Céleste Chidiac, PhD
Publication Date
Keywords
Scientific writing
Neuroscience
Molecular biology
Experimental design
Microfluidics
methodology
Scientific communication
technologies
applications
Your microfluidic SME partner for Horizon Europe
We take care of microfluidic engineering, work on valorization and optimize the proposal with you
Scientific writer and digital marketing specialist
Céleste Chidiac holds a PhD in neuroscience and molecular biology from the University of Strasbourg. Her research focused on the relationship between genetic variation and pain sensitivity, combining molecular biology with behavioural investigation. Since joining the Microfluidics Innovation Center in 2023, she has brought this research background to scientific writing and the management of MIC’s website. Her published reviews examine microfluidic methods and their research applications, connecting technical choices with the scientific questions they help address.
How has research shaped your approach to science?
My scientific background has shaped how I ask questions and evaluate evidence. During my PhD, I learned to test hypotheses and interpret findings within the limits of the methods used. That experience now guides how I assess the scientific literature I draw on in my writing.
Teaching science to school students helped me see a subject from the learner’s perspective. I learned to adapt my explanations to their existing knowledge, an approach I now use when writing for readers from different scientific backgrounds.
“My scientific background has shaped how I ask questions and evaluate evidence.”
What did you investigate during your PhD?
I studied a genetic mutation associated with neuropathic pain at the IGBMC, within the European H2020-MSCA-ITN Pain-Net network.
Using CRISPR-Cas9 and homologous recombination, I generated a mouse model carrying the mutation and conducted its molecular and behavioural characterisation. The mutant mice showed increased pain sensitivity, although we found no change in RNA or protein expression levels.
Interpreting those findings required considering the molecular and behavioural results together. Unchanged expression levels did not mean the mutation had no observable effect. This experience reinforced the importance of distinguishing what an experiment measures from the broader conclusions we might draw.
How did your work expand into microfluidics?
I began learning about microfluidics when I joined MIC, through experimental demonstrations and the scientific literature. My background in biology helped me approach its applications through the research questions they address.
When exploring a method, I want to understand what it allows researchers to investigate and how its experimental conditions influence the results. Microfluidics introduced me to new ways of approaching those questions, alongside concepts from physics and engineering.
Scientific writing gives me the opportunity to keep developing that understanding and share it with readers from different disciplines.
What subjects do you explore through your writing at MIC?
My writing explores how microfluidic technologies work and how researchers use them to investigate scientific questions. I cover the technical choices behind experimental systems alongside their applications in biological research.
For example, my review of organ-on-a-chip technology examines how these models are developed and used to study disease and drug responses. This subject connects closely with my interest in understanding biological mechanisms through experimental models.
In my review of intelligent microfluidics, I explore how artificial intelligence is being integrated into microfluidic systems for analysis and decision-making. Writing about these developments allows me to examine how new methods are changing the way researchers conduct experiments.
“My writing explores how microfluidic technologies work and how researchers use them to investigate scientific questions.”
How do you approach a scientific review?
For me, a useful review helps readers understand why a method matters for a particular research question. I draw on published studies to connect the principles behind a technology with what researchers have been able to investigate using it.
Depending on the subject, I organise the review around different methods or the research questions they address. I also consider the practical strengths and limitations of each approach. My aim is to help readers understand what a technology can offer and assess how it might fit their own research.
What do you find most rewarding in your work?
Making a complex method understandable while preserving what makes it scientifically interesting.
Readers come to MIC’s website with different expertise and different questions. I enjoy finding the explanation or experimental example that helps them understand how a technology works and assess its relevance to their research. For me, good scientific communication gives readers a basis for asking more informed questions.