Researcher develops microrobots to battle cancer with unique precision

May 1, 2024

4 min

Sambeeta Das


Magnetic robots that can target cancer cells are nothing new. But the patented microrobots developed by the University of Delaware's Sambeeta Das can be guided with a magnetic field to deliver medication to cells – or to destroy infectious cells, such as cancer – inside the body.


To mark the launch of National Inventors Month, Das, assistant professor of mechanical engineering, shared her journey toward invention.


Q: Tell us about your patented invention on microrobots for cancer research. What problem were you trying to solve?


Das: One of the biggest issues with cancer research is the ability to target cancer cells without harming healthy cells. Cancer cells are sneaky, and they have evolved ways of hiding from the body’s immune cells.


A big part of our research focuses on targeting, specifically precision targeting. We want to be able to target a single cell in a mass of cells, whether that is a single cell in a mass of cancer cells or whether it is a single abnormal cell surrounded by healthy cells. To do this, we use magnetic microrobots that can be driven inside the body by magnetic fields to a particular cell location. Magnetic fields are biocompatible, meaning they are not harmful to biological tissues, and our microrobots are very small, around 20 microns, which is about the size of a single bacteria cell. We can load our microrobots with various drugs and modify their surface in such a way that when the robots come in contact with the cells we are targeting, they can kill the target cell or perform some other function.


Q: How is this solution unique?


Das: Other people have made magnetic microrobots, but our system is unique since it allows us to do automatic targeting with a lot of precision. For example, a person operating our microrobots can just point to a cell and our system will drive the microrobot there. Additionally, the instrument we have made and patented is an all-in-one portable device that can be used anywhere. We don’t need a separate microscope, camera or software, it is all built in and very user friendly. Anyone can use it. This makes it super portable, which means quick solutions for health practitioners. In addition, poor and resource challenged areas can also be accessed with this portable solution.

Q: What drives you toward invention?


Das: I like to solve problems, and I like seeing something come together from nothing. I am very interested in problems that affect human health and longevity, particularly those that affect the common person.


Q: How do you approach solving a problem, and whose support has been critical along the way?


Das: One thing I have realized is that it is imperative to ask the right question to solve a problem. You must really get to the core of the issue. The second thing is to always keep the end user in mind. So, it’s kind of a two-pronged approach—looking from both ends of the problem.


For support, I would say my team members and my collaborators. Their support has been invaluable in helping me solve the problems that I want to solve. In fact, my graduate students keep a running list of crazy ideas that they have come up with. It helps us look at problems in a unique way and come up with innovative solutions.


Q: Not every invention makes it. How do you deal with failure?


Das: The way that I start working on a problem is to assume that whatever we do, we are going to fail. I always tell my students that their first couple of experiments or designs will always fail. But failure is essential because it will teach you what not to do. And knowing what not to do is sometimes the critical part of the invention process. The failures inform us about the ways of not doing something which means now there is another way of doing something.


Q: What is the best advice you’ve ever received?


Das: The best career advice I’ve ever received is that there is always another way. If you run into roadblocks there is always another answer, there is always another opportunity. So we just need to keep going and trying new and crazy ideas.


Q: How are inventive minds created – is it innate or can it be developed? How do you encourage innovation among your students?


Das: That’s an interesting question and honestly, I am not sure. I do believe in what Edison said, “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.” He is a known inventor, so I would go with his interpretation on this.


As for my students, I give them lots of freedom. I think freedom is essential in encouraging innovation. The freedom to come up with crazy ideas without anyone saying that won't work and the freedom to fail—multiple times.


Das is available for interviews to talk about her microrobots and other projects at UD. To reach her, visit her profile and click the "contact" button.

Connect with:
Sambeeta Das

Sambeeta Das

Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Prof. Das’s research spans robotics, autonomous systems, physics, organic chemistry and materials engineering.

Biomechanical EngineeringClean Energy & EnvironmentMaterials EngineeringBiomechanicsFluid Mechanics
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

How should journalists cover politics when democracy is at stake featured image

1 min

How should journalists cover politics when democracy is at stake

Political coverage often centers on the president, but according to the University of Delaware’s Dannagal Young, journalists can sometimes provide more meaningful coverage by focusing more on democracy and less on the commander in chief’s every movement. Young calls this approach “democracy-centered reporting.” Instead of treating every presidential announcement or provocative statement as the central event, democracy-centered reporting asks how political actions affect democratic institutions, constitutional principles and Americans’ ability to exercise their rights as citizens, Young says. Young, professor of communication and director of UD’s Center for Political Communication, says “access journalism” has an important role, but an overreliance on access can also make political leaders the organizing principle of coverage. In moments when executive power is expanding, she argues, journalists should consider whether their coverage is inadvertently amplifying the power they are trying to scrutinize. Young can discuss: • How journalists can cover presidents without making the president the center of every story • The benefits and risks of access journalism • How coverage of political conflict affects public understanding of democracy To arrange an interview with Young, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Public health risks after a major flood featured image

1 min

Public health risks after a major flood

Floodwaters may recede quickly, but the health consequences of a major disaster can last for months or even years, says University of Delaware epidemiologist Jennifer Horney. Horney, an expert in disaster recovery and public health, can discuss the longer-term health challenges communities face after major flooding events, including the Aug. 26 flash floods in Nepal that resulted in 1,450 deaths, with 6,000 people still missing. Horney can talk about: • How damage to health infrastructure can make it more difficult for people to access medical care after a disaster, and what communities can do to prepare for and reduce longer-term health consequences following flooding and other disasters. • How contaminated water and food can increase the risk of infectious disease, and how standing water left behind by floods can create breeding grounds for mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as dengue, malaria, encephalitis and chikungunya. • The impact disasters have on physical and mental health well after the immediate emergency has passed. To arrange an interview, visit Horney's profile and click on the contact button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Is AI ethical? One philosophy professor has an answer. featured image

3 min

Is AI ethical? One philosophy professor has an answer.

During a snowstorm last winter, University of Delaware philosophy professor Thomas Powers fixed his own thermostat by typing the error codes into ChatGPT and following the instructions it provided. As he discovered on that cold, snowy night, AI can make DIY projects that much easier, potentially saving time and money. Ever the philosopher, Powers wondered about the ethics of his solution: What is the impact of taking the repair job away from someone who relies on the work? What about the risk of being wrong? Is the environmental impact of using AI worth the result? After 20 years in the Department of Philosophy and as director of the Center for Science, Ethics and Public Policy, Powers is uniquely suited to explore questions about the ethics of AI. What does “ethical AI” mean? POWERS: We want AI systems that are helpful and useful, but also safe. We want systems that don’t produce biased or dangerous results. One approach to achieve that, which I’m hopeful about, is to create systems that are “safe by design” or “ethical by design.” In other words, instead of relying entirely on outside regulation to prevent harmful behavior, we try to design the systems themselves so that they behave in ways we consider ethical. Is it possible to make an AI system truly “safe by design” if it eventually becomes capable of acting in ways its creators didn’t anticipate? POWERS: There is a big difference between most technologies and AI. With the latter, especially current large language models (LLMs), it appears that there is some unpredictability in their behaviors. Thus, their apparent autonomy complicates the "safe by design" motto. AI autonomy introduces the need for "guardrails" that constrain what AIs can do. But even this may not be possible. Why are AI companies hiring philosophers, and what does this mean for the field of philosophy? POWERS: Some of the hardest questions in AI aren’t purely technical questions. To build systems that are safe, fair or aligned with human values, you first have to decide what those concepts actually mean and how they can be translated into something a computer system can use. The challenge is to educate people who can move between those worlds — who understand the technology but can also ask the deeper questions about what we should want that technology to do. How has AI changed philosophy? POWERS: Philosophers have long discussed the philosophy of action with the concept of agency. For decades we assumed that an agent must be human — someone who acts on their own behalf, or on the behalf of another person, with some kind of plan or attitude. This concept transfers to discussions about AI, and whether it can be considered an agent and be responsible for its actions. The next step is to ask harder questions: Are autonomous AI agents responsible, in some sense, for what they do, and does this suggest or imply that they are conscious? I don’t think AI will become conscious any time soon, but I don’t think it is impossible, and other philosophers and scientists are broaching the question. To speak with Powers further about the philosophy of AI, reach out mediarelations@udel.edu. ABOUT THOMAS POWERS Thomas M. Powers, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. He is also the director of the Center for Science, Ethics & Public Policy at UD. Powers' current research focuses on the ethics of information technology and the philosophy of technology. He contributes to scholarship on rule-based conceptions of machine ethics, computer agency, the ethics of artificial intelligence, and other philosophical issues involving emerging technologies, including human-robot interaction. ​​

View all posts