@JennWebb recently wrote an
article for the O’Reilly
Radar titled Democratizing Technology and the Road
to Empowerment. She starts out the article with a nice summary of what it means to
Democratize Technology. Jenn writes “Advancements in technology are making what once was relegated only to
highly educated scientists, engineers and developers accessible to — and
affordable for — the mainstream.“ Now, the blog she writes for is focused on
the intersection of Hardware and Software (or the “physical and digital worlds”
is how they phrase it), while we at RoosterBio are imagining a World where
biotechnology, specifically living cellular technologies, are simplified and
cost-reduced to the point that you don’t have to be a PhD researcher in a
well-funded laboratory to perform your own experiments or build novel things
out of living cells. The concept of biology paralleling the advances of IT are well laid out elsewhere.
Today, it is much easier to incorporate living cells into your research
than it was 20 years ago. This is
evidenced by the proliferation of Cell Biology capabilities in Engineering departments
all over the world as Biomedical Engineering has turned into a formalized academic
discipline. When I was doing
undergraduate research at the University of Michigan in the early 1990’s, it took months and several
collaboration attempts before we could get living cells onto the biomaterial
constructs we were making at the time.
Today, it is more commonplace to find the tools to marry the Worlds of Cell
Biology and Engineering in the same laboratory.
Despite this, the total number of
labs with such capabilities and expertise is still very small.
We believe that the steps required to fully Democratize
Cellular Technologies will be to:
- Make cell biology simpler by offering standardized, high quality, well-characterized cellular products that work consistently and reproducibly (thereby making cumbersome troubleshooting processes nearly obsolete)
- Dramatically lower the cost of cells so that more cells can be supplied at once – decreasing the time for customers to get to value-adding experiments and providing greater access to high-quality cells to smaller research groups and individuals, and
- Provide cells in product formats that support researchers that are trying to build complex multi-cellular structures such as engineered tissues, or products that contain living cells (for example, biobots)
Another recent blog post on O’Reilly Radar by @MikeLoukides talks about
how “Disaffected grad students and postdocs increasingly turn to
DIYbio” and Biohacker spaces to perform the work they want to do. I can’t imagine any of these people working
on cultured primary cells. With today’s
marketed primary cell and media products, it is economically challenging to
perform cell culture with clinically-relevant, high-quality cells such as
Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs). The
expense to perform experiments to genetically modify MSCs or to perform
bioprinting with MSCs is out of reach of most people. The out of pocket cost
just to obtain cells can be greater than $1000, and it goes up from there in
order to begin and run meaningful experiments (cost of cell culture media,
culture vessels, labor, etc). We, at
RoosterBio, are working to decrease the cost of, and increase the accessibility
of, living cells so that more people can perform high quality experiments
without the budget of a well-funded academic lab.
Today’s technology
is rapidly moving toward the integration of biologics into everything from cell
therapies, engineered tissues, bio-robotics, nanotechnology, implantable devices,
3D printing, DIY kits, and even consumer
products. This coming decade will see the incorporation
of living cells into all these platforms and others not yet imagined. However,
including living cells in products currently is cost-prohibitive, and primary
cells are not supplied at volumes that support many research and product
development efforts. To expedite this
biologics revolution, inventors, developers and suppliers will require a
limitless, standardized, low-cost supply of well-characterized cells that have
the potential for human application. This is the problem that RoosterBio has
set out to solve.
One step at a
time.
So far "the mariage between cell biology and engineering" is not "a match made in heven". Very few engineers appreciate the principles of living systems which have evolved over billions of years. There is certainly a language barrier. Hopefully the curricula in the new Bioengineering Programs will help.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteHaving come through a Biomedical Engineering graduate program, I have seen first hand the spectrum of Engineers and their appreciation for Biology. I can assure you there are several out there with a strong fundamental understanding of both - but this is the exception and not the rule. It is simply very challenging to get a solid foundation is multiple technical disciplines.
The solution to the challenge, and what is done often in Industry, is to create cross-functional teams with cell biologists, chemists and engineers all working towards the same goals. I have created such teams in the past, and it can truly be a 1 + 1 = 3 type of scenario when managed correctly. Once an engineer has the correct "biological specification" to design towards, then they can definitely do wonders. The trick is to bridge the language barriers that you mention and get both sides communicating.
ISCT has touched on this concept in this Article on Cell Therapy BioProcessing: http://www.bioprocessintl.com/manufacturing/cell-therapies/cell-therapy-bioprocessing-314870/