David J. Peeler, PhD, Incoming Assistant Professor, University of Oregon, Department of Bioengineering
David J. Peeler, PhD, Incoming Assistant Professor, University of Oregon, Department of Bioengineering
Biography
David J. Peeler, PhD Research Fellow, Imperial College London (Visiting scholar, University of Oxford)
Laboratories of Dame Molly Stevens and Robin Shattock, Departments of Materials, Bioengineering, and Infectious Disease Incoming Assistant Professor, University of Oregon, Department of Bioengineering
Laboratories of Dame Molly Stevens and Robin Shattock, Departments of Materials, Bioengineering, and Infectious Disease Incoming Assistant Professor, University of Oregon, Department of Bioengineering
Phil & Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact.
I'm launching my nanomaterial immunoengineering lab in January 2026 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Oregon. During my postdoc in the labs of Prof. Dame Molly Stevens and Prof. Robin Shattock at the University of Oxford and Imperial College London, I worked on 3D-printed protein vaccine delivery systems, saRNA vaccine manufacturing scale-up, and adjuvanted antiviral and antibacterial RNA vaccines. Prior to moving to the UK in 2020, I received my PhD in Bioengineering at the University of Washington under the guidance of Prof. Suzie Pun and Prof. Drew Sellers in collaboration with Prof. Patrick Stayton, where I used controlled polymerization techniques to engineer nucleic acid and cancer vaccine delivery systems. I earned by BS in Bioengineering from the University of Maryland in 2013 while performing research at the University of Maryland, Johns Hopkins University, and the US Food and Drug Administration.
Interview
NanoSphere: Tell us a bit about yourself—your background, journey, and what led you to where you are today.
David: I was lucky to be inspired by the power of science from my earliest days thanks to both my parents and grandparents and have been continually fortunate to have many passionate scientific mentors since then. It’s because of these people that my biggest motivations are improving medicine and inspiring young scientists, but these motivations really got locked in pretty early. I grew up in a rural suburb north of Baltimore, Maryland because my grandparents relocated from California to set up my grandfather’s lab in Physiology and Anatomy at Johns Hopkins. Although he passed away before I was born, I grew up hearing stories from my grandmother about her work as a technician in his lab, the work in mice they did that led to the clinical cure for osteopetrosis, and the incredible personal fulfilment that comes with the inherent difficulty of science. (I hope to write more about their story sometime!) Meanwhile, my mom has worked as a nurse in the pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center at Hopkins longer than I’ve been alive, so genetic medicine was actually one of my first conceptions of medicine of any kind.
I was and am enthralled by the complexity of biology and our dim attempts to intervene. In my freshman year as a Bioengineering undergrad at the University of Maryland, I was immediately captivated by the idea of using chemistry to design nanomaterials for drug delivery. I picked up interests in organic chemistry, virology, and molecular biology through coursework and was fortunate to have biomaterials research experiences in molecular dynamics simulations with Prof. Silvina Matysiak at UMD and in silver nanoparticle biocompatibility with Dr. Brendan Casey at the FDA. Thanks to these mentors and many other supportive folks at UMD, I was lucky to be able to pursue my dream PhD in gene delivery at the University of Washington. The breadth of biomaterials expertise across UW Bioengineering, the kindness of the mentors I had there, and the community of fellow PhD students I bonded with amounted to a PhD I genuinely loved. Prof. Suzie Pun took a chance on me, gave me thorough training in polymer chemistry and in vivo drug delivery, and trusted me to mentor undergraduates and launch projects that started in my head.
Suzie also encouraged me to leave Seattle to broaden my training and boost my potential, which I reluctantly agreed was worthwhile if it meant that I got to move back to the PNW eventually! Anna Blakney, then a friend from grad school and now Assistant Professor at UBC, alerted me to an opportunity between Profs. Molly Stevens and Robin Shattock at Imperial College London where I could contribute my nucleic acid delivery experience and benefit from deeper training in chemistry and immunology across both labs. I got my visa sponsorship letter the day the pandemic shut down visa offices, so after a 6 month delay I then spent the first 6 months of my postdoc in London behind a mask. Fortunately Molly has built an incredible community within her (enormous) group so I made some lifelong friends during that universally difficult time. With a Marie Sklodowska-Curie fellowship cementing my role between their labs, Molly and Robin have since given me many resources and opportunities to mentor students and co-PI grants. From small angle neutron scattering analysis to neutrophil depletion studies or from two photon printing microparticles in a London darkroom to synthesizing polycations in Bangladesh, my postdoc has spanned an incredible range and I’m extremely lucky to have such supportive mentors, collaborators, and trainees.
Fast-forward through Molly moving her lab to Oxford and Robin moving his lab across London (both in 2024) and we arrive at the present moment where in 4 months I will be moving back to the PNW to start a new chapter. I can’t imagine what my life story would be like if I hadn’t met Sara Keller during grad school. After I committed us to the UK, she landed her dream postdoc in Oxford, managed 1.5 years of daily commuting from London to Oxford, and earned a professorship in the same department I’m heading to next. Of all the things I’m looking forward to, what we build together is at the top!
NanoSphere: You're now building the BRIDGE Lab from scratch. What scientific questions will your lab tackle first—and how do you plan to balance innovation with reproducibility and regulatory foresight?
David: The innate immune system reacts to the external world with potent internal influence, serving as the primary interface between both harmful (infection, injury) and helpful (therapeutic, immunomodulatory) inputs and health outcomes. My lab will study how biomaterials directly and indirectly modulate innate responses during drug delivery, with the goal of wielding the influence of the innate immune system to the benefit of next generation nucleic acid therapeutics. We will initially focus on improving mucosal immunity to vaccines and overcoming inflammatory reactions to gene therapy. Using scalable chemistry, detailed nanomaterial structural characterization, and useful screening conditions will enable us to evolve formulations tailored to bridge specific physical barriers. Because mice lie (their innate immune systems are quite different from ours), we will also study how our delivery materials interface with innate immune barriers in human tissue explants and immune organoids. Innovative research with translational potential begins with a realistic assessment of anatomical and immunological barriers/pitfalls, designing towards elegance rather than complexity, working with clinically relevant drugs in the best models accessible, and keeping a pulse on regulatory milestones that our colleagues achieve. It might sound redundant, but my goal is to collaborate closely with funders, clinical scientists, and industrial partners so that our academic work is solving real challenges in addition to publishing.
NanoSphere: You've trained in some of the world’s top labs. What lessons in mentorship and lab culture do you hope to bring to BRIDGE—and how can aspiring scientists contribute meaningfully to your lab?
David: I’ve been lucky to get a broad perspective by working in labs with small (~10), medium (~20), and large (~100) numbers of colleagues and collaborating across disciplines. In every lab, my mentors have taught me the importance of hiring people who aren’t just great on paper but who share a sense of higher motivation and a commitment to the success of the team, regardless of how big that perceived team is. This can manifest as a passion for a particular area of science, a can-do attitude when it comes time to chip in and help a labmate with an experiment or equipment, or dedication to outreach programs that help build the broader team of science. As I unify my new lab around a scientific focus, I’m convinced that recruiting scientists with the inner motivation to foster a supportive and curious lab culture will be the key to success.
David: I’ve been lucky to get a broad perspective by working in labs with small (~10), medium (~20), and large (~100) numbers of colleagues and collaborating across disciplines. In every lab, my mentors have taught me the importance of hiring people who aren’t just great on paper but who share a sense of higher motivation and a commitment to the success of the team, regardless of how big that perceived team is. This can manifest as a passion for a particular area of science, a can-do attitude when it comes time to chip in and help a labmate with an experiment or equipment, or dedication to outreach programs that help build the broader team of science. As I unify my new lab around a scientific focus, I’m convinced that recruiting scientists with the inner motivation to foster a supportive and curious lab culture will be the key to success.
NanoSphere: In your view, what are the biggest translational hurdles when moving from elegant nanomaterial design to real-world vaccine or RNA therapeutic deployment—especially in global health settings?
David: From a global health perspective, academics are ideally positioned to engage with funders to complete critical early clinical trials that industry might not view as immediately commercially worthwhile. Elegant design in this context means simultaneously reducing cost and improving stability while maintaining or improving efficacy. Finding funding and manufacturing partners that share your values and engage transparently are obviously rate-limiting steps once an idea is “proven” preclinically, but I think a less obvious pitfall comes at the point of decision to launch into translation. Despite the current political climate around RNA, we are very fortunate to live in a time where decades of foundational work have finally broken through into clinical impact. These approvals and the surge in related technologies have illuminated some fundamental challenges (biodistribution in large animals; hemocompatibility; inflammation; re-dosing) that need to be overcome in order to safely expand the impact of nucleic acid therapies.
NanoSphere: If there’s one key message or insight you’d like to share with readers about the future of nanomedicine, what would it be?
David: Synthetic polymers are essentially cheap proteins with vast chemical diversity—think of how much more we have to learn about how they interface with biology!
David: Synthetic polymers are essentially cheap proteins with vast chemical diversity—think of how much more we have to learn about how they interface with biology!