Developing a Tunable-Porosity, Fiber-Based Granular Hydrogel Bioink for 3D Printing; A SCOT Analysis of Organovo’s exVive3D® Liver Tissue 16 views

My technical project and STS research are connected through a shared focus on biomedical innovation, specifically how new technologies are developed and how they ultimately succeed or struggle in real-world use. While my capstone project focuses on designing a biomaterial system, my STS research examines how similar technologies are shaped by the people and groups involved in their development. Both projects highlight that engineering is not just about technical design, but also about how those designs are interpreted and implemented. My technical work focuses on building a functional system, while my STS research explores why certain technologies do or do not achieve their intended impact. My technical project focuses on the development of a tunable-porosity, fiber-based granular hydrogel bioink for skeletal muscle tissue engineering. The goal of this design is to better replicate the structure and function of native muscle tissue by combining electrospun PEG fibers with gelatin microparticles. By adjusting the ratio of these components, the system allows for control over porosity, mechanical strength, and cell behavior. This is important because successful tissue regeneration requires both structural support and an environment that promotes cell viability and alignment. The bioink is designed for extrusion-based 3D bioprinting, which allows for precise control over scaffold architecture and potential scalability. Overall, this project addresses a key challenge in tissue engineering: creating a material that balances mechanical stability with biological function. My STS research also examines biomedical innovation, but from a different perspective. My paper focuses on how bioprinting technologies are shaped by different social groups and how those perspectives influence their development. Using the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework, I analyzed the case of Organovo’s 3D bioprinted liver tissue. My argument is that this technology never fully stabilized because there was no clear agreement on its purpose or expected outcomes. Some stakeholders viewed it as a step toward transplantable organs, while others focused on its use in drug testing. Because these competing interpretations persisted, the technology never reached closure. As a result, it struggled to align expectations across stakeholders and was unable to achieve its original goals. This case demonstrates that technological success depends not only on performance, but also on the ability to reach agreement among the groups involved. Working on these two projects helped me better understand the relationship between engineering design and real-world application. My technical project required me to focus on materials, fabrication, and biological performance, while my STS research pushed me to think about how those designs would be received and implemented. It made me realize that even if a technology works well in a lab setting, it may still struggle if there is no alignment between stakeholders, or if expectations are unclear. At the same time, my technical work gave me a better understanding of the challenges involved in developing these systems, which strengthened my analysis in my STS paper. Overall, working on both projects allowed me to see biomedical engineering from both a technical and sociotechnical perspective, something I will carry forward into future work.

BS (Bachelor of Science)

hydrogels; 3D bioprinting; anisotropic materials; volumetric muscle loss; tissue engineering

School of Engineering and Applied Science Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering Technical Advisor: Chris Highley STS Advisor: Benjamin Laugelli Technical Team Members: Thomas Ackleson, Manjiri Talegaonkar

English

All rights reserved by the author (no additional license for public reuse)

2026-05-05