Category: 3D Printing

Introduction

3D printing might be one of the most potentially life-changing technological advances of the last decade. Despite the lowered enthusiasm for 3D printing in the last few years, the benefits of this technology have been seen in many industries, and it has become an essential tool for small scale businesses. Desai and Magliocca covered the potential disruption of the copyright system by 3D printers in their article 3D Printers as the Next Intellectual Property Game Changer (2013). This paper will evaluate the article and see how it connects to microeconomics.

Connection to Microeconomic Theory

One of the main points of the article is that 3D printing allows small businesses and private companies to manufacture parts and products that are virtually identical to those of large companies that would previously hold a monopoly on them (Magliocca & Desai, 2013). This fact brings up the theory of pure competition. According to the theory, in a pure competition, a large number of companies are manufacturing a homogenous product. The market in a pure competition is easy to enter and easy to exit. No one company has a power advantage, and every company has a full awareness of prices.

In theory, 3D printing can facilitate pure competitions in markets that were previously dominated by large conglomerates. One of the simplest examples could be toy manufacturing. Toy companies rarely produce replacement parts for their toys, and when they do like in the case of scale model kits, the parts are very limited and are often overpriced. With the current quality of 3D printers, anyone skilled enough to operate the modeling software can create replacement parts or whole toys that are near-identical to the original. This advancement works directly against monopolies that hold unique rights to manufacture certain machine parts, and other similar products (Kirzner, 2015).

Pros and Cons

The pros and cons of the topic are relatively clear, and in part depend on the personal opinion of the current copyright system. The pros lie in the increased ease of entry into the market, as well as easier exit, reduced costs of manufacturing, increased the speed of prototyping, a lower barrier to entry for new employees, and the leveling of the playing field between large corporations and small businesses. Even in the short four years since the article was written, the number of practical uses of 3D printing became substantial enough to consider it an essential business tool. Beside basic manufacturing and prototyping, it is used in pharmaceutical production, building industry, and soon might be used for the creation of living tissue for organ transplantation (Bhushan & Caspers, 2017).

One of the questionable aspects of 3D printing is the danger of loss of intellectual property. As the article points out, this invention requires a massive change in the copyright system to realize its full potential. On the one hand, the current copyright system is very flawed and is often abused by large companies and malicious individuals. If it is given priority, 3D printers will lose a lot of their competitive potential. However, if the system does not have any control over this technology, there would be no protection of the intellectual property in both the large and small companies. Another con might lie in individuals using 3D printers for the malicious activity like gun manufacturing. However, this type of printing often requires more effort and resources than a legal or illegal purchase of a firearm.

Summary

The article opens with general information on the capability of this technology at the time. The authors compare the quick advancement and loss in the price of 3D printers with the rise of the personal computers. The focus quickly shifts to the possible issues with intellectual property groups that might arise due to the abilities of this technology. The authors suggest that some form of legal protection is required for 3D printing to thrive. They describe the potential benefits of this technology, and its focus on customization. The main example of this is the shift in the market when machines allowed brewing espresso at home. The authors point out that the current copyright doctrine is based on the difficulty of replication of property. This difficulty is lowered through the use of 3D printers. The article ends with a hope that the Congress will provide protection to this technology and websites that host the models (Magliocca & Desai, 2013).

Personal Opinion

I have followed the development of the 3D printing technology since the creation of the first MakerBot 3D printer Cupcake CNC in 2009. This technology and its potential fascinated me, and I still see it as a major breakthrough in manufacturing. This article provides a slightly general approach to the topic without touching upon many of the particulars that have already been addressed by 2013. Although the current technology can create virtually identical replications or parts, this was not the case in 2013.

There were some hard limitations related to the resolution of the printer and the structure of supports required for the models that prevented certain types of parts from being manufactured. The pace of price loss was also exaggerated as even today, 3D printers often cost more than a $1,000. However, these issues could be addressed, and they did not hurt the main point of the article.

Conclusion

3D printing is an essential business tool. It could facilitate pure competition while preventing monopoly. Its abilities can have a disrupting effect on the copyright system, which makes the authors argue in its defense. It is a fascinating technology that could improve many lives in the future.

References

Bhushan, B., & Caspers, M. (2017). An overview of additive manufacturing (3D printing) for microfabrication. Microsystem Technologies, 23(4), 1117-1124.

Kirzner, I. (2015). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Magliocca, D., & Desai, D. (2013). 3D printers as the next intellectual property game changer. Yahoo. Web.

The work of a 3D printer is based on the principle of additive manufacturing. This is a technique by which objects are made by adding layer after layer until the final product takes shape (Petronzio 2013). The use of this device involves three stages; modeling, printing, and finishing. It is important to note that a computer is required during the modeling stage of 3D printing. These are the main aspects that can be distinguished.

The first step is the creation of a 3D model. This task can be done with the help of computer-aided design (CAD) software. This software is used to create original design that will be divided into digital cross-sections (Petronzio 2013). The users, who have not learned to use this software, can purchase ready-made designs from websites like Thingiverse, Sculpteo or Shapeways (Petronzio, 2013). Clients can also order customized designs from these websites. The finished model is then sent to the printer.

The digital file that contains this model has to have the extension .STL, which stands for Standard Tessellation Language. While processing the image, the printer slices it into three-dimensional polygons. When this task is done, the printing stage begins. Once the 3D file has been processed, the material and printer resolution are chosen. When these parameters are set, a gear rolls the plastic material into the print head.

The material is the string-like strand of plastic coiled in the back of the printer. This material could be either polylactic acid (PLA) or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). While in the print head, the plastic passes through a heated tube, where is melted and deposited through the nozzle to the print head. The print bed has to be warmed up when using ABS plastic to prevent the base structure from bending or coiling. On the other hand, PLA can work on any platform. This is the main advantage of this material.

The print head can move horizontally in any direction because it is supported by the X and Y axis rods. The print bed also moves along the Z axis to give the machine vertical movement. Both the print head and the print bed have stepper motors, receive signals from the processor.

The signals tell the motors the amount of rotation required to achieve a certain degree of movement. In turn, the movement of the print head is directed by the 3D file sent to the printer. The head moves horizontally above the bed laying plastic while the print bed moves vertically after each layer is complete. This process continues until a solid object emerges. It has to correspond to the parameters which are included in the 3D file.

When the printing stage is complete, the object is given a few minutes to cool down. Post-processing may also be required to remove the unwanted parts from the final product. For instance, the rough edges can be polished. Caution should be exercised because some parts may still be weak due to slow cooling.

The printed object is ready for use once proper cooling is done and the finishing touches have been applied. It should be mentioned 3D printers can be used to produce various types of products such as food or clothes. On the whole, these devices can transform various industries in the future.

Reference List

Alred, G., Brusaw, C., & Oliu, W. (2010). Handbook of Technical Writing (9th Edition). Boston, MA: Bedford-St. Martins.

Petronzio, M. (2013). How 3D Printing Actually Works. Web.

Introduction

3D printing might be one of the most potentially life-changing technological advances of the last decade. Despite the lowered enthusiasm for 3D printing in the last few years, the benefits of this technology have been seen in many industries, and it has become an essential tool for small scale businesses. Desai and Magliocca covered the potential disruption of the copyright system by 3D printers in their article 3D Printers as the Next Intellectual Property Game Changer (2013). This paper will evaluate the article and see how it connects to microeconomics.

Connection to Microeconomic Theory

One of the main points of the article is that 3D printing allows small businesses and private companies to manufacture parts and products that are virtually identical to those of large companies that would previously hold a monopoly on them (Magliocca & Desai, 2013). This fact brings up the theory of pure competition. According to the theory, in a pure competition, a large number of companies are manufacturing a homogenous product. The market in a pure competition is easy to enter and easy to exit. No one company has a power advantage, and every company has a full awareness of prices.

In theory, 3D printing can facilitate pure competitions in markets that were previously dominated by large conglomerates. One of the simplest examples could be toy manufacturing. Toy companies rarely produce replacement parts for their toys, and when they do like in the case of scale model kits, the parts are very limited and are often overpriced. With the current quality of 3D printers, anyone skilled enough to operate the modeling software can create replacement parts or whole toys that are near-identical to the original. This advancement works directly against monopolies that hold unique rights to manufacture certain machine parts, and other similar products (Kirzner, 2015).

Pros and Cons

The pros and cons of the topic are relatively clear, and in part depend on the personal opinion of the current copyright system. The pros lie in the increased ease of entry into the market, as well as easier exit, reduced costs of manufacturing, increased the speed of prototyping, a lower barrier to entry for new employees, and the leveling of the playing field between large corporations and small businesses. Even in the short four years since the article was written, the number of practical uses of 3D printing became substantial enough to consider it an essential business tool. Beside basic manufacturing and prototyping, it is used in pharmaceutical production, building industry, and soon might be used for the creation of living tissue for organ transplantation (Bhushan & Caspers, 2017).

One of the questionable aspects of 3D printing is the danger of loss of intellectual property. As the article points out, this invention requires a massive change in the copyright system to realize its full potential. On the one hand, the current copyright system is very flawed and is often abused by large companies and malicious individuals. If it is given priority, 3D printers will lose a lot of their competitive potential. However, if the system does not have any control over this technology, there would be no protection of the intellectual property in both the large and small companies. Another con might lie in individuals using 3D printers for the malicious activity like gun manufacturing. However, this type of printing often requires more effort and resources than a legal or illegal purchase of a firearm.

Summary

The article opens with general information on the capability of this technology at the time. The authors compare the quick advancement and loss in the price of 3D printers with the rise of the personal computers. The focus quickly shifts to the possible issues with intellectual property groups that might arise due to the abilities of this technology. The authors suggest that some form of legal protection is required for 3D printing to thrive. They describe the potential benefits of this technology, and its focus on customization. The main example of this is the shift in the market when machines allowed brewing espresso at home. The authors point out that the current copyright doctrine is based on the difficulty of replication of property. This difficulty is lowered through the use of 3D printers. The article ends with a hope that the Congress will provide protection to this technology and websites that host the models (Magliocca & Desai, 2013).

Personal Opinion

I have followed the development of the 3D printing technology since the creation of the first MakerBot 3D printer Cupcake CNC in 2009. This technology and its potential fascinated me, and I still see it as a major breakthrough in manufacturing. This article provides a slightly general approach to the topic without touching upon many of the particulars that have already been addressed by 2013. Although the current technology can create virtually identical replications or parts, this was not the case in 2013.

There were some hard limitations related to the resolution of the printer and the structure of supports required for the models that prevented certain types of parts from being manufactured. The pace of price loss was also exaggerated as even today, 3D printers often cost more than a $1,000. However, these issues could be addressed, and they did not hurt the main point of the article.

Conclusion

3D printing is an essential business tool. It could facilitate pure competition while preventing monopoly. Its abilities can have a disrupting effect on the copyright system, which makes the authors argue in its defense. It is a fascinating technology that could improve many lives in the future.

References

Bhushan, B., & Caspers, M. (2017). An overview of additive manufacturing (3D printing) for microfabrication. Microsystem Technologies, 23(4), 1117-1124.

Kirzner, I. (2015). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Magliocca, D., & Desai, D. (2013). 3D printers as the next intellectual property game changer. Yahoo. Web.

Introduction

Imperatively, issues surrounding 3D printing in cardiology, and medicine in general, have elicited concerns and attracted the attention of scholars and other researchers. As such, many articles on the 3D printed heart and the 3D printing technology are available (Branch, 2015; Kawaguchi, Hatta, & Nakanishi, 2013; Potkonjak & Hartman, 2015).

Materials Used in 3D printing

Numerous literature resources on materials used in 3D printing technology, especially organ printing have been published. Many articles focus on the types and the suitability of materials (Li, Chen, Fan, & Zhou, 2016; Schmauss, Haeberle, Hagl, & Sodian, 2015; Lee & Dai, 2015; Munaza et al., 2016; Hinto et al., 2015).

Lee and Dai (2015) attributed the probability of the success of 3D technology to the materials used since they support the cellular components during and after bioprinting procedures (Lee & Dai, 2015). As such, materials used for printing 3D heart should meet certain vital requirements/criteria such as cytocompatibility, printability, ease of phase transition, and compatibility of bioreactors (par. 9).

The authors suggested that bioprinting materials could be grouped into two major categories, including curable mechanical polymers and soft with considerably higher water content (Lee & Dai, 2015). The complementing properties of these two major categories make 3D printing successful (Lee & Dai, 2015).

The two major classifications can each be subdivided into live cells and synthetics materials to include collagen, hyaluronic acid, alginate, fibrin, PEG diacrylate (PEGDA), and polyacrylamide (PAAm)-based gels (Lee & Dai, 2015).

Hinton et al. (2015) appreciated the complexity in cardiovascular anatomy (which requires elaborateness in studying and practice) and the need to address issues pertaining to cardiovascular transplants that have necessitated the adoption of 3D printing techniques in heart treatment. As such, there is a need to be meticulous in the selection of the materials used in printing 3D hearts and other complex organs.

Therefore, Hinton et al. (2015) emphasized the use of soft protein and polysaccharide hydrogel in 3D printing. They asserted that creating material could be challenging if appropriate technologies are not adopted. Moreover, Hinton et al. (2015) emphasized the need for material thermoreversibility, and biocompatibility (Hinton et al., 2015).

Kawaguchi, Hatta, and Nakanishi (2013) categorized 3D printing materials into three main groups, including collagen scaffolds, hydrogels, and cell sheets. Of these three types, the last two, scaffolds and hydrogels, require fabrication before they are adopted for building cardiac tissues (Kawaguchi, Hatta, & Nakanishi, 2013).

Kawaguchi, Hatta, and Nakanishi (2013) noted that hydrogel materials have an advantage over the others since it is possible to do microfabrication through lithography and, therefore, create customized patterns when using hydrogel materials. Notably, the unique characteristics of every human being and every cardiovascular operation necessitate customization in the printing of tissues and the 3D heart (Kawaguchi, Hatta, & Nakanishi, 2013). The authors singled out a commonly used material polyethylene glycol (PEG) due to its biological inertness.

Further, they noted that the use of hydrogels in cardiology could be done in combination with cell agents to augment efficacy, especially in neovascularization and the restoration of normal blood supply (Kawaguchi, Hatta, & Nakanishi, 2013).

How 3D Printing Works

Potkonjak and Hartman (2015) suggested that printing 3D hearts is quite a comprehensive technique. The heart is categorized as a complex organ, which requires 100% machine accuracy for proper functioning. Nevertheless, procedures and requirements are provided for the preparation of a 3D heart for transplanting (Potkonjak & Hartman, 2015).

The procedure for tissue preparation is initiated by scaffolding processes, where cells obtained from the patient are grown independently through the following steps (Potkonjak & Hartman, 2015)

1. Step 1: bio-ink spheroids printed into a layer of bipolar gel.
2. Step 2: additional layers printed to build object.
3. Step 3: bio-ink spheroids fuse together and bio paper dissolves.
4. Step 4: final living tissue.

Munaza et al. (2016) appreciated that 3D printing technology has revolutionized human history, especially in medicine. They linked the introduction of 3D printing to Charles Hull in late 1980. Later in the early 20^th century, technology would start to materialize allowing the fabrication of materials in diverse fields, including in clinical implantation (Munaza et al., 2016).

Munaza et al. (2016) suggested a three-stage model of 3D organ printing. The three stages include pre-processing, processing, and post-processing stages. The initial stage, pre-processing, is comprised of the creation of a heart blueprint from MRI (Munaza et al., 2016). Information is then converted into direct instruction software for the printing hardware (Munaza et al., 2016).

The real printing is done in the second phase, which involves the preparation of bio-ink, cell sorting, cell propagation, and cell differentiation (Munaza et al., 2016). The last phase, post-processing, involves pertinent procedural methods aimed at converting the printed product into a working tissue-engineered organ, which can be used as a clinical implant (Munaza et al., 2016).

Ventola (2014) suggested that even though the use of laser-based 3D organ printing is possible, most bioprinting systems adopt inkjet-based/or extrusion-based techniques (Ventola, 2014). The inkjet-based technique deposits bio-ink onto a substrate depending on the digital instruction to create 3D printed organs through the following steps (Ventola, 2014).

1. Creation of an organ blueprint.
2. Generation of the printing process plan.
3. Isolation of stem cells.
4. Cell differentiation and specification.
5. Preparation of bio-ink reservoirs and supporting materials for printing.
6. Printing.
7. Using a bioreactor on the printed organ before using it for transplantation.

Challenges/Limitations and Issues in 3D Heart Printing

Branch (2015) appreciated that although 3D printing is a milestone in medicine, it is faced with a number of challenges. First, technology is affected by the unique nature of each patient. Every human body is unique with different characteristics from others. As such, a certain 3D printed heart may be appropriate for one body but unsuitable for another (Branch, 2015). Therefore, 3D hearts should be individualized and almost similar to the replaced organ.

Moreover, 3D printing technology is flawed since it is limited in the creation of specific details down to the cell level (Branch, 2015).

Li, Chen, Fan, Zhou (2016) appreciated that although bioprinting technology has drawn considerable attention for producing scaffolds, cells, tissues, and organs and the many positive aspects, it faces many challenges, especially in the printing complex organs. As such, printing complex organs such as the human heart still face numerous hurdles.

Moreover, Li et al. (2016) raised the concern of the requirements such as the assembling of layer-by-layer with bio-glue in the creation of complex organs such as the human heart. Moreover, there are huge impediments, especially on the provision of suitable bio-inks that have the required compatibility, mechanical robustness, and regulatory issues (Li et al., 2016).

Ventola (2014) put considerable emphasis on issues and concerns surrounding 3D printing in healthcare. First, there are concerns about the technology being overhyped and stakeholders having unrealistic expectations resulting in over-projections (Ventola, 2014).

Second safety and security concerns have been raised, especially because the technology can fall into the wrong hands, a scenario that can be detrimental (Ventola, 2014). As such, some stakeholders have suggested banning of 3D printing. Third, patent and copyright concerns are raised where the use of 3D printed organs for commercial, personal, or non-profit distribution is said to face licensing issues and loopholes. Lastly, 3D printing faces regulatory concerns where widespread use and production of 3D printed organs would be hindered by regulatory frameworks (Ventola, 2014).

The Future of the 3D Printed Heart and the Associated Technology

Currently, 3D printing has not only been successful in surgical implants and prosthetics but also applicable and useful in cardiology and cardiovascular surgery. However, the printing of complex organs such as a 3D printed heart, which can be used to replace a human heart, is yet to be realized (Lee & Dai, 2015; Potkonjak & Hartman, 2015). Therefore, realizing this goal is part of the future projections (Potkonjak & Hartman, 2015; Deferm, Meyns, Vlasselaers, & Budts, 2016).

In addition, in situ printing of internal organs is expected to be done when all the challenges and concerns are comprehensively addressed (Lee & Dai, 2015; Potkonjak & Hartman, 2015; Li et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is worth noting that the future of 3D printing is dependent on numerous factors, including research, funding, stakeholders participation among other pertinent issues (Potkonjak & Hartman, 2015; Ventola, 2014; Li et al., 2016).

References

Branch, C. (2015). 3D printing in healthcare. The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, 16(3), 1-4.

Deferm, S., Meyns, B., Vlasselaers, D., & Budts, W. (2016). 3D-printing in congenital cardiology: from flatland to spaceland. Journal of Clinical Imaging Science, 6(8),. Web.

Hinton, T. J., Jallerat, Q., Palchesko, R. N., Park, J. H., Grodzicki, M. S., Shue, H.-J.,& Feinberg, A. W. (2015). Three-dimensional printing of complex biological structures by freeform reversible embedding of suspended hydrogels. Science Advances, 1(9), e1500758. Web.

Kawaguchi, N., Hatta, K., & Nakanishi, T. (2013). 3D-culture system for heart regeneration and cardiac medicine. BioMed Research International, 2013 (2013), 1-6. Web.

Lee, V., & Dai, G. (2015). Three-dimensional bioprinting and tissue fabrication: prospects for drug discovery and regenerative medicine. Dove press, 2015(1), 23-35. Web.

Li, J., Chen, M., Fan, X., & Zhou, H. (2016). Recent advances in bioprinting techniques: approaches, applications and future prospects. Journal of Translational Medicine, 14(2016), 271. Web.

Munaza, A., Vadivelub, R. K., Johnb, J. S., Bartonc, M., Kamblea, H., & Nguyen, N.-T. (2016). Three-dimensional printing of biological matters. Journal of Science: Advanced Materials and Devices, 1(1), 1-17. Web.

Potkonjak, A., & Hartman, A. (2015). 3D printing of aortic heart value tissue in patients suffering from cardiovascular disease. 1-8.

Schmauss, D., Haeberle, S., Hagl, C., & Sodian, R. (2015). Three-dimensional printing in cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology: a single-centre experience. European Journal of Cardiothorac Surgery, 47(6), 1044-52. Web.

Ventola, C. L. (2014). Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. Pharmacy Therapeutic, 39(10), 704711.

Throughout our life there is only one thing that remains unchanged, this is the progress of technology. The progress which is always an integral part of technology and until the end of time it will always be improving. In today’s society, every day something new arises. It may be a technology that has been long forgotten by everyone and has been reworked in a new way, or it may be a completely new discovery. This is not significantly important because in the modern world technology affects everything. Today, there are many inventions that we use every day, devices that help with daily routines, professional tasks, new knowledge, and even more. The development of technology not only helps us eliminate inconvenience, but also it makes our life much easier. At the present time, it is quite difficult to find something where technologies have not impacted our society. Technology has a significant role in science, education, entertainment, medicine, religion, and even in animal life. Alongside many inventions, it is clear that 3D printing has its advantages, which make it one of the most promising inventions. 3D printing opens up a completely new way of creating products, it also offers a lot of new ways to create rather than traditional production methods. With this new technology, the devisers have already found many different ways to apply it in construction, the creation of automobiles, machinery, as well as small parts and accessories. Now, 3D printing is widely used to help animals by making artificial limbs for disabled animals and creating implants that give living creatures a new life. The inventors have found a way to use 3D printing to replicate human skin, bones, joints, and organs, which also can help to stop animal testing. 3D printing technology changes not only the life of our society for the better but also the lives of animals, providing a wide range of opportunities and even saving lives.

With the help of 3D printing technology, the period of animal testing may extinct. Since the 1980s, the French cosmetic company L’Oreal has been researching human tissue samples, trying to avoid animal testing. A few years ago, the company began a partnership with Organovo, a bio-printing company that provides 3D-printed human skin for testing cosmetics. This kind of cooperation can be useful for all participants in this business. For printing companies, the dissemination of bioprinting on a commercial scale has the potential to bring in a lot of money; for cosmetic companies, bioprinting technology is the next step in cosmetic industries; as well as it helps animals, who will no longer be used in experiments. One of the founders of Organovo Keith Murphy states, “3D printing is really powerful because you can make a nice, thick tissue with all the cell types. That makes it more replicative of native tissue,” which helps to customize and improve product testing (“3D-Printing Human Skin: The End of Animal Testing?”). Likewise, for several years, scientists have tried to incorporate 3D printing in medicine and veterinary. They found a way to make tubes with living tissue instead of plastic or metal, which gives them the opportunity to observe the reaction in the real-time mode. However, after some time, laboratories and biotechnology companies around the world began to develop more advanced printers and launched print prototypes of body parts, including heart valves, ears, bones, and skin. The fact is that this technology makes testing more cost-effective and more accurate, which in the near future will reduce the need for animal testing. Currently, scientists at L’Oreal laboratories use fabrics that have been donated by plastic surgery patients to grow skin samples. Nevertheless, it is not yet perceptible when the technology will be applied to product testing since the partnership is currently at the research stage.

3D printing is a brilliant scientific solution to safe clinical trials. More recently, molecular genetics has found a way to recreate tiny copies of human organs with human cells that can be used to study diseases and to understand how these diseases can be cured. In this way, they can conduct experiments efficiently and safely for living beings. According to a medical science writer and researcher, Kathy Jean Schultz, “[m]ore than 80 percent of new drugs tested in the United States to determine if they are safe for use by patients fail during clinical trials because they are ineffective. More than 30 percent are toxic” (“Would You Trust a 3D-Printed Mini Organ to Test Your Drugs?”). It is not only that experiments with animals are deadly and toxic, but also it does not give any guarantee in the accuracy of predicting the effects of drugs. Thus, we have an urgent need for improved testing systems that 3D printing technology can provide. Even so, due to the fact that organoids do not have access to the nervous and blood systems, which can become a significant obstacle when testing certain drugs. To solve this problem, scientists connect the body-on-a-chip. This is a new technology, developed by engineers, that allows linking human tissue samples by microfluidic channels, which lets to reproduce the interactions between organs. So it gives the opportunity to make the same connection as in the human body. Surgery Professor Todd Evans and his colleagues at New York’s Weill Cornell Medicine created an organoid derived from colon cancer stem cells as well as a platform for testing drugs that block diseases caused by patient-specific mutations. Despite all the advantages of this method, Evans states that “there are obvious limitations, and these approaches will never replace clinical trials” (“Would You Trust a 3D-Printed Mini Organ to Test Your Drugs?”). Basically, he thinks that it is not possible to achieve the same interaction between the organs as in human’s body; as well as it is impracticable to re-create many other physiological and metabolic processes in laboratory conditions during tests on organoids. Researchers from Max Planck Institute of Biological Cybernetics states that no alternative methods can replace animal experiments in brain research, “[m]ethods that exclude animal experiments are not sufficient for understanding brain functions and disorders” (“Alternative Methods”). Those methods that may be acceptable for testing drugs may not be applicable to brain research.

3D printing is being used so widely to help animals after amputation, musculoskeletal or neurological disorders. Sometimes traditional prosthesis is not a good option, and 3D-printed prosthesis has more advantages such as flexibility, uniqueness in manufacturing, and organic form. Some time ago, artificial limbs for animals did not exist at all due to lack of research. A new prosthesis that appeared over time more often did more harm than good. A traditional prosthesis may not suit animals properly, or may even damage the motor system. So in order to find the desired prosthesis, high costs were required, or in certain cases there was no suitable prosthesis, therefore it was often proposed to put the animal to sleep. This example demonstrates that it is not always possible for us to find a solution using traditional medical devices. Now, there is the possibility of creating any necessary prosthesis. All that is required is 3D scanning, 3D modeling of the part and printing itself. It is also worth mentioning that this technology is less expensive due to the additive production, which does not require expensive forms, materials, and manual labor. In comparison with the traditional method of manufacturing prostheses, which requires more time and manually create complex and unique forms. Therefore, making prostheses for animals using 3D printing is increasingly succeeding and improves the quality of animals’ life. There are many cases of assistance to animals with prostheses made by 3D printer. Sometimes it is very difficult for an animal to move due to the absence or deformation of the paw or tail. Scientists were able to find a way to print suitable prostheses, which gives animals a second chance. Observing the movements of the animal with a new part, inventors could estimate if the prosthesis is convenient for the animal. Although, if the animal was not comfortable, then they could print a new more adapted model. This technology makes it possible to make new tails for crocodiles, paws for ducks, dogs and cats, armors for turtles and crabs, horseshoes for horses, beaks for birds and much more. In addition, they use only suitable materials for the animal’s habitat in the production process of prostheses.

3D printing is an incredible technology of the present and the future, which makes it possible to make almost everything much faster, cheaper, and more accurate than other technologies. It is possible to use various materials such as plastic, metal, wax and so on. Also, manufacturers no longer need to spend time creating things with their hands, now they can rely on a 3D printer. At this stage, we have the opportunity not only to create things for life, accessories, clothes, houses, but also medical prostheses for people and animals, and organs for testing medicines. Creating organs for testing and artificial limbs for animals are just some of the ways to save and help animals live with the power of 3D printing. Over the past few years, there have been many stories of helping animals with this new technology, no doubt the number of such cases will increase every year. Thereby, 3D technology completely refutes the conclusions of people who believe that technology is not able to help or solve our problems. In the TED talk “Can Technology Solve Our Big Problems?”, Jason Pontin states that “[i]t is not true that we can not solve big problems through technology.” The progress of technology has changed and continues to change various aspects of our life, it also helps to cope with many problems. 3D technology is a great example of this. Unique capabilities of 3D printing are not only a charity act and the salvation of the animal world but also an opportunity to show the development and improvement of technologies and their impact on our lives.

Many of the world’s greatest scientific discoveries have all stemmed from one initial simplified idea, which would go forth and improve to create a revolutionary end product. 3D printing is a prime example of this, where both technology and science intertwine to innovate this behemoth phenomenon of an invention which will aid generations upon generations. Scientists did not deem plausible up until 1984 when Charles Hull pioneered the impossible by using a process called stereolithography, whereby he created a layered solid structure using plastic, and etched a 3D shape from the structure using laser light. This would open the doors to endless possibilities for manipulation in medicine unbeknownst to him. Coincidentally, as of recently the newest revelation to 3D printing has managed to transform the pharmaceutical industry through the use of printing pharmaceutical drugs. This has created an uproar amongst leading scientists and extensive research has begun on designing and manufacturing an effective way to bring this into the open market “in as little as 5 years’ time” (Mendes, 2015, p.318) for consumers to freely use on a grand scale.

3D printing as a whole is a new concept however it has managed to grow rapidly since its invention. It has weaved its way through many different recreational, educational and industrial settings and established itself as the next best technological advancement. With its new found claim to fame 3D printing drugs has undergone extensive medical research and scientists have discovered the endless possibilities in drug manipulation. For starters, 3D printing drugs can be tailor-made to fit any individual’s requirements, this would inevitably aid in accurate and precise manufacturing of their prescription. Scientists and prescribers can control “factors like the size, shape, dosage, appearance and rate of delivery” (Apple Rubber, 2018), of the required drug to best suit the patient. In 2015 researchers at University College London started to create drugs in unique shapes, such as dinosaurs in order to appeal to children, making for what most kids deem a nightmare, a much more pleasant experience. Furthermore, the material in which drugs have been made have improved by the use of ‘biocompatible polymers’; these materials can “withstand high temperatures in the printing process” (Sanderson, 2015), therefore will not be affected during modelling. Spritam has been invented for the treatment of ‘onset seizures’ (Apple Rubber, 2018). This drug easily melts in the mouth as it’s made from polymer filaments layers. This make is easier for the elderly, people with anxiety, goiter, GERD or any other throat complication to ingest without any implications, and because of this Spirtam has become the first FDA approved drug through the marvel of 3D printing. Stella Wong states that with this new technology there will be “fewer side effects” thus enabling the improvement of “patient compliance” (Wong for PharmaTimes, 2018). The local manufacturing of the drugs could completely transform the industry, by lowering cost of mass production and distribution, pharmacies around the world can precisely print prescriptions at the convenience of their own practices without the hassle for waiting on delivery. This can be further aided with the invention of the ‘poly-pill’ patients can take multiple drugs at the same time, e.g. elderly patients may find it easier to take just one pill as many suffer from dysphagia, and with increasing cases of dementia and Alzheimer’s they will find it more convenient. This will also reduce the number of missed doses cutting down on medicinal waste which cost the NHS millions every year in funding. To resolve this fewer binding agents are used in 3D printed medicine, making it a brilliant resource for economical, industrial and social purposes.

However there still remains many questions unanswered about its legitimacy and its sure-fire certainty to succeed. There are a few risks that slightly backtrack the progression of 3D printing medicine being more sparingly available. Firstly, one must consider the efficiency and safety of 3DP. Many drug manufacturing companies are programmed to be as efficient as possible, making thousands upon thousands of drugs every minute however with 3DP it may not be as quick and as safe as new biomaterials may work differently on every individual. Moreover, we could question the accountability and legitimacy of the products that get printed, the blueprints for each drug could get into the wrong hands and produce masses of counterfeit drugs. The wrong dosage may be applied for these and this could be hazardous for anyone who gets their hands on them. Amanda Pearson suggested: “Patent violations will increasingly become more common and identifying counterfeited items will become practically impossible” (Pearson, 2018). This could be a giant setback as there is always the potential risk of incident claims from the consumer which would hinder the industry financially. Another argument that is a severe issue is the potential of cyber hackers that could infect the 3DP systems. This means 3DP drugs are more susceptible to counterfeits due to ‘encrypted codes’ (Robinson, 2016). This could also be an exceptionally huge problem with drug dealers, who may hack and use the technology to print illegal narcotics. Lastly, it should be noted that 3DP drugs will be inevitably expensive despite its best effort to cut down on funds and waste products. A single machine would cost thousands of pounds on top of the limited materials e.g. gold which are used. In order to fully allow 3D printing in practices these cons would have to be overcome or 3DP drugs may do more harm than good.

The future is unclear, from what we know 3D printing is still at the beginning of its medical journey, from artificial bone printing to ‘melt in the mouth’ FDA approved epilepsy tablets. It is obvious that the possibilities are endless. Despite the disadvantages, one could conclude that 3DP drugs is actually beneficial. The future of 3D printing looks virtuous with many more tablets being available to the masses, this not only helps pharmacists speedily hand out prescriptions, but it could also mean in the future the pharmaceutical industry could expand into many other forms of 3D printed medication, e.g. cough syrup, or different tools for drug transfer e.g. 3D printed asthma sprays. Despite this possibly occurring in the distant future, one can say that as of now the phenomenon that is 3DP has truly changed the pharmaceutical world and even bettered it for the generations to come.

What is the purpose of the initiative?

The 3D concrete printing initiative is the future of modernised, affordable, durable, and efficient means of construction for government projects across the UAE. For the next two decades, it is predicted that the UAE government will need an affordable but efficient means of construction for its projects such as national housing and roads. The current standard concrete forms will not cannot cope with the demand for light structured construction projects. The 3D concrete printing technology is predicted to transform the construction industry in the UAE because of its benefits such as reduced cost of construction by up to 40%, durable but light structures, and mass implementation of multiple projects within a short time.

Who is the client?

The client is the government of UAE interested in constructing futuristic cities that are consistent with the technology of the next decade. The government has limited resources but wants to transform several construction plans into actual projects from bridges, government building, stadiums, and public housing among others.

Who is supposed to benefit and how?

The government will benefit from reduced expenditure on construction by up to 40% since the 3D concrete printing technology is estimated to cost 50% less than the current concrete forms. Moreover, the government will be able to roll out multiple projects that can be completed in a shorter timeline than the current projects. The UAE government will be able to plan for construction project expenditure accurately and get completed projects in time. This will also save costs associated with extension in construction projects.

What are the measures of success or improvement?

The first successful measure is completion of construction project within the set deadline, which is half the current duration for similar projects. Another measure is reduced cost of construction by 40% of the current cost for similar projects. The third measure is elimination of costs associated with extension of construction projects such as inflation.

What forms of knowledge and expertise will need to be consulted?

• The knowledge needed is the technology of printing concrete forms into viable slabs or blocks for building (Lester 34).
• The expertise needed include civil engineering knowledge, structural competency, land economics experts, and 3D printing information technology experts.
• The is also a need for architectural expertise in the design to guarantee structural integrity of the projects at hand (Dykstra 19).

What resources will be needed to implement the initiative?

• 3D Printers.
• Concrete mixers.
• Cement, sand, gravel, and limestone.
• Technologically advanced factory.
• Investment of about $1 billion.

Who controls these resources?

• The 3D printers will be controlled by a trained IT expert with support from civil and architectural professionals (Ramos).
• The regulation of materials to use in 3D printing will be done by the civil engineer with assistance from the land economist (Lipson and Kurman 27).
• The approval of final concrete block will be done by the structural expert alongside the project manager.
• Allocation of funds will be done by the project accountant in consultation with the project manager.
• The experts in different fields will be part of the project supervisors.

What is the timeframe for planning, implementation and evaluation?

• The time frame is twelve months.
• First three months is planning.
• Second three months is for piloting.
• Last six months is for implementation and evaluation.

Research Futures Trends and Drivers

Trends occurring related to the UAE.

Trend Impact Analysis

Trend: Shift to 3D printed concrete in construction of government projects.

Impact Over 1-5 yrs:

• Reduced cost of construction by 20%.
• Increase in smart concrete structures by 5% as more project embrace the 3D technology.
• Improvement of green structures by 10%.
• Improved efficiency in construction by 10% as structures become light weight and stronger.

Impact Over 6-10 yrs:

• Reduced cost of construction by 35%.
• Increase in smart concrete structures by 15% as more project embrace the 3D technology.
• Improvement of green structures by 20%.
• Improved efficiency in construction by 15% as structures become light weight and stronger.

Impact Over 10+ yrs:

• Reduced cost of construction by 45-50% due to economies of scale
• Increase in smart concrete structures by 35% and above as more project embrace the 3D technology.
• Improvement of green structures by 35% and above.
• Improved efficiency in construction by 40% as structures become light.

Impact and Probability of Occurrence

Prioritising Direct/Indirect Trends on my Business

Template: Uncertainties and opposite outcomes

Contractual and Procurement Risk:

• The project has very clear procurement and contractual arrangement for completion of the project.
• Delay in implementation.

Environment Risk:

• Sustainability, pollution, environmental degradation.
• Change of project location or increased cost as a result of meeting environmental standards.

Political Risk:

• Possible displacement of all the occupants.
• Public outrage and lack of endorsement from interested bodies may delay project.

Operational and Technological Risk:

• the inflexible time allocation for completion of the project may be faced with challenges in channels of reporting progress.
• Technological failure and cost of maintenance might increase project cost.

Works Cited

Dykstra, Alison. Construction Project Management: A Complete Introduction. Kirshner Publishing Company, 2018.

Huthman, Ibrahim. 3D Printing for Prestressed Concrete. Ohio University, 2017.

Lester, Albert. Project Management, Planning and Control: Managing Engineering, Construction and Manufacturing Projects to PMI, APM and BSI Standards. 6th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, 2013.

Lipson, Hod and Melba Kurman. Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Ramos, Jose. “Futures Action Model for Policy Wind Tunneling”. Action Foresight. 2017. Web.

Taha Mahmoud M. Reda, editor. International Congress on Polymers in Concrete (ICPIC 2018): Polymers for Resilient and Sustainable Concrete Infrastructure. Springer, 2018.

The work of a 3D printer is based on the principle of additive manufacturing. This is a technique by which objects are made by adding layer after layer until the final product takes shape (Petronzio 2013). The use of this device involves three stages; modeling, printing, and finishing. It is important to note that a computer is required during the modeling stage of 3D printing. These are the main aspects that can be distinguished.

The first step is the creation of a 3D model. This task can be done with the help of computer-aided design (CAD) software. This software is used to create original design that will be divided into digital cross-sections (Petronzio 2013). The users, who have not learned to use this software, can purchase ready-made designs from websites like Thingiverse, Sculpteo or Shapeways (Petronzio, 2013). Clients can also order customized designs from these websites. The finished model is then sent to the printer.

The digital file that contains this model has to have the extension .STL, which stands for Standard Tessellation Language. While processing the image, the printer slices it into three-dimensional polygons. When this task is done, the printing stage begins. Once the 3D file has been processed, the material and printer resolution are chosen. When these parameters are set, a gear rolls the plastic material into the print head.

The material is the string-like strand of plastic coiled in the back of the printer. This material could be either polylactic acid (PLA) or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). While in the print head, the plastic passes through a heated tube, where is melted and deposited through the nozzle to the print head. The print bed has to be warmed up when using ABS plastic to prevent the base structure from bending or coiling. On the other hand, PLA can work on any platform. This is the main advantage of this material.

The print head can move horizontally in any direction because it is supported by the X and Y axis rods. The print bed also moves along the Z axis to give the machine vertical movement. Both the print head and the print bed have stepper motors, receive signals from the processor.

The signals tell the motors the amount of rotation required to achieve a certain degree of movement. In turn, the movement of the print head is directed by the 3D file sent to the printer. The head moves horizontally above the bed laying plastic while the print bed moves vertically after each layer is complete. This process continues until a solid object emerges. It has to correspond to the parameters which are included in the 3D file.

When the printing stage is complete, the object is given a few minutes to cool down. Post-processing may also be required to remove the unwanted parts from the final product. For instance, the rough edges can be polished. Caution should be exercised because some parts may still be weak due to slow cooling.

The printed object is ready for use once proper cooling is done and the finishing touches have been applied. It should be mentioned 3D printers can be used to produce various types of products such as food or clothes. On the whole, these devices can transform various industries in the future.

Reference List

Alred, G., Brusaw, C., & Oliu, W. (2010). Handbook of Technical Writing (9th Edition). Boston, MA: Bedford-St. Martin’s.

Petronzio, M. (2013). How 3D Printing Actually Works. Web.

Introduction

3D printing might be one of the most potentially life-changing technological advances of the last decade. Despite the lowered enthusiasm for 3D printing in the last few years, the benefits of this technology have been seen in many industries, and it has become an essential tool for small scale businesses. Desai and Magliocca covered the potential disruption of the copyright system by 3D printers in their article “3D Printers as the Next Intellectual Property Game Changer” (2013). This paper will evaluate the article and see how it connects to microeconomics.

Connection to Microeconomic Theory

One of the main points of the article is that 3D printing allows small businesses and private companies to manufacture parts and products that are virtually identical to those of large companies that would previously hold a monopoly on them (Magliocca & Desai, 2013). This fact brings up the theory of pure competition. According to the theory, in a pure competition, a large number of companies are manufacturing a homogenous product. The market in a pure competition is easy to enter and easy to exit. No one company has a power advantage, and every company has a full awareness of prices.

In theory, 3D printing can facilitate pure competitions in markets that were previously dominated by large conglomerates. One of the simplest examples could be toy manufacturing. Toy companies rarely produce replacement parts for their toys, and when they do like in the case of scale model kits, the parts are very limited and are often overpriced. With the current quality of 3D printers, anyone skilled enough to operate the modeling software can create replacement parts or whole toys that are near-identical to the original. This advancement works directly against monopolies that hold unique rights to manufacture certain machine parts, and other similar products (Kirzner, 2015).

Pros and Cons

The pros and cons of the topic are relatively clear, and in part depend on the personal opinion of the current copyright system. The pros lie in the increased ease of entry into the market, as well as easier exit, reduced costs of manufacturing, increased the speed of prototyping, a lower barrier to entry for new employees, and the leveling of the playing field between large corporations and small businesses. Even in the short four years since the article was written, the number of practical uses of 3D printing became substantial enough to consider it an essential business tool. Beside basic manufacturing and prototyping, it is used in pharmaceutical production, building industry, and soon might be used for the creation of living tissue for organ transplantation (Bhushan & Caspers, 2017).

One of the questionable aspects of 3D printing is the danger of loss of intellectual property. As the article points out, this invention requires a massive change in the copyright system to realize its full potential. On the one hand, the current copyright system is very flawed and is often abused by large companies and malicious individuals. If it is given priority, 3D printers will lose a lot of their competitive potential. However, if the system does not have any control over this technology, there would be no protection of the intellectual property in both the large and small companies. Another con might lie in individuals using 3D printers for the malicious activity like gun manufacturing. However, this type of printing often requires more effort and resources than a legal or illegal purchase of a firearm.

Summary

The article opens with general information on the capability of this technology at the time. The authors compare the quick advancement and loss in the price of 3D printers with the rise of the personal computers. The focus quickly shifts to the possible issues with intellectual property groups that might arise due to the abilities of this technology. The authors suggest that some form of legal protection is required for 3D printing to thrive. They describe the potential benefits of this technology, and its focus on customization. The main example of this is the shift in the market when machines allowed brewing espresso at home. The authors point out that the current copyright doctrine is based on the difficulty of replication of property. This difficulty is lowered through the use of 3D printers. The article ends with a hope that the Congress will provide protection to this technology and websites that host the models (Magliocca & Desai, 2013).

Personal Opinion

I have followed the development of the 3D printing technology since the creation of the first MakerBot 3D printer “Cupcake CNC” in 2009. This technology and its potential fascinated me, and I still see it as a major breakthrough in manufacturing. This article provides a slightly general approach to the topic without touching upon many of the particulars that have already been addressed by 2013. Although the current technology can create virtually identical replications or parts, this was not the case in 2013.

There were some hard limitations related to the resolution of the printer and the structure of supports required for the models that prevented certain types of parts from being manufactured. The pace of price loss was also exaggerated as even today, 3D printers often cost more than a $1,000. However, these issues could be addressed, and they did not hurt the main point of the article.

Conclusion

3D printing is an essential business tool. It could facilitate pure competition while preventing monopoly. Its abilities can have a disrupting effect on the copyright system, which makes the authors argue in its defense. It is a fascinating technology that could improve many lives in the future.

References

Bhushan, B., & Caspers, M. (2017). An overview of additive manufacturing (3D printing) for microfabrication. Microsystem Technologies, 23(4), 1117-1124.

Kirzner, I. (2015). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Magliocca, D., & Desai, D. (2013). 3D printers as the next intellectual property game changer. Yahoo. Web.

The topic of 3-D printable organs very evidently, is starting to receive an increasing amount of attention. The whole mechanism of creating live tissue and organizing cells to form organs seems impossible and amazing.

Until recent time, scientists had problems to keep cells in balance and preserve their survival, as there were few issues. Presently, it has been accomplished by combining stem cells with liquid medium in which the cells have the ability to spawn and continue growth (Benayoun 2013).

The process of 3-D printing has been around for some time, printing physical objects, ranging from robotic parts, to photographs, guns and other everyday items. It is clear that no one thought that this process could go so far.

In personal opinion, printing 3-D objects is very useful, as it saves time and increases efficiency of production and social involvement. Printing organs is very much relative and as of right now, people are unable to grasp the concept very closely.

It seems extremely futuristic and the majority of population cannot even imagine the technology, particularly the printer that will create live organs. But in case this does work, it would prove extremely beneficial for humanity.

There are many people who are on the waitlists for skin transplants, not to mention organs. It is difficult to find donors and there is no guarantee that the organ or tissue will be accepted by the body.

Person’s own stem cells can be used in creating organs, and it means that they will be better accepted by the organism, so there will be very little risk involved and chances of survival are greatly increased.

This sort of development will have very many benefits that will solve problems between hospitals and patient care. For a very long time, since doctors started experimenting and practicing transplanting organs, there has been a battle among professional and patients.

The ethical questions on who must decide where the organs will go and how to separate those in particular need from those who can wait some time longer has been under debate.

One thing for certain is that there is no way to predict the long term deterioration in patient’s health, so it quite impossible to develop a degree of needs between individuals.

As previously discussed, the topic of 3-D organ printing is receiving enormous amount of attention and people are starting to wonder if there will be any ethical problems.

With the ability to create living tissue, people are starting to wonder if it will become possible to replicate a whole human being and cloning has been mentioned as one of the unwanted outcomes.

The merging of “real” people with artificially created human organism has been described in numerous science fiction movies and books but no one has imagined that it might become a part of reality.

The primary problem is that people will start playing God, and the whole ethical issue of whether the cloned or “printed” people will be considered an individual or will they be a mere duplicate that can be experimented on and used for organs is questioned (Magnus 2008).

The existence of soul and character will become very problematic, as these are things that are impossible to discover or quantify.

This can be compared to infants that are grown in labs, using modern technology but the cells that are used are taken from parents and are already formed, as comparing to stem cells that are neutral and then, are later manipulated to produce the required organ.

This sort of artificial involvement and unnatural modification by humans can be the basis for much debate and argument.

One thing for sure, is that the progress and technological advancements cannot be stopped and the future is defined by the knowledge and human ability to better people’s organisms.

This sort of technology can be compared to the current prostatic usage and it has proven to be extremely beneficial for people. If it is acceptable to better joints and bones, then organs can be added to the same category.

There should not be a problem with the organs because it is the patient themselves that donates their own stem cells and so, there is no ethical dilemma present. But people are starting to wonder if it will become possible to replicate brains and human individuality.

It would be wise to leave this issue to the future because the current debate is centered on organ manufacturing and this without a doubt is a positive direction that must be further studied and developed.

The growing attention to 3-D organ printing is continuing to increase the amount of people who consider this technology extremely beneficial. The most recent advances have explained how the technology is used and people are becoming more familiar with and used to the whole idea.

The mixture of stem cells and bio liquid allows for layered growth of cells into any organ that humans have. The further progress in computer technology and bioresearch has made it evident that almost any part of human body can be “printed” (Fernandes 2011, p. 164).

The following diagram illustrates the technique, where a “form” of an organ is used and stem cells surround it and start growing, replicating the physical copy of the organ.

(Loh 2012, p. 3).

Scientists are now talking about being able to produce tracheas and organs that have an intricate system of blood vessels and nervous endings. The use of produced live tissue has already been applied in testing drugs and treatments.

Another most recent developed was in the production “a self-healing hydrogel that binds in seconds and is able to be stretched repeatedly” (Loh 2012, p. 4). As genetics and DNA has been extensively studied in the past, this can be considered the continuation of the already existing experimentation.

It is fascinating that scientists have developed a technique of “inserting” genetic material into the cell and are able to manipulate the living processes (Khademhosseini 2008, p. 128). I think that this sort of technology is inevitably connected to humanity and evolution.

People were given intricate brains in order to discover ways to better ourselves. Unfortunately, it will probably be impossible to replicate individualities because there is much more immaterial and unexplained aspects involved in making someone who they are.

Just as there are limitations on certain things that people cannot achieve, like flying, walking through walls or changing into other live organism or objects, Nature will not allow people to become creators of other human beings.

Of course, it is possible that some secret governmental facilities are in fact cloning people who are already walking amongst the population but there is no conclusive evidence.

One thing for sure, is that problems must be dealt with as soon as they arrive and not before, otherwise, there will be an overload of the mind.

References

Benayoun, J 2013, The Latest in Biotech: Printable Organs. Web.

Fernandes, P 2011, Advances on Modeling in Tissue Engineering, Springer New York, United States.

Khademhosseini, A 2008, Micro and Nanoengineering of the Cell Microenvironment, Artech House, Campridge, United States.

Loh, X 2012, Polymeric and Self Assembled Hydrogels, Royal Society of Chemistry Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Magnus. T 2008, ‘Stem Cell Myths’, The Royal Society, vol. 363. no. 1489, pp. 9-22.