Researcher tending seedlings in a laboratory environment. PHOTO: FREEPIK
Bindwell is testing a simple idea: use AI to design smarter, more targeted pesticides built for today’s farming challenges.
Updated
November 14, 2025 10:48 PM
Researcher tending seedlings in a laboratory environment. PHOTO: FREEPIK
Bindwell, a San Francisco–based ag-tech startup using AI to design new pesticide molecules, has raised US$6 million in seed funding, co-led by General Catalyst and A Capital, with participation from SV Angel and Y Combinator founder Paul Graham. The round will help the company expand its lab in San Carlos, hire more technical talent and advance its first pesticide candidates toward validation.
Even as pesticide use has doubled over the last 30 years, farmers still lose up to 40% of global crops to pests and disease. The core issue is resistance: pests are adapting faster than the industry can update its tools. As a result, farmers often rely on larger amounts of the same outdated chemicals, even as they deliver diminishing returns.
Meanwhile, innovation in the agrochemical sector has slowed, leaving the industry struggling to keep up with rapidly evolving pests. This is the gap Bindwell is targeting. Instead of updating old chemicals, the company uses AI to find completely new compounds designed for today’s pests and farming conditions.
This vision is made even more striking by the people leading it. Bindwell was founded by 18-year-old Tyler Rose and 19-year-old Navvye Anand, who met at the Wolfram Summer Research Program in 2023. Both had deep ties to agriculture — Rose in China and Anand in India — witnessing up close how pest outbreaks and chemical dependence burdened farmers.
Filling the gap in today’s pesticide pipeline, Bindwell created an AI system that can design and evaluate new molecules long before they hit the lab. It starts with Foldwell, the company’s protein-structure model, which helps map the shapes of pest proteins so scientists know where a molecule should bind. Then comes PLAPT, which can scan through every known synthesized compound in just a few hours to see which ones might actually work. For biopesticides, they use APPT, a model tuned to spot protein-to-protein interactions and shown to outperform existing tools on industry benchmarks.
Bindwell isn’t selling AI tools. Instead, the company develops the molecules itself and licenses them to major agrochemical players. Owning the full discovery process lets the team bake in safety, selectivity and environmental considerations from day one. It also allows Bindwell to plug directly into the pipelines that produce commercial pesticides — just with a fundamentally different engine powering the science.
At present, the team is now testing its first AI-generated candidates in its San Carlos lab and is in early talks with established pesticide manufacturers about potential licensing deals. For Rose and Anand, the long-term vision is simple: create pest control that works without repeating the mistakes of the last half-century. As they put it, the goal is not to escalate chemical use but to design molecules that are more precise, less harmful and resilient against resistance from the start.
Keep Reading
HKU professor apologizes after PhD student’s AI-assisted paper cites fabricated sources.
Updated
November 10, 2025 10:07 PM
.jpg)
The University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Island. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
It’s no surprise that artificial intelligence, while remarkably capable, can also go astray—spinning convincing but entirely fabricated narratives. From politics to academia, AI’s “hallucinations” have repeatedly shown how powerful technology can go off-script when left unchecked.
Take Grok-2, for instance. In July 2024, the chatbot misled users about ballot deadlines in several U.S. states, just days after President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid against former President Donald Trump. A year earlier, a U.S. lawyer found himself in court for relying on ChatGPT to draft a legal brief—only to discover that the AI tool had invented entire cases, citations and judicial opinions. And now, the academic world has its own cautionary tale.
Recently, a journal paper from the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong was found to contain fabricated citations—sources apparently created by AI. The paper, titled “Forty Years of Fertility Transition in Hong Kong,” analyzed the decline in Hong Kong’s fertility rate over the past four decades. Authored by doctoral student Yiming Bai, along with Yip Siu-fai, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and other university officials, the study identified falling marriage rates as a key driver behind the city’s shrinking birth rate. The authors recommended structural reforms to make Hong Kong’s social and work environment more family-friendly.
But the credibility of the paper came into question when inconsistencies surfaced among its references. Out of 61 cited works, some included DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links that led to dead ends, displaying “DOI Not Found.” Others claimed to originate from academic journals, yet searches yielded no such publications.
Speaking to HK01, Yip acknowledged that his student had used AI tools to organize the citations but failed to verify the accuracy of the generated references. “As the corresponding author, I bear responsibility”, Yip said, apologizing for the damage caused to the University of Hong Kong and the journal’s reputation. He clarified that the paper itself had undergone two rounds of verification and that its content was not fabricated—only the citations had been mishandled.
Yip has since contacted the journal’s editor, who accepted his explanation and agreed to re-upload a corrected version in the coming days. A formal notice addressing the issue will also be released. Yip said he would personally review each citation “piece by piece” to ensure no errors remain.
As for the student involved, Yip described her as a diligent and high-performing researcher who made an honest mistake in her first attempt at using AI for academic assistance. Rather than penalize her, Yip chose a more constructive approach, urging her to take a course on how to use AI tools responsibly in academic research.
Ultimately, in an age where generative AI can produce everything from essays to legal arguments, there are two lessons to take away from this episode. First, AI is a powerful assistant, but only that. The final judgment must always rest with us. No matter how seamless the output seems, cross-checking and verifying information remain essential. Second, as AI becomes integral to academic and professional life, institutions must equip students and employees with the skills to use it responsibly. Training and mentorship are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for using AI to enhance, not undermine, human work.
Because in this age of intelligent machines, staying relevant isn’t about replacing human judgment with AI, it’s about learning how to work alongside it.