The VIC Fellows Program provides an opportunity for individuals with relevant expertise and interest to learn how to identify and evaluate promising innovations from global sources. We are pleased to highlight the members of the 2024-2025 class of Fellows in our ongoing series of interviews, such as this recent discussion with Dhananjay Tambe, PhD.
Can you share a bit about your academic and professional journey—how did you go from mechanical engineering to studying lung biology?
My foray into lung biology wasn't initially planned. During my Ph.D. at Brown, I focused on the mechanics of solids and structures, specifically using computational tools to understand the self-assembly of nanometer-sized objects on thin semiconductor films. A pivotal moment came during my advisor Dr. Vivek Shenoy's sabbatical at the Phillips lab at Caltech. There, Dr. Rob Phillips and his team reignited my interest in biological systems. This period was deeply introspective, as I discovered how engaging and productive it was to view biological systems through a mechanical engineering lens. This led me to consider applying my knowledge of semiconductor thin films to biological ones. At that time, mechanical stresses in endothelial or epithelial cell sheets—the biological "thin films"—had not been quantified. I sought out Dr. Jeffrey Fredberg at Harvard, world's leading expert in experimental cell mechanics, to explore this research area. This followed another profoundly introspective phase, accompanied by significant contributions in cell mechanics. However, everyone around me, including Jeff, was deeply invested in lung biology. Jeff also introduced me to the concept of lungs as a vital organ that is "outside of our body." More than sixteen years later, I remain fascinated by the exceptional biological resilience of this foam-like structure. Thus, my journey expanded the meaning of "mechanical" to encompass the lungs as a component in immediate need of a better understanding of their structure and material properties.
I was introduced to the VIC Fellowship program by a colleague, Dr. Jonathan Rayner, a senior fellow at VIC, whom I occasionally encounter at the College of Medicine. At that time, my research and teaching were heavily focused on developing novel open-source tools and procedures, and I was grappling with an overlapping challenge. In my lab, we were creating quantitative tools and procedures for orthopedic surgeons and cell/tissue researchers. Concurrently, in my classroom, I was solely responsible for guiding mechanical engineering seniors through their capstone design projects. The challenge in both activities revolved around commercial aspects: the inefficiencies of the open-source development model and the need to present compelling commercial perspectives to my capstone design teams were becoming increasingly apparent. Therefore, when Jon introduced me to the VIC Fellowship program, it felt like the opportune moment. My hope and efforts, in turn, have been to contribute by sincerely applying my interdisciplinary perspective to assess the engineering aspects of technologies and to conduct occasional deeper dives to share with the team not just "what the technology is," but "what it could be."
Your work bridges engineering and physiology. How do you approach research that lives at the intersection of disciplines?Efficient compartmentalization and accommodative communication are, in my view, the key skills for interdisciplinary research. I consider engineering as a source of solutions, and physiology or medicine as a source of questions. When I am in the lab at our College of Medicine, I am constantly aware of being in an environment that has questions for me. That helps me activate a learning mode and everything else that comes with it. The collaborative culture of the Center for Lung Biology (CLB) covers most bases for me, ensuring I receive ample questions or needs. Once I take on the challenge of addressing a question or fulfilling a need, I am faced with an important decision: what extent (and type) of student education experience should be supported using that challenge? I won't elaborate on this decision process here, but it is one of the most difficult and consequential. For the subsequent steps in the research, I rely on my exceptional technicians, Linn and Anna, who have decades of experience working with cells, tissues, and animals. More importantly, they possess a critical eye that allows us to anticipate and fix potential problems. As a sounding board for ideas, I have senior colleagues, Dr. Troy Stevens and Dr. Thomas C. Rich, who always provide insightful feedback. Overall, like the interdisciplinary area itself, bridge-building is a team effort, and feeding off each other's strengths is the overarching approach.
You've worked in both academic and translational research settings. What challenges and opportunities do you see for engineering-based innovations in clinical medicine?
The primary challenge lies in the insufficient interaction between engineers and clinicians. Many interactions I've observed are narrowly focused and highly scripted, which might be acceptable in an industry setting but presents a significant limitation in academic and research environments, as I've experienced firsthand across various notable institutions. It's crucial to foster unscripted interactions that aren't driven by immediate, specific needs. These could include informal gatherings like having lunch together, casual meetups at social events, or combined lab retreats. Such interactions thrive in an open culture free of territorial barriers, a condition often found in smaller institutions where each lab's expertise is likely unique. Therefore, at smaller institutions, leadership initiatives that actively promote interdisciplinary interaction are a critical opportunity. This serves as a vital catalyst, enabling smaller institutions to compete effectively with larger ones where competition among labs with overlapping expertise is the driving force. In this regard, it's important to mention a powerful ice-breaker, which often proves to be much more: undergraduate honors theses, capstone design projects, and directed independent study courses. The stakes in these pedagogical activities are precisely right to facilitate creative co-advising on interdisciplinary projects. They can provide fertile ground for life sciences innovations and offer an outstanding learning opportunity for participating students. This experience can be further enhanced by including an industry expert on the team. One of my VIC colleagues, Matt Leming, has written an insightful perspective on this topic. At the CLB, our small team has initiated several interesting, and some fairly radical, ideas related to this broader theme.
As a VIC Fellow helping evaluate early-stage medical technologies, what scientific or technical qualities do you prioritize when assessing a new device or concept?
The evaluation of medical technologies is a collaborative effort. Our opportunity assessment team, along with our medical devices and diagnostics subteam, comprises individuals with remarkably diverse backgrounds and specialized expertise. This diversity is crucial for providing thorough consideration to each early-stage technology. The scientific and technical qualities I prioritize in this evaluation process are those of an academician, involving the lenses of skepticism and possibilities. A backdrop of skepticism aids in maintaining intellectual independence while occasionally fostering engaging interactions with inventors. Exploring various possibilities for the technology under review and taking initial steps with each possibility allows for a better understanding of the technology's full potential. Beyond these broader approaches, I leverage my experience in mechanics, machine design, cell physiology, lung biology, device development, and process automation to assess the finer details of these technologies.
What life-science trends are you most excited about?
The life sciences are undergoing a significant transformation. Among the many exciting trends, I'd like to highlight two: (1) a deeper understanding of complexity, which is driving progress in personalized medicine, and (2) Large Language Models (LLMs) that are reducing information barriers that previously hindered or slowed interdisciplinary work. We now better appreciate heterogeneity at molecular, cellular, and larger length and timescales. Innovative visualization tools and exceptional computational capabilities are helping us integrate this understanding and realize the clinical and socioeconomic benefits of localized and personalized treatments. This trend is elevating the importance of processes to the same level as products. I hope this trend moves towards preventative care, ultimately improving our public health system.
The second trend, LLMs, will likely be very consequential. Most important scientific questions are interdisciplinary, and progress in addressing them has been limited by the speed and efficiency of information exchange between experts from different disciplines. LLMs have made such information exchange remarkably straightforward. Now, for many complex tasks, the proverbial inventor in the garage doesn't need to search for a programmer; they simply need to provide a reasonable prompt to, say, Gemini to generate the necessary code and keep marching forward.