I understand your point, and obviously, you have a strong point. NAMs are inherently limited, no question about it. But whole-organism test models have their own limitations and gaps in clinical translation. Animal model translation into humans is notoriously low % of success. But I don't want to go deep into arguments while one approach is worse or better etc... I would say that I see NAM's direction still very valuable, exactly because it is complementary to the whole organizm's strategy (at least, should be). It is not supposed to be a complete substitute.
If you mean this specific mission, though, it is a fair question.
A big acquisition week, indeed!
And we are only 3 months into 2026… I expect a crazy year in biotech and tech in general.
They’re not studying life – they’re studying isolated fragments under artificial stress.
And calling it human physiology.
That’s not just incomplete. It’s expensive misdirection.
I understand your point, and obviously, you have a strong point. NAMs are inherently limited, no question about it. But whole-organism test models have their own limitations and gaps in clinical translation. Animal model translation into humans is notoriously low % of success. But I don't want to go deep into arguments while one approach is worse or better etc... I would say that I see NAM's direction still very valuable, exactly because it is complementary to the whole organizm's strategy (at least, should be). It is not supposed to be a complete substitute.
If you mean this specific mission, though, it is a fair question.