Martin L. Yarmush

Research

The research mission of our laboratory is deliberately broad, ambitious, and interdisciplinary. We work at the boundaries between engineering, biology, chemistry, and medicine, particularly where important biomedical problems have resisted conventional approaches. Our research spans tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, mitochondrial biology and transplantation, targeted drug and cellular delivery, metabolic engineering, BioMEMS and microphysiological systems, nanotechnology, organ preservation, and the development of next-generation biomedical devices. Although these areas may appear diverse, they are united by a common philosophy: identify consequential problems in human health, understand the underlying science and engineering at a mechanistic level, and then develop technologies capable of changing what is scientifically or clinically possible.

We place a premium on originality, scientific depth, and translation. Our objective is not simply to publish another paper or make an incremental improvement to an existing technology. We seek problems for which a fundamentally different way of thinking can produce a fundamentally different solution. This philosophy has repeatedly led us from basic mechanistic investigation to enabling technologies, intellectual property, clinical applications, and commercial development.

One example is our development of a fully automated, image-guided robotic system for vascular access with integrated point-of-care capabilities. The platform brings together biomedical imaging, computer vision, robotics, artificial intelligence, physiologic sensing, and automation to address one of the most ubiquitous yet surprisingly imperfect procedures in medicine: gaining reliable access to the vasculature. The technology is being developed for applications ranging from routine venipuncture and intravenous catheter placement to automated fluid and drug delivery and, ultimately, image-guided access to arteriovenous fistulas and grafts for hemodialysis. The larger objective is not simply to automate a manual procedure, but to transform vascular access into a reproducible, quantitative, image-guided clinical operation in which anatomy is identified, trajectories are planned, procedures are executed, and outcomes are verified within an integrated robotic platform.

Our laboratory generally pursues a diverse portfolio of projects at the interface of fundamental science and engineering. These include the development of novel fusion-protein nanoparticles to accelerate and improve wound healing; tissue- and organ-on-a-chip platforms for mechanistic studies, drug screening, and disease modeling; microfabricated technologies designed to enhance nonviral gene delivery, including applications in engineered immune cells and CAR-T cell manufacturing; and pulsed electric-field approaches for scarless wound repair, antimicrobial treatment, skin rejuvenation, and stimulation of hair regeneration.

We are also developing new strategies for cellular and organelle-based therapeutics. These efforts include the encapsulation, protection, and delivery of mesenchymal stromal cells for conditions such as spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and osteoarthritis. A major emerging focus of the laboratory is mitochondrial transplantation: the therapeutic delivery of functional mitochondria to metabolically compromised cells and tissues. Rather than treating mitochondrial dysfunction merely as a downstream consequence of injury or inflammation, we are investigating whether cellular bioenergetics itself can become a therapeutic target. Our studies examine mitochondrial transplantation in inflammatory and ischemic disease states, including inflammatory bowel disease, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, vascular and endothelial injury, and other disorders in which loss of mitochondrial function may contribute to the transition from reversible cellular stress to persistent tissue dysfunction.

Underlying this work is an unusually broad technological foundation. Depending upon the scientific question, members of the laboratory may draw upon genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, molecular and genetic engineering, cell and stem-cell biology, tissue engineering, physical biochemistry, advanced molecular and biomedical imaging, micro- and nanofabrication, physiologic instrumentation, organ and tissue perfusion, in vivo animal models, computational modeling, numerical simulation, robotics, machine vision, and artificial intelligence. We are not committed to particular techniques simply because they are familiar to us. The scientific problem determines the technology, not the other way around. If answering an important question requires learning an entirely new methodology, building a new instrument, establishing a collaboration, or crossing the traditional boundary between two disciplines, that is precisely what we do.

At the center of the laboratory is the conviction that some of the most interesting advances in modern biomedicine occur in the spaces between established disciplines. Engineers ask different questions from physicians; cell biologists see different problems from roboticists; computational scientists recognize patterns that experimentalists may overlook. Our task is to bring these perspectives together without sacrificing rigor in any of them. Consequently, our collaborations routinely extend across departments, universities, hospitals, research institutes, companies, and international boundaries. We regard collaboration not as an accessory to the research enterprise but as one of its essential intellectual engines.

The same philosophy governs how we train scientists. Students and postdoctoral fellows are expected to become far more than technically proficient experimentalists. They must learn to identify important questions, distinguish mechanism from correlation, recognize weak assumptions, design decisive experiments, interpret unexpected results, and explain why their work matters. In individual discussions, small-group meetings, and our biweekly joint Berthiaume-Schloss-Yarmush research meetings, trainees are continually challenged to articulate the central hypothesis underlying their work, defend their experimental logic, understand alternative interpretations, and place their findings within the larger scientific and clinical landscape. The goal is not merely to teach someone how to perform research. It is to teach someone how to think like an independent scientist.

The defining principle of the laboratory is intellectual ownership. We do not believe that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows should function simply as pairs of hands assigned to execute someone else's research program. Whenever possible, laboratory members are encouraged to identify questions and select projects that genuinely engage them and that advance their own intellectual and professional ambitions. Mentorship is therefore highly individualized. Some trainees are drawn toward fundamental cell biology; others toward devices, biomaterials, computational modeling, regenerative medicine, organ preservation, robotics, or translation and entrepreneurship. The objective is to help each person develop a scientific identity rather than simply completing a collection of experiments.

The breadth of the laboratory makes this possible. My own training and career have crossed medicine, biology, biochemistry, biophysics, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, biotechnology, and translational science. That breadth allows us to move readily between disciplines and, more importantly, to generate research questions that do not fit neatly within conventional academic compartments. We actively resist derivative, “me-too” science. There is already enough research in the world devoted to making modest variations on things that other people have demonstrated. We would rather take the intellectual risk of attempting something genuinely new. Our aspiration is to define directions, not simply follow them.

As I sometimes tell prospective students and fellows, our aim is to provide the intellectual ambition, scientific breadth, technological sophistication, and collaborative intensity associated with the very best research environments: a Harvard-MIT-caliber research experience, without the institutional pathology that sometimes accompanies those elite institutions. The line is intentionally humorous, but the underlying principle is serious. Scientific excellence does not require needless hierarchy, intellectual intimidation, territorial behavior, or making young scientists miserable. One can demand extraordinary rigor while remaining generous. One can pursue difficult science without cultivating an unnecessarily difficult laboratory.

Translation has consequently been part of the laboratory's DNA from its inception. We believe that engineering and biomedical science reach their fullest potential when discoveries can move beyond the laboratory and become technologies that other scientists, physicians, patients, and companies can actually use. Our work has generated an extensive intellectual-property portfolio, numerous licensed technologies, and the scientific foundations for multiple companies, including Hµrel Corporation, Sentien Biotechnologies, Nivarta, eMembrane, HeproTech, VascuLogic, Novira Therapeutics (originally Molecmo Biotechnologies), and Organ Solutions.

A particularly important example is Novira Therapeutics, which emerged from our work in antiviral therapeutics and the search for fundamentally new approaches to chronic viral disease. Novira subsequently developed a first-in-class therapeutic program for chronic hepatitis B and was acquired by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, part of Johnson & Johnson, in 2015 in a transaction valued at approximately $600 million. The importance of such an outcome is not simply financial. It illustrates the trajectory we want our research to be capable of following: from an unconventional scientific idea, to rigorous experimentation, to intellectual property, to a biotechnology company, and ultimately toward a therapy capable of reaching patients.

Our robotic vascular-access program reflects the same philosophy in a very different technological domain. What began as the seemingly straightforward question of whether a machine could reliably locate a blood vessel has evolved into an integrated platform incorporating biomedical imaging, computer vision, robotics, artificial intelligence, physiologic monitoring, and automated procedural control. The long-term vision extends well beyond automated blood drawing. We envision autonomous systems capable of identifying vascular anatomy, selecting optimal access sites, performing cannulation, verifying successful access, delivering fluids or therapeutics, and ultimately executing complex procedures such as hemodialysis access with a level of reproducibility difficult to achieve through manual techniques alone. This is characteristic of how we approach engineering problems: not by asking how to marginally improve the existing procedure, but by asking what the procedure should look like if it were invented today.

Ultimately, however, technologies, publications, patents, grants, and companies tell only part of the story. What distinguishes our laboratory most is its culture. Science is extraordinarily demanding. Experiments fail. Hypotheses collapse. Papers are rejected. Grants that consume months of work receive scores that occasionally cause one to question the judgment of civilization itself. If one is going to devote a substantial portion of one's life to research, the process should therefore contain something more than productivity metrics and another line on a curriculum vitae.

We want the laboratory to be a place of intellectual excitement, generosity, independence, humor, and genuine enjoyment of discovery. We take the science extremely seriously without believing that we must take ourselves equally seriously. We celebrate good ideas regardless of who proposes them. We argue vigorously about experiments and interpretations. We expect people to help one another. We want students and fellows to leave the laboratory not only with publications and technical expertise, but with greater confidence, intellectual independence, scientific courage, and an enduring sense of curiosity.

The laboratory is therefore more than a collection of projects. It is a community built around a shared belief that science remains one of the great human adventures: the opportunity to ask questions whose answers are genuinely unknown, to build things that have never existed, to discover mechanisms that no one previously understood, and—when we are fortunate—to translate those discoveries into technologies that improve human health.

We come to the laboratory to do consequential science, to attempt difficult things, to challenge conventional thinking, and to enjoy doing it together.

For Undergraduate Students

We enthusiastically welcome talented undergraduate students into the laboratory, but we strongly prefer that they begin early enough to become genuine members of the research group rather than spending a single semester learning the basics just before graduation. Freshmen and sophomores are therefore ideal candidates. We also consider juniors, although there is less time for them to develop substantial independence and scientific ownership; in most cases, senior year is simply too late to begin. Research is a craft, and becoming good at it requires time. We particularly value students who remain with us for several years, because that continuity allows an undergraduate to progress from learning fundamental laboratory skills to designing experiments, interpreting data, contributing intellectually to a project, presenting research, and, in many cases, participating meaningfully in publications.

We look for students who have demonstrated that they can succeed academically while also possessing the curiosity, persistence, reliability, and independence required for research. You do not need a perfect transcript. A GPA in the 3.5–3.7 range can be entirely satisfactory, particularly when accompanied by strong performance in relevant scientific and engineering courses and evidence of genuine intellectual engagement. Grades matter, but they are not the sole criterion. We are ultimately looking for students who want to understand how things work, are willing to struggle with difficult problems, and can be trusted to follow through on commitments.

Research in the laboratory does, however, require a serious commitment of time. All undergraduate researchers are expected to devote a minimum of 10 hours per week to research during the academic semester and 20 hours or more per week during winter and summer breaks when they are working within the laboratory. Research cannot be done effectively in occasional fragments squeezed between classes. Experiments require continuity, preparation, troubleshooting, analysis, reading, and sustained thought. Students who make that investment receive substantially more in return: greater responsibility, more sophisticated projects, closer mentorship, and increasing intellectual ownership of their work.

For particularly talented and motivated Rutgers undergraduates, we also strongly encourage consideration of the B.S./M.S. program. With appropriate planning, undergraduate coursework and research can be integrated with graduate requirements so that completion of the combined bachelor's and master's degrees can be shortened by as much as one year. For students already deeply engaged in research, this can provide an unusually efficient opportunity to extend an undergraduate project into more advanced graduate-level work, acquire substantially greater technical and intellectual depth, and emerge with both a stronger research record and an advanced degree.

The larger point is simple: start early and stay long enough to become genuinely good at research. We are not interested in collecting undergraduate research assistants; we are interested in developing young scientists and engineers. A student who joins as a freshman or sophomore and remains for several years can leave the laboratory as a remarkably different scientist from the person who first walked through the door.

• 2023: Ranked #8 in US Biomedical Engineering by AcademicInfluence.com rankings
• 2022: The Sackler Scholar, Sackler Institute of Advanced Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel
• 2020: Daniel Gorenstein Memorial Award, Rutgers U
• 2018: Lady Davis Visiting Faculty Fellow & Institute Lecturer, Hebrew U, Jerusalem Israel
• 2017: Fellow, US National Academy of Engineering
• 2015: Robert A. Pritzker Distinguished Lecture Award, BMES
• 2015: Fellow, US National Academy of Inventors  
• 2013: Top 20 Translational Researchers, Nature Biotechnology
• 2011: Food, Pharmaceutical & Bioengineering Division Award, AIChE
• 2009: Keynote Speaker, ASME Summer Bioengineering Conference
• 2006: Fellow, New Jersey High Tech Hall of Fame
• 2006: NIH Career Enhancement Award for Stem Cell Research
• 1993: Founding Fellow, American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering
• 1992: Board of Trustees Award for Excellence in Research, Rutgers U
• 1989: NIH Research Career Development Award (K01), Rutgers U
• 1988: NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award, Rutgers U
• 1987: Lucille P. Markey Scholar Award in Biomedical Science, MIT
• 1984: NIH National Research Service Award (F32), MIT

• MA, Medical Science, Harvard University (Honorary), 1995
• Postdoctoral, Immunology and Immunogenetics, National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1978-1979
• PhD, Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 1984
• MD, Medicine, Yale University, 1983
• PhD, Biophysical Chemistry, The Rockefeller University, 1979
• BA, Biology/Chemistry, Yeshiva University, 1975