That which can't be done with 2D would not be able to be done...

That which can't be done with 2D would not be able to be done with 3D.

For small scale manufacturing 2D may be sufficient but the skilled labor handling is something that if you could go to 3D would give very significant cost savings.

"uniform, consistent and infinitely expandable without facing the issues of cell senescence."

Don't have time to do this right now, but nothing much is infinitely expandable - that sounds like Ross speak - iPSCs shouldn't senescence (run into the Hayflick limit as a result of shortening telomeres and perhaps other factors) but Ross has done nobody any favors by pretending that the costs of manufacturer are mostly resolved by 2D - that simply cannot be so - its like comparing working with a shovel to working a bull dozer - the costs of doing a bigger job require understanding all the costs in the production process.

Ross, and shareholders swallowing Ross simplifications have keep shareholders substantially ignorant. In the end shareholder ignorance is on the shareholders themselves.


There are different types of 3D.