Mechanical Leech Sucks Blood Better

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


If you're like most people, the mere mention of the word "leech" makes you wrinkle your nose in disgust. But imagine having to let the parasites attach to you as part of a therapy regimen. In fact, such so-called medicinal leeches are standard tools for preventing blood clotting after reconstructive surgery. Scientists, however, may have figured out a way to one-up Nature's clot-busters: a newly developed mechanical leech sucks blood better than its living counterparts do. Moreover, it does so without the "yuck" factor.

The novel device, created by researchers at the University of Wisconsin, consists of a tiny glass shell, a vacuum and a tube that delivers the anticoagulant heparin to the affected tissue. "There's a big difference between what a real leech can do and what our mechanical leech can do," co-inventor Michael Conforti notes. "The real leech can penetrate only so deep. Our device can act at a deeper level under the skin, tapping into larger blood vessels, and treat a larger area of tissue." The mechanical leech also lacks the bacteria that some leeches can introduce during therapy.

Team member Nadine Connor sees the benefits of the blood-sucking gizmo somewhat differently, however. "Perhaps the mechanical device's biggest advantage is that it is not a leech," she remarks. "People don't want this disgusting organism hanging on their body. This added psychological stress for both patient and family members compounds an already difficult situation."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe