Programme Director at ARIA

London, United Kingdom
Joined January 2020
It’s a bad week if you’re a respiratory virus! Yesterday, Stripe announced Intercept, a $500m initiative to end respiratory infections. Today, my team and I at @ARIA_research are announcing 11 teams we’ve funded with £57m toward the same goal. A 🧵 about their exciting work!
9
95
9
612
42,900
Brian Wang retweeted
Two things I believe are needed for AI to accelerate science are: fast, physical labs & accessible models This is why @ARIA_research is bringing in these new Activation Partners: they'll work with us to maximise the velocity of discovery and translation of R&D in our spaces 🧵
2
8
2
26
9,384
On behalf of the Intercept team, I’m excited to share that we’re launching our first “Request for Candidates”! We’re looking for the best science (and teams!) in the world that could plausibly meet our target product concept. Our ultimate goal is to radically reduce the burden of respiratory viruses, and an easy-to-use, safe, and effective preventative is a critical part of that puzzle. This request for candidates will be open until at least December 31st, but proposals received by October 12 will be prioritized. interceptfund.com/apply/broa…
5
56
5
188
30,579
Being an ARIA Programme Director is a true privilege - there's very few roles in the world where you have the opportunity to craft an ecosystem of researchers + entrepreneurs to unlock a technological capability that could change the world, with broad freedom + autonomy to shape the role how you'd like. Please apply!
Applications are now open for our third cohort of Programme Directors. Design and direct a research programme of around £50m within our newly evolved opportunity spaces. Decide which directions matter most and fund the teams to pursue them. bit.ly/4g4OQY4
8
734
Regarding AI curing most/all diseases in 5-10 years, I feel like biologists and AI people are talking past each other b/c they have different worldviews of how AI will accelerate drug discovery My understanding of the two perspectives is: -Biologists: Curing disease is understanding- and data-bottlenecked, in order to cure complex disease we'll need a whole lot more tools and data that we don't have. And the most important data, clinical data, is expensive + time-consuming to get - you can't really accelerate human disease course, you're fundamentally limited by the speed of human disease progression because that sets a floor for your iteration cycles. AI can help w/ highly automatable tasks/those for which we have lots of data (like binder design) and for logistical things (like clinical trial ops), but it can't really help in domains where we don't have that data or the ability to generate it. Implicit frame: In 5-10 years AI-for-drug-discovery looks qualitatively similar to what it does today - humans are using AI tools on particular parts of the drug discovery pipeline, one at a time, with the same fundamental limitations as today. -AI people (this is more my interpretation because I don't actually see this perspective articulated much): Curing disease is just a task that requires intelligence like any other task. You say we are understanding-/data-limited? Not only will AI be helping us with drug design, but also agentic AI will be conducting all our basic science for us, inventing fundamentally new measurement techniques, and developing new preclinical disease models with the best tradeoff between scalability + predictive validity. Anywhere you say there is currently a bottleneck, you can unleash agentic ASI to help solve – to imagine they wouldn't be efficient at doing this wouldn't be taking the concept of ASI seriously. Implicit frame: Before 5-10 years AI-for-drug-discovery undergoes a qualitative shift - no longer are we using AI tools just on automatable tasks and in data-rich domains, but AI is inventing the tools/equipment to make new tasks automatable and to open new domains to high-throughput data generation. Humans are pretty much entirely out of the lab at this point - this probably includes "solving" robotics in <2 years post-AGI or something. Which implicit frame you adopt highly depends on your views on rate of AI progress, i.e. how long from now -> AGI and from AGI -> ASI I intuitively take the biologist frame but I don't think the AI frame is incoherent, and sometimes worry that I haven't stretched my imagination enough to adopt the AI frame
26
15
5
109
10,311
Brian Wang retweeted
Only about a quarter of human diseases have an approved therapy. By some estimates it's a few percent. Most of those treatments slow a disease rather than stop it. Closing that gap is what the AI-cures-everything story promises. Build a system smart enough and the cures hidden in what we already know will fall out. I have worked at the intersection of machine learning and biology for three decades, and I believe #AI will eventually transform human health. The capabilities arriving now are extraordinary. But the promise rests on an assumption that is simply false: that we already understand human biology well enough for a clever enough reasoner to find the answers in it. We don't. More than 90% of drugs entering clinical trials fail, a number that has barely moved in decades. In the large majority of those failures the molecule was engineered just fine. The mechanism it targeted was wrong. We are doing a pretty good job at manufacturing keys, but they are generally for the wrong locks. And because nobody wants to fail in the clinic, the industry has retreated to the locks it already trusts: 38 targets now have more than 50 programs against each of them, while the number of novel targets advanced per year fell from roughly 100 in 2015 to about 30 in 2024. AI will not reason its way past this. Biology wasn't engineered. It is the product of billions of years of messy, stochastic evolution, and the variation that produced is too vast and too idiosyncratic to work out in the abstract. You have to measure it. Aimed at a biology this thinly sampled, AI will mostly help us generate failures faster. I founded @insitro because getting to the right locks requires a different kind of system. We generate multimodal human and cellular data at scale, use machine learning to find causal drivers of disease, and test those hypotheses experimentally. Virtual Human™ is built for causal discovery; TherML™ turns what it finds into the right therapeutic intervention. It is working: first-in-class programs internally and with partners, three #ALS targets that Virtual Human™ identified and @bmsnews nominated, and additional collaborations with @EliLillyandCo and @GileadSciences . Today we are launching Deep Phenotype: Scaled Biology, Deep Causality. Issue one is "Drug Discovery Has No Magic Wands," the first half of a two-part essay on the magical thinking currently running through our field and what I think it will actually take. After that you will hear from insitro's own scientists and engineers, people who work across computation and experiment because the problem requires both. Getting this right is hard, and we do not have all of it worked out. I hope you will follow along and think it through with us. DeepPhenotype.Substack.com
25
84
25
404
81,055
We're looking for entrepreneurial scientists to join our team at Intercept (part of Public Goods @stripe)! Come join me and @nanransohoff @jmazz_1 on our quest to radically reduce the burden of respiratory viruses!
3
24
2
74
10,969
Really good read!
Most drugs don’t fail because we can’t build the molecule. They fail because we asked the molecule to do the wrong thing. Fixing this is the great frontier for AI in biology. (1/5)
3
339
That’s all of them! But these aren’t just isolated projects, we think there are many synergies between them – and despite them just starting this month, we’re already starting to see them work together. Collectively I think these teams have a good shot at making SIIPs a reality.
1
23
756