A computational biologist has challenged Anthropic’s claim that its AI model, Claude, autonomously discovered a novel enzyme system. Mario Rodríguez Mestre stated that he and his colleagues had been studying the relevant ART enzymes for four years and shared key findings with Anthropic during consultations.

The dispute centers on whether Claude independently reasoned its way to the discovery or was guided by information derived from Mestre’s team’s unpublished research. The New York Times reported on Sunday that Mestre identified the enzymes in jumbo phages in 2022 while researching reverse transcriptases. He later consulted for ReNegade Therapeutics, which filed a 2023 patent covering several reverse transcriptases, including those he discovered, with Mestre listed as a co-inventor.

The core of the controversy

Mestre emphasized that the primary question is not whether ARTs were already known, but rather the origin of the specific insights attributed to the AI. "So, for me, the most important question is not ‘Were ARTs already known?’ They were," he told the publication. This raises significant questions about intellectual property and the definition of autonomous discovery in AI-driven science.

Anthropic did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding these allegations. The company maintains that Claude’s discovery of a novel enzyme system had properties resembling CRISPR and was guided only at a high level by its scientists.

Anthropic’s account of the discovery

On Wednesday, Anthropic announced that Claude autonomously discovered a previously uncharacterized enzyme system in bacteriophages after analyzing a massive DNA database. The process involved nearly 950 Claude agents processing 210 million tokens over 21 hours before one flagged an unusual repeating pattern for human review. Scientists provided initial guidance and conducted subsequent laboratory testing.

While the function of the enzyme system is still under investigation, Anthropic stated it felt it was crucial to share these early findings to showcase Claude’s capabilities and provide insight into their ongoing work. Feng Zhang, one of the pioneers of CRISPR genome editing, called the discovery "genuinely intriguing" and said that it merits further investigation.

Broader life sciences expansion

This incident occurs as Anthropic aggressively expands its presence in the life sciences sector. Earlier this month, the company established a physical wet lab in the San Francisco Bay Area, expanding its AI-driven life sciences research into hands-on experimentation. Life sciences leader Eric Kauderer-Abrams said real-world lab work remains essential for biology, while the company combines internal research with external collaborations. Anthropic clarified that the facility is not specifically focused on drug discovery.

In the same week, Anthropic announced a collaboration with Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) to accelerate the development of new medicines. Novo would use Anthropic’s advanced AI models to enhance software development and expand AI adoption, with strong data governance and human oversight to ensure responsible use.

In July, Anthropic launched Claude Science, an AI workbench designed for scientists, marking its significant expansion into life sciences. The platform supports fields including genomics, proteomics, structural biology and cheminformatics, integrates more than 60 scientific databases and tools, and connects with Nvidia Corp.’s (NASDAQ: NVDA) BioNeMo Agent Toolkit for access to specialized biology models.

A federal appeals court upheld the U.S. Department of Defense's decision to exclude Anthropic from the Pentagon's supply chain. The ruling confirms the AI company's designation as a national security risk over restrictions on how its Claude models can be used in military operations.

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit leaves intact the Department's March 3 order removing Anthropic products from Department systems and barring contractors from using them. The court found the government had sufficient grounds to conclude that Anthropic's continued integration into military systems created a risk, rejecting arguments that individual model testing could mitigate these concerns.

Conflict over AI usage restrictions

The dispute originated from a breakdown in negotiations earlier this year regarding the military's use of Claude. While Anthropic agreed to expand permitted government uses, it maintained two core restrictions: the models could not be used for lethal autonomous warfare or mass surveillance of Americans. The Department sought contractual language allowing "all lawful uses" of the technology.

When Anthropic refused to remove those restrictions, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated the company as presenting a significant supply-chain risk under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018. The court majority pointed to the way Anthropic embeds restrictions into Claude that can cause the model to refuse certain requests as evidence of the risk.

Legal reactions and ongoing challenges

Emil Michael, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, welcomed the decision on social media, calling Anthropic a "supply chain risk" to the defense industrial base. He stated that no private company should insert their opinions into the chain of command.

An Anthropic spokesperson stated the company respectfully disagrees with the decision and is considering all options, including further review. The spokesperson noted that another federal court has already held the government's parallel designation unlawful, though that case involved a different statutory framework.

Constitutional claims rejected

Anthropic also argued that the government's action violated its constitutional rights and amounted to retaliation for its position on AI safety. The appeals court rejected those claims, stating the government acted because Anthropic refused to accept a contract term officials considered essential, rather than because of the company's advocacy around AI policy.

The court acknowledged the tension in the case, noting difficult questions about the government's use of increasingly powerful AI systems and who should decide how those systems are deployed in military operations.

What the numbers show

The judicial split highlights a critical divergence in legal interpretations of AI governance in defense contexts. While the D.C. Circuit upheld the exclusion based on national security risks, a separate federal court in California previously ruled against a related government designation involving the company. This indicates that while the Pentagon's specific supply-chain ban remains active, the broader legal landscape regarding Anthropic's status is contested across different jurisdictions and statutory frameworks.