Polymers In Low-Resource Biomedical Innovation: Maker Labs, DIY Devices and Ethics

Open Access

Year : 2026 | Volume : 14 | Issue : 01 | Page : 108 119
    By

    Joydeb Patra,

  • Itishree Panda,

  • Tamal Gupta,

  • Trisha Mukherjee,

  • Saptaparni Raha,

  • Himan Kar,

  1. Post Doc Scholar, School of Sciences and Humanities, SR University, Warangal, Telangana, India
  2. Assistant Professor, School of Sciences and Humanities, SR University, Warangal, Telangana, India
  3. Associate Professor, School of Law, Brainware University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  4. Assistant Professor, School of Law, Brainware University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  5. PhD Scholar, School of Law, Brainware University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
  6. SRF Doctoral Scholar, Department of Sociology, Vidyasagar University, West Bengal, India

Abstract

The low-cost biomedical devices have been prototyped and sometimes put into practice by maker laboratories and community “DIY” (Do-It-Yourself maker) innovators due to the fast-growing availability of polymer-based fabrication (desktop 3D printing, laser cutting, and simple molding). Nowadays, polymers such as PLA, PETG, TPU, and PEEK are used in a wide range of applications, including surgical guides and anatomical models, as well as assistive technology and diagnostic housings. Such innovations based on makers can be used to save money, localize supply chains, and accelerate iteration, especially in limited-resource settings. The transition to clinical utilization raises critical technical, safety, legal, and ethical issues, such as the material biocompatibility and sterilization limits, mechanical dependability, quality control and traceability, patient safety, informed consent, equity and potential legal loopholes. The paper provides an overview of the technical properties of regular polymers in maker spaces, charts the terrain of self-managed biomedical practice, outlines regulatory models relevant to additive manufacturing, and offers a series of effective and ethical advice for makers, clinicians, and policymakers on responsibly applying polymer-based technologies to low-resource healthcare. Setting up minimal material/testing checklists, between makers and clinics relations, local ethical reviews of deployments by do-it-yourself makers, and pathway templates resembling outputs of makers resembling existing regulatory standards are among the key suggestions. (PMC)

Keywords: Bio-medical innovation, DIY, ethics, mechanical dependability, PLA, polymer

[This article belongs to Journal of Polymer & Composites ]

How to cite this article:
Joydeb Patra, Itishree Panda, Tamal Gupta, Trisha Mukherjee, Saptaparni Raha, Himan Kar. Polymers In Low-Resource Biomedical Innovation: Maker Labs, DIY Devices and Ethics. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(01):108-119.
How to cite this URL:
Joydeb Patra, Itishree Panda, Tamal Gupta, Trisha Mukherjee, Saptaparni Raha, Himan Kar. Polymers In Low-Resource Biomedical Innovation: Maker Labs, DIY Devices and Ethics. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(01):108-119. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2026/view=236060


Browse Figures

References

  1. Ornaghi HL Jr, Monticeli FM, Agnol LD. A review on polymers for biomedical applications on hard and soft tissues and prosthetic limbs. Polymers (Basel). 2023;15(19):4034.
  2. Bhise MG, Patel L, Patel K. 3D printed medical devices: regulatory standards and technological advancements in the USA, Canada and Singapore—a cross-national study. Int J Pharm Investig. 2024;14(3):e-pub.
  3. Wexler A. Mapping the landscape of do-it-yourself medicine. Citizen Sci Theory Pract. 2022;7(1):38.
  4. Shilov SY, Rozhkova YA, Markova LN, Tashkinov MA, Vindokurov IV, Silberschmidt VV. Biocompatibility of 3D-printed PLA, PEEK and PETG: adhesion of bone marrow and peritoneal lavage cells. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(19):3958.
  5. S. Food and Drug Administration. Technical considerations for additive manufactured medical devices: guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2018 [cited 2026 Jan 3]. Available from: FDA website.
  6. Kurowiak J, Klekiel T, Będziński R. Biodegradable polymers in biomedical applications: a review—developments, perspectives and future challenges. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(23):16952.
  7. Rimmer M. Open prosthetics: intellectual property, 3D printing, medical innovation, and sustainable development. In: Dinwoodie GB, editor. The Elgar companion to intellectual property and the Sustainable Development Goals. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2024. p. 323–349.
  8. Lantada AD, De Maria C. Sustainable open-source medical devices manufactured with green biomaterials and accessible resources. Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2023;28:100500.
  9. Deman AL, Guijt RM, Odhiambo CO, Ndlovu Z, Kersaudy-Kerhoas M. Part of the problem or part of the solution? An interdisciplinary action call for more research on the environmental sustainability of lab-on-a-chip and point-of-care devices. Front Lab Chip Technol. 2024;3:1530449.
  10. Batet D, Gabriel G. Green electrochemical point-of-care devices: transient materials and sustainable fabrication methods. ChemSusChem. 2025;18(7):e202401101.
  11. Sengupta J. Natural biodegradable polymers transforming lab-on-a-chip technology: a mini review. Green Anal Chem. 2024;10:100119.
  12. Zhu Y, Guo S, Ravichandran D, Ramanathan A, Sobczak MT, Sacco AF, et al. 3D-printed polymeric biomaterials for health applications. Adv Health Mater. 2025;14(1):2402571.
  13. Yang CY, Kuan CM, Yeh JA, Cheng CM. Fabricating millimeter-scale polymeric structures for biomedical applications via a combination of UV-activated materials and daily-use tools. RSC Adv. 2014;4(24):12538–12544.
  14. Mohd Asri MA, Nordin AN, Ramli N. Low-cost and cleanroom-free prototyping of microfluidic and electrochemical biosensors: techniques in fabrication and bioconjugation. Biomicrofluidics. 2021;15(6):e-pub.
  15. Shin JH, Choi S. Open-source and do-it-yourself microfluidics. Sens Actuators B Chem. 2021;347:130624.
  16. Garciamendez-Mijares CE, Agrawal P, García Martínez G, Cervantes Juarez E, Zhang YS. State-of-the-art affordable bioprinters: a guide for the DIY community. Appl Phys Rev. 2021;8(3):031403.
  17. Knapper J, Whiteford F, Rosen D, Wadsworth W, Stirling J, Mkindi C, et al. Developing the OpenFlexure Microscope towards medical use: technical and social challenges of developing globally accessible hardware for healthcare. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2024;382(2274):20230257.
  18. Brewster RC, Wu A, Carroll RW. Open source approaches for pediatric global health technologies. J Med Eng Technol. 2023;47(8):371–375.
  19. Bow JK, Gallup N, Sadat SA, Pearce JM. Open source surgical fracture table for digitally distributed manufacturing. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0270328.
  20. Ibrahim YS, et al. Biodegradable polymers and their biomedical applications. Molecules. 2020;25(23):5579. doi:10.3390/molecules25235579
  21. Hany A, et al. Advances in polymer-based additive manufacturing for medical devices. Ain Shams Eng J. 2024;102759. doi:10.1016/j.asej.2024.102759
  22. Smith J, et al. Biomedical polymers for low-cost medical devices. J Biomater Appl. 2024;Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1177/07316844241238507
  23. Zhang L, et al. Sustainable polymer systems for medical innovations. BioResources. 2024;19(2):2353–2370. doi:10.15376/biores.19.2.2353-2370
  24. Chen H, et al. Eco-friendly biopolymers for biomedical prototyping. BioResources. 2025;20(2):698–724. doi:10.15376/biores.20.2.698-724
  25. Rao A, et al. Performance of medical-grade vinyl polymers in additive manufacturing. J Vinyl Addit Technol. 2024;Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1002/vnl.22167
Regular Issue Open Access Review Article
Volume 14
Issue 01
Received 20/11/2025
Accepted 01/12/2025
Published 14/01/2026
Publication Time 55 Days
97

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics