Andrew deMello is professor of chemical nanosciences at Imperial College London and the co-founder of Molecular Vision Ltd - a spin-out company developing low-cost diagnostic devices for use in the doctor's surgery and in the home. In 2009 he was awarded the RSC Corday-Morgan Prize for his work in microfluidics and nanobioanalytical research.

What led you to a career in chemistry and in particular the field of microfluidics?

I was lucky enough to cross paths with an inspirational chemistry teacher during my A levels, which is why I went on to do a chemistry degree. I decided to do a PhD fairly late in the day when an enthusiastic lecturer called Gary Rumbles [Imperial College London] asked me if I would like to play with lasers for three years! That sounded like a fantastic job and I also thought it could provide a stepping stone to living in America - something I'd always wanted to do. 

After my PhD, I applied to do a postdoc with Rich Mathies at the University of California, Berkeley in the photochemical reaction dynamics area. At the time, he didn't get the funding for that but offered me the opportunity to work on a new project he was just starting off - making microdevices to analyse DNA. And these are what we now call lab-on-a-chip devices. It was an incredibly fulfilling time because we demonstrated the first integrated lab-on-a-chip device which did both electrophoresis and the polymerase chain reaction. So, it was a complete accident that I fell into the microfluidics area! 

Is it satisfying to have been there right at the beginning of the field and see it develop with time?

Absolutely. I feel very blessed in that respect. In the early days it was clear the technology was going to be hugely useful. My initial work was funded by the human genome project and we could see where the technology could be applied. But it's one thing looking at a technology and its potential compared to the reality and there are many fields, things like combinatorial chemistry and the sensor area, which promised so much and really have failed to deliver to the level expected. 

In the last four or five years, the field has moved on to that second generation of development where you see the technology being applied to answer fundamental questions. I think this is fantastic. It makes me feel incredibly positive about the field when I see papers where the principle investigator is from a molecular biology or a cell biology group and they've interacted or collaborated with technologists who have a tool - that shows the field is starting to embed itself and become incredibly useful. 

Where do you see this field headed and how do you see it influencing medicine? 

Our particular interests are focused around the idea of creating systems that can do a huge number of relevant experiments very quickly and very efficiently. In terms of medical diagnostics, the ability to do things quickly is very important. A trivial example is a simple diagnostic test - two very different situations arise depending on whether the result can be obtained in three weeks or in five minutes. If it's five minutes, it means that a therapy can be initiated immediately, which could change the whole course of disease management. But if its three weeks, it won't be so easy. In terms of diagnostic technologies, creating and integrating microfluidic solutions that can be used at the point of care is going to be hugely important in the management of infectious diseases. It will also be important for chronic disease management, where a lot of the burden can be taken away from the hospital environment if the patient can control and manage their disease from their living room. 

What are you working on at the moment? 

We're working on a lot of different areas. I have a spin-out company with two colleagues at Imperial College London, John deMello - my brother - and Donal Bradley called Molecular Vision, which is commercialising point-of care microfluidic diagnostic technologies by combining microfluidics with semiconducting polymer technology. 

The largest part of my academic research is based on droplet-based microfluidics. We try to form ordered emulsions (water droplets in an oil) within microchannels. The idea is to create tiny reactors that are only a few picolitres or nanolitres in volume. These can be dosed with different amounts of reagents and individual analyses performed in the isolated droplets. The beauty of these systems is that it's very easy to control what goes in, so different conditions can be created very quickly. 

We are also starting to do some clever things to detect these droplets. If a thousand droplets are made every second, each one needs to be looked at and the information pulled out. It's a really big challenge because very sensitive detection techniques are needed to probe the molecules and I am collaborating with many people in different departments at Imperial College to do this. 

You mentioned your company earlier. What was the motivation for starting it up?

The real motivation is the hope and the potential of creating a device that could be used in sub-Saharan Africa, or even just in homes in the UK, that will actually make a difference to the way someone can control their disease. We're at a hugely important time in medicine where disease management can be pulled away from the realm of a hospital. It helps on so many levels - patients can work out very quickly if there's a problem and doctors and nurses can spend more time doing different things. Generally, the implementation of that kind of technology is what's driving us and I'm certainly looking forward to the day when that happens. I hope it's not going to be that long before we see people using the devices. 

You've spent some time in the US as a researcher. What would you say were the main differences in the life of an academic over there compared with the UK? 

One of the big differences is the tenure track system. It very much depends on the university you go to but the pressures on young academics can be enormous.  

Often, for a single position, a university will hire two or three individuals and after two or three years, two of those individuals will be removed and the one who's performed the best will stay.  

Also within the US funding system, the idea of throwing significant money at a problem which is perceived as being important is something that's done. Whereas, in the UK it's a much smaller pot of money and a smaller pool of scientists so often the money is spread a bit thinner. I think that to create world class science, you have take risks and focus money on particular problems.  

It's also much sunnier over there! 

Which scientist do you admire the most and why?

Osborne Reynolds' work in the field of fluid dynamics has been particularly important in much of our work in microfluidics. But I have to say that my favourite scientist is John deMello at Imperial College London! That should keep my mum happy!

If you weren't a chemist, what would you be?

I would have liked to have become a photographer, because I spend lots of time doing that when I'm not forlornly watching Queen's Park Rangers! If I had been a bit braver, I would love to have been a photojournalist. But I guess it's not too late!