How did your interest in Biotechnology and Oncobiology arise as an academic and scientific path? Which milestones in your journey so far would you highlight as decisive?
My academic background is in biochemistry, with a particular focus on molecular and cellular biology, which provided the essential foundation for my later interest in biotechnology. Early steps in oncobiology revealed to me a significant gap: the lack of in vitro models that accurately replicate human biology and could be used to study human physiology in detail. It was within this context that my interest in biotechnology was born. At the start of my PhD, I decided to develop an organ-on-chip system replicating the architecture and dynamic conditions of the native stomach. Two major milestones in my career were the development of this stomach-on-chip and the patenting of an innovative microfabrication method. A third key milestone was establishing a national and international network of contacts, which has allowed me to create a unique research line that I am currently pursuing as a junior investigator at the i3S – Institute for Research and Innovation in Health at the University of Porto.

You developed an innovative technique capable of producing organs-on-chips at low cost through xurography, an approach that earned you the prestigious International 3Rs Prize Award from the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). What potential do you see in this technology to democratise biomedical research and accelerate advances in personalised medicine?
Both microfluidics and organ-on-chip technologies are highly promising for many aspects of human biology. However, to democratise access, it is essential to reduce the cost and production time of these devices. Technologies like ours, which allow designs to be created or adapted within a few hours using only commercially available bench-top equipment, provide a great advantage. This enables any laboratory to implement the technique with a low initial investment. By broadening access, it is expected that basic and clinical research will translate more rapidly into results with meaningful clinical impact and transformative potential for patients.

The development of accessible organs-on-chips is seen as a promising alternative to animal experimentation. In your opinion, what are the main ethical, technical or regulatory challenges that still need to be overcome for this transition to become widespread?
Although organ-on-chip platforms represent a significant advance in developing advanced disease models, several challenges still hinder their widespread acceptance. Perhaps the greatest challenge lies on the regulatory front. Although standardisation protocols are currently being developed, official recognition remains distant. This limits the acceptance of data generated by these platforms, particularly in preclinical contexts. Ethically, there is a continuous need to raise awareness among the scientific community and policymakers about the importance of this technology as a methodology promoting more ethical science, reducing reliance on animal models, and focusing more on human-relevant systems.

Regarding hereditary gastric cancer, you have dedicated much of your time to investigating its molecular and cellular origins and progression. Stomach-on-chip models and the study of gene expression regulation are two promising approaches in this field. How do these approaches complement each other, and what advances have been possible through their integration?
In the specific case of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, which I currently study, organ-on-chip technology can be truly transformative in understanding how the disease begins. This genetic syndrome predisposes affected individuals to develop a particularly aggressive form of gastric cancer. Due to the nature of the disease, it is currently impossible to predict which carriers will develop cancer. As a preventative measure, the stomach is often removed prophylactically, saving lives but preventing study of the cancer’s initiation mechanisms. Using the stomach-on-chip platform we developed, we aim to replicate in vitro the organs removed from these patients. This allows us to study cancer initiation in a biomimetic context without any risk to affected individuals.

You are part of a multidisciplinary team combining expertise in biotechnology, oncology and microengineering. How does this multidisciplinary approach enhance new scientific discoveries and research models?
I would say that in a research team working from fundamental science through to clinical translation, multidisciplinarity is not just a driver of innovation but an essential pillar of how we do science. The synergy created between molecular biologists, geneticists, bioinformaticians and bioengineers enables us to tackle research challenges from complementary perspectives and methodologies. This undoubtedly results in more realistic models, which are crucial for studying complex diseases like cancer or testing alternative therapies.

One of your ambitions is to create a microfabrication and microfluidics laboratory, a strategic step to consolidate your research line and strengthen alternatives to animal experimentation. What goals are you setting for this new phase, and what excites you most about this process?
The creation of an independent microfabrication unit is definitely a short-term goal. Establishing this infrastructure will provide a flexible and accessible platform to develop organ-on-chip technology tailored to various clinical contexts. Training will also be central to this objective, establishing a hub for technical capacity building aimed at young scientists interested in alternatives to animal experimentation. What excites me most is the potential to create useful technology that transforms ideas into concrete solutions with the potential to benefit patients affected by debilitating or life-threatening diseases.

You have been invited to join scientific committees, collaborate on COST actions, participate in European grant applications and share knowledge across various universities. How have these experiences contributed to the shaping of your scientific identity?
Each of these experiences has been crucial to my career in science. The notion of doing science in isolation is no longer relevant today. Sharing knowledge at scientific events and working in multidisciplinary teams are the driving forces of modern science. Since the start of my PhD, I have consistently made an effort to build a strong network of collaborators who complement my work and are essential to our success in securing funding. Regarding science communication, besides participating in conferences, I believe it is important to engage with the wider public. Sharing our work beyond the laboratory walls is key to raising awareness among society and policymakers about the importance of our research.

With a solid background in cell culture, genetics, microfluidics and modelling, what advice would you give young researchers aiming to develop projects at the interface of technology and biomedicine?
At a time when the engineering behind organ-on-chip technology is maturing and in some cases already surpasses biological capabilities, I would say the most important challenge for newcomers is to clearly define the real impact of the technology they want to create. Establish a well-defined purpose for the technology and, above all, don’t be afraid to fail. Like basic research, engineering organ-on-chip systems is a process of trial and error. Finally, always invest in multidisciplinarity throughout your career. The engineering of models depends on biology, and accurately replicating biological systems depends on quality engineering. Understand both and collaborate with peers who complement and add value to your journey.

You can find more information on the researcher here.