Brett Goldsmith, Chief Technology Officer at Cardea
00:00 What’s the big change here?
05:15 Not such new tech but a dramatically improved production scale
08:40 How does the sensor work?
12:30 Why haven’t we seen a race to the $20 sensor like we did the $1,000 genome?
17:48 What will it take to replace ELISA, Western blotting, and other standard tests?
22:20 What are the possibilities, what’s the big vision?
29:55: What could go wrong? Has anyone mentioned that one name?
Talk to anyone who’s been around diagnostics or blood sampling for long, and they’ll tell you that nanotechnology is nothing new.
Today’s guest, Brett Goldsmith, the Chief Technology Officer at Cardea, says he was involved in the nano revolution that was and then wasn’t 20 years ago. (The older veterans among us might date it back even further, to forty years ago.) So what are Brett and Cardea buzzing about early this year in a new Nature paper?
Biosensors. They say thier new--and significantly cheaper--ones are capable of integrating the world of biology and digital that will give us instant access to the networks of biological information used by our bodies. The sensors bypass our existing testing gadgets that use labels and lights and measure directly the biological interaction. One can imagine "Googling" biological data about yourself. The argument here isn't new, nor is the technology. What is new and shown by the Nature paper is a dramatically changed economy of scale for producing the biosensors. Brett claims it is something along the lines of going from $120K down to just $20-30 each.
If you look at Moore’s Law and the dramatic reduction in the price of sequencing as what fed two revolutions, it does appear there’s a case to be made for a similar revolution to be had with biosensors and the possible applications they could enable.
What are the details of the paper? How do Cardea’s sensors work? To whom are they selling them now?
And what kind of data does Cardea have to put out to show the world that they are not Theranos No. 2?!