Search

Automation transformed various aspects of our human civilization, revolutionizing industries and streamlining processes. In the domain of scientific inquiry, automated approaches emerged as powerful tools, holding promise for accelerating discovery, enhancing reproducibility, and overcoming the traditional impediments to scientific progress. This article evaluates the scope of automation within scientific practice and assesses recent approaches. Furthermore, it discusses different perspectives to the following questions: Where do the greatest opportunities lie for automation in scientific practice?; What are the current bottlenecks of automating scientific practice?; and What are significant ethical and practical consequences of automating scientific practice? By discussing the motivations behind automated science, analyzing the hurdles encountered, and examining its implications, this article invites researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders to navigate the rapidly evolving frontier of automated scientific practice.

The concept of personalised medicine in cancer therapy is becoming increasingly important. There already exist drugs administered specifically for patients with tumours presenting well-defined mutations. However, the field is still in its infancy, and personalised treatments are far from being standard of care. Personalised medicine is often associated with the utilisation of omics data. Yet, implementation of multi-omics data has proven difficult, due to the variety and scale of the information within the data, as well as the complexity behind the myriad of interactions taking place within the cell. An alternative approach to precision medicine is to employ a function-based profile of the cell. This involves screening a range of drugs against patient derived cells. Here we demonstrate a proof-of-concept, where a collection of drug screens against a highly diverse set of patient-derived cell lines, are leveraged to identify putative treatment options for a 'new patient'. We show that this methodology is highly efficient in ranking the drugs according to their activity towards the target cells. We argue that this approach offers great potential, as activities can be efficiently imputed from various subsets of the drug treated cell lines that do not necessarily originate from the same tissue type., Comment: 3 figures and 5 tables

The cutting edge of applying AI to science is the closed-loop automation of scientific research: robot scientists. We have previously developed two robot scientists: `Adam' (for yeast functional biology), and `Eve' (for early-stage drug design)). We are now developing a next generation robot scientist Genesis. With Genesis we aim to demonstrate that an area of science can be investigated using robot scientists unambiguously faster, and at lower cost, than with human scientists. Here we report progress on the Genesis project. Genesis is designed to automatically improve system biology models with thousands of interacting causal components. When complete Genesis will be able to initiate and execute in parallel one thousand hypothesis-led closed-loop cycles of experiment per-day. Here we describe the core Genesis hardware: the one thousand computer-controlled $\mu$-bioreactors. For the integrated Mass Spectrometry platform we have developed AutonoMS, a system to automatically run, process, and analyse high-throughput experiments. We have also developed Genesis-DB, a database system designed to enable software agents access to large quantities of structured domain information. We have developed RIMBO (Revisions for Improvements of Models in Biology Ontology) to describe the planned hundreds of thousands of changes to the models. We have demonstrated the utility of this infrastructure by developed two relational learning bioinformatic projects. Finally, we describe LGEM+ a relational learning system for the automated abductive improvement of genome-scale metabolic models.

The process of developing theories and models and testing them with experiments is fundamental to the scientific method. Automating the entire scientific method then requires not only automation of the induction of theories from data, but also experimentation from design to implementation. This is the idea behind a robot scientist -- a coupled system of AI and laboratory robotics that has agency to test hypotheses with real-world experiments. In this chapter we explore some of the fundamentals of robot scientists in the philosophy of science. We also map the activities of a robot scientist to machine learning paradigms, and argue that the scientific method shares an analogy with active learning. We demonstrate these concepts using examples from previous robot scientists, and also from Genesis: a next generation robot scientist designed for research in systems biology, comprising a micro-fluidic system with 1000 computer-controlled micro-bioreactors and interpretable models based in controlled vocabularies and logic., Comment: 19 pages, book chapter

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed AI and achieved breakthrough performance on a wide range of tasks that require human intelligence. In science, perhaps the most interesting application of LLMs is for hypothesis formation. A feature of LLMs, which results from their probabilistic structure, is that the output text is not necessarily a valid inference from the training text. These are 'hallucinations', and are a serious problem in many applications. However, in science, hallucinations may be useful: they are novel hypotheses whose validity may be tested by laboratory experiments. Here we experimentally test the use of LLMs as a source of scientific hypotheses using the domain of breast cancer treatment. We applied the LLM GPT4 to hypothesize novel pairs of FDA-approved non-cancer drugs that target the MCF7 breast cancer cell line relative to the non-tumorigenic breast cell line MCF10A. In the first round of laboratory experiments GPT4 succeeded in discovering three drug combinations (out of 12 tested) with synergy scores above the positive controls. These combinations were itraconazole + atenolol, disulfiram + simvastatin and dipyridamole + mebendazole. GPT4 was then asked to generate new combinations after considering its initial results. It then discovered three more combinations with positive synergy scores (out of four tested), these were disulfiram + fulvestrant, mebendazole + quinacrine and disulfiram + quinacrine. A limitation of GPT4 as a generator of hypotheses was that its explanations for them were formulaic and unconvincing. We conclude that LLMs are an exciting novel source of scientific hypotheses., Comment: 13 pages, 6 tables, 1 figure. Supplementary information available