BUT HE’S A DOC, RIGHT? SO
I GO DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT AND
START BUILDING HIM STUFF. AND
THIS IS BEFORE THE FDA HAD
CONTROL OF MEDICAL DEVICES
(LAUGHTER) YOU CAN LAUGH, BUT IF
THEY DID, I WOULDN’T BE SITTING
HERE RIGHT NOW. I WOULD MAKE
THESE THINGS UP AND YOU’D SNAP A
SYRINGE IN AND I WOULD CALIBRATE
IT AND IT WAS THE EARLY DAYS OF
CMOS PROCESSES SO I COULD, IT'S
THE INTERSECTION OF GOOD, LOW
POWER ELECTRONICS, DIDN’T HAVE
MICROPROCESSORS. I WAS DOING IT
WITH CMOS, TTL, AND I WOULD MAKE
THESE LITTLE DEVICES AND HE
WOULD TAKE IT AND USE IT AND DO
HIS RESEARCH. WELL IT TURNS OUT
THAT THAT’S NOT A REALLY GOOD
BUSINESS FOR A COUPLE OF
REASONS. A, IT’S A VERY SMALL
MARKET NEONATOLOGY AND I HOPE IT
STAYS THAT WAY. I HOPE THERE’S
NO MORE BABIES THAT EVER NEED
THIS AND B, BROTHERS ARE REALLY
CRUMMY CUSTOMERS. THEY DON’T PAY
YOU ANYTHING (LAUGHTER) SO I’M
MAKING THIS STUFF ON THE SIDE,
TRYING TO RUN MY LITTLE BUSINESS
AND AMONG OTHER THINGS GO AND
MAKE MORE OF THIS STUFF FOR MY
BROTHER. ONE DAY I GET A CALL
FROM AN ADULT DOC AT YALE. MY
BROTHER WAS VERY PROUD OF THE
STUFF I GAVE HIM AND HE HAD BEEN
USING IT, SOME OF THE ADULTS
WERE BORROWING THESE THINGS TO
GIVE ADULTS OUTPATIENT
CHEMOTHERAPY, BECAUSE THAT'S-
MY BROTHER’S PEERS ARE-
AND WHAT I FOUND STAGGERING, AND
AGAIN, I’M A YOUNG KID AT THE
TIME, WOW, PEOPLE WITH CANCER,
THAT’S A SERIOUS THING, AFTER
THEY WERE GETTING WAY BETTER
THERAPIES BY WEARING THIS THING,
MY BROTHER WOULD COME BACK AND
SAY THE DOCTORS WERE USING IT
AND THEY WERE BIGGER THAN OUR
INSULIN PUMPS BUT THEY WERE
MAYBE THE SIZE OF A BUTTER DISH.
THEY’D COME BACK AND SAY THEY
USED IT FOR A FEW WEEKS AND
STOPPED. THE PATIENT COMPLIANCE
WASN’T VERY GOOD EVEN THOUGH YOU
NEED THIS CHEMOTHERAPY HOPEFULLY
TO CURE YOU; YOU’VE GOT A LIFE
THREATENING DISEASE. SO I
CERTAINLY DIDN’T GO INTO THE
BUSINESS, IN FACT, ANY FEEDBACK
WE WERE GETTING BACK FROM THE
QUOTE REAL MARKET WAS PEOPLE
AREN’T WILLING TO WEAR THIS
THING, EVEN FOR THE FULL FEW
MONTHS OF GETTING CHEMO. SO
ANOTHER ONE OF HIS PROFESSOR
TYPES CALLS ME, I’M STILL
WORKING IN MY PARENT’S BASEMENT
AND MY BROTHER ACTUALLY GAVE ME
A HEAD’S UP AND SAID THIS GUY
WANTS TO USE IT FOR SOMETHING
ELSE. YOU’VE GOT TO COME UP HERE
AND TALK TO HIM. SO I BORROWED
MY PARENTS CAR, I DRIVE TO YALE,
GO VISIT THIS GUY, HE’S AN
ENDOCRINOLOGIST. AND HE SAYS,
YOU K NOW, THAT LITTLE PUMP THAT
SITS IN THE ISOLETTE THAT YOU
MADE FOR YOUR BROTHER, THAT’S
PRETTY SMALL. IT’S SMALL ENOUGH
THAT WE COULD PUT IT ON SOMEBODY
AND THEY COULD WALK AROUND WITH
IT FOR NINE MONTHS. BACK TO YOUR
STORY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN HOW TOUGH WOMEN ARE AND
NOT SO MUCH. ANYWAY, THIS GUY
FINISHES EXPLAINING TO ME THAT
YOU SEE, THERE ARE A LOT OF
DIABETICS IN THE COUNTRY, A LOT
SADLY, MILLIONS, BUT THEY
LEARNED TO LIVE WITH IT. AND
YEAH, THEIR AVERAGE BLOOD SUGAR
GOES UP PRETTY HIGH BUT THEY
ACCOMMODATE THAT. THERE’S A LOT
OF LONG TERM BAD EFFECTS OF
THAT, RETINOPATHY, PORPHYRIA
DISEASE, MICROANGIOGRAPHY, THEY
LOSE LIMBS, I MEAN OVER THE
YEARS, HAVING ENOUGH CONTROL OF
YOUR INSULIN, OF YOUR BLOOD
GLUCOSE THAT YOU’RE NOT IN A
COMA, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO KEEP YOU
WELL REGULATED SAYS THAT OVER
THE LIFETIME YOU’RE GOING TO
HAVE THESE BAD EFFECTS, AND
EVERYBODY KNEW THAT, BY THE WAY,
EVERYBODY KNEW THAT. BUT HE
SAYS, THE PROBLEM IS A YOUNG
WOMAN WHO’S A DIABETIC IS
CARRYING A BABY AND AFTER A FEW
MONTHS THE BABY HAS NOW
DEVELOPED A PANCREAS. THAT
PANCREAS WANTS THAT BABY’S BLOOD
GLUCOSE TO BE 110 MILLIGRAMS PER
DECILITER, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY
ELSE. BUT IT’S GOT THIS LITTLE
TINY PANCREAS AND THROUGH THAT
UMBILICAL THAT MOTHER, THERE IS
SO MUCH BLOOD GOING THROUGH IT
IT CAN’T KEEP UP. SO THEY END UP
WHAT ARE CALLED (INAUDIBLE) AND
THE BABIES GET TO LOOK LIKE A
LITTLE BUDDHA AFTER THE SECOND
TRIMESTER AND TYPICALLY THEY
WOULDN’T GO TO TERM AND THERE IS
A PROBLEM. SO THIS DOC EXPLAINS
TO ME, BUT IF WE COULD PUT THIS
PUMP ON AND WE COULD KEEP THE
BLOOD GLUCOSE UNDER REALLY TIGHT
CONTROL, INSTEAD OF GIVING HER
ONE SHOT IN THE MORNING AND ONE
SHOT AT NIGHT, YOU’LL HAVE FULL
TERM BABIES AND THEY’LL BE
HEALTHY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE
GOOD. GREAT; I CAN MODIFY THE
CONTROLS SO YOU CAN HIT IT AND
GIVE A BOLUS. I CAN MODIFY IT SO
IT’S CALIBRATED IN UNITS OF
INSULIN. IT DIDN’T TAKE MUCH
ENGINEERING TO MODIFY MY CHEMO
PUMP, WHICH IS AGAIN MY BAD
BUSINESS BECAUSE BROTHERS DON’T
PAY, TO AN EVEN WORSE BUSINESS,
WHICH AS I EXPLAINED TO THIS
GUY, BECAUSE BY THEN I’M AN
EXPERT, I SAID, HEY DOC, YOU
NEED TO KNOW SOMETHING. I’LL
MODIFY SOME OF THESE PUMPS FOR
YOU, YOU SEEM LIKE A GOOD
RESEARCHER, BESIDES MY BROTHER’S
PROUD OF THIS AND HE’S A STUDENT
HERE. I’LL GIVE YOU YOUR PUMPS,
BUT THESE WOMEN WILL NEVER WEAR
IT FOR THE NINE MONTHS. PEOPLE
THAT ARE GOING TO DIE IF THEY
DON’T GET THEIR CHEMO DON’T EVEN
REMAIN COMPLIANT. I FIGURED I
WAS GIVING HIM GREAT INSIGHT,
GOOD MARKETING, RIGHT? I’M NOT A
MARKETER. THIS DOC LOOKS AT ME
AND LAUGHS. HE SAID DEAN, I
DON’T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND. I
BELIEVE MOST PATIENTS ARE
UNCOMPLIANT EVEN IF THEIR LIFE
IS ON THE LINE. BUT YOU SHOW ME
A WOMAN THAT WANTS TO HAVE A
HEALTHY BABY, SHE’LL WEAR A
REFRIGERATOR FOR NINE MONTHS!
DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT! SO HE WAS
SO CONVINCING I WENT HOME AND
BUILT HIM A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE
LITTLE PUMPS FOR THE VERY
SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF LETTING HIM
DO RESEARCH TO PROVE THAT IF YOU
HAD TIGHT GLUCOSE CONTROL, THESE
WOMEN WOULD HAVE FULL TERM,
HEALTHY BABIES. WELL IT TURNS
OUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO WAIT FOR
20 OR 30 YEARS TO SEE ALL THE
OTHER BAD SIDE EFFECTS THAT MOST
DOCS KNEW ABOUT THAT ARE SERIOUS
IN DIABETICS. HERE WAS A DIGITAL
OUTCOME. YOU PUT A DOZEN OF
THESE THINGS ON PREGNANT WOMEN
AND EITHER THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE
A FULL TERM HEALTHY BABY OR NOT
EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE DIABETES
AND SURE ENOUGH, THEY DID. HE
PUBLISHES ON THIS SUBJECT AND OF
COURSE THERE’S A LOT OF
EXCITEMENT, SO MUCH SO THAT I
ACTUALLY STARTED A LITTLE
BUSINESS BUILDING THESE PUMPS.
HERE’S THE RUB EVERYBODY:
DEPENDING ON WHOSE NUMBERS YOU
BELIEVE, AND I’M SURE THEY’RE
INFLATED BY THOSE PEOPLE THAT
WANT THEM INFLATED, IF YOU TAKE
DIABETES, WHICH BY ITSELF IS ONE
OF THE MOST COMMON, CHRONIC
CONDITIONS OF ANYBODY IN THIS
COUNTRY, THERE’S 22 MILLION TYPE
TWOS, THERE’S A COUPLE MILLION
TYPE ONES, IT’S THE FASTEST
GROWING, BUT EVEN BACK IN THE
80’S WHEN WE WERE STARTING TO DO
THIS, WHICH WE STUMBLED INTO
BECAUSE I WAS HELPING MY
BROTHER’S PROFESSOR ON A VERY
SPECIFIC THING, PREGNANT WOMEN,
IT’S WELL KNOW THAT OVER THE
LIFETIME OF JUST THAT ONE OR TWO
SHOTS A DAY, THE PROBABILITY OF
END STAGE RENAL FAILURE, NEEDING
A DIALYSIS MACHINE, IS 17 TIMES
HIGHER IF YOU’VE BEEN A DIABETIC
YOUR WHOLE LIFE. CARDIAC
FAILURE, BLINDNESS; YOU ADD UP
ALL THE EFFECTS THAT ARE SO
EXPENSIVE TO TREAT CHRONICALLY,
TO SUCH A LARGE POPULATION AND
THERE’S SOME CREDIBLE DATA THAT
SAYS TREATING DIABETES AND ALL
OF ITS EFFECTS IS AS HIGH AS 30%
OF HEALTH CARE COSTS IN THE
UNITED STATES. SO NOW, BACK TO
THAT IT TAKES TWENTY YEARS TO
MAKE INVENTIONS. THAT’S WHAT THE
LITTLE PUMP WAS, INTO AN
INNOVATION. FROM THE DAY THEY
PUBLISHED THAT FIRST RESEARCH
PAPER OUT OF YALE, A CREDIBLE
INSTITUTION WITH DATA ON THESE
WOMEN THAT HAD THESE HEALTHY
BABIES, IT WAS MORE THAN TWENTY
YEARS BEFORE MOST INSURANCE
COMPANIES WOULD PAY TO LET
DIABETIC PATIENTS WEAR PUMPS
BECAUSE THE SHORT TERM COST OF
THE PUMP WAS SOMETHING THEY WERE
FIGHTING AGAINST, BUT THEY’RE
GOING TO PAY TO TAKE CARE OF
THESE PEOPLE WITH THESE HORRIBLE
CONDITIONS FOR A LIFETIME. SO,
INNOVATION IS NOT FOR THE FAINT
OF HEART, PEOPLE! GET THE
INVENTION RIGHT, BUCKLE YOUR
SEATBELT AND KEEP WORKING AT IT
AND IN ABOUT TWENTY YEARS YOU’LL
HAVE AN INSTANT OVERNIGHT
SUCCESS (LAUGHTER).
HAEFNER: WOW, WOW.
WHAT WONDERFUL TAKEAWAYS
WE’VE HAD TODAY. I’VE
JUST BEEN AWED AT THE INSIGHT,
AT THE STORIES OF HOW THESE VERY
UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS HAVE CARVED
THEIR LIVES AND IN DOING SO
HELPED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. YOU
MIGHT ALL HAVE YOUR TAKEAWAYS. I
HEARD TEACH AND TAKE RISKS, I
HEARD LET’S GET PAST THE
LANGUAGE AND GIVE PEOPLE THE
HOPE OF INNOVATION TO MAKE THEIR
LIVES BETTER. BUT CLEARLY, THE
ONE TAKEAWAY I THINK WE ALL
SHOULD BE HAVING IS THERE
CURRENTLY IS GREAT OPPORTUNITIES
FOR INNOVATION IN THE COLLECTION
OF BODILY WASTE, SO (LAUGHTER) I
THINK OUR STUDENTS WILL HAVE
LOTS OF PROJECTS FOR THEIR
SENIOR CAPSTONE EXPERIENCES.
LET’S GIVE A VERY WARM AND
HEARTY THANK YOU FOR THEIR
CANDIDNESS TODAY (APPLAUSE). AND
DEAN AND KEVIN AND PATTY, WE ARE
SO PROUD TO HAVE YOU AS ALUMS OR
AS CONNECTIONS TO RIT. YOU
REALLY MAKE US QUITE PROUD OF
ALL THE THINGS YOU’VE
ACCOMPLISHED AND ALL THESE GREAT
WORDS TODAY. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CELEBRATING YOUR INDUCTION INTO
THE RIT INNOVATION HALL OF FAME
LATER TONIGHT. THANKS AGAIN
EVERYONE.