From Microfluidics to Macro Decisions: Navigating the Science-Policy Interface
October 23, 2025
It all started with a tiny chip making its way into the biology laboratory and into my curiosity as a bioengineer: a microfluidic chip. This small device manipulates fluids through microscopic channels. Within this chip, I cultured human cells under flow and pressure, giving life to an organ-on-a-chip. This technology mimics the functions of an organ in the body. From 2018 to 2023, I developed these in vitro (cell-based) models, which, alongside in silico (computer-simulated) models, have the potential to address certain research questions without requiring the use of animals. In Switzerland, animal studies are permitted only when no suitable alternative exists. For me, advancing such alternative methods felt like pursuing sustainability in the life sciences by seeking innovative, ethical, and responsible solutions for both research and animals.
Working at the 3Rs interface today, I design training concepts so that Replace, Reduce, Refine becomes a routine principle for the use of animals in research. The role brings me into conversation with researchers, regulators, and the public sphere, and has confirmed a truth I already sensed as a non-animal method developer: evidence matters, but rules, incentives, and societal values often determine whether good ideas and promising technologies truly take root. Navigating this multi-actor landscape sparked my curiosity about how evidence informs decisions, and how technology and policy can jointly shape more sustainable futures. This curiosity inspired a personal initiative to enrol in the continuing education programme CAS ETH in Technology and Public Policy: Policy Process in Spring 2025.
When the programme began, I immediately delved into a rich module in political science. I started to understand how decisions take shape across different levels, mapping Swiss, European, and global governance, and revealing how policies are made. I could connect the dots in the context of drug testing on animal models, reflecting on how Swissmedic (Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products), the EMA (European Medicines Agency), and the WHO (World Health Organization) function and intersect. This perspective now helps me identify where to monitor international developments and regulatory changes.
As the programme unfolded, I found myself exploring sectors far beyond health, such as mobility and energy. I could recognise familiar patterns in how technology, society, markets, and the state interact. Why do some innovations flourish while others stall? I realised that context, incentives, and beliefs, especially in ethically charged topics like animal use in research, often set the pace. A class on long-term socio-technical transitions gave me a new lens to recognise the signs of change: how technological, social, and institutional shifts gradually align before a transformation truly unfolds. This was an eye-opener, helping me analyse the ongoing adoption of alternative technologies to animal models and reminding me that change often builds quietly, long before it becomes visible.
These lessons resonate in my daily work, where I see firsthand how change is cumulative and built through many small steps by dedicated minds and hands driven by a commitment to more humane science. Thanks to the programme’s focus on stakeholder engagement and communication, I’ve refined how to listen, analyse, and translate between communities: technology developers, end-users, policymakers, and the wider public – each with its own hopes, language, and pace.
One of my favourite parts of the programme was designing a public participation process on animal use in research. It challenged me to think not just as a scientist or educator, but as a facilitator of dialogue. Together with my peers, we imagined a deliberative space where citizens and experts could learn from one another, carefully considering transparency, expectations, and power dynamics. The key takeaway stayed with me: participation should be a two-way learning journey, not a technocratic exercise.
Reflecting on this step into the policy world, I highly value the CAS as an enabler for understanding how technology and policy interact in a world where both technological breakthroughs and sustainability challenges grow increasingly complex. Just as in biomedical and health research, many areas of public policy today are deeply shaped by scientific and technical knowledge, calling for more “bilinguals” who can navigate both worlds with fluency and empathy. I see such interdisciplinary learning as essential to help close the loop between discovery and society, fostering evidence-informed dialogue and strengthening our collective ability to understand options and make thoughtful choices.
