Strong Public Support for Embryonic Genome Editing to Eliminate Severe Conditions, European Survey Shows

A European survey launched at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) suggests broad public support for fertility treatment and research, including genome editing in human embryos for specific reasons.

The report, “Fertility, Embryo Research and Genome Editing: Public Attitudes in Europe,” was commissioned by the charity Progress Educational Trust (PET), which aims to improve choices for people affected by infertility and/or genetic conditions, and was supported by ESHRE. It explored public attitudes towards fertility treatment, embryo research, genome editing, surrogacy, and related topics.

The authors say the findings will “inform ESHRE’s ongoing work in Europe, linked to implementation of the European Union’s SoHO (Substances of Human Origin) Regulation and to the ethical considerations that arise in our field.”

The survey included 8688 participants aged 16–75 years across the U.K., Netherlands, Spain and Italy, with more than 2000 respondents in each country.

Across all four countries, a large proportion of respondents supported state-funded fertility treatment for people experiencing infertility and wishing to conceive, ranging from 54% in the Netherlands to 57% in the U.K., 62% in Spain, and 64% in Italy. Support was highest for heterosexual couples (47–59%) and lowest for transgender people (12–18%).

Conversely, most respondents said they did not support people being able to choose the biological sex of their child, based on personal preference. Opposition was strongest in the Netherlands (72%) followed by the U.K. (59%), Italy (55%) and Spain (47%). Nonetheless, there was still a significant minority that expressed support for sex selection. This support was strongest in Spain (32%) followed by the U.K. (26%), Italy (22%) and the Netherlands (18%), and was more common among younger participants than their older counterparts.

The age differential across responses could mean that with time, there will be a shift in views and potential changes in policy, the authors note.

The survey also found public backing for the use of human embryos in research to better understand and develop treatments for congenital diseases. Support ranged from 41% in Italy to 48% in the Netherlands and Spain, substantially exceeding opposition in all four countries (15–24%), including Italy, where research uses of human embryos are currently prohibited.

Respondents were then asked whether they supported or opposed the use of genome editing in human embryos, in three different scenarios:

  1. For scientific and medical research to help understand or develop treatments for congenital disease, without human implantation.
  2. In human embryos that will be transferred to a human to establish pregnancy to help eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition, like cystic fibrosis, in the resulting child.
  3. In human embryos that will be transferred to a human to establish pregnancy to help eliminate a common or medically manageable condition, like asthma, in the resulting child.

In all four of the countries, more respondents supported than opposed all three of the uses of genome editing, with the highest level of support given if the technique helps eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition.

It is important to note that this use of genome editing—which was supported by 55% in the Netherlands, by 53% in Spain, by 52% in the U.K. and by 46% in Italy—is not permitted by law in any of these four countries at present.

PET commented: “It is heartening to see such substantial support for uses of genome editing in human embryos, across all four of the countries surveyed. That said, these findings present an interesting conundrum. Respondents seem to be more ready to countenance the use of genome-edited embryos in treatment—at least, if helps to eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition—than they are to countenance the use of genome-edited embryos in research. Realistically, research must occur first. There is therefore a need for wide-ranging public conversations, where the vital role played by research—in enabling treatment, and ensuring that treatment is safe and effective—can be conveyed.”

Professor Karen Sermon, immediate past chair of ESHRE, said, “Reproductive medicine and embryo research are advancing rapidly, and these findings show the importance of understanding how the public views those developments. It is particularly striking that support for some applications extends beyond what is currently permitted in certain countries. As science advances, it is essential that public awareness keeps pace, so that decisions about future treatments are informed by both evidence and societal values.”

The post Strong Public Support for Embryonic Genome Editing to Eliminate Severe Conditions, European Survey Shows appeared first on Inside Precision Medicine.

“Mirror, mirror, on the wall, without you, I will fall”: investigation into body dysmorphic disorder from an attachment perspective

ObjectiveBody dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a prevalent concern among young adults. However, the underlying mechanisms of BDD development remain elusive. This study aims to investigate the intricate relationship between attachment styles and BDD symptoms, with appearance-based rejection sensitivity (ARS) as a mediating factor and gender as a moderator.MethodsA total of 815 young adults participated, completing a battery of questionnaires including the Revised Adult Attachment Scale (RAAS), Appearance-Based Rejection Sensitivity Scale (ARSS), and Scale of Body Image (SBI).ResultsData indicated a positive association between attachment anxiety and BDD symptoms, with ARS found to mediate this link. Furthermore, gender differences were observed to moderate the relationship between ARS and BDD symptoms.ConclusionThis study sheds light on the foundational mechanisms of BDD, tracing its origins to early caregiver-infant bonds and highlighting the enduring impact of ambivalent care on body image perceptions. Additionally, the identification of ARS as a specific contributing factor to BDD onset underscores its significance in understanding and addressing this disorder. By considering the influence of social norms and cultural context, gender differences in the association between ARS and BDD symptoms are elucidated.

Elixirgen Builds Rare Disease Pipeline Around Telomere Biology Disorders and DMD

During the 2026 BIO International convention in San Diego, GEN sat down with Aki Ko, CEO of Elixirgen Therapeutics, to discuss the company’s multi-platform technology development efforts. The company, which was founded in 2017, is developing what it believes are breakthrough technologies that target telomere biology disorders (TBD) and aging as well as mRNA-based therapies.

Its therapy for addressing telomere biology disorders, based on its proprietary ZSCAN4 approach, is the furthest to the clinic. The biotech company will also target other aging-related diseases with the technology. Meanwhile, its efforts in the mRNA space are currently focused on Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), although there are plans to pursue other targets there as well. 

Ko founded the company with CSO Minoru Ko, MD, PhD, in 2017. Elixirgen’s 15 employees are based in Baltimore in its office space in the Johns Hopkins Medical campus, although there is no affiliation with the university. This location offers some advantages to the company, according to Ko. Specifically, “we have a wet lab and an animal lab” that has “helped us go from in vivo to in vitro very quickly to test concepts or optimize formulations and things like that.” 

Recently, Elixirgen announced an option agreement with Japan’s Nippon Shinyaku focused on DMD. Under the terms of the agreement, Elixirgen will be responsible for the development of an asset dubbed EXG-7001, a locally administered, full-length dystrophin mRNA therapeutic that is currently in preclinical development for the treatment of DMD.

As part of the deal, Nippon Shinyaku will provide funding for the developmental costs of the therapy. Meanwhile, Elixirgen will receive an upfront payment and is eligible to receive additional development and sales-based milestone payments if the option were to be exercised. Also, Nippon Shinyaku may obtain exclusive worldwide rights to commercialize EXG-7001.

“Current approaches for treating DMD focus on delivering or restoring an incomplete dystrophin protein, and there still remains a significant unmet need for a therapy that can successfully deliver a full-length dystrophin protein,” Ko said in comments about the announcement. “By design, EXG-7001 has the potential to deliver the full-length, complete dystrophin protein that is missing in DMD patients, regardless of their genetic mutation.”

EXG-7001 leverages one of Elixirgen’s core technologies. The company has developed a platform for delivering mRNA-based therapies that it claims addresses the major delivery limitations of current methods. “The key features are that it is a lipid nanoparticle-free, localized mRNA therapeutics platform,” Ko explained to GEN. With this approach, “we’re avoiding some of the complications of gene therapies and delivering genes systemically by going local” and avoiding liver accumulation, which remains “a big issue” for mRNA therapeutics. 

The system has two components. The first component, called RNA tether, is designed to ensure that the RNA stays in the tissue that is injected without migrating to the liver. The second component is the mRNA cargo itself, which the company calls Bobcat® mRNA. Though the lead indication for this technology is DMD, there are other diseases involving large genes that the company could target. 

“We’re able to express the full length protein as mRNA as a single strand” and “it stays where you administer it, which is kind of unusual,” Ko said. Combining RNA tether and Bobcat makes it possible to express large genes and localize them to target tissues even without accumulation in the liver. Preclinical data has demonstrated its effectiveness in mice with no safety concerns associated with administration or treatment. “A full length dystrophin being given to kind of key muscles could potentially change quality of life,” particularly for the non-ambulatory population, Ko said. 

Beyond EXG-7001, Elixigen has other candidates in its pipeline that are much closer to the clinic. Its lead candidate is currently in Phase I/II testing at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. This is an ex vivo cell therapy based on the company’s ZSCAN4 technology, which is designed to extend the telomeres of stem cells in “a controlled way” using a telomerase-independent mechanism. EXG-34217 is comprised of autologous CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells that have been treated ex vivo with EXG-001, a non-integrating, non-transmissible, temperature-sensitive Sendai virus vector encoding human ZSCAN4.

The features of that technology were identified by the company’s CSO and his team while he worked at the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. In 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted Rare Pediatric Disease Designation to the treatment, dubbed EXG-34217, for the treatment of patients with dyskeratosis congenita and related telomere biology disorders. 

“Telomeres obviously have a relationship with aging, and there are in fact genetic diseases associated with short telomeres and telomerase mutations,” CEO Ko told GEN at BIO. People with TBDs are “born with shorter telomeres typically, but also have a mutation in their telomerase so they are not necessarily maintaining them either.” The result is a type of premature aging, so conditions like bone marrow failure and cytopenia happen earlier in the life of the patient. In fact, “bone marrow failure is one of the largest issues” affecting both adults and young children, CEO Ko said. 

One treatment option in these cases is allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), he continued. However, people with short telomeres have more fragile genomes that are less resistant to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and are at greater risk of cancer even after HSCT treatment. In an ideal scenario, it would be possible to postpone or avoid HSCT for these patients, and the company’s ZSCAN4-based therapy could make it possible to do that. 

The treatment is currently being tested in adult and pediatric patients in Cincinnati. “We started in adults because this is first-in-human,” but the disease is also very severe in children, Ko said. “Our target ultimately is to make sure as many people with TBDs can get this if they need it.” Early clinical results published in 2025 in a paper in NEJM Evidence show durable telomere extension overall with no treatment-related safety concerns observed over a 24-month and 5-month period after infusion. The trial has been going on for some time, and “we have a lot of longer-term data now” and are “looking toward potential accelerated approval.”

But targeting TBDs is just one indication. “Short telomeres manifest in many different ways,” Ko said. Other potential targets for the company’s technology are aging-related diseases, including things like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. 

To date, Elixirgen has raised roughly $34 million from existing investors.

The post Elixirgen Builds Rare Disease Pipeline Around Telomere Biology Disorders and DMD appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

ASMS 2026: Solving Proteomics’ Next Bottleneck

At the 74th American Society for Mass Spectrometry (ASMS) Conference in San Diego, the obvious story was hardware. Vendors showcased faster acquisition, higher sensitivity, alternative fragmentation, spatial workflows, and software ecosystems. New or highlighted platforms and workflows came from Waters, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Sciex, Bruker, Biognosys, and Evosep.

But after several days of talks, posters, hallway conversations, and interviews with senior figures in mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics, the deeper story was not simply that instruments are getting better. The field is beginning to look past the instrument. The mass spectrometer is still central, but the question is shifting: what has to happen around it for proteomics to become clinically useful, scalable, trusted, and routine?

Beyond the instrument

Jennifer Van Eyk, PhD, professor of cardiology, biomedical sciences, pathology, and laboratory medicine, and director of the Advanced Clinical Biosystems Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Health Science University, put it most directly: “I think mass spec is no longer the limitation. We have the sensitivity, the throughput, and the accuracy at discovery and targeted levels.”

Jennifer Van Eyk, PhD [Gustav Ceder]

That is a remarkable statement in a field long defined by instrument performance. Van Eyk was not saying that MS innovation is finished. She pointed to continuing gains in quantitation, protein structure, conformational analysis, post-translational modifications (PTMs), top-down proteomics, and protein dynamics. But for clinical impact, she argued, the next bottlenecks are increasingly sample preparation, data analysis, standardization, harmonization, and quality control.

Joshua Coon, PhD, professor of biomolecular chemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Pyle Chair at the Morgridge Institute for Research, saw instrument speed as the force opening new applications. Faster scanning mass analyzers are allowing deeper proteome coverage, more post-translational modification (PTM) measurements, and shorter runs. Ryan Kelly, PhD, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Brigham Young University, framed the same shift as a throughput problem. “Now the mass spec is so fast that we need to figure out how to feed it faster,” he said. In plasma proteomics, Coon said, faster instruments, nanoparticle-based enrichment, and improved chromatography are moving the field from hundreds

Joshua Coon, PhD [Gustav Ceder]

toward thousands of detectable proteins in blood.

John R. Yates III, PhD, the John Lytton Young Endowed Chair in the department of integrative structural and computational biology at Scripps Research, highlighted electron activation dissociation methods and the possibility that high-throughput workflows could push MS deeper into plasma and population-level studies. He described targeted affinity platforms as powerful for “known knowns” because they measure targets defined in advance. “But with mass spectrometry,” he added, “you can look for unknown unknowns, which is where the gold lies.”

John R. Yates III, PhD [Gustav Ceder]

The point cuts to the heart of where the field now stands, and a recurring ASMS tension. The future of proteomics is not a choice between platforms. It is a division of labor. Targeted affinity technologies have become central to large-scale plasma proteomics and population studies. MS remains uniquely powerful for unbiased discovery, tissue proteomics, complex sample matrices, protein modifications, structural diversity, and biology that is not yet named.

From depth to trust

If the first era of modern proteomics was about seeing more, the next may be about measuring better. Devin Schweppe, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Genome Sciences at the University of Washington, described the current moment as a “duality.” Instruments can now deliver deep coverage, and computational tools are making interpretation faster. Together, he said, they are creating “a comfort level with trusting the data.”

Devin Schweppe, PhD [Gustav Ceder]

Trust came up repeatedly. For discovery biology, a strong signal can be enough to generate a hypothesis. For clinical practice, it is not. Van Eyk said clinical-grade assays are “way harder than people think they are.” A research study can iterate. A clinical assay has to deliver the same measurement today, in five weeks, in six months, and years later. Once a test is locked, “you can’t go, ‘Oh no, we should have had this extra protein in there,’” she said. “It’s done.”

This distinction matters across assay types. Targeted MS methods such as multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) and parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) can provide absolute quantification, but only for preselected proteins. Data-independent acquisition (DIA), meanwhile, has moved discovery proteomics closer to translation by improving reproducibility and scalability. DIA is still often used for relative quantification, but its ability to capture patterns across tens or hundreds of proteins may become important as clinical decision-making moves beyond single biomarkers and reference intervals.

The field is responding to these demands. David Kotol, PhD, R&D manager at ProteomEdge, discussed an independently validated nine-protein plasma panel designed to improve emergency department triage and imaging decisions for patients with suspected venous thromboembolism, compared with D-dimer alone.

David Kotol, PhD [Gustac Ceder]

Kotol described a shift “from relative protein measurements toward robust, multiplexed absolute quantification.” He emphasized stable isotope-labeled protein standards added early in sample preparation to monitor digestion efficiency, downstream analytical variation, and multi-peptide quantification. These standards cannot remove variation introduced during sample collection, handling, or storage. But they can make the analytical workflow more transparent and transferable.

The clinical gap

Mathieu Lavallée-Adam, PhD, associate professor in the department of biochemistry, microbiology and immunology and director of the specialization in bioinformatics at the University of Ottawa, gave the least glamorous answer to what still blocks clinical translation. “My answer is going to be boring,” he said. “It’s going to be education.”

Mathieu Lavallée-Adam, PhD [Gustav Ceder]

Lavallée-Adam argued that many clinicians and biomedical researchers still do not fully understand what modern MS can do. Too often, the outside view is still: give me a list of differentially expressed proteins. But MS-based proteomics has moved beyond lists, into proteoforms, structural information, PTMs, protein dynamics, and flexible acquisition. “We’re past that now,” he said. “The main barrier is our inability to communicate the possibilities that we offer.”

Sasha Singh, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, associate scientist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and director of proteomics research at the Center for Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Sciences (CICS), described this translation role from inside a hospital environment. “That’s actually my role at the hospital,” Singh said. “I am a liaison between the technology and the application scientist.”

Sasha Singh, PhD [Gustav Ceder]

The translation is becoming harder because proteomics is diversifying. End users often need to distinguish among discovery MS, which can provide broad relative quantification; targeted MS, which can provide absolute concentrations for selected proteins; and targeted affinity proteomics, which can scale well for plasma cohorts but is limited by predefined assays and available binding reagents. Singh added that different technologies may produce profiles that do not fully overlap. Rather than treating that as a failure, she suggested it reveals something real: the circulation contains many subproteomes, and different technologies enrich different views.

AI with guardrails

No 2026 conference escapes artificial intelligence (AI), and ASMS was no exception. But the mood among the researchers was cautious rather than breathless.

Lavallée-Adam said agent-based AI was dominating conversations in his part of the field. The dream is seductive: put a sample on an instrument, ask an AI agent to maximize protein identifications or optimize a method, and let it select the best protocol. But he drew a clear line between potential and reality. “Are such agents really driving change? It’s unclear at this point,” he said. “I think it’s unproven.”

Still, AI-assisted acquisition strategies are entering workflows. Lavallée-Adam’s group works on real-time MS data acquisition, where software analyzes data as it is acquired and adapts the run to the biological question. Instead of measuring the same abundant proteins repeatedly, the system can decide it has seen enough and move on to new targets. In that sense, AI becomes less a magical oracle than an instrument assistant.

Faster instruments are generating more data, and faster analysis is needed to keep up. Schweppe also argued that open-source tools remain essential because they let laboratories build on one another’s work rather than rebuild it.

More than abundance

Much of the clinical proteomics effort is focused on plasma because it is minimally invasive and suitable for screening, longitudinal sampling, and routine monitoring. But even in blood, researchers are learning that plasma is only part of the story.

Roman Fischer, PhD, associate professor and head of the Discovery Proteomics Facility at the Target Discovery Institute, University of Oxford, pushed the conversation back toward biology. Plasma alone does not capture the full circulating system, he noted. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells, extracellular vesicles, microvesicles, and other compartments may contain disease-relevant information that conventional workflows miss. “We have to be more sophisticated in addressing the compartments of the blood,” Fischer said.

Roman Fischer, PhD [Gustav Ceder]

He also pointed to the proteoform problem. A single gene can give rise to many transcripts, isoforms, modified proteins, and glycosylated forms. These differences may affect activity, localization, disease pathways, and therapy response. Capturing that diversity is not possible with targeted affinity assays alone. It requires deeper characterization of the proteome, not only quantification.

Yates offered a clinical example. His group has been developing protein-footprinting approaches that can detect conformational changes in proteins in blood. In one transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy project, he said, abundance alone was not the answer. The important signal was how the protein folded or misfolded. That kind of assay moves proteomics beyond proteins going up or down, into structural disease biology.

Van Eyk’s work on remote sampling devices pointed to another future: patient-collected blood samples that make longitudinal cardiovascular studies easier, more inclusive, and better matched to real clinical questions.

In the background was a broader translational arc: discovery, verification, clinical validation, health economics, and access. Plasma proteomics highlights included Lekha Sleno, PhD, professor at Université du Québec à Montréal, who is combining nanoparticle enrichment with isotope-enabled targeted proteomics, and a CinderBio breakfast seminar featuring Fredrik Edfors, PhD, assistant professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology and SciLifeLab, and Simion Kreimer, PhD, senior research project advisor in the Proteomics and Metabolomics Core at Cedars-Sinai Health Science University.

The seminar focused on accelerated plasma proteomics, rapid digestion workflows, stable isotope standards, Human Protein Atlas resources, and faster enzyme workflows that can reduce lead times. The common message was that sample preparation, quantification, and validation may become as decisive as instrument resolution.

The next bottleneck

ASMS 2026 was not short on technical spectacle. High-resolution instruments, electron-based fragmentation, narrow-window DIA, rapid acquisition, MS imaging, top-down workflows, and AI-enabled software all had their moment. But the most interesting conversations were less about spectacle than maturity.

Proteomics is no longer trying only to prove that it can see more. It is trying to prove that it can measure consistently, explain biology more deeply, support drug development, fit into clinical laboratories, and eventually improve patient decisions.

That means the next bottleneck is distributed across the ecosystem: sample preparation, standards, software, education, reimbursement, clinical menus, regulatory validation, open tools, and the ability to translate technical power into something a clinician can use.

Longer term, integrated proteomics, other omics, imaging, clinical data, and AI may support not only single biomarkers, but interpretable molecular patterns, longitudinal trajectories, and digital-twin-like models of patient biology.

The field spent decades making proteins visible. The next challenge is making proteomic measurements dependable enough to act on.

The post ASMS 2026: Solving Proteomics’ Next Bottleneck appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Teaching AI to run with the turbines

Artificial intelligence may have captured the public imagination through chatbots and image generators, but some of its most consequential use cases are unfolding far from consumer-facing tools. In industries where physical infrastructure, operational continuity, and safety are paramount, AI is becoming a core operating layer. With its sprawling industrial systems and constant stream of operational data, the energy sector offers a glimpse into what that future could look like.

At Woodside Energy, AI adoption did not begin with generative models or enterprise copilots. The company has spent years building predictive analytics, optimization systems, and machine learning tools across exploration, drilling, maintenance, and plant operations. “We’ve always had very large volumes of operational data coming from the equipment and the plants and the assets that we operate,” says the company’s vice president for digital Andrew Melouney. “Those have created really clear, quite high-value use cases for us.”

That long-term investment in infrastructure and governance is now enabling a broader shift toward agentic AI systems that can support complex industrial workflows. Rather than replace human operators, Woodside designs AI systems to augment expertise in high-stakes environments. A prime example is its “Startup Advisor,” an AI copilot that helps operators manage the complex process of starting liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. “We’re really thinking about, how does it support the people in the organization in terms of empowering them to make better decisions, to make faster decisions,” Melouney explains.

The company’s approach reflects a wider evolution taking place across industrial AI: graduating from isolated experiments to enterprise-wide systems built on standardized platforms, governed data, and repeatable deployment patterns. That transition, Melouney argues, requires organizations to rethink both their technology stacks and how work itself gets done. “We’re not just bolting AI onto an existing process,” he says. “We’re deeply thinking about how that work needs to be reimagined.”

Melouney’s motto has become: “Think big, prototype small, and scale fast.”

As AI systems become more autonomous and interconnected, the companies poised to succeed may be those that spent years building the operational foundations beneath the hype.

“Our ambition is really for an autonomous enterprise, where we have agents with agency that are able to really deeply interact with our core workflows,” says Melouney.

This episode of Business Lab is produced in partnership with Infosys.

Full Transcript:

Megan Tatum: From MIT Technology Review, I’m Megan Tatum, and this is Business Lab, the show that helps business leaders make sense of new technologies coming out of the lab and into the marketplace.

This episode is produced in partnership with Infosys.

Now, when people think about artificial intelligence, they often picture chatbots or productivity tools, but some of the most sophisticated and high impact uses of AI are actually happening far from consumer apps, inside complex industrial environments where safety, reliability, and physical systems matter. The global energy sector is a prime example.

Companies like Woodside Energy, a global energy producer headquartered in Western Australia, have been applying AI for more than a decade now, from advanced analytics and operations, to remote decision support, to smarter maintenance, and energy efficiency across large scale assets. Today, Woodside is scaling that experience, embedding AI more deeply across its operations and the enterprise with a strong focus on governance, data quality, and human accountability.

Two words for you: technological fuel.

My guest today is Andrew Melouney, vice president for digital at Woodside Energy. Welcome, Andrew.

Andrew Melouney: Thanks, Megan. It’s great to be here.

Megan: Lovely to have you. Now, Andrew, as I said there, the energy sector has approached AI quite differently from technology or consumer businesses. Early value has emerged in operational and industrial environments, rather than consumer-facing generative AI tools. Why is that? And what differentiates the energy sector’s AI journey?

Andrew: Megan, I think it really comes down to the nature of the work we do. Energy operations and what Woodside does is very asset intensive, it’s very safety critical, and it’s highly physical. And when you think about how Woodside operates, we operate across the full value chain. We do exploration through to drilling and subsurface work, to project development, all the way through to operating assets, which are often operated in harsh and remote locations, and then global energy portfolio marketing and trading as well.

We’ve always had very large volumes of operational data coming from the equipment and the plants and the assets that we operate, and those have created really clear, quite high-value use cases for us. When you think about reliability, when you think about safety and efficiency, those are really critical things for a company like Woodside. We’ve been doing traditional AI for many years now. If you think about analytics, if you think about optimization, if you think about things like predictive models, those techniques we’ve been applying to our data sets and to our business since around 2015.

And more recently with the advent of generative AI, we’ve really found that we’ve got a pretty strong and awesome foundation to build on top of and to really solve problems in the service of improving the business. And again, whether that is keeping people safe, keeping the environments we operate in safe, or improving returns for the organization.

Megan: Fantastic. I mean you touched on it there, but how has this reality shaped your own AI strategy at Woodside? Where did you start, and where did the technology prove most impactful in those early days?

Andrew: Well, like I said, we’ve had a very long journey, in terms of understanding our operational data, recognizing the value of it, and collecting it at scale so that we can use it. And we’ve been very deliberate in that approach, Megan. We’ve really thought about where the value is and where the risks were manageable. And we’ve started looking at, in today’s world from an agentic AI perspective, we’ve started looking at the problems that were solved with traditional AI and machine learning and data science in the past. And we’ve started to think about, where can we then layer agentic AI over the top to provide an even better outcome?

For our asset intensive industry and organization, we’re looking at areas such as maintenance optimization. We’re looking at areas such as, how do we ensure our LNG plants start up reliably, consistently, and safely? And we’re considering really our frontline workforce and making sure that we’re giving people on the frontline the tools required to do their jobs. When we think about AI, we’re really thinking about, how does it support the people in the organization in terms of empowering them to make better decisions, to make faster decisions? I think over time, this has just evolved from what has been traditional analytics to now artificial intelligence and generative AI. And we’ve learned along the way that the technology is important, but it’s about aligning people, processes, and the technology together.

We’ve spent a long time not only in collecting the data and having a well-curated data set that we can build on top of, but we’ve also spent a lot of time teaching people how to work in agile ways, how to do design thinking, how to problem solve, and how to really make sure that the technology that, say, my team can bring to bear to the organization is adopted effectively and purposefully. And I think once we had that solid foundation in place from a technology perspective, from a data perspective, once we got strong trust built between our digital teams and the organization, we really saw quite a material uptick and the scaling of technology occur more broadly across the enterprise.

Megan: Fantastic. That people piece so important, isn’t it? It’s just a tool, technology, that needs to be in the right hands. And you touched on data there; industrial AI obviously depends on vast amounts of data. Can you walk us through how you’ve approached data at Woodside in a little more detail? How it’s structured and governed, and how tools like maintenance intelligence as well fit into that.

Andrew: Well, data is really foundational and fundamental to everything we do, particularly from a technology perspective. It gives us the ability to innovate at pace when we are building over the top of a strong foundation. As I said before, we’ve had the benefit of a long-term investment in our underlying operational data. I think the way we think about data is that it’s an asset for us.

And when you think about operating a facility where you’ve got sensors everywhere, you’ve got data streaming in real time, you’ve got operators needing to make decisions in real time, we have consciously made a decision over many, many years to invest in that enterprise scale data platform to make sure that it’s secure. We’ve got well-structured data assets, and we’ve got strong governance over the top of that data so that when it is used, when it’s built in a data science application or an AI agent, that we’ve got a level of trust in it that it’s going to be used responsibly. And that when it’s used, it can be trusted to give the outcome that we expect.

We have developed platforms that continuously ingest really high frequency data from the assets and from our enterprise systems. Once we’ve been able to develop solutions on top of that, parts of the business that might own the systems that collect that data, they see the value in it.

When you look at something like maintenance intelligence is a really good example of how we’ve been able to take something that we’ve been working on for a long time. Woodside does a lot of maintenance, it’s a very important part of our business, and it occurs across all of our operating assets. But we have been looking at how we do predictive analytics and predictive maintenance for a long time across that data set that we own. And something like maintenance intelligence is a solution that gives us the ability to optimize how we do that maintenance. And what it does is it analyzes historical maintenance records, alongside the performance of the equipment. And again, by having that data set well-governed and in one place, we get the ability to correlate different data sets, such as maintenance records out of SAP, alongside say equipment and performance coming from our time series data lake.

And when we build over the top of that, something like maintenance intelligence gives us the opportunity to recommend to the assets what the optimal timing for maintenance activities might be, and really give what is quite a simple aim, which is do the right work at the right time. And with something like maintenance intelligence, we have seen the opportunity, and we have the opportunity to reduce maintenance hours by up to 15% over five years on one of the assets that we’ve piloted this on. And as we’ve built out that underlying analytical model, we’re now able to put agentic AI over the top of that and provide better insights and optimize that solution more.

It really comes down to providing our asset teams and our operational teams with the right decision support capability that ensures they’re still accountable to make the decision and to ensure the right work is being done, but we are giving them the best possible opportunity to use their judgment and experience with the data that we provide to make the right decision.

Megan: Sounds like a really impactful change. Last year also marked a milestone in moving from early AI learnings to scale, using AI more deliberately as a force multiplier. What transition were you trying to make and how did you approach it?

Andrew: Well, Megan, we’ve had a philosophy for a long time in Woodside from an innovation perspective, where we really want to think big, we want to prototype small, and we want to scale fast. We want to find big opportunities that we can go after, but we want to ensure that we look at how we deploy those on a small scale first, and then provide the right learning and insight that then can scale it everywhere. Something like maintenance intelligence is a good example of that, or our Startup Advisor, where we know that we’ve got multiple plants that we need to start up. We know that we’ve got multiple assets that need to do maintenance, so we have a big, bold ambition about how we can improve and optimize that. We start with a small prototype; it might be one subsystem, it might be just a part of an asset, and then we scale it out, we learn, and we scale faster.

I think from an AI learning perspective, one of the key things we’ve learned is really the transition from moving from isolated AI solutions to a more coordinated enterprise-wide capability. If you look back maybe 18 months, two years, in our generative AI journey, we rarely started by deploying AI as broadly as we could in the organization from a personal productivity perspective. And probably being quite open in terms of the problems that we will solve, the business problems that we’ll solve with AI. That had a lot of benefits for us in terms of allowing our organization to get to know AI, get to know the capabilities, to build the trust in it.

What we’ve learned though is that we’ve needed to pivot from that to being a little bit tighter in terms of where we are going to invest our time and resources and more higher value solutions. How do we then enable and empower the rest of the organization so that they can actually effectively problem solve with technology in their domain or in their personal productivity without having to come to a central team?

When we think about that, think big, prototype small, scale fast, has been something really important for us. The transition from a more broader approach to use case development and solution development to now a narrower focus on the high value priorities. We’ve seen that paying dividends to us and allowing us to go after solutions and opportunities, things like Startup Advisor.

And so our Startup Advisor is a agentic AI solution that really aims to optimize and empower and better support our operators that sit in front of a panel and have to start up LNG plants, which are incredibly technical facilities and require really specialist skills to start up. And so our Startup Advisor is almost like a copilot that sits alongside those operators, and it gives them the ability to be able to play back previous startups. It gives them the ability to look at how the current startup is progressing, and it provides them better insights to optimize how they start up that facility. And again, starting up an LNG facility is incredibly complex.

Megan: I can imagine.

Andrew: When we think about opportunities like Startup Advisor, again, it goes back to that think big, prototype small, and scale fast. We started with a very bold vision of, how do we start up all of our LNG plants in a much more structured and optimized fashion? How do we better support our panel operators? How do we make, say, a more junior panel operator have a copilot that can help them almost like an experienced panel operator sitting next to them? And when we think about that vision and the ability then to prototype on a small scale and then scale fast, I think it’s been really successful for us.

As we scale, we’ve just naturally expanded into more agent-based solutions. Today, we’ve got around 50 AI agents in production, supporting both our operating assets and our enterprise workflows. These tools have been proven in live environments, and we have really seen the benefit of being able to shift from point solutions that maybe solve small scale problems in specific areas, to AI and agentic solutions with agency that can really work across our workflows.

We’re able to do this because we’ve standardized on the platform that we build on and we’ve got repeatable patterns. That’s been another really important learning for us, is that we don’t want to build 50 solutions in 50 different ways. We really want to be empowering our organization and our technical teams and the users of our solutions to roll them out quickly, to roll them out safely, and to do it in a patternized and platform manner.

But the last point I’ll make, Megan, from a learning perspective is that we’ve really understood that a strong governance around how AI is deployed and developed is critical for us, and it’s critical for us to go fast as well. The traditional ways of governing how we roll out different solutions or digital systems isn’t going to scale to the breadth that we need when we are thinking about AI. Being able to have a clear philosophy around how we innovate, transitioning from isolated solutions to that enterprise-wide capability, and making sure that we’ve got strong platforms with strong patterns and clear governance are the three really critical things that we’ve learned.

Megan: Such important pillars, all of them. And you’ve been working with Infosys on this journey. How has that partnership helped accelerate scaling and embedding AI across the business?

Andrew: Well, Infosys is our managed service provider, and so they play a really critical role in the operations of our core business. One of the things that I like to say is that our license to innovate is based on our license to operate. And so, for my team to be able to turn up to an operating asset or a corporate function and have the trust that’s needed to be able to innovate and reimagine and redesign how work gets done, to be able to do that, we need to make sure that our core platforms, our core systems, our applications are running really reliably, safely, and consistently every day. Having an experienced partner like Infosys looking after those core operations in partnership with our internal teams is really, really important to us.

As we move from pilots to enterprise-wide deployment, the ability to partner with someone like Infosys also gives us the ability to scale. And so being from Perth and Western Australia, while we’ve got a really strong local team in Western Australia, and we’ve also got a very strong team in some of our other operating locations, like everyone, we’re struggling to find people that can fill AI roles. Being able to partner with Infosys and have a number of different operating models at our disposal becomes really important for us. Having co-mingled teams where they are staff, they are Infosys staff, Woodside staff, and some of our other partners, really just brings diversity of thought and experience to how we solve problems.

Fundamentally, the partnership has allowed us to operate and innovate with more confidence. While Woodside always retains ownership of the strategy and where we’re going and the governance and my teams remain accountable for the outcomes, we can’t do what we do without strong partnerships like the one we have with Infosys.

Megan: Fantastic. And as AI adoption scales, you mentioned yourself, governance becomes increasingly important. How challenging has that been, and what guardrails have you put in place at Woodside?

Andrew: So, Megan, governance is really important to us, and we operate in a well-regulated environment. That means we’ve got to make really deliberate and well-reasoned decisions when we’re thinking about how we deploy technology into our organization, whether it’s artificial intelligence or anything else, for that matter. And so, governance is really central to how we approach the execution of our AI strategy at Woodside.

We’ve got maybe two or three really key things that we’ve put in place. The first one is just making sure that every AI use case goes through a structured assessment, and that’s making sure it meets our privacy controls, our cyber controls. We’re also asking the question, not just, could we do this, but should we do this? We’ve really got to bring together safety, ethics, transparency, accountability, and make sure that we make an informed decision. When an AI solution is going through that structured assessment, if there are concerns about how we might use that solution, it then goes to an AI council that’s made up of senior leaders across the organization. That council and that group really oversee some of the prioritization and risk management. That’s where we can have really strong, robust debates around, again, could we do something, should we do it, and how do we mitigate any of the risks that we might introduce here?

I think the last one, Megan, is really around lifecycle management. When you start thinking about, we’ve got 50 at the moment, but if we had 500 agents working in our organization, really amplifying the experience and the decision-making and the value creation of our staff, we really want to have an ability to manage the lifecycle of how those agents operate. We want to know, how many people are using them? What’s the efficacy and the outcome? Is there model drift? Do we need to retune or retrain? I think that’s an area where many organizations, including Woodside, are still leaning into and still figuring out the best way to do this. We can do it quite easily with 50 agents, but 500, 5,000, 50,000 becomes an opportunity for us. Again, thinking about how we partner with others, solving problems like that really present an opportunity to co-create and to co-solve with some of our partners, like with Infosys.

Megan: Fantastic. Just to close, what’s your long-term vision for AI at Woodside? How do you see this evolving over the years ahead, and what could it unlock for the sector in your view?

Andrew: So Megan, I think our ambition is really for an autonomous enterprise, where we have agents with agency that are able to really deeply interact with our core workflows. The outcome that we want to get from that is to protect our people, to protect the environments we operate in, and to be able to provide energy at a lower cost to the world. When we think about that ambition, we can really see that being applied to almost all of the areas that Woodside work in. Whether that’s from exploration through to project developments, through to operations or marketing, the scale of the opportunity in front of us and the ability for us to really change the way that work flows through the organization is really exciting.

For us, there’s three things that we have to get right in terms of being able to execute on that ambition. The first one is really thinking about how the work gets done in the organization so that we’re not just bolting AI onto an existing process, but we’re deeply thinking about how that work needs to be reimagined. We’ve also got to think about how we enable our workforce to work differently. Providing them with the skills and the tools and the ability to really harness the power of the technology that we provide.

Secondly, we’ve got to continue to move from and restrain ourselves from deploying point solutions that solve very narrow problems, to having more connected, agentic systems of systems that can interact with each other. To do that, and if we do that successfully, that’s where we really get the high value unlock from agents being able to interact with workflows and really change how the work gets done.

And lastly, Megan, it’s about how we must continue our philosophy of thinking big, prototyping small, and scaling fast.

Megan: Which is a fantastic lens to which to make all these decisions. Thank you so much, Andrew. That was Andrew Melouney, vice president for digital at Woodside Energy, whom I spoke with from Brighton in England.

That’s it for this episode of Business Lab. I’m your host, Megan Tatum. I’m a contributing editor and host for Insights, the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review. We were founded in 1899 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and you can find us in print, on the web, and at events each year around the world. For more information about us and the show, please check out our website at technologyreview.com.

This show is available wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode, we hope you’ll take a moment to rate and review us. Business Lab is a production of MIT Technology Review, and this episode was produced by Giro Studios. Thanks ever so much for listening. Goodbye.

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

Developing forensic patient-oriented research guidelines: a rapid review using an integrated knowledge translation approach

This paper reports findings from a rapid literature review that informed new guidelines for conducting patient-oriented research in forensic mental health settings. The project adopted an integrated knowledge translation approach at a mental health hospital in Ontario, Canada, engaging a project team that included current forensic patients, hospital staff, and members of an international community of practice. Sources were identified through nine academic databases and targeted grey literature searches, screened independently by two reviewers and extracted using a structured template guided by an a priori framework developed with patients and staff at a knowledge exchange event. Findings were iteratively refined through a patient advisory group, an implementation study, ethnographic observations, and related integrated knowledge translation activities conducted alongside the review. Together, 31 academic and grey literature sources informed a framework organized around five core dimensions: 1) Resourcing, orientation, and training; 2) Confidentiality, consent, and compensation; 3) Relationships, shared understanding, and support; 4) Levels of engagement; and 5) Evaluation and sustainability. Guided by cross-cutting principles common among participatory mental health research, such as dignity, trust, respect, and a commitment to redressing power and attending to forms of epistemic injustice, the guidelines respond to distinctive constraints of forensic environments while highlighting opportunities to promote authentic co-production and sustain patient involvement in research. Recommendations include dedicated resources and capacity-building for patients; relational, ongoing consent practices co-developed with patients; flexible patient researcher roles with fair, paid compensation; and sustained institutional support for participatory practices. We call on forensic hospitals and secure settings to adapt and evaluate these guidelines and to invest in expanding patient leadership to advance the field.

Effects of Balint group combined with mindfulness-based stress reduction on humanistic care ability and psychological resilience among obstetric nurses

BackgroundHumanistic care competence and psychological resilience are essential for improving nursing quality, particularly in high-stress specialties such as obstetrics. However, effective interventions that simultaneously enhance both interpersonal and intrapersonal capacities among nurses remain limited.MethodsA total of 87 obstetric nurses from a tertiary hospital in Hebei Province, China, were enrolled and allocated into three groups: a combined Balint group and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) intervention group, a Balint group, and a control group (n = 29 each). The intervention was conducted over 8 weeks. Outcomes, including humanistic care competence, empathy, emotional intelligence, and psychological resilience, were measured at baseline, post-intervention, and 6-week follow-up using validated Chinese versions of standardized scales. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis.ResultsThe combined intervention group showed significantly greater associations with improvements in all outcomes compared with the Balint and control groups (all P < 0.001). Empathy, humanistic care competence, emotional intelligence, and psychological resilience were significantly higher after the intervention and continued to show positive trends at follow-up. Although the Balint group alone also demonstrated moderate improvements, the combined intervention consistently produced stronger and more sustained associations.ConclusionThe integration of Balint group and MBSR interventions eff is associated with enhanced psychological resilience and humanistic care competence among obstetric nurses. This study builds on previous research by examining the combined effect of reflective and mindfulness-based approaches in a specific clinical population, providing evidence for a feasible strategy to improve nurses’ professional quality and mental well-being.

First 3D Structure of Malaria’s “Moving Junction” Solves Infection Mystery

For nearly half a century, scientists have known that malaria parasites force their way into human red blood cells (RBCs) through a ring-shaped structure called the moving junction (MJ). What no one could work out was what it actually does. The structure assembles, does its job, and dissipates in the space of 60 seconds—gone before anyone can get a close look.

A team at Columbia University has now finally caught the moving junction in the act. By freezing parasites at the onset of invasion and lifting the intact complex straight out of the cell, the researchers obtained the first high-resolution view of its three-dimensional structure. What they saw overturned a decades-old assumption about how the parasite gets in. Rather than a passive doorway, the moving junction turns out to be a molecular machine that actively remodels the host cell’s membrane to help the parasite force its way inside.

The findings detail how the team obtained the structure and then used it as a blueprint to design a mini-protein, from scratch, that blocks invasion—a proof of concept for a new kind of antimalarial drug.

“We’ve known for decades that this structure is essential for the parasite to get into a cell, but not how it actually works,” said Chi-Min Ho, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and the study’s senior author. “Pulling it directly out of the parasite intact let us finally ask that question directly.”

Ho is senior author of the team’s published paper in Cell, titled “Structural basis for host membrane binding and remodeling by invading malaria parasites.” In their paper, the team stated in summary, “This work represents a major step toward resolving the decades-long mystery surrounding the structure and function of the malarial MJ, underscoring the power of pursuing native structures and laying the foundation for structure-guided design of next-generation antimalarials.”

Malaria still kills roughly 600,000 people a year, the overwhelming majority of them young children in sub-Saharan Africa, and the parasite is steadily becoming resistant to frontline drugs. “Malaria morbidity and mortality are directly linked to the invasion and replication of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum in human red blood cells (RBCs),” the authors wrote. The malaria parasite life cycle involves two hosts, humans and Anopheles mosquitoes, and infecting human RBCs and hepatocytes, as well as mosquito salivary glands.

The disease starts with a single event: a parasite breaking into a red blood cell. “Parasites establish infection by invading host cells in a rapid and precisely choreographed process …” the team continued. In an infected person, trillions of parasites are released and invade every 48 hours in synchronized waves. This rhythmic cycle of rupture and reinvasion drives the periodic fevers malaria is known for. “After gliding, reorientation, and initial attachment, parasite internalization is initiated by the formation of a ring-shaped ultrastructure called the moving junction (MJ), which anchors the parasite to the host cell,” the researchers explained.

The same moving junction machinery is used across every species and every stage of the parasite’s life cycle, which has made it one of the most sought-after targets in malaria research. For antimalarial drug and vaccine development, block it, and you stop infection at its source.

The moving junction has been a puzzle since 1978, when scientists first observed in electron microscopy images a mysterious thickening of the membrane where parasite meets cell. Researchers eventually identified the four parasite proteins—AMA1, RON2, RON4, and RON5—that assemble into the junction’s basic building block, and confirmed that all were essential for invasion. But what the structure actually did remained unknown, because it survives for a minute or so and refuses to reassemble in a test tube. “Efforts to address this critical gap in understanding have been thwarted by the short-lived (60–90s) nature of the complex, as well as by the difficulty of recapitulating it in heterologous systems for detailed biochemical and structural study,” the researchers stated.

The Columbia team got around this by stopping invasion mid-stride. Using a compound that halts the parasite’s internal motor without preventing the junction from forming, they stalled parasites partway into red blood cells, then extracted the fully assembled AMA1-RON complex—the building block from which the whole junction is constructed—and imaged it with cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM), a technique where molecules are flash-frozen and imaged with an electron beam at extremely high magnifications to reveal their shape in atomic detail. The result was a sharp, three-dimensional view of that building block. The researchers noted that it was quite strikingly shaped like a sailboat, with the AMA1 protein forming a “sail” above the cell surface and the three RON proteins forming a broad “hull” pressed against the membrane below.

The biggest surprise was in the hull, where the team found clues that finally hinted at the moving junction’s role in invasion. The face of the structure pressed against the host membrane is blanketed with positively charged anchors, and the surface is studded with short helices that drive deep into the membrane like wedges. “These short helices insert asymmetrically into one leaflet of the membrane, displacing lipid headgroups and applying lateral pressure to generate local membrane deformations.”

Both features are widely recognized hallmarks of a well-known family of cellular machines that bend and reshape membranes. Their structural findings, they noted in their report, reveal “a highly unusual molecular staple that exhibits the hallmarks of a powerful membrane-remodelling machine.”

To test whether the structure could indeed deform a membrane, the researchers synthesized the parasite’s wedge-like helices and added them to artificial membrane bubbles. The membranes thinned and punctured. Meanwhile, weakened versions of the helices left the bubbles intact. The team concluded that the moving junction appears to pull the host membrane into shape, likely working in concert with the parasite’s motor to lever the parasite inside.

“It had been pictured as a kind of series of staples or spot-welds, making up a passive ring the parasite hauls itself through,” said Meseret Haile, the study’s first author and a PhD candidate in Ho’s lab. “What we see instead is a machine built to reshape the host cell’s own membrane. That changes how we think about the whole event.” In their paper, the team added, “Our work reveals that, although visually suggestive of canonical tight junctions, the MJ differs fundamentally in function, serving as a dynamic portal that orchestrates parasite internalization, rather than a static adhesion molecule.”

Beyond finally revealing how the moving junction allows the parasite to invade, the structure also gave the team a precise map of where and how AMA1 grips its partner protein, the contact that holds the entire junction together. Using a machine learning-powered protein-design tool together with their structural information, the researchers designed a mini-protein to break that grip. Their best candidate blocked parasites from invading red blood cells in a dose-dependent way and left already-infected cells unaffected, confirming that it works specifically by stopping entry rather than through general toxicity.

The designed mini-protein is a first proof of concept, not a drug, and will need considerable refinement before it could be tested in people. But it demonstrates an exciting new strategy: using near-native structures to design invasion-blocking mini-proteins against a target that has long frustrated conventional approaches. The same structure also clarifies how several leading anti-malaria antibodies work, information that could feed back into vaccine design. “Our successful proof of principle demonstrates the potential power of context-driven binder design for challenging systems, offering a previously unexplored avenue for therapeutic intervention,” they wrote. “In addition to their therapeutic potential, these binders may also serve as powerful tools for probing the functional relevance of specific protein interactions.”

Daphne Kaxiras, an MD-PhD student in Ho’s lab who led the inhibitor design, said, “Once we could see the target in its real setting, designing something to block it became a tractable problem. That’s the part we’re most eager to build on.”

The team’s approach, imaging fragile complexes captured directly from the organism and using them to guide design, may apply to many other parasites and pathogens that are notoriously difficult to study.

The post First 3D Structure of Malaria’s “Moving Junction” Solves Infection Mystery appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Agriculture is ready for AI, but its data isn’t

Artificial intelligence is transforming what is possible in agriculture, but industry leaders should be wary of investing in AI without first laying the groundwork. 

The use cases are promising, especially for an industry navigating volatile fertilizer costs, unpredictable weather, and margins that leave little room for error. Research shows AI-enabled predictive models can improve crop yield by 26%, reduce water use by 41%, and cut chemical usage by 33%. 

However, what AI vendors usually won’t tell you is that these solutions are only effective if you have a clean, solid data foundation. However, at Reltio, we have experience in this area, including leading technology strategy at a major agricultural distributor and building a data platform used by enterprises worldwide–we’ve seen it first hand.

What AI vendors won’t tell you 

Vendor conversations in agriculture tend to follow a familiar pattern. The pitch leads with grand promises around using AI to monitor crop health in real time, optimize irrigation, and squeeze more yield from every acre. 

The promise is compelling, but what rarely comes up is the question of whether the data foundation underneath those promises is accurate and complete. If not, there is a real and significant risk that AI will generate misleading outputs that seem authoritative but inspire action that is, at best, counterproductive. 

For instance, a yield prediction model fed inconsistent historical data will generate imprecise forecasts. Similarly, a precision irrigation system drawing on fragmented sensor data will make watering decisions that waste resources instead of saving them. 

In each case, the AI is failing because the data it was trained on was not sufficient to produce trustworthy outputs. In agriculture, every AI hallucination is a liability, and the likelihood of error is high.

Why agriculture is a uniquely challenging test case

The data landscape across a modern agricultural operation or a large distributor serving thousands of growers is extraordinarily complex.

Modern farming environments make extensive use of IoT devices and machinery. Irrigation systems are automated, tractors navigate fields autonomously, and drones capture field imagery at scale. 

However, machine data is disparate by nature. Add in external sources, including weather feeds, U.S. Department of Agriculture data, and third-party market information, and the question of how you bring all of it together into something coherent becomes a significant undertaking. 

Agricultural AI also needs to understand more than just customer attributes; it needs to understand the land: GPS coordinates, farm boundaries, field blocks, and soil variation across a single property. Where do you apply fertilizer, and at what rate, and in which specific area of the farm? Not all parts of a field are the same, and an AI system that treats them as if they are will produce recommendations that are at best imprecise and at worst damaging.

There is also a compliance dimension due to the chemicals and the responsibility involved. Operational AI in agriculture needs significantly more checks and governance than it might in a lower-stakes environment. When a flawed recommendation gets acted upon in the field, the consequences can be severe. 

What data readiness means in practice 

Data readiness is the difference between AI delivering on its promise vs. a “garbage in, garbage out” scenario. Fundamentally, being ready for AI means having a data model that accurately reflects how the business operates. 

For a company like Wilbur-Ellis, a 104-year-old, family-owned agricultural distributor, that means understanding who your customers are, which fields they farm, which inputs they need, which suppliers those inputs come from, what they paid last season, and how all of that connects to margin. That information needs to be current, consistent, and accessible across the organization, rather than locked in separate systems that were never designed to talk to each other.

Similarly, for farming operations themselves, data readiness means having a reliable, connected picture of what is happening across every field: soil health records, input application histories, yield data from previous seasons, equipment performance, and real-time sensor readings from irrigation systems.

Governance matters just as much as structure. Prices change, relationships evolve, and suppliers come and go. An AI system drawing on data that was accurate six months ago but has not been maintained will make recommendations based on a version of the business that no longer exists. 

Building the foundation that makes AI trustworthy

The good news is that the path to data readiness is feasible. It starts with a strong data model: a single, governed source of truth that connects customers, suppliers, products, pricing, orders, and margins in a way that reflects how the organization operates. 

From there, it requires data pipelines fast enough to deliver insights when decisions need to be made, governance frameworks that keep that data trustworthy over time, and security controls that ensure sensitive commercial information is accessible to the right people under the right conditions.

This is precisely the challenge that Reltio, an SAP company, was built to solve. Reltio enables companies to unify their fragmented data so AI agents and systems can operate from a complete picture of the business. Reltio builds a trusted system of context, known as the context intelligence layer, that brings all entities, relationships, rules together under one roof and makes business data easy to access and interpret.

For Wilbur-Ellis, building that trustworthy data foundation has meant being able to ask more complex questions and trust the answers, which is the precondition for any AI system to be genuinely useful.

How agriculture can drive real value from AI

The question worth asking before the next AI conversation is not whether the use case is promising. It almost certainly is. The question is whether the underlying data foundation is strong enough to make the output trustworthy. 

Agriculture has always required its leaders to make high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, and AI offers the genuine prospect of making those decisions faster and better informed. That prospect is only achievable for organizations that have done the foundational work first, and the businesses that will get the most from AI are the ones investing in that foundation now.

This content was produced by Reltio. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

Cytiva Completes Doubling of Utah Site’s Liquid Media Production Capacity

Cytiva has completed an expansion of its Logan, UT, facility that effectively doubles its liquid media production capacity, a project designed to support supply chain continuity for customers relying on the company for their cell culture needs.

The company has completed its animal-derived component-free (ADCF) liquid media expansion facility (A1X), Pierre-Alain Ruffieux, Cytiva group executive, bioprocess, told GEN in an interview conducted from the company’s booth during the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) International Convention recently held in San Diego. He said the completion was celebrated with a ceremony on the site.

Cytiva detailed the expansion project in a May 12 post on its website: The ADCF liquid media expansion facility (A1X) has larger mixing tanks than the existing facility, supporting batch sizes from 700 L up to 13,000 L—compared with batch sizes of 100 L to 10,000 L supported by Cytiva’s existing facility.

Also, the A1X facility uses mixing tanks and liquid media transfer lines comprised of AL6XN and 316 L stainless steel. This differs from the existing facility equipment, which is comprised solely of 316 L stainless steel. AL6XN is a low-carbon, high-purity stainless-steel alloy that is more resistant to wear and corrosion than 316 L, representing an upgrade to the product contact layer versus the existing facility equipment.

The expanded site’s added liquid capacity comes from the addition of three manifold fill lines, three filling manifolds, six mixing tanks, six formulation booths, and a utility building to support large volume liquid media production. Housed in the utility building are a 45,000 L tank and process water system, a 55,000 L tank and water for injection system, a clean steam generator, and additional supporting utilities.

“In addition to the added capacity, Cytiva has updated several aspects of the manufacturing floor layout and equipment, improvements designed to shorten production cycle time, improve safety, and minimize product risk,” the company explained. “The updates also establish closed systems for cleaning and a controlled environment for the transport and handling of raw materials and finished goods.”

Previously, Cytiva completed expanding its dry powder and liquid media manufacturing capacity for large-volume customers and added high-speed bottle filling for smaller-volume users. The company also opened an expanded staging area for finished goods, as well as a new centralized 10,000-square-foot quality control lab to support increased manufacturing.

AI’s “two major impacts”

Pierre-Alain Ruffieux, Cytiva group executive, bioprocess

During a wide-ranging interview, Ruffieux discussed Cytiva’s approach to AI and several recent Cytiva announcements.

“We see two major impacts from AI on what we are doing,” Ruffieux explained. “The first one, and I always like to start with the customers because it’s really our focus: We see our customers accelerating and increasing the number of targets they are doing. AI is helping them to have more targets and in a faster time,” Ruffieux said. “It’s putting pressure on the CMC folks, and I think it’s where we play: They ask us to provide innovative solutions to go faster.”

Cytiva’s focus on AI is two-fold, he continued.

“One, we are developing intelligent equipment which is using AI to be easier for customers to use and which are more functional; that is one aspect. It’s also delivering more experience in a shorter time frame,” Ruffieux said. “It’s a kind of next level of DoE [design of experiments], but it’s also delivering a productivity aspect because the goal is to have equipment which requires either fewer people or fewer people with less specific knowledge of the equipment.”

Like a growing number of companies in and outside biopharma, Ruffieux said, Cytiva has fully embraced AI “to make our product better, to make the customer experience better, but also to improve our internal processes.”

“Faster and better”

“We see AI helping us to develop software, writing new software to go faster and better. AI is very powerful for reviewing documents and doing things,” he explained. “It’s amazing what we can do both in writing code, but also perhaps as importantly, as we validate the code and we test everything, the use of AI is allowing our people to work in a much more comprehensive way, in a much faster way.”

AI also adds a layer, he said, to the continuous improvement ethos that Cytiva and other Danaher-owned companies practice through the Danaher Business System (DBS). Since the mid-1980s, Danaher has carried out an ongoing company-wide Kaizen or continuous improvement effort based on lean manufacturing and anchored on DBS, a common culture and operating system focused on people, plans, processes, and performance.

“AI is an additional pillar to this system, really helping the company to be more efficient and to drive business,” Ruffieux said.

Cytiva’s customers, he continued, have not specifically asked about AI. So what are customers telling the company that they want?

“What customers want is Cytiva delivering solutions which help them to innovate, produce drugs, and accelerate these processes. And AI is one of the attributes, but they don’t have a specific task on AI,” Ruffieux replied. “In discussing with senior customers, people are interested in the outcome, not in the product itself. So it’s not AI for AI, it’s AI for a business outcome. And in life science, the business outcome is quality. It’s reliability. It’s speed. It’s customers asking, can we help them to be better?”

AMT designation

Last month, Cytiva hailed the FDA’s granting its Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT) designation to the company for its Elevecta™ transient cell line for adeno-associated virus (AAV) manufacturing, one of the first gene therapy manufacturing technologies to receive the designation. Customers using the Elevecta transient cell line will benefit, according to Cytiva, from a clear, predictable regulatory and quality framework for gene therapy development.

Through its AMT designation, the FDA recognizes drug manufacturing technologies that it deems to have elevated the reliability, quality, and robustness of advanced therapeutics manufacturing. By enabling a streamlined Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) review and frequent communication with the FDA, designees count on the AMT designation to help accelerate their manufacturing-related development timelines and create a meaningful advantage through faster time to market.

“This recognition by the FDA is giving confidence and trust for our customers: If they use this cell line to produce AAV, they know that the agency has seen the technical advantage and it’s confidence on the regulatory pathway,” Ruffieux said. “This recognition by that regulatory body is giving trust to the work of the company in helping customers develop drugs, which is really where we position ourselves as true partners.”

Elevecta is designed to significantly reduce the formation and encapsidation of host cell DNA (hcDNA).

“What is beautiful with that is, we get a reduction of 99% of the host cell DNA. You don’t have to worry any more about the host cell DNA which is coming with your product. Again, that is a huge advantage for the customer using that,” Ruffieux said. “This is the kind of innovation we are really proud to bring to our customers.”

Operating from hubs in Marlborough, MA, Amersham, U.K., Uppsala, Sweden, and Shanghai, Cytiva is a unit of Danaher that was re-launched in 2020 after Danaher spent $21.4 billion for the former biopharma business of GE Healthcare Life Sciences. Danaher oversees a global family of more than 20 operating companies focused on biotech and life sciences, as well as diagnostics, water quality, and product identification.

Bringing “the entire workflow”

Earlier this month, the company said that eight of its 2,000 L single-use Xcellerex bioreactors were among equipment contained in the new GMP-2 manufacturing facility inaugurated in Wuhan, China, by Chime Biologics, a decade-long customer that has used equipment made by Cytiva and its predecessor company.

“I want to put that in a larger context: At Cytiva, we really bring to the customers the entire workflow, which is really exciting for small to mid-sized customers. Coming to us, they really get a full facility that is working, really, from A−Z,” Ruffieux said. “It’s starting from an expansion of the cell line, to freezing the drug substance. It’s about a fully integrated solution that helps the customer to have that. And we have multiple facilities like that, that we are building every year for customers across the world.”

“We make significant investments to be able to supply our customers with what they need into different regions, in-region-for-region,” Ruffieux said.

In-region-for-region refers to Cytiva’s ongoing effort to satisfy customer demand for manufacturing tools and services usable within their regions of the world.

“This is really helping us and the customer to secure supply independent of any disruption,” he added. “Since COVID-19, we have seen multiple disruptions worldwide. And really, our original presence is giving confidence to customers that they will get what they need, independent of whatever crisis is happening across the world.”

Worldwide, the United States and European Union have championed “reshoring” efforts by drug developers and tools/technology providers across biopharma to manufacture more of their products within their regions rather than in China or elsewhere in Asia.

“When there is investment, it’s definitely always a tailwind,” Ruffieux said. “We welcome investment, and we are happy to support all customers to put up new facilities, and for the opportunity these facilities offer to position our equipment.”

The post Cytiva Completes Doubling of Utah Site’s Liquid Media Production Capacity appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.