Latest news with #Schrödinger
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Morgan Stanley Assumes Coverage on Schrödinger (SDGR) Stock
Schrödinger, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDGR) is one of the Morgan Stanley assumed coverage on the company's stock with an 'Equalweight' rating and a price objective of $28.00, down from the prior target of $31.00, as reported by The Fly. As per the firm's analyst, Schrödinger, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDGR) saw volatility because of macroeconomic factors, underperformance on initial clinical results, as well as uncertainty on valuation and revenue drivers. That being said, the firm believes that Schrödinger, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDGR)'s software business offers a steady revenue stream, which tends to act as a safety net for the stock, irrespective of the outcomes of partnerships as well as proprietary pipeline. A biopharmaceutical executive discussing plans with a government laboratory. The company announced that SGR-1505, its clinical-stage MALT1 inhibitor, has been designated as a Fast Track product by the US FDA for treating adult patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia that have failed at least 2 lines of therapy, including a Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. Schrödinger, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDGR)'s key personnel stated that, despite continued therapeutic advances in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, there remains a challenge for treatment failure and disease progression due to BTK resistance for patients. The unmet need provides an opportunity for novel mechanisms like MALT1 as monotherapy and as part of the new combination regimens. Notably, the FDA Fast Track program focuses on facilitating the development and expediting review of drug candidates in order to treat serious conditions and fill unmet medical needs. While we acknowledge the potential of SDGR as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 13 Cheap AI Stocks to Buy According to Analysts and 11 Unstoppable Growth Stocks to Invest in Now Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. 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
04-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Climate Change's Fingerprints Came Early, a Thought Experiment Reveals
Physicists are fond of Gedankenexperimente—thought experiments that are difficult or impossible to perform in the real world. Schrödinger's cat is a well-known example of a thought experiment, used to illustrate the complexities of quantum mechanics. This puzzle occupied some of the best and brightest physicists of the early 20th century. We tried the same thing recently, only with climate change. Given today's network of satellites and temperature sensors, when could scientists have first known, beyond a reasonable doubt, that increases in atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning and land use change were altering our global climate? The results might surprise you, and they help to illustrate why it's critically important to continue long-term monitoring of Earth's climate. Our thought experiment used simulations of historical climate change from nine different state-of-the-art computer models. We made three key assumptions. The first was that back in 1860, scientists in our 'Gedanken world' had the technology to monitor global temperature changes in both the troposphere (the atmospheric layer extending from the surface up to about 15 kilometers) and the stratosphere (ranging from roughly 15 km to 50 km). Historically, global monitoring didn't happen until the 1940s using early weather balloon networks. More recently, since the late 1970s, we've monitored global atmospheric temperature changes with satellites. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] Second, we assumed that over the period 1860 to 2024, the model simulations used reliable estimates of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases, particulate pollution and land use, as well as accurate estimates of natural changes in external factors like volcanic activity and the sun's energy output. All of these inputs to the model simulations are primarily derived from observational data. Third, we assumed the model-simulated responses to human and natural factors were realistic, and that the size of modeled 'climate noise' associated with natural phenomena like El Niño and La Niña was in reasonable agreement with observations. We tested the third assumption by comparing modeled and observed climate change and variability and found no evidence of model errors that would negate our bottom-line findings. The work of Syukuro ('Suki') Manabe helped inspire this investigation. Back in 1967, Manabe—who would later go on to receive the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics—published one of the most famous papers in climate science. Together with his colleague Richard Wetherald at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, N.J., Manabe used a simple climate model to show that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 would lead to more efficient trapping of heat in the troposphere. The consequence? Warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. The former has captivated most of the world's attention for good reason—it is where we humans live—but the latter turns out to be particularly useful in our thought experiment. The 1967 Manabe and Wetherald paper made a testable prediction: if humans continue to burn fossil fuels and ramp up levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature will change not only in the troposphere but also in the stratosphere. But back in 1967, scientists lacked the long-term records necessary to test this prediction, particularly for the mid- to upper stratosphere, between approximately 25 and 50 km above Earth's surface. Decades after 1967, weather balloon and satellite temperature records revealed that Manabe and Wetherald were right. Their predicted pattern of change in the thermal structure of the atmosphere was observable. Importantly, this pattern of human influence—showing long-term, global-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere—couldn't be confused with natural patterns of temperature change. The human 'fingerprint' on atmospheric temperature was distinctly different from the natural temperature fingerprints caused by the sun, volcanoes and internal climate noise. When climate scientists say we know people cause climate change, this fingerprint is one defining reason why. Which brings us back to our 'When could we have known?' thought experiment. Although the question is simple, the answer isn't obvious. The first 40 years of the thought experiment (from 1860 until 1899) were a time when large-scale fossil fuel burning and deforestation were just beginning to ratchet up during the industrial revolution. The resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 over this time, which we can estimate from Antarctic ice cores, was only 10 parts per million. This is small relative to the recent CO2 increase of roughly 54 parts per million over the 25 years from 2000 to 2024. Nevertheless, this modest 10 parts per million early CO2 increase is still large enough to lead to significant cooling of the stratosphere over 1860 to 1899. The size and pattern of this stratospheric cooling is very different than what we would expect from natural forces affecting temperature: the solar variability at the time, the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, and internal climate noise. Because of these differences between signal and noise, our thought experiment shows that even the relatively small human-caused signal of stratospheric cooling could have been identified in 1885. Put differently, given today's measurement capabilities, humans could have known that our actions were significantly changing global climate even before Carl Benz patented the first gasoline-powered car. The human-caused signal of tropospheric warming emerges later, in the second half of the 20th century, partly because human and natural patterns of climate change are more similar in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. Would this advance knowledge have made a difference? Would humanity have followed a different energy use pathway given the understanding that fossil fuel burning eventually leads to large, global-scale changes in climate? That's outside of our sandbox as climate scientists—it's a question for philosophers, social scientists, and historians of science. But in our opinion, based on the history of other global environmental problems, it's certainly conceivable that early knowledge of the reality and seriousness of climate change could have spurred earlier global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's worth noting that our identification of the atmospheric 'fingerprints' predicted by Manabe and Wetherald was enabled by NOAA and NASA satellite remote sensing. The work of these agencies is an essential part of our research, and of the national and international climate science enterprise. But in the United States in 2025, federally funded climate science, including observation and modeling work, is being systematically dismantled. This is not a thought experiment. It is all too real. We are now observing what happens when decades of work to understand the nature and causes of climate changes are rejected, and are replaced by ideology, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Stopping climate work will lead to a data vacuum that could last years or even decades. This experiment in willful ignorance can only end poorly. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are solely their own and not those of any organization they are affiliated with or necessarily those of Scientific American.
Scientific American
04-07-2025
- Science
- Scientific American
A Thought Experiment Reveals the Fingerprints of Climate Change Came Early
Physicists are fond of Gedankenexperimente — thought experiments that are difficult or impossible to perform in the real world. Schrödinger's cat is a well-known example of a thought experiment, used to illustrate the complexities of quantum mechanics. This puzzle occupied some of the best and brightest physicists of the early 20th century. We tried the same thing recently, only with climate change. Given today's network of satellites and temperature sensors, when could scientists have first known, beyond a reasonable doubt, that increases in atmospheric CO 2 from fossil fuel burning and land use change were altering our global climate? The results might surprise you, and they help to illustrate why it's critically important to continue long-term monitoring of Earth's climate. Our thought experiment used simulations of historical climate change from nine different state-of-the-art computer models. We made three key assumptions. The first was that back in 1860, scientists in our 'Gedanken world' had the technology to monitor global temperature changes in both the troposphere (the atmospheric layer extending from the surface up to about 15 kilometers) and the stratosphere (ranging from roughly 15 km to 50 km). Historically, global monitoring didn't happen until the 1940s using early weather balloon networks. More recently, since the late 1970s, we've monitored global atmospheric temperature changes with satellites. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Second, we assumed that over the period 1860 to 2024, the model simulations used reliable estimates of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases, particulate pollution and land use, as well as accurate estimates of natural changes in external factors like volcanic activity and the sun's energy output. All of these inputs to the model simulations are primarily derived from observational data. Third, we assumed the model-simulated responses to human and natural factors were realistic, and that the size of modeled 'climate noise' associated with natural phenomena like El Niño and La Niña was in reasonable agreement with observations. We tested the third assumption by comparing modeled and observed climate change and variability and found no evidence of model errors that would negate our bottom-line findings. The work of Syukuro ('Suki') Manabe helped inspire this investigation. Back in 1967, Manabe—who would later go on to receive the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics—published one of the most famous papers in climate science. Together with his colleague Richard Wetherald at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, N.J., Manabe used a simple climate model to show that increasing levels of atmospheric CO 2 would lead to more efficient trapping of heat in the troposphere. The consequence? Warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. The former has captivated most of the world's attention for good reason—it is where we humans live—but the latter turns out to be particularly useful in our thought experiment. The 1967 Manabe and Wetherald paper made a testable prediction: if humans continue to burn fossil fuels and ramp up levels of CO 2 in the atmosphere, the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature will change not only in the troposphere but also in the stratosphere. But back in 1967, scientists lacked the long-term records necessary to test this prediction, particularly for the mid- to upper stratosphere, between approximately 25 and 50 km above Earth's surface. Decades after 1967, weather balloon and satellite temperature records revealed that Manabe and Wetherald were right. Their predicted pattern of change in the thermal structure of the atmosphere was observable. Importantly, this pattern of human influence—showing long-term, global-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere—couldn't be confused with natural patterns of temperature change. The human 'fingerprint' on atmospheric temperature was distinctly different from the natural temperature fingerprints caused by the sun, volcanoes and internal climate noise. When climate scientists say we know people cause climate change, this fingerprint is one defining reason why. Which brings us back to our 'When could we have known?' thought experiment. Although the question is simple, the answer isn't obvious. The first 40 years of the thought experiment (from 1860 until 1899) were a time when large-scale fossil fuel burning and deforestation were just beginning to ratchet up during the industrial revolution. The resulting increase in atmospheric CO 2 over this time, which we can estimate from Antarctic ice cores, was only 10 parts per million. This is small relative to the recent CO 2 increase of roughly 54 parts per million over the 25 years from 2000 to 2024. Nevertheless, this modest 10 parts per million early CO 2 increase is still large enough to lead to significant cooling of the stratosphere over 1860 to 1899. The size and pattern of this stratospheric cooling is very different than what we would expect from natural forces affecting temperature: the solar variability at the time, the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, and internal climate noise. Because of these differences between signal and noise, our thought experiment shows that even the relatively small human-caused signal of stratospheric cooling could have been identified in 1885. Put differently, given today's measurement capabilities, humans could have known that our actions were significantly changing global climate even before Carl Benz patented the first gasoline-powered car. The human-caused signal of tropospheric warming emerges later, in the second half of the 20th century, partly because human and natural patterns of climate change are more similar in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. Would this advance knowledge have made a difference? Would humanity have followed a different energy use pathway given the understanding that fossil fuel burning eventually leads to large, global-scale changes in climate? That's outside of our sandbox as climate scientists—it's a question for philosophers, social scientists, and historians of science. But in our opinion, based on the history of other global environmental problems, it's certainly conceivable that early knowledge of the reality and seriousness of climate change could have spurred earlier global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's worth noting that our identification of the atmospheric 'fingerprints' predicted by Manabe and Wetherald was enabled by NOAA and NASA satellite remote sensing. The work of these agencies is an essential part of our research, and of the national and international climate science enterprise. But in the United States in 2025, federally funded climate science, including observation and modeling work, is being systematically dismantled. This is not a thought experiment. It is all too real. We are now observing what happens when decades of work to understand the nature and causes of climate changes are rejected, and are replaced by ideology, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Stopping climate work will lead to a data vacuum that could last years or even decades. This experiment in willful ignorance can only end poorly. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are solely their own and not those of any organization they are affiliated with or necessarily those of Scientific American.
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Schrödinger (SDGR) Receives FDA Fast Track Designation for Cancer Drug SGR-1505
Schrödinger, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDGR) is one of the top 10 healthcare AI stocks to buy according to hedge funds. Schrödinger, Inc. (NASDAQ:SDGR) announced that its investigational drug SGR-1505 has received Fast Track designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of adults with Waldenström macroglobulinemia who have not responded to at least two prior therapies, including a Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor. The designation is designed to expedite the development and review of drugs that address serious or life-threatening conditions with unmet medical need. A biopharmaceutical executive discussing plans with a government laboratory. SGR-1505 is a selective MALT1 inhibitor currently in clinical development. Waldenström macroglobulinemia is a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and treatment-resistant forms present significant challenges for patients and clinicians. Schrödinger's approach to drug discovery gives it a unique advantage in targeting such difficult diseases. The company is best known for its computational platform that integrates physics-based modeling and advanced algorithms to design novel compounds with greater precision and efficiency. This model-driven strategy makes Schrödinger one of the few healthcare companies at the forefront of computational drug discovery—a field that blends molecular science with cutting-edge software to identify and optimize potential therapies faster than traditional methods. With the FDA's Fast Track status, SGR-1505 may benefit from more frequent interaction with the agency and potential eligibility for accelerated approval, positioning Schrödinger to advance an important treatment option while reinforcing its growing role as a technology-driven innovator in the pharmaceutical sector. While we acknowledge the potential of SDGR to grow, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than SDGR and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about this cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: 13 Best Biotech Stocks To Invest In Now and 12 Best Healthcare Stocks to Buy Now. Disclosure: None. 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
Digital Trends
03-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Digital Trends
What I learned about reviewing games between Death Stranding 1 and 2
Death Stranding was the first full game I ever reviewed for Digital Trends. It was 2019 and I'd just started contributing to the site as a freelancer focused exclusively on Destiny 2 guides and DLC reviews. I was only a few months in when my editor asked if I'd be interested in critiquing Hideo Kojima's latest game come November. I enthusiastically accepted through the safety of a text chat, but I was a little terrified in real life. Recommended Videos Despite writing about games for well over a decade in some form, reviewing them for blogs when I was in high school even, it still felt like a daunting responsibility. I'd be one of the first people to write about what I knew would be an important entry into video game canon. My voice would represent Digital Trends. It was a routine assignment, but the stakes couldn't feel higher. It felt like all eyes were on me. I found myself reflecting on that moment earlier this month when my review code for Death Stranding 2: On the Beach hit my inbox. That email came with no anxiety attack attached, as I've reviewed countless games for Digital Trends since 2019. These days, I get an assignment like this, start my download, and get to work without thinking about it. A once nerve-wracking process has become second nature to me. But this time, I stopped before punching my code into my PS5. How have I changed as a critic since Death Stranding's release? To properly reflect on that, I'd have to revisit my 2019 review – something I just couldn't work up the courage to do. To be transparent, I've never really liked my Death Stranding assessment. I was proud of it in 2019 because it was my major review for a site as high profile as Digital Trends, but it was a critique born from a self conscious moment. I worried too much about whether my opinion would be right or wrong, wondering if a lukewarm take would out me as a fool who had no business assessing games for a large publication. I agonized over my opinion and would focus instead on how divisive I felt it would be. It felt like an immediate cop out, as if to remove my voice from the equation. It was Schrödinger's game: It could either be good or bad until you put the disc in. What I didn't do so much at the time was engage with what Kojima was actually trying to communicate to players. I made references to the fact that it was about connecting a divided America and noted that the social features stressed how much easier life is when we're on the same page, but so much time was spent treating the review like a book report. The acting is good. The visuals look great. The controls are interesting. There wasn't much substance to any of it; it was like I was assessing a laptop. What was the point of writing about it, let alone playing it at all, if I wasn't absorbing anything from it? To strengthen my approach to reviews, I'd have to change the way I thought about games. I wondered why I was so hesitant to interact with them the same way I do any other artistic medium. I could talk your ear off about the camera work in Citizen Kane and what it establishes about Charles Foster Kane at every juncture of his life, but I wasn't thinking about the minutiae of game design the same way. Why not? Surely these decisions aren't random. Something as simple as The Last of Us' crafting system communicates something about the world. It tells us that resources are scarce in an apocalyptic world that's been cleaned out by scavengers. As elementary as something like that is, that marriage of play and message is what makes games so special. I've spent the last six years following that thread and seeing where it leads me. I stopped approaching games as products to be evaluated on a checklist and began focusing on how effectively they communicated something to me. Fun became secondary to function. It's how I found myself loving Pikmin 4, a game that practices what it preaches about the joys of organization by turning Pikmin's classically chaotic strategy gameplay into something tidy and streamlined. It's why I lambasted The Last of Us Part 2 Remastered's roguelike mode, an addition that I felt spat in the face of the base game's mediation on cyclical violence. It's why Despelote is one of my favorite games of 2025, towering above glitzy games 1000 times its size. I don't just want games to distract me; I want them to speak to me. My criticism has improved thanks to that, sure, but what's more important is that my relationship to games has deepened too. They are no longer toys that I forget about the moment I put them down. I find myself more engaged with everything I play, always analyzing and interpreting rather than hyper focusing on immediate thrills. That has opened my mind up to games that I would have written off earlier in my life. I would have dropped something like The Banished Vault back in the day after failing to find the 'fun' in its oppressive survival systems, but now I'm more easily able to appreciate how its antagonistic nature creates a tone that mimics the merciless nature of its world (read Dia Lacina's phenomenal review). I've learned to embrace friction as a communication tool, something I wish I was more open to when initially reviewing Death Stranding in 2019. After all, the slapstick comedy routine that comes from trying to navigate uneven terrain makes the moments where the community bands together to build a road that much more meaningful. While a job like this can often leave writers entirely burnt out on games, I find myself more in love with the medium with each passing year. It has been my goal in the past few years to inspire that feeling in anyone who reads a Digital Trends game review. Gaming is an evolving artform and I believe that the way we talk about it needs to change to meet that transformation. It now feels hollow to praise a game simply because it has hyper realistic graphics and 100's of hours of content. What emotions do those games inspire in us? What do they tell us about our world? How do they challenge us in ways that go beyond physical skill? Those are the conversations I want to have more often whenever a game like Death Stranding 2 releases. I'm not writing all of this to try and dictate what a video game review should look like or how we talk about games. If you take anything from this, let is be that art demands different perspectives. It asks us to be open-minded, to challenge ourselves, to have confidence in our instincts. It is not a pop quiz to be aced. There is no objectively correct take. I wish I had a better handle on that in 2019, or at least trusted myself a little more back then to stand firm in my interpretation. Maybe Death Stranding 2 isn't really that much of an improvement over its predecessor; maybe I'm the one who really changed.
