Phare Bio Selected to Participate in the
Phare Bio's platform, built in partnership with the Collins Lab at MIT, harnesses the power of generative AI to design entirely new classes of antibiotics. The platform integrates advanced machine learning models with biological screening to rapidly identify and optimize drug candidates with high precision and reduced toxicity. This work aims to address antibiotic resistance, a silent pandemic expected to claim nearly 40 million lives worldwide by 2050.
'This support from Google.org helps ensure that the tools we're building don't just stay in the lab – they empower researchers, developers, and communities around the world to accelerate their own antibiotic discoveries,' said Dr. Akhila Kosaraju, CEO and President of Phare Bio. 'This investment in open-access infrastructure reflects a shared commitment to science as a global public good.'
This support builds off the extraordinary momentum and support from ARPA-H and the Audacious Project, underscoring Phare Bio's growing impact and potential. These resources are helping expand the platform's generative AI capabilities, enabling researchers to virtually design customized antibiotic candidates with properties tailored to real-world clinical needs – a radical shift in drug discovery.
Karla Palmer, Manager, AI & Scientific Progress, at Google.org, added:
'We were inspired by Phare Bio's vision to not only reinvent antibiotic discovery through AI but to make those tools available to the broader scientific community. Their platform has the potential to catalyze a new era of global collaboration and accelerate progress against one of the world's most urgent health threats.'
With a goal to develop 15 preclinical antibiotics by 2030, Phare Bio is setting a new gold standard for mission-aligned biotech innovation.
About Phare Bio
Phare Bio is a social venture using artificial intelligence (AI) to develop novel classes of antibiotics in partnership with Jim Collins' lab at MIT. Founded in 2020 to address the growing crisis of antibiotic resistance, Phare Bio is a recipient of the Audacious Project, a collaborative funding initiative between TED and leading nonprofits to support bold solutions to global challenges. The company combines cutting-edge machine learning with world-class science to accelerate the discovery of urgently needed antibiotics. To learn more, visit www.pharebio.org or email info@pharebio.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
AI and tech stocks slide as summer rally peters out
Tech stocks were under pressure this week as Wall Street's AI enthusiasm slowed and investors adjusted portfolios after a strong summer rally. The Nasdaq Composite fell 0.67% on Wednesday after sliding 1.46% on Tuesday. The tech-heavy index was on track to snap back-to-back weeks of gains. Meanwhile, the broader S&P 500 fell 0.24% and posted its fourth day of losses in a row. The Dow hovered around the flatline. Tech stocks had steadily rallied in recent months, lifting the S&P 500 and Nasdaq to a streak of record highs. Now Wall Street is taking a breather while optimism about the AI boom is facing some friction. Palantir (PLTR), a star of the AI trade, fell 1.1% on Wednesday after falling 9.35% on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Nvidia (NVDA) edged lower by 0.14% on Wednesday after sliding 3.5% on Tuesday. 'Investors rotated out of high-momentum tech stocks, reflecting renewed jitters over the sustainability of the AI trade,' Ulrike Hoffmann-Buchardi, head of global equities at UBS, said in a note. Investors are also in wait-and-see mode ahead of a critical day for markets on Friday when Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is set to deliver remarks at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium. 'It's just a pause that may refresh as investors retrench and rethink how they want to position their tech dollars,' Rob Haworth, senior investment strategy director at US Bank Asset Management Group, told CNN. Powell's closely watched speech on Friday could provide signals about the Fed's potential rate-cutting path and comes at a key inflection points for markets after past months' ascent to record highs. AI jitters test Wall Street Excitement about AI propelled markets higher in recent months, boosted by robust corporate earnings and enormous spending by companies like Meta and Microsoft. But Wall Street's eagerness was tested this week after Sam Altman, chief executive at OpenAI, said he thinks the market might be in a bubble. 'Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes,' Altman told reporters last week, according to The Verge. The OpenAI chief also said he thinks AI will provide value for the economy. 'Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes,' he said. Also, researchers at MIT on Monday published a report detailing how the majority of companies testing new generative AI tools are seeing zero returns. While there was not an explicit catalyst for the decline of tech and AI stocks decline this week, investors said Altman's comments and the MIT report could be contributing to negative momentum. AI chip and semiconductor companies Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Marvell Technology (MRVL) were each down almost 7% this week. 'Altman's comments spooked some people when he talked about the AI bubble,' Dan Ives, head of global technology research at Wedbush Securities, told CNN. 'Tech stocks have had a massive run, so I think it's just typical that investors are starting to take some chips off the table going into Labor Day,' Ives said. 'But I believe it's going to be short lived.' Big Tech takes a breather Each of the Magnificent Seven tech stocks — Apple (AAPL), Alphabet (GOOGL), Amazon (AMZN), Meta (META), Microsoft (MSFT), Nvidia (NVDA) and Tesla (TSLA) — fell on both Tuesday and Wednesday, dragging down the broader market. As of Tuesday, they made up 33.5% of the S&P 500's total market value, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices, reflecting their outsized influence on the index's performance. 'Stocks have been on an absolute tear. Valuations have sprinted up,' said Ross Mayfield, an investment strategist at Baird. 'The fundamentals are good but not keeping pace with the price action.' 'I think along the way we'll see pockets of profit taking, even if it doesn't mark the end of the bull market in general,' Mayfield said. While tech dragged on the market, about 70% of stocks in the S&P 500 had closed higher on Tuesday, UBS' Hoffmann-Buchardi said. Sectors that outperformed included consumer staples, utilities and real estate. It's a sign that investors are shifting out of Big Tech and AI-related trades and toward more defensive stocks as they reassess the markets. Nvidia as of Monday had surged 93% since a low point in early April. 'We've been expecting this type of a pullback,' said Jay Hatfield, chief executive at Infrastructure Capital Advisors, who said he has taken down his exposure to tech in recent months. It's also the start of a historically weak season for stocks, Hatfield said. 'We're neutral on the market right now, but still really bullish for year end.' Palantir is still up 106% this year. But shares in Palantir are down six days in a row and had dropped as much as 9.8% on Wednesday before paring losses, reflecting the volatility in AI stocks. 'Now we're getting the downward momentum,' Hatfield said. 'Palantir is like the poster child for excessive valuation, and those investors are learning that the momentum works in both directions.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Tech Selloff Continues as Investors Question AI ROI
Bloomberg's Caroline Hyde discusses the tech sell-off as shares fall for a second day. Plus Bank of America's new chief technology and information officer talks about the bank's use of AI as a new report from MIT shows most enterprises see no return on investment from their AI spend. And analysts offer their take on Meta restructuring its AI team again. (Source: Bloomberg)
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
Economists Are Still Puzzled By Bitcoin—Should Anyone Be?
When one of the world's leading macroeconomists publicly apologizes for underestimating Bitcoin, it's worth paying attention. Ken Rogoff is a formidable scholar, and over the last decade—from my professor days at MIT to the design of Libra—I've learned a great deal from conversations with him. He has trained some of the best macroeconomists in the market, and I was fortunate to persuade a few to take crypto seriously, work with me over the years, and help move the space forward. But on Bitcoin, even after his mea culpa, Rogoff is still wrong. And I don't blame him. Much of what Bitcoin is, and represents, is an architectural departure from the macro playbook of recent decades. When I was a junior professor trying to understand cryptocurrencies and designing the MIT Bitcoin experiment, many senior colleagues worried I was throwing away a promising academic career on what they saw as a Ponzi scheme. As his Harvard colleague Rebecca Henderson has shown in her pioneering work on innovation, the changes that truly challenge incumbents are architectural—subtle structural shifts in how the pieces fit together. They're hard for those steeped in the status quo to grasp—even when they want to—so they get dismissed until they're obvious. Bitcoin is one of those architectural innovations in how we think about money and financial infrastructure. That's why many economists have a visceral reaction: it runs against much of what they've been taught and believe in. Concede the textbook: when done well, monetary policy can be extremely helpful. Confront the practice: few central banks are truly independent, fewer still consistent. Treat Bitcoin as a neutral asset and financial infrastructure, and the true pattern comes into focus. A Digital Gold Rush In a gold rush, it is important to not get caught in the frenzy—unless you're selling shovels and you profit regardless of the outcome. But is Bitcoin just a frenzy? More than a decade on, the answer is no, for a simple reason: Satoshi Nakamoto solved a thorny computer‑science problem—the double‑spending problem. Before Bitcoin, any digital money needed someone to control the ledger—a central bank, financial institution, or wallet provider. With cryptography and incentives, Satoshi created a currency that's scarce, hard to copy, and neutral: no one's in charge of defining ownership or recording transfers. Bitcoin's neutrality is novel. Though often compared to gold, its properties are different enough to be category‑defining. Yes, both are scarce, both swing in price, and both hold value because society agrees they do. Gold has industrial and jewelry uses, but most of its value comes from its role as a store of value. And while gold has the advantage of centuries, as more of life moves online, a digitally native asset like Bitcoin has unique advantages—from spending to custody. Finally, Bitcoin's utility goes beyond the asset: its network can operate as an open, neutral settlement layer—especially as scaling tech raises throughput to meet real‑world payments demand. What is a neutral form of digital money—and an open protocol for moving value—worth to society? Unpacking the Bitcoin Price Media and crypto community obsess over price swings, but on a log scale much of the drama fades and a steadier trend appears. That pattern matches the diffusion of innovation along an S‑curve—popularized by Everett Rogers—where a new technology works through successive segments of adopters. Bitcoin incubated within a small community of cypherpunks and developers. As its price rose, it drew a broader group of early adopters; then consumers and businesses—often in countries with unstable currencies—embraced it as an alternative savings tool and, at times, payment rails. Today, large financial institutions offer it, and sovereigns increasingly eye it to shape fintech and investment strategy. This diffusion process, combined with Bitcoin's fixed 21 million supply, inevitably translates the S-curve into a slow and steady price growth. So while regulatory and market uncertainty drive short-term swings, over longer periods of time addressable‑market expansion explains more of the data. What's Bitcoin's equilibrium price? Unknown—and it hinges on where we are on the S‑curve. If Bitcoin stays niche, the price could stall. If it goes truly mainstream, further exponential growth is possible. Investors model this against gold, the value of payment and card networks, and more. It's also prudent to consider the risk that some technological breakthrough or failure may render Bitcoin obsolete. Reassuringly, despite billions raised by would‑be alternatives, none has matched Bitcoin's network effects or institutional acceptance. Money‑As‑Software As our tools for recording debits and credits have evolved, so has our idea of money: from shells and beads to salt, metals, paper notes, and ultimately database entries—alongside the rise of central bank independence. Through booms and crises we've oscillated between harder and more flexible money—a pendulum swinging between the needs of creditors and debtors. Given that history, it isn't unreasonable to think that a hard, neutral money secured by cryptographic keys could play a real role in global finance—and possibly be what comes next. Like every form of money before it, Bitcoin has value because enough people agree it does—and as consensus grows, its trajectory looks more like gold's. That belief powers the 'all‑in' Bitcoin treasury companies—Strategy, Trump Media & Technology Group, and Twenty One—backed by SoftBank, Tether, and the Commerce Secretary's son's firm, Cantor Fitzgerald. Their logic: if Bitcoin becomes the ultimate safe haven, accumulate as much as possible—even with risky leverage—so long as interest and principal can be serviced in dollars. But there's a flipside to expectation‑driven value: if, for any reason, society stops believing Bitcoin will reliably store value and buy future goods and services, its price could collapse toward zero. Fiat currencies experience something similar when faith in governments' balance sheets fails, and while Bitcoin can't be debased, other shocks could trigger a comparable loss of trust. Ironically, reckless, leveraged buying by large Bitcoin‑treasury companies—meeting a sharp market correction—could be what undermines confidence in Bitcoin's progress along its S‑curve. Even then, the underlying innovation is likely to endure: as neutral infrastructure, it disintermediates, cuts costs, and creates real economic value—not just regulatory or tax arbitrage—a puzzle worthy of economists' attention, Rogoff's included.
