有些科學家在實驗室裡擁有「魔術手」。人工智能正在學習其中的奧秘。 (2/2)

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

Some Scientists Have ‘Magic Hands’ in the Lab. This A.I. Is Learning Why. (2/2)

Even the most adept researchers may not know exactly what they do to get successful results. An A.I. model is trying to figure it out by watching every move.

The NYT - By Carl Zimmer

Aug. 27, 2026

(continue)

Renee Wegrzyn, a co-founder of Transfyr, became keenly aware of this gap while doing research as a postdoctoral researcher. She jotted down records of her experiments on proteins in a lab notebook, but it captured only a fraction of her efforts.

When Dr. Wegrzyn published her results, she had to distill her records even further. “I did a postdoc that was three years long, and then it got summed up in a three-page paper,” she said.

Missing from those notes and reports were all the little decisions Dr. Wegrzyn had made while performing her research.

“All of those details could matter, but we just don’t know if they matter,” said Brian Nosek, an expert on replication at the University of Virginia who is not involved in Transfyr.

When a replicated study fails to produce the original results, that may mean the original study was wrong. Or maybe it was right, and the replicating scientists made an unwitting blunder. It can be hard for teams of scientists to agree on what happened.

In 1993, for example, the psychologist Frances Rauscher and her colleagues reported that people who listen to Mozart get a temporary boost on reasoning tests. The buzz around the so-called Mozart effect led other researchers to run experiments of their own.

Many of them couldn’t find any significant benefit, but Dr. Rauscher brushed off these failures. The other scientists didn’t find the Mozart effect because they weren’t good enough at running experiments, she said — they were not good scientific chefs.

The search for the Mozart effect went on for years. In the end, other scientists found little evidence that it exists.

Conflicts like these led some scientists to search for new ways to communicate tacit knowledge. In 2006, the biologist Moshe Pritsker created a journal called JoVE, which published videos of scientists carrying out complex experiments.

In 2014, the biologist Lenny Teytelman created a place where scientists could share their protocols and talk about them. Researchers use the website, called Protocols.io, to help train new members of their labs when the seasoned scientists with magic hands have moved on.

With Transfyr, Dr. Wegrzyn and Ms. Wagner are building a system that can slurp up enormous amounts of data about what happens in a lab, in the form of video, audio and sensor logs from lab equipment. Transfyr even tracks the source of supplies, down to the lot numbers of glove boxes.

(Why? “Maybe there’s a fume coming off the glove that is changing your experiment,” Ms. Wagner said.)

Dr. Nosek said that this new approach might reveal some secrets about why experiments succeed or fail. “What I really like about them is they’re going gangbusters into trying to unpack every detail,” he said. “It makes a lot of sense to go all in, and then figure out what actually matters.”

The company feeds its digital record of experiments to computers that have been trained to recognize the equipment used in biochemistry experiments. Artificial intelligence systems track the equipment, along with the hands of scientists, and decipher each action.

This analysis has revealed that lab workers are performing the same experiment in many different ways. “The variation we see even among well-trained scientists is pretty jaw-dropping,” Ms. Wagner said.

Sometimes those variations matter.

Recently, Transfyr hosted technicians from Dr. Livny’s lab, to watch them extract RNA from cells. Charlie Low, famous for her magic hands, was unwittingly doing a key step wrong, letting chemicals react for 120 seconds instead of 90 seconds.

“I didn’t realize that was even happening,” Ms. Low said. The mistake happened because she turned her timer on after starting the chemical reaction, not before. But it turns out that the extra time from that mistake improved the experiment.

In another trial, Transfyr has found that a protocol that takes six hours for one researcher may take eight hours for another. “It’s not a hard thing to see,” Ms. Wagner said. “But there’s no way to capture it at scale manually.”

Transfyr has signed up a diagnostics company and other clients who want the software to track their research. Ms. Wagner said that ultimately, it might be possible for the system not just to uncover mistakes but to document unexpected breakthroughs.

Rather than sifting notebooks for clues, the system can look back at every second of the work while querying A.I. about unusual things the workers did without realizing it.

Dr. Nosek said that Transfyr would have to present detailed results to prove that this system really does make science better. “Take 50 labs, track half the experiments with this stuff and don’t track the other half — then look for differences in progress,” he suggested.

Harry Collins, a sociologist at Cardiff University who has studied tacit knowledge for over 50 years, said he was optimistic about the effort because it was focused on molecular biology — a field that has matured to the point that many of its fundamental mysteries have been worked out.

But he was skeptical that Transfyr’s approach would reveal much in  fields where scientists agree on far less, even about which experiments will reveal something important.

“You might be lucky now and again, but it’s not a silver bullet for scientific problems,” Dr. Collins said.

Translation

有些科學家在實驗室裡擁有「魔術手」。人工智能正在學習其中的奧秘。 (2/2)

即使是最熟練的研究人員，也可能不完全清楚自己是如何取得成功的。一款人工智能模型正試圖透過觀察他們的每一個動作來找出答案

（繼續）

Transfyr 的聯合創始人Renee Wegrzyn在擔任博士後研究員時，敏銳地意識到了這一資訊缺口。她將自己對蛋白質的實驗記錄在實驗筆記本中，但這只記錄了她工作的一小部分。

當Wegrzyn博士發表她的研究成果時，她不得不進一步精簡記錄。她說: 「我做了三年的博士後研究，最後卻被總結成了一篇三頁的文件」。

這些筆記和報告中缺失了Wegrzyn博士在研究過程中所做的所有細微決定。

並未參與Transfyr計劃的維吉尼亞大學的重複性研究專家Brian Nosek說道:「所有這些細節都有機會很重要，但我們並不能確定它們是否真的這樣重要」。

當一項再次重複研究未能得出與原始研究相同的結果時，這可能意味著原始研究是錯誤的。或者，原始研究本身是正確的，只是重複研究的科學家們無意間犯了一個錯誤。科學家團隊很難就究竟發生了什麼事達成一致意見。

例如，1993年，心理學家Frances Rauscher及其同事報告稱，聽莫札特音樂的人在推理測驗中的表現會暫時提升。圍繞所謂「莫札特效應」的熱議促使其他研究人員進行了自己的實驗。

他們中的許多人未能發現任何顯著的益處，但Rauscher博士對這些失敗不以為意。她說，其他科學家之所以沒有發現“莫札特效應”，是因為他們不夠擅長進行實驗 - 他們不是優秀的科學廚師。

對「莫札特效應」的探索持續了數年。最終，其他科學家幾乎沒有發現任何證據表明它存在。

諸如此類的衝突促使一些科學家尋找新的方式來交流融會知識。 2006年，生物學家Moshe Pritsker創辦了名為JoVE的期刊，該期刊發表了科學家們進行複雜實驗的影片。

2014年，生物學家Lenny Teytelman創建了一個平台，讓科學家分享和討論他們的實驗方案。研究人員利用這個名為Protocols.io的網站，在有魔術手的經驗豐富科學家離開後，幫助訓練實驗室的新成員。

連同Transfyr，Wegrzyn博士和Wagner女士正在開發一個系統，該系統能夠收集實驗室中發生的海量數據，包括視頻、音頻以及來自實驗室設備的傳感器日誌。 Transfyr甚至可以追蹤耗材的來源，精確到手套的装箱批號。

（為什麼？Wagner女士說:「也許是手套散發出的氣味影響了你的實驗」。）

Nosek博士表示，這種新方法或許能揭示實驗成敗的一些秘密。 他說:「我真正欣賞的是，他們正如火如荼地探究每一個細節」;「全力以赴是很有意義，之後找出什麼是真正重要的」。

該公司將實驗的電子記錄輸入電腦，這些電腦經過訓練，能夠識別生物化學實驗中使用的設備。人工智能系統會追蹤這些設備以及科學家的操作，並解讀每一個動作。

這項分析表明，實驗室工作人員會以許多不同的方式進行相同的實驗。 Wagner女士說: 「即使是訓練有素的科學家之間，我們也看到了令人震驚的差異」。

有時，這些差異至關重要。

最近，Transfyr公司接待了Livny博士實驗室的技術人員，讓他們觀摩從細胞中提取RNA的過程。以巧手聞名的Charlie Low無意中犯了一個關鍵錯誤，她讓化學反應持續了120秒，而不是90秒。

Low女士說: 「我根本沒意識到這一點」。這個錯誤是因為她在化學反應開始後才打開計時器，而不是之前。但結果證明，這個錯誤帶來的額外時間反而改善了實驗結果。

在另一項試驗中，Transfyr發現，一個研究人員需要6個小時才能完成的實驗方案，在另一個研究人員可能需要8個小時。 Wagner女士說: “這是很容易理解” ， “但人手地大規模捕捉這種差異是不可能的。”

Transfyr已經與一家診斷公司和其他客戶簽約，希望利用該軟件追蹤他們的研究。Wagner女士表示，最終，該系統不僅能夠發現錯誤，還能記錄意想不到的突破。

系統無需翻閱筆記本尋找線索，而是可以回顧實驗的每一秒，並可向人工智能系統查詢關於做實驗的人在不知不覺中做出的不尋常的事情。

Nosek博士表示，Transfyr公司必須提供詳細的實驗結果，以證明這套系統確實能促進科學發展。他建議道: “選取50個實驗室，用這套系統追踪一半的實驗，另一半不追踪 - 然後觀察兩組實驗進展的差異。”

Cardiff大學的社會學家Harry Collins研究融會知識已有50餘年，他表示對這項研究持樂觀態度，因為它專注於分子生物學 - 一個發展成熟的領域，許多基本奧秘都已被解開。

但他懷疑Transfyr的方法能否在其他領域取得突破性進展，因為科學家們對許多問題的共識都遠不如分子生物學，甚至連哪些實驗能夠揭示重要資訊都難以達成共識。

Collins博士說: 「你或許偶爾會走運，但這並非解決科學問題的靈丹妙藥」。

So, failure to repeat an experiment can take many forms. Chances are that a biotech company creates a promising new drug; when it starts with large-scale production, suddenly it just doesn’t work. When scientists carry out experiments, they keep careful records, but when other researchers use that information to repeat the experiment, scientists may discover that essential knowledge has not been written down. Scientists have generally come to agree that tacit knowledge is an essential part of research. Now some scientists are building a system that can generate enormous amounts of data about what happens in a lab when an experiment is done. It is hoped that ultimately it may be possible for the system not just to uncover mistakes but to document unexpected breakthroughs.

有些科學家在實驗室裡擁有「魔術手」。人工智能正在學習其中的奧秘。 (1/2)

 Recently The New Times reported the following:

Some Scientists Have ‘Magic Hands’ in the Lab. This A.I. Is Learning Why. (1/2)

Even the most adept researchers may not know exactly what they do to get successful results. An A.I. model is trying to figure it out by watching every move.

The NYT - By Carl Zimmer

Aug. 27, 2026

On a recent afternoon, scientists buzzed around a lab in Cambridge, Mass., performing experiments. Their equipment was standard: a lab hood for working with dangerous chemicals, an incubator for growing cells. Their procedures were identical to those in biology labs everywhere.

A closer look revealed some oddities, though. Along with lab coats and gloves, most of the scientists wore miniature cameras on headbands. Three additional cameras peered down at each work station from a shelf.

Lab notebooks were strangely absent. Instead, the scientists quietly narrated their work, murmuring into microphones. A team huddled at one end of the lab, inspecting videos of the experiments.

This was the real research taking place in this lab. With a system of sensors and software intended to capture science as it happens, down to the millisecond, scientists were training artificial intelligence models to recognize every object the scientists used and every action they performed.

The A.I. even composed its own narrative, describing every few seconds of video with sentences like, “The operator resuspends the pellet by pipetting it up and down 10 times.”

The technology is the creation of a start-up called Transfyr, which came out of stealth mode this week with $25 million in seed funding. The company is tackling an age-old challenge in science: the hidden factors that make some experiments succeed and others fail.

Failure can take many forms. Researchers may spend months preparing a line of engineered cells, only to have them mysteriously die along the way. A government Covid test seems to work in one lab, but fails to detect the virus when others use it.

A biotech company creates a promising new drug; when it hands off the protocol for large-scale production, suddenly it just doesn’t work.

“This is just an incredibly painful problem,” said Anna Marie Wagner, a co-founder of Transfyr. “There’s finger-pointing back and forth. Was your protocol wrong? Or did you screw something up? These are very, very expensive mistakes in terms of time, money, and lives.”

Success can be just as mysterious as failure. Some researchers consistently get experiments to work, earning befuddled admiration from colleagues. Scientists even have a special term for this gift: magic hands.

The idea may come as a surprise to people who don’t spend their lives in labs. Science is not supposed to be magic.

When scientists carry out experiments, they keep careful records, both in lab notebooks and later in published scientific papers. Other researchers use that information to repeat the experiment.

But every scientist discovers sooner or later that essential knowledge is not necessarily written down.

“A protocol is a recipe,” said Jonathan Livny, a senior research scientist at the Broad Institute who has collaborated with Transfyr. “You can give somebody a recipe, and it’s not going to make them a great chef.”

Like apprentice chefs, scientists spend years in training, shadowing experts, asking questions and trying out procedures for themselves.

To make an experiment work, they may have to make thousands of minor decisions over the course of a day. A tube needs to be shaken — let it whir on a vibrating platform, or just flick it back and forth by hand?

“The really good people sometimes don’t know why they’re that good,” Dr. Livny said. “They don’t remember the 20 times they did something another way and it failed. They’ve blocked all that sadness out.”

In the 1960s, the Hungarian chemist and philosopher Michael Polyani gave this mysterious expertise a name: tacit knowledge. “We know more than we can tell,” he liked to say.

Scientists have generally come to agree with Polanyi that tacit knowledge is an essential part of research. But it can also slow down progress.

In theory, science moves forward as researchers build on previous work. When a new study comes out, other scientists will attempt to replicate the work. If the original result was correct, a replication ought to produce the same results.

Surprisingly often, it doesn’t. And tacit knowledge is part of the problem. Scientists can’t know exactly how to replicate a study simply by reading about it.

(to be continued)

Translation

有些科學家在實驗室裡擁有「魔術手」。人工智能正在學習其中的奧秘。 (1/2)

即使是最熟練的研究人員，也可能不完全清楚自己是如何取得成功的。一款人工智能模型正試圖透過觀察他們的每一個動作來找出答案

最近一個下午，在麻薩諸塞州劍橋市的一間實驗室裡，科學家們忙著進行各種實驗。他們的設備都很標準：用於處理危險化學品的通風櫃，以及用於培養細胞的培養箱。他們的實驗流程也與世界各地生物實驗室的流程完全相同。

然而，仔細觀察後卻發現了一些奇怪之處。除了實驗服和手套，大多數科學家頭上都戴著微型攝影機。另外三個攝影機則從架上俯視著每個工作台。

奇怪的是，實驗紀錄簿不見了。取而代之的是，科學家們對著麥克風低聲講述他們的工作。一個小組聚集在實驗室的一端，正在查看實驗的錄影。

這才是這個實驗室真正進行的研究。科學家利用一套旨在精確到毫秒地捕捉科學過程的感測器和軟件系統，訓練人工智能模型來識別他們使用的每個物體和執行的每一個動作。

人工智能甚至能夠產生自己的敘述，用諸如每隔幾秒鐘用「操作員用移液器上下吸取10次，使沉澱物重新懸浮」之類的句子來描述影片。

這項技術出自一家名為 Transfyr 的新創公司，該公司本週結束了隱密地運營，並獲得了2,500萬美元的種子輪融資。該公司正在攻克科學界一個長久以來的難題：導致某些實驗成功而另一些實驗失敗的隱藏因素。

失敗的形式多種多樣。研究人員可能花費數月時間建構出一組細胞，卻發現這些細胞在建構過程中神祕死亡。政府研發的一種新冠病毒檢測方法在一個實驗室似乎有效，但在其他實驗室卻無法檢測到病毒。

一家生技公司研發出一種很有前景的新藥；當它把生產方案交給大規模生產團隊時，突然發現這種藥根本不起作用。

Transfyr 的聯合創始人 Anna Marie Wagner 說: “這真是個令人無比頭疼的問題”; “大家互相指責。是不是你的流程錯了？還是你哪裡搞砸了？這些錯誤在時間、金錢和生命方面都代價極其高昂。”

成功和失敗一樣神秘莫測。有些研究人員總是能成功完成實驗，贏得同事們既困惑又欽佩的讚嘆。科學家甚至給這種天賦取了個專門的詞：魔術之手。

對於那些不常待在實驗室的人來說，這種說法或許會讓他們感到驚訝。科學不應該是魔術。

科學家在進行實驗時，會仔細記錄實驗過程，既會記在實驗筆記裡，也會在之後發表的科學論文中加以闡述。其他研究人員會利用這些資訊來重複實驗。

但每位科學家遲早都會發現，關鍵的知識並非總是會被記錄下來的。

曾與 Transfyr 公司合作的博德研究所 高級研究科學家 Jonathan Livny 說道:「實驗方案就像食譜」; 「你可以給別人一份食譜，但這並不能讓他們成為一位偉大的廚師」。

就像學徒廚師一樣，科學家需要花費數年時間進行培訓，跟隨專家學習，不斷提問，並親自嘗試各種實驗步驟。

為了讓實驗成功，他們可能一天之內要做出成千上萬個細微的決定。例如，當需要搖晃試管 - 是讓它在振動平台上旋轉，還是用手輕輕地搖動它？

Livny 博士說: 「真正優秀的人有時甚至不知道自己為什麼如此優秀」; 「他們不記得自己曾經嘗試過其他方法卻失敗了20次。他們已經把那些失敗感都隔掉了」。

在1960年代，匈牙利化學家兼哲學家 Michael Polyani 將這種神秘的專業知識命名為「融會知識」。他常說: 「我們知道的比我們能表達出來的要多」。

科學家普遍認同 Polanyi 的觀點，即融會知識是研究的重要組成部分。但它也可能阻礙研究進展。

理論上，科學的進步源自於研究者在前人工作的基礎上不斷拓展。當一項新研究發表時，其他科學家會嘗試重複這項研究。如果最初的結果是正確的，那麼重複實驗應該會得出相同的結果。

然而，令人驚訝的是，能得出相同的結果不是經常發生。而融會知識正是問題所在。科學家無法僅憑閱讀就準確地知道如何重複一項研究。

（待續）

研發更多類似新型胰臟癌藥物的競賽

Recently The New York Times reported the following:

(Source: The NYT)

The Race to Develop More Medicines Like the New Pancreatic Cancer Drug

Companies are testing dozens of similar drugs in cancers of the pancreas, lung, colon and more.

The NYT - By Rebecca Robbins and Carolyn Y. Johnson

Aug. 27, 2026

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval on Wednesday of a new drug for pancreatic cancer marked the end of a long quest to develop a medicine that can hit one of cancer’s most elusive targets.

Researchers hope the new drug is just the beginning, opening a new chapter in treatment for a range of cancer types.

At least 79 drugs that take a similar approach are being tested in 238 clinical trials worldwide, according to one tally by academic researchers.

Large drugmakers like Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen and AstraZeneca are among the companies racing to develop their own medicines that work like the new drug, daraxonrasib, which is made by Revolution Medicines and will be sold as Rasonque.

The new drug, taken as two daily pills, attacks a mutated cellular protein called KRAS. It has long been an enticing target, because it fuels nearly all pancreatic cancers, as well as many lung and colon cancers and some other tumor types. But for years, the smooth-surfaced KRAS protein was considered impossible to attack, because it lacked an obvious toehold for a drug to exploit.

But a series of scientific advances gradually overturned that doctrine, showing that KRAS could be conquered. Starting around 2024, research activity in the field exploded.

“This is not just pancreatic cancer,” said Dr. David S. Hong, an oncologist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and one of the leaders of an early safety study of daraxonrasib. He compared its landmark approval to the advent about 15 years ago of a powerful class of immunotherapy drugs, called immune checkpoint inhibitors, that are now used against a broad array of tumors.

Cancer is a slippery foe that often finds a way to evade one particular therapy, and there’s hope that treating it with multiple approaches simultaneously could help squelch tumors. Already, studies are underway that test combinations of KRAS-targeting drugs alongside other types of therapies to launch a multipronged attack. Daraxonrasib’s approval could lead to more such trials.

Researchers widely agree that the emerging class of drugs “will need combinations to advance their clinical response and durability,” said Channing Der, a pioneering KRAS scientist who oversees academic labs in North Carolina and Berlin that have been tracking experimental drugs and trials in the field.

Revolution Medicines, a small company near San Francisco that had no approved products before daraxonrasib, is widely seen as the leader in the field. One of its most closely watched, and potentially most significant, trials is testing daraxonrasib as the first drug given after a pancreatic cancer diagnosis, instead of as a second-line treatment for people who had already tried chemotherapy, the group for which the drug won approval.

Revolution is also developing a similar medicine, zoldonrasib, that has shown early promise for lung cancer. The company also has collaborations underway with drugmakers like Bristol Myers Squibb, Tango Therapeutics and Summit Therapeutics to study combinations involving its KRAS-targeting drugs.

Daraxonrasib is not the first to target KRAS. Two others, sold by Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb, won approval to treat forms of lung cancer several years ago. But those drugs were disappointments. They delivered only modest benefits, because they targeted only one mutant form of KRAS, and only when it was not actively driving cancer growth. As a result, tumors rapidly mutated to evade the treatment.

Drugs like daraxonrasib and others in development are more powerful because they can work on an array of mutations, and because they block KRAS when it is actively causing cancer growth. But they run into the same problem as other targeted therapies; eventually, the treatment stops working and the cancer returns.

KRAS is part of a family of proteins that develop mutations in about a fifth of human cancers, including some that have not historically been thought to be susceptible to this kind of treatment approach.

Take breast cancer, for example. KRAS mutations are very rare in breast tumors, but when the breast cancer spreads to other parts of the body, like the lungs or the liver, and develops a resistance to treatment, it can sometimes develop KRAS mutations.

Researchers now hope to plan a clinical trial that would test the approach in breast cancer, said Ariella Hanker of the Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, one of the scientists involved in the work.

Dr. Elizabeth Jaffee, a pancreatic cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins, listed some of the most pressing needs in the field: Creating a new generation of KRAS-targeting drugs with fewer side effects; finding ways to overcome the resistance that allows cancer to surge back; and combining KRAS-targeting drugs with other treatments, including those that harness a patient’s immune system to attack cancer.

“We’re all really excited, of course,” she said. But, she added, “we have a lot to do.”

Achieving those goals will require close collaboration between companies with competing interests, she said. And in one case, tensions have already crept into public view.

One drugmaker, Erasca, has generated attention for early-stage studies of its KRAS-targeting drug, ERAS-0015, in cancers of the lung and pancreas. That experimental drug is similar to daraxonrasib — so similar, in fact, that, in a letter last spring, Revolution Medicines’s lawyers accused its competitor of violating a key patent, and demanded that it stop work on the drug in the United States. Erasca, which is based in San Diego and bought the rights to its experimental drug from a Chinese company, has denied the accusations.

Translation

研發更多類似新型胰臟癌藥物的競賽

各大公司正在針對胰臟癌、肺癌、結腸癌等多種癌症去測試數十種類似藥物

美國食品藥物管理局（FDA）週三批准了一種治療胰臟癌的新藥，這標誌著一項旨在攻剋癌症最難捉摸的標靶之一的藥物研發旅程終於結束。

研究人員希望這種新藥只是個開始，它將開啟多種癌症治療的新篇章。

根據學術研究人員統計，目前全球至少有79種採用類似療法的藥物正在進行238項臨床試驗。

禮來、輝瑞、安進和阿斯特捷利康等大型製藥公司都在競相研發類似 daraxonrasib 的藥物。daraxonrasib 由 Revolution Medicines 公司研發，將以 Rasonque 的商品名上市。

這種新藥每日服用兩粒，作用於一種名為 KRAS 的突變細胞蛋白。 KRAS 蛋白長期以來都是一個極受注視的目標，因為它幾乎是所有胰臟癌以及許多肺癌、結腸癌和其他一些腫瘤類型的致病因素。但多年來，人們一直認為 KRAS 蛋白表面光滑，難以攻擊，因為它缺乏藥物可以利用的明確立足點。

然而，一連串科學進展逐漸推翻了這個觀點，顯示 KRAS 是可以被攻克的。從2024年左右開始，該領域的研究活動呈現爆炸性增長。

休士頓MD安德森癌症中心的腫瘤學家、daraxonrasib早期安全性研究的負責人之一David S. Hong博士說: 「這不僅僅是胰臟癌」。他將這項劃時代的獲批准，比作大約15年前出現的一類強效免疫療法藥物，稱為免疫檢查點抑制劑，這類藥物目前被廣泛應用於對抗各種腫瘤。

癌症是個狡猾的敵人，它常常能找到辦法逃避某種特定的療法，因此人們寄望多種療法的聯合治療能夠有效抑制腫瘤。目前，一些研究正在進行中，目的在測試 KRAS 標靶藥物與其他療法合併使用的效果，以發動多管齊下的攻勢。 Daraxonrasib 的批准可能會促成更多此類試驗。

主管在北卡羅來納州以及柏林的學術實驗室的KRAS研究先驅 Channing Der 說研究人員普遍認為，這類新興藥物「需要聯合用藥才能提高其臨床療效和持久性」，這些實驗室一直在追蹤該領域的實驗性藥物和試驗。

Revolution Medicines 是一家位於舊金山附近的小型公司，在 daraxonrasib 問世之前沒有任何核准產品，如今卻被廣泛認為是該領域的領導者。該公司最受關注、也可能最具意義的試驗之一，是測試 daraxonrasib 作為胰腺癌診斷後的第一線藥物，而不是作為已經嘗試過化療的患者的二線治療，該藥物早已獲准用於這組嘗試過化療人仕。

Revolution 也正在開發一種類似的藥物 zoldonrasib，該藥物在肺癌治療方面已展現出早期療效。此外，該公司也與百時美施貴寶、Tango Therapeutics 和 Summit Therapeutics 等製藥公司合作，研究其KRAS標靶藥物的聯合療法。

Daraxonrasib並非首個KRAS標靶藥物。幾年前，安進以及百時美施貴寶分別銷售的另外兩種KRAS 標靶藥物也獲准用於治療某些類型的肺癌。但這些藥物最終令人失望。這些療法療效有限，因為它們只針對一種 KRAS 突變體，而且只有在 KRAS 不活躍地推動癌症生長時才起作用。結果，腫瘤迅速發生突變而令治療無效。

像 daraxonrasib 和其他正在研發的藥物有更強效力，因為它們可以對多種突變體有效力，並且能在KRAS活躍地驅動癌症生長時阻斷其活性。但它們也面臨著與其他標靶療法相同的問題：最終，治療會無效，癌症復發。

KRAS 屬於一個蛋白質家族，該家族的蛋白質在大約五分之一的人類癌症中發生突變，其中包括一些歷史上被認為對這種治療方法不太有效的癌症。

以乳癌為例。 KRAS 突變在乳腺腫瘤中非常罕見，但當乳癌擴散到身體其他部位（如肺部或肝臟）並對治療產生抗藥性時，有時會發生 KRAS 突變。

參與這項研究的科學家之一、德州大學西南醫學中心西蒙斯綜合癌症中心 的 Ariella Hanker 表示，研究人員現在希望計劃一項臨床試驗，以檢驗該方法在乳癌中的應用。

約翰霍普金斯大學的胰臟癌研究員 Elizabeth Jaffee 博士列舉了該領域一些最緊迫的需求：研發副作用更少的新一代 KRAS靶向藥物；找到克服抗藥性的方法，防止癌症復發；以及將 KRAS 標靶藥物與其他療法合併使用，包括利用患者自體免疫系統攻擊癌症的療法。

她說:“我們當然都非常興奮”。但她補充道，“我們還有很多工作要做。”

她表示，實現這些目標需要利益衝突的公司之間密切合作。在某些情況下，緊張關係已經公開化。

一家名為 Erasca 的製藥公司因其 KRAS 標靶藥物 ERAS-0015 在肺癌和胰腺癌早期研究中的表現而備受關注。這種實驗性藥物與 daraxonrasib 非常相似 - 事實上，兩者非常相似到以至 Revolution Medicines 在去年春天的律師在一封信中，指控其競爭對手侵犯了一項關鍵專利，並要求它停止在美國開展該藥物的研發工作。總部位於聖地牙哥的 Erasca 公司是從一家中國公司購買了其實驗性藥物的權利，該公司否認了這些指控。

So, in the US, an approval of a new drug for pancreatic cancer marks the end of a long quest to develop a medicine that can hit one of cancer’s most elusive targets. The new drug, taken as two daily pills, attacks a mutated cellular protein called KRAS. It has long been an enticing target, because it fuels nearly all pancreatic cancers, as well as many lung and colon cancers and some other tumor types. Researchers hope the new drug is just the beginning, opening a new chapter in treatment for a range of cancer types. Apparently, this new drug will give hope to many pancreatic cancer patients.

北韓怎樣向人民介紹中國？

 Recently Simon Shen (沈旭暉) posted the following article on Patreon:

【Borderlines｜EP9｜研究導讀】 北韓怎樣向人民介紹中國？

Simon Shen沈旭暉 ( https://www.patreon.com/simonshen/posts/borderlines-ep9-167680906)

Yesterday 27 Aug 2026

🇰🇵🇨🇳 訪問脫北者朴智賢，她提到一個很有趣的細節。她第一次逃離北韓以前，一直以為中國比北韓貧窮。後來查閱1990年代初的經濟數據，才發現這個印象並非完全來自北韓洗腦，至少按照部分當時的人均GDP估算，1990年代初北韓的確仍然可能比中國富裕。

這引伸出另一個問題：北韓政府平日究竟怎樣向自己的人民介紹中國？

直覺上，我們很容易以為中國既然是北韓最重要的盟友，北韓宣傳自然會把中國描寫成「偉大友邦」。但實際情況微妙得多。北韓官方當然經常使用「傳統友誼」、「鮮血凝成的友誼」之類說法，中國在「抗美援朝」出兵，亦是兩國官方歷史敘事的重要部分。不過北韓從來不喜歡把自己描寫成中國的小兄弟，更不願意讓人民覺得自己的制度需要向中國學習。之間的差別，非常重要。

有一篇很適合回答這個問題的學術研究。徐玉蘭、金永鎮2021年在《Pacific Focus》發表〈Ups and Downs: An Analysis of Chinese Image in North Korean Media Based on China-related Reports in Rodong Sinmun from 2009–2020〉，直接分析北韓《勞動新聞》 在2009-2020年這十一年間，如何報道中國。研究發現，中國在北韓媒體中的形象並不固定，而是隨兩國政治關係升降，由「親密」走向「冷淡」，後來又重新被包裝成「傳統友好、真誠的國家」。換句話說，《勞動新聞》報道的，不是「中國是甚麼」，而是平壤在某一刻希望北韓人民怎樣理解中國。

其中一個值得深思的發現，是北韓對中國的報道以政治內容為主，但經濟、科技和教育方面的報道，隨著中國國力增強，反而持續減少。中國改革開放之後最令人矚目的成就，正正就是經濟增長、城市現代化、科技發展和人民生活水平改善，但如果北韓媒體大量展示上海、深圳、高鐵、電子支付、私人企業和中國中產階級生活，自然會引伸出一個尷尬問題：同樣是社會主義國家，為甚麼中國人的生活可以變成這樣？所以，北韓可以強調中國是重要鄰國和戰略伙伴，卻沒有必要把中國塑造成一個值得北韓人民羨慕的現代化模範。

中國也不是永遠得到北韓官媒的正面報道。另一項研究分析2009至2017年的《勞動新聞》，發現隨中朝關係惡化，涉及中國的報道曾愈來愈集中於負面面向，「友誼」、「親密」一類詞彙亦減少。另一篇比較北韓官方媒體報道的研究更發現，2013年以後，北韓對中國的報道顯著減少，2014年中以後，甚至一度幾乎沒有正面報道。這正值中國支持聯合國制裁、北京與平壤因核問題關係惡化的時期。換句話說，北韓人民並不是永遠只會收到「中國是最好朋友」這一種訊息；當平壤不滿北京，官方媒體同樣會讓中國從版面消失，甚至讓負面訊息增加。

但中國與美國、日本、南韓之間，仍然有一個根本差別。即使兩國關係最差，北韓仍然保留「傳統友誼」這套歷史語言。徐玉蘭和金永鎮的研究發現，每次中朝關係出現危機，北韓仍會透過這種「傳統」框架，去保留雙方關係。這很符合北韓外交的需要：北京可能令平壤不滿，但中國始終是重要貿易伙伴、外交屏障和地緣政治後盾，所以北韓可以冷落中國，可以批評中國，卻很少有誘因把中國永久塑造成一個像美國一樣的文明敵人。

這種若即若離，不是金正恩年代才開始的。歷史學者沈志華研究毛澤東與金日成時代的中朝關係，就把兩國「親如兄弟」的傳統形象，形容為一種被誇大的歷史神話。兩國官方媒體長期使用「唇齒相依」、「兄弟情誼」、「鮮血凝成的友誼」等語言，但實際政治關係一直充滿利益衝突、互相猜疑和權力角力。金日成尤其重視北韓的自主性，在中蘇分裂期間，亦不願完全依附北京或莫斯科。

金正恩本人也曾經用相當尖銳的方式暗批中國。2016年第七次黨代表大會期間，他批評鄰近地區吹來資產階級自由化以及「改革」、「開放」的骯髒之風。北韓沒有直接點名中國，但所指對象並不難理解。到了2021年第八次黨代表大會，對中國的語調卻又明顯友善得多，反映兩國關係重新調整。這正好說明北韓對中國的宣傳不是固定意識形態，而是隨外交需要可以隨時調節。

如果問一個普通北韓人從官方媒體認識的中國是甚麼，大概是這樣的：中國是重要鄰國，是有共同革命歷史的「傳統朋友」，但不是北韓的老師；中國可以成功，但不會成功到令人質疑北韓；中國可以親密，但不能親密到令人覺得北韓依附北京；中國可以在某些時候做錯事，但又不會像美國一樣成為敵人。這也令朴智賢當年以為中國比北韓貧窮變得容易理解。

References:

Xu Yulan & Jin Yongzhen (2021), “Ups and Downs: An Analysis of Chinese Image in North Korean Media Based on China-related Reports in Rodong Sinmun from 2009–2020” — Pacific Focus, 36(2), 229–251。

Xu Yulan & Lee Sang-man (2018), “An Analysis of China’s Images in DPRK Media: from Close to Distant” — Korean-Chinese Social Science Studies, 16(4), 169–185。

Chen/Debin Zhan (2016), “Analysis of Changes in North Korea’s Cognition of China through Its Media Coverage” — The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 28(2), 199–221。

Park Dong-hoon (2020), “Changes in North Korea's Cognition to China and Policy Adjustment during Kim Jong Un's Period” — Unification Policy Studies, 29(1), 115–140。

(Source: https://www.patreon.com/simonshen/posts/borderlines-ep9-167680906)

So, Simon Shen shows us how North Korea's media portrays China in the past few decades in three aspects:

1. Strategic, shifting portrayal: Coverage is not fixed but fluctuates with political relations, changing from intimate to cold based on Pyongyang’s diplomatic needs.

2. Limited economic focus: Media avoids showing China’s modern economic and technological success to prevent citizens from questioning North Korea's own system.

3. Calculated boundary: China is framed as a traditional ally, never a teacher or master, ensuring North Korean autonomy while maintaining a vital geopolitical buffer. (ChatGPT)

Note:

1. Simon Shen (沈旭暉) is a Hong Kong born international relations scholar, political commentator, and public intellectual. He is particularly known for his work and commentary on China's foreign policy, U.S.–China relations, nationalism, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and international politics. He studied at Yale University and subsequently obtained a doctorate in politics/international relations from the University of Oxford. He has held academic and research positions at universities and institutions in Hong Kong and overseas. (ChatGPT)

Meta同意支付180億美元，以和解美國關於兒童社交媒體成癮的訴訟（2/2）

Recently Reuter reported the following:

Meta agrees to pay $18 billion to settle US lawsuits over children's social media addiction (2/2)

Reuter - By Diana Novak Jones, Jonathan Stempel and Greg Bensinger

August 26, 20268:20 AM PDT. Updated 9 hours ago

(continue)

Wednesday's settlements also call for Meta to pay $459 million to resolve states' privacy claims related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where a British consulting firm collected personal ‌data of millions of ⁠Facebook users without authorization.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved the main settlement late Wednesday. She had overseen the trial that began on August 18.

At a hearing, she called the settlement "a good step forward," and told lawyers for Meta and the states: "I am quite happy to not have to finish up this trial."

Instagram head Adam Mosseri had begun testifying before the settlement was announced, and Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg had been expected to testify.

Mosseri told representatives of the states last month that Meta would appeal any verdict it lost but would make constructive changes if a settlement could be worked out, people familiar with the matter said.

MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS

Social media companies still face thousands of lawsuits in federal and state courts by individuals, school districts, municipalities and other government entities claiming they knowingly sought to addict children and caused a mental health crisis including harms such as anxiety, depression and suicide. Gonzalez Rogers oversees many of these cases.

The Meta trial included claims by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New ⁠Jersey that the company's conduct violated state consumer protection laws.

It also included claims by 29 states that Meta violated the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by knowingly collecting personal data from children without parental consent, and using the data to train generative AI.

Meta had long argued that it could not have misled consumers because "social media addiction" was not a recognized psychiatric condition.

Before the trial began, Meta said California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey were seeking up to $1.4 trillion in penalties.

Earlier this month, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million and implement youth safety measures, in addition to $375 million a jury ordered Meta to pay in the same case in March for ⁠misleading users about its platforms' safety.

Also in March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Alphabet's Google negligent in designing their platforms, and ordered them to pay $6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child.

Meta and Google have said they will appeal those verdicts.

Last month, the European Commission threatened to fine Meta unless it changed some product features, after preliminarily finding that the company breached a 2022 European Union regulation governing the removal of harmful content by large online platforms. A spokesperson said the commission remains in dialogue with Meta on possible changes.

New Mexico was not ⁠part of Wednesday's settlements.

Raul Torrez, the New Mexico attorney general, said the resolution missed some changes his case spurred in his state, including safeguards against adults targeting children and banning sexualized AI chatbot interactions with children, yet "represents real progress and adds momentum to finish the job of protecting kids online."

Florida also did not settle and plans to keep litigating.

"The payouts to the states are peanuts compared to the profound harms Meta’s profit-driven addictive features have inflicted on our children," Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said in a statement. "We’ll see them at trial."

Translation

Meta同意支付180億美元，以和解美國關於兒童社交媒體成癮的訴訟（2/2）

（繼續）

週三達成的和解協議還要求 Meta 支付4.59億美元，以解決各州就有關 Cambridge Analytica 公司的隱私索賠。該醜聞涉及一家英國顧問公司未經授權收集了數百萬個Facebook用戶的個人資料。

美國地區法官 Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 於週三晚些時候批准了主要和解協議。她曾主持了這個由8月18日開始的審判。

在一次聽證會上，她稱該和解協議是“向前邁出的重要一步”，並告訴 Meta 和各州的律師：“我很高興不必完成這場審判了。”

在和解協議宣佈之前，Instagram 執行長 Adam Mosseri 就已經開始作證，而 Meta 執行長 Mark Zuckerberg 也預計會出庭作證。

知情人士透露，Mosseri 上個月告訴各州代表，Meta 將對任何敗訴的判決會提出上訴，但如果能夠達成和解，該公司將做出建設性的改變。

心理健康危機

社交媒體公司們在聯邦和州法院仍面臨數千起訴訟，原告包括個人、學區、市政當局和其他政府機構，他們聲稱這些公司明知故犯地試圖讓兒童沉迷其中，並造成了包括焦慮、憂鬱和自殺等在內的心理健康危機。Gonzalez Rogers 律師事務所負責處理其中許多案件。

Meta 案的審判包括加州、科羅拉多州、肯塔基州和新澤西州提出的指控，稱該公司的行為違反了各州的消費者保護法。

此外，還有 29 個州指控 Meta 違反了聯邦《兒童線上隱私權保護法》(COPPA)，在未經父母同意的情況下故意收集兒童的個人數據，並使用這些數據來訓練生成式人工智能(generative AI)。

Meta一直辯稱，它不可能誤導消費者，因為「社交媒體成癮」並非一種公認的精神疾病。

在審判開始前，Meta 表示，加州、科羅拉多州、肯塔基州和新澤西州正在尋求高達1.4兆美元的罰款。

本月初，新墨西哥州的一名法官判決 Meta 支付5.67億美元，並實施青少年安全措施。此前，陪審團已於3月在同一案件中判令 Meta 支付3.75億美元，原因是該公司誤導用戶去稱其平台安全可靠。

同樣在3月份，洛杉磯的一個陪審團認定Meta以及Alphabet旗下的谷歌在平台設計方面存在疏忽，並判令它們向一名20歲的女性支付600萬美元的賠償金。該名女性稱，她從小就沉迷於Instagram 和 YouTube。

Meta 以及谷歌均表示將對這些判決提出上訴。

上個月，歐盟委員會初步認定 Meta 違反了歐盟2022年關於大型線上平台移除有害內容的法規，並威脅稱，除非Meta更改其部分產品功能，否則將對其處以罰款。一位發言人表示，委員會仍在與Meta就可能的改進方案進行對話。

新墨西哥州並未參與週三達成的和解協議。

新墨西哥州總檢察長 Raul Torrez 表示，該和解協議未能促成他在該州提起訴訟所推動的一些變革，例如保護措施以防止成年人針對兒童 ，及禁止性化的AI聊天機器人與兒童互動。但他同時表示，“協議代表著真正的進步，並為完成保護兒童網上安全的工作注入了動力。”

佛羅裡達州也未達成和解，並計劃繼續進行訴訟。

佛羅裡達州總檢察長 James Uthmeier 在一份聲明中表示：“相比與 Meta 以盈利為目的的成癮功能帶給我們孩子造成的深遠傷害，其支付給各州的賠償金簡直微不足道。我們將在法庭上見分曉。”

              So, Meta Platforms will pay up to $18 billion over the next decade and strictly limit how teenagers use Facebook and Instagram under an agreement with nearly all U.S. states. While Meta will not undergo a fundamental overhaul, the accords represent a renew effort to define how it serves young users. Probably, the present settlement could provide a template for resolving thousands of other lawsuits against social media companies in the US and Europe.

Meta同意支付180億美元，以和解美國關於兒童社交媒體成癮的訴訟（1/2）

Recently Reuter reported the following:

Meta agrees to pay $18 billion to settle US lawsuits over children's social media addiction (1/2)

Reuter - By Diana Novak Jones, Jonathan Stempel and Greg Bensinger

August 26, 20268:20 AM PDT. Updated 9 hours ago

(Summary:

Meta tightens safeguards for children, limits usage, denies wrongdoing.

Accord wins court approval, could be a template for other social media companies.

States were expected to seek close to $200 billion in penalties.)

OAKLAND, California, Aug 26 (Reuters) - Meta Platforms (META.O) will pay up to $18 billion over the next decade and strictly limit how teenagers use Facebook and Instagram under an agreement with nearly all U.S. states to resolve claims it designed those social media platforms to addict children.

The settlements announced on Wednesday end a federal trial over allegations Meta's products harmed children and the company misled the public about their safety. Four of the states — California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey — were expected to seek close to $200 billion in civil ‌penalties.

While Meta will not undergo a fundamental overhaul, the accords represent a sweeping effort to define how it serves young users.

It could provide a template for resolving thousands of other lawsuits against social media companies. Governments around the world are trying to curb children's access to harmful online content, including a ban in Australia on social media for children under 16.

“The focus of this case was to protect our kids," Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement. "The relief we are getting in this settlement is very meaningful and well beyond what any court has ordered or is likely to order."

Meta agreed over the next decade to restrict teenagers' use of Facebook and Instagram to two hours a day and block all usage from midnight to 6 a.m., absent parental consent.

These limits could be tightened if the social media platforms Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube adopt similar terms. Meta will also disable most push notifications to teenage users during school hours of 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. and enhance measures to prevent children from accessing age-restricted content.

The settlement does not require Meta to abandon personalized recommendations or targeted advertising. It also does not ⁠address some content Meta researchers found particularly problematic, including posts that made Instagram users uncomfortable with their body image.

Meta denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The total payout represents about three to four months of profit and about one month of revenue for Meta.

"Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta," the Menlo Park, California-based company said in a blog post. "We want to get this right for parents and teens."

Meta shares rose as much as 4.1%, and closed up 1.1%.

CHANGING THE ONLINE EXPERIENCE

Meta agreed to make maximum payments of about $16.7 billion to 47 U.S. states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.

California could receive a $2.2 billion payout, while New York could receive $1.1 billion. Texas reached a separate settlement worth more than $1 billion.

Some states will deposit funds in general accounts, while others will earmark portions to address children's mental health.

"This is a big deal," said James Speta, a Northwestern University law professor who specializes in telecommunications and internet policy.

"Meta and other companies were facing pressure to change business practices whether or not they lost the lawsuits, from the public and from Congress and state legislatures," he continued. "These restrictions will change the experience on Instagram and Facebook, and they are designed to reduce engagement."

The settlement includes guaranteed payments of about $12.7 billion, with another $5 billion contingent on whether Snap Inc's (SNAP.N), opens new tab Snapchat, ByteDance's TikTok and Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab YouTube impose similar protections for children.

Those companies were not immediately available for comment. Meta plans to publish a letter on Thursday in national newspapers to push TikTok and YouTube to improve protections for children. A Meta spokesperson said the company was "hopeful" Snap would make similar changes.

(to be continued)

Translation

Meta同意支付180億美元，以和解美國關於兒童社交媒體成癮的訴訟（1/2）

（摘要：Meta會加強對兒童的安全保障，限制其使用，否認過去有不當行為;

和解協議獲法院批准，或將成為其他社交媒體公司的模式;

各州預計將尋求近2,000億美元的罰款）

 加州奧克蘭，8月26日（路透社）—Meta Platforms（META.O）將在未來十年支付高達180億美元，並嚴格限制青少年使用Facebook和Instagram的方式。這是該公司與幾乎所有美國州達成的一項協議，旨在解決其設計這些社交媒體平台旨在使兒童上癮的指控。

週三宣佈的和解協議結束了一項聯邦審判，該審判指控Meta的產品傷害了兒童，及該公司就兒童安全問題誤導了公眾。預計加州、科羅拉多州、肯塔基州和新澤西州這四個州將尋求近2,000億美元的民事罰款。

雖然Meta不會進行根本性的改革，但這些協議代表著一項旨在明確其服務年輕用戶方式的全面努力。

這可能為解決針對社交媒體公司的數千件其他訴訟提供範本。世界各國政府都在努力限制兒童接觸有害的網絡內容，例如澳洲禁止16歲以下兒童使用社交媒體。

科羅拉多州總檢察長Phil Weiser在一份聲明中表示：“本案的重點是保護我們的孩子。我們在這項和解協議中獲得的補償意義重大，遠遠超出任何法院已經或可能作出的裁決。”

Meta 同意在未來十年內將青少年使用 Facebook和Instagram 的時間限制在每天兩小時以內，並在午夜至凌晨6點之間禁止所有未經家長同意的使用。

如果社交媒體平台 Snapchat、TikTok 和 YouTube 也採用類似的條款，這些限制可能會進一步收緊。 Meta 還將在上午 8 點至下午 3 點的上課時間禁用向青少年用戶推送的大部分通知，並加強措施防止兒童訪問受年齡限制的內容。

和解協議並未要求Meta放棄個人化推薦或定向廣告。它也沒有解決Meta研究人員發現的一些特別有問題的內容，包括一些讓 Instagram 用戶對自己體形感到不滿的貼文。

Meta在同意和解時否認有不當行為。和解金額相當於 Meta 大約三到四個月的利潤或一個月的收入。

這家總部位於加州 Menlo Park 的公司在一篇部落格文章中表示：“確保青少年在我們平台上擁有安全且有益的體驗是 Meta 的絕對要務。我們希望為家長和青少年提供最佳體驗。”

Meta 股價一度上漲4.1%，最終收漲1.1%。

改變上網的體驗

 Meta 同意向美國 47 個州、華盛頓特區、波多黎各、美屬薩摩亞和北馬里亞納群島支付最高約 167 億美元的賠償金。

加州可能獲得 22 億美元的賠償，紐約州可能獲得 11 億美元。德州達成了一項價值超過 10 億美元的單獨和解協議。

有些州會將資金存入一般帳戶，而有些州則會指定部分資金用於解決兒童心理健康問題。

西北大學專門研究電信和網絡政策的法學教授 James Speta 說:「這是意義重大」。

他說:「無論 Meta 和其他公司是否敗訴，他們都面臨來自公眾、國會和州議會的壓力，要求他們改變商業行為」; 他繼續說: 「這些限制將改變 Instagram 和 Facebook 的用戶體驗，其目的在於降低用戶參與度」。

和解協議包括約127億美元的擔保付款，另有50億美元取決於 Snap Inc.（SNAP.N）旗下的 Snapchat、字節跳動旗下的 TikTok，以及 Alphabet (GOOGL.O) 旗下的 YouTube，是否也會實施類似的兒童保護措施。

這些公司暫未對此置評。 Meta 計劃於週四在全國性報紙上刊登一封公開信，敦促TikTok和YouTube加強對兒童的保護。 Meta發言人表示，該公司「希望」Snap 也能做出類似的改變。

（待續）