Latest news with #Western-educated
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
China is a real threat to US biotech innovation: EY life science expert
China's growing biotech prowess has become a real threat to the industry in the US in recent years. Moves by the Trump administration could weaken the US market further, according to several experts watching the deals flowing into China, which amounted $30 billion in 2024 and are already more than half that total in mid-2025. EY life sciences leader Arda Ural is among those watching and said that China is no longer the land of generics and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used by the rest of the world. China has long been known as a "me too" producer — that is, a manufacturer of generics — as well as a source of APIs. But China is showing its might as it clinches more licensing deals for drugs developed domestically and increases clinical trials being conducted in the country. "The numbers are pretty compelling," Ural told Yahoo Finance. "A couple of years ago, we had pretty much no deals, or maybe under $1 billion in 2016. As of last year, there were $30 billion of licensing deals of Chinese assets into the US." But this didn't happen overnight. The Chinese Communist Party laid out a roadmap in 2015 that included investing in and growing the country's biotech sector. Ten years later, that is coming to fruition, Ural said. "That journey now is taking them upstream to more advanced innovation. Probably, we still have not seen first-in-class, but clearly they are going for best-in-class," Ural said. US companies buying or licensing products from China include a due diligence process, which can involve head-to-head comparisons to existing drugs or repeating clinical trials to ensure the data and efficacy results are accurate. This has helped ease concerns about intellectual property theft of US products, as well as concerns about data integrity in China. The prior doubts spurred the introduction of the Biosecure Act in Congress in 2023, which would prevent any entity receiving federal funds from using biotech equipment or services from "companies of concern." That bill has stalled in Congress. Meanwhile, the life sciences community continues to increase its interest in China. Companies like WuXi Biologics (WXXWY), WuXi AppTec (WUXAY), and BGI (formerly Beijing Genomics Institute) are among those under the spotlight. And during the pandemic, companies like CanSino ( which developed a vaccine, came into view. Now, with cuts to research funding in the US to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as the loss of Food and Drug Administration staff, insiders are warning that China could fill the gaps and scoop up talent from the US. "The US still has the capacity to invest, but it is not, potentially, the only game in town," Ural said. He explained that China is still early in its journey, and while it does have government funding and Western-educated doctors and researchers, it doesn't have the type of firepower of US capital markets. "That is where they are lacking. There is no IPO market comparable to Western markets, there is no M&A exit strategy ... so that's the opportunity for them to come up," Ural said. A majority of the deals so far are US-based companies buying early-stage assets from Chinese company pipelines, bringing them to the US to validate and then produce and sell. At the same time, the US-based biotech industry has seen a slowdown in investment and IPO activity, and the NIH funding cuts by the Trump administration are exacerbating the dry spell. China's growth is also adding to the pressure since China is known for making things cheaper and faster than Western countries. Ural said that's why the partnership with US-based firms is a "winning strategy" for the overall industry. Anjalee Khemlani is the senior health reporter at Yahoo Finance, covering all things pharma, insurance, care services, digital health, PBMs, and health policy and politics. That includes GLP-1s, of course. Follow Anjalee as AnjKhem on social media platforms X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky @AnjKhem. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest health industry news and events impacting stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
China is a real threat to US biotech innovation: EY life science expert
China's growing biotech prowess has become a real threat to the industry in the US in recent years. Moves by the Trump administration could weaken the US market further, according to several experts watching the deals flowing into China, which amounted $30 billion in 2024 and are already more than half that total in mid-2025. EY life sciences leader Arda Ural is among those watching and said that China is no longer the land of generics and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used by the rest of the world. China has long been known as a "me too" producer — that is, a manufacturer of generics — as well as a source of APIs. But China is showing its might as it clinches more licensing deals for drugs developed domestically and increases clinical trials being conducted in the country. "The numbers are pretty compelling," Ural told Yahoo Finance. "A couple of years ago, we had pretty much no deals, or maybe under $1 billion in 2016. As of last year, there were $30 billion of licensing deals of Chinese assets into the US." But this didn't happen overnight. The Chinese Communist Party laid out a roadmap in 2015 that included investing in and growing the country's biotech sector. Ten years later, that is coming to fruition, Ural said. "That journey now is taking them upstream to more advanced innovation. Probably, we still have not seen first-in-class, but clearly they are going for best-in-class," Ural said. US companies buying or licensing products from China include a due diligence process, which can involve head-to-head comparisons to existing drugs or repeating clinical trials to ensure the data and efficacy results are accurate. This has helped ease concerns about intellectual property theft of US products, as well as concerns about data integrity in China. The prior doubts spurred the introduction of the Biosecure Act in Congress in 2023, which would prevent any entity receiving federal funds from using biotech equipment or services from "companies of concern." That bill has stalled in Congress. Meanwhile, the life sciences community continues to increase its interest in China. Companies like WuXi Biologics (WXXWY), WuXi AppTec (WUXAY), and BGI (formerly Beijing Genomics Institute) are among those under the spotlight. And during the pandemic, companies like CanSino ( which developed a vaccine, came into view. Now, with cuts to research funding in the US to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as the loss of Food and Drug Administration staff, insiders are warning that China could fill the gaps and scoop up talent from the US. "The US still has the capacity to invest, but it is not, potentially, the only game in town," Ural said. He explained that China is still early in its journey, and while it does have government funding and Western-educated doctors and researchers, it doesn't have the type of firepower of US capital markets. "That is where they are lacking. There is no IPO market comparable to Western markets, there is no M&A exit strategy ... so that's the opportunity for them to come up," Ural said. A majority of the deals so far are US-based companies buying early-stage assets from Chinese company pipelines, bringing them to the US to validate and then produce and sell. At the same time, the US-based biotech industry has seen a slowdown in investment and IPO activity, and the NIH funding cuts by the Trump administration are exacerbating the dry spell. China's growth is also adding to the pressure since China is known for making things cheaper and faster than Western countries. Ural said that's why the partnership with US-based firms is a "winning strategy" for the overall industry. Anjalee Khemlani is the senior health reporter at Yahoo Finance, covering all things pharma, insurance, care services, digital health, PBMs, and health policy and politics. That includes GLP-1s, of course. Follow Anjalee as AnjKhem on social media platforms X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky @AnjKhem. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest health industry news and events impacting stock prices
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
How US Gave Iran Its "Starter Kit" For The Nuclear Programme Decades Ago
US President Donald Trump has been addressing a crisis that began decades ago, with the United States itself playing a role in initiating Iran's nuclear development by providing the foundational technology. The Tehran Research Reactor, a small-scale nuclear reactor used for peaceful scientific work, has not been targeted by Israel. It was supplied to Iran by the United States in the 1960s under President Dwight D. Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. The goal of the program was to share nuclear knowledge with US allies, to assist in economic development and strengthen political alignment during the Cold War. Along with Iran, the US also provided nuclear training, equipment, and knowledge for civilian use to countries like Israel and Pakistan. Although the Tehran reactor does not enrich uranium today, Iran's nuclear program was once seen as a national achievement. However, it was also viewed as a potential risk due to its possible military applications. "We gave Iran its starter kit," said Robert Einhorn, a former US arms control official involved in nuclear talks with Iran. "We weren't terribly concerned about nuclear proliferation in those days, so we were pretty promiscuous about transferring nuclear technology," he said. "We got other countries started in the nuclear business", according to NYT. The "Atoms for Peace" program began with Eisenhower's speech to the United Nations in December 1953. He warned about the dangers of a nuclear arms race and called for nuclear technology to be used for constructive purposes. "It is not enough just to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace," he said. However, historians argue that the speech also served to justify the United States' own nuclear weapons buildup. Eisenhower was influenced by scientists such as J. Robert Oppenheimer, who played a central role in the creation of the atomic bomb used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During this period, Iran was ruled by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a Western-educated monarch who worked closely with the United States. His government promoted secular reforms, Western-style education, banned the veil for women, and encouraged modern art. The Shah supported the peaceful use of nuclear energy and allocated significant national resources toward its development. Iranian scientists were trained in the United States, including at institutions like MIT. By the 1970s, Iran's nuclear program had expanded. The country signed agreements with European allies, including a billion-dollar deal with France for five 1,000-megawatt reactors. Although the US had signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968, Pahlavi began to argue that Iran had the "right" to produce nuclear fuel domestically. He framed restrictions on Iran's nuclear activity as violations of national sovereignty, a position still echoed by current Iranian leaders. Iran also approached Germany for additional reactors and South Africa for uranium. In 1978, concerns within the Carter administration led to a revision of Iran's agreement to purchase eight American reactors. The amended contract prohibited Iran from reprocessing US-supplied nuclear fuel without approval, preventing its conversion into weapons-grade material. The reactors were never delivered. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah. The revolution, fueled partly by resentment toward American support for the monarchy, brought in a new leadership that initially had little interest in maintaining the nuclear program. Under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's clerical leadership deprioritized nuclear energy, associating it with the West and the Shah's legacy. However, after Iran's eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, Khomeini reconsidered the strategic value of nuclear technology. At that point, Iran turned to Pakistan, which had also benefited from the "Atoms for Peace" program and was on its way to building a nuclear bomb. Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, known for operating a nuclear black market, sold Iran centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels. According to Gary Samore, who served as the White House's senior nuclear advisor under Presidents Clinton and Obama, this development was the major turning point. "Iran's enrichment program is not the result of US assistance," Samore said. "The Iranians got their centrifuge technology from Pakistan, and they have developed their centrifuges based on that Pakistani technology, which itself was based on European designs." Despite that, Iran's nuclear infrastructure had been initiated decades earlier with American support. In the years that followed, Iran developed more centrifuges and secretly advanced its uranium enrichment capabilities. In 2002, Iran's undisclosed nuclear facilities were revealed, prompting the US and European allies to demand that Tehran stop enrichment activities and fully disclose its nuclear operations. After more than two decades of diplomacy and, more recently, airstrikes from Israel and the US, the situation remains unresolved. President Trump's claim that three Iranian nuclear sites were "totally obliterated" during Saturday's bombing is being questioned, as key infrastructure appears to remain intact. Samore said the United States can still draw important lessons from this history. He pointed out that the Trump administration has continued nuclear negotiations, started under President Joe Biden, regarding the possible transfer of US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, a regional ally also ruled by a strongman and pursuing rapid modernisation. US policy has long prohibited sharing nuclear fuel production technology, which can also be used for weapons, with nations that do not already possess it. "And we've gone out of our way to block allies, including South Korea, from acquiring fuel enrichment and reprocessing capabilities," Samore said. Saudi Arabia says it is seeking nuclear technology for energy purposes. But Samore warned about the implications. "But this kind of technology can also be used for nuclear weapons," he said. "And from my standpoint, it would be a terrible precedent to help a country like Saudi Arabia, or any country that doesn't have that capability."
Al Jazeera
25-04-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
What to expect as Iran and US head for more nuclear talks in Oman
Tehran, Iran – Iran and the United States are expected to hold more nuclear negotiations mediated by Oman amid efforts to shape an agreement to avoid the US attacking Iran. The Iranian delegation will arrive in Muscat on Friday evening in advance of political and, for the first time, technical talks on Saturday. Let's take a look at what we can expect, as well as all the latest developments and context. Like the two previous rounds of talks in Italy and Oman, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff will lead the delegations. But the experts leading the technical talks are also crucial, as they will iron out the details and wording of any agreement. For Tehran, Araghchi's political deputy, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, and deputy for legal and international affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, are heading the expert-level delegation. Takht-Ravanchi is a Western-educated diplomat who led Iran's mission to the United Nations and was ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Gharibabadi led Iran's representative office to international organisations in Vienna and represented the Iranian judiciary internationally. He was also involved in indirect nuclear negotiations between the administrations of late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and former US President Joe Biden. The chief technical expert whom US President Donald Trump selected is Michael Anton, the newly appointed director of policy planning at the US Department of State. Anton was a speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice during the George W Bush administration. He also held managerial roles in the private sector, including at Citigroup and BlackRock investment firms. During the first Trump administration, he served on the National Security Council to shape government messaging. Anton's work may be eased by the fact that he has not yet publicly adopted a stance on Iran's nuclear programme. Iran has emphasised it will not discuss its defence capabilities or regional influence, but is ready for an agreement that ensures it won't build a nuclear bomb, which it has repeatedly stated it doesn't want. The technical talks aim to set the steps Tehran would take to curb its nuclear programme, and how Washington and Europe would lift their devastating sanctions, which have continued despite the US calling the talks with Iran 'constructive'. Iran, for its part, wants to lift at least part of the comprehensive sanctions against its oil, banking and related industries, some of which are imposed under multiple designations. A deal could unfreeze some of Iran's billions of dollars of export revenue that remain blocked in foreign banks by sanctions. Negotiators may also attempt to nail down waivers, orders to allow Iran to sell oil or access the global payments system. Iranian officials like President Masoud Pezeshkian have gone a step further, saying Iran would even welcome direct, large-scale investment by US companies in its market, which is brimming with financial opportunity. On the agenda will also be a cap on Iran's uranium enrichment, which is now at up to 60 percent, a short step from the 90 percent required for a bomb. Under the terms of an earlier nuclear agreement with world powers (the JCPOA), Iran had committed to a cap of 3.67 percent enrichment, sufficient for civilian uses like power generation. However, when Trump unilaterally abandoned the JCPOA in 2018 and slapped punishing sanctions on Iran, Tehran started enriching at much higher levels and using more advanced reactors than those specified in the JCPOA. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog that will again monitor Iran's commitments, is expected to send a team to Iran in the next few days for talks. While likely to advance the positive atmosphere surrounding the talks, Saturday's meetings are only a step among many required for any deal. But time is of the essence, especially in the months leading up to an October deadline, when the 2015 nuclear deal's 'snapback' mechanism expires. It allows any of the signatories to initiate a process to reinstate all UN sanctions on Iran in the case of significant noncompliance, like enriching uranium at levels higher than 3.67 percent. Iran wants to avoid snapback. Iran's Araghchi has visited China and Russia to coordinate a position, while accusing Israel of 'undermining' the negotiations. Witkoff was also in Moscow on Friday to discuss the talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Araghchi has said he is ready to visit Paris, Berlin and London for direct talks with the three European JCPOA signatories. 'I was ready to do it before Iran commenced its indirect dialogue with the U.S., but the E3 opted out,' he wrote on X. Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signalled to his followers, using religious symbolism, this week, that they must not refuse a deal with the US. He recounted how Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth imam revered in Shia Islam, made a deal with his enemy some 1,300 years ago, adding that any deal would not indicate the 'dominance of disbelief and deceit' over Muslims.
Indian Express
25-04-2025
- Indian Express
Opinion Language, politics, power: What is AI's mother tongue?
What is AI's mother tongue? Who taught it speech, cadence, metaphor, and syntax? AI was never raised with language. It is being fed tons of data, learning to be perfect and accurate, with no scope for silly spelling mistakes and no joy in learning new words. It has never had writer's block, delivering passages at lightning speed. Yet, it is increasingly finding itself in positions of authority, silently evaluating the process it has never lived. In a world where language is survival and identity, what tongue does AI truly speak? I felt the weight of this question on an ordinary workday when a familiar green icon on my office laptop flickered, questioning my authorship and flagging some sentences as potentially AI-generated. I habitually keep it on to avoid typing errors. But that day, it became something else — a silent accuser. The assistive tool appeared to cast doubt, subtly implying that my carefully shaped and worded thoughts might not be entirely my own. But I had written every word. It was startling since these exact words have been part of my vocabulary since school. If 'deliberation', 'interplay', and 'foster' make sentences sound too AI-like, should we replace them with 'talk', 'mix', and 'help'? In fact, 'foster' carries a tender sense of nurturing and quiet care that no synonym can fully capture. Therein lies the inimitable beauty of words — each holding a depth of meaning, emotion and memory. What began as a technical glitch must compel us to face something more unsettling — an accusation that our voices, perhaps fluent and confident, are, somehow, not ours to use. It makes us ponder whether a more profound bias in our digital tools leads us to suspect those who manage to sound articulate. Who does society think deserves to sound like a wordsmith? The AI vocabulary trap A growing list of words and phrases — such as 'foster', 'deliberation', 'synergy', 'nuance', 'nestled', 'robust', 'interplay', 'pivotal', 'forging pathways' — are now considered 'red flags' by AI detectors, not as plagiarism but as indicators of machine-like writing. Even the good ole' em dash (—), once integral to literary writing, has not been spared, reducing it to a meme as the 'ChatGPT hyphen' because of its overuse in AI-written content. This exposes an insidious vocabulary trap, where specific words and phrases are considered too coherent, too suspicious. It also involves control, deciding who is capable of sophistication and literary eloquence, and who is trusted when they write with power. With the advent of generative AI models, the line has blurred between assistance and authorship, polish and plagiarism, focusing on something structurally deeper: The automation of linguistic elitism. This thrives on the illusion of a single, 'correct' way to speak and write, mirroring the language of the privileged — urban, upper-caste, upper-class and Western-educated. How AI detection works — and fails Understanding how these detection systems work reveals the logic behind large language models (LLMs). Unlike human reading, AI detectors scan for statistical patterns, word probabilities, and tonal consistency. Two key metrics — perplexity and burstiness — assess predictability and sentence variance, with lower levels indicating robotic output. Ironically, a well-written, coherent human text can mistakenly trigger low perplexity scores, flagged as AI-generated. Phrases like 'furthermore' or ' in the light of' make writing sound stylised, resembling templates fed into LLMs for academic, corporate, or literary prose. This is worrying because the fluency valued in academia and professional writing is now viewed with suspicion, particularly for Global South scholars who have laboured to claim this space. It's not just a tech issue — it's a political one. Democratising knowledge or language policing? An equally jarring fact is the policing of expression. In its dual role as mentor and gatekeeper, AI now wields the unsettling inheritance to decide whom to amplify or erase. And, therein lies the profound contradiction. The same system that promises to equip people with fluent language can double as a gatekeeper, tying good writing to invisible codes of class, caste, and privilege. In doing so, it erases the scope for language to become a currency of opportunity. It penalises the texture of difference — accents, idioms, and all the vibrant messiness of language. It also stifles creativity, forcing writers to self-censor for fear of triggering AI suspicion. It overlooks that accents, grammar, and vocabulary, shaped by access, are also learned and claimed through struggle, practice, and cultural exchange. Since LLMs mimic these patterns, we are now being accused of imitating the machine when it was the machine that learned from us. This tongue is undoubtedly ours. What colonial gatekeeping once enforced, faceless algorithms now replicate, flattening the multiplicity of Englishes into a narrow, sanctioned register. This shift hits marginalised voices hardest — first-generation learners, regional writers, and self-taught professionals who have painstakingly claimed fluency in so-called 'standard' English, for whom language is not just a tool of expression but also a site of struggle and aspiration. To critique is not to reject technology — AI can be a valuable collaborator, enhancing learning and accessibility. But its impact depends on how it's built, whose norms it follows, and who gets to shape its rules. To safeguard linguistic diversity and fairness, AI detection tools — and the editorial practices that rely on them — must be transparent and accountable to those they most affect. This means involving educators, writers, linguists, and communities from the margins in designing and calibrating these systems. Because the politics of language has always been the politics of power, which is being coded into algorithms. And we owe it to each other to make that power more justly shared.
