So glad to have gotten to work with Matt and the Bulletin team again - looking forward to hearing folksβ thoughts!
12.12.2025 15:44 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0@stephbatalis.bsky.social
Biotech/Biosecurity Research Fellow at CSET Georgetown, PhD in biochem from Wake Forest. Lover of science storytelling and watermelon Jolly Ranchers. Views are my own.
So glad to have gotten to work with Matt and the Bulletin team again - looking forward to hearing folksβ thoughts!
12.12.2025 15:44 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0πNew Data Snapshot
NIH funding helps fuel innovation directly β resulting in 84,000 U.S. patents β but its impact is felt much more broadly.
Almost half of all research areas in the global patent landscape contain NIH-funded research. cset.georgetown.edu/publication/...
The plan also promotes and emphasizes the importance of scientific, including biological, datasets- in line with @csetgeorgetown.bsky.social recommendations for the plan, which you can read here: cset.georgetown.edu/publication/..., and with other CSET work: cset.georgetown.edu/publication/....
25.07.2025 14:26 β π 1 π 1 π¬ 0 π 0Focusing on bio, one provision is a federal funding requirement for DNA synthesis screening- a useful tool in the toolbox for limiting biological risk.
Check out @stephbatalis.bsky.social and I's piece breaking down the kind of decisions screeners have to make: thebulletin.org/2025/04/how-...
On Tuesday, scientists held an event organized by House Democrats in which they stood in front of posters outlining their work β and the federal cuts that now threaten it.
09.07.2025 11:55 β π 852 π 222 π¬ 21 π 11Antimicrobial resistance is a huge issue and an oft-forgotten killer. It kills more people each year than HIV/AIDS or malaria.
This article is fascinating- it points out that while much of the AMR prevention discussion focuses on overuse of antimicrobials, underuse can also be a major issue.
Amidst all the discussion about AI safety, how exactly do we figure out whether a model is safe?
There's no perfect method, but safety evaluations are the best tool we have.
That said, different evals answer different questions about a model!
"Red-teaming" isn't a catch-all term (or methodology!) to evaluate AI safety. So, what else do we have in the toolbox?
In our recent blog post, we explore the different questions we can ask about safety, how we can start to measure them, and what it means for AIxBio. Check it out! β¬οΈ
As I wrote in Defense One, "Dismantling critical preparedness offices, cutting infrastructure and funding, and allowing misinformation to derail the response are not just bad for healthcareβtheyβre dangerous national security signals." www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/0...
16.05.2025 15:46 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0News like this isn't just a concern for public health practitioners - it should also be a big red flag for U.S. national security folks.
America's biodefense strategy uses robust health infrastructure to deter bad actors. Right now, we're tearing down our own defenses so adversaries don't have to.
A Trump executive order calls for putting an end to "dangerous gain-of-function research" -- prompting experts to share concerns about its potential impact on infectious disease research. @stephbatalis.bsky.social @raz524.bsky.social
www.medpagetoday.com/special-repo...
This has only become more relevant in the past week. Research cuts, new hurdles for vaccine trials, and tariffs on key medical countermeasures arenβt just risking Americans' healthβtheyβre dismantling U.S. biodefense so our adversaries donβt have to.
@defenseone.bsky.social
The Pandora Report is easily one of my favorite newsletters right now. A great one-stop shop for timely health + biosecurity policy news, especially with too many βBreaking Newsβ alerts flying around fight now to follow. Plus, it always sends me down rabbit holes with great links. Highly recommend.
08.05.2025 14:38 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0To be very clear: the U.S. should prioritize public health for its own sake. Every person deserves access to systems that protect them from preventable disease.
But itβs also true that national security depends on a strong public health foundation to detect, contain, and treat dangerous outbreaks.
π¨ Latest op-ed is out in Defense One!
βDismantling critical preparedness offices, cutting infrastructure and funding, and allowing misinformation to derail the response are not just bad for healthcareβtheyβre dangerous national security signals.β
www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/0...
Thanks for sharing, Emmy!
01.05.2025 00:03 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0When customers order synthesized DNA, how do companies know whether it's safe to send?
For @thebulletin.org, CSET's @stephbatalis.bsky.social & @vikramvenkatram.bsky.social explore what it takes to keep things safe. thebulletin.org/2025/04/how-...
In our latest piece for @thebulletin.org, @vikramvenkatram.bsky.social and I put YOU, the reader, in the shoes of a π§¬DNA synthesis provider𧬠to demonstrate how much tougher customer screening is than it may seem, and why guidance would be helpful for providers trying to make tricky decisions.β¬οΈ
07.04.2025 14:54 β π 4 π 1 π¬ 0 π 0"We all rely on science [...] Businesses and farmers rely on science and engineering for product innovation, technological advances, and weather forecasting. Science helps humanity protect the planet and keeps pollutants and toxins out of our air, water, and food."
docs.google.com/document/d/1...
NEW: Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)& Trump's former NatSec Advisor Matt Pottinger make the case that funding for scientific R&D isn't a gift to academia. It's vital to U.S. national security, as China, the United States' primary strategic adversary, is already investing heavily in R&D.
shorturl.at/PgUK0
Not only this, but most of the NIH research was to ID biological targets/causes of disease rather than direct drug developmentβwork that often isn't in the domain of the private sector. Cutting federal funding would mean less of the foundational science that makes future breakthroughs possible.
01.04.2025 16:04 β π 2 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0A white man in a blue jacket holds a sign that reads βIβd rather be in labβ
A beautiful day and the scientists just wanna science, man.
07.03.2025 18:53 β π 382 π 42 π¬ 2 π 0TLDR: We canβt try to gain global leadership *and* destabilize our NIH/NSF funding edge.
We arenβt just at risk of losing out on essential scientific advances. The global leader also gets to set global norms, shape future tech, and a HUGE economic advantage.
eto.tech/blog/federal...
I was asked on a panel yesterday what keeps me up at night: Itβs this.π Even though my day job is to think about bioweapons + bad actors, THIS is what has me fearful. The long tail of this could undermine bio/med innovation, public health infrastructure, and the economies built on them for decades.
21.02.2025 15:23 β π 7 π 3 π¬ 0 π 0At a time of intense global competition, reducing funding to NIH and NSF isnβt just a budget issue. Itβs a strategic misstep that could undermine U.S. influence in biotech and AI for decades.
Read more in my recent post with CSET's ETOπ
Overall, Evo 2 has captured well-deserved attention. It has me excited to see what's next in the AIxBio space...and curious about how AIxBio policy will continue to evolve with new cutting-edge advances.
20.02.2025 22:14 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 03. NVIDIAβs announcement simply calls Evo 2 a "foundation model," highlighting bio/policy/developer differences on shared terminology. To a biologist, Evo 2's range *is* broad-purpose. If policies aren't meant to capture bio AI, that needs to be explicitly stated in the regulatory language.
20.02.2025 22:14 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 02. Even without the EO, Evo 2βs team addressed biosecurity - mainly by removing viruses that infect eukaryotes from training data. However, those sequences could be re-added since the model is open-source, and it's unclear whether they red-teamed other biological threats like bacteria or toxins.
20.02.2025 22:14 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 01. With the Biden EO on AI now revoked, Evo 2's massive size would have triggered the EOβs reporting requirements. Trained with an estimated 2.25 x 10^24 FLOPs, it far exceeds the EOβs 10^23 threshold for biological models. But now, no such obligation exists.
20.02.2025 22:14 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0Evo 2's release yesterday isnβt just impressive (though it is!)βitβs also making waves in the AIxBio policy space as the largest fully-open biological AI model to date. π§¬
β¬οΈHere are a few policy implications Iβll be keeping an eye on: