Category: 3. Business

A scientific breakthrough

Some of the most groundbreaking ventures owe their success to entrepreneurs with a multidisciplinary approach. Wadah Maleb is a case in point: a mechanical engineer, he discovered a new interest in biomedical science while participating in a breast cancer research project and studying the physiology of breast ducts. He grew frustrated that most preclinical experiments, although promising, failed to translate into clinical trials.

“The problem was deeper than that,” Wadah explains. “We grow cells randomly in 2D, while human physiology is vastly more complicated. Nothing we grew in the lab accurately mimicked what happens in the human body.”

So he put on his engineering hat and began searching for models that could recreate human-like tissue environments and offer better predictions of how drugs behave in the body. That search led him to organ-on-chip technology which, although not entirely new, “didn’t grow tissues in an accurate way,” he says.

Wadah developed his first biochip simulation into his Master’s thesis: an early conceptual model containing microscale scaffolds where cells attach to engineered surfaces to form 3D tissues resembling those in the human body. But when it came to actually manufacturing the chip, he hit a brick wall, lacking the funds and technology to engineer the micro-scaffolds he had designed.

Wadah went on to secure funding by winning multiple local and international entrepreneurship competitions, including Qatar’s Stars of Science innovation programme, where he refined early manufacturing methods and demonstrated feasibility of the technology. But even with these wins, scaling the prototype to a functional, test-ready system remained prohibitively expensive, whereas he had raised just $500,000 (€430,000) to initiate the company’s earliest R&D activities.

The solution, he realised, lay in education and resourcefulness.

Bridging the funding gap

He approached the faculty of medicine at the American University of Beirut (AUB) to help him evaluate and refine early prototypes according to biological requirements. He invested the funds he had into developing the machines needed for the initial manufacturing steps, while manually performing the remaining specialised tasks to avoid premature large-scale automation costs. He needed dentists, technicians and even artists with engraving skills to assist with those tasks. Eventually he found an artist dexterous enough to engrave on a grain of rice. The bar for precision was so high that, out of 1,000 assembled chips, having even one functional chip was regarded as a success. These experiments generated essential engineering data that later formed the basis for automating the entire manufacturing pipeline at a fraction of the expected cost.

This funding enabled Wadah to support the company’s earliest stages: proof of concept, technological development, a small initial team and, eventually, a modest lab. These efforts laid the foundation for what would become DLOC Biosystems.

One of the team’s biggest challenges was operating across multiple layers of the technology at once. The entire mechanism behind producing their chips is unique. No off-the-shelf machine could be bought to do the job; instead, they had to design and build their own tools to execute each step of chip fabrication.

Once they had identified the precise parameters needed for chip manufacturing, they began transforming the formerly manual process into a semi- and eventually fully-automated workflow. In 2023, Wadah applied for the EBRD’s EU-funded Innovation Programme in Lebanon, which connected him with the LAUIH. The hub’s support allowed him and his team to automate key steps efficiently, optimise operations, and build robust systems while maintaining full ownership and internal control over their intellectual property.

“This programme created a bridge,” says Wadah. “It gave us the chance to improve operations with experts at the LAUIH and advance our product faster than we could have alone.”

DLOC Biosystems’ new biochip could now model a single tissue or organ in the lab, but that alone is insufficient. “The human body doesn’t operate in a static microenvironment,” Wadah reminds us. “Organs are connected, and each contains multiple cell types and relies on constant flows of blood and fluids.”

Reaping the rewards of collaboration

From that point onwards, DLOC Biosystems’ took organ-on-chip technology in a whole new direction, pioneering a human-on-chip platform that integrates multiple organ models with real-time measurement.

The challenges are immense but worthwhile, as Wadah expands: “We can’t just model or grow cells randomly in 3D. We need to grow them exactly as they form in the human body with the same structures, the same complexity. Our goal is to recreate these tissues with real accuracy to facilitate drug development and make it less costly. That’s why we didn’t stop at simply making a chip.”

Today, DLOC Biosystems has grown to a team of more than 20, with patents filed and strong angel investment behind it. While there are many potential avenues for business development, the company is now focusing on offering its services for preclinical drug testing to pharmaceutical firms and research organisations.

Building on his collaboration with the LAUIH, Wadah is seeking new partners to design additional organ models, develop better alternatives to traditional drug testing, and grow revenue. DLOC Biosystems’ ultimate goal is to reduce the massive cost and time needed to develop a drug (often exceeding $2 billion (€1.7 billion) and 12 years) by scaling and commercialising its human-on-chip technology through upcoming Pre-Series A and Series A investment rounds.

The venture is a shining example of the EBRD’s facilitation of academia helping to realise industrial goals and looks set to yield advances in healthcare and commercial success.

Thank you to the Division of Trading and Markets for organizing this Roundtable on equity market structure and, more specifically, Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. I have been at the SEC for nearly twenty years, and one of my observations is that people often will be more open with their thoughts when meeting outside of Washington, D.C. However, these events take more effort, and I appreciate the contributions of the University of Austin for making this Roundtable possible in Texas.

Regulation NMS may have been well‑intentioned, but its implementation has coincided with shrinking displayed size, a significant increase in the number of execution venues, and complex routing behavior that is often difficult to explain to investors. Thus, I commend Chairman Atkins for initiating this review of Rule 611 and inviting market participants to help the SEC evaluate whether the Regulation NMS framework is truly serving investors and our markets. By revisiting the trade‑through regime, we have an opportunity to move to a less costly, more resilient, and more transparent market structure—which would make our markets even stronger.

This is not an easy task. My predecessor, Commissioner Elad Roisman, likened our equity market structure rules to the threads of a sweater: pull on one, and you inevitably stress the others—sometimes in unexpected ways.[1] I hope that these Roundtable sessions, and the public comments submitted, help identify many of the other “threads” in Regulation NMS that interconnect with Rule 611, so that we can assess the consequences that might result from potential regulatory changes.

One discussion that I look forward to hearing today is on the topic of best execution. A broker-dealer’s obligation to seek best execution of customer orders is one of the “cornerstones of market integrity.” [2] As I noted when the Commission proposed new rules in this area two years ago, best execution is a concept that has been developed by court holdings and specific rules from self-regulatory organizations.[3] But to what extent does our current best execution regime presuppose or rely on entities’ fulfillment of Rule 611? Are there other considerations that should be required if this rule is altered?

The Commission should have compelling evidence of need before adding layers on top of the best execution regime already imposed by FINRA.[4] Do panelists think that such a need would arise if Rule 611 were to change and, if so, why? Relatedly, are there further ways that the Commission could increase transparency so that investors, counterparties, and regulators could observe execution quality across venues and enhance private ordering in this area? In 2024, the Commission adopted rule changes to modernize the reports required by Rule 605 to reflect how trading occurs in microseconds across multiple venues.[5] In what other areas would transparency be needed for market participants to have the tools to assess execution quality on their own?

Once again, I appreciate the thoughtful approach taken by the Commission staff to consider the entire regulatory framework holistically. This undertaking presents an opportunity for a serious retrospective review of Regulation NMS and Rule 611. With the public’s input, I hope that the Commission can tackle these hard problems with evidence‑based proposals so that our market structure regulations can most effectively serve investors, intermediaries, and issuers.

A new global report by Infosys (NSE, BSE, NYSE: INFY) and MIT Technology Review Insights reveals that 83 percent of business leaders believe psychological safety directly impacts the success of enterprise AI initiatives. Creating psychological safety in an era of AI takes more than good intentions or blanket HR policies, it requires explicit messaging about AI’s realistic capabilities, limits and approved use cases. Through its collaboration with MIT Technology Review Insights, Infosys aims to equip global leaders with insights and strategies to adopt AI responsibly at scale, leveraging Infosys Topaz, an AI-first suite of services, solutions and platforms.

The report, “Creating Psychological Safety in the AI Era,” highlights how employees often hesitate to experiment, challenge assumptions or lead projects due to fear of backlash, which undermines innovation even when the technology capabilities exist. The report shows that despite major investments in AI, workplace fear – particularly fear of failure – remains one of the biggest barriers to adoption.

Despite rapid advances in AI technology, the report finds that human factors are holding enterprises back. Fear of failure, unclear communication and limited leadership openness often prevent employees from fully engaging with AI initiatives. In fact, organizations may have the tools and strategies in place, but without psychological safety, adoption falters. The findings highlight that scaling AI is as much about building trust and resilience within the workforce as it is about deploying cutting-edge systems.

The report’s key findings include:

• A culture of psychological safety has greater success with AI projects. More than four out of five (83 percent) respondents say psychological safety has a measurable impact on the success of AI initiatives, and 84 percent report direct links between psychological safety and tangible business outcomes.
• Fear is holding leaders back. While nearly one-quarter (22 percent) of respondents admit they have hesitated to lead or suggest an AI project because of fear of failure or potential criticism, encouragingly three-quarters (73 percent) indicated they feel safe to provide honest feedback and express opinions freely in the workplace.
• Achieving psychological safety is a moving target. Fewer than half (39 percent) of respondents describe their current level of psychological safety as “high,” – yet 48 percent report a “moderate” degree of it. This highlights a gap where some enterprises are pursuing AI adoption on cultural foundations that are not yet fully stable.
• Communication and leadership behaviors are critical levers. 60 percent of respondents say clarity on how AI will – and won’t – impact jobs would improve psychological safety the most, while just over half (51 percent) highlight leadership modeling openness to questions, dissent and failure as equally important.
• Creating psychological safety takes more than good intentions or HR policies. It requires explicit messaging about AI’s realistic capabilities, limits and approved use cases. Clear communication and ongoing dialogue help companies prioritize transparency, ethics and stakeholder engagement.

Laurel Ruma, Global Editorial Director, MIT Technology Review Insights said, “Our research, in collaboration with Infosys, shows that psychological safety is not a soft metric, it is a measurable driver of AI outcomes. Leaders who communicate clearly about AI’s impact and model openness to questions and dissent create the conditions for innovation. Without that foundation of trust, even the most advanced AI strategies will falter.”

Rafee Tarafdar, Chief Technology Officer, Infosys said, “We’ve observed that the most successful enterprise AI transformations happen in organizations that foster psychological safety. When employees feel empowered to experiment without fear of failure, innovation thrives. This culture of trust and openness enables teams to unlock the full potential of AI, driving meaningful business outcomes and sustainable growth.”

Sushanth Tharappan, Executive Vice President – HR, Infosys, “At Infosys, we’ve built a culture of innovation where employees are constantly looking for new opportunities to innovate with AI. We’ve seen firsthand how psychological safety accelerates adoption and when employees have safe spaces to experiment and reimagine roles, it streamlines the technological aspect. This report confirms that enterprises must pair technical investment with cultural transformation if they want AI to deliver lasting impact.”

The report underscores that AI transformation is not only a technological journey, but also a cultural one. By prioritizing psychological safety, enterprises can create trust, resilience and openness which are needed to unlock the full potential of AI.

 

About MIT Technology Review Insights

MIT Technology Review Insights is the custom publishing division of MIT Technology Review, the world’s longest-running technology magazine, backed by the world’s foremost technology institution—producing live events and research on the leading technology and business challenges of the day. Insights conducts qualitative and quantitative research and analysis in the U.S. and abroad and publishes a wide variety of content, including articles, reports, infographics, videos, and podcasts.

 

About Infosys

Infosys is a global leader in next-generation digital services and consulting. Over 320,000 of our people work to amplify human potential and create the next opportunity for people, businesses, and communities. We enable clients in 59 countries to navigate their digital transformation. With over four decades of experience in managing the systems and workings of global enterprises, we expertly steer clients, as they navigate their digital transformation powered by cloud and AI. We enable them with an AI-first core, empower the business with agile digital at scale and drive continuous improvement with always-on learning through the transfer of digital skills, expertise, and ideas from our innovation ecosystem. We are deeply committed to being a well-governed, environmentally sustainable organization where diverse talent thrives in an inclusive workplace.

Visit www.infosys.com to see how Infosys (NSE, BSE, NYSE: INFY) can help your enterprise navigate your next.

 

Safe Harbor

Certain statements in this release concerning our future growth prospects, or our future financial or operating performance, are forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the ‘safe harbor’ under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. The risks and uncertainties relating to these statements include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties regarding the execution of our business strategy, increased competition for talent, our ability to attract and retain personnel, increase in wages, investments to reskill our employees, our ability to effectively implement a hybrid work model, economic uncertainties and geo-political situations, technological disruptions and innovations such as artificial intelligence (“AI”), generative AI, the complex and evolving regulatory landscape including immigration regulation changes, our ESG vision, our capital allocation policy and expectations concerning our market position, future operations, margins, profitability, liquidity, capital resources, our corporate actions including acquisitions, and cybersecurity matters. Important factors that may cause actual results or outcomes to differ from those implied by the forwardlooking statements are discussed in more detail in our US Securities and Exchange Commission filings including our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025. These filings are available at www.sec.gov. Infosys may, from time to time, make additional written and oral forward-looking statements, including statements contained in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and our reports to shareholders. The Company does not undertake to update any forwardlooking statements that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of the Company unless it is required by law.

 

Media contact

For more information, please contact: PR_Global@Infosys.com