@russelljkaplan: In 1958 Ian Donald published what is now the foundational paper on medical ultrasound for obstetrics. He was so widely …

X AI KOLs Following News

Summary

A personal reflection on the history of medical ultrasound innovation, linking it to modern device builders like David Holz, and highlighting the importance of perseverance in the face of skepticism.

In 1958 Ian Donald published what is now the foundational paper on medical ultrasound for obstetrics. He was so widely ridiculed by his colleagues at the time that they nicknamed him Mad Donald [1], and one said ultrasound would be useful only to "a gynecologist who was blind and had lost the use of both hands" [2]. Another noted that he'd invented a £10,000 device to undertake a task that could be accomplished with a £0.02 rubber glove. [3] Last week, my wife and I welcomed our first child into the world. She had a rare pregnancy complication that until recently would have meant only a 28% intact survival rate for our newborn. But in 2013 US guidance was updated to add regular preventative screening for her condition at the 20-week ultrasound, and with early detection the survival rate is ~99%. (In the UK, preventative screening is still not recommended, for reasons like "it is not known how accurate screening tests are" [4].) The entire history of radiology is people expressing skepticism about the work done by innovators. I for one am grateful for folks like @DavidSHolz building new classes of devices that can help us see things in new ways, and I'll be rooting for their success. Hand in hand with my wife and our healthy baby boy.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 06/22/26, 01:30 AM

In 1958 Ian Donald published what is now the foundational paper on medical ultrasound for obstetrics. He was so widely ridiculed by his colleagues at the time that they nicknamed him Mad Donald [1], and one said ultrasound would be useful only to “a gynecologist who was blind and had lost the use of both hands” [2]. Another noted that he’d invented a £10,000 device to undertake a task that could be accomplished with a £0.02 rubber glove. [3]

Last week, my wife and I welcomed our first child into the world. She had a rare pregnancy complication that until recently would have meant only a 28% intact survival rate for our newborn. But in 2013 US guidance was updated to add regular preventative screening for her condition at the 20-week ultrasound, and with early detection the survival rate is ~99%. (In the UK, preventative screening is still not recommended, for reasons like “it is not known how accurate screening tests are” [4].)

The entire history of radiology is people expressing skepticism about the work done by innovators. I for one am grateful for folks like @DavidSHolz building new classes of devices that can help us see things in new ways, and I’ll be rooting for their success. Hand in hand with my wife and our healthy baby boy.

Similar Articles

I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner

Hacker News Top

Dr. Matthew Zirwas retracts his earlier dismissal of the Midjourney ultrasound scanner, acknowledging that if it is high-resolution, harmless, inexpensive, and convenient, frequent screening could overcome historical pitfalls of unnecessary invasive procedures, though he emphasizes that data is needed to confirm benefit.

Microbubbles in Medicine

Hacker News Top

An in-depth article from Works in Progress exploring how microbubbles, when burst with ultrasound, can overcome biological barriers like the blood-brain barrier to improve drug delivery, with potential applications in treating brain diseases and other conditions.