3 ms·

With regards to microfluidics, I've always understood the problem mostly to do with business - nobody from the incumbents wants a Moore's law in an industry w

by petra 11y ago

With regards to microfluidics, I've always understood the problem mostly to do with business - nobody from the incumbents wants a Moore's law in an industry without a lot of potential growth. And that story fits the "new disruptive startup" story well.

joezydeco 11y ago
I spent a few years with a major player in the diagnostics business. I worked directly on their automated ELISA machines. When I was there in the 1990s, they already had spent a decade or so of R&D on microfluidic technology. They saw it as a hockey stick, but the technical hurdles were (and continued to be) very large. The idea that one very talented scientist could find a novel solution that this company, with dozens of dedicated biochemists, could not find is plausible. But I believe the reality is somewhat different.
- petra 11y ago
  Assuming we're talking veni-puncture based measurements ,can you please expand about the current technical hurdles of microfluidics, and what prevents them from being solved , even after 20 years+ of effort by the research community ? And all those interesting research paper ,we're seeing from the academic community, aren't they targeting the issue ? or are mostly resume fillers ?
  - joezydeco 11y ago
    I'm not a biochemist, and it's been too long ago when I worked there to comment on what the current state of the art is in this area. What I recall is that at the microfluidic level, a lot of the work becomes a mechanical issue not a biochemical one. You're working with very small samples in a disposable system (obviously cleaning a capillary between samples is practically impossible). Blood isn't the easiest substance to work with, especially when trying to move it through small channels. On top of that, now you're trying to detect very small amounts of antigen in an even tinier sample size. Your technology needs to be incredibly sensitive but have a decent resolution as well. Some antigens you want a simple positive/negative outcome. But with some other tests you want a level or range (like thyroid).

by petra 11y ago

joezydeco 11y ago

I spent a few years with a major player in the diagnostics business. I worked directly on their automated ELISA machines. When I was there in the 1990s, they already had spent a decade or so of R&D on microfluidic technology. They saw it as a hockey stick, but the technical hurdles were (and continued to be) very large. The idea that one very talented scientist could find a novel solution that this company, with dozens of dedicated biochemists, could not find is plausible. But I believe the reality is somewhat different.

petra 11y ago
Assuming we're talking veni-puncture based measurements ,can you please expand about the current technical hurdles of microfluidics, and what prevents them from being solved , even after 20 years+ of effort by the research community ? And all those interesting research paper ,we're seeing from the academic community, aren't they targeting the issue ? or are mostly resume fillers ?
- joezydeco 11y ago
  I'm not a biochemist, and it's been too long ago when I worked there to comment on what the current state of the art is in this area. What I recall is that at the microfluidic level, a lot of the work becomes a mechanical issue not a biochemical one. You're working with very small samples in a disposable system (obviously cleaning a capillary between samples is practically impossible). Blood isn't the easiest substance to work with, especially when trying to move it through small channels. On top of that, now you're trying to detect very small amounts of antigen in an even tinier sample size. Your technology needs to be incredibly sensitive but have a decent resolution as well. Some antigens you want a simple positive/negative outcome. But with some other tests you want a level or range (like thyroid).