While AI promises to design therapeutics computationally, it doesn't eliminate the need for physical lab work. Even if future models require no training data, their predicted outputs must be experimentally validated. This ensures a continuous, inescapable cycle where high-throughput data generation remains critical for progress.

Related Insights

AI modeling transforms drug development from a numbers game of screening millions of compounds to an engineering discipline. Researchers can model molecular systems upfront, understand key parameters, and design solutions for a specific problem, turning a costly screening process into a rapid, targeted design cycle.

Simple cell viability screens fail to identify powerful drug combinations where each component is ineffective on its own. AI can predict these synergies, but only if trained on mechanistic data that reveals how cells rewire their internal pathways in response to a drug.

The next leap in biotech moves beyond applying AI to existing data. CZI pioneers a model where 'frontier biology' and 'frontier AI' are developed in tandem. Experiments are now designed specifically to generate novel data that will ground and improve future AI models, creating a virtuous feedback loop.

In high-stakes fields like pharma, AI's ability to generate more ideas (e.g., drug targets) is less valuable than its ability to aid in decision-making. Physical constraints on experimentation mean you can't test everything. The real need is for tools that help humans evaluate, prioritize, and gain conviction on a few key bets.

While AI can accelerate the ideation phase of drug discovery, the primary bottleneck remains the slow, expensive, and human-dependent clinical trial process. We are already "drowning in good ideas," so generating more with AI doesn't solve the fundamental constraint of testing them.

To ensure their AI model wasn't just luckily finding effective drug delivery peptides, researchers intentionally tested sequences the model predicted would perform poorly (negative controls). When these predictions were experimentally confirmed, it proved the model had genuinely learned the underlying chemical principles and was not just overfitting.

The progress of AI in predicting cancer treatment is stalled not by algorithms, but by the data used to train them. Relying solely on static genetic data is insufficient. The critical missing piece is functional, contextual data showing how patient cells actually respond to drugs.

The bottleneck for AI in drug development isn't the sophistication of the models but the absence of large-scale, high-quality biological data sets. Without comprehensive data on how drugs interact within complex human systems, even the best AI models cannot make accurate predictions.

Contrary to the idea that AI will make physical experiments obsolete, its real power is predictive. AI can virtually iterate through many potential experiments to identify which ones are most likely to succeed, thus optimizing resource allocation and drastically reducing failure rates in the lab.

The founder of AI and robotics firm Medra argues that scientific progress is not limited by a lack of ideas or AI-generated hypotheses. Instead, the critical constraint is the physical capacity to test these ideas and generate high-quality data to train better AI models.