3D printing is the reversal of the common subtractive manufacturing, wherein a a raw substance is reduced by a machine to its final form (think block of ice becomes sculpture). In additive, or 3D printing, raw substances are layered sequentially using a digital template to form whatever final product is desired. The raw substances can be sheets of metal, powders or liquids and can be 'assembled' into an array of different products.
In theory.
As of now, there seem to very few industrial applications. For example, this company makes the raw material needed for potentially making complex bicycle parts, but there don't seem to be actual bicycle parts made yet. And most of the current research centers around making the actual 3D printers and the raw materials themselves...not the final product.
But let's say that magical fairies exist and that a) 3D printers become cheap, b) raw materials become plentiful and c) instead of just prototypes of end-products, 3D printers can mass produce products. Then what? Well then the words spilling out of prognistactors about the end of globalization (near-sourcing eliminating supply chain problems!), the tectonic changes in labor demands, the ability to produce chemicals in your home or medicines in remote/conflict areas will come true.
Instead of criticizing these prognosticators, however, let's look at it from a different perspective. What are the main logistical problems in providing health care which 3D printing could address? The first issue is the manufacturing and transportation of medicines and supplies. Many medications and most supplies (iv tubing, surgical equipment, xray machines, etc.) in the least developed countries aren't produced in those countries, necessitating a transport network. Second is that within these countries, supplies need to be distributed and stored properly (especially some vaccinations which need cold-chain). And finally, there must be a system of quality assurance and administration.
While 3D printing may answer some of these questions, it's not at all a panacea. For example, while the final product can be manufactred decentralized-ly, how would the raw materials get there? And who would assure it's quality manufacture and administration? Further, some of the hardest challenges in working in remote/conflict areas are energy acquisition and machine maintenance. So translocating the machines of manufacture from stable enviornments to underdeveloped ones seems to be adding rather than subtracting problems (pun only partially intended).
The first-glance observation is that while it's a cool idea and fits into the decentralization = democratization of health, there are obviously lots of unanswered questions. Hopefully the researchers who're championing this technology are able to overcome the technical difficulties and also the practical considerations like the ones in the previous paragraph.
Comments