@AlexanderKalian: Biology has an exteme lack of data, relative to what AI needs - I am sorry to say. I am not sure how anyone can claim o…
Summary
Alexander Kalian argues that biology lacks sufficient high-quality data for AI, while César de la Fuente counters that data exists but needs better organization, highlighting the AllTheBacteria preprint as an open platform for bacterial genomes.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/22/26, 06:35 PM
Biology has an exteme lack of data, relative to what AI needs - I am sorry to say.
I am not sure how anyone can claim otherwise.
For example, there are tens of thousands protein targets relevant to human disease. Our data on what binds to each is <20 data points, for most.
It’s also overwhelmingly biased to things that strongly bind, rather than things which don’t.
Deep learning models for molecules binding to a particular target typically need ~1,000+ data points for training, to generalise well onto new data.
Deep learning models also need balance in training data.
And don’t get me started on data relevant to ADME, metabolites, downstream pathways, protein-protein interactions, different proteoforms, epigenetics, toxicology etc.
César de la Fuente (@delafuentelab): Biology has no shortage of data. The challenge is to organize it well enough that scientists—and machines—can learn from it.
Our latest preprint presents AllTheBacteria: an open, community-built platform that transforms 2.44 million public bacterial and archaeal genomes into a
Similar Articles
@AnthropicAI: New Science Blog: Why has AI advanced faster in coding than in biology? To agents, bio databases are like cities built …
Anthropic's science blog argues that AI progress in biology lags behind coding because biological data infrastructure is not designed for agents. A case study shows that adding a deterministic retrieval layer (gget virus) boosts accuracy to nearly 100%.
Preprint: "Is biology necessary to advance biology?" A team of engineers, AI-using biologists, and philosophers argue that AI maps known biology, but embodied scientists are still needed to find what models miss.
A preprint arguing that AI can map known biology but cannot perform 'kind formation'—the minting of new variables and constraints—which requires the embodied engagement of human scientists. The authors propose a curriculum to train scientists as 'detectors of the unparameterized' to complement AI in biological discovery.
@rohanpaul_ai: New Anthropic research shows AI agents may look brilliant at code, but in biology they can fail before the science star…
Anthropic research reveals that AI agents struggle with biology databases, producing highly variable answers for the same query (e.g., Ebola sequence counts ranging from 5 to 106 vs. expected 266), but adding a repeatable retrieval tool significantly improves consistency and accuracy.
Jun 8, 2026SciencePaving the way for agents in biology
Anthropic researcher Laura Luebbert argues that biological data infrastructure needs to be redesigned for AI agents, using a case study where even strong models failed to reliably retrieve sequence data from NCBI Virus until a deterministic retrieval layer was added.
AI is getting better at analysis. The problem is still the data.
The author argues that AI analysis quality is limited more by data access and reliability than by reasoning, and that structured datasets dramatically improve outputs.