“Reproducibility of bio-inks will define what reaches the clinic”
3D printing biomaterials is evolving rapidly, with new applications emerging across healthcare. While printers and processes often take centre stage, it is the materials that ultimately determine what is possible.
In this second interview in our series, we speak with Jasper van Hoorick, co-founder of BIO INX. His company develops the bioinks that enable the printing of cells and tissues—and help translate promising research into reproducible, clinically relevant applications.
You started in academic research. What made you decide to start a company
“The trigger was actually the same reason I started an academic career: with a chemical background, you can contribute to regenerative medicine.
But towards the end of my PhD, I noticed a recurring pattern. There are thousands of publications showing promising results, all pointing to clinical potential. Yet in many cases, progress stops at that point.
The gap between academic proof of concept and clinically relevant tissue remains difficult to bridge. So together with colleagues, we started asking: what is missing in that transition?”
And what did you identify as the missing link?
“Reproducibility and standardization. In academic research, materials are often produced in small batches. Results can depend heavily on how a specific batch was made, sometimes even by a single researcher.
If that person leaves, or if a new batch is made slightly differently, results may not be reproducible. That’s a fundamental problem if you want to translate something to the clinic.
So we decided to focus on creating standardized, reproducible materials from the start effectively “covering square one.”
What exactly does BIO INX do?
“We develop materials –bioinks– that enable 3D printing of cells and tissues. These materials can either be printed together with cells, or used afterwards to seed cells into a 3D environment.
In practice, this means enabling researchers and companies to move from 2D cell cultures to more realistic 3D tissue models.”
You work across multiple printing technologies. Why not specialize in one?
“Because each technology has its own strengths and limitations. We believe the future lies in combining technologies: using high resolution where needed, and higher speed where possible. That’s why we develop materials compatible with multiple approaches, including extrusion, digital light projection, volumetric printing and two-photon polymerization.
Although this may seem like a broad portfolio, it is built on a limited number of core material platforms.”
Where do you see the biggest technological potential?
“Our core expertise is in light-based printing. These technologies offer high resolution and scalability. Something that is difficult to achieve with extrusion-based printing.
If you want to move towards clinical applications, that combination is essential.”
You are also involved in applications like cartilage and bone repair. Why start there?
“With any new technology, you need to start with applications that are relatively simple. Cartilage is a good example. It doesn’t have blood vessels or nerves and does not regenerate well on its own. That creates both a clear medical need and a manageable level of complexity.
From there, you can gradually increase complexity and move towards more advanced tissues.”
How do you balance the needs of academia and industry?
“That’s one of the core tensions in this field. Academics want flexibility—they want to tweak and adapt materials. Industry, on the other hand, needs consistency, safety and reproducibility.
We deliberately chose not to offer too much customization in our standard products. Instead, we provide ready-to-use formulations—what we call “plug and print.”
For industrial partners, we do develop custom materials, but once those are defined, they are standardized for further translation.”
You mentioned variability in materials. How big of an issue is that?
“It’s a major issue. Take a commonly used material like modified gelatin. Many publications report using the same concentration, but in reality, the material can differ significantly between labs; different sources, different modifications, different preparation methods.
That makes it almost impossible to compare results or build on previous work in a reliable way.
Standardization is essential if we want to move towards clinical applications.”
What are the main barriers today?
“It’s not just about technology. Regulatory challenges play a major role. Depending on the application, you’re dealing with different frameworks –medical devices, advanced therapies–and that creates uncertainty in the pathway to the clinic.
But once a first product is approved, it will provide a roadmap for others.”
Where do you see the first real impact for patients?
“That ultimately depends on the applications our customers are working on. We see promising developments across several areas: cartilage repair, ocular applications, and non-animal testing models.
A few years ago, I would have expected non-animal models to be the first to reach real-world adoption, mainly because the regulatory barriers are lower.
But at the same time, ocular applications are moving fast—and for good reason.
The eye is immune privileged, which means the body responds differently to interventions. That lowers part of the biological risk.
There are also practical advantages. If something goes wrong, you can directly observe it. The surgeon can see what is happening without invasive procedures.
And importantly, the eye does not regenerate. For patients facing vision loss, the willingness to try new treatments is fundamentally different.
In some cases, patients are even willing to pay out of pocket, which can accelerate early adoption of new technologies.
So while non-animal models remain an important pathway, ocular applications may well be among the first to translate into real patient impact.
Where do you want BIO INX to be in 10 years?
“Our ambition is to become the standard in the field. We want our materials to be the reference—the gold standard—for 3D printing of tissues. Because if the materials are reliable, the entire field can move forward.”
From promise to practice
If the first wave of 3D printing in healthcare was about shaping materials, the next wave is about making those materials reliable.
Bioprinting is not only about printers or resolution. It is about creating materials that behave predictably, across labs, across applications, and eventually in patients. That is where the real bottleneck lies. And where the next phase of the field will be decided.In this series of three interviews with leading experts in the field of 3D printing, we explore how different approaches to 3D printing of biomaterials compare and where they may converge.
Also read:
