Maureen Dowd, "America’s Billionaire": Buy What You Know, or, Buy What You Don't Know (After Learning It)?

Unlike Warren Buffett, I don't give stock market advice. Moreover, I long ago reached the conclusion that I will not invest in companies where I do not interact with management. In addition, it's my belief that if a product being created by a company is too easily understood by me, it's ultimately going to be copied in China.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "America’s Billionaire" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/dowd-americas-billionaire.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd describes a discussion between Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan and Warren Buffett, which took place before an audience of 700 Georgetown students and faculty. Dowd writes:

"Speaking to an excited crowd of students and others Thursday night beneath soaring stained-glass windows, the 83-year-old Warren Buffett offered inspiring lessons in patriotism and compassion — traits sorely missing here as Republicans ran headlong toward a global economic cataclysm and gutted the food stamp program.

'I am sorry I’m late,' Nancy Pelosi murmured sardonically, as she arrived at the Buffett event. 'We were busy taking food out of the mouths of babies.'"

Don't get me wrong: I oppose Republican efforts to shut down the US government unless Obamacare is defunded. I also oppose "gutting" the food stamp program. But Pelosi demeaning someone else's morality? It was Pelosi who met with Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad in 2007 and infamously declared, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Some six years later, this past August 21st, Assad killed nearly 1,500 people with sarin gas, of whom more than 400 were children.

But back to Buffett. Dowd tells us:

"He doesn’t worry about keeping up with modern technology. He buys what he knows, like Coca-Cola, which he drank all evening."

Well, I'm not about to drink Coca-Cola all evening. Thank you, Coca-Cola won't dissolve your teeth overnight, but I'm not obese - nor do I intend to become so. Diet Cola? I prefer to feed my caffeine addiction with coffee.

But more to the point, is it all about making money? Or does the possibility also exist to make money by investing in endeavors, which, unlike Coca-Cola, can contribute to humanity?

But how to invest in biotech or medical devices without losing your shirt? Not easy. But for me it begins with my desire to be overwhelmed by the science. When I meet with a company's scientists, I want to feel that I am the dumbest person in the room.

Late in the second half of the game, I am blessed to be able to work with two remarkable companies seeking to change the world in which we live.

Compugen, which is revolutionizing the manner in which new drugs and diagnostics are discovered, has spent the past decade building an infrastructure of proprietary scientific understandings, predictive platforms, algorithms, and machine learning systems for the in silico (by computer) prediction and selection of product candidates. Although Compugen is the vision of Martin Gerstel, who in the past guided Alza, a drug delivery company, to success, the ongoing realization of Mr. Gerstel's dream is in the hands of some 50 geniuses who have collectively integrated their diverse fields of knowledge - no small endeavor. I meet and talk regularly with Mr. Gerstel and Compugen's management and scientific team. Although I am overwhelmed by their intellects, I have never encountered arrogance or condescension. Quite the contrary: I have always experienced smiles and angelic patience as their scientists have explained to me their latest achievements.

A month ago, Compugen announced that it had signed a licensing deal with Bayer HealthCare involving two immune checkpoint regulators discovered by Compugen. Immune checkpoint regulators? Cancer immunotherapy? As explained by Compugen in their press release describing the deal (http://cgen.com/press-releases/212-compugen-announces-collaboration-and-license-agreement-with-bayer-for-antibody-based-cancer-immunotherapies):

"The immunotherapy approach aims at combatting cancer by stimulating the body´s own immune cells. The tumor and its environment suppress the ability of cancer patients to develop an effective anti-tumor immune response and in this way protect both tumor growth and survival.

. . . .

Latest cancer immunotherapies have demonstrated impressive clinical benefit, even for end-stage patients with difficult-to-treat tumors such as metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer. Unlike conventional cancer therapies, which act by directly targeting the cancer cells, resulting often in only transient clinical responses as cancer cells become resistant, clinical responses to cancer immunotherapy tend to be durable, sometimes resulting in dramatic long term survival and absence of resistance or recurrences."

Exciting science? You bet! And last week, Compugen announced experimental results for yet another immune checkpoint protein that it discovered, CGEN-15049 (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/compugen-target-for-cancer.html):

“CGEN-15049 has demonstrated the ability to regulate an impressive array of different types of immune cells, therefore offering unique potential as a target for monoclonal antibody immunotherapy for many types of cancers and further contributing to the diversity of Compugen's Pipeline Program candidates. More specifically, in vitro studies have shown that CGEN-15049 both inhibits Natural Killer cells, which are important for innate immune responses, and modulates the activity of types of T cells that constitute a crucial component of the adaptive anti-tumor immune response. In this respect, CGEN-15049 inhibits cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which normally act to recognize and kill tumor cells, and promotes inducible regulatory T cells, which play a central role in creating the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that reduce the ability of the immune system to fight the tumor.

In addition to its functional effect on multiple types of immune cells, CGEN-15049 is also expressed on a wide variety of cancers with high clinical unmet need, such as lung, ovarian, breast, colorectal, gastric, prostate and liver cancers. Notably, its expression can be detected both within the tumor epithelium of the cancers as well as on immune cells infiltrating these cancers. This expression pattern within the tumor microenvironment, combined with its immunomodulatory activity on immune cells involved in tumor progression, suggest a role for CGEN-15049 in suppressing anti-tumor immune response. Therefore, inhibition of CGEN-15049 activity by monoclonal antibody therapy, in certain cancer types, is predicted to result in allowing the activation of an anti-tumor immune response and potentially eliminating the tumor itself.”

Hard to understand? Yes, but worth making the effort. Where might you even begin to learn about immune checkpoint therapy for cancer? "Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) for Dummies," of course (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/monoclonal-antibodies-mabs-for-dummies.html).

Nano Retina, which is the brainchild of renowned medical device inventor Yossi Gross and nanotechnology icon Jim Von Ehr, is seeking to create a miniaturized retinal implant to restore vision to persons blinded by age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa following a 30-minute minimally invasive operation. A video is worth a thousand words? Have a look for yourselves:



Again, I have only known kindness and caring from the founders and small team of scientists responsible for this breakthrough project.

Innovation is premised upon vision, ambition, teamwork and no small amount of sweat and lack of sleep. Temerity, rapacity and insensitivity are unnecessary ingredients.

So, do you buy what you know, or, do you buy what you don't know (after learning it)?

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized, approved or reviewed prior to posting by Compugen.]

Paul Krugman, "Et Tu, Bernanke?": Hey, Doesn't Someone Else Deserve the Blame?

Yesterday, I was asked to attend a management meeting of Nano Retina, a small, non-public Israeli start-up company (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/12/nano-retinas-bionic-retina-seeks-to.html), which is creating a tiny implant that will restore vision to persons blinded by retinal disease, e.g., age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa, in a 30-minute minimally invasive procedure. Viewing a simulation of what patients will be able to see following implantation of the device and listening to the subsequent discussion, I estimated the incredible cumulative IQ of those seated around the table and calculated by how much the average had been reduced by my arrival in the room. Although I could not understand much of the talk concerning the electronics and miniaturization, I was relieved to know what humans continue to strive to achieve, notwithstanding the readiness of others to spend hundreds of dollars on zombie movies (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/maureen-dowd-zombie-scare-with-zombie.html).

But all is far from well in the world.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Et Tu, Bernanke?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/krugman-et-tu-bernanke.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman complains that the US Federal Reserve is hinting that it is abandoning its policy of aggressive monetary stimulus. This has caused the benchmark interest rate on 10-year US government bonds to rise from 1.7 percent to 2.4 percent over the past two months and has also engendered a precipitous decline in the stock markets (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/william-cohan-at-long-last-stocks-get.html).  Krugman writes:

"Lately, Fed officials have been issuing increasingly strong hints that rather than doing more, they want to do less, that they are eager to start 'tapering,' returning to normal monetary policy.

. . . .

The first thing you need to understand is how far we remain from full employment four years after the official end of the 2007-9 recession. It’s true that measured unemployment is down — but that mainly reflects a decline in the number of people actively seeking jobs, rather than an increase in job availability. Look, for example, at the fraction of adults in their prime working years (25 to 54) who have jobs; that ratio fell from 80 to 75 percent in the recession, and has since recovered only to 76 percent.

Given this grim reality — plus very low inflation — you have to wonder why the Fed is talking at all about reducing its efforts on the economy’s behalf.

Still, it’s just talk, right? Well, yes — but what the Fed says often matters as much as or more than what it does. This is inherent in the relationship between what the Fed more or less directly controls, namely short-term interest rates, and longer-term rates, which reflect expected as well as current short-term rates. Even if the Fed leaves short rates unchanged for now, statements that convince investors that these rates will be going up sooner rather than later will cause long rates to rise. And because long rates are what mainly matter for private spending, this will weaken growth and employment."

Yes, I agree with Krugman: unemployment remains disastrously high, although I question to what extent the purchase by the Fed of billions of dollars of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities each month has improved the American economy. Yes, funds have been driven to the stock market, but where is resultant job creation?

But just a moment: Where is there even a mention of Obama in Krugman's op-ed? Does our incredible shrinking president (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-incredible-shrinking-president-he.html) have no responsibility for the economy? Perhaps not. Recall the recent words of Ben Rhodes regarding the cost of the president's upcoming trip to Tanzania:

"We don't have the exact figure on costs — frankly we don't own or control those numbers."

Or in other words, "Hope," "Change" and "Forward" with no control of the numbers.

Yeah, right.

David Brooks, "Temerity at the Top": What's Needed for Innovation

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Temerity at the Top" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/opinion/brooks-temerity-at-the-top.html), David Brooks focuses on the achievements of Elon Musk, the remarkable 41-year-old founder of SpaceX and co-founder of Tesla Motors and Paypal. Brooks begins by noting:

"Prosperity is often driven by small enclaves of extraordinary individuals that build new industries and amass large fortunes. These driven, manic individuals are frequently unpleasant to be around. But, if your country is not attracting and nurturing them, you’re cooked."

Brooks concludes with the observation:

"A few ridiculously ambitious people can change an economy more than any president."

I agree and disagree with Brooks. Innovation is necessarily grounded upon vision and ambition. Manic tendencies are not a necessary component of the equation.

Late in the second half of the game, I am blessed to be able to work with two companies seeking to change the world in which we live.

Compugen, which is revolutionizing the manner in which new drugs and diagnostics are discovered, has spent the past decade building an infrastructure of proprietary scientific understandings, predictive platforms, algorithms, and machine learning systems for the in silico (by computer) prediction and selection of product candidates. Although Compugen is the vision of Martin Gerstel, who in the past guided Alza, a drug delivery company, to success, the ongoing realization of Mr. Gerstel's dream is in the hands of some 40 geniuses who have collectively integrated their diverse fields of knowledge - no small endeavor. I meet and talk regularly with Mr. Gerstel and Compugen's management and scientific team. Although I am overwhelmed by their intellects, I have never encountered arrogance or condescension. Quite the contrary: I have always experienced smiles and angelic patience as their scientists have explained to me their latest achievements.

Nano Retina, which is the brainchild of renowned medical device inventor Yossi Gross and nanotechnology icon Jim Von Ehr, is seeking to create a miniaturized retinal implant to restore vision to persons blinded by age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa following a 30-minute minimally invasive operation. A video is worth a thousand words? Have a look for yourselves:



Again, I have only known kindness and caring from the founders and small team of scientists responsible for this breakthrough project.

Innovation is premised upon vision, ambition, teamwork and no small amount of sweat. Temerity, rapacity and insensitivity are unnecessary ingredients.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized, approved or reviewed prior to posting by Compugen.]

David Brooks, "The Two Economies": Symbiosis or Parasitism?

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Two Economies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/opinion/brooks-the-two-economies.html?_r=1&ref=opinion#), David Brooks describes an article by Tyler Cowen in The American Interest called “What Export-Oriented America Means” (http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1227), which suggests to Brooks the existence of two separate, co-existing economies in the US:

"His work leaves the impression that there are two interrelated American economies. On the one hand, there is the globalized tradable sector — companies that have to compete with everybody everywhere. These companies, with the sword of foreign competition hanging over them, have become relentlessly dynamic and very (sometimes brutally) efficient.

On the other hand, there is a large sector of the economy that does not face this global competition — health care, education and government. Leaders in this economy try to improve productivity and use new technologies, but they are not compelled by do-or-die pressure, and their pace of change is slower."

Brooks then contrasts the attitudes of Republicans and Democrats to these two economies:

"Republicans believe the globalized sector is racing far out in front of government, adapting in ways inevitable and proper. If given enough freedom, Economy I entrepreneurs will create the future jobs we need. Government should prepare people to enter that sector but get out of its way as much as possible.

Democrats are more optimistic that government can enhance the productivity of the global sectors of the economy while redirecting their benefits. They want to use Economy I to subsidize Economy II."

I would take this a step further. There is a need for Economy I to subsidize Economy II; however, Economy II has demonstrated itself to be wasteful, misdirected and prone to fraud. Indeed, Medicare, plagued by $60 billion of fraudulent charges each year, needs to be overhauled, and a much-maligned Paul Ryan has some of the answers. Another example? Government funded research is inordinately slow and not consumed with or even directed at achieving tangible commercial results. I believe that legislators must be vigilant not to allow a symbiotic relationship between the two economies to develop into parasitism.

In short, there will always be a tension between Brooks' Economy I and Economy II, but it is necessary to acknowledge the shortfalls of Economy II and make certain it does not consume Economy I.

David Brooks, "Where Are the Jobs?": Look and You Will Find Them

David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Where Are the Jobs?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/brooks-where-are-the-jobs.html?_r=1&hp), would have us know that there has been significant innovation in information technology of the kind created by Steve Jobs, but this pace of innovation has not been matched in other sectors. Brooks writes:

"Let’s imagine that someone from the year 1970 miraculously traveled forward in time to today. You could show her one of the iPhones that Steve Jobs helped create, and she’d be thunderstruck. People back then imagined wireless communication (Dick Tracy, Star Trek), but they never imagined you could funnel an entire world’s worth of information through a pocket-sized device.

The time traveler would be vibrating with excitement. She’d want to know what other technological marvels had been invented in the past 41 years. She’d ask about space colonies on Mars, flying cars, superfast nuclear-powered airplanes, artificial organs. She’d want to know how doctors ended up curing cancer and senility.

You’d have to bring her down gently. We don’t have any of those things. Airplanes are pretty much the same now as they were then; so are cars, energy sources, appliances, houses and neighborhoods."

I have just returned from a lightning trip to New York and Toronto on behalf of a client, and in the course of my travels, there was indeed evidence of the stagnation referred to by Brooks. I flew in on a Boeing 747, an aircraft first flown commercially in 1970. Even more frustrating was my journey on the Long Island Railroad, which I have been riding since I was a boy, and which, to the best of my recollection, has changed little over the past 50 years.

However, my journey also served to illustrate why I don't agree with David. I had come to these cities to demonstrate the progress being made by a tiny Israeli company, Nano Retina (http://www.nano-retina.com/), which is creating a miniaturized artificial retinal device, which after a 30-minute minimally invasive procedure is expected to restore vision to many persons suffering from advanced macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and retinitis pigmentosa. The leading ophthalmologists with whom we met, gazed at the chip with admiration, given that human clinical trials are already being planned for the first generation device, intended to immediately provide functional vision, in 2013.

Brooks goes on to say:

"The Green Revolution improved grain yields by 126 percent from 1950 to 1980, but yields have risen only by 47 percent in the decades since."

I would suggest that David examine the progress being made by Evogene (http://www.evogene.com/), which is using computational genomics technologies to attain plant trait improvement to address growing demands for food, feed and fuel.

Brooks adds:

"The big pharmaceutical companies have very few blockbuster drugs in the pipeline. They are slashing their research departments."

On the other hand, Compugen (http://www.cgen.com/), whose discovery efforts consist of in silico (by computer) hypothesis-driven drug product candidate prediction and selection, has a constantly growing list of promising drug candidates in their pipeline.

Brooks concludes:

"If you want to be the next Steve Jobs and end the innovation stagnation, maybe you should start in hip-hop."

Sorry, David, but as best I know, none of the visionaries and scientists at Nano Retina, Evogene or Compugen had their beginnings in hip-hop. Rather, the disruptive technologies that they are developing are being born from genius, discipline and perspiration.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Compugen.

I am a part-time external consultant to Nano Retina.

I am an Evogene shareholder, and this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Evogene shares. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Evogene.

The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information.]

Israeli Economics 101, Introduction, 2011

Yesterday, I was required to drive into and out of Tel Aviv during rush hour, and even without accidents, traffic was horrific. Given my impatience, I was driven mad by the congestion; however, I was also consoled by the thought that there is no better indication of torrid economic growth. (For those of you who have spent time in Turkey, recall traffic in and out of Istanbul before and after the 2000-2001 Turkish financial crisis.) Spurred by hi-tech, the Israeli economy was barely grazed by the worldwide financial crisis of 2007-2010, which saw the collapse of household-name financial institutions, plummeting stock market prices, and soaring unemployment. Israeli unemployment has steadily fallen from 10.7% in 2005 to some 7.0% in 2010, with the Bank of Israel predicting 6.7% unemployment in 2011.

Another indication of Israel's buoyant economy? The average shekel-dollar exchange rate in 2005 was NIS 4.4878/$. This morning, the shekel-dollar exchange rate was NIS 3.5297/$.

If you wish to learn more about the Israeli hi-tech miracle, buy a copy of George Gilder's excellent book, "The Israel Test". On a more personal, micro level, those who read this blog are familiar with prior posts expressing my thrill at being able to work as an outside consultant for Compugen, which aims to be the world leader in the discovery and licensing of product candidates to the drug and diagnostic industry (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Compugen), and for Nano Retina, which is developing an ultra small bionic retina designed to restore sight to those suffering from retinal degenerative diseases (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Nano%20Retina).

Now add to this ebullient mixture the recent discovery of significant natural gas reserves some 81 miles off Israel's coast, which potentially could transform tiny Israel into a natural gas exporting nation (see: http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=201439). The gas reserves, estimated to be worth more than $95 billion, comprise the largest amount of natural gas discovered in the world in the last decade.

A fly (or flies) in the ointment? Always.

As reported in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "1 in 5 Israeli families turned to social services in 2009" (http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=202285) by Ruth Eglash, Israel also has its share of needy and underprivileged persons:

"More than 433,000 families, or one in every five Israeli households, received help from social welfare services in 2009, marking a dramatic increase over the past decade, the Welfare and Social Services Ministry reported on Tuesday.

. . . .

Difficulties parenting or behavioral problems with youth accounted for 35.2 percent of all case files; poverty or unemployment made up 34.4%; 33.3% dealt with elderly people considered at risk; while disabilities, both mental and physical, comprised 31.9% of case files."

In addition, Hamas continues to fire Qassam rockets at southern Israeli communities with increasing regularity (concerning yesterday's incident, see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=202271), and peace talks with the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank are stalled.

On the other hand, one cannot help but notice Israeli/Palestinian symbiosis on the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority is quietly permitting Palestinians to work on Israeli West Bank construction projects (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/pa-lightens-ban-on-working-in-settlements-to-ease-palestinian-unemployment-1.333439), while hiring Israeli construction companies to assist in the building of Rawabi, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, the West Bank's first modern Palestinian city (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-companies-to-help-build-first-modern-palestinian-city-1.333751).

Never entirely logical. Never a dull moment.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in mid-September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized or approved by Compugen.]

Nano Retina's Bionic Retina Seeks to Restore Sight to Persons Suffering from Retinal Degenerative Diseases

In an earier blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Nano%20Retina), I noted that I am privileged to work as a consultant for a small Israeli medical device company named Nano Retina, which is developing an ultra small bionic retina, incorporating nano-size components, designed to restore sight to those suffering from retinal degenerative diseases. Its 30-minute implant procedure requires local anesthesia, a small incision and “gluing” of the device to the damaged retina. Return of sight is anticipated to be instantaneous.

According to a recent article in The Economist entitled "Seeing into the future" (http://www.economist.com/node/17647663), a new retinal implant device, manufactured by a company named Second Sight, is soon to be granted clinical approval in Europe and will then go on sale. According to The Economist:

"The device, called the Argus II, is by no means a cure for blindness, says Robert Greenberg, the chief executive and co-founder of Second Sight, the company in Sylmar, California, that developed it. It is intended for use by people who have lost their sight as a result of retina-wasting diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa, and like the earliest cochlear implants it is designed to provide only some basic sensory assistance. But despite its limitations all 30 of the people who have received the Argus II as part of clinical trials can, at the very least, now see changes in light levels and detect objects. This means that they can navigate around obstacles, find doorways, see parked or moving cars and look at someone’s head when talking to them. A handful of them can even read large print."

Although the Argus II is a marvelous achievement, Nano Retina is "setting its sights" considerably higher. The Nano Retina device is intended to allow persons blinded by retinal disease to read, watch TV and identify faces, and the company plans initial human clinical trials within several years. Moreover, as I observed in my earlier blog, the Nano Retina bionic retina is expected to work with the natural functionalities of the eye, including pupil dilation and eyeball movement, and will be powered wirelessly by a rechargeable, battery-operated mini-laser, situated on a pair of eyeglasses.

I can personally report that since Nano Retina was established in 2009, their team of international scientists has made rapid strides toward their artificial retina target. First elements of the system are ready, and several preclinical tests have already been performed, all in accordance with a rigorous time schedule.

See the following animation describing the Nano Retina project:



Truly, in my opinion, a miracle in the making . . .

A Revolutionary Bionic Retina that Promises to Restore Vision to the Blind

In a world gone mad, I take solace in my work, which brings me in touch with leading biotech and medical device companies. For several hours each day I am transported away from the hatred and stupidity which fills the newspapers and am able to admire the genius of others, whose work brings light where there is darkness. Currently, one of the companies with which I am privileged to work is a small Israeli medical device company named Nano Retina, whose corporate mission is to restore sight to the blind.

Try to comprehend the significance of Nano Retina's undertaking: In the U.S. some 50,000 people go blind annually. In addition, there are currently 3.6 million Americans aged 40 and older who are legally blind. Imagine what the possible restoration of vision means to these people.

Nano Retina is developing a tiny bionic retina, incorporating nano-size components, which is designed to restore sight to those suffering from retinal degenerative diseases. Its 30-minute implant procedure requires local anesthesia, a small incision and “gluing” of the device to the damaged retina. Return of sight is anticipated to be instantaneous and will enable persons who have undergone the procedure to watch TV and identify faces.

The bionic retina will replace the damaged photoreceptor in the eye and transform naturally received light into an electrical signal that stimulates the neurons, which send pictures to the brain. The bionic retina works with the natural functionalities of the eye, including pupil dilation and eyeball movement.

The remarkable energy source for the system? A rechargeable, battery-powered mini laser, situated on a pair of eyeglasses, powers the implant wirelessly.

During the coming year, Nano Retina plans to create a “nano” prototype validating its first generation product, based on the existing “electrical” prototype used to demonstrate proof of concept. Thereafter, the company plans to conduct preclinical and clinical trials, the latter beginning in 2012.

Ask persons around the globe what comes to mind when they think of Israel, and more often than not, they will tell you "war and religious strife". Unfortunately, they are unaware of the medical miracles occurring in this tiny country, which has become an island of innovation and high tech. It is truly a pity that so many people, blind with hatred (something the bionic retina cannot remedy), are incapable of perceiving Israel's true promise.