
FDA Embraces AI To Accelerate Drug Review Process
In a landmark for U.S. public health digital transformation, the FDA said it will deploy generative AI enterprise-wide by June 2025. The aggressive adoption comes after the agency finalized its inaugural AI-enabled scientific review pilot, positioning it to revolutionize operations during a period of growing regulatory complexity and data quantity.
From the FDA's official announcement, the new AI approach of the agency will speed up document review, track compliance with regulations and assist in scientific analysis. More importantly the AI upgrade comes with a public promise that it will occur without compromise on safety, privacy or decision integrity. While the agency did not reply to comment request for this article, the public statement made it clear that no AI models by themselves would be making decisions, and all output will continue to be reviewed by humans.
'This is a game-changer technology that has enabled me to perform scientific review tasks in minutes that used to take three days,' said Jinzhong (Jin) Liu, Deputy Director, Office of Drug Evaluation Sciences, Office of New Drugs in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
For a regulatory agency whose remit spans every therapeutic area from Alzheimer's disease to Zika virus, the capacity for rapid and responsible handling of data is more than a tech upgrade. It's a public health necessity.
FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, M.D., M.P.H., said the success of the first AI-assisted scientific review pilot is driving the accelerated timeline.
"We need to value our scientists' time and reduce the amount of non-productive busywork that has historically consumed much of the review process. The agency-wide deployment of these capabilities holds tremendous promise in accelerating the review time for new therapies,' said Dr. Makary.
The agency has also established a new Center of Excellence and AI Governance Board, and has already deployed secure AI platforms for internal testing and rollout.
The FDA's CDER division conducted the first AI-assisted review pilot with generative AI for reviewing documents that were pertinent to Investigational New Drug applications. The outcome was favorable.
According to the statement, FDA intends to scale up its generative AI capabilities across all centers on a secure, shared platform. Improvements in usability, broader document integration and customization of outputs to the needs of specific centers, with strong information security and adherence to FDA policy, will be the focus of future efforts.
The agency will also continually evaluate performance, gather user feedback and enhance features to address the changing needs of FDA staff and further its public health mission. More information and updates on the initiative will be released in June.
Fouad Akkad, ex-Pfizer and Abbott executive and founder of pharma AI consultancy WePhlan, thinks this is a significant cultural change in the way industry and regulators will communicate.
'We're entering a phase where regulators aren't just observers — they're becoming digital collaborators,' Akkad wrote in an email response. 'That changes the dynamic entirely. It incentivizes pharma to improve their own AI literacy to keep pace.'
He also envisions practical uses for drug development timelines.
'AI won't cut corners, but it can cut down time-to-decision. If the FDA can process supporting documents faster without losing analytical rigor, that's a win for patients and sponsors.'
But Akkad warned that generative AI must also have clear mechanisms for ensuring fairness, reproducibility and accountability.
'Let's not mistake automation for objectivity,' he said. 'Biases in training data can easily be baked into model outputs, so transparency in methodology is going to be crucial.'
He further added that transparency doesn't just mean algorithmic disclosures — it's cross-functional communication.
'When I train pharma teams, I emphasize the importance of translating AI results into language regulatory bodies understand. FDA's use of AI should ideally foster better dialogue, not obscure it.'
As the June go-live deadline approaches, FDA's launch will be closely monitored not just by pharma sponsors, but by other government regulators around the world.
'There have been years of talk about AI capabilities in frameworks, conferences and panels but we cannot afford to keep talking. It is time to take action. The opportunity to reduce tasks that once took days to just minutes is too important to delay,' said Dr. Makary.
If successful, the U.S. could ultimately be setting a standard for how AI can responsibly scale within government. While generative AI is not taking the place of FDA scientists it will be a force multiplier — one that has the potential to bring about a new era of speed, precision and data transparency to drug development and oversight.
The question is not whether industry will follow. It's whether they'll be able to keep up.
While the FDA's announcement is a regulatory turning point, it also sends a signal to an industry already wrestling with how to apply AI at scale. A recent 2025 clinical research workforce analysis from Parexel found that artificial intelligence is reshaping the clinical trial landscape — from study design to data monitoring and regulatory submissions. Yet for most biopharma firms, the technology still outpaces team readiness.
'AI is vastly improving all areas of drug development,' the report notes, 'powering our analysis of complex datasets to derive new insights faster and automating manual tasks… but realizing the full potential requires people with cross-functional skill sets who understand both data science and clinical research.'
Despite broad optimism, the study revealed slow adoption across the sector, with many leaders citing a lack of AI fluency and insufficient training infrastructure. Like the FDA's approach, the report emphasized the need for 'human-in-the-loop' systems — where AI augments, rather than replaces, clinical staff — and warned that overlooking the upskilling imperative could limit AI's impact. The Parexel study concludes that effective AI integration requires not just tools but talent.
That insight dovetails with the FDA's own approach — a focus on governance, transparency and retaining human oversight. As regulators and industry stakeholders move in parallel, the challenge ahead is clear: build a workforce as adaptive as the AI technology itself.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Apple might be building its own AI ‘answer engine'
Apple has formed a new team to build a ChatGPT-like app, according to according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. This team — reportedly called Answers, Knowledge, and Information — is working to build an 'answer engine' that can respond to questions using information from across the web. This could be a standalone app or provide search capabilities in Siri, Safari, and other Apple products. Gurman also notes that Apple is advertising for jobs with this team, specifically looking for applicants who have experience with search algorithms and engine development. While Apple has already integrated ChatGPT into Siri, a more personalized, AI-powered update to the voice assistant has been repeatedly delayed. Apple might also have to alter its search deal with Google as a result of the latter company's antitrust defeat. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bitcoin vs Stocks: Which $15,000 Investment Would Make You a Billionaire?
Imagine it's mid-2010, and you have $15,000 to invest. You're considering a new digital currency called bitcoin, trading at just 10 cents per coin, or putting your money into promising stocks like Nvidia, Tesla or Netflix. Read More: Discover Next: I asked ChatGPT to run the numbers on what might be the most expensive investment decision in modern history. The artificial intelligence's analysis reveals just how dramatically different asset classes can perform (and why timing really is everything when it comes to investing). The $15,000 Investment Scenario: Mid-2010 To make this comparison fair, ChatGPT set the investment date at mid-2010, when both bitcoin and several now-famous stocks were available. This timing is important because it represents a moment when ordinary investors could realistically have made any of these choices. The AI selected five investments that seemed promising in 2010: Bitcoin, trading at around $0.10 per coin Nvidia stock at about $2.50 (split-adjusted) Tesla, which had just gone public at $1.17 (split-adjusted) Broadcom at approximately $7.30 (adjusted for splits and mergers) Netflix at around $8.80 (adjusted for splits) Each represents $15,000 invested at that moment in time. Here's what ChatGPT discovered about where that money would be today. Find Out: Bitcoin: The $17.7 Billion Winner According to ChatGPT's calculations, bitcoin's results are nearly unbelievable. At $0.10 per bitcoin in mid-2010, your $15,000 would have purchased 150,000 coins. With bitcoin trading at approximately $117,700 today, those 150,000 coins would be worth $17.655 billion. 'Yes, this investment would have made you a multibillionaire,' ChatGPT confirmed, adding that bitcoin is the only asset in this comparison that achieved billionaire status. This represents a return of over 1,000,000% — turning every dollar invested into more than $1 million. Nvidia: The Stock Market's Best Performer Still Falls Short Nvidia has been the poster child for stock market success in recent years, especially with the AI boom. ChatGPT's analysis shows it was indeed the best-performing stock in our comparison. Your $15,000 would have bought 6,000 shares at $2.50 each in 2010. With Nvidia currently trading around $175.50, those shares would be worth $1.053 million today. 'Even accounting for stock splits and exact timing, Nvidia grows to around $5-6.7 million at best,' ChatGPT wrote, acknowledging that different timing within 2010 could have yielded slightly better results. Still, even the most optimistic Nvidia scenario falls dramatically short of billionaire status. Tesla: From IPO to Millions, Not Billions Tesla's initial public offering in June 2010 created early investor opportunities that ChatGPT calculated would have been impressive — just not billionaire-level impressive. At Tesla's split-adjusted IPO price of $1.17, your $15,000 would have purchased approximately 12,820 shares. With Tesla trading around $328 today, that position would be worth about $4.2 million. 'Best estimates suggest Tesla would yield around $3.6-4.2 million on $15,000,' ChatGPT concluded, noting that Tesla's volatility could have affected results depending on exact purchase timing. Netflix: The Streaming Pioneer's Solid but Not Spectacular Returns Netflix represented the streaming revolution that was just beginning in 2010. ChatGPT's analysis shows it would have been a good investment — but nowhere near life-changing money. Your $15,000 would have bought roughly 1,705 shares at $8.80 each. With Netflix currently around $1,176 per share, those shares would be worth approximately $2 million today. 'Best case scenario: around $1.3-2 million,' ChatGPT estimated, accounting for Netflix's various ups and downs over the past 15 years. Not chump change, but not billions. Broadcom: The Forgotten Semiconductor Play Broadcom, while less famous than Nvidia, was another semiconductor stock available in 2010. ChatGPT calculated it would have been the worst performer in this group. At $7.30 per share, your $15,000 would have purchased about 2,055 shares. With Broadcom trading around $293.36 today, that investment would be worth roughly $603,000. 'Realistic return: around $1.7 million max (including reinvestment/dividends),' ChatGPT wrote, suggesting that dividend reinvestment could have improved results somewhat. The Reality Check: Why Almost Nobody Became a Bitcoin Billionaire While ChatGPT confirmed that bitcoin was the only path to billionaire status, the AI also provided crucial context about why so few people actually achieved these returns. 'Bitcoin's rise was incredibly volatile, and few investors held on through multiple 80%+ crashes,' ChatGPT warned. 'Stocks, while slower, offered more stable growth.' The psychological challenge of holding bitcoin through its numerous boom-bust cycles cannot be overstated. Bitcoin crashed over 80% at least three times during this 15-year period. Most investors who bought at $0.10 probably sold long before bitcoin reached $117,700. What This Means for Today's Investors ChatGPT's analysis reveals several important lessons for modern investors: Hindsight is not an investment strategy: While bitcoin clearly won this historical comparison, trying to find the 'next bitcoin' is essentially gambling, not investing. Diversification matters: Even the best-performing traditional stocks 'only' returned millions rather than billions. But millions in returns from a $15,000 investment represents life-changing money for most people. Volatility is the price of potential: bitcoin's path to billions involved gut-wrenching volatility that would have tested any investor's resolve. Traditional investments still work: While stocks didn't create billionaires, turning $15,000 into several million dollars over 15 years represents excellent investment performance by any reasonable standard. The Broader Investment Implications ChatGPT's comparison illustrates why investment advisors typically recommend diversified portfolios rather than betting everything on single assets, even promising ones. Let's break it down. If you had split your $15,000 five ways in 2010, putting $3,000 into each investment, you'd have: $3.531 billion from Bitcoin $200,000-1.3 million from Nvidia $720,000-840,000 from Tesla $120,000-340,000 from Broadcom $260,000-400,000 from Netflix Even with 80% of your portfolio in stocks that 'underperformed,' you'd still be a billionaire thanks to that small bitcoin allocation. It (quite literally) pays to diversify. Why Timing Really Is Everything ChatGPT's analysis used mid-2010 as the investment date, but small timing differences could have dramatically affected results. Bitcoin was virtually worthless in early 2010 but had already begun rising by year-end. Similarly, Tesla's IPO timing, Nvidia's various product cycles and Netflix's streaming transition all created windows where earlier or later investments could have yielded different results. The Bottom Line on Billionaire-Making Investments According to ChatGPT's analysis, if your goal was becoming a billionaire from a $15,000 investment in 2010, bitcoin was the only known path to that outcome. Even the decade's best-performing stocks delivered 'only' multi-million dollar returns. But the AI's analysis also reveals why chasing these extreme outcomes is probably the wrong approach for most investors. The stocks in this comparison all delivered life-changing returns while offering more stability and predictability than bitcoin's wild ride. As ChatGPT wrote, bitcoin's success required not just picking the right asset, but having the psychological fortitude to hold through multiple crashes that would have tested any investor's resolve. For today's investors, the lesson isn't to search for the next bitcoin — it's to build diversified portfolios that can capture strong returns while managing the very real risks that come with chasing billionaire-level gains. Not as fun as making millions — or billions — but a worthy goal, nonetheless. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 10 Used Cars That Will Last Longer Than the Average New Vehicle 10 Cars That Outlast the Average Vehicle This article originally appeared on Bitcoin vs Stocks: Which $15,000 Investment Would Make You a Billionaire? Sign in to access your portfolio


Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Korea's SK On Aims to Best Rivals With Next-Generation Batteries
SK Innovation Co. 's battery unit plans to accelerate development of cutting-edge technologies in partnership with US and European carmakers, its R&D chief said, aiming to win back market share from peers in China and South Korea. SK On is focused on honing its edge in thermal management technology, such as immersion cooling designed to boost the efficiency of batteries for AI data centers, energy storage systems and electric vehicles, Park Kisoo, head of the company's research and development arm, said in an interview. The battery specialist already is in talks with Ford Motor Co. and Hyundai Motor Co. to collaborate on the cutting-edge tech, he said.