The "Generative Tax" in Antibody Discovery
We are currently generating "Schrödinger’s Antibodies."
Until physically tested, every AI-generated sequence exists in a quantum state: potential breakthrough or confident hallucination.
To resolve this state, we rely on "lab-in-the-loop." But there is a cost to that resolution.
This is the "Generative Tax."
Right now, many teams are using their high-throughput capacity just to filter out developability issues.
Even if AI allows us to screen smaller libraries, if a significant portion fails basic aggregation or solubility checks, you are paying tax on your lab capacity.
AI is undeniably shifting how we design libraries to lower this tax. And there is a growing divide on how:
- The "Data Scale" Camp: "Screen more. Feed the model until it learns the physics implicitly."
- The "Physics-First" Camp: "Simulate reality (MD/FEP) before the lab." Companies like Schrödinger and SandboxAQ are betting on validating the physics in silico to clean the list before synthesis.
There is also a third reality on the ground: The "Tax" is being paid by the scientists validating massive libraries with legacy analysis tools.
Regardless of whether you trust the Data or the Physics, the goal is the same: Stop hoping the cat is alive, and start predicting why it survives.
When you screen AI-generated libraries vs. natural immune libraries, are you seeing a higher "Generative Tax" (lower developability)? Or has the gap closed?