An interesting take on the airbnb issue! In response to the first questions, I believe that hosts should pay taxes for the monetary gains their properties have enabled them to reap through hosting guests. Especially since Airbnb now wants to grant hosts shares in the company: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/business/dealbook/airbnb-hosts-shareholders.html I believe it’s a smart way to tie hosts’ interests to that of the company and use the lobbying power on their hosts to push their interests in congress and elsewhere: https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2018/06/12/airbnb-recruits-its-clients-to-lobby-against-new-taxes/
For an industry that relies so heavily on IP rights to recoup R&D dollars, the open innovation that CO-ADD is doing is interesting and unexpected. It seems like the main need for antibiotics is screening molecules rather than developing them. I therefore wonder if this model would work for other indications as the typical drug development process focuses more on the development rather than screening stage. Does CO-ADD have those research capabilities too?
On another note, I am curious how this open innovation concept would affect the pricing on drugs. The current justification for high drug prices is the high cost of R&D. Would this open sharing of information and fewer IP rights necessarily translate into lower drug prices、or would that merely allow big pharma to reap higher profits instead.
I think customization of the products through 3D printing complements Adidas’s strength in providing fashionable but functional shoes. That said, due to the nature of this industry where there is strong loyalty to a particular brand, and the visibility of the affiliation with the brand is important, loyal customers may not want a customized product that is not easily identifiable as a particular Adidas shoe design. In addition, on the operational side, I would wonder how you balance the mass production of these 3D printed shoes with the more traditionally manufactured shoes
Bioprinting technology holds significant potential to transform the medical industry as well as to save lives, but I think it also raises some urgent ethical questions. My initial thought was that this could lead to a decrease in human/organ trafficking, but at the same time, I couldn’t help wondering if bioprinting would lead to a sort of ‘commodification’ of body parts, which would also be vulnerable to exploitation. Therefore I believe there is a strong need for strict regulations as a biological product.
I always wondered how different AV systems developed by different companies would interact with one another, so it is intriguing to find out that there currently is no common platform. I wonder if this is something that will be resolved by market forces, or whether you need regulators involved. While we often think of regulations as stifling innovation, it is interesting to see how regulatory frameworks are actually necessary to further advance the development of this growing industry. I think the autonomous vehicle industry raises a lot of ethical questions related to technology and the level of control and responsibility we as humans hold over it. The regulations and norms that will be set in this industry will certainly set the standards for other frontier technologies to come in the future, so I will definitely keep a look-out for this space.
Interesting, thought-provoking article! As for the questions you pose, I am actually wary of some of the data sources that they already use such as claims data, call-center transcripts as well as credit purchase history and genomic sequencing data. While I can see the value of the predictive analytics in promoting preventative care, these data sources can be very easily exploited were they to reach the wrong hands. I believe medical records from healthcare institutions can be shared with the consent of the patient to share information on past health conditions, current state, and potential future risks, but going beyond that is too risky. Perhaps an alternative way to use predictive analytics for preventative care is to provide users with a Fitbit, or another health-tracking wearable, which can track basic health such as heart rate and monitors exercise levels, and transfers the data to medical institutions when abnormalities are observed.
I am curious to see if Cyft can take off in other countries, as I can imagine they will meet significant regulatory constraints related to data protection.