Microfluidics: A High-Tech Dream or an Unfulfilled Promise?

Microfluidics - the science of handling small volumes of fluids within microscopic channels, has long been celebrated as a revolutionary technology, assured to transform diagnostics, drug delivery, and chemical analysis. But from its inception to fame, the field has limited or not yet delivered the broad impact that many envisioned long ago. Despite significant research efforts and growing interest from startups and investors, microfluidics remain largely confined to academic labs and have limited commercial success.

Here, I try to examine why microfluidics has not lived up to its expectations. In addition, I will also explore one of the many factors, i.e. the human factors, that held the field at standstill position. I will present a few examples to illustrate where things have gone wrong.

Let's explore micro- with Human-approach..!

Human Factors: The Core of Progress and the Root of Problems

A Silo Centric Perspective:

Caution!! Before stepping into this field, one has to understand and remember that the field of Microfluidics is inherently interdisciplinary. The true progress in this field requires a blend of physics, chemistry, biology, and, critically, engineering. Unfortunately, until  now and many at present also, view the field through narrow bio-chem lenses! i.e. typically from a biology or chemistry centric standpoint. It's no doubt that while many of its applications are biological in nature, the underlying systems are deeply engineering-driven. In order to keep in perspective, designing and developing microfluidic platforms is no less complex than building precision space-ship systems. The field is not merely about crafting microchannels in PDMS and peeling off with scratch tape; Inherently, it involves fluid mechanics, transport phenomena (i.e. heat, mass, momentum transfer) chemical engineering, reaction kinetics, material compatibility, system integration, and design for manufacturability (DFM) and so on.

Such a siloed and narrowed mindset has created a disconnect between design and implementation and hindered translation of science to a commercial success. Many biologists or chemists often drive the initial development  and it is indeed required at inception and science level. But, after initial progress they forget or ignore to include people from different fields. Further continuation of R&D and developmental activities, without engineering collaboration, crucial elements like scalability and durability were never been achieved. As a result, many designs fail to transition from prototypes to usable products. Therefore, it is important that one has to overcome this silo centric perspective and have to collaborate at a multi-disciplinary level from the beginning.

For example, many early microfluidic prototypes were developed in academic settings by researchers focusing on proof-of-concept studies rather than practical applications. These designs often ignored critical issues like manufacturability, scalability, and long-term durability, making them unsuitable for real-world use and applications. A case in point is the development of lab-on-a-chip (LOC) devices, which were innovative in laboratory demonstrations and actually have struggled a lot to gain traction in clinical diagnostics due to performance, cumbersome tooling and cost issues.

‘One needs a Lab-on-a-Chip, but not a Chip-in-the-Lab systems for real world applications’

Macro-thumping of micro-miracles:

Humans tend to overpromise, especially when funding, attention, and competition are on the line. In microfluidics, this wave of macro-thumping about its miraculous applications has damaged the field’s credibility. Often, many researchers and startups have overpromised what microfluidics can deliver, which raised unrealistic expectations in the community. Over a period of time this has also led to disillusionment among investors and the public.

For example, the now-infamous case of Theranos is perhaps the most damaging. The company claimed it could run hundreds of blood tests from just a few drops of blood using microfluidic principles. However, none of these claims held up under scrutiny. When the fraud was exposed, it not only brought down the company but also eroded trust in microfluidics for diagnostics and made difficult times for people working genuinely in the microfluidics. In addition, this backlash made investors very cautious and placed a negative stigma on microfluidics-based diagnostics.

“Over promising and under-delivering causes more damage”

Misaligned Focus - Academia's Misaligned Incentives

In addition to the above mentioned factors, the academic research has also contributed to the stagnation of microfluidics. The important factor is academic research’s focus and its misalignment in realization and commercialization of technologies. 

Since long (at present too!!) academia’s emphasis on novelty over practicality has further hindered microfluidics and its commercial realization. Many researchers, scientists prioritize publishing papers/journal articles on innovative designs, parametric studies, mix and match tricks etc., instead of addressing the practical challenges of scaling and commercialization. 

"A better incentive system required in university for practical and real-world centric models"

However, it’s not only the fault of researchers per say but the focus in universities often leans towards publishing innovative concepts rather than solving real-world problems. In the current university system papers get rewarded for novelty, not for practicality or market-readiness. As a result, almost all designs are created in isolation from industry needs and those designs will never be able to see the light of the day once a research paper is published.

For example, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is widely used in academic research for microfluidic devices due to its ease of use and low cost. However, PDMS has significant drawbacks, such as incompatibility with certain solvents and limited durability, poor mechanical stability, making it unsuitable for industrial-scale production. The ridiculous part is despite knowing these limitations, in the past and at present also researchers continue to build entire systems with PDMS, knowing they’ll never survive outside a lab. 

The irony is that, unfortunately, till date there is hardly any alternate material for commercial use except hard plastics. Such disconnect between academic prototypes, designs and industrial requirements has stalled the transition of microfluidics from the lab to the market.

Conclusion:

Innovation for the sake of doing it does not equate to innovation for production. For microfluidics to grow, academic and industrial goals need better alignment and one has to come out of a silo centric approach to work together from the conceptual stage. In addition, a better incentive system should be designed in universities to promote more practical and real-world centric models.