Nato fund backs biotech start-up in push to counter biological threats
The fund is co-leading a $35m (R619m) fundraising round for Portal Biotech, which uses protein sequencing to detect engineered threats and defend against biological warfare.
UK-based Portal Biotech's capability is essential for biosecurity defence and security, said Ana Bernardo-Gancedo, senior associate at the fund.
'We believe it is absolutely imperative that we are able to detect, monitor and create countermeasures,' she said.
The fund, created in 2022 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, plans to invest more than $1bn (R17.7bn) in technologies that would enhance Nato's defences.
Portal Biotech uses an AI-backed technology with biological sensors that can work at the single molecule level on-site, providing results within hours.
'It's for everything from measuring diseases to better pandemic prevention. You can take this out of large labs with long turnaround times and into the field,' CEO Andy Heron told Reuters.
Heron said the company's instruments can detect any pathogen and can be used for continuous monitoring of anything from a field to water supply.
'It allows you not only to detect what you did know was out there, but it allows you to detect what you didn't know,' he said.
Beyond biosecurity, Portal Biotech expects its portable equipment to aid in drug discovery and precision medicine.
The company's investors include Earlybird Venture Capital, Science Creates VC, Pillar VC, 8VC, We VC and British Business Bank.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
7 hours ago
- The South African
Extensive upgrades on the cards for major South African airport
Lanseria International Airport, South Africa's only privately owned airport, is gearing up for a major transformation this year. According to BusinessTech , these major upgrades are aimed at increasing capacity at the airport, improving infrastructure, and establishing itself as a key regional hub. The South African airport is also positioning itself for long-term growth through an ambitious expansion plan. CEO Rampa Rammopo outlined a bold future for the Gauteng-based airport, BusinessTech revealed. Handling 1.9 million passengers annually, Lanseria aims to more than double that figure by 2032 and reach six million by 2037. By 2050, the goal is a staggering 18 million passengers a year. 'Our vision is to be a regional airport catering mainly to the SADC and sub-Saharan Africa,' Rammopo said. To support this growth, Lanseria is investing heavily in infrastructure. This will include: Terminal and parking expansion : A new three-storey parkade, costing R250 million, will add 1 000 bays, addressing long-standing complaints about parking costs and boosting the total to 4 000 bays. : A new three-storey parkade, costing R250 million, will add 1 000 bays, addressing long-standing complaints about parking costs and boosting the total to 4 000 bays. Fuel farm upgrade : The airport will also increase fuel storage from 1 000 to 6 000 cubic metres to prevent future supply issues. : The airport will also increase fuel storage from 1 000 to 6 000 cubic metres to prevent future supply issues. Technical relocation and runway plans : The existing fuel farm and technical areas will be relocated, and a second runway – costing between R1 billion and R2 billion – is under serious consideration. : The existing fuel farm and technical areas will be relocated, and a second runway – costing between R1 billion and R2 billion – is under serious consideration. Taxiway rehabilitation : Alpha Taxiway, which is over 20 years old, will undergo a major overhaul beginning in early 2026 to enhance efficiency and maintain safety standards. : Alpha Taxiway, which is over 20 years old, will undergo a major overhaul beginning in early 2026 to enhance efficiency and maintain safety standards. Cargo precinct : A ten-year project will also launch in late 2025 to create a full-scale cargo logistics hub, positioning the South African airport as a central player in regional freight transport. : A ten-year project will also launch in late 2025 to create a full-scale cargo logistics hub, positioning the South African airport as a central player in regional freight transport. Land development : With 90 hectares of available land, the airport has signed a lease with Bionic Aviation for a state-of-the-art hangar and office complex. : With 90 hectares of available land, the airport has signed a lease with Bionic Aviation for a state-of-the-art hangar and office complex. Hangar upgrades: A five-year modernisation programme is underway, with six hangars already revamped and more planned, including digitised systems and enhanced access control. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
NATO's Defence Spending: Washington's Political Will Trumps Brussels' Consensus Diplomacy
US President Donald Trump (C) flanked by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (L) and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Image: AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague produced a landmark decision: member states, except for Spain, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold move, which marks a significant departure from the long-standing 2% benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, represents more than a fiscal adjustment; it signals a seismic shift in the alliance's strategic orientation. At the heart of this recalibration is the reasserted influence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose longstanding critiques of NATO burden-sharing have now crystallised into formal policy. This article explores the rationale, implications, and geopolitical consequences of NATO's spending leap, assessing whether this shift reflects authentic alliance consensus or a recalibration driven by American political will. When NATO's 32 member states gathered in The Hague for the June 2025 summit, few anticipated the alliance would break with over a decade of precedent. But they did, agreeing to a bold, controversial, and for some, economically staggering commitment: to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035. However, NATO did not shift this policy direction out of its own conviction or internal consensus; rather, it was compelled to do so, with U.S. President Donald Trump standing at the heart of this strategic pivot, having since his first stint advocated for greater burden-sharing among member states. Trump's framing was blunt: 'Why should the U.S. keep subsidising European security when Europe can afford to pay?' In many ways, this new 5% target represents the realisation of Trump's foreign policy worldview: as it relates to NATO, a five tenet blend of transactional diplomacy, fiscal pressure, nationalist recalibration, readiness and modernisation, and geopolitical deterrence. Trump's foreign policy is often described as transactional, meaning it treats international alliances less as values-based partnerships and more as quid pro quo arrangements. NATO, in this view, is not a sacred pillar of post-WWII order but a cost-benefit enterprise. Applied politically, fiscal pressure can describe the tactic of urging or coercing other member states to increase their defence budgets to meet alliance commitments, such as Trump urging NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP. The implicit threat: fail to meet spending demands, and U.S. protection may no longer be guaranteed. Under this logic, NATO is only worthwhile if the U.S. is not carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden. Trump repeatedly framed the alliance as an economic deal, where allies were "delinquent" in their obligations. He demanded that U.S. support be conditional on financial commitments, reducing mutual defence to a pay-to-play system. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This further aligns with Trump's broader nationalist recalibration "America First" doctrine. This interpretation is reinforced by Trump's domestic base, which is increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. According to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. accounted for roughly 68.7% of total NATO military spending in 2023, meaning that nearly seven in ten dollars spent by NATO members were American. With the U.S. contributing nearly 70% of NATO's total defence spending, Trump argued the arrangement was fiscally unjust. Requiring allies to spend more would redistribute responsibility and ease pressure on U.S. taxpayers. By pushing for the 2% target, and now 5%, Trump used fiscal pressure to compel policy alignment. His administration hinted that failure to meet the spending floor could lead to reduced U.S. commitment, threatening the alliance's coherence. Another component of Trump's rationale lies in readiness and modernisation. Higher spending is linked to greater military capability. Trump's advisers highlighted ageing equipment, low deployability, and interoperability challenges as evidence that current budgets were insufficient. NATO states lacked modern infrastructure, weaponry, and rapid deployment capacity. Chronic incompatibility in systems and doctrines undermined joint operations. The 5% target is not merely a financial benchmark but a demand for measurable improvements: mobile, modern, integrated forces ready for cyber warfare, space militarisation, and asymmetric threats. Trump saw increased spending as essential to transforming NATO into a technologically dominant and operationally agile force. The 5% target also serves a function of geopolitical deterrence. Trump argued that a wealthier, well-armed NATO would send a strong message to adversaries like Russia and China about the alliance's resolve. Defence spending becomes a litmus test of political will. Trump emphasised that deterrence is achieved not through communiqués but through visible military capability. By urging allies to raise spending, he sought to eliminate ambiguity that adversaries might exploit, especially in light of Russian aggression and China's assertiveness. The outcome of the Hague Summit marks an undeniable strategic win for Trump, validating his ideology for a reshaped NATO. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric is now policy. The agreement to move toward 5% signals not just a funding shift, but a transformation in the alliance's operational ethos. Trump hailed it as a "monumental win for the United States and the free world." This also underscores a broader realignment: NATO's direction is now synchronised with Washington's political will rather than Brussels' consensus-building. The U.S. model is assertive and top-down, driven by strategic imperatives. Brussels, by contrast, has favoured inclusive, deliberative processes. The Hague Summit reflects a power shift, where American momentum overrides European caution, reconfiguring NATO into a more hierarchical, pressure-sensitive alliance. Trump's assertiveness demonstrated that America is not only NATO's military backbone but also its ideological compass. The 5% target reflects Trump's insistence on fairness and strategic necessity. Under his leadership, burden-sharing has become a requirement, not a polite suggestion. In this context, Trump is not merely influencing NATO; he is directing it. He has repositioned the U.S. as the alliance's strategic lodestar, with the 5% threshold symbolising his imprint on NATO's long-term trajectory. Why then did the majority of NATO states agree to such an ambitious spending goal? A plausible argument is that European powers accepted the 5% benchmark not out of ideological alignment with Trump, but to ensure continued U.S. commitment to NATO—and, crucially, to Ukraine and their security. Given Trump's scepticism towards multilateral institutions and his past threats to withdraw from NATO, European leaders may have regarded the target as a calculated concession to keep the U.S. engaged. It constitutes a form of strategic appeasement: if meeting Trump's demands secures American support, then it is a price worth paying. Compounding this urgency is the perception, real or manufactured, of a renewed Russian threat. Remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who recently referred to EU leaders as 'Brusselian cockroaches,' signal rhetorical escalation and reinforce NATO's view of Russia as an enduring adversary. Whether grounded in imminent threat assessments or strategic messaging, this antagonism sustains European anxiety and justifies increased military expenditure as a deterrent and necessity. By meeting Trump's demands, European leaders also give him political cover to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine's war effort. In this light, the 5% commitment becomes a tool to secure U.S. leadership for Europe's collective security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's effusive praise of Trump reinforces this reading. His remarks lauding Trump's 'decisive action in Iran' and describing him as a 'man of peace' who is also willing to use force appeared more choreographed than spontaneous. Given NATO's growing reliance on U.S. leadership, Rutte's comments may have been a tactical gesture—an effort to affirm Trump's primacy while ensuring his continued commitment without conceding institutional authority. This shift could also enable strategic rebalancing. As Europe assumes more of the defence burden, the U.S. can reallocate resources to the Indo-Pacific, where China's rise poses a growing challenge. A more self-sufficient Europe gives Washington the bandwidth to pursue its global agenda while challenging perceptions of NATO as U.S.-dependent. With more skin in the game, Europe may gain strategic credibility and a stronger voice within the alliance. Nonetheless, challenges remain. Public sentiment in Europe remains cautious about large-scale military expansion. Polls in Germany, France, and Spain indicate a preference for diplomacy over deterrence. The political cost of sustaining 5% defence spending may prove substantial. If NATO states deliver, the Hague Summit may be remembered as the dawn of a fortified, globally relevant alliance. If not, it risks becoming another episode in summit theatre—where leaders agree in principle, delay in practice, and dilute in execution. For Trump, however, the optics are already favourable. He has altered how NATO operates, and with the 5% pledge, he has inscribed his foreign policy legacy into the alliance's future.
The Herald
10 hours ago
- The Herald
F1 talks up Silverstone's ‘forever' future before Starmer meeting
The meeting at Downing Street is billed as an informal celebration of the 75th anniversary of the first F1 championship race at Silverstone, but is also a chance to raise issues the sport wants addressed. Domenicali said he would highlight how much the "F1 ecosystem" contributes to Britain as the beating heart of a global sport, and the risk of losing that primacy due to restrictions on staff and movement. Formula One figures calculate the sport brings £12bn (R290,826,680,000) annually to the UK economy with 6,000 people directly employed and a further 41,000 working in a supply chain of 4,500 companies. The Italian said visa issues post-Brexit had affected the deployment of staff from race to race around Europe, while costly and time-consuming paperwork had complicated logistics and made it harder to draw up the race calendar. "It is impossible to think in the short term that the teams will move out from the UK because of the limitation, but the teams will maybe organise themselves in a different way," he warned. "What we are asking is not to change the decision your country has taken, because it's not our mandate and our role, but to facilitate things that are having a burden on the economical side. "Also in terms of possibility to be, as a country, more attractive for keeping the central part of F1 in the country."
