It turns out that Wikipedia has an extensive list of academic microfluidics/bioMEMS research groups worldwide. Although the list is long, there are probably many groups missing. I know this because when I first found the page, only one group from MIT was mentioned (there are at least nine). I’ve since remedied that situation — my first time ever editing a Wikipedia entry.
It’s definitely worth a visit if you’re trying to get an overview of current research in microfluidics/bioMEMS.
Two approaches to technology research: starting with the solution or starting with the problem. Both work, and many academic research groups use a combination. But they’re different ways of thinking. In grad school our group started with a solution (microfluidic technology) and looked for ways to apply it. Sometimes this could get frustrating. You can spend years developing a technology, with no idea if anyone has a use for it.
Across the hall a different group focused on understanding mechanisms of hearing, using whatever means. Following a grass-is-greener logic, in grad school that approach seemed incredibly attractive to me but has its own challenges.
These ideas also apply to startups (or innovation in any company). The ideal is to have a product that meets a demonstrated unmet need, so the solution (technology) and problem (market need) meet in the middle. But if you’re just beginning the innovation process, do you prefer starting with the solution or the problem?
After I heard about a clinical trial for a microfluidic device that detects circulating cancer cells, I started wondering how many other microfluidic devices are in clinical trials. A quick search turned up only seven studies (and two of those were withdrawn). Interestingly, five of the seven trials have some connection to the University of Michigan, which appears to be a leader in pursuing commercialization of microfluidics.
Systems for in vitro embryo development
InCept Biosystems (co-founded by Shuichi Takayama of the University of Michigan) has two active clinical trials (Phase I and Phase II) testing their SMART device, which uses microfluidics to create an in-vivo-like environment for in vitro embryo culture.
Diagnostics for pathogen identification
A big problem in treating infection is identifying the infecting organism—the conventional culture tests take so long that doctors often prescribe antibiotics without knowing what bacteria they’re up against. If a fast, reliable method were available to identify the pathogen, doctors could prescribe antibiotics known to kill that bug, potentially speeding recovery and reducing overuse of antibiotics (hence reducing the generation of antibiotic resistance).
Clinicaltrials.gov lists three studies on microfluidic diagnostic devices for pathogen detection, although two have been withdrawn. The active study is being conducted by Peking University People’s Hospital and hopes to demonstrate a rapid detection system for bacteria typically found in pneumonia. The two withdrawn trials conducted by the University of Michigan were originally intended to rapidly detect Group B streptococcus neonatal infections, but both were discontinued with the explanation that “HandyLab device did not work for the science.” I’d love to find out what went wrong with the HandyLab device and if Becton Dickinson is still developing that product.
Diagnostics for periodontal disease
Finally, the University of Michigan is also testing a device for rapid diagnosis of periodontal disease. I’m curious about the need for such a device—maybe I’ll ask on my next trip to the dentist.
What causes cancer cells to become metastatic, moving beyond their local environment to infiltrate other parts of the body? Some researchers have called metastasis “the most dangerous event in cancer,” and many believe that a better understanding of metastasis could lead to new cancer treatments.
Microfluidics researchers have long been investigating metastasis, because metastasis is all about cell movement. When cells move inside the body, they are often moving in microfluidic-type environments. Using microfluidic platforms, scientists gain fine spatial and temporal control of the cell microenvironment, something that’s difficult-to-impossible using conventional methods. A few examples of how microfluidic technology is being used to investigate metastasis:
Microfluidics can help us understand what external influences cause cell motion
Much of the initial work in applying microfluidics to metastasis has focused on studying how cancer cells respond to concentration gradients of chemicals suspected to drive cell motion. For example, Noo Li Jeon’s group at UC Irvine, a leader in using microfluidics to generate microscale chemotactic gradients, created a platform to investigate how epidermal growth factor may cause breast cancer cells to move (2006, free full text). David Beebe’s group has expanded this concept to three dimensions (2008, free full text).
More recently, Mehmet Toner and Daniel Irimia have found using microfluidics that chemotactic gradients may not be necessary for cancer cell motion. Their work, published in 2009, implies that a simple microchannel may be sufficient to get cancer cells moving (nice video here!).
Microfluidics can detect circulating cancer cells
Toner’s group has also developed a microfluidic platform for detecting rare metastatic cancer cells circulating in the blood (make sure to click on the video) for earlier detection of metastasis. In 2007 Technology Review reported that this device was undergoing clinical trials in lung and prostate cancer. Clinicaltrials.gov lists an ongoing clinical trial with a very similar type of device — possibly the same device or a competing design. The study lists 2012 as the target for completion, so it may be a while before a commercial product is announced.
Microfluidics can be used to study mechanical properties of cells
Finally, the Guck group at the University of Cambridge has attacked the problem from the inside, instead looking at the mechanical properties of individual cancer cells. The Guck group has developed a microfluidic optical stretcher to help investigate how the cytoskeleton, cell mechanics, and cell motility may be related, so that we may better understand how to develop therapies that hinder movement of metastatic cells.
I loved David Rotman’s recent Technology Review article “Shoveling Water” on why the commercialization of microfluidics has been so slow. (I wrote about it here.) Later I realized it reminded me of an article I read earlier this year by Michael Mandel of Business Week on “The Failed Promise of Innovation in the US.” Mandel claims that failed technological innovation has contributed to the slow economy and gives examples of “failures” in areas like MEMS (including microfluidics) and tissue engineering, where new technologies have faced hurdles to commercialization.
Everyone agrees that microfluidics has taken longer to commercialize than expected. Mandel’s article defines a problem (an innovation shortfall) but doesn’t propose any solutions, other than waiting for the technologies to mature. Rotman takes a different tack, explaining the slow pace of microfluidics commercialization using W. Brian Arthur’s theories of technology evolution. I wonder if Arthur’s ideas could be used to identify areas where the innovation process could be optimized, similar to the approach that Eric Ries has taken in creating the Lean Startup movement in software. Can we speed up the process of technology evolution?
Lately DIY science seems to be everywhere. A few weeks ago Nature Biotechnology published an article on the DIYbio movement, while Technology Review wrote about how to take pictures of the earth from space for $150. And don’t forget the rise of O’Reilly’s Make Magazine. Although people have been programming (and building!) computers at home for decades, we’re only beginning to explore how the widespread availability of technology could enable participatory science outside the traditional lab.
Why academia goes DIY
While most of the media coverage on DIY science has focused on amateurs, there’s actually a lot of DIY-style science happening in academic labs. Why would “real” researchers go the DIY route? When you’re trying to develop a novel technology, in some sense everything you do is DIY, since you can’t buy the finished product off the shelf. Of course, academic labs usually have access to expensive equipment, machine shops or cleanrooms that make it easier to build custom devices from scratch. Even so, it’s common for academic labs to use “quick-and-dirty” methods to save money and time. Such enabling methods can sometimes constitute an innovation on their own — look no further than Michelle Khine’s Shrinky Dink microfluidic patterning.
Cheap, readily-available DIY-style methods can also facilitate the creation of low-cost technologies for the developing world. For example, both George Whitesides and Paul Yager have pointed out the potential power of the smartphone as a part of low-cost diagnostic measurement and communication systems.
What will be the products of the new DIY science?
What motivates people to pursue DIY science and technology in their homes? Is the computer science field a valid model for what might happen as other types of technology become more accessible? The word “biohacker” has already crossed over — will a biohacker culture emerge, and how might it affect mainstream science and technology development? I can’t wait to see what happens with the DIYbio movement — meanwhile I’ll be thinking about DIY microfluidics.
For more on DIY science and technology:
To ring in the New Year, I’ve added a new page to the site (see the “What’s Microfluidics?” link at the top of the screen) briefly explaining what microfluidics is and why I write about it. Even though the field has been around for decades, microfluidics and bioMEMS haven’t yet penetrated the mainstream. Hopefully this page will help visitors to the site get oriented quickly:
What’s microfluidics?
Microfluidics is an emerging technology that enables precise, automated manipulation of tiny volumes of fluid (often nanoliters or even picoliters). To quote Wired Magazine, “Microfluidic devices are a lot like computer chips with plumbing.” Microfluidic technology may also be called lab-on-a-chip technology or micro-Total-Analysis-Systems (microTAS).
Why is microfluidics important?
Because microfluidics handles such small liquid volumes, the technology may enable cost-efficient, ultra-high-throughput assays in areas like biology and drug discovery. Many groups are also working on microfluidic devices for point-of-care diagnostics as well as therapeutics (e.g., drug delivery). In addition to making existing experimental techniques more efficient, microfluidics can enable new types of experiments. Although microfluidics research has been conducted for decades in academia, the market potential is only beginning to be explored.
Why does this blog focus on biomedical microfluidics and microtechnologies?
During my Ph.D. research, I developed microfluidic devices for manipulating the stem cell microenvironment. After graduation I transitioned to business strategy consulting in the life sciences, but I still had a lot of questions (both commercial and scientific) about the field. Through this blog I explore some of these questions. I also write about bioMEMS (a larger category of technology that encompasses bio-microfluidics but also includes non-microfluidic devices) and biomedical applications of nanotechnology.
Today Technology Review came out with a great article speculating why the commercialization of microfluidics has been so slow. In “Shoveling Water: Why does it take so long to commercialize new technologies?” David Rotman uses Fluidigm as a case study and adds a twist by applying ideas from W. Brian Arthur’s The Nature of Technology, a new book on the theory of technology development.
Since working on microfluidic culture of embryonic stem cells during my doctoral research, I’ve come across many of these issues first-hand and have often wondered what it would take to make microfluidics commercially successful. The Rotman piece is well-researched and brings up several excellent points:
Domains, as Arthur defines them, are groups of technologies that fit together because they harness a common phenomenon. Electronics is a domain; its devices–capacitors, inductors, transistors–all work with electrons and thus naturally fit together. . . . A domain ‘emerges piece by piece from its individual parts. . . . All this “normally takes decades,” Arthur says. “It is a very, very slow process.”
. . . this evolution of a new body of technology is often matched by an even more familiar progression: enthusiasm about a new technology, investor and user disillusionment as the technology fails to live up to the hyperbole, and a slow reëmergence as the technology matures and begins to meet the market’s needs.
. . . many potential users remain skeptical. Once again, microfluidics finds itself in a familiar phase of technology development. As David Weitz, a physics professor at Harvard and cofounder of several microfluidics companies, explains: “It is a wonderful solution still looking for the best problems.”
To those within the microfluidics community many of these ideas may be familiar, but it is wonderful to see them articulated so clearly. If a microfluidics domain emerged with standard methods of connecting devices, a layer of abstraction could enable more flexible, individualized use. And although “solutions in search of a problem,” are the bread and butter of academia, many microfluidics researchers would love to work toward addressing an established unmet need. For more on the commercialization of microfluidics:
One of the best things about microfluidics research is the images. Colored dyes are used to track liquid flow, often producing beautiful photographs such as those seen in the artistic collaboration between George Whitesides and Felice Frankel.
Albert Folch’s lab at the University of Washington has created their own microfluidic art gallery using images from their research. You can even order photocanvases of their work (all proceeds go back to the lab to fund more art). The group has exhibited their art in Seattle and have an upcoming gallery show in Barcelona in 2011.
The Colors of Viscosity. (Image credit: Chris Sip and Albert Folch)
Caption for “The Colors of Viscosity”, from the BAIT exhibit:
Fluids often behave in unexpected ways on the microscale. At this scale, the friction of the walls is very important and fluids behave much like honey in a coffee cup — the fluids cannot present turbulence and they flow “laminarly.” The image above is a composite of three pictures of the same device, each colored digitally with a different hue to embellish the effect. (The original dye color is green.) Flow is from top to bottom. The device stacks the flow of a water solution (invisible) on top of a dye solution. The dye is slightly more viscous than water, producing eerie flow patterns that resemble those of “lava lamps” — with the difference that these are completely stable.
For more microfluidic art from the Folch Lab, explore their Picasa gallery, which also contains movies!
New blog at fluidicmems.com
I started this blog at lilykim.com knowing I wanted to explore the intersection of medicine, technology, and business, but without knowing exactly what the blog would be about. Over time I found myself writing more and more about my microfluidics / MEMS roots. I wanted to know more about the latest research, but I also wanted to understand how these technologies could be brought into the world to help solve real problems.
So I’ve created a new blog at fluidicmems.com focusing on microfluidics / bioMEMS. I’ll post microfluidics-related content there and will post any other content here at lilykim.com.
Hope to see you at fluidicmems.com!