Category: 3. Business

The US government is to become the biggest shareholder in the country’s only operational rare earths mine.

It is also going to take a series of other steps to underpin the future of the operation in Mountain Pass, California.

Rare earths are essential to huge amounts of modern technology, such as electric cars and wind turbines.

Access to these metals has been at the heart of a US-China trade war, with Beijing controlling about 90% of global mining capacity.

MP Materials, which owns the mine, has entered into an agreement with the US Department of Defense that is designed to reduce America’s dependency on imports of rare earths.

The deal means that for the next 10 years the US government will commit to MP Materials receiving a minimum price of $110 per kg for its neodymium and praseodymium output.

These are two of the most in-demand of the 17 different rare earths for the global economy. They are crucial for making permanent magnets, which are found in everything from smartphones to MRI scanners and electric motors.

The move follows concerns that China has used its near total control of the industry to push prices down and force companies in other countries out of business.

China is home to about 70% of the world’s rare earth mining and 90% of refining capacity as a result of years of government support for the industry.

Under the agreement, MP Materials will build a new US facility to increase how much of the raw materials from the mine it can turn into useable products.

The location is still to be decided, but the company says it will serve both defence and commercial customers.

Much of this will be funded by the Department of Defense buying $400m of newly created shares.

“This initiative marks a decisive action by the Trump administration to accelerate American supply chain independence,” said MP Materials founder and chief executive James Litinsky.

Until now Shenghe Resources, a company partly owned by the Chinese government, has been one of MP Materials’ largest shareholders.

Shenghe had been the sole customer for the output of the Californian mine, which meant that its rare earths were being sent to China for refining.

Earlier this year, MP Materials said that it would stop doing this because of the huge 125% tariffs that China imposed on US goods, in response to the 145% tariffs President Trump had imposed on Chinese imports.

It added that tariffs meant sending its output to China was neither commercially viable nor in alignment with America’s national interests.

Rare earths have been at the heart of efforts to repair a US-China trade relationship that has deteriorated since Trump returned to the White House.

Increased tariffs led Beijing to impose a new export licensing regime that severely limited how much of these materials was reaching American manufacturers.

An agreement to improve that access, in exchange for lifting some of the US’s own export restrictions in other areas, was at the heart of recent trade talks between the world’s two biggest economies in London and Geneva.

Despite that commitment the US complained that it has not been implemented fast enough.

In the longer term, domestic supplies are the US’s best bet on increasing access to the rare earths which are crucial to the manufacturing that is at the heart of Trump’s economic vision for the country.

China’s export controls have also led to criticism in Europe, with the European Parliament voting in favour of a resolution that called Beijing’s controls “unjustified” and “intended to be coercive”.

They also urged the European Commission to speed up the implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act, which came into force last year and is designed to reduce Europe’s reliance on imports.

On a visit to Germany last week, China’s foreign minister downplayed these concerns, saying it was his country’s “sovereign right” as well as being “common practice” to control exports of goods that have both commercial as well as military uses.

Recently, I found myself pouring my heart out, not to a human, but to a chatbot named Wysa on my phone. It nodded – virtually – asked me how I was feeling and gently suggested trying breathing exercises.

As a neuroscientist, I couldn’t help but wonder: Was I actually feeling better, or was I just being expertly redirected by a well-trained algorithm? Could a string of code really help calm a storm of emotions?

Artificial intelligence-powered mental health tools are becoming increasingly popular – and increasingly persuasive. But beneath their soothing prompts lie important questions: How effective are these tools? What do we really know about how they work? And what are we giving up in exchange for convenience?

Of course it’s an exciting moment for digital mental health. But understanding the trade-offs and limitations of AI-based care is crucial.

Stand-in meditation and therapy apps and bots

AI-based therapy is a relatively new player in the digital therapy field. But the U.S. mental health app market has been booming for the past few years, from apps with free tools that text you back to premium versions with an added feature that gives prompts for breathing exercises.

Headspace and Calm are two of the most well-known meditation and mindfulness apps, offering guided meditations, bedtime stories and calming soundscapes to help users relax and sleep better. Talkspace and BetterHelp go a step further, offering actual licensed therapists via chat, video or voice. The apps Happify and Moodfit aim to boost mood and challenge negative thinking with game-based exercises.

Somewhere in the middle are chatbot therapists like Wysa and Woebot, using AI to mimic real therapeutic conversations, often rooted in cognitive behavioral therapy. These apps typically offer free basic versions, with paid plans ranging from US$10 to $100 per month for more comprehensive features or access to licensed professionals.

While not designed specifically for therapy, conversational tools like ChatGPT have sparked curiosity about AI’s emotional intelligence.

Some users have turned to ChatGPT for mental health advice, with mixed outcomes, including a widely reported case in Belgium where a man died by suicide after months of conversations with a chatbot. Elsewhere, a father is seeking answers after his son was fatally shot by police, alleging that distressing conversations with an AI chatbot may have influenced his son’s mental state. These cases raise ethical questions about the role of AI in sensitive situations.

Where AI comes in

Whether your brain is spiraling, sulking or just needs a nap, there’s a chatbot for that. But can AI really help your brain process complex emotions? Or are people just outsourcing stress to silicon-based support systems that sound empathetic?

And how exactly does AI therapy work inside our brains?

Most AI mental health apps promise some flavor of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is basically structured self-talk for your inner chaos. Think of it as Marie Kondo-ing, the Japanese tidying expert known for helping people keep only what “sparks joy.” You identify unhelpful thought patterns like “I’m a failure,” examine them, and decide whether they serve you or just create anxiety.

But can a chatbot help you rewire your thoughts? Surprisingly, there’s science suggesting it’s possible. Studies have shown that digital forms of talk therapy can reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression, especially for mild to moderate cases. In fact, Woebot has published peer-reviewed research showing reduced depressive symptoms in young adults after just two weeks of chatting.

These apps are designed to simulate therapeutic interaction, offering empathy, asking guided questions and walking you through evidence-based tools. The goal is to help with decision-making and self-control, and to help calm the nervous system.

The neuroscience behind cognitive behavioral therapy is solid: It’s about activating the brain’s executive control centers, helping us shift our attention, challenge automatic thoughts and regulate our emotions.

The question is whether a chatbot can reliably replicate that, and whether our brains actually believe it.

A user’s experience, and what it might mean for the brain

“I had a rough week,” a friend told me recently. I asked her to try out a mental health chatbot for a few days. She told me the bot replied with an encouraging emoji and a prompt generated by its algorithm to try a calming strategy tailored to her mood. Then, to her surprise, it helped her sleep better by week’s end.

As a neuroscientist, I couldn’t help but ask: Which neurons in her brain were kicking in to help her feel calm?

This isn’t a one-off story. A growing number of user surveys and clinical trials suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy-based chatbot interactions can lead to short-term improvements in mood, focus and even sleep. In randomized studies, users of mental health apps have reported reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety – outcomes that closely align with how in-person cognitive behavioral therapy influences the brain.

Several studies show that therapy chatbots can actually help people feel better. In one clinical trial, a chatbot called “Therabot” helped reduce depression and anxiety symptoms by nearly half – similar to what people experience with human therapists. Other research, including a review of over 80 studies, found that AI chatbots are especially helpful for improving mood, reducing stress and even helping people sleep better. In one study, a chatbot outperformed a self-help book in boosting mental health after just two weeks.

While people often report feeling better after using these chatbots, scientists haven’t yet confirmed exactly what’s happening in the brain during those interactions. In other words, we know they work for many people, but we’re still learning how and why.

Red flags and risks

Apps like Wysa have earned FDA Breakthrough Device designation, a status that fast-tracks promising technologies for serious conditions, suggesting they may offer real clinical benefit. Woebot, similarly, runs randomized clinical trials showing improved depression and anxiety symptoms in new moms and college students.

While many mental health apps boast labels like “clinically validated” or “FDA approved,” those claims are often unverified. A review of top apps found that most made bold claims, but fewer than 22% cited actual scientific studies to back them up.

In addition, chatbots collect sensitive information about your mood metrics, triggers and personal stories. What if that data winds up in third-party hands such as advertisers, employers or hackers, a scenario that has occurred with genetic data? In a 2023 breach, nearly 7 million users of the DNA testing company 23andMe had their DNA and personal details exposed after hackers used previously leaked passwords to break into their accounts. Regulators later fined the company more than $2 million for failing to protect user data.

Unlike clinicians, bots aren’t bound by counseling ethics or privacy laws regarding medical information. You might be getting a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, but you’re also feeding a database.

And sure, bots can guide you through breathing exercises or prompt cognitive reappraisal, but when faced with emotional complexity or crisis, they’re often out of their depth. Human therapists tap into nuance, past trauma, empathy and live feedback loops. Can an algorithm say “I hear you” with genuine understanding? Neuroscience suggests that supportive human connection activates social brain networks that AI can’t reach.

So while in mild to moderate cases bot-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy may offer short-term symptom relief, it’s important to be aware of their limitations. For the time being, pairing bots with human care – rather than replacing it – is the safest move.

The prospective, observational, real-world PROMETCO study (NCT03935763) may help address the evidence gap in third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), particularly among those with poorer performance statuses who are often underrepresented in clinical trials, according to Rocío García-Carbonero, MD.

In the second part of an interview with OncLive®, García-Carbonero discussed findings presented at the 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancers Congress showing an increase in adverse effects (AEs) and serious AEs among patients with mCRC being treated in the third-line setting who had an ECOG performance status of 2.

In a separate session on gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI NETs), García-Carbonero highlighted the importance of molecular profiling in managing poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the colon—a highly aggressive subtype with poor prognosis—and underscored the need for education on diagnostic nuances.

In the first part of the interview, García-Carbonero detailed findings from a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 FRESCO-2 trial (NCT04322539) evaluating fruquintinib (Fruzaqla) in mCRC, exploring outcomes based on metastatic sites.

OncLive: What was the rationale for initiating the PROMETCO study, and why was it important to capture real-world outcomes specifically in patients receiving third-line therapy for mCRC?

García-Carbonero: The PROMETCO study is a real-world, prospective study. I believe it’s the first international, real-world, prospective study conducted in patients with mCRC who have progressed on 2 prior lines of therapy since their diagnosis of metastatic disease and were about to start a third-line treatment. That’s when patients consented to enrollment.

We collected prospective data from real-world clinical practice, including treatment patterns, safety, efficacy, progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival. It’s an important study—it enrolled 738 patients and reflected the current real-world standard of care.

Importantly, the study included approximately 10% of patients with an ECOG performance status of 2, a subgroup that is generally underrepresented in clinical trials. It’s critical that we gather efficacy and safety data in this population.

What findings were observed, particularly regarding safety and outcomes in patients with poorer performance status?

We presented a safety analysis based on performance status. We also examined baseline characteristics in the subgroup of patients with poorer performance status. We found that patients with ECOG performance status of 2 tended to have more advanced disease, a higher incidence of right-sided colon cancer, greater liver involvement, and a higher number of metastatic sites overall.

These disease characteristics translated to approximately a 10% higher rate of AEs and serious AEs in this subgroup, with the most notable increase observed in anemia—likely reflecting the burden of more advanced disease.

These findings are important for practicing clinicians, [as they] provide insight into what to expect when treating patients who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials.

Moving on to your session on outcomes in patients with GI NETs, what were your key takeaways for clinicians regarding the prognosis of patients in real-world clinical practice?

The session on GI NETs was very pragmatically oriented. The 3 case [studies] we discussed represented the spectrum of neuroendocrine neoplasms we encounter in clinical practice. This is a highly heterogeneous group of tumors, [ranging from] very indolent disease to [highly aggressive forms]. Patients often assume that all NETs or neoplasms are indolent, but that’s not always the case.

What were the key diagnostic and molecular insights from the poorly differentiated GI neuroendocrine carcinoma case that are important for clinicians to consider?

I presented a case of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the colon, which is a scenario with a very poor prognosis and represents a highly aggressive tumor type. We discussed diagnostic procedures that may be indicated [in such cases]. For example, during this interactive session, we posed questions to the audience. It was striking to see that 25% of respondents said they would order a gallium PET scan. However, gallium PET imaging is indicated for well-differentiated tumors because it assesses somatostatin receptor expression, and it’s not appropriate for poorly differentiated carcinomas.

Another key takeaway [from the discission] was the importance of molecular profiling. At least 20% of these tumors harbor [potentially druggable] molecular alterations, and we need to search for them. If you have the ability to profile the tumor, you should, because you may find [opportunities for targeted treatments] beyond classical cytotoxic chemotherapy that could benefit your patients.

In the case I presented, there was a BRAF mutation, but other tumors may be microsatellite instability–high, have high tumor mutational burden, or harbor RAS mutations. There are now emerging targeted therapies for many of these alterations. We need to continue shifting the field toward a more molecularly driven approach, as I believe our patients will significantly benefit from it.

• The report reflects the findings of an analysis conducted as part of the Committee’s forward-looking work to identify and analyse risks and vulnerabilities to the banking system.
• The report identifies the services banks and non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) provide to each other and the trends shaping the relationship between them.
• The Committee will continue to monitor and investigate the interconnections between banks and NBFIs with a particular focus on synthetic risk transfers.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has today published a horizon-scanning report on the interconnections between banks and non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs). The NBFI sector has grown rapidly in recent years and includes a broad range of entities including investment funds, insurance companies, pension funds and other types of financial intermediaries.

Banks and NBFIs are linked by a wide range of activities and services and the sectors are mutually dependent. Banks provide leverage, clearing, market-making and underwriting services to NBFIs, trade derivatives with NBFIs and, in some cases, own NBFIs. These activities expose banks to a wide variety of risks. NBFIs are also exposed to banks through short-term cash placements, investment in securities issued by banks and trading activities. The nature of their linkages is shaped by market conditions and by regulatory reforms over the last several years.

To explore the risks associated with banks’ interconnections with NBFIs, the report builds on several case studies to discuss stylised scenarios that illustrate possible impacts of NBFI failure on banks and financial stability. The report also discusses the importance of granular, timely and high-frequency data in understanding and monitoring linkages between banks and NBFIs.

The Committee will continue to monitor and investigate the interconnections between banks and NBFIs with a particular focus on synthetic risk transfers (SRTs). The investigation will seek to better assess the benefits and risks posed by SRTs.

• ISB 2001 is currently in Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM)

NORTH CHICAGO, Ill. and NEW YORK, July 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV) and IGI Therapeutics SA, a wholly owned subsidiary of New York-based Ichnos Glenmark Innovation, Inc. (IGI), today announced an exclusive licensing agreement for IGI’s lead investigational asset, ISB 2001, developed using IGI’s proprietary BEAT® protein platform, for oncology and autoimmune diseases.

“Multispecifics including trispecific antibodies represent a new frontier in immuno-oncology with the potential to deliver deeper, more durable responses by engaging multiple targets simultaneously,” said Roopal Thakkar, M.D., executive vice president, research and development and chief scientific officer, AbbVie. “This partnership with IGI reflects our unwavering commitment to advancing novel therapies for patients with multiple myeloma, a disease where significant unmet need remains despite recent progress.”

“ISB 2001 exemplifies the potential of our BEAT® protein platform to generate effective multispecifics that may overcome resistance and improve outcomes in hard-to-treat cancers,” said Cyril Konto, M.D., President and CEO of IGI. “This agreement marks a defining milestone in IGI’s scientific journey and reflects our team’s deep commitment to delivering meaningful therapies for patients. Our partnership with AbbVie accelerates ISB 2001’s path to patients and sharpens our focus on advancing the next generation of BEAT®-enabled assets in oncology.”

Under the terms of the agreement, AbbVie will receive exclusive rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize ISB 2001 across North America, Europe, Japan and Greater China. Subject to regulatory clearance, IGI will receive an upfront payment of $700 million and is eligible to receive up to $1.225 billion in development, regulatory, and commercial milestone payments, along with tiered, double-digit royalties on net sales.

About AbbVie

AbbVie’s mission is to discover and deliver innovative medicines and solutions that solve serious health issues today and address the medical challenges of tomorrow. We strive to have a remarkable impact on people’s lives across several key therapeutic areas – immunology, oncology, neuroscience, and eye care – and products and services in our Allergan Aesthetics portfolio. For more information about AbbVie, please visit us at www.abbvie.com. Follow @abbvie on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube.

About AbbVie in Oncology

AbbVie is committed to elevating standards of care and bringing transformative therapies to patients worldwide living with difficult-to-treat cancers. We are advancing a dynamic pipeline of investigational therapies across a range of cancer types in both blood cancers and solid tumors. We are focusing on creating targeted medicines that either impede the reproduction of cancer cells or enable their elimination. We achieve this through various, targeted treatment modalities and biology interventions, including small molecule therapeutics, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), immuno-oncology-based therapeutics, multispecific antibody and novel CAR-T platforms. Our dedicated and experienced team joins forces with innovative partners to accelerate the delivery of potential breakthrough medicines.

Today, our expansive oncology portfolio comprises approved and investigational treatments for a wide range of blood cancers and solid tumors. We are evaluating more than 35 investigational medicines in multiple clinical trials across some of the world’s most widespread and debilitating cancers. As we work to have a remarkable impact on people’s lives, we are committed to exploring solutions to help patients obtain access to our cancer medicines. For more information, please visit http://www.abbvie.com/oncology.

About ISB 2001

ISB 2001 is a first-in-class trispecific T-cell engager that targets BCMA and CD38 on myeloma cells and CD3 on T cells currently in Phase 1 for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Developed using IGI’s proprietary BEAT® protein platform, ISB 2001 was engineered with two distinct binders against myeloma-associated antigens to enhance avidity, even at low target expression levels, while aiming to improve safety over first-generation bispecific antibodies.  Recently presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting as a Rapid Oral Presentation (Abstract #7514), data from 35 patients demonstrated a sustained overall response rate (ORR) of 79% and a high complete/stringent complete response (CR/sCR) rate of 30% at active doses ≥ 50 µg/kg in a heavily pretreated population of relapsed/refractory myeloma patients, with a favorable safety profile.

U.S. Food & Drug Administration granted ISB 2001 Orphan Drug Designation in July 2023 and Fast Track Designation for the treatment of relapsed/refractory myeloma patients in May 2025. 

About the BEAT® Multispecific™ Platform

IGI’s proprietary BEAT® platform goes beyond traditional bispecific antibody approaches, addressing key engineering bottlenecks that have historically limited large-scale bispecific production. By leveraging a proprietary common light chain library and TCR interface-based heavy chain pairing, BEAT® enables the development of next-generation immune cell engagers with strong therapeutic potential in oncology. Unlike many engineered formats, BEAT® mirrors the architecture of natural antibodies utilizing both light and heavy chains to enhance stability and function. Key attributes of the BEAT® platform include its multispecific versatility, enabling the design of antibodies that engage diverse immune cell types such as T cells, myeloid cells, and NK cells against multiple antigens. The platform also features optimized engineering through high-fidelity heavy chain pairing with a common light chain, allowing for precise Fc modulation and access to a broad structural design space. Additionally, BEAT® supports robust manufacturability, producing correctly assembled multispecific antibodies with favorable stability, extended half-lives, low immunogenicity and high titer yields through standardized process development and manufacturing operations.

About IGI 

IGI is a global, fully integrated clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing innovative biologics in oncology. Headquartered in New York, NY, IGI is advancing a robust pipeline of novel, first-in-class multispecifics^TM aimed at addressing complex diseases and treating patients holistically. Powered by its proprietary BEAT® technology platform, IGI is committed to delivering breakthrough, curative therapies to improve and extend the lives of patients battling hematological malignancies and solid tumors. For more information, visit www.IGInnovate.com.

AbbVie Forward-Looking Statements

Some statements in this news release are, or may be considered, forward-looking statements for purposes of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project” and similar expressions and uses of future or conditional verbs, generally identify forward-looking statements. AbbVie cautions that these forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, challenges to intellectual property, competition from other products, difficulties inherent in the research and development process, adverse litigation or government action, changes to laws and regulations applicable to our industry, the impact of global macroeconomic factors, such as economic downturns or uncertainty, international conflict, trade disputes and tariffs, and other uncertainties and risks associated with global business operations. Additional information about the economic, competitive, governmental, technological and other factors that may affect AbbVie’s operations is set forth in Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” of AbbVie’s 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K, which has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as updated by its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and in other documents that AbbVie subsequently files with the Securities and Exchange Commission that update, supplement or supersede such information. AbbVie undertakes no obligation, and specifically declines, to release publicly any revisions to forward-looking statements as a result of subsequent events or developments, except as required by law.

 

 

SOURCE AbbVie

WPP has appointed top Microsoft boss Cindy Rose as its new chief executive as the marketing services giant aims to implement a sweeping restructure to turn around the ailing London-listed company.

Rose, who is now chief operating officer for global enterprise and former boss of Microsoft’s European and UK businesses, will take over from Mark Read on 1 September.

Under Read’s tenure WPP’s market value has slumped by two-thirds with its share price languishing at a 16-year low, as the company has struggled against the rise of AI tech that helps companies automate the creation of adverts. It has also struggled to stem a string of big client losses to rivals, most notably French group Publicis.

Publicis, which overtook WPP to become the world’s biggest marketing services group by revenues last year, has snapped up billions in business including Coca-Cola’s media account in North America and, most recently, Mars’ $1.7bn (£1.25bn) global media planning and buying business.

The latter win, revealed by the Guardian, coincided with WPP’s move to announce Read’s departure after three decades at the company, with almost seven as chief executive.

“Cindy has led multibillion-dollar operations across the UK, EMEA and globally, built enduring client relationships and delivered growth in both enterprise and consumer environments,” said Philip Jansen, chair of WPP.

“Cindy has supported the digital transformation of large enterprises around the world – including embracing AI to create new customer experiences, business models and revenue streams.”

In her most recent role at Microsoft, Rose was responsible for working with large clients to use digital technology and AI for business transformation.

Rose, who has British and American citizenship, has been on WPP’s board since 2019.

She will be based in London and New York, where WPP has in the past considered moving its listing. She is an advisory board member at Imperial College Business School in London and McClaren Racing.

Prior to Microsoft, Rose held senior roles at Vodafone, Virgin Media and 15 years at the Walt Disney Company.

“Cindy is an outstanding and inspirational business leader with extensive experience at some of the world’s most recognised companies and a track record of growing large-scale businesses,” said Jansen, adding that the recruitment process had been “thorough” and that internal and external candidates had been considered.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

WPP moved swiftly to secure a successor to Read, who only announced his departure last month.

Read overhauled the group over the course of his tenure, merging agencies and selling off some businesses, which has helped cut net debt.

However, client losses fuelled by being slower off the mark to build an AI offering, as well as fighting against developments by deep-pocketed big tech in the sector, saw him unable to reinvigorate the company’s share price.

“There are so many opportunities ahead for WPP,” said Rose. “We have and continue to build market-leading AI capabilities, alongside an unrivalled reputation for creative excellence and a pre-eminent client list. I began my career in the creative industries and this feels like coming home.”

On Wednesday, WPP cut its forecast for revenues and profits this year blaming a challenging economic backdrop. The warning sent the company’s share price tumbling by 19%.