Posted on 01/13/2026 9:38:09 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Nvidia on Monday announced plans to invest $1 billion over the next five years in a potentially groundbreaking joint laboratory with pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, and the goal is enormous — to supercharge the slow, costly process of drug discovery by integrating advanced artificial intelligence directly into laboratory workflows.
The facility will be built in Silicon Valley, placing Lilly’s deep pharmaceutical research expertise right alongside AI innovation. The lab will leverage Nvidia’s BioNeMo platform, a suite of AI models designed to analyze molecular structures and speed the process of identifying promising drug candidates. The collaboration is designed as a two-way knowledge transfer: AI engineers from Nvidia will gain hands-on experience with real-world lab equipment, while Lilly’s scientists will work to fine-tune algorithms and AI systems to take over specific research tasks.
“AI is transforming every industry, and its most profound impact will be in life sciences,” Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of Nvidia, said in a statement, noting that his company and Lilly "are bringing together the best of our industries to invent a new blueprint for drug discovery — one where scientists can explore vast biological and chemical spaces in silico before a single molecule is made.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I’ll go with the drunk birds.
Yes, the Native Americans would take Purple Cone flower to help with the common cold. Also known as Echinacea.
Which is its Latin name.
AI Overview
Criticism of Insilico Medicine generally falls into two categories: skepticism regarding the efficacy and true “AI-driven” nature of its drug discovery programs, and significant employee complaints regarding a toxic workplace culture and poor management.
Scientific and Industry Criticism
Clinical Efficacy Concerns: Insilico’s Phase 2a results for its lead AI-designed drug candidate (for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis) fell short of achieving statistically significant efficacy in its initial trial, leading to some industry skepticism about the immediate “breakthrough” potential of AI in drug discovery.
“AI” Definition Ambiguity: Critics argue that the definition of an “AI-designed” drug is nebulous. The use of computers in rational drug design has existed for decades, and some experts suggest current AI methods, while advanced, are essentially enhanced versions of older computational chemistry techniques (QSAR) and are not a magic bullet.
Selectivity and Toxicity Issues: Early scrutiny of Insilico’s DDR1 inhibitor candidate noted its structural similarity to a known, toxic kinase inhibitor (ponatinib), raising questions about the AI’s ability to ensure selectivity and safety in novel molecules, though Insilico published subsequent data to address safety.
Industry-Wide Skepticism: The broader field of AI-driven drug discovery has faced “failure after failure” in recent years, and Insilico’s highly publicized efforts are often viewed within this context of general investor and scientific caution regarding AI hype masking a difficult clinical reality.
Data and GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out): Critics note that AI tools are only as good as the data they are trained on. If the scientific literature or internal data contains biases or “garbage,” the AI will produce flawed results (GIGO).
Workplace Culture and Management Criticism
Numerous current and former employees have reported a highly negative and toxic work environment, according to employee review websites like Glassdoor and Indeed.
Toxic Leadership: Employees frequently describe the CEO and senior management as “arrogant,” “disrespectful,” “abusive,” and “delusional,” fostering an environment of fear and emotional harassment.
Poor Communication and Structure: The company is often criticized for a lack of clear structure, poor communication, and management that is more concerned with “appearances” and “pleasing upper management” than meaningful work or employee well-being.
High Workload and Low Pay: Many reviews mention excessive workloads, intense pressure, and low salaries relative to industry standards, leading to high employee turnover and burnout.
Disregard for Employees: Staff have reported being told they are “just a number” and easily replaceable, with management changing roles, responsibilities, and benefits without notice or employee input.
All those other issues you mention are damaging to corporate potential, but conflating them with AI produces a confusing conclusion.
Think about this for a second, suppose someone like Elon Musk and RFK Jr. agreed to develop an AI model to test existing drugs for the effectiveness and perhaps test existing drugs for new purposes.
Case in point, suppose they ran a study of Ivermectin and its effectiveness for treating cancer and other ailments.
How will you know which drugs are "newly discovered," versus those that have been discovered the old way? Are you really suggesting that the pharma/tech industries will fake clinical data just to launch a drug? That's a very bold claim and you're alleging malfeasance on a very large scale...in the pharma, technology and entire medical/healthcare communities.
Supposedly a conservative website (FreeRepublic), and there's always plenty of users lament that medicines result in a profit for companies that discover and develop them. The ignorance knows no bounds, nor does it know of the costs and risks that go into drug development.
How many life-saving medicines have been developed by not-for-profit initiatives?
They're not talking about using AI to replace testing and evaluation. The idea is to use AI to more quickly discover compounds that will target certain diseases.
For example, a certain type of tumor cell may have a receptor that inhibits growth. If you can find a chemical to match or shut off that receptor, it might be a good API for a drug.
You might model PK or PD results with AI, but human testing will still be required by health ministries and the FDA.
The poster I was responding to was talking about that, hence my response. Read my full comment.
The problem is not that the profit motive exists.
It’s that with the help and support of the bloated (with tax dollars!) government regulatory machine — and the shameless revolving door relationship between the pharmaceutical/medical industry and their supposed watchdogs — the free market nature of the medical industry has totally run amok.
Furthermore — the benefits of medical innovation notwithstanding — the sheer VOLUME of poorly vetted stuff that the medical-industrial complex is pumping into the economy frequently leads to POOR health outcomes through the phenomenon that has been called “medical cascade” or “cascade of care”:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4359663/posts
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2752986
Exhibit A is the highly damaging medical-industrial catastrophe we JUST WENT THROUGH as a result of the CCP’s Kung Flu. Or were you asleep through that debacle?
Newly=discovered after today.
You’re overthinking.
1) Ever hear of the clot shots?
2) the FDA head just admitted they've been covering up the data on the dangers of high-carb for 20 years just to benefit big Pharma.
3) Pfizer has already paid over $20 BILLION (with a "B") in *criminal* penalties in the past. Every hear of Vioxx?
🚨BREAKING: American Academy of Pediatrics SLAMMED With Federal RICO Lawsuit for Vaccine Safety Fraud
AAP accused of operating a decades-long racketeering scheme that deceived America about vaccine safety for maximum profit.
Children's Health Defense and multiple plaintiffs… pic.twitter.com/wH97j52gnH— Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) January 21, 2026
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.