
東京大学エッジキャピタルというVCでヘルスケアなど投資しています。@UTEC_official お気軽にDM下さい。ラ・サール、東大(医)+ミシガン大(MBA)、元救急医。テニス🎾(観戦&プレー)/キャンプ⛺️/野菜🥦 座右の銘「早寝早起き」 名前: Hiroaki KOBAYASHI
二子玉川
Joined September 2019
- Tweets4.9K
- Following1.6K
- Followers4.2K
- Likes16.3K
Koby@VC retweeted
ゼレンスキー大統領の会見での一コマ。
「米国のトランプ大統領自身の問題のスケープゴート(責任転嫁の対象)にされているのでは?」と質問された。
ゼレンシキー大統領の答えは・・・?
素晴らしいです!
昨日、予算委員会にて質疑した「アナフィラキシーに対する救急救命士によるアドレナリン投与」を産経新聞さんが取り上げてくださいました。
「政治で命を救う」仕事です。関わられた全ての方に敬意をひょうします。
sankei.com/article/20261015-…
Koby@VC retweeted
昨日、予算委員会にて質疑した「アナフィラキシーに対する救急救命士によるアドレナリン投与」を産経新聞さんが取り上げてくださいました。
「政治で命を救う」仕事です。関わられた全ての方に敬意をひょうします。
sankei.com/article/20261015-…
Koby@VC retweeted
10/14 衆議院予算委員会
国民民主党・福田とおる
【アナフィラキシーに対する救急救命士によるアドレナリン投与について】
福田議員
『今年3月3日の予算委員会で
2025年12月までに行われた実証実験の結果を踏まえ今後、救急救命士がアドレナリンを打てるようにできるかを質疑させていただき、上野厚労大臣より
「今、結果を取りまとめているところで今後、関係者のご意見を伺い、処置の全国的な拡大を検討していきます」と答弁いただきました
この命を救う1本の注射、いつ頃から始めることができそうでしょうか?』
上野厚労大臣
『実証事業の結果を踏まえ
今ご指摘いただいた検討会において
医師の具体的指示のもとで実施される救急救命処置として追加する方針が構成員により了承されたものであります
今その具体的な通知の発出、関連通知の発出に向け準備を進めているところでありますけれども、規制改革実施計画では
「令和8年度末までに結論を得て速やかに措置をする」ととされておりますので
そういうスケジュール感を前提に
作業を進めさせていただければと考えています』
Koby@VC retweeted
「大学病院や急性期病院の医師などの処遇改善」について、多くの反響をいただきました。
「現場の声をどこに届ければよいかわからない」という切実なお声も寄せられています。
(直接的な団体組織が少ない事も一因に感じています)
そこで、国光あやの事務所で、皆さまの声を直接お聞きするため、アンケートを作成しました。どの医療機能・職種でもお答え頂けるようにしております。
日々感じている課題やご希望など、ご意見をお寄せください。現場のおひとりおひとりのお声から、改善につなげていければと思います。
▼アンケートはこちら
docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F…
Koby@VC retweeted
「アナフィラキシー処置で、救急救命士によるエピペン使用が本年度にも可能に」
これも福田とおる議員が引き出した答弁です。
国民民主党の仲間が、課題「解決」につながる具体的な政策提案を国会でどんどん行なっています。
sankei.com/article/20261015-… @Sankei_newsより
Koby@VC retweeted
はじめまして。プロテニス選手の市川誠一郎です。
開成・東大を経て、25歳でテニスを始めました。39歳でダブルス世界ランキングを獲得。2026年は英国国内大会で3勝しました。
今はシングルス世界ランキングを目指して挑戦中。試合、練習、その裏側を発信します。応援いただけたら嬉しいです🎾
seiichiro-ichikawa.com
Koby@VC retweeted
九州大学の基金に、アキュメンから3年間で15億円規模を寄附します。九大発のアキュメンの薬は世界100カ国へ、PowerXも日本のエネルギーを担う企業に。今度は恩返しと次のイノベーションを育てる番です。続いてくれる仲間が現れたら嬉しいです。
kyushu-u.ac.jp/ja/notices/vi…
Koby@VC retweeted
As someone who did this kind of genome mining work during my PhD, some thoughts on this Anthropic announcement:
First, the very simplified version of what they did is that they noticed two genes (one known, one new) sitting next to a weird repeating piece of DNA. More specifically, they described an unusual reverse transcriptase (RT) associated with a repetitive DNA array and an unknown accessory protein. This kind of process was used to understand CRISPR back in 2002 and was key to the gene editing tools we use today.
To put this into context, though, people have been finding RTs associated with CRISPR arrays since 2008, and this general kind of genome-neighborhood mining has been used to discover new biological systems for decades. The basic genome-mining strategy is well established, and there are now mature tools and published pipelines for doing much of this. There are papers that discover and experimentally validate dozens of new systems using this approach in a single study. Doing it in bacteriophage genomes is also nothing new (eg CasPhi).
Finding a weird cluster of genes and repeats is often the easy part. The hard part, and where the real discoveries come from, is figuring out what the system actually does. Eg for the bridge-RNA discovery in 2024 from @arcinstitute or the discovery of CasPhi in 2020 from @DoudnaJennifer they figured out the pieces of the system and the rules for what makes it work so it can be used.
Anthropic does not yet know what this does. They’ve shown that the repeat array produces RNAs, but not what those RNAs do, what the RT does with them, or whether the system has any of the programmable properties that make the CRISPR comparison justified.
I’m genuinely rooting for all of the frontier labs to seriously get into biological discovery, and I’m excited about what comes out of it. But announcing these very early, incremental findings with the framing of a major discovery doesn’t help. I’d much rather they set the bar high now, so that when an AI actually discovers a fundamentally new biological mechanism, everyone appreciates how big a deal it is.
Claude has discovered a previously unknown enzyme system hidden in the DNA of bacteriophages. Beside the enzyme’s gene sits a long array of repeating DNA—a structure that looks somewhat similar to CRISPR.
We don’t yet understand what this system does, but only a handful of known systems share its features, and all of them are able to cut, copy, and paste DNA. Historically, the discovery of such programmable systems has helped revolutionize medicine. CRISPR, for instance, is now the foundation of genetic medicines. But it will take much more work to learn what this system does, and whether it can be put to similar use.
Read more: anthropic.com/news/claude-di…
ほんとすごい時代だ。
ただ用途不明の配列見つける、先は結構大変そう。
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.

















