Academia rewards deep thinking, the long grind, and productivity (or the illusion of it). Chess also rewards all three, except you don’t have to write any papers or produce anything of value. Here are three reasons why you should play chess instead of doing your work.
Continue readingCategory Archives: Commentary
Are you addicted to dopamine?
Ever since the pandemic my attachment to screens and media has slowly crept up on me, and I suspect that’s the case for many of us. It hit me when I started panicked after leaving my flat without headphones, thinking “how could I ever walk around with just my thoughts?” I decided to significantly reduce my technology usage and I keep getting the sense that I’m experiencing some kind of withdrawal from the constant media and dopamine hits, but I was curious just what’s going on, and how bad it is.
What does dopamine actually do and is “dopamine addiction” scientifically accurate?
Continue reading
Exploding Barbers (Paradoxes — Part I)
Prelude
I came upon a traveller on a dust-swept road at dusk.
Along the cliff’s high edge it ran, where seabirds rode the gust;
Upon a stone he rested still, with gaze toward the deep,
As though the sea held secrets vast that mortals may not keep.
Behind us wound the ancient way through heather wild and wood,
To where a castle, firm and fair, upon the hilltop stood.
How reliable are affinity datasets in practice?
The Data Bottleneck in AI-Powered Drug Discovery
The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). These technologies offer the potential to escape the industry’s persistent challenges of high costs, protracted development timelines, and staggering failure rates. From accelerating the identification of novel biological targets to optimizing the properties of lead compounds, AI is poised to enhance the precision and efficiency of drug discovery at nearly every stage
Yet, this revolutionary potential is constrained by a fundamental dependency. The power of modern AI, particularly the deep learning (DL) models that excel at complex pattern recognition, is directly proportional to the volume, diversity, and quality of the data they are trained on. This creates a critical bottleneck: the high-quality experimental data required to train these models—specifically, the protein-ligand binding affinity values that quantify the strength of an interaction—are notoriously scarce, expensive to generate, and often of inconsistent quality or locked within proprietary databases.
Continue readingGPT-5 achieves state-of-the-art chemical intelligence
I have run ChemIQ (our chemical reasoning benchmark) on GPT-5. The model achieves state-of-the-art performance with substantial improvements in the ability to interpret SMILES strings. Read my analysis and initial findings below. Scroll to the end for some cool demos.

Figure 1: Success rates for each model on the ChemIQ reasoning benchmark. Horizontal brackets between adjacent bars indicate the result of a two-tailed McNemar’s test comparing paired outcomes for the same questions. Significance levels are shown as: n.s. (not significant, p ≥ 0.05), * (p < 0.05), ** (p < 0.01), and *** (p < 0.001).
Attention Is All You Need – A Moral Case
It turns out that giving neural networks attention gives you some pretty amazing results. The attention mechanism allowed neural language models to ingest vast amounts of data in a highly parallelised manner, efficiently learning what to pay the most attention to in a contextually aware manner. This computational breakthrough launched the LLM-powered AI revolution we’re living through. But what if attention isn’t just a computational trick? What if the same principle that allows transformers to focus on what matters from a sea of information also lies at the heart of consciousness, perception, and even morality itself? (Ok, maybe this is a bit of a stretch, but hear me out.)
To understand the connection, we need to look at how perception really works. Modern neuroscience reveals that experience is fundamentally subjective and generative. We’re not passive receivers of objective reality through our senses, we’re active constructors of our own experience. According to predictive processing theory, our minds constantly generate models of reality, and our sensory input is then used to provide an ‘error’ of these predictions. But the extraordinary point here is that we never ‘see’ these sensory inputs, only our mind’s best guess of how the world should be, updated by sensory feedback. As consciousness researcher Anil Seth puts it “Reality is a controlled hallucination… an action-oriented construction, rather than passive registration of an objective external reality”, or in the words of Anaïs Nin, half a century earlier, “We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.”
Continue readingEye of the World by Robert Jordan: A Concise Review
I was recently devastated to hear that Amazon Prime has cancelled the Wheel of Time TV Show, a fantasy epic based on the novels of Robert Jordan. I recently binge-watched the entire show and found it to improve throughout, with the third and most recent season being the best.
In my grief, I turned to something dark – reading the books instead.
I have recently finished the first book (of 12) and thought I would give my thoughts on the story and the storytelling of Jordan as a concise book review so I can get my final Blopig out of the way.
Continue readingDebugging code for science: Fantastic Bugs and Where to Find Them.
The simulation results make no sense … My proteins are moving through walls and this dihedral angle is negative; my neural network won’t learn anything, I’ve tried for days to install this software and I still get an error.
Feel familiar? Welcome to scientific programming. Bugs aren’t just annoying roadblocks – they’re mysterious phenomena that make you question your understanding of reality itself. If you’ve ever found yourself debugging scientific code, you know it’s a different beast compared to traditional software engineering. In the commercial software world, a bug might mean a button doesn’t work or data isn’t saved correctly. In scientific computing, a bug might mean your climate model predicts an ice age next Tuesday, or your protein folding algorithm creates molecular structures that couldn’t possibly exist in our universe (cough).
Continue readingThe business of health: research and funding from academia to big pharma
In a world in which the probability of clinical success is just 10%-20% for new medicines, pharmaceutical multinationals increasingly turn to academia and biotech as a source of “de-risked” technology for their pipelines. This exchange of ideas, equity and capital depends on firm relationships between entities having apparently divergent interests: from not-for-profit research to international commerce.
As a former pharma contract negotiator, I spent much of my past life attempting to find common ground with university researchers and biotech leadership teams. In 2021, I had the privilege of returning to academia in the UK after a prolonged hiatus, and – more recently – of working with start-ups. In this blog, I will comment on some of the surprising trends I have observed in how pharma, biotech and academics balance the conduct of meaningful research with the requirements of their respective sectors. The views herein are entirely my own.
Continue readingThe Sprawl: Slogs in Scribing and Software
“Dead shopping malls rise like mountains beyond mountains. And there’s no end in sight.”
Régine Chassagne
Sometimes I wonder would my PhD have been simpler if I had broken up the findings into three smaller papers. In the end there were 7 main figures, 7 supplementary figures, 5 supplementary tables and one supplementary data section in one solitary publication. The contents of a 3 year 3 month tour through the helper T cell response to the inner proteins of the flu virus. The experimental worked comprised crystal structures, cell assays, tetramer staining and TCR sequencing. During the following years as it was batted back and forth between last authors, different journals and reviewers I continually reworked the figures and added extra bioinformatic analyses. I was fortunate that others in the lab kindly performed some in vivo experiments which helped cement the findings. It all started in January 2014, but the paper wasn’t published until July 2020. There are many terms which could be used to describe how the process of writing and re-writing felt as it dragged on through my 3 year post doc, for the purpose of this very public blog I will refer to it as, “a slog.
Continue reading