Welcome back. This week, biology got a little too ambitious. A tech billionaire wants to run your cells in a simulator, Harvard has finally drawn a map of your nose, a Bristol startup is brewing blood like beer, and a Texas lab has hatched two dozen chickens it now regrets. And because no week is complete without it, the President discovered a death cure. Grab a bowl.
Table of Contents
🤖 Mark Zuckerberg Is Building a Flight Simulator for Your Cells
NEWS
Mark Zuckerberg spent two decades building software that simulates human social behavior. Apparently, that wasn't ambitious enough, because now he wants to simulate human cells. On April 29, his nonprofit Biohub committed $500 million over five years to a Virtual Biology Initiative, with the goal of building AI "virtual cell" models that predict how a real cell responds to a drug or mutation before anyone touches a pipette.
The pitch is seductive. Roughly 90% of biology today happens in the lab and only 10% on computers, and CZI wants to flip that ratio. They already have prototype models like rBio, trained on virtual cell simulations. The bottleneck, in their own words, is data; they need "orders of magnitude more" than exists today, which is what most of that half-billion is meant to generate (NVIDIA is signed on as the compute partner).
Here's the interesting part, though: the headlines screaming "cure all disease" are quoting CZI's century-long mission statement, not a five-year deliverable. Their own scientists admit they don't yet know how much data is even needed to make these models reliable. To be fair, a working cell simulator would be a genuine gift, to practice the crashes without killing the (cellular) pilot.
Meanwhile, Futurism couldn't resist noting that Meta avoided $13.7 billion in federal taxes in 2025, which is either an awkward coincidence or a very expensive way to fund philanthropy. The simulation guy is simulating you now.
👃 Science Finally Drew a Map of Your Nose
RESEARCH
Science mapped vision, hearing, and touch decades ago. Smell was the sense left without a map, picked last in sensory-systems gym class. Turns out the nose was quietly hyper-organized the whole time and just never showed anyone its filing system. Harvard researchers have now drawn the first detailed spatial map of how smell receptors are arranged, published April 28 in Cell.
Mice carry around 1,100 different olfactory receptor types, and the old dogma said each neuron picks one essentially at random within broad zones. The new finding: receptors are laid out in tight, consistent stripes running top to bottom across the nasal lining, and that nasal map lines up neatly with the matching map in the brain's olfactory bulb.
The mechanism is a gradient of retinoic acid, a vitamin-A-derived signaling molecule, that tells each neuron which receptor to build based on where it sits. Add or remove it, and the entire map slides up or down like a misprinted barcode. Senior author Bob Datta's team sequenced roughly 5.5 million neurons across more than 300 mice to see it, arguably the most sequenced neural tissue ever.
A companion paper from Catherine Dulac's lab mapped how the system detects social and predator odors specifically. The catch: this is all in mice, and nobody yet knows whether human noses file things the same way. Still, for a field that assumed smell was gloriously disorganized, finding a ZIP-code system in there is a genuine plot twist.
🩸 A Startup Wants to Brew Your Blood Like Beer
NEWS & RESEARCH
Blood supply has always been an artisanal, donor-dependent business. Someone rolls up a sleeve, you match the type, and you hope inventory holds. A Bristol spin-out called Scarlet Therapeutics wants to make it more like software you can compile and ship. On May 7, the company announced its lab-grown red blood cells survived in the body with a half-life comparable to donated blood, and closed a £3.2 million seed round to push it forward.
The cells grow from an immortalized "master" cell line, descended from Bristol's BEL-A line, that can be expanded indefinitely and then matured into red cells. They're also engineered to be universal, transfusable regardless of blood type, which sidesteps the whole matching headache. One neat wrinkle: donated blood is a jumble of cells of every age, while these all start fresh, giving a more predictable survival curve.
To be clear, this is preclinical company data, not a peer-reviewed paper, and the announcement doesn't even say which animal it was tested in. Don't confuse it with RESTORE, the separate NHS and Bristol first-in-human trial that's been transfusing lab-grown cells into volunteers since 2021. Scarlet builds on that work but isn't running it.
The longer-term vision gets weird in a fun way: a "Treat" platform of red cells engineered as tiny circulating biomachines that mop up toxins, and an "Enhance" line meant to improve human performance, which is roughly one PR cycle from a dystopian energy-drink ad. Lab-grown blood is now available in a Pro Max tier.
🐣 A De-Extinction Lab Hatched Chicks and Then Had to Stop
NEWS
A de-extinction startup just accidentally became a high-tech poultry farm. Colossal Biosciences, the company chasing the woolly mammoth and the dodo, announced on May 19 that it hatched 26 healthy chicks from a 3D-printed "artificial egg," then hit the brakes because, in one scientist's words, they had too many chickens running around the lab.
The device is an oval 3D-printed lattice lined with a silicone-based semipermeable membrane that swaps oxygen and CO2 like a real shell, with a window on top to watch the embryo. Here's the asterisk: Colossal calls it a "fully artificial egg," but you still crack open a real laid egg and pour the contents in, which is why outside scientists say it's really an artificial eggshell. The genuine novelty is that the membrane works at normal room oxygen, and there's no peer-reviewed paper yet.
So why does a de-extinction company care about chicken plumbing? Birds are brutally hard to genetically engineer because development starts inside the hen before the egg is even laid, so you can't simply edit an embryo. And the company's giant moa, which towered up to nearly 12 feet with its neck extended, laid eggs so enormous no living bird could ever incubate one. An artificial shell may be the only route.
The endgame, per MIT Technology Review, is genuinely surreal: a perfectly ordinary chicken laying an egg with a moa embryo inside it. Which came first, the chicken or the prehistoric bird? Apparently, the answer is a 3D printer.
⚰️ The US President Found a Cure for Death (He Did Not)
And now, the week's required reminder that being President does not confer a medical degree. At a White House event touting the Right to Try Act, Trump claimed a drug brought dead people back to life. "We've taken people that were dead," he said, "given the last rites, gone, the kids are crying," then started them on this drug, and they recovered. "It works," he assured everyone.
Quick science check: no drug reverses death. What medicine can sometimes reverse, within a few minutes, is clinical death, when the heart and breathing stop, using CPR, defibrillation, or drugs like naloxone and epinephrine. Biological death, when cells starve of oxygen and the brain dies, stays firmly one-directional. The difference is a laptop that's asleep versus one that's been through a wood chipper.
The charitable read is that he conflated dramatic recoveries of very-much-alive critical patients with literal resurrection. The less charitable read, more than 30,000 false or misleading claims while in office, is his long relationship with the truth. Either way, "dead" is doing the heaviest lifting in that sentence since the metaverse's user numbers.
If there's a thread running through this week, it's the gap between a thundering headline and a quieter, stranger truth. Zuckerberg isn't curing all diseases; he's funding a very large data-collection project. Colossal didn't build an artificial egg; it built a fancy shell. Scarlet hasn't replaced the blood bank; it ran one promising animal study. And the President hasn't conquered death, he's just fuzzy on the definition. The science underneath is genuinely exciting. The marketing is simply louder than the data.
So which of these made you raise an eyebrow hardest? Hit reply and tell us, we read everything, even the notes insisting our chicken jokes have gone too far. And if a friend would enjoy watching biotech overpromise in real time, forward this their way.
Keep questioning everything (especially anything labeled "fully artificial"),
P.S. We regret to inform you that 26 lab chickens are living better lives than most of us. No predators, no rent, and a clear window to watch the sunrise. Consider it aspirational.