Imagine I were invited to join a lab, and was given access to their data. I frequently talk with lab members, and I help them with writing up their results. Then, suddenly, I publish a grand paper summarizing their work, claiming that any novel insights were entirely my own, and didn’t give any credit to that generous lab.
Would you accept my claim to full credit?
That’s precisely what Anthropic has done!
When Anthropic, the artificial intelligence giant, unveiled findings from its new biology lab last week, its scientists claimed to have used A.I. agents to discover new enzymes with promise for biotechnology.
Some scientists were quick to cast doubt on the achievement. Then Mario Rodríguez Mestre, a computational biologist, said this weekend that he and his colleagues had been studying the enzymes and their associated molecules — which Anthropic calls ARTs — for four years.
Dr. Mestre and his colleagues have yet to publish their findings. But for the past three years, they have regularly used Anthropic’s A.I. models as they have written code, drafted manuscripts and performed other tasks.
In doing so, Dr. Mestre said he and colleagues shared key findings about the enzymes with Anthropic.
I don’t understand how they can claim that they didn’t suck evidence and arguments from a human science lab — that’s their whole business model! What’s not good for their business, though, is stealing credit, which has a natural consequence.
Dr. Mestre had become increasingly enthusiastic about using A.I. for his science. Just last month, he began using Claude Science, a new Anthropic A.I. tool tailored to researchers.
But after Anthropic’s announcement last week, he is winding down his projects with Claude and shifting to other models.
“I’m shutting down everything,” he said.
Why would anyone type their hard-earned evidence directly into a machine that will blithely steal it?







