Today we announced the Claude-led discovery of a molecular machine that we suspect could represent a new gene editing mechanism. Its precise function, biotechnological utility (if any), or level of significance is not yet clear, but at minimum it is work I would have been proud to do as a PhD student. The work was done mostly, though not entirely, by Claude: our life sciences team suggested a broad area of research, Claude read through the literature and a bunch of genome data and discovered something interesting, then Claude proposed experiments to verify the discovery and our team carried them out. It’s easy to dismiss this as a one-off or curiosity, but we’ve repeatedly seen a pattern where AI performance in new intellectual domains goes from weak to superhuman in a matter of a few years. In 2023 models struggled to do math at the level of an average high-school student. In 2024 they started to do well on math competitions for the best high-schoolers in the country, in 2025 they started to solve minor open problems, in early 2026 more significant open problems, and in late 2026 they are beginning to solve the top few open problems in all of mathematics. We believe AI for biology is on a similar exponential trend. The main difference between biology and mathematics, of course, is that math can be done purely theoretically, while biology requires experimentation. Some have used this to draw the conclusion that AI’s utility in biology will be limited. We think this is wrong. As we’ve demonstrated today, humans can collaborate with AI to perform the experiments, validate key results in a few weeks and, if necessary, work with the AI to iterate on what they find. Eventually it may even be possible for Claude itself to safely perform the experiments by autonomously controlling lab equipment, with appropriate safeguards in place, but we aren’t doing that today (our lab is also a BSL1/BSL2 facility that doesn't handle materials dangerous to humans). More broadly, biomedical advancement has many stages — from fundamental biology discoveries, to translational research, to drug discovery, clinical trials, and finally the actual delivery of medicines and health care to patients. We are also interested in these later stages, but even simply accelerating the first stage of fundamental biological discoveries has the potential to speed up and broaden the entire pipeline. Improving our understanding of biology and sharpening biologists’ tools can drive forward all of the later stages, for example by identifying new drug targets, finding new therapeutic modalities, allowing for more precise measurement, and speeding up the experimental loop which itself further accelerates our understanding of biology. This will not in itself speed up clinical trial times, but if it succeeds it could greatly increase the number of promising candidates that go into the pipeline — an increase in throughput even though latency remains. In Machines of Loving Grace, I wrote about AI’s potential to “cure most diseases in 5-10 years” — a goal that sounds impossible, but one I believe is just barely possible if AI is applied to every stage of the pipeline. The first step is showing that AI can first help with, and then drive, biological discoveries. Claude’s discovery is the latest in a line of related prior work that goes back decades, beginning with systems like CRISPR, and continuing with discoveries like the bridge recombinase and VIPR in the past few years. Recently, there has been heightened interest in systems based on reverse transcriptase (RT) enzymes, the enzyme underlying the system Claude identified. And most recently, a Stanford team working independently described a novel RT system with an associated non-coding array that is in some ways similar to the one Claude found, though they are distinct systems that evolved independently from each other. I believe that we’re at the very beginning of finding such systems and developing them into powerful tools for biotechnology. I’m proud of the resources Anthropic has invested in accelerating the public benefits of AI through the life sciences, and we’re aiming both to grow our life sciences team and to work with other scientists to extend this approach to a broad range of problems. If you have a proposal for a research collaboration or are interested in joining our life sciences team, please reach out.

Which are better therapeutics: antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) or small interfering RNAs (siRNAs)? A review of these and related molecular entities which have led to over 20 FDA approvals and many more to come cell.com/cell-reports-medici…

We are on the cusp of a wave of new therapies for some of the worst diseases. But the world won’t benefit unless the US fixes its drug regulatory system. My new essay for @nytimes, on how slow clinical trials are now the biggest obstacle to curing cancer. nytimes.com/2026/09/04/opini… - I interviewed dozens of researchers, especially oncologists at leading U.S. centers. A striking consensus emerged: science is no longer the main bottleneck to new cancer drugs. It is our ability to test discoveries in patients through clinical trials. - The cost of starting a Phase 1 trial in America has roughly doubled over the past decade. As a result, companies increasingly take early trials abroad: Australia’s Phase 1 trial volume has nearly doubled in a decade, driven mainly by U.S. companies. - Unfortunately, the underlying incentives are badly asymmetric: Institutions can be blamed for harms caused by moving too fast, but almost no one is blamed when patients deteriorate during avoidable delays. One doctor called the emerging system “ritualized safety over actual risk assessment.” Or as, @DavidHongMD put it: "We often forget that the biggest risk is the cancer itself." - This problem is becoming more urgent because medicine itself is changing. Sequencing, biological engineering and A.I. make increasingly personalized therapies possible. But our regulatory system was mostly built for standardized drugs tested in large populations. - @sytse, the co-founder of GitLab, shows what personalized medicine can achieve: after relapsed osteosarcoma and being told there were no options left, he pursued a highly individualized approach and has now been cancer-free for a year. But doing so required extraordinary resources and regulatory expertise. - Pierce Ogden’s father was less lucky. After molecular analysis identified a drug that might target his glioblastoma, the manufacturer agreed to provide it. But administrative barriers delayed access until it was too late. “My dad was ready to try anything,” Pierce told me. “But the system is paternalistic.” - The A.I. revolution is making this bottleneck more important, not less. A.I. relies on relevant data. Information from early-stage trials could compound with A.I. tools to achieve truly revolutionary medicines. Without the data, this is far less likely to happen. - Another important shift is that innovation increasingly comes from academic labs and small biotech companies rather than Big Pharma. These small companies find it far harder to unable to absorb delays and regulatory barriers. - Apart from cancer, China is the biggest winner from America's outdated medical regulations. China has a much faster trial system, with testing often starting a full year earlier. This allows Chinese pharmaceutical companies to experiment and improve medicines while American companies play with mice. Today, half of all drugs licensed by major pharmaceutical companies originate there, up from less than 5 percent only a decade ago. - But we don't need to copy China. The best model is Australia: lots of on-site scientific and ethics reviews, and requirements that are proportionate to small, early-stage trials. Phase 1 studies there begin roughly 6–12 months faster, without any notable increases in adverse safety events. - Operation TrialBlazer, a 2026 HHS initiative is a good start in this direction, but we need legislative action by Congress to truly make Phase I trials faster and more efficient! I want to thank everyone who helped me with this article: everyone I interviewed and the amazing editors at the Times. This is the result of a months long journey of extensive interviews and research. Special thanks go to those who came on the record. One of the features of the system is an atmosphere of fear, where practitioners are afraid to publicly come out and explain these issues. So anyone who does is a hero in my book!