There were a lot of expectations at one time. Verily is the Life Sciences branch of Alphabet, Google’s parent company:
“Our clinical work on the glucose-sensing lens demonstrated that there was insufficient consistency in our measurements of the correlation between tear glucose and blood glucose concentrations to support the requirements of a medical device.”
Interesting comment… especially with Turkey day just around the corner !
Billions of dollars have been spent on research and development, but companies across both technology and life sciences have struggled. There’s even a book dedicated to documenting these failures titled “the pursuit of noninvasive glucose: hunting the deceitful turkey.”
That’s a great read. On a related note, I’ve seen a wearables presentation at a medical device development conference where the presenter said, “There are only three certainties in life- death, taxes, and the utter impossibility of truly non-invasive blood glucose monitoring”. He cited this book and that’s where I first heard of it. Honestly, my G6 works so well I can’t see a contact being any improvement- and that’s if they could somehow get around the substantially greater time lag of tears as compared to interstitial fluid that the G6 uses. Much better for them to but their resources towards making the next Dexcom systems smaller, better, and cheaper.
Good riddance, that money should have been spent on more worthwhile causes.
Unfortunately, when companies lose focus and have too much money, they invest in utterly unpredictable ways. While it would have been great if it worked, many of these companies think that their "new thinking’ is why their companies succeeded, rather than “we had a great idea at the right time and have been rewarded beyond our wildest dreams” and got a little lucky. Which leads them to invest in all kinds of different directions thinking they are masters of the universe.
I would be much more excited if they invested in the basic research that fuels everything else downstream. i.e. our modern way of life was enhanced more than can be imagined by the investments in Bell Labs during the last century.
But those were different times. [History story coming, you have been warned.]
Bell Labs was the research arm of a regulated monopoly (AT&T), so funding was not subject to considerations of near-term profitability. Ideas that looked promising could be nurtured and given time to develop without endangering the financial viability of the corporation. After the breakup of the Bell System this changed. For a time the research division was supported as a cost center: it was recognized that long-term research is not a profit center even though the results occasionally lead to enormously profitable businesses a few decades later. The cost of research was considered small and insignificant to the overall business results for quite a while. But over time the competitive business pressures and the drive for profits led to a forcible redirection of the research division to product development. The explanation was along the lines of “we can’t be doing all that basic research any more, because our customers won’t pay for it.” That’s just a fact about for-profit corporations. Similar trends played out through corporate America, from IBM Research to HP Research and Xerox Research. That era has ended.
I agree that the era has ended, and I understand why, however that doesn’t make the desire to see basic research funded any less palatable.
Many for profit corporations still do some basic research, i.e. 3M among others. If they are going to throw their money at problems, then throw them at basic research problems.
Hmmm. Lets say I’m a fabulously rich CEO of a large corporation. I have some budget that I can allocate to basic research or to a development project. Which shall I choose? On one side I see basic research that hopefully may help the company and the world 25 years from now, if it all works out ok. On the other side I see some product development projects that with high probability will increase company earnings by millions of dollars in 2 or 3 years and by the way my bonus is linked to company earnings in 2 or 3 years, and I have a legal fiduciary duty to get the best profits I can for my shareholders. Hmmm, where will I spend the money?
Unpalatable is a good word.
Apparently there’s another one of those around in my own country. Someone pointed me to a recent (Dutch) article about this company Noviosense, which is developing a glucose sensor to wear under the lower eyelid. Here’s an English article about this sensor:
Even the author of the book mentioned by @MM2 is positive. But I can’t see myself wearing one of those. What do you think?
The sample size is very small. The article mentions an upcoming study of 24 subjects. That should give more statistical validity to the data analysis.
It will be interesting to see if their accuracy is as good as the Freestyle Libre as they claim. We have seen so many early claims that turn out wrong that I am always very leery to be ready to believe early on 
Here is IEEE Spectrum’s article on the Alphabet lens project failure: