As a researcher and lecturer, what excites you most when you arrive at the laboratory or the classroom?

In the laboratory, what motivates me most is the pursuit of discovery and the possibility that, at a certain moment, the scientific hypothesis underlying a research project is confirmed. Currently, I mainly act as a supervisor, which allows me to closely follow new researchers and celebrate their successful experiments with them, making my work even more rewarding.
In the classroom, what excites me is the sharing of knowledge. When I encounter genuinely curious students, it becomes particularly stimulating to help satisfy that curiosity in areas I am deeply passionate about, such as biofabrication and tissue engineering.
 

When did you realise you wanted to pursue an academic and scientific career?

It was a path that began to take shape early on, but the decisive moment occurred during my master’s thesis, which I developed in a research-oriented environment with supervisors who challenged me daily. The search for the unknown, the constant need to solve problems, and the satisfaction of seeing my work culminate in a thesis or a scientific paper were decisive factors in my decision to pursue a PhD.
At the same time, I always had the goal of becoming a university professor. My parents are teachers and, from a very young age, I grew up surrounded by the “magic” of teaching. I knew that to achieve this I would need to follow a solid academic career - and, fortunately, that path ultimately became a reality.
 

How would you describe a “typical” day in the life of a researcher?

The first thing to clarify is that a researcher rarely has a “typical” day. Our work is highly dynamic and often unpredictable. The results of our experiments can completely dictate how the rest of the day- or even the week - will unfold. If we are searching for the unknown, then our daily routine is also, to a large extent, unknown.
This dynamism is both a source of attraction, due to the constant intellectual challenge, and a source of deterrence, as not everyone is comfortable with uncertainty.
Moreover, a researcher’s work is not limited to the laboratory. I divide my time between supervising students, meetings, reviewing reports, theses and scientific articles, writing grant proposals, managing the scientific and financial aspects of ongoing projects, and participating in conferences and networking activities. Less predictable, but extremely stimulating - and that is precisely what motivates me in this career.


What distinguishes the Faculty of Biotechnology and the Centre for Biotechnology and Fine Chemistry as spaces for research and student training in these fields?

The Faculty of Biotechnology stands out for the proximity it fosters, from a very early stage, between undergraduate and master’s students and scientific research. Students, lecturers and researchers share the same spaces, which facilitates direct contact with research and plays a decisive role in student training and motivation.
Another distinguishing factor is the strong connection between ESB and CBQF and the Portuguese business sector. This proximity enables the frequent development of translational research projects with high scientific and technological value and real impact on society.
 

“For results to go beyond the laboratory context, it is essential that research is developed in permanent contact with key stakeholders.”

 

Your research focuses on regenerative medicine, tissue engineering and biofabrication, with a particular emphasis on personalised orthopaedic implants. Why is personalisation now a key element in health innovation?

Medicine is indeed increasingly evolving towards personalisation. If no two human beings are the same, it is logical to conclude that treatments should not be the same either.
In the case of orthopaedic implants, this issue becomes particularly relevant, as each person’s anatomy is a determining factor. I often illustrate this to my students by asking: “Do you think my knee is the same as yours? Do you think an implant for my knee should be the same as yours?” The answer is always no, and the importance of personalisation becomes immediately clear.
From a technical perspective, personalised implants or treatments have the potential to increase success rates and speed up recovery. This is our scientific hypothesis, which still needs to be proven, but it represents one of the major challenges - and also one of the major opportunities - in health innovation.
 

To achieve this, you work with advanced technologies such as 3D printing and the development of new bioinks. What are the main challenges in bringing these solutions from the laboratory to clinical practice?

On the one hand, these technologies still have a low level of maturity. Although their enormous potential has already been demonstrated, clinical efficacy requires time, rigorous validation and significant financial investment to progress to clinical trials.
In addition, technological costs are high and the regulatory burden associated with approval for human use is particularly complex.
Finally, there is a need for standardisation, both in the use of 3D printing technologies and in the development and application of bioinks, through the definition of robust and reproducible protocols.
 

Beyond research, you play an active role in technology transfer and knowledge valorisation at CBQF. What has changed in recent years in the relationship between academia and industry- and what still needs to be done to ensure research has impact beyond the laboratory?

The link with industry - and, in my field, also with hospitals - must be continuous. Scientific research seeks to respond to real societal problems or improve processes with a direct impact on people’s lives. For results to go beyond the laboratory context, it is essential that research is developed in permanent contact with key stakeholders, namely companies, healthcare professionals, consumers and patients.
Success stories also play a crucial role- as the number of successful examples of collaboration between academia and industry increases, it becomes easier to accelerate the transfer of scientific knowledge to society.
 

Your background includes experience in industry, project management and training in hospital management. How does this multidisciplinary perspective influence the way you think, teach and conduct science?

Multidisciplinarity is absolutely essential. It is important to be able to view the same problem from multiple perspectives in order to identify solutions and the main challenges associated with them.
The way a researcher thinks is very different from that of a CEO, a venture capital investor, a doctor or a patient. The researcher seeks discovery, the CEO seeks robustness and economic viability, the investor seeks return, the doctor values efficacy and ease of application, and the patient wants solutions that work and are accessible. All of these perspectives are crucial to developing applied science and increasing the likelihood of transferring research to society. In teaching, I try to convey this vision to my students, preparing them to think beyond the laboratory.

 

“Always try to look at the problem as a blank page, constantly broadening your range of perspectives.”

 

How do you deal with moments when results do not turn out as expected?

When working in innovation, it is natural that many results do not meet initial expectations. If that never happens, we are probably not being ambitious enough.
It is important not to classify unexpected results as “bad”, but rather as valuable information - understanding that a particular approach does not work is, in itself, progress.
From there, it is essential to quickly define a “plan B”, reorganise the experimental strategy and refocus on the next step. I admit that learning to deal with this reality took time, and today I try to educate my students to approach research in this way. This process helps reduce frustration and maintain motivation.
 

What advice would you give to young researchers aspiring to a scientific career with real impact on health, innovation and society?

I genuinely believe that everything starts with passion. Look for an area that motivates you and makes you want to get up every day to be a better researcher.
Always try to look at the problem as a blank page, constantly expanding your range of perspectives. Never assume that you already know enough and always remain in search of new knowledge. Build a diverse portfolio of skills, including technical and scientific skills, but also financial, social and management skills, because impactful science is increasingly carried out in teams and multidisciplinary contexts.