- What has been your biggest challenge working on m2M project?
One of the biggest challenges is to align different expertise (engineers, biologists, clinicians) each with their own priorities and timelines. Making sure that what we develop is not only scientifically interesting but also compatible with what others are doing in the consortium has been both challenging and very rewarding.
2. How do you think the m2M project can make a difference in the bioprinting field?
I think m2M can really push the field toward more autonomous and biologically relevant systems. Right now, many bioprinting approaches still rely heavily on external supplementation, like adding growth factors or serum to the media. What we are trying to do is move toward self-sustaining bioinks, where the material itself provides cells with what they need in a controlled way. If successful, this could make bioprinted constructs more stable, more reproducible, and closer to real tissue environments, which is something the field really needs to advance.
3. In your opinion, how can the project help patients and strength the European biomanufacturing capacity while fostering collaboration between industry and clinicians?
What I find particularly strong about this project is how it connects different worlds: academia, industry, and clinical partners. From a patient perspective, the goal is to create more reliable and functional tissue models, especially for applications like cartilage repair. If we can improve how these tissues are engineered and maintained, that directly translates into better therapeutic strategies in the long term. At the same time, by developing standardized materials, protocols, and scalable approaches, the project contributes to building a stronger biomanufacturing ecosystem in Europe.
4. For you, what is the main result that m2M will deliver?
From a project perspective, the main result of m2M will be the development of functional osteochondral substitutes that closely mimic the complexity of native tissues. This includes not only the structural aspect, but also the biological functionality, meaning materials and systems that can actively support cell viability, differentiation, and tissue integration over time. What makes this particularly impactful is the combination of advanced biofabrication with smart biomaterials, enabling more physiologically relevant constructs. If successful, this could represent an important step toward clinically relevant engineered tissues.
5. We reached the 1-year mark of the project; how do you see the progress made?
I think the first year has been very productive, especially in terms of building connections and aligning methodologies across partners. We’ve made good progress in establishing material systems, starting experimental work, and beginning to standardize protocols, which is crucial in a consortium like this. From my perspective, it’s also been a phase of defining how different parts of the project fit together. Now that this foundation is in place, I think the next phase will be even more exciting, with more integrated results and collaborations starting to emerge.