CTO Leash Biosciences

Salt Lake City, UT
Joined April 2009
Teaching AI to cure cancer will require lab-in-the-loop data. But models learn poorly from actions they wouldn’t have chosen. This is why we premeasure a very large space of possible experiments, so models can learn to run them on-policy. New paper: github.com/Leash-Labs/minos-…
1
1
3
198
Some people are asking why we go through all this when we could just train the model on all the data, or jump straight to our best hit in the dataset. We don't want to give the model a fish, we are trying to teach it to fish.
Last week we released Minos, our framework of premeasured experimental worlds for agentic science. Minos is not for obtaining the best scientific result, it's for understanding how AI agents make scientific decisions and maybe help them make better ones. Let's dig in! 1/
1
1
17
600
By forcing the model to slow down and conduct experiment loops, the model is prevented from memorizing. Gains from training then come from either better intelligence, better experimental methodology, and better intuition about what will improve the molecules.
1
2
59
All of which are needed capabilities to make AI medchemists
2
32
andrew blevins retweeted
To improve agentic drug discovery, we created physical interrogation at compute speed. We can now ask questions that'd be hard with a lab-in-the-loop. One question we had was whether agents had existing drug knowledge baked into their weights that could help. 1/
Agentic models can act, observe consequences, and decide what to do next. This is great for coding, but if you want them to do science, lab experiments take forever. To fix this, we made a lab-in-the-loop with zero latency! 1/10
4
7
1
64
5,666
From Wet Lab to RL Env: 10,000 Drug-Discovery Campaigns in a Weekend @LeashBio’s @allmeasures explains how DNA-encoded libraries generate billions of protein–molecule measurements, why no team in Leash’s Kaggle competition beat chance on an unseen chemical library, how public datasets can teach AI to recognize the chemist instead of understand the chemistry, why engineering protein mutations exposes model memorization, and how replayable experimental worlds let agents run over 10,000 medicinal chemistry campaigns in a weekend. Plus: Hermes vs. Boltz, moving from DEL hits to mouse studies in six months, and why experimental rigor and the Bitter Lesson of scaling could unlock a new generation of AI-driven drug discovery.
5
5
2
24
3,263
andrew blevins retweeted
String theory is what happens when an intelligent system is starved of sensory input and starts hallucinating. Intelligence needs grounding. For this reason, intelligence is practically never the bottleneck to solving impactful problems. The bottleneck is iterated contact with reality.
766
1,308
334
12,484
5,506,968
andrew blevins retweeted
Agentic models can act, observe consequences, and decide what to do next. This is great for coding, but if you want them to do science, lab experiments take forever. To fix this, we made a lab-in-the-loop with zero latency! 1/10
2
23
5
76
11,169
andrew blevins retweeted
Imagine being vaporized by a slab of tungsten travelling at 99.999% of the speed of light because some wookie stoner gave away the solar system's location to an alien civ while astral projecting on an psychonautic Ayahuasca trip to heal her STDs and learn about the pyramids.
248
383
62
5,421
189,905
andrew blevins retweeted
Current protein models seem to only memorize their wild-type training sets and lack physics understanding. One nice way forward is physically engineering mutations and then taking more ground-truth measurements. It works. We've already shown this! (1/n)
Adversarial Sequence Mutations in AlphaFold and ESMFold Reveal Nonphysical Structural Invariance, Confidence Failures, and Concerns for Protein Design 1. A new adversarial study systematically evaluates AlphaFold 3's robustness by introducing point mutations (up to 70%) and deletions (up to 10%) across 200 proteins, revealing striking structural invariance that raises fundamental questions about the model's biophysical reasoning capabilities. 2. The most concerning finding: AlphaFold 3 maintains virtually identical predicted structures even when 40% of residues are mutated with deliberately destabilizing substitutions, or when 10% of residues are deleted—perturbations that would catastrophically destabilize real proteins. 3. This structural invariance persists even for experimentally validated fold-switching proteins, where specific mutations are known to induce alternative conformations. AlphaFold 3 fails to capture these biologically critical transitions, suggesting limited sequence-structure coupling. 4. Confidence metrics prove unreliable: AlphaFold 3's ranking score selects the most accurate structure only ~25% of the time, and these scores correlate more strongly with template availability in the training set than with actual prediction quality. 5. Comparative analysis with ESMFold reveals that the protein language model-based approach shows significantly greater sensitivity to mutations, with structures diverging more rapidly as sequence perturbations increase—suggesting superior learned sequence-structure relationships despite lower absolute accuracy. 6. The study's template analysis provides quantitative evidence that AlphaFold 3's confidence reflects structural similarity to training-set exemplars (Pearson r=0.39) rather than genuine biophysical assessment, indicating heavy reliance on memorized patterns over learned principles. 7. These findings have profound implications for the entire AlphaFold ecosystem: protein design tools like RFdiffusion, binder design methods like BoltzGen and BindCraft, and drug discovery pipelines may inherit these fundamental limitations, potentially generating non-physical sequences or missing viable candidates. 8. The work identifies critical gaps in current structure prediction—models trained primarily on stable, wild-type proteins lack exposure to destabilized mutants and misfolded states, limiting their ability to generalize beyond the training distribution. 📜Paper: biorxiv.org/content/10.64898… #AlphaFold #AlphaFold3 #ProteinStructurePrediction #StructuralBiology #ProteinDesign #MachineLearning #Bioinformatics #ComputationalBiology #AIforScience #ProteinEngineering #DeepLearning #Biophysics
3
16
115
15,661
andrew blevins retweeted
Footage claimed to show an attack helicopter, possibly an AH-64 “Apache” with the U.S. Army, striking an unknown location with rockets tonight in Venezuela.
130
749
131
5,638
597,315
andrew blevins retweeted
(looking at the METR graph) we just need a 6-month pause to flatten the curve
3
3
56
3,596
18
711
24
10,485
173,513
andrew blevins retweeted
Specific recommendations for FDA and regulators so we do not lose to China. •First-in-human (FIH) trials are the earliest and most important value-inflection point in biotech, determining whether early companies can raise the capital needed to advance development. •FDA’s pre-IND and IND processes create significant uncertainty for companies. Pre-IND recommendations are non-binding, companies typically receive only a single meeting, and guidance can be inconsistent. As a result, sponsors often over-engineer studies to avoid the risk of clinical holds after IND submission. •The U.S. is steadily losing FIH trials overseas. More U.S. biotech are choosing to conduct FIH studies in China and Australia due to faster, more predictable, and lower-cost pathways abroad. •Piloting a mechanism like Australia’s clinical trial notification (CTN) pathway would allow companies to begin FIH trials after ethics approval and FDA notification, dramatically improving speed and predictability. •Standards would not be lowered: responsibility shifts to sponsors, while FDA retains authority to audit, intervene, and halt trials if safety concerns arise. •Retaining FIH trials is strategic, preserving U.S. leadership in translational science, biotech investment, and national-security-critical countermeasure development.
If we lose to China in biotech, the proximal, nucleating cause, will be the failure of our regulatory apparatus to respond with a more decentralized, IRB and Investigator-driven, fast path to human proof of concept, without massive manufacturing burden. Fix it.
19
56
13
349
60,850
andrew blevins retweeted
>looking for a cancer cure >ask twitter hype poster whether the study in tweet is human or mouse data >hype poster doesn’t understand >pull out diagram showing the difference between a man and a mouse >he laughs and says “it’s a good study sir” >read study >it’s mouse data
5
9
1
118
7,439
We created a leaderboard ranking chemists on ChEMBL by how distinct and recognizable their molecules are.
1
2
200