Category Archives: business

Vancouver ‘Robo Cop’? a Neuralink brain implant story

Before diving into the story, Vancouver Police Department’s ‘robo cop’ was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) a few years ago and for anyone unfamiliar with the disease, here’s more from the ALS Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND) or Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a rare terminal neurodegenerative disease defined by the progressive loss of both upper and lower motor neurons that normally control voluntary muscle contraction. ALS is the most common of the motor neuron diseases.[8] ALS often presents with gradual muscle stiffness, twitches, weakness, and wasting. Motor neuron loss typically continues until the ability to eat, speak, move, and breathe without mechanical support is lost. At least 50% of people with ALS experience significant changes in thinking and behavior, with 15% of individuals going on to develop frontotemporal dementia.[9][10]

Lee Marten, right, is a Vancouver police sergeant who is one of the first Canadians to be implanted with a Neuralink brain chip in a bid to help him with symptoms of ALS or spinal injuries. His wife, Lisa, is seen in Toronto Western Hospital on May 20 before his procedure. (Submitted by Lisa Marten)

That prognosis makes the decision to go ahead with an experimental brain implant instantly understandable. Lyndsay Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news online website details the officer’s and his family’s story,

Sitting in his wheelchair, hands at his side, 48-year-old Lee Marten looks at the computer screen in front of him and imagines moving the cursor across the screen. As quickly as he thinks it, the arrow shifts. 

Marten, who is a sergeant with the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) currently on leave, uses the cursor to type letters on a digital keyboard — as fast as, or faster, than human fingers. Right away, the latest Toronto Blue Jays score pops up. 

“I know it seems like science fiction,” he said. “But here I am and it works.” 

On May 20 [2026], Marten became one of the first Canadian ALS patients to receive a Neuralink brain implant, as part of a clinical trial at University Health Network’s (UHN) Toronto Western Hospital. 

He is just the 26th person in the world to undergo the procedure, which is being tested on people unable to move because of ALS or spinal injuries. At least two other Canadians, both quadriplegics, are also known to have received the implant in Canada, and a dual American-Canadian citizen with ALS has had the procedure done in the U.S.

Neuralink is owned by controversial trillionaire [not now on August 5, 2026] Elon Musk, and the hospital has faced criticism for participating in the trial.

But Marten sees the procedure as a chance to improve his quality of life and advance science in a way that could help others. 

“Getting a terminal diagnosis, you don’t have much to look forward to,” he said. 

“This is going to maybe improve my time that I have left, and allow me to be a kind of trailblazer for anyone else going through this.”

Long road to diagnosis

Marten’s symptoms began in April 2022. He was working on the bike patrol with the Vancouver Police Department when his left foot began to drop. 

At first, he thought it was a cycling injury, but he kept losing his balance. A fall off the steps to his garage led to a broken leg.

Doctors attributed the symptoms to a benign brain tumour and Marten had surgery to remove it in March 2024. 

But the mobility problems continued to worsen, and three years after he first felt unwell, the devastating diagnosis came. ALS was destroying the nerve cells in his brain and spinal cord. It is progressive and there is no cure.

The disease’s progression varies from patient to patient, but Marten said the hardest part about knowing he will die from ALS is that he won’t be able to watch his children, Rys, 14, and Carys, 11, grow up.

“People joke that I’m going to be RoboCop,” he said, laughing, in an interview shortly before the procedure.

“I’m going to be a cyborg, right?” 

The Martens’ biggest hope for the surgery was that it would allow him to communicate with family through a computer after he is no longer able to physically speak.

Lisa said this will be helpful with medical decisions, including those around a potential medically-assisted death. 

“We can get his true feelings on what he wants to do,” she said.

·

About the implant

Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article provides some technical details, Note: Links have been removed,

The trial at UHN’s Toronto Western Hospital, CAN-PRIME, is one of a handful of Neuralink studies taking part across the world, including ones in the U.S., U.K. and Abu Dhabi.

The procedure involves implanting more than 1,000 electrodes, each thinner than a human hair, into the brain’s motor cortex. Surgeons open the skull and prepare the site, but the electrodes are inserted by a two-metre-tall robot shipped to Toronto from San Francisco. 

“The robot is crucial because it’s much more accurate and precise than a human neurosurgeon could do,” said Dr. Andres Lozano, who leads the neurosurgery team at UHN’s Toronto Western. 

The hospital has faced criticism for participating in the trial, including from an emergency physician who said that Canadian institutions should not work with companies owned by Musk, who was behind U.S. government cuts to global health. Neuralink has also been criticized for how it shares information

Lozano said the trial went through a series of ethical screens, and passed all of them. [emphasis mine]

“We jumped at the opportunity to participate because we think the technology is very advanced and we think it really has an opportunity to help patients,” he said, adding that it may be possible in the future for paralyzed patients to control movement of a wheelchair, or even a specialized exoskeleton, through Neuralink brain implants. 

A ‘scary’ change in plans

The day of Marten’s surgery started with stress when they learned his surgery would be different from those of previous Neuralink patients. 

For the first time, surgeons would not peel back the dura, or protective layer around the brain. Instead, the robot would insert the chip through the dura.

Lozano called it a “tremendous advance in technology” that could make the operation simpler, and safer. 

But the new plan made Lisa nervous. 

“They didn’t tell us until just before he went in that he was going to be the first person in the world to have the new procedure done,” she said. “That’s where it got a little scary.” 

Lee, on the other hand, was ready.

“I’m like, let’s get ‘er done.” 

The procedure took six hours and doctors say it was a success.

Marten woke up in the ICU with 27 staples in his scalp and a brutal headache. Painkillers helped, and he says about an hour after waking up, he was working with Neuralink engineers to try out the device.

“They told me I was the first out of all the participants [to] do that so soon after surgery,” he said. “And I’m like, well, Canadians are just built tougher.” 

Since returning to Vancouver, he has “homework” that consists of doing exercises every couple of days so the Neuralink engineers can monitor how the device is working. It keeps him busy. 

Marten has plans to make playlists for his kids, and play video games with them, even when he can no longer move or speak. 

Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article offers more including images and an embedded video. There’s also a five minute CBC Radio interview of Lindsay Duncombe by Stephen Quinn on CBC’s The Early Edition. Dunscombe was a bit of an ‘easy, breezy’ interview subject who displays the kind of enthusiasm you’d expect from someone presenting science to children; the sort of thing you might expect at a science centre. (Confession: Sometimes I sound like an enthused science fan too.)

It doesn’t seem enough to say bravo to the Martens; they are facing an extraordinarily difficult time with grace and courage.

Now, onto some of the issues not explored in Duncombe’s article or interview.

Ethics and other issues

What struck me in Duncombe’s account is the UHN’s failure to alert the family to a change in how the surgery would be conducted. Six hours notice? Someone had to know that procedure would be different. Wasn’t the surgical team prepped for this change long before? There seems to no reason to give the family only sic hours notice.

Regarding ethics, there’s this somewhat unclear statement in Duncombe’s July 2, 2026 article “Lozano (Dr. Andres Lozano, who leads the neurosurgery team) said the trial went through a series of ethical screens, and passed all of them.”

  • Whose (which institution? Health Canada, University of Toronto, Toronto Western Hospital?) ethical screens?
  • Who (which institution? …) conducted these analyses?
  • How did giving the family six hours notice of a significant change in the operation pass an ethical test?
  • Does the university and/or the hospital have a financial relationship of any kind with Neuralink?
  • Does the surgical lead, Dr. Andres Lozano, have any kind of financial relationship with Neuralink?
  • Is it a good idea to get brain implants from commercial companies?
  • What about Lee Marten’s thoughts? Does he own them?

I have over the years written a number of pieces about brain or neural implants with a focus on some of these questions. This list includes a number of my postings but I’m going to start the list with a CBC article by Sheena Goodyear,

There appears to be some action by the Canadian federal government to address privacy issues with neural data. First, here’s a February 13, 2026 opinion piece by Kris Klein for the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) about the Canadian federal government’s addition to a list of what constitutes sensitive information, Note: A link has been removed,

Privacy professionals have long lived with a comforting illusion: that “sensitive information” is a relatively stable concept. Health data is sensitive. Financial data is sensitive. Social Insurance Numbers are sensitive. This mental list has served us well for years and fits neatly into training decks and compliance frameworks.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [OPC] has gently reminded us that this list is not static.

This week, the OPC updated its Interpretation Bulletin on Sensitive Information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which consolidates court decisions and OPC findings on what counts as sensitive personal information and what that means for consent and safeguards. What’s new? Your brain has now officially entered the chat. The OPC added neural data among the types of personal information that will generally be considered sensitive and require a higher degree of protection.

The bulletin explains a principle privacy professionals know well but sometimes treat as theoretical. While some types of information will almost always be sensitive, any personal information can become sensitive depending on context. Names and addresses are the classic example. Usually harmless, unless the context reveals something deeply personal about the individual.

Under PIPEDA, sensitivity drives two critical compliance outcomes: the form of consent an organization must obtain and the level of security safeguards it must apply. In other words, sensitivity is not an academic label. It determines how hard organizations must work to justify collection, explain purposes and protect the data they hold.

Neural data, now formally on the “sensitive personal information” list broadly refers to information derived from the activity of the nervous system, particularly the brain. This can include data collected through technologies such as electroencephalography, brain computer interfaces, neuroimaging tools or wearable devices designed to measure brain signals. In practice, this can range from clinical brain scans to consumer-facing technologies that claim to monitor our focus, fatigue or emotional states.

In a nutshell, it is data generated by your brain doing brain things.

Used responsibly, neural data has clear benefits. In health care, it can support diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation for neurological conditions. In accessibility contexts, brain computer interfaces have the potential to restore communication or mobility for individuals with severe disabilities. In workplace safety and transportation, fatigue detection technologies are being explored as tools to reduce accidents.

At the same time, the risks are not subtle. Neural data is deeply intimate. It may reveal health conditions, cognitive states or emotional responses that individuals themselves do not fully understand or expect to disclose. Unlike a password, you can’t simply reset your brain. Unlike a credit card number, neural patterns are not easily replaced.

The OPC’s decision to flag neural data as sensitive reflects these realities. It signals that some information is so personal that heightened care is not optional. Organizations collecting or experimenting with neural data should assume that meaningful consent must be robust, safeguards must be proportionate and purposes must be tightly defined.

The February 10, 2026 Interpretation Bulletin: Sensitive Information from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) mentioned in Klein’s opinion piece specifically mentions neural data but only once, Note: A link has been removed,

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has added “neural data” to the list of personal information that will generally be considered sensitive and require a higher degree of protection. See the section: Application by the Courts and the OPC in Different Contexts.

However, the PIPEDA could be scrapped for new legislation introduced on June 15, 2026 as described in a federal government backgrounder,

Today [June 16, 2026], the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-36, an Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA), to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [PIPEDA] and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

In a June 17, 2026 blog posting on his companies website (CloudForce) Anton Kuznetsov outlines changes in the proposed bill C-36 that will affect Canadian businesses, Note: Links have been removed,

Why Canada Needed a New Privacy Law

PIPEDA has governed commercial privacy for 25 years. It was built for a world without cloud infrastructure, AI-driven decision-making, or mass data brokerage. Its enforcement model reflects that: the Privacy Commissioner investigates, recommends, and can apply to Federal Court, but cannot impose fines directly. The maximum penalty for a violation is $100,000.

That limitation has consequences. In 2024-25, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner received 686 breach reports from private-sector businesses under PIPEDA — affecting over 20 million Canadians. Complaints to the OPC rose 32% in the same period. (OPC 2024-25 Annual Report) The average cost of a Canadian data breach reached CA$6.98 million in 2025 — a 10.4% increase year-over-year. (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 – Canada) The enforcement regime was not designed for this environment.

Bill C-36 is the Carney government’s response — a revised version of Bill C-27, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament prorogued in January 2025. (IAPP, Canada’s Bill C-36 introduces privacy reforms, enforcement changes)

What Changes: PIPEDA to PPCDA

Bill C-36 enacts the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA), which replaces Part 1 of PIPEDA — the commercial privacy section. PIPEDA itself survives in narrowed form, renamed the *Electronic Documents Act*, covering only its electronic documents and signatures provisions.

Dr. Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and more) offers a rather peppery analysis of the proposed legislation in a June 15, 2026 blog posting and another on June 18, 2026 on his eponymous website.

I have not been able to find a reference to neural data or any other neural implant issues in the discussion about Bill C-36. If someone has located something, please let me know in the Comments.

In the end

Given the same circumstances, if I had been presented with the choice that the Martens were given, I too would have opted for the implant. Desperation will drive you to places you might not visit elsewise.

That six hour notice of a change prior to the operation? It rings alarm bells and brings to mind “move fast and break things” usually accompanied by “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission,” both of them favourites in the technology sector. Neuralink, after all, is a company owned by Elon Musk who is not famed for his deliberation or thoughtfulness and his companies are not known for their openness (see: 2025’s “The Tesla Files; a Whistleblower, a Leak, a Fight for Truth : the Inside Story of Musk’s Empire” by Sönke Iwersen for more about Musk’s Tesla operations [focus on European operations] and its level of secrecy).

There are other issues as well, what happens if the company goes out of business or discontinues this particular product?

I don’t imagine the federal government will manage to cover every contingency but it is concerning that Prime Minister Carney’s Liberals are in such a rush to stimulate ‘innovation’ that they appear oblivious to the implications of technology such as computer-brain interfaces (CBI) and more. For many, (see CBC Radio interview of Lindsay Duncombe) it is treated as the stuff of futuristic science fiction. As you can see from this piece and a cornucopia of articles elsewhere in print and online, that belief is deeply erroneous.

Hopefully, I’m wrong and the Canadian federal government is alive to the many possibilities good and ill afforded by these ‘science fiction’ technologies and is examining ways to ensure safe implementation.

AI likely to replace novelists? Half of UK novelists fear it could happen

Clementine Collett, BRAID (Bridging Responsible AI Divides) Fellow at the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, University of Cambridge, wrote a November 25, 2025 essay for The Conversation discussing the impulse that led to her latest research on AI, Note: Links have been removed,

Back in 2023, I was completing my doctorate on AI and gender bias and my debut novel, Something About Her, had just been published. It was also the year that many prominent authors including Jodi Picoult, John Grisham and George R.R. Martin filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for using their work to train generative artificial intelligence (a type of AI that creates new content based on user prompts) without permission. This case is still proceeding through the courts, as are many others on similar grounds.

At the time, I remember thinking: we desperately need to know more about the implications of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for the novel. As a writer, avid reader and an academic researching the impact of AI on work and society, this felt like a pivotal and crucial time to investigate this.

Particularly as governments around the world continue to ask big questions about how AI is regulated, designed and used.

In 2024, I started researching how hundreds of novelists and publishers were using GenAI across the UK. This consisted of a major survey with 332 literary creatives (258 published novelists, 42 professionals in fiction publishing, 32 literary agents for fiction); six focus groups with 52 writers and publishers; interviews and case studies with creatives and industry experts; and a forum which brought different stakeholders together to discuss the changes and challenges which GenAI is posing to the novel.

What I found was starker than I had anticipated.

The findings, published in my report, The Impact of Generative AI on the Novel, show just how urgently people in the industry want guardrails to be put around AI to help protect this precious art form.

I have more about Collett’s research from a University of Cambridge November 20, 2025 press release (also on EurekAlert but published on November 19, 2025) by Fred Lewsey, Note: Links have been removed,

A new report involving hundreds of literary creatives from across the UK fiction publishing industry reveals widespread fears over copyright violation, lost income, and the future of the art form, as generative AI tools and LLM-authored books flood the market.

Just over half (51%) of published novelists in the UK believe that artificial intelligence is likely to end up entirely replacing their work as fiction writers, a new University of Cambridge report shows.

Close to two-thirds (59%) of novelists say they know their work has been used to train AI large language models (LLMs) without permission or payment.

Over a third (39%) of novelists say their income has already taken a hit from generative AI, for example due to loss of other work that facilitates novel writing. Most (85%) novelists expect their future income to be driven down by AI.

In new research for Cambridge University’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy (MCTD), Dr Clementine Collett surveyed 258 published novelists earlier this year, as well as 74 industry insiders – from commissioning editors to literary agents – to gauge how AI is viewed and used in the world of British fiction. *

Genre authors are considered the most vulnerable to displacement by AI, according to the report, with two-thirds (66%) of all those surveyed listing romance authors as “extremely threatened”, followed closely by writers of thrillers (61%) and crime (60%). 

Despite this, overall sentiment in UK fiction is not anti-AI, with 80% of respondents agreeing that AI offers benefits to parts of society. In fact, a third of novelists (33%) use AI in their writing process, mainly for “non-creative” tasks such as information searches.   

However, the report outlines profound concerns from the cornerstone of a publishing industry that contributes an annual £11bn to the UK economy, and exports more books than any other country in the world.

Literary creatives feel that copyright laws have not been respected or enforced since the emergence of generative AI. They call for informed consent and fair remuneration for the use of their work, along with transparency from big tech companies, and support in getting it from the UK government.

Many warn of a potential loss of originality in fiction, as well as a fraying of trust between writers and readers if AI use is not disclosed. Some novelists worry that suspicions of AI use could damage their reputation.

“There is widespread concern from novelists that generative AI trained on vast amounts of fiction will undermine the value of writing and compete with human novelists,” said Dr Clementine Collett, BRAID UK Research Fellow at Cambridge’s MCTD and author of the report, published in partnership with the Institute for the Future of Work.

“Many novelists felt uncertain there will be an appetite for complex, long-form writing in years to come.”

“Novels contribute more than we can imagine to our society, culture, and to the lives of individuals. Novels are a core part of the creative industries, and the basis for countless films, television shows, and videogames,” said Collett.  

“The novel is a precious and vital form of creativity that is worth fighting for.”

Tech companies have the fiction market firmly in their sights. Generative AI tools such as Sudowrite and Novelcrafter can be used to brainstorm and edit novels, while Qyx AI Book Creator or Squibler can be used to draft full-length books. Platforms such as Spines use AI to assist with publishing processes from cover designs to distribution.

“The brutal irony is that the generative AI tools affecting novelists are likely trained on millions of pirated novels scraped from shadow libraries without the consent or remuneration of authors,” said Collett.

Along with surveying a total of 332 literary creatives, who participated on condition of anonymity, Collett conducted focus groups and interviews around the country, and convened a forum in Cambridge with novelists and publishers. **   

Many novelists reported lost income due to AI. Some feel the market is increasingly flooded with AI-generated books, with which they are forced to compete. Others say they have found books under their name on Amazon which they haven’t written.

Some novelists also spoke of online reviews with telltale signs of AI, such as jumbled names and characters, that give their books bad ratings and jeopardise future sales.

“Most authors do not earn enough from novels alone and rely on income streams such as freelance copywriting or translation which are rapidly drying up due to generative AI,” said Collett. *** 

Some literary creatives envisioned a dystopic two-tier market emerging, where the human-written novel becomes a “luxury item” while mass-produced AI-generated fiction is cheap or free.

When it came to working practices, some in the study consider AI valuable in speeding up repetitive or routine tasks, but it was seen to have little to no role to play in creativity.  

Almost all (97%) novelists were “extremely negative” about AI writing whole novels, or even short sections (87% extremely negative). The aspects novelists felt least negative about using AI for were sourcing general facts or information (30% extremely negative), with around 20% of novelists saying they use AI for this purpose.

Around 8% of novelists said they use AI for editing text written without AI. However, many find editing to be a deeply creative process, and would never want AI involved. Almost half (43%) of novelists felt “extremely negative” about using AI for editing text.

Forum participant Kevin Duffy, founder of Bluemoose Books, the publisher behind novels such as The Gallows Pole and Leonard and Hungry Paul – both now major BBC TV dramas – is on record in the report saying:

“[W]e are an AI free publisher, and we will have a stamp on the cover. And then up to the public to decide whether they want to buy that book or not. But let’s tell the public what AI is doing.” Many respondents echoed this sentiment. ****

The research found widespread backlash against a “rights reservation” copyright model as proposed by the UK government last year, which would let AI firms mine text unless authors explicitly opted out.

Some 83% of all respondents say this would be negative for the publishing industry, and 93% of novelists said they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ opt out of their work being used to train AI models if an opt out model was implemented.

The vast majority (86%) of all literary creatives preferred an ‘opt in’ principle: rights-holders grant permission before AI scrapes any work and are paid accordingly. The most popular option was for AI licensing to be handled collectively by an industry body – a writers’ union or society – with half of novelists (48%) selecting this approach.   

“Our creative industries are not expendable collateral damage in the race to develop AI. They are national treasures worth defending. This report shows us how,” said Prof Gina Neff, Executive Director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy.

Some novelists worry AI will disrupt the “magic” of the creative process. Stephen May, writer of acclaimed historical novels such as Sell Us the Rope expressed anxiety over AI taking the required “friction” and “pain” out of a first draft, diminishing the final product.

“Novelists, publishers, and agents alike said the core purpose of the novel is to explore and convey human complexity,” said Collett. “Many spoke about increased use of AI putting this at risk, as AI cannot understand what it means to be human.”

Authors fear AI may weaken the deep human connection between writers and readers at a time when reading is already at historically low levels, particularly among the next generation: only a third of UK children say they enjoy reading in their free time.

Many novelists want to see more AI-free creative writing on the school curriculum, and government-backed initiatives aimed at finding new voices from underrepresented groups to counter risks of “homogeneity” in fiction brought about by generative AI.

The research reveals a sector-wide belief that AI could lead to ever blander, more formulaic fiction that exacerbates stereotypes, as the models regurgitate from centuries of previous text. Some suggest the AI era may see a boom in “experimental” fiction as writers work to prove they are human, and push the artistry further than AI.

“Novelists are clearly calling for policy and regulation that forces AI companies to be transparent about training data, as this would help with the enforcement of copyright law,” added Collett.

“Copyright law must continue to be reviewed and might need reform to further protect creatives. It is only fair that writers are asked permission and paid for use of their work.”


Notes:

* Of the published novelists involved in the survey, 90% are published “traditionally” through publishing houses, while 10% are self-published.  

** This consisted of 32 literary agents for fiction (9%), 258 published novelists (78%), and 42 professionals who work in fiction publishing (13%). The survey took place between February and May 2025.

*** The median income for an author in the UK in 2022 was just £7,000, far lower than the minimum wage. [Thomas, A., Battisti, M., & Kretschmer, M. (2022). UK Authors’ Earnings and Contracts 2022.]

**** Full quote from Kevin Duffy as featured in the report: “’For a small independent publisher of literary fiction like Bluemoose Books, our only stand is to say we don’t want any part of this, we are AI free, and we are an AI free publisher, and we will have a stamp on the cover. And then up to the public to decide whether they want to buy that book or not. But let’s tell the public what AI is doing. It’s got brilliant capacity to do fantastic things in other avenues, but for the creative industries and for literary fiction in particular, it is very limited.”

The full report, The Impact of Generative AI on the Novel, will be published on the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy website: https://www.mctd.ac.uk/

The research in the report was supported by the BRAID (Bridging Responsible AI Divides) programme with funds received from the Arts and Humanities Research Council [grant number AH/X007146/1]. This report is published in association with the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge, and with the Institute for the Future of Work.

The Cambridge University’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy (MCTD) November 20, 2026 report “Impact of Generative AI on the Novel” by Dr. Clementine Collett has a dramatic summary, Note: Links have been removed,

The rise of generative AI has positioned the UK publishing sector on the brink of irreversible change

The UK’s creative industries are globally renowned and world leading, contributing £126bn gross value added to the UK economy annually and an abundance of soft power. 

Novels in particular play an enormous role in the creative industries and the publishing sector. Sales and exports of novels are significant, and they also provide the basis for countless other outputs, including films, television, music, plays, videogames, and more. They contribute enormously to our culture, wellbeing, personal development, and entertainment. The risk of harm or even displacement of the novel, therefore, should not be underestimated. 

Yet, so far, UK Government policy has focused largely on the economic growth that GenAI might unlock for the economy through innovation and increased productivity, without full consideration of how this could detrimentally impact the creative industries, including novelists, the publishing sector, readers, and the novel itself. 

In this groundbreaking new report, made possible by funding from BRAID [Bridging Responsible AI Divides)] UK and published in association with the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy and the Institute for the Future of Work, Dr Clementine Collett examines how industry practitioners, from novelists to publishers, are experiencing AI’s significant impacts. She looks at how literary creatives are using (or not using) GenAI, how their work and income are being affected, how this is shaping their hopes and fears for the future, and what measures they would like to see implemented by the Government to protect the UK’s precious literary scene.

Key Findings

Use of Gen AI

Most literary creatives are not using GenAI. 67% of novelists said they never use AI, along with 66% of literary agents, and 55% of those working in fiction publishing. This is due to the moral and environmental implications, the negative perception of using AI for ‘creative’ tasks, and concerns around the inaccuracies of GenAI. Some creatives did not take issue with the use of AI per se but took issue with systems which had been trained on unlicensed data.

Some literary creatives use GenAI for ‘non-creative’ tasks.  33% of novelists report that they use GenAI within their work, along with 34% of literary agents, and 45% of those working in fiction publishing. Most commonly, these literary creatives use GenAI for ‘non-creative’ tasks such as information search.

Social Concerns

Literary creatives warned of the loss of creativity and the de-skilling of younger generations. There was concern that increased use of GenAI would lead to a loss of creative practice and de-skilling in terms of creativity, imagination, empathy, resilience, problem-solving, and critical thinking. Much of this was discussed in reference to younger generations.

Destruction of trust and connection was a major concern amongst literary creatives. Opacity and uncertainty around how writers are using GenAI was thought to endanger the connection between writers and readers. Moreover, this was predicted to sow mistrust within the industry. Novelists were concerned about false accusations around AI use damaging their reputation.

GenAI was seen to provide opportunity for those with accessibility needs, but also to perpetuate problematic stereotypes in its output. Participants perceived GenAI to provide important opportunities for voices in literature which might not otherwise be heard. However, there was also concern regarding the stereotypes and discrimination that output from these systems might perpetuate due to biased training data.

Literary Changes

Literary creatives predicted a loss of originality in literature. It was predicted that there would be a loss of originality in the content, style, and language of novels due to an increased use of GenAI in writing and publishing. However, there was also discussion about a potential rise in experimental fiction to counteract ‘AI style’.

Literary creatives predicted that genre fiction was at higher risk of displacement than literary fiction. In the survey, two thirds (66%) of literary creatives saw romance to be extremely threatened, closely followed by thrillers (61%), and crime (60%). 32% saw literary fiction to be extremely threatened.

Economic Impacts

Over a third (39%) of novelists reported that their income has already been negatively impacted by GenAI. This was mostly attributed to competition from AI-generated books and loss of jobs which provide supplementary streams of income.

Novelists fear their work will be displaced and their future ability to earn from writing will be entirely diminished. 85% of published novelists said they think their future income will be negatively impacted by GenAI, and over half (51%) of published novelists agreed that AI is likely to displace their work entirely.

Copyright and Data Use

Novelists prioritise control of their work, meaning asking permission would likely result in more access to data than a rights reservation model. 93% of novelists said they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ opt out of their work being used to train AI models in contrast to 75% of novelists who said they would ‘probably not’ or ‘definitely not’ opt in. This shows that novelists prioritise control of their work and that asking creatives for permission to use their work would likely lead to more access to data for AI companies.

Most novelists (59%) report that their work has been used to train GenAI models without permission or remuneration. Almost two thirds of novelists (59%) reported that they know their work has been used to train AI models. Of these, 99% reported they did not give permission for this use and 100% reported they were not remunerated.

There is widespread backlash against a ‘rights reservation’ (opt-out) model. 83% of all literary creatives said that a data mining exception which allows rights holders to reserve their rights (an opt-out model) would be negative. This was mostly put down to underestimated negative impacts, technical infeasibility, and overblown expectations of growth.

Literary creatives consistently called for a licensing market which would enable them to give permission, have control, and be remunerated. 86% of literary creatives indicated that a model based on an ‘opt-in’ principle would be their preferred option. Almost half of novelists (48%) said they would want licensing to be negotiated collectively through a writers’ union or society. This was the most popular option in terms of how a licence would be negotiated.

Policy Recommendations

Copyright and Responsible Generative AI Design

1. Foster a Licensing Market and Continue to Review Sufficiency of Copyright Law:
The UK Government should not implement exceptions to copyright law or an opt-out model for AI training. Instead, the UK Government should reinforce copyright law through fostering a dynamic, accessible, and fair licensing market for AI training. Given recent case law, the Government should also continue to review whether copyright law is fit for purpose in the age of AI, and should potentially implement legislative reform to clarify the law and further protect creatives.

2. Mandate Granular Transparency and Fair Remuneration:
The UK Government should issue policy and regulation which requires granular transparency from technology companies on details of their training data for GenAI systems, and which requires the fair remuneration of creatives for the use of their work in training and fine-tuning GenAI models. This would help to facilitate a licensing market and enable creatives to exercise their rights.

3. Invest in Responsible SLM Development:
The UK Government should develop its Industrial Strategy, offer funding, and regulate data and technology to encourage investment in UK-founded small language models (SLMs) which are responsibly designed and trained. This should enable sophisticated models that are less damaging to the environment than LLMs. Moreover, they should be designed to ensure no discriminatory output. Social impacts should be ascertained, understood, and mitigated on an ongoing basis.

Education, Research and Funding

4. Include AI-Free Creative Writing and AI Critical Skills in School Curricula:
The Department for Education, and equivalent devolved bodies, should mandate that creative writing and reading is included in school curricula and that it does not include the use of GenAI (where access needs do not require its use). Alongside digital literacy skills, children should be taught skills which enable them to be critical of AI systems, so that they are informed about the limitations and downsides of GenAI use.

5. Fund Creative Writing Initiatives and Independent Publishers:
It is even more important in the GenAI era that the UK Government invests in creative writing initiatives and the work of cutting-edge independent publishers through increased funding to Arts Councils (England, Northern Ireland, Wales) and Creative Scotland. These funds should particularly focus on initiatives that encourage writing with vulnerable, minority, and underrepresented groups to counter specific risks around homogeneity of voices and disparity of resources which could be worsened by GenAI. This increased funding would help to ensure that unique and diverse voices in literature are encouraged and nurtured, and skills and craft are shared and passed on.

6. Increase Research on Market and Impacts:
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the UK Government should increase support and funding for research on readers and creatives to aid the UK Government’s impact assessment on AI and copyright, and future decisions on AI and data regulation. Particularly, research should focus on reader preferences around AI content, the impact of GenAI on children’s creative development, and mapping the impacts of GenAI on creatives and on society more widely.

Publishing Industry Practice

7. Increase Industry Transparency:
Publishers should be transparent about their in-house use of AI. This should be openly communicated and discussed with literary agents and authors to increase trust, collaboration, and knowledge-sharing within the industry, and to allow for traceability as needed.

8. License GenAI Training Rights as Sub-Rights if going through Publishers:
Publishers should recognise and respect that GenAI training rights lie with the author and should license accordingly. The industry should work together to normalise that, if going through publishers, GenAI training rights should be licensed as sub-rights with a fair financial split.

9. Support Around AI Use and Contracts:
The industry should increase support and guidance around navigating the implications of AI use and AI training rights in contracts, particularly for self-published and un-agented authors, along with independent publishers. This support could include campaigns to encourage authors and publishers to join membership societies and trade unions. These bodies should continue guidance for their members on AI use, copyright, and contractual clauses.

If implemented, these recommendations would help the UK to continue to be a global superpower in the creative industries and a world leader in the design and implementation of responsible AI.

The novel is more than an art form. It has been the basis for a thriving British creative sector. It contributes more than we can imagine to our society, culture, and to the lives of individuals. It is a form of creativity which is precious and one which is worth fighting for.

Go to “The Impact of Generative AI on the Novel” and scroll down to the end of the page to access the full report.

Vancouver (Canada), AI data centres, and the Mayor’s 11 AI agents (3 of 3)

The first two parts of this three-part series on AI data centres focused on environmental issues (Environmental impact of AI data center(re) boom: a roadmap [1 of 3]} a May 20, 2026 posting and (AI climate impact much smaller than many feared? So says a study from University of Waterloo, Canada [2 of 3]) a May 21, 2026 posting. This last part brings it home.

Featured in my May 8, 2026 posting, the 2026 Web Summit has provided an unexpected bonanza of fodder for local gossip about technology (AI data centres), local real estate problems, a glimpse into federal/provincial/municipal politics, and the Mayor.

AI data centres in Vancouver

One more AI data centre is being planned for Vancouver but first a little history. There was an AI data centre announcement in January 2026, from my February 6, 2026 posting, Note: My February 6 posting was a deepish dive into energy and water vis-à-vis data centres, which included some local nnews,

… as data centres become more important in their real estate markets as this January 31, 2026 article by Kenneth Chan for the Daily Hive could be said to hint at, Note: Links have been removed,

One of downtown Vancouver’s largest office development projects, first planned during the pre-pandemic office market boom, will not proceed as originally approved [emphasis mine], given the prevailing weak office market conditions.

Westbank’s major downtown Vancouver office tower project at steam plant site pivots to hotel, residential, and data centre uses

Westbank, a real estate developer, also features in the latest announcement about two more AI data centres (a second one at another Westbank property in Vancouver and a third in Kamloops at an unnamed property), from a May 11, 2026 article by Kenneth Chan for the Daily Hive, Note 1: NVDIA “is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California” according to its Wikipedia entry; Note 2: A link has been removed from the following excerpt,.

Telus to build massive AI data centres at two Westbank properties in Vancouver

Canadian telecommunications giant Telus is moving ahead with plans to build a major sovereign artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure network in British Columbia, following overwhelming demand for its first AI supercomputing facility in Quebec.

The Vancouver-based company announced today that it is working with the Government of Canada and local developer Westbank on a proposed cluster of AI-focused data centres designed to keep Canadian AI computing power and sensitive data within the country. The project forms part of the federal government’s Enabling Large-Scale Sovereign AI Data Centres initiative, aimed at strengthening Canada’s domestic AI infrastructure.

Telus notes the three-site B.C. network will eventually scale to more than 60,000 graphics processing units (GPUs) and 150 megawatts of computing capacity by 2032. The facilities are planned for Kamloops, which is expected to launch later this year, and two locations in Vancouver, which will be fully operational before the end of this decade.

The infrastructure will be powered by advanced computing systems from NVIDIA [emphasis mine], including the company’s latest AI hardware and networking technologies. Telus emphasized that Canadian businesses, post-secondary institutions, governments, and other organizations will be able to train and deploy AI models domestically instead of relying on foreign cloud infrastructure.

The announcement comes less than a year after Telus opened its first Sovereign AI Factory in Rimouski, Quebec. According to the company, the facility is already fully booked by customers and has been recognized on the TOP500 list of the world’s fastest supercomputers.

The company’s Sovereign AI Factory platform is designed to support the full AI development process — from training large-scale models to deploying AI applications — entirely within Canadian-owned and operated infrastructure.

“We are incredibly proud to be working with the Government of Canada to help build Canada’s sovereign AI infrastructure [emphasis mine],” said Darren Entwistle, the outgoing president and CEO of Telus, in a statement. Entwistle will retire at the end of June 2026.

Both facilities in Vancouver are being pursued as a direct partnership with Westbank.

The first new Vancouver AI data centre facility will be achieved at the 1977-built, six-storey M3 office building at 111 East 5th Ave. — home to a portion of Hootsuite’s headquarters office for more than a decade. It will see an initial launch in late 2026, with a gradual expansion through 2028 to reach its ultimate on-site size of 77,000 sq. ft. data centre — achieved from the full conversion of the building’s office levels and two underground parking levels, plus the creation of a ground-level restaurant to better serve the area’s office workers.

As part of Westbank’s cluster of buildings in this Mount Pleasant area that form the developer’s Main Alley tech campus of mixed-use office and residential buildings, M3 was originally slated for an eventual renovation for its continued and expanded office uses, including the vertical construction of three additional office floors above the 1970s-built structure. But this pre-pandemic plan is no longer being pursued, with the building’s long-term use pivoting to the Telus AI utility strategy.

“People toss around the word innovation lightly, but this is a story of true Canadian innovation,” said Ian Gillespie, founder and CEO, Westbank.

Canada’s sovereign AI infrastructure, eh? Well, the first AI data centre in Vancouver (announced in January 2026) is expected to come online in 2029 at 150 West Georgia St., formerly 720 Beatty St.

Pushback (and some context)

A May 12, 2026 article by Amir Ali in the Daily Hive provides some context both pro and con (resistance to the Vancouver AI data centres is in the following excerpt), Note: Links have been removed,

….

Telus suggests the project could generate $9 billion in economic activity in the province [emphasis mine], and create over 1,000 construction jobs, with hundreds more in long-term tech and operation roles.

In 2024, the Harvard Business Review compiled some data on the environmental costs of AI [emphasis mine].

“The training process for a single AI model, such as a large language model, can consume thousands of megawatt hours of electricity and emit hundreds of tons of carbon [emphasis mine],” the report said.

“All these environmental impacts are expected to escalate considerably, with the global AI energy demand projected to exponentially increase to at least 10 times the current level and exceed the annual electricity consumption of a small country like Belgium by 2026.[emphasis mine]”

The review concluded that AI’s environmental impacts have to resonate with the priorities and interests of local regions.

EarthJustice, a reputable non-profit public interest environmental law organization, also shared some insights on data centres late last month.

“Unchecked electricity demand from data centers threatens to increase health and climate-harming pollution, deplete water supplies [emphasis mine], and undermine our transition to clean energy,” it said.

EarthJustice says that nearby communities suffer from an increase in local air and water pollution, electronic waste, and noise pollution. It also said that data centres require around one to five million gallons of water per day.

“Although less water-intensive technologies are available, most data centers still rely on inefficient evaporative cooling.”

“Data center companies often negotiate secretive, special contracts for discounted power rates with utilities that shift costs onto regular household utility bills,” EarthJustice suggests, and we’ve reached out to BC Hydro for more information relating to local rates.

According to Telus, the Vancouver AI data centres, which work differently from traditional data centres, would be powered by 98 per cent renewable energy. [emphasis mine]

“A closed-loop liquid cooling system will reduce cooling energy consumption by 80 per cent [emphasis mine] compared to traditional data centres.”

“Importantly, in the age of AI, these data centres address Canada’s growing need for security and a Sovereign AI Solution – by providing 100% Canadian controlled infrastructure, data protection, domestic oversight and zero foreign dependency,” Telus said in its media release.

Westbank told Daily Hive that the M3 data centre’s site in Mount Pleasant currently hosts an existing data centre.

“There is no change in use, this is a case of adaptive reuse to support upgraded infrastructure. The urban locations of both data centres allow for the connection to district energy, which is what allows the projects to achieve low carbon outcomes,” Westbank added.

Ali’s May 12, 2026 article does a good job of noting the advantages and disadvantages; he also presents some reaction/pushback from politicians and from the community, Note: Links have been removed,

Many have weighed in on the development, including new federal NDP Leader Avi Lewis, who said we should be building affordable homes, a network of public grocery stores, electric buses and an east-west clean energy grid.

“Not massive corporate AI data centres unleashed without any democratic debate,” Lewis said in a post on X.

Lewis wasn’t the only political leader weighing in.

At the provincial level, Emily Lowan, the leader of the B.C. Greens said while data sovereignty is important, handouts for big AI isn’t the way to get there.

Others responded with shock at the proposed Mount Pleasant location.

Some brought up water restrictions, making points about how much water will be needed for these centres. Vancouver City Councillor Peter Meiszner responded to that concern.

Peter Meiszner @PeterMeiszner

Water consumption will be 90% lower than traditional data centres, with plans to incorporate recycled water from BC Place. (source @TELUS)

3,308 Views

Lowan responded to the environmental claims in a statement to Daily Hive Urbanized.

“TELUS’s claim that their centres will be powered by 98% clean energy is dubious at best. We’re already importing American coal-powered electricity to deal with our energy crisis. This energy crisis is caused by drought conditions, which will only be made worse by the extensive water usage of data centres,” she said.

Lowan said, “We need a moratorium on AI data centres.”

“Our government should not be celebrating a handout to TELUS to build AI data centres in the heart of Vancouver. Billionaires are hoarding our wealth, and now, our government is letting them hoard even more of our resources.”

Daily Hive Urbanized heard from Councillor Sean Orr about the development, too.

He said, “If we were to ask the people of Vancouver how we should use our infrastructure, our energy, and our space, would they pick data centres or would they pick something else?”

Orr wondered what the impact would be on the Vancouver electrical grid, and whether the corporations and private companies would be paying for additional infrastructure or whether that cost would fall on residents. 

“Currently, my understanding is that data centers have a short shelf life before being out of date with newer chips, and the chips themselves don’t last five years. We are building something that will require billions in assets but may become outdated three years after its built,” Orr said.

“Say what you will about pipelines, but they don’t become irrelevant after three years. Is it sovereign infrastructure to keep building something that is extremely expensive, and becomes outdated a year or two after construction completes?”

“Is it sovereign infrastructure to build something that may become a stranded asset very soon? I believe a bunch of data center construction projects are being paused for these very concerns right now,” Orr said. 

On the Vancouver subreddit, most of the opposition seems to be in regard to the chosen locations.

“It seems absolutely nutso to use this sort of transit accessible downtown real estate for something that would mostly house computers and generate relatively few jobs,” a Redditor said, adding, “Next to BC Place, that should be a hotel or office tower. You could put a data centre anywhere else in Metro Vancouver. Baffling.”

Someone else asked, “Doesn’t Vancouver already have water problems?”

What BC Hydro is saying

According to BC Hydro, the utility and the Province are taking a “managed and phased approach to serving these large new loads to protect affordability and reliability for residential customers.”

When it comes to high-demand projects like data centres, BC Hydro says there’s a structured and “competitive” process with capped power allocations, rather than unlimited first-come access.

[Comments]

AliasCapricious 2 days ago

People complain we have an economy overly reliant on real estate, then turn around and complains about frontier economic infrastructure. The job part isn’t the main thing, but rather Canadian tech companies have the infrastructure needed to be not dependent on US data infra. It keeps our start ups here and thus grow our high-margin tech sector.

The location is somewhat dubious, but these are the sort of thing we need in the next decades. If we are short on water and power we should be doubling down on renewables (wind/solar/hydro) and water infrastructure, since both will be required anyways. Energy demand is what drive further investments in those sectors.

Tin Man 2 days ago

A few years back, the news outlets warned (prepared?) the citizens of the Divided States of America, that there would be “rolling blackouts” due to the high energy demands of local AI data centers.

Is this what B.C. has to look forward to?

Refrigerators, ovens, heating, air conditioners and all the other devices that families depend on will be powered down so that the wealthy owners of these data centers can continue reaping massive wealth?

Jim Bob 2 days ago

No.

We are already looking at water shortages this year. BC Hydro is also under strain. Allowing these data centers to be built here in Vancouver is only going to cause skyrocketing bills for everyone living here.

They should be building these in remote areas, where they don’t need additional cooling and they can build out their own power. Alberta should have plenty of suitable locations. Why not go there?

cccccc 2 days ago

Residents are split on this? I’ve yet to see someone supporting it. Bad idea, bad locations, bad use of tax payer money.

….

Steven Zur 2 days ago

In the news this month – Westbank lawsuits and court documents indicating close to insolvent, Westbank towner nearly complete on Joyce Street goes into receivership, and then out of the blue the Federal government is support Telus’s building datacenters on two Westbank properties. Nothing more than a government handout to a poorly managed property development company.

Owen 3 days ago

I’d rather see entertainment uses at both locations

Sovereign data centres in Canada and a real estate developer in trouble

How can a data centre be made sovereign? That is a tricky question; something I’ve already hinted at. Kyle Bakx’s May 14, 2026 article for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) news online website details more of the issues,

Canada wants to build data centres that are not just physically located here, but controlled here — a distinction experts say could determine whether the country can reduce its dependence on U.S. tech giants and keep Canadian data subject to Canadian rules.

But as Ottawa reviews more than 160 data-centre proposals to support the growing demands of artificial intelligence, the promise of “sovereign” infrastructure is already running into a harder question: how much control Canada can really have over data centres [emphasis mine] that may still rely on foreign hardware, foreign customers and digital networks that do not always respect national borders.

“This is probably going to be one of the single biggest tech issues that we are going to deal with as a country,” said Ritesh Kotak, a Toronto-based lawyer and technology advisor.

Many countries, including Canada, are heavily dependent on U.S. firms for digital and cloud services [emphasis mine] — the remote computing and data storage offered by technology giants such as Amazon and Microsoft.

There are other problems too. For example, data centres are considered energy and water hogs (see my February 6, 2026 posting “AI is an energy/water hog. Where is all the power coming from? plus UN defines new ‘era of global water bankruptcy’, ” which also mentions the January 2026 announcement of the first data centre in one of Vancouver’s downtown buildings being developed by Westbank.

Before moving onto the Westbank issues, you might be interested in this 8 mins. interview (aired May 19, 2026) with Chris Madan, Telus (former) Vice-President of Digital Sales & Service; (current) Vice–President Digital Product and Head of AI Factories..Here’s how the segment is described on the CBC Radio’s Early Edition with Stephen Quinn webspace.

Chris Madan, the Telus head of AI factories, responds to concerns over health and environmental impacts surrounding the three-site AI data centre cluster set for construction in B.C.

Madan is a salesman determined to minimize any concerns and promote the company’s interests. Consequently, the value is in hearing how he deflects all the criticisms. (I don’t have a lot of patience with puffery but it can be useful.)

For a contrasting view, there’s Simon Enoch, Andrew Longhurst, and Rachel Pettigrew’s May 18, 2026 article “Vancouver Is Getting AI Data Centres. That’s Not Good” for The Tyee. While I am more sympathetic to their approach, it is unrelentingly negative and fails to mention any possible benefits.

Noise as a problem with data centres was news to me and is mentioned both in the CBC interview and in The Tyee article.

Now, onto the real estate developer.

Westbank towers in receivership

Both Vancouver properties being rezoned to allow the data centres are being developed by Westbank, which is currently experiencing money difficulties, from a May 12, 2026 posting on cityhallwatch.wordpress.org, Note: Links have been removed,

Westbank tower in receivership (5055-5083 Joyce St)

Westbank’s rental tower at 5055-5083 Joyce Street is now under receivership. KSV Advisory Inc. is the receiver and a number of documents and court filings are available on their website. OPTrust was owed approximately $109,211,965. Secured and unsecured creditors have claims of $292,993,043. We’ll include additional links and details as this story unfolds. Included below are several photos of the rental tower at 5083 Joyce Street and the surrounding context.

This May 11, 2026 article by Liezel Once for CMP magazine dives deeper into the developer’s money woes, Note: A link has been removed,

Westbank’s Joyce tower placed in receivership

Court oversight, $274 million in debt, and a former executive’s sworn claims paint a troubling portrait of a once-iconic developer

A 35-storey rental tower in east Vancouver associated with one of Canada’s most prominent development firms has been placed under court-supervised receivership, adding fresh urgency to a deepening cycle of real estate insolvencies.

The B.C. Supreme Court granted a receivership order on April 27, 2026, over two corporate entities — 5055 Joyce Holdings Inc. and 5055 Joyce Property Inc. — tied to a near-complete mixed-use rental development at 5083 Joyce Street in Vancouver, known informally as “Joyce 2.”

The application was brought by OPTrust [Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Government of Ontario pension fund] Joyce Financing Corp., which is owed approximately $109.2 million on a loan that matured without repayment on December 31, 2025.

The project, developed by Vancouver-based Westbank Holdings Ltd. — a firm founded in 1992 by CEO Ian Gillespie that built some of the city’s most architecturally ambitious buildings over three decades, including the Shangri-La hotels in Vancouver and Toronto — consists of 360 residential rental units, roughly 4,500 square feet of retail space, and 87 underground parking stalls.

Leases have already been executed with commercial and residential tenants, and certain units are occupied.

Court filings show OPTrust’s loan originated in May 2021, initially advanced at $40 million and later increased to $85 million.

The financing carried an interest rate that escalated to 11% after September 2024 and was secured by mortgages, personal property security, share pledges, and guarantees from related parties, including Westbank Holdings Ltd. and founder Ian Gillespie personally.

OPTrust issued a demand for repayment on January 13, 2026.

OPTrust, officially the OPSEU Pension Trust, is one of Canada’s largest defined-benefit pension funds, managing over $27.2 billion in net assets as of year-end 2025 and administering retirement benefits for 118,000 members, primarily Ontario public service employees.

The receivership is not the only legal matter Westbank is managing.

In a sworn affidavit filed April 29 [2026] in B.C. Supreme Court as part of a continuing breach-of-contract action, former employee Rhiannon Mabberley alleged that Westbank is in a “financially precarious position” and has laid off nearly half of its workforce, and that multiple real estate holdings have been liquidated to cover accumulated debts.

None of these claims have been proven in court [emphasis mine]. Westbank declined to confirm the layoff allegation.

“We cannot comment on matters before the courts, but we would note that none of these claims have been proven,” Westbank spokesperson Ariele Peterson told media.

Mabberley is suing Westbank for $1.2 million she alleges is owed under an employment agreement. Westbank has countered in court that the payment was conditional on project profits that were not achieved.

Her lawyers sought pretrial garnishing orders against Westbank’s corporate bank accounts; an affidavit states that a $1.2 million order ultimately yielded just $32,025.37, which Mabberley says she believes suggests the company has moved funds to protect assets from creditors.

….

For anyone unfamiliar with Vancouver and its relationship to real estate developer’s, it’s an important, some might say vital, one, which may explain why Justin McElroy, the CBC’s local municipal affairs reporter wrote this February 24, 2026 article (CBC news online) about Westbank’s legal fracas with one of its former VPs, Note: Links have been removed,

A lawsuit by a former vice-president of a prominent Vancouver development company appears to be revealing more details of many of its biggest projects taking a turn for the worse.

In December [2025?], Rhiannon Mabberley filed a civil claim against Westbank Project Corp., suing for a breach of contract when she left her role as vice-president of development in the first half of 2025.

Mabberley argued Westbank owed her $1.2 million, based on a previous employment agreement, in her claim.

In its response, Westbank says those payments were “dependent on the profits received by Westbank” on projects she was a part of, and those profits were not met.

The response by Westbank does not go into details as to why those profits were not met.

But an affidavit filed by Mabberley, which was first reported by Bloomberg News, reveals what she says is a text message to her from Westbank founder Ian Gillespie — and provides an intimate and stark commentary on the state of his company.

The allegations laid out in the affidavit and wider statement of claim have not been proven in court.

The alleged text was sent by Gillespie to Mabberley in September, four months after Mabberley left Westbank and three months before she took legal action.

In it, Gillespie references several high-profile development projects in Vancouver that are or formerly were under Westbank’s responsibility, and says that they are not profitable, including:

  • The Sen̓áḵw complex [emphasis mine] at the foot of the Burrard Bridge, which was originally a 50/50 partnership with the Squamish Nation before Westbank sold its share to Ontario Pension Trust [emphasis mine]. Gillespie texts that “the last minute negotiations resulted in me having to accept a 30% haircut from the original price … which itself was 50% less than we had agreed to last year.”
  • The recently opened Alberni and Butterfly buildings in downtown Vancouver. Gillespie texts that “Alberni still has many unsold units and … Butterfly is well over budget and closings are slow and uncertain.”
  • The massive Oakridge Park complex, which began in 2019 and has yet to open. Gillespie texts that “Oakridge is way behind schedule.”

The text ends with Gillespie saying he would offer Mabberley $200,000 “and then we can both go our separate ways,” adding that “it’s unfortunate but it’s the reality of the industry these days.”

In a statement, Westbank would not comment on the veracity of the text messages, saying it has not been proven in court.

The politics: Westbank, the federal/provincial/municipal governments, and AI data centres

Purely speculation on my part but I wonder if there’s hope that the AI data centres will help Westbank with its current financial woes. Westbank isn’t the only real estate developer experiencing problems as this May 19, 2026 posting on City Hall Watch makes clear,

City Council Preview May 19-20, 2026: Electronic billboards, Developer bailouts (CAC deferrals), 3 Broadway Plan rezonings, Italian Day grant and more

Staff are asking Council to again extend CAC payment [Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are in-kind or cash contributions provided by property developers when Vancouver City Council grants development rights through rezoning.] deadline for 4 downtown tower sites (1450 West Georgia St $8,900,000, 1157 Burrard St $10,600,000, 1640-1650 Alberni St $32,700,000 & 1668-1684 Alberni St $37,041,000). This is the third time the request to extend the timeline for CAC payments has gone to Council, with the last extension set to lapse on May 31, 2026. The new target is suggested as May 31, 2028, which is well into the next term of a future Council. Should Council be allowing agreed-upon CAC payments slide again? Is this another developer bailout? [emphasis mine]

Vancouver’s city hall is not the only government lending assistance to developers. Way back in time there was this September 7, 2022 posting on Bob Mackin’s The Breaker pointing to a cozy relationship between Westbank’s Ian Gillespie and the federal Liberal government then lead by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Note: Links have been removed,

Ian Gillespie, the Westbank Corporation CEO, accepted a token 50 cent payment from members of the Squamish Nation during a ceremony under the Burrard Bridge on Sept. 6 [2022], where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau broke ground to begin the four-phase, 11-tower Senakw condo project. [emphases mine]

Squamish Nation members agreed to a 50-50 partnership in 2019 with Westbank to build 6,000 units on 4.7 hectares of Kitsilano Indian Reserve 6 regained through court settlements. Since then, Westbank’s share was reduced to 30% and OP Trust [emphasis mine], the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Government of Ontario pension fund, now holds 20%. 

By 2029, up to 10,000 people could be living in the rental towers on either side of the bridge. A consultant’s estimate from 2019 suggested the deal could generate as much as $12.7 billion in cashflow for the band and developer [emphasis mine]. 

Trudeau was accompanied by four cabinet ministers, Patty Hajdu (Indigenous services), Ahmed Hussen (housing), Marc Miller (Crown-Indigenous relations) and Jonathan Wilkinson (natural resources). Before the start of their three-day cabinet retreat in Vancouver, Trudeau announced a $1.4 billion loan through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to finance half the units, touting it as the largest loan in the Crown corporation’s history [emphasis mine]. CMHC spokesman Leonard Catling said the Rental Construction Financing Initiative is providing $668 million for phase one and $745 million for phase two. The loan is on a 10-year term, fixed interest rate and 50-year amortization. 

“While we cannot comment on the interest rate for any specific RCF loan, our interest rate generally is lower than alternative financing available in the market,” Catling said.

Gillespie, a Liberal Party supporter and proprietor of Trudeau’s preferred luxury hotel [emphasis mine], the Fairmont Pacific Rim, sat beside NDP Vancouver-Point Grey MLA David Eby [emphasis mine]. Though the construction site is in the Vancouver-False Creek provincial riding, Eby is the frontrunner to replace John Horgan as Premier this fall [Eby is now Premier of BC]. The Squamish Nation is a partner in the MST Development company with the Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh nations in the Jericho lands project in Eby’s riding. Some of that land is proposed for an Olympic Village, if the NDP government backs the Canadian Olympic Committee bid for the 2030 Games and the International Olympic Committee chooses Vancouver next May. 

Seated nearby were directors of the Squamish Nation’s economic development company, Nch’kay, including Mike Magee, former Mayor Gregor Robertson’s chief of staff [emphasis mine], and NDP insider Joy MacPhail.

To sum up, Gillespie/Westbank gets a huge loan at low cost from the federal liberal government and runs into financial trouble a few years later. A former partner agency, OP Trust, forces one of Westbank’s housing projects (not the 11-tower Senakw condo project) into receivership. Meanwhile, Vancouver city hall rezones a couple of Westbank projects so the projects can now house AI data centres. Rather timely, given that there’s a federal Liberal government push for ‘sovereign data centres’ in Canada.

It’s almost like a fairy tale where magical characters pop in and out of the story and wondrous coincidences occur. The Justin Trudeau character transforms into Mark Carney who now leads the federal Liberal government. Gregor Robertson (former Vancouver mayor) transforms into a federal Liberal Minister of Housing [emphasis mine] and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada [emphasis mine]. And of course, there’s the previously mentioned transformation of development projects into housing for data centres at a time when a shortage of housing for people has become a national issue.

The magic doesn’t stop. My May 8, 2026 posting about the 2026 summit notes the presence of Robertson, Eby (current BC Premier), and Ken Sim, current Vancouver mayor at the 2026 Web Summit along with Canada’s federal Liberal Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, Evan Solomon in what has been touted a great opportunity for local business and startups. Not surprisingly, AI became a major topic of conversation (more about Sim and AI coming in the next subsection).

I have expressed some doubt about the claims made by boosters and politicians about business opportunities and innovation being good for the local economy. It seems I’m not the only one. Dan Burgar, CEO of Frontier Collective.wrote this “Opinion: Vancouver is hosting the future, but we’re not keeping any of it” in a May 19, 2026 posting on the Daily Hive, Note: A link has been removed,

Last week, the second annual Web Summit conference in Vancouver brought over 20,000 people from around the world to the city. They came for our talent, our companies, and our setting. They’ll leave with deals signed, partnerships formed, and ideas that will turn into businesses somewhere else.

That last part is the problem we keep refusing to talk about.

Vancouver is great at hosting innovation. We’re terrible at keeping it.

Slack was built here. It was scaled in San Francisco. Hootsuite, AbCellera, General Fusion, and Clio: every one of them globally significant, and every one of them has had to look outside this city, this province, and often this country for the capital, the customers, and the conditions to grow. The pattern is so consistent it’s stopped being a pattern and started being the model.

Burger’s point is well taken (although he doesn’t mention D-Wave Systems). He goes on to suggest this,

The Mayor of Vancouver’s office, the Government of British Columbia, and the Government of Canada all have a role to play, and none of them should wait for the others.

Vancouver should treat innovation infrastructure the same way it treats public transit infrastructure: as a non-negotiable public good that catalyzes everything around it.

Mayor Sim took another approach at the 2026 Web Summit.

Sim and his AI minions (all 11 of them)

Sim’s missteps at the 2026 Web Summit are in keeping with his current policy of achieving an unbreakable streak (I exaggerate … a little bit) of own goals (even I’m affected by the sports fever of living in a 2026 World Cup city).

For anyone who might like to see a listing for the five months of this year, there’s the Ken SIm webpage on Global News. which as of May 22, 2026 includes these gems, “Report finds Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim misused influence, harassed councillor Sean Orr,” “Vancouver recovery advocate returning honour to city over mayor, council’s actions,” “Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim says comments about councillor Sean Orr [accusing Orr of openly selling drugs on Christmas Day 2026] came from an unverified photo,” “Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim files defamation lawsuit against 2 men,” and more.

I have never really recovered from reading Matt O’Grady’s October 4, 2023 article for Vancouver Magazine “A Year In, How’s Mayor Ken Sim Actually Doing?” It provides an unexpected view of our current mayor,

I’m sitting on a couch in the mayor’s third-floor offices, and Ken Sim is walking over to his turntable to put on another record. “How about the Police? I love this album.”

With the opening strains of  “Every Breath You Take” crackling to life, Sim is explaining his approach to conflict resolution, and how he takes inspiration from the classic management tome Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

“The way they approach things is, instead of having an adversarial relationship in every decision we look at, imagine you’re two judges on the same side of the table, trying to opine on a very difficult case and get to the best answer,” he says. “We’re just looking for the best answer.”

Suddenly, the office door swings open and Sim’s chief of staff, Trevor Ford, pokes his head in (for the third time in the past 10 minutes). “We have to go. Now.”

“Okay, okay,” says Sim, turning back to address me. “Do you mind if I change while we’re talking?” And so the door closes again—and, without further ado, the Mayor of Vancouver drops trou and goes in search of a pair of shorts, continuing with a story about how some of his west-side friends are vocally against the massive Jericho Lands development promising to reshape their 4th and Alma neighbourhood.

“And I’m like, ‘Let me be very clear: I 100-percent support it, this is why—and we’ll have to agree to disagree,’” he says, trading his baby-blue polo for a fitted charcoal grey T-shirt. Meanwhile, as Sim does his wardrobe change, I’m doing everything I can to keep my eyes on my keyboard—and hoping the mayor finds his missing shorts.

It’s fair to assume that previous mayors weren’t in the habit of getting naked in front of journalists. At least, I can’t quite picture Kennedy Stewart doing so, or Larry or Gordon Campbell either. 

But it also fits a pattern that’s developing with Ken Sim as a leader entirely comfortable in his own skin. He’s in a hurry to accomplish big things—no matter who’s watching and what they might say (or write). And he eagerly embraces the idea of bringing Vancouver’s “swagger” back—outlined in his inaugural State of the City address, and underlined when he shotgunned a beer [later reporting indicated a vodka cream soda was shotguneed] at July’s [2023] Khatsahlano Street Party.

Flying free to the wind, eh?

Moving onto Sim’s latest gaffe in what appears to be an ill advised attempt at impressing an audience of tech innovators, this happened (you can find the story in the headlines),

For anyone who’d like to hear the story, there’s an 11 mins. interview (aired May 14, 2026) with Justin McElroy, CBC’s municipal affairs reporter for BC..Here’s how the segment is described on the CBC Radio’s Early Edition with Stephen Quinn webspace

Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim is clarifying his comments about having 11 different AI agents doing work for him — but it’s just one of many stories about artificial intelligence that have come this week in Vancouver.

Sim is up for re-election on October 17, 2026. There are seven candidates currently vying to be mayor (Wikipedia entry for 2026 Vancouver municipal election). It should be interesting.

Final thoughts

AI data centres are, generally speaking, not popular. The exception being the folks making money from them or, at least in Vancouver, hoping that their businesses (e.g., Westbank) can be saved by them. There’s been a lot of concern over electricity and water use.

The University of Waterloo’s claim that AI’s climate impact is much smaller than many feared is based on some data from 2016 and earlier. This April 16, 2026 International Energy Agency (IEA) press release about a new report notes this about AI energy use,

According to the report – Key Questions on Energy and AI – power consumption per AI task is declining rapidly, with efficiency improving at a rate unprecedented in energy history. However, more people are using AI, and energy-intensive uses – such as AI agents – are on the rise [emphasis mine]. As a result, electricity consumption from data centres is set to double by 2030, and power use from those focused on AI is poised to triple.

Sim and his 11 AI agents (personal use only) not withstanding, it would be interesting to know how much AI is being deployed in city departments, including the police, and plans for AI deployment. (Just an idle thought)

While I have been critical of Simon Enoch, Andrew Longhurst, and Rachel Pettigrew’s May 18, 2026 article “Vancouver Is Getting AI Data Centres. That’s Not Good” for The Tyee, they make some useful points about noise (an issue when these centres are in urban areas) and environmental standards.

I expect unfettered enthusiasm and boosterism from the technology community at something like the Web Summit; it’s disconcerting when found in the city’s mayor. But much more disquieting was this, “Far-Right Speakers Given a Perch at Vancouver’s Web Summit,” May 18, 2026 article by Jen St. Denis for The Tyee. (I’ve added a link and an excerpt from the article at the end of my May 8, 2026 posting about the summit.) There were a lot of politicians at the 2026 summit, maybe next time they’ll check with the organizers about who’s being invited to speak.

AI data centres aren’t just a technology story, they’re also an energy story, a water story, a political story, and, in some cases, a neighbourhood story.

ETA May 22, 2026 at 1530 hours: Massive protest march against Vancouver AI data centres tomorrow (May 23, 2026)

I don’t usually write about issues that are this dynamic but Daniel Chai’s May 22, 2026 article for the Daily Hive features news of a protest. Interestingly, there were no protests when the first AI data centre was announced in January 2026. It seems the Web Summit stimulated an opposition movement, Note: Links have been removed,

A huge demonstration against the proposed cluster of AI data centres in Vancouver will take place on Saturday, May 23, and traffic may be impacted throughout downtown.

A group behind the Instagram page @no.ai.vancouver was formed shortly after news broke that Telus was moving ahead with plans to build a major sovereign artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure network in British Columbia.

This includes new AI data centres at two Westbank properties in Vancouver that could become fully operational before the end of this decade.

“No.ai.vancouver is trying to spread awareness about the impact of AI data centres on the environment, help in halting the construction of these AI data centres, and looking out for the people who call this place home,” said Torin LaRocque, an 18-year-old student living in Vancouver who founded the group.

“I was inspired to create this movement after seeing all the devastation these centres are causing to people living nearby.”

For LaRocque, one of the top negative issues surrounding the proposed facilities is their impact on the environment.

“Telus states that the new AI Data Centres use 90 per cent less energy than the average centre,” said the Vancouver resident. “However, they also state that they will have more than 60,000 GPUs on the conservative side.

“[If] each GPU will process an AI prompt a day, that is still over 1400 litres of water being used a day. Vancouver is already under stage two water restrictions. Why should we let these data centres use the water that Vancouver’s population needs?”

The demonstration on Saturday, May 23, begins with poster-making at Victory Square at 11 a.m., with some supplies provided.

Participants in the protest against the AI Data Centres will meet at Waterfront Station at 1 p.m., with plans to march down Granville Street starting at 1:30 p.m.

The march, which LaRocque said could draw a large procession, will continue over the bridge until it reaches Granville Island.

Officers from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) will be on site during the demonstration.

LaRocque, who describes himself as an initiator of the group, shared that the positive response from the community has been honestly shocking.

“I am confident that if enough people show up and demand change, either by protesting or signing the petition, we can bring this to the city with more than just one person backing it up. The more signatures and protesters we have, the more the City will be unable to ignore.”

The group has also shared a link to a petition calling for a stop to the Vancouver AI Data Centre, which has garnered over 1,400 signatures as of press time.

Daily Hive reached out to the City for comment on the protest, with a representative responding, “The City of Vancouver recognizes and upholds the right to free speech and peaceful protest.” [almost like an AI agent wrote the reply]

Should you be interested in going to the protest, Victory Square’s address is: 200 W Hastings St.

Web Summit 2026 in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), Canada from May 11 – 14, 2026

The Daily Hive (May 7, 2026 article by Amir Ali) is trumpeting the appearance of Vancouver’s current (Ken Sim) and a previous (Gregor Robertson) mayors at the second Web Summit Vancouver meeting (formerly known as Collisions when held previously in Toronto) here in the city, Note: Links have been removed,

The biggest tech event of the year kicks off next week [May 11 – 14, 2026], and the current and a former Vancouver mayor will be helping to kick off the festivities.

Web Summit 2026 begins this coming Monday [May 11, 2026], and Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim and former mayor Gregor Robertson, who’s the current Canadian housing minister [and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada], will be sharing a stage to kick off the festivities.

It’s probably the biggest event of the year that isn’t named FIFA World Cup, and it takes place between May 11 and May 14 [2026].

Last year, Web Summit came to Vancouver for the first time, and it brought over 100 of the world’s top leaders in tech to the city.

The 2025 event saw over 15,000 people attend, and this year’s event could draw over 20,000, along with over 1,500 startups, 700 investors, 350 speakers, and delegates from over 120 countries, according to Innovate BC.. [emphases mine]

Opening remarks take place on Monday, May 11, [2026] at 6 pm, and along with Sim and Robertson will be Web Summit CEO and Founder Paddy Cosgrave, and B.C.’s minister of finance, Brenda Bailey.

Other notable speakers who’ll be speaking at the event include Evan Solomon [emphasis mine], Canada’s Minister of AI and Digital Innovation. B.C. Premier David Eby [emphasis mine] will also be speaking on a panel about growing the province’s tech sector.

Beloved physician Gabor Maté [emphasis mine] is also going to be in attendance as a speaker.

Some of the biggest brands and organizations that will be represented include Sony Imageworks, Walt Disney Animation Studios, CNN Business, Forbes, the Harvard Business Review, Aston Martin, and Microsoft.

Last year’s Vancouver event marked the first time a North American city hosted Web Summit.

While Web Summit is a massive tech event, it won’t draw in as many people as the huge Alcoholics Anonymous Convention that took place last year.

I have a couple of questions First, how much money did we make from last year’s event? I have some data from my May 23, 2025 posting about the estimated financial benefits from the then upcoming (May 27 – 30, 2025) event,

Destination Vancouver estimates Web Summit Vancouver will produce substantial local economic spinoffs, with nearly $57 million in direct spending and over $93 million in overall economic impact for British Columbia in its first year [emphasis mine].

Surely by now, they have a rough estimate, if not final numbers. Also, were there extra costs incurred. If so, what were they? Given that our current mayor, Ken Sim, is an accountant, it’s puzzling that he only ever talks about projected benefits (e.g. Web Summit; it’s too early to tell about the upcoming FIFA World Cup matches). If you are curious about how how the Web Summit Vancouver sausage was made, there’s my May 23, 2025 posting, which provides a little information if not all of the story.

Before proceeding to the second question, here’s a May 5, 2026 Government of British Columbia (BC) news release announcing the summit and proclaiming the advantages of holding a technology summit here in BC, Note: Links have been removed,

Summary
Why attend Web Summit Vancouver 2026 in British Columbia? Web Summit Vancouver 2026 showcases B.C. as a global tech hub.

  • Web Summit Vancouver returns May 11–14, 2026, connecting global investors and innovators with British Columbia’s fast-growing tech ecosystem
  • 15,000+ attendees from 117 countries in 2025 showcased B.C.’s strength in innovation, investment and global partnerships
  • British Columbia offers global scale and market access, with 12,000+ tech companies, top talent and strong links to North American and Asia-Pacific markets

Web Summit Vancouver returns May 11–14, 2026, bringing global investors and innovators to British Columbia to connect with investment-ready companies and explore partnership and market entry opportunities in one of North America’s fastest-growing tech ecosystems.

The B.C. Pavilion at the Vancouver Convention Centre will once again serve as a central hub on the show floor, with half day programming blocks dedicated to priority sectors. This structure supports curated connections between global attendees and B.C.’s investment-ready companies and partners across clean tech, AI and quantum, life sciences, creative tech, agritech and marine tech.

As one of the world’s largest and most influential technology gatherings, Web Summit offers international companies, investors and industry leaders direct access to B.C.’s innovation ecosystem and high-growth sectors to explore partnerships, investment pathways and emerging technologies shaping the future economy.

Web Summit Vancouver 2026 Builds on Strong Global Engagement In 2025

The inaugural Web Summit Vancouver in 2025 attracted over 15,000 attendees from 117 countries, generating international visibility for B.C.’s technology sector and innovation ecosystem.

B.C. companies connected with global investors, media and partners through targeted meetings, pitch sessions and on-site programming, supporting new business relationships and export opportunities. These structured engagements helped generate tangible deal flow and accelerate international partnerships.

The event also demonstrated how global gatherings can accelerate market access by bringing decision-makers directly into the province’s ecosystem.

Investment Programming alongside Web Summit Vancouver 2026

With strong momentum from 2025, Web Summit Vancouver 2026 and a coordinated program of host-led events is expected to further expand Vancouver’s global reach and impact.

Beyond the main conference, host-led programming will connect international delegates with investment-ready companies and targeted business opportunities across British Columbia. Delegates can access structured opportunities, including investor showcases, pre-matched B2B meetings, pitch sessions and sector-specific networking events designed to support deal flow, market entry and the establishment of international companies in British Columbia.

As a central hub, the return of the B.C. Pavilion will provide a dedicated space to explore the province’s innovation ecosystem, support meetings, informal networking and direct engagement with companies and partners actively seeking investment and collaboration.

For international attendees, the event offers a direct pathway to:

  • Meet investment-ready B.C. companies through curated and pre-qualified engagements
  • Participate in pre-matched meetings with investors and buyers
  • Gain insight into emerging global technology trends
  • Connect with a collaborative and fast-growing innovation ecosystem

British Columbia Tech Ecosystem Offers Global Scale and Investment Potential

British Columbia is home to one of North America’s fastest-growing technology ecosystems, with more than 12,000 companies employing over 180,000 people across the sector. This depth of talent and industry makes B.C. a strong pipeline of investment-ready companies for global partners.

For international investors and companies, B.C. offers a combination of talent, infrastructure and global connectivity that supports long-term growth.

Key advantages include:

  • A highly skilled and diverse workforce, supported by nearly 15,000 tech-related graduates each year
  • Strong research and commercialization capacity, with globally recognized universities and innovation hubs
  • Competitive business costs and a stable operating environment
  • Strategic access to North American, Asian and European markets through integrated trade and transportation networks

Vancouver’s tech ecosystem ranks among the top in Canada and is recognized globally for its talent concentration and cost competitiveness, making it an attractive destination for scaling companies.

Global companies including Amazon, Microsoft, SAP and Salesforce have established a strong presence in the province , alongside a growing number of high-value startups and scaleups.

The focus is clearly business. So, my second question is ‘What is Gabor Maté doing at the ‘techie’ 2026 Web Summit?’ For anyone unfamiliar with Maté, here’s more from his Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

Gabor Maté CM (/ˈɡɑːbɔːr ˈmɑːteɪ/ GAH-bor MAH-tay;[1] born January 1944) is a Canadian physician and author. He has worked in family practices and specializes in childhood development and trauma,[2] including long-term effects on physical and mental health, such as autoimmune diseases, cancer, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),[3] and addiction. [emphases mine]

Maté’s approach to addiction emphasizes the role of trauma i [emphasis mine] n the development of substance use disorders, aiming to address underlying emotional pain as part of recovery.[4] He has written five books exploring topics such as ADHD, stress, developmental psychology, and addiction. Some commentators have raised concerns about the scope and evidentiary basis of his claims.[5][6][7]

..

Interesting choice, non?

Now for some details, the pricing for the cheapest four-day ticket ‘General attendee’ is $830 CAD (including tax), the same price as last year’s as per my May 23, 2025 posting. A ‘Chairperson’ ticked will cost you $40,000 CAD (including tax). It makes the $1990 CAD (Including tax) price for the ‘Executive’ ticket almost look reasonable. As you might expect, the prices reflect the degree of access you will receive to special events and speakers

Here’s a sampling of the speakers at this year’s event and Maté is not the only unusual choice,

  • Michelle Grady, President,Sony Imageworks
  • Gary Marcus, AI Expert, Scientist & Author
  • Naomi Klein, Activist and writer
  • Matt Lyteson, CIO, IBM
  • Stephen Walt, Professor, International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
  • Rick Glumac, Minister for AI and New Technologies of British Columbia, Government of BC
  • Apl.de.ap, Rapper, Black Eyed Peas
  • etc.

I’m particularly taken with Apl.de.ap whose profile page revealed this,

Grammy winner Apl.de.Ap is transforming the Philippines via the world’s largest reforestation project. Planting 380M+ trees, he’s blending agroforestry with carbon credits to fight climate change and empower rural communities. Music was just the start.

I love trees.

Web Summit Vancouver 2026 is here should you wish to sign up.

ETA May 22, 2026: I’ve commented on some unexpected choices for speakers; it seems it was even odder than I knew. In “Far-Right Speakers Given a Perch at Vancouver’s Web Summit,” Jen St. Denis reveals some disquieting news in her May 18, 2026 article for The Tyee, Note: Links have been removed,

Gil Durán, a journalist who has documented and warned about Yarvin’s [Curtis Yarvin, a commentator who has argued for U.S. democracy to be replaced with a corporate surveillance state] appeal to tech elites in the United States, told The Tyee he was invited to debate Yarvin at the conference — but declined. Durán said organizers then asked him to appear in a different format, but the participation of Yarvin “left a bad taste and I lost interest.”

“I’m in the middle of finishing a book about tech fascism, and Yarvin turned down multiple interview requests. Why would I fly to British Columbia to frolic with him in a circus?” said Durán.

“I was then told that Yarvin’s appearance wouldn’t be advertised. That sealed my decision to stay away. If you’re too ashamed to publicize your guest, why invite him?”

Regarding far-right speakers being invited to speak at the conference, Farrell [Katherine Farrell, vice-president of communications for the conference] told The Tyee the conference organizers believe “in having the courage to hear from everyone impacting the future of tech — those building technology, those deploying it, and those influencing how it is used. The tech world cannot and should not hide from examining every corner of the tech debate.”

Durán said extreme ideas like fascism, eugenics and racism are being “cleverly marketed through ‘debate’ and ‘just asking questions’ journalism,” and he questioned whether Yarvin was truly challenged on his authoritarian ideas at the conference.

This is not a good look for the Summit, for the politicians, or for the attendees.

$$$, the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), and the Expert panel for 2025’s The State of Science, Technology, and Innovation in Canada + a November 26, 2025 innovation event

I’m a little late to a July 11, 2024 Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) announcement of the members for an expert panel the an upcoming report on The State of Science, Technology, and Innovation in Canada, Note: This will be the fifth report

The science, technology, and innovation (STI) landscape has changed rapidly in recent years, as a result of new technologies, ongoing digitization of the economy, a global pandemic that transformed supply chains, and new global security considerations. Since 2006, the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) has been documenting Canada’s standing in this landscape by benchmarking science, technology, and innovation strengths and weaknesses in a series of reports, most recently with Competing in a Global Innovation Economy (2018). At the request of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, CCA has formed an expert panel to provide an updated assessment of developments in the STI ecosystem, the extent to which barriers and knowledge gaps continue to impede innovation, and potential opportunities for Canada. Dr. Ilse Treurnicht, managing partner at TwinRiver Capital, will serve as Chair of the expert panel.

“CCA’s reports on this topic have repeatedly highlighted how Canada has historically excelled in research but struggled with innovation and productivity,” said Dr. Treurnicht. “I look forward to mining the extensive evidence and expertise on the topic to determine how things have evolved over the past few years and what new insights can be gained.”

Dr. Treurnicht is a general partner at North South Ventures, chair of the Public Policy Forum Board, and a director of the Equality Fund and Zentek. She was CEO of MaRS Discovery District in Toronto from 2005-2017. She has an extensive background in scientific research and commercialization, building health and cleantech firms, venture and impact investing, and public policy.

As Chair, Dr. Treurnicht will lead a multidisciplinary group with expertise in academic research, industrial research and development, financing, science and innovation policy, economics, and methodological approaches. The Panel will answer the following question:

What is the state of science, technology, and innovation in Canada, and how does Canada compare internationally?

“We are delighted that Dr. Treurnicht has agreed to take on the role of chair,” said Tijs Creutzberg, President and CEO of the CCA. “This is a timely and important assessment—the data and expert analysis by the panel will inform critical conversations about how Canada can position itself for the future.”

The Expert Panel on the State of Science, Technology, and Innovation in Canada:

  • Ilse Treurnicht (chair), Managing Partner, TwinRiver Capital
  • Robert Atkinson, President, ITIF[Information Technology and Innovation Foundation] Centre for Canadian Innovation and Competitiveness
  • Ulrike Bahr-Gedalia, Senior Director, Digital Economy, Technology and Innovation, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
  • Joel Blit, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Waterloo
  • Christina Freyman, Deputy Director, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation
  • Jean Hamel, Chief Engineer, FPInnovations
  • Kathryn Hayashi, CEO, TRIUMF Innovations; Co-Lead Canadian Medical Isotope Ecosystem
  • Burhan Hussein, NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow, Concordia University
  • Vincent Larivière, UNESCO Chair on Open Science, Université de Montréal
  • Elicia Maine, W.J. VanDusen Professor of Innovation & Entrepreneurship and Associate Vice President, Knowledge Mobilization and Innovation, Simon Fraser University
  • Alexandra McCann, Executive Director, ONSIDE
  • R. Sandra Schillo, Associate Professor, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa
  • Jeffrey R. Taylor, Associate Vice-President, Applied Research and Innovation, Nova Scotia Community College
  • Hans-Joachim Wieden, Associate Vice-President Partnerships, Knowledge Mobilization and Innovation, University of Manitoba

Expert panel members serve as individuals and do not represent the views of their organizations of affiliation or employment.

The skill set for members of the expert panel’s would seem to be highly concentrated in the fields of business, commercialization, entrepreneurship, and economics. As for geographic representation, it’s a bit unusual (but not unheard of) for two people (Robert Atkinson and Christina Freyman) from the US to be members of the expert panel. Usually, the American or Americans are peer reviewers. Otherwise, it’s pretty much the same as usual, a preponderance of experts from eastern Canada (emphasis on Ontario and Québec) with a few representatives from western Canada and no one from the North. The male/female split is about 50/50.

I missed the fourth report but of the ones I’ve commented on, this one is my favourite, “The Hedy Lamarr of international research: Canada’s Third assessment of The State of Science and Technology and Industrial Research and Development in Canada (1 of 2)” and “The Hedy Lamarr of international research: Canada’s Third assessment of The State of Science and Technology and Industrial Research and Development in Canada (2 of 2)” both published April 12, 2018.

The State of Science, Technology, and Innovation in Canada report summary is here.

The Walrus Talks Innovation Nation: November 26, 2025 hybrid event

For those unfamiliar with the magazine, from The Walrus’ Wikipedia entry,

The Walrus is an independent, nonprofit Canadian media organization. It is multi-platform and produces an eight-issue-per-year magazine and online editorial content that includes current affairs, fiction, poetry, and podcasts, a national speaker series called The Walrus Talks, and branded content for clients through The Walrus Lab.

The first issue was in September 2003. Given how tough the publishing environment is, The Walrus has an impressive survival record. Bravo!

Coming up shortly is their innovation event, from The Walrus Talks event page,

Canadian research to real-world solutions

A new federal government is setting its sights on a stronger, more resilient Canada—and the key to getting there is homegrown innovation.

The Walrus Talks Innovation Nation celebrates the transformative research emerging from Canadian universities that’s already shaping how we live, work, and thrive. From life-saving medical breakthroughs to bold climate solutions and cutting-edge artificial intelligence, university-led research is transforming visionary ideas into tangible solutions that are fueling our economy, improving our well-being, and elevating Canada’s global leadership.

Join us in Ottawa or online for an inspiring evening of rapid-fire talks from award-winning researchers and pioneering experts. In dynamic seven-minute presentations, they’ll share how groundbreaking innovation is creating real-world impact—and how Canadian research is defining tomorrow’s possibilities.

Featuring seven-minute talks by:

  • Dr. André Blais, Emeritus Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montreal
  • Dr. Kyle Bobiwash, Assistant Professor and Indigenous Scholar, Department of Entomology, University of Manitoba
  • Dr. Sarah Burch, Executive Director, Waterloo Climate Institute; Professor, Geography and Environmental Management; Canada Research Chair
  • Dr. Graham Carr, President and Vice-Chancellor, Concordia University
  • Rahul G. Krishnan, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto; Canada CIFAR Artificial Intelligence Chair
  • Dr. Catalina Lopez-Correa, Chief Global Strategy Officer, Genome Canada
  • Dr. Gina Ogilvie, MD DrPH FCFP FRSC; Professor and Canada Research Chair, Faculty of Medicine; Associate Director, Women’s Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia
Canadian Museum of Nature,
4th Floor Gallery,
240 McLeod Street, Ottawa
 
Wednesday, November 26, 2025
7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. ET
 
General Admission: $20
Student/Senior: $12
Livestream: Free with registration

….

You can register here.

A world without blood type constraints and the first human transplant of a modified kidney

In fact, it should be “imagine a world without blood type constraints.” That’s what you’ll find on The Avivo Biomedical homepage, a University of British Columbia (UBC) spin-off company, which is associated with at least one of the researchers involved in this rather extraordinary work. From an October 3, 2025 UBC news release, also received via email *ETA October 3, 2025 1640 PT: and available on EurekAlert*,

The first successful human transplant of a kidney converted from blood type A to universal type O used special enzymes developed at the University of British Columbia to help prevent a mismatch and rejection of the organ.

Published today [October 3, 2025] in Nature Biomedical Engineering, the achievement marks a major step toward helping thousands of patients get kidney transplants sooner.

In a first-in-human experiment, the enzyme-converted kidney was transplanted into a brain-dead recipient with consent from the family, allowing researchers to observe the immune response without risking a life.

For two days, the kidney functioned without signs of hyperacute rejection, the rapid immune reaction that can destroy an incompatible organ within minutes. By the third day, some blood-type markers reappeared, triggering a mild reaction, but the damage was far less severe than in a typical mismatch, and researchers saw signs that the body was beginning to tolerate the organ.

“This is the first time we’ve seen this play out in a human model,” said Dr. Stephen Withers, UBC professor emeritus of chemistry who co-led the enzyme development. “It gives us invaluable insight into how to improve long-term outcomes.”

The breakthrough is the result of more than a decade of work. In the early 2010s, Dr. Withers and colleague Dr. Jayachandran Kizhakkedathu, a UBC professor in the department of pathology and laboratory medicine and the Centre for Blood Research, were focused on making universal donor blood by stripping away the sugars that define blood types.

Those same sugars, or antigens, coat organ blood vessels. If a recipient’s immune system detects the wrong antigen, it attacks. Type-O patients—more than half of kidney waitlists—can only receive type-O organs, yet type-O kidneys are often given to others because they’re universally compatible. As a result, type-O patients typically wait two to four years longer, and many die waiting.

Traditional methods for overcoming blood-type incompatibility in transplants require days of intensive treatment to strip antibodies and suppress a recipient’s immune system—and require organs from living donors. This new approach changes the organ rather than the patient, meaning transplants could be performed faster, with fewer complications, and for the first time could unlock the use of blood-type mismatched organs from deceased donors—when every hour can determine whether a patient lives or dies.

The key to this approach is the 2019 discovery by the UBC team of two highly efficient enzymes that remove the sugar that defines type-A blood, effectively converting it to type O. “These enzymes are highly active, highly selective, and work at very low concentrations,” said Dr. Kizhakkedathu. “That made the whole concept feasible.”

The next challenge was applying this to whole organs, achieved in 2022 when a Toronto team showed lungs could be converted. After successful tests on blood, then lungs and kidneys (with the University of Cambridge) outside the body, the question remained: Could an enzyme-converted organ survive inside a human immune system?

The answer came in late 2023 on an overseas trip for Dr. Kizhakkedathu. “Our collaborators showed me their data where, using our enzymes, they had converted a human kidney and transplanted it into a brain-dead recipient. It was working beautifully.” He stayed up late to call Dr. Withers first thing in the B.C. morning. “I was so thrilled. It was a dream moment.”

Blood-type antigens act like nametags on cells, and the UBC enzymes act as molecular scissors, snipping off the ‘nametag’ that marks type A and revealing type O beneath. “It’s like removing the red paint from a car and uncovering the neutral primer,” said Dr. Withers. “Once that’s done, the immune system no longer sees the organ as foreign.”

Regulatory approval for clinical trials is the next hurdle, and the partner UBC spin-off company Avivo Biomedical will lead development of these enzymes for transplant application and to enable the creation of universal donor blood on demand for transfusion medicine.

The potential is enormous. “This is what it looks like when years of basic science finally connect to patient care,” said Dr. Withers. “Seeing our discoveries edge closer to real-world impact is what keeps us pushing forward.”

Before getting to the citation and link for the paper, Rachel Fieldhouse’s October 3, 2025 article for Nature offers a little more detail, Note: This article is behind a paywall,

Scientists have converted the blood type of a donor kidney and transplanted the organ into a person. The procedure — the first of its kind — could improve access to donor organs, specialists say, because the blood type of the donor would no longer matter.

Researchers from Canada and China used an enzyme to remove type-A antigens from a donor kidney1. The enzyme converts type-A blood into type-O, says study author Stephen Withers, a chemist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. The type-O kidney was then transplanted into a 68-year-old brain-dead man in Chongqing, China. The organ remained healthy for two days before showing signs of rejection. It produced urine for six days. The results are published in Nature Biomedical Engineering today [October 3, 2025].

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Enzyme-converted O kidneys allow ABO-incompatible transplantation without hyperacute rejection in a human decedent model by Jun Zeng, Ming Ma, Ze Tao, Zhengsheng Rao, Chaomeng Wu, Saifu Yin, Xiaojuan Jiang, Guo Chen, Zhiling Wang, Dan Huang, Mengli Zhu, Ling Liu, Wenqian Huo, Hao Yang, Hui Guo, Gang Chen, Feng Li, Chengyu Zheng, Dajiu Huang, Peter Rahfeld, Jayachandran N. Kizhakkedathu, Stephen G. Withers, Xiaofeng Lu, Keqin Zhang, Tao Lin & Turun Song. Nature Biomedical Engineering (2025) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-025-01513-6 Published0: 3 October 2025

This paper is behind a paywall.

Bravo to all of the researchers involved in this multi-year and multi-continent effort.

Year of Quantum Across Canada Conference October 6 – 9, 2025, Waterloo, Ontario (call for submissions deadline: Sept. 19, 2025)

A September 9, 2025 Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) notice (received via email) announces a quantum conference and call for posters,

Join leading quantum researchers at the Year of Quantum Across Canada Conference that will highlight advances in quantum information theory and applications. The conference is co-hosted by the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) and Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics from October 6 to 9, 2025.

  • Learn about and share the latest advances in quantum information theory and applications.
  • Find opportunities to collaborate with local, Canadian and international quantum researchers.
  • Celebrate 100 years since the initial development of quantum mechanics this International Year of Quantum.

IQC and Perimeter Institute invite all scientists who are interested in:

  • Quantum metrology
  • Quantum simulation and quantum advantage
  • Quantum error-correction and fault tolerance
  • Quantum complexity and algorithms
  • Quantum communication and networks
  • Quantum cryptography
  • Quantum information in quantum matter and quantum gravity

Register Today

Registration Deadlines: 

  • In-Person: September 22 [2025] at 23:59 ET
  • Virtual: October 6 [2025] at 23:59 ET

We are hosting a poster session on Tuesday, October 7 [2025]. Abstract submission deadline is September 19 [2025] at 23:59 ET.

Please forward this email to your colleagues who would be interested in attending. Questions can be directed to mail to: iqc.events@uwaterloo.ca

I have more information about the call for poster submissions, from the Year of Quantum Across Canada’s Call for Abstracts webpage,

Submission deadline: Sep[t] 19, 2025, 11:59 PM [ET]

The Year of Quantum Across Canada Symposium will be hosting a poster session on Tuesday, Oct 7th [2025] at IQC. Poster submissions are welcome and will be reviewed by the program committee. Some posters may be selected to present as a contributed talk. If you are interested in your poster being considered for a talk, please indicate this on the submission form.

NOTE: You must be in attendance at the Symposium in Waterloo to present a poster and/or contributed talk. We encourage you to register for the Symposium as soon as possible as space is limited. You will be advised if your poster has been accepted before the registration fee payment deadline.

If you have questions about the Call for Abstracts with respect to your research, please contact Alex May (amay@perimeterinstitute.ca).

Any logistical questions about the application process, the website or decision timelines should be directed to conferences@perimeterinstitute.ca

Then, there’s this from the Year of Quantum Across Canada’s Speaker List webpage, Note: Two confirmed speakers from Canada to “celebrate and aim to strengthen the quantum information science community in Canada and beyond, by bringing together leading Canadian researchers as well as members of the broader quantum community” as per the conference homepage. Maybe they’ll get a few more before October 2025?,

Speaker List

Confirmed Speakers:

Christian Bauer (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
Alexandre Blais (Université de Sherbrooke)
Sergey Bravyi (IBM Research – Thomas J. Watson Research Center)
Nikolas Breuckmann (University of Bristol)
Soonwon Choi (MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology])
Zohreh Davoudi (University of Maryland)
Matthew Fisher (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Dakshita Khurana (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
Aleksander Kubica (Yale University)
Hank Lamm (Fermilab)
Laura Mancinska (University of Copenhagen)
Antonio Mezzacapo (IBM)
John Preskill (Caltech)
Martin Savage (University of Washington)
Brian Swingle (Brandeis University)
Nathan Wiebe (University of Toronto)
Yu-Xiang Yang (The University of Hong Kong)

Moving on, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) took a slightly more celebratory approach to their launch of the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology 2025 (IYQ 2025) in February 2025 (see my January 31, 2025 posting).

You can find the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology 2025 (IYQ 2025) website here. It provides information about a plethora of quantum events in countries around the world along with this video embedded here too,

Happy International Year of Quantum Science and Technology 2025 (YQ 2025)!

Walking again? Israeli team gears up to implant bioengineered spinal cord tissue into paralyzed patient

The Israeli team working on this regenerative medicine project has already (in 2022) been successful with mice. Diana Bletter’s August 21, 2025 Times of Israel article, excerpts of which can be found later in this posting, added some details that I appreciated. That said, the press release is quite accessible and informative.

An August 19, 2025 Tel Aviv University (TAU) press release (also on EurekAlert but edited and published on August 20, 2025) describes the upcoming human trial, Note: Links have been removed,

What if we could restore the ability to walk to people paralyzed by injury or illness? This vision is now moving closer to reality. Three years ago, Tel Aviv University researchers succeeded in engineering a human spinal cord in the lab for the first time. Since then, progress has been rapid, with animal trials showing unprecedented success. Now, for the first time, the technology is set to be tested in human patients.

Prof. Tal Dvir, of TAU’s Sagol Center for Regenerative Biotechnology, head of the Nanotechnology Center, and Chief Scientist of the biotech company Matricelf, explains: “The spinal cord is made up of nerve cells that transmit electrical signals from the brain to every part of the body. When the spinal cord is torn due to trauma — from a car accident, a fall, or a battlefield injury — this chain is broken. Think of it like an electrical cable that’s been cut: if the two parts don’t touch, the electrical signal can’t pass. The cable won’t carry electricity, and in the same way, the person can’t transmit the signal beyond the site of the injury.”

This is one of the few injuries in the human body with no natural ability to regenerate. “Neurons are cells that do not divide and do not renew themselves. They are not like skin cells, which can repair themselves after injury. They are more similar to heart cells: once damage occurs, the body cannot restore them,” notes Prof. Dvir.

 Engineering a Personalized Implant

To overcome this challenge, the TAU researchers developed a fully personalized process. Blood cells are taken from the patient and reprogrammed through genetic engineering to behave like embryonic stem cells, capable of becoming any type of cell in the body.

Meanwhile, fat tissue from the same patient is used to extract substances such as collagen and sugars. These are used to produce a unique hydrogel. “The beauty of this gel is that it’s also personalized, just like the cells. We take the cells that we’ve reprogrammed into embryonic-like stem cells, place them inside the gel, and mimic the embryonic development of the spinal cord,” says Prof. Dvir.

The result is a complete three-dimensional implant. “At the end of the process, we don’t just turn the cells into motor neurons — because cells alone won’t help us — but into three-dimensional tissue: neuronal networks of the spinal cord. After about a month, we obtain a 3D implant with many neurons that transmit electrical signals. These 3D tissues are then implanted into the damaged area.”

Visualization of the next stage of the research – human spinal cord implants for treating paralysis (Photo: Sagol Center for Regenerative Biotechnology)

From Animals to Human Patients

The researchers first tested the implant in lab animals. “We showed that we can treat animals with chronic injuries. Not animals that were injured just recently, but those we allowed enough time to pass — like a person more than a year after an injury. More than 80% of the animals regained full walking ability,” Prof. Dvir explains.

Encouraged by these results, the team submitted the findings to Israel’s Ministry of Health. “About six months ago we received preliminary approval to begin compassionate-use trials with eight patients. We decided, of course, that the first patient would be Israeli. This is undoubtedly a matter of national pride. The technology was developed here in Israel, at Tel Aviv University and at Matricelf, and from the very beginning it was clear to us that the first-ever surgery would be performed in Israel, with an Israeli patient.” he says.

Looking Ahead

The first implant in a human patient is expected within about a year. For the initial trials, the team will focus on patients whose paralysis is relatively recent — within about a year of injury. “Once we prove that the treatment works — everything is open, and we’ll be able to treat any injury,” says Prof. Dvir.

Behind the initiative are key figures from both academia and industry. Prof. Dvir founded Matricelf in 2019 together with Dr. Alon Sinai, based on the revolutionary organ engineering technology developed at TAU under a licensing agreement through Ramot, the University’s technology transfer company. The company’s CEO is Gil Hakim, while the scientific development is led by Dr. Tamar Harel-Adar and her team.

“They managed to get us to the stage of regulatory approvals so quickly — and that’s amazing,” says Prof. Dvir.

Gil Hakim, CEO of Matricelf , concludes: “This milestone marks the shift from pioneering research to patient treatment. For the first time, we are translating years of successful preclinical work into a procedure for people living with paralysis. Our approach, using each patient’s own cells to engineer a new spinal cord, eliminates key safety risks and positions Matricelf at the forefront of regenerative medicine. If successful, this therapy has the potential to define a new standard of care in spinal cord repair, addressing a multi-billion-dollar market with no effective solutions today. This first procedure is more than a scientific breakthrough, it is a value-inflection point for Matricelf and a step toward transforming an area of medicine long considered untreatable. We are proud that Israel is leading this global effort and are fully committed to bringing this innovation to patients worldwide.”

Diana Bletter’s August 21, 2025 article for The Times of Israel (h/t August 21, 2025 Google alert) covers much of the same ground as the press release but there are some new details, Note: Links have been removed,

Prof. Tal Dvir, head of the Sagol Center for Regenerative Biotechnology and the Nanotechnology Center at Tel Aviv University, said his research team is now able to engineer a spinal cord that functions exactly like a natural one by implanting 3D-engineered tissue into the damaged area.

Fusion then occurs between the new tissue and the healthy areas above and below the injury that will end the paralysis.

The upcoming spinal cord implant surgery marks the next stage in a process that began about three years ago, when Dvir’s lab at Tel Aviv University succeeded in engineering a personalized 3D spinal cord in the laboratory.

The groundbreaking findings, published in the prestigious journal Advanced Science, demonstrated for the first time ever that mice suffering from chronic paralysis that were treated with these engineered implants started to walk — and even scamper — again.


The success rate with the engineered spinal cord was 80 percent for mice with chronic paralysis. Among those with recent or short-term paralysis, 100% of the mice walked.

Patients remain paralyzed because neurons do not renew

Around the world, there are over 15 million people who have suffered spinal cord injuries. Professionals can help stabilize the injury but not much else.

Dvir said that as a result, the damage only worsens. Over time, the damaged area becomes scar tissue.

“The patient remains paralyzed below the site of injury,” he said. “If the injury is in the neck, all four limbs may be paralyzed. If in the lower back, the legs will not move, and so on.”

Spinal cord injuries are one of the very few injuries in the human body that are not impacted by natural regenerative ability, Dvir explained.

“The neurons do not divide and do not renew themselves,” he said. “These cells are not like skin cells, which can heal after injury, but are more like heart cells: Once damaged, the body cannot repair them.”

“The spinal cord is composed of nerve cells that transmit electrical signals from the brain to all parts of the body,” Dvir said. “The decision is made in the brain, the electrical signal passes through the spinal cord, and from there, neurons activate the muscles throughout the body.”

When the spinal cord is severed due to trauma, such as a car accident, a fall, or a combat injury, this chain is broken.

“Think of an electrical cable that has been cut,” Dvir said. “When the two ends no longer touch, the electrical signal cannot pass. The cable will not transmit electricity, and the person cannot transmit the signal beyond the injury.”

Dvir’s team aims to fix that.

Implanting an engineered human spinal cord

Dvir said that the researchers start the process with a small biopsy from the belly.

They then take these blood cells and perform a process known as reprogramming — genetic engineering that transforms the cells into embryonic stem cell-like cells, capable of developing into any cell type in the body.

In the next step, the scientists take fatty tissue from the patient, extract key components such as collagens and sugars, and build a customized hydrogel. The embryonic stem cell-like cells are placed in this gel, and the embryonic development of a spinal cord is mimicked.

This spinal cord will then be transplanted into the human body, restoring the body’s abilities.

I have a link to Dvir’s company, Matricelf and a link to and a citation to the Dvir team’s 2022 study,

Regenerating the Injured Spinal Cord at the Chronic Phase by Engineered iPSCs-Derived 3D Neuronal Networks by Lior Wertheim, Reuven Edri, Yona Goldshmit, Tomer Kagan, Nadav Noor, Angela Ruban, Assaf Shapira, Irit Gat-Viks, Yaniv Assaf, Tal Dvir. Advanced Science Volume9, Issue 11 April 14, 2022 2105694 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202105694 First published online: 07 February 2022

This paper is open access.

One more note, there is other work devoted to enable paralyzed people to walk again such as the Walk Again Project (Wikipedia entry), Note: Links have been removed,

Walk Again Project is an international, non-profit consortium led by Miguel Nicolelis, created in 2009 in a partnership between Duke University and the IINN/ELS [International Institute for Neurosciences of Natal – Edmond and Lily Safra or Instituto Internacional de Neurociências Edmond e Lily Safra; (INN-ELS)], where researchers come together to find neuro-rehabilitation treatments for spinal cord injuries,[1][2][3] which pioneered the development and use of the brain–machine interface, including its non-invasive version,[4] with an EEG.[5]

My May 15, 2019 posting “Walking again with exoskeletons and brain-controlled, non-invasive muscle stimulation enabling people to walk” features more information about the Walk Again Project (scroll down to the ‘Brazil and Walk Again” subhead and a Canadian project (Note: The CBC has removed access to a video that I’d embedded in the posting.)

I wish all the best for everyone involved in the upcoming human trial.

Microsoft, D-Wave Systems, quantum computing, and quantum supremacy?

Before diving into some of the latest quantum computing doings, here’s why quantum computing is so highly prized and chased after, from the Quantum supremacy Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

In quantum computing, quantum supremacy or quantum advantage is the goal of demonstrating that a programmable quantum computer can solve a problem that no classical computer can solve in any feasible amount of time, irrespective of the usefulness of the problem.[1][2][3] The term was coined by John Preskill in 2011,[1][4] but the concept dates to Yuri Manin’s 1980[5] and Richard Feynman’s 1981[6] proposals of quantum computing.

Quantum supremacy and quantum advantage have been mentioned a few times here over the years. You can check my March 6, 2020 posting for when researchers from the University of California at Santa Barbara claimed quantum supremacy and my July 31, 2023 posting for when D-Wave Systems claimed a quantum advantage on optimization problems. I’d understood quantum supremacy and quantum advantage to be synonymous but according the article in Betakit (keep scrolling down to the D-Wave subhead and then, to ‘A controversy of sorts’ subhead in this posting), that’s not so.

The latest news on the quantum front comes from Microsoft (February 2025) and D-Wave systems (March 2025).

Microsoft claims a new state of matter for breakthroughs in quantum computing

Here’s the February 19, 2025 news announcement from Microsoft’s Chetan Nayak, Technical Fellow and Corporate Vice President of Quantum Hardware, Note: Links have been removed,

Quantum computers promise to transform science and society—but only after they achieve the scale that once seemed distant and elusive, and their reliability is ensured by quantum error correction. Today, we’re announcing rapid advancements on the path to useful quantum computing:

  • Majorana 1: the world’s first Quantum Processing Unit (QPU) powered by a Topological Core, designed to scale to a million qubits on a single chip.
  • A hardware-protected topological qubit: research published today in Nature, along with data shared at the Station Q meeting, demonstrate our ability to harness a new type of material and engineer a radically different type of qubit that is small, fast, and digitally controlled.
  • A device roadmap to reliable quantum computation: our path from single-qubit devices to arrays that enable quantum error correction.
  • Building the world’s first fault-tolerant prototype (FTP) based on topological qubits: Microsoft is on track to build an FTP of a scalable quantum computer—in years, not decades—as part of the final phase of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Underexplored Systems for Utility-Scale Quantum Computing (US2QC) program.

Together, these milestones mark a pivotal moment in quantum computing as we advance from scientific exploration to technological innovation.

Harnessing a new type of material

All of today’s announcements build on our team’s recent breakthrough: the world’s first topoconductor. This revolutionary class of materials enables us to create topological superconductivity, a new state of matter that previously existed only in theory. The advance stems from Microsoft’s innovations in the design and fabrication of gate-defined devices that combine indium arsenide (a semiconductor) and aluminum (a superconductor). When cooled to near absolute zero and tuned with magnetic fields, these devices form topological superconducting nanowires with Majorana Zero Modes (MZMs) at the wires’ ends.

Chris Vallance’s February 19, 2025 article for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) news online website provides a description of Microsoft’s claims and makes note of the competitive quantum research environment,

Microsoft has unveiled a new chip called Majorana 1 that it says will enable the creation of quantum computers able to solve “meaningful, industrial-scale problems in years, not decades”.

It is the latest development in quantum computing – tech which uses principles of particle physics to create a new type of computer able to solve problems ordinary computers cannot.

Creating quantum computers powerful enough to solve important real-world problems is very challenging – and some experts believe them to be decades away.

Microsoft says this timetable can now be sped up because of the “transformative” progress it has made in developing the new chip involving a “topological conductor”, based on a new material it has produced.

The firm believes its topoconductor has the potential to be as revolutionary as the semiconductor was in the history of computing.

But experts have told the BBC more data is needed before the significance of the new research – and its effect on quantum computing – can be fully assessed.

Jensen Huang – boss of the leading chip firm, Nvidia – said in January he believed “very useful” quantum computing would come in 20 years.

Chetan Nayak, a technical fellow of quantum hardware at Microsoft, said he believed the developments would shake up conventional thinking about the future of quantum computers.

“Many people have said that quantum computing, that is to say useful quantum computers, are decades away,” he said. “I think that this brings us into years rather than decades.”

Travis Humble, director of the Quantum Science Center of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, said he agreed Microsoft would now be able to deliver prototypes faster – but warned there remained work to do.

“The long term goals for solving industrial applications on quantum computers will require scaling up these prototypes even further,” he said.

While rivals produced a steady stream of announcements – notably Google’s “Willow” at the end of 2024 – Microsoft seemed to be taking longer.

Pursuing this approach was, in the company’s own words, a “high-risk, high-rewards” strategy, but one it now believes is going to pay off.

If you have the time, do read Vallance’s February 19, 2025 article.

The research paper

Purdue University’s (Indiana, US) February 25, 2025 news release on EurekAlert announces publication of the research, Note: Links have been removed,

Microsoft Quantum published an article in Nature on Feb. 19 [2025] detailing recent advances in the measurement of quantum devices that will be needed to realize a topological quantum computer. Among the authors are Microsoft scientists and engineers who conduct research at Microsoft Quantum Lab West Lafayette, located at Purdue University. In an announcement by Microsoft Quantum, the team describes the operation of a device that is a necessary building block for a topological quantum computer. The published results are an important milestone along the path to construction of quantum computers that are potentially more robust and powerful than existing technologies.

“Our hope for quantum computation is that it will aid chemists, materials scientists and engineers working on the design and manufacturing of new materials that are so important to our daily lives,” said Michael Manfra, scientific director of Microsoft Quantum Lab West Lafayette and the Bill and Dee O’Brien Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy, professor of materials engineering, and professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue. “The promise of quantum computation is in accelerating scientific discovery and its translation into useful technology. For example, if quantum computers reduce the time and cost to produce new lifesaving therapeutic drugs, that is real societal impact.” 

The Microsoft Quantum Lab West Lafayette team advanced the complex layered materials that make up the quantum plane of the full device architecture used in the tests. Microsoft scientists working with Manfra are experts in advanced semiconductor growth techniques, including molecular beam epitaxy, that are used to build low-dimensional electron systems that form the basis for quantum bits, or qubits. They built the semiconductor and superconductor layers with atomic layer precision, tailoring the material’s properties to those needed for the device architecture.

Manfra, a member of the Purdue Quantum Science and Engineering Institute, credited the strong relationship between Purdue and Microsoft, built over the course of a decade, with the advances conducted at Microsoft Quantum Lab West Lafayette. In 2017 Purdue deepened its relationship with Microsoft with a multiyear agreement that includes embedding Microsoft employees with Manfra’s research team at Purdue.

“This was a collaborative effort by a very sophisticated team, with a vital contribution from the Microsoft scientists at Purdue,” Manfra said. “It’s a Microsoft team achievement, but it’s also the culmination of a long-standing partnership between Purdue and Microsoft. It wouldn’t have been possible without an environment at Purdue that was conducive to this mode of work — I attempted to blend industrial with academic research to the betterment of both communities. I think that’s a success story.”

Quantum science and engineering at Purdue is a pillar of the Purdue Computes initiative, which is focused on advancing research in computing, physical AI, semiconductors and quantum technologies.

“This research breakthrough in the measurement of the state of quasi particles is a milestone in the development of topological quantum computing, and creates a watershed moment in the semiconductor-superconductor hybrid structure,” Purdue President Mung Chiang said. “Marking also the latest success in the strategic initiative of Purdue Computes, the deep collaboration that Professor Manfra and his team have created with the Microsoft Quantum Lab West Lafayette on the Purdue campus exemplifies the most impactful industry research partnership at any American university today.”

Most approaches to quantum computers rely on local degrees of freedom to encode information. The spin of an electron is a classic example of a qubit. But an individual spin is prone to disturbance — by relatively common things like heat, vibrations or interactions with other quantum particles — which can corrupt quantum information stored in the qubit, necessitating a great deal of effort in detecting and correcting errors. Instead of spin, topological quantum computers store information in a more distributed manner; the qubit state is encoded in the state of many particles acting in concert. Consequently, it is harder to scramble the information as the state of all the particles must be changed to alter the qubit state.

In the Nature paper, the Microsoft team was able to accurately and quickly measure the state of quasi particles that form the basis of the qubit.

“The device is used to measure a basic property of a topological qubit quickly,” Manfra said. “The team is excited to build on these positive results.”

“The team in West Lafayette pushed existing epitaxial technology to a new state-of-the-art for semiconductor-superconductor hybrid structures to ensure a perfect interface between each of the building blocks of the Microsoft hybrid system,” said Sergei Gronin, a Microsoft Quantum Lab scientist.

“The materials quality that is required for quantum computing chips necessitates constant improvements, so that’s one of the biggest challenges,” Gronin said. “First, we had to adjust and improve semiconductor technology to meet a new level that nobody was able to achieve before. But equally important was how to create this hybrid system. To do that, we had to merge a semiconducting part and a superconducting part. And that means you need to perfect the semiconductor and the superconductor and perfect the interface between them.”

While work discussed in the Nature article was performed by Microsoft employees, the exposure to industrial-scale research and development is an outstanding opportunity for Purdue students in Manfra’s academic group as well. John Watson, Geoffrey Gardner and Saeed Fallahi, who are among the coauthors of the paper, earned their doctoral degrees under Manfra and now work for Microsoft Quantum at locations in Redmond, Washington, and Copenhagen, Denmark. Most of Manfra’s former students now work for quantum computing companies, including Microsoft. Tyler Lindemann, who works in the West Lafayette lab and helped to build the hybrid semiconductor-superconductor structures required for the device, is earning a doctoral degree from Purdue under Manfra’s supervision.

“Working in Professor Manfra’s lab in conjunction with my work for Microsoft Quantum has given me a head start in my professional development, and been fruitful for my academic work,” Lindemann said. “At the same time, many of the world-class scientists and engineers at Microsoft Quantum have some background in academia, and being able to draw from their knowledge and experience is an indispensable resource in my graduate studies. From both perspectives, it’s a great opportunity.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Interferometric single-shot parity measurement in InAs–Al hybrid devices by Microsoft Azure Quantum, Morteza Aghaee, Alejandro Alcaraz Ramirez, Zulfi Alam, Rizwan Ali, Mariusz Andrzejczuk, Andrey Antipov, Mikhail Astafev, Amin Barzegar, Bela Bauer, Jonathan Becker, Umesh Kumar Bhaskar, Alex Bocharov, Srini Boddapati, David Bohn, Jouri Bommer, Leo Bourdet, Arnaud Bousquet, Samuel Boutin, Lucas Casparis, Benjamin J. Chapman, Sohail Chatoor, Anna Wulff Christensen, Cassandra Chua, Patrick Codd, William Cole, Paul Cooper, Fabiano Corsetti, Ajuan Cui, Paolo Dalpasso, Juan Pablo Dehollain, Gijs de Lange, Michiel de Moor, Andreas Ekefjärd, Tareq El Dandachi, Juan Carlos Estrada Saldaña, Saeed Fallahi, Luca Galletti, Geoff Gardner, Deshan Govender, Flavio Griggio, Ruben Grigoryan, Sebastian Grijalva, Sergei Gronin, Jan Gukelberger, Marzie Hamdast, Firas Hamze, Esben Bork Hansen, Sebastian Heedt, Zahra Heidarnia, Jesús Herranz Zamorano, Samantha Ho, Laurens Holgaard, John Hornibrook, Jinnapat Indrapiromkul, Henrik Ingerslev, Lovro Ivancevic, Thomas Jensen, Jaspreet Jhoja, Jeffrey Jones, Konstantin V. Kalashnikov, Ray Kallaher, Rachpon Kalra, Farhad Karimi, Torsten Karzig, Evelyn King, Maren Elisabeth Kloster, Christina Knapp, Dariusz Kocon, Jonne V. Koski, Pasi Kostamo, Mahesh Kumar, Tom Laeven, Thorvald Larsen, Jason Lee, Kyunghoon Lee, Grant Leum, Kongyi Li, Tyler Lindemann, Matthew Looij, Julie Love, Marijn Lucas, Roman Lutchyn, Morten Hannibal Madsen, Nash Madulid, Albert Malmros, Michael Manfra, Devashish Mantri, Signe Brynold Markussen, Esteban Martinez, Marco Mattila, Robert McNeil, Antonio B. Mei, Ryan V. Mishmash, Gopakumar Mohandas, Christian Mollgaard, Trevor Morgan, George Moussa, Chetan Nayak, Jens Hedegaard Nielsen, Jens Munk Nielsen, William Hvidtfelt Padkar Nielsen, Bas Nijholt, Mike Nystrom, Eoin O’Farrell, Thomas Ohki, Keita Otani, Brian Paquelet Wütz, Sebastian Pauka, Karl Petersson, Luca Petit, Dima Pikulin, Guen Prawiroatmodjo, Frank Preiss, Eduardo Puchol Morejon, Mohana Rajpalke, Craig Ranta, Katrine Rasmussen, David Razmadze, Outi Reentila, David J. Reilly, Yuan Ren, Ken Reneris, Richard Rouse, Ivan Sadovskyy, Lauri Sainiemi, Irene Sanlorenzo, Emma Schmidgall, Cristina Sfiligoj, Mustafeez Bashir Shah, Kevin Simoes, Shilpi Singh, Sarat Sinha, Thomas Soerensen, Patrick Sohr, Tomas Stankevic, Lieuwe Stek, Eric Stuppard, Henri Suominen, Judith Suter, Sam Teicher, Nivetha Thiyagarajah, Raj Tholapi, Mason Thomas, Emily Toomey, Josh Tracy, Michelle Turley, Shivendra Upadhyay, Ivan Urban, Kevin Van Hoogdalem, David J. Van Woerkom, Dmitrii V. Viazmitinov, Dominik Vogel, John Watson, Alex Webster, Joseph Weston, Georg W. Winkler, Di Xu, Chung Kai Yang, Emrah Yucelen, Roland Zeisel, Guoji Zheng & Justin Zilke. Nature 638, 651–655 (2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08445-2 Published online: 19 February 2025 Issue Date: 20 February 2025

This paper is open access. Note: I usually tag all of the authors but not this time.

Controversy over this and previous Microsoft quantum computing claims

Elizabeth Hlavinka’s March 17, 2025 article for Salon.com provides an overview, Note: Links have been removed,

The matter making up the world around us has long-since been organized into three neat categories: solids, liquids and gases. But last month [February 2025], Microsoft announced that it had allegedly discovered another state of matter originally theorized to exist in 1937. 

This new state of matter called the Majorana zero mode is made up of quasiparticles, which act as their own particle and antiparticle. The idea is that the Majorana zero mode could be used to build a quantum computer, which could help scientists answer complex questions that standard computers are not capable of solving, with implications for medicine, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence.

In late February [2025], Sen. Ted Cruz presented Microsoft’s new computer chip at a congressional hearing, saying, “Technologies like this new chip I hold in the palm of my hand, the Majorana 1 quantum chip, are unlocking a new era of computing that will transform industries from health care to energy, solving problems that today’s computers simply cannot.”

However, Microsoft’s announcement, claiming a “breakthrough in quantum computing,” was met with skepticism from some physicists in the field. Proving that this form of quantum computing can work requires first demonstrating the existence of Majorana quasiparticles, measuring what the Majorana particles are doing, and creating something called a topological qubit used to store quantum information.

But some say that not all of the data necessary to prove this has been included in the research paper published in Nature, on which this announcement is based. And due to a fraught history of similar claims from the company being disputed and ultimately rescinded, some are extra wary of the results. [emphasis mine]

It’s not the first time Microsoft has faced backlash from presenting findings in the field. In 2018, the company reported that they had detected the presence of Majorana zero-modes in a research paper, but it was retracted by Nature, the journal that published it after a report from independent experts put their findings under more intense scrutiny.

In the [2018] report, four physicists not involved in the research concluded that it did not appear that Microsoft had intentionally misrepresented the data, but instead seemed to be “caught up in the excitement of the moment [emphasis mine].”

Establishing the existence of these particles is extremely complex in part because disorder in the device can create signals that mimic these quasiparticles when they are not actually there. 

Modern computers in use today are encoded in bits, which can either be in a zero state (no current flowing through them), or a one state (current flowing.) These bits work together to send information and signals that communicate with the computer, powering everything from cell phones to video games.

Companies like Google, IBM and Amazon have invested in designing another form of quantum computer that uses chips built with “qubits,” or quantum bits. Qubits can exist in both zero and one states at the same time due to a phenomenon called superposition. 

However, qubits are subject to external noise from the environment that can affect their performance, said Dr. Paolo Molignini, a researcher in theoretical quantum physics at Stockholm University.

“Because qubits are in a superposition of zero and one, they are very prone to errors and they are very prone to what is called decoherence, which means there could be noise, thermal fluctuations or many things that can collapse the state of the qubits,” Molignini told Salon in a video call. “Then you basically lose all of the information that you were encoding.”

In December [2024], Google said its quantum computer could perform a calculation that a standard computer could complete in 10 septillion years — a period far longer than the age of the universe — in just under five minutes.

However, a general-purpose computer would require billions of qubits, so these approaches are still a far cry from having practical applications, said Dr. Patrick Lee, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT], who co-authored the report leading to the 2018 Nature paper’s retraction.

Microsoft is taking a different approach to quantum computing by trying to develop  a topological qubit, which has the ability to store information in multiple places at once. Topological qubits exist within the Majorana zero states and are appealing because they can theoretically offer greater protection against environmental noise that destroys information within a quantum system.

Think of it like an arrow, where the arrowhead holds a portion of the information and the arrow tail holds the rest, Lee said. Distributing information across space like this is called topological protection.

“If you are able to put them far apart from each other, then you have a chance of maintaining the identity of the arrow even if it is subject to noise,” Lee told Salon in a phone interview. “The idea is that if the noise affects the head, it doesn’t kill the arrow and if it affects only the tail it doesn’t kill your arrow. It has to affect both sides simultaneously to kill your arrow, and that is very unlikely if you are able to put them apart.”

… Lee believes that even if the data doesn’t entirely prove that topological qubits exist in the Majorana zero-state, it still represents a scientific advancement. But he noted that several important issues need to be solved before it has practical implications. For one, the coherence time of these particles — or how long they can exist without being affected by environmental noise — is still very short, he explained.

“They make a measurement, come back, and the qubit has changed, so you have lost your coherence,” Lee said. “With this very short time, you cannot do anything with it.”

“I just wish they [Microsoft] were a bit more careful with their claims because I fear that if they don’t measure up to what they are saying, there might be a backlash at some point where people say, ‘You promised us all these fancy things and where are they now?’” Molignini said. “That might damage the entire quantum community, not just themselves.”

Iif you have the time, please read Hlavinka’s March 17, 2025 article in its entirety .

D-Wave Quantum Systems claims quantum supremacy over real world problem solution

A March 15, 2025 article by Bob Yirka for phys.org announces the news from D-Wave Quantum Systems. Note: The company, which had its headquarters in Canada (Burnaby, BC) now seems to be a largely US company with its main headquarters in Palo Alto, California and an ancillary or junior (?) headquarters in Canada, Note: A link has been removed,

A team of quantum computer researchers at quantum computer maker D-Wave, working with an international team of physicists and engineers, is claiming that its latest quantum processor has been used to run a quantum simulation faster than could be done with a classical computer.

In their paper published in the journal Science, the group describes how they ran a quantum version of a mathematical approximation regarding how matter behaves when it changes states, such as from a gas to a liquid—in a way that they claim would be nearly impossible to conduct on a traditional computer.

Here’s a March 12, 2025 D-Wave Systems (now D-Wave Quantum Systems) news release touting its real world problem solving quantum supremacy,

New landmark peer-reviewed paper published in Science, “Beyond-Classical Computation in Quantum Simulation,” unequivocally validates D-Wave’s achievement of the world’s first and only demonstration of quantum computational supremacy on a useful, real-world problem

Research shows D-Wave annealing quantum computer performs magnetic materials simulation in minutes that would take nearly one million years and more than the world’s annual electricity consumption to solve using a classical supercomputer built with GPU clusters

D-Wave Advantage2 annealing quantum computer prototype used in supremacy achievement, a testament to the system’s remarkable performance capabilities

PALO ALTO, Calif. – March 12, 2025 – D-Wave Quantum Inc. (NYSE: QBTS) (“D-Wave” or the “Company”), a leader in quantum computing systems, software, and services and the world’s first commercial supplier of quantum computers, today announced a scientific breakthrough published in the esteemed journal Science, confirming that its annealing quantum computer outperformed one of the world’s most powerful classical supercomputers in solving complex magnetic materials simulation problems with relevance to materials discovery. The new landmark peer-reviewed paper, Beyond-Classical Computation in Quantum Simulation,” validates this achievement as the world’s first and only demonstration of quantum computational supremacy on a useful problem.

An international collaboration of scientists led by D-Wave performed simulations of quantum dynamics in programmable spin glasses—computationally hard magnetic materials simulation problems with known applications to business and science—on both D-Wave’s Advantage2TM prototype annealing quantum computer and the Frontier supercomputer at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The work simulated the behavior of a suite of lattice structures and sizes across a variety of evolution times and delivered a multiplicity of important material properties. D-Wave’s quantum computer performed the most complex simulation in minutes and with a level of accuracy that would take nearly one million years using the supercomputer. In addition, it would require more than the world’s annual electricity consumption to solve this problem using the supercomputer, which is built with graphics processing unit (GPU) clusters.

“This is a remarkable day for quantum computing. Our demonstration of quantum computational supremacy on a useful problem is an industry first. All other claims of quantum systems outperforming classical computers have been disputed or involved random number generation of no practical value,” said Dr. Alan Baratz, CEO of D-Wave. “Our achievement shows, without question, that D-Wave’s annealing quantum computers are now capable of solving useful problems beyond the reach of the world’s most powerful supercomputers. We are thrilled that D-Wave customers can use this technology today to realize tangible value from annealing quantum computers.”

Realizing an Industry-First Quantum Computing Milestone
The behavior of materials is governed by the laws of quantum physics. Understanding the quantum nature of magnetic materials is crucial to finding new ways to use them for technological advancement, making materials simulation and discovery a vital area of research for D-Wave and the broader scientific community. Magnetic materials simulations, like those conducted in this work, use computer models to study how tiny particles not visible to the human eye react to external factors. Magnetic materials are widely used in medical imaging, electronics, superconductors, electrical networks, sensors, and motors.

“This research proves that D-Wave’s quantum computers can reliably solve quantum dynamics problems that could lead to discovery of new materials,” said Dr. Andrew King, senior distinguished scientist at D-Wave. “Through D-Wave’s technology, we can create and manipulate programmable quantum matter in ways that were impossible even a few years ago.”

Materials discovery is a computationally complex, energy-intensive and expensive task. Today’s supercomputers and high-performance computing (HPC) centers, which are built with tens of thousands of GPUs, do not always have the computational processing power to conduct complex materials simulations in a timely or energy-efficient manner. For decades, scientists have aspired to build a quantum computer capable of solving complex materials simulation problems beyond the reach of classical computers. D-Wave’s advancements in quantum hardware have made it possible for its annealing quantum computers to process these types of problems for the first time.

“This is a significant milestone made possible through over 25 years of research and hardware development at D-Wave, two years of collaboration across 11 institutions worldwide, and more than 100,000 GPU and CPU hours of simulation on one of the world’s fastest supercomputers as well as computing clusters in collaborating institutions,” said Dr. Mohammad Amin, chief scientist at D-Wave. “Besides realizing Richard Feynman’s vision of simulating nature on a quantum computer, this research could open new frontiers for scientific discovery and quantum application development.” 

Advantage2 System Demonstrates Powerful Performance Gains
The results shown in “Beyond-Classical Computation in Quantum Simulation” were enabled by D-Wave’s previous scientific milestones published in Nature Physics (2022) and Nature (2023), which theoretically and experimentally showed that quantum annealing provides a quantum speedup in complex optimization problems. These scientific advancements led to the development of the Advantage2 prototype’s fast anneal feature, which played an essential role in performing the precise quantum calculations needed to demonstrate quantum computational supremacy.

“The broader quantum computing research and development community is collectively building an understanding of the types of computations for which quantum computing can overtake classical computing. This effort requires ongoing and rigorous experimentation,” said Dr. Trevor Lanting, chief development officer at D-Wave. “This work is an important step toward sharpening that understanding, with clear evidence of where our quantum computer was able to outperform classical methods. We believe that the ability to recreate the entire suite of results we produced is not possible classically. We encourage our peers in academia to continue efforts to further define the line between quantum and classical capabilities, and we believe these efforts will help drive the development of ever more powerful quantum computing technology.”

The Advantage2 prototype used to achieve quantum computational supremacy is available for customers to use today via D-Wave’s Leap™ real-time quantum cloud service. The prototype provides substantial performance improvements from previous-generation Advantage systems, including increased qubit coherence, connectivity, and energy scale, which enables higher-quality solutions to larger, more complex problems. Moreover, D-Wave now has an Advantage2 processor that is four times larger than the prototype used in this work and has extended the simulations of this paper from hundreds of qubits to thousands of qubits, which are significantly larger than those described in this paper.

Leading Industry Voices Echo Support
Dr. Hidetoshi Nishimori, Professor, Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology:
“This paper marks a significant milestone in demonstrating the real-world applicability of large-scale quantum computing. Through rigorous benchmarking of quantum annealers against state-of-the-art classical methods, it convincingly establishes a quantum advantage in tackling practical problems, revealing the transformative potential of quantum computing at an unprecedented scale.”

Dr. Seth Lloyd, Professor of Quantum Mechanical Engineering, MIT:
Although large-scale, fully error-corrected quantum computers are years in the future, quantum annealers can probe the features of quantum systems today. In an elegant paper, the D-Wave group has used a large-scale quantum annealer to uncover patterns of entanglement in a complex quantum system that lie far beyond the reach of the most powerful classical computer. The D-Wave result shows the promise of quantum annealers for exploring exotic quantum effects in a wide variety of systems.”

Dr. Travis Humble, Director of Quantum Science Center, Distinguished Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
“ORNL seeks to expand the frontiers of computation through many different avenues, and benchmarking quantum computing for materials science applications provides critical input to our understanding of new computational capabilities.”

Dr. Juan Carrasquilla, Associate Professor at the Department of Physics, ETH Zürich:
“I believe these results mark a critical scientific milestone for D-Wave. They also serve as an invitation to the scientific community, as these results offer a strong benchmark and motivation for developing novel simulation techniques for out-of-equilibrium dynamics in quantum many-body physics. Furthermore, I hope these findings encourage theoretical exploration of the computational challenges involved in performing such simulations, both classically and quantum-mechanically.”

Dr. Victor Martin-Mayor, Professor of Theoretical Physics, Universidad Complutense de Madrid:
“This paper is not only a tour-de-force for experimental physics, it is also remarkable for the clarity of the results. The authors have addressed a problem that is regarded both as important and as very challenging to a classical computer. The team has shown that their quantum annealer performs better at this task than the state-of-the-art methods for classical simulation.”

Dr. Alberto Nocera, Senior Staff Scientist, The University of British Columbia:
“Our work shows the impracticability of state-of-the-art classical simulations to simulate the dynamics of quantum magnets, opening the door for quantum technologies based on analog simulators to solve scientific questions that may otherwise remain unanswered using conventional computers.”

About D-Wave Quantum Inc.
D-Wave is a leader in the development and delivery of quantum computing systems, software, and services. We are the world’s first commercial supplier of quantum computers, and the only company building both annealing and gate-model quantum computers. Our mission is to help customers realize the value of quantum, today. Our 5,000+ qubit Advantage™ quantum computers, the world’s largest, are available on-premises or via the cloud, supported by 99.9% availability and uptime. More than 100 organizations trust D-Wave with their toughest computational challenges. With over 200 million problems submitted to our Advantage systems and Advantage2™ prototypes to date, our customers apply our technology to address use cases spanning optimization, artificial intelligence, research and more. Learn more about realizing the value of quantum computing today and how we’re shaping the quantum-driven industrial and societal advancements of tomorrow: www.dwavequantum.com.

Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking, as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements and may not be indicative of future results. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, among others, various factors beyond management’s control, including the risks set forth under the heading “Risk Factors” discussed under the caption “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in Part I of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K or any updates discussed under the caption “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in Part II of our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and in our other filings with the SEC. Undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements in this press release in making an investment decision, which are based on information available to us on the date hereof. We undertake no duty to update this information unless required by law.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the most recent paper,

Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation by Andrew D. King , Alberto Nocera, Marek M. Rams, Jacek Dziarmaga, Roeland Wiersema, William Bernoudy, Jack Raymond, Nitin Kaushal, Niclas Heinsdorf, Richard Harris, Kelly Boothby, Fabio Altomare, Mohsen Asad, Andrew J. Berkley, Martin Boschnak, Kevin Chern, Holly Christiani, Samantha Cibere, Jake Connor, Martin H. Dehn, Rahul Deshpande, Sara Ejtemaee, Pau Farre, Kelsey Hamer, Emile Hoskinson, Shuiyuan Huang, Mark W. Johnson, Samuel Kortas, Eric Ladizinsky, Trevor Lanting, Tony Lai, Ryan Li, Allison J. R. MacDonald, Gaelen Marsden, Catherine C. McGeoch, Reza Molavi, Travis Oh, Richard Neufeld, Mana Norouzpour, Joel Pasvolsky, Patrick Poitras, Gabriel Poulin-Lamarre, Thomas Prescott, Mauricio Reis, Chris Rich, Mohammad Samani, Benjamin Sheldan, Anatoly Smirnov, Edward Sterpka, Berta Trullas Clavera, Nicholas Tsai, Mark Volkmann, Alexander M. Whiticar, Jed D. Whittaker, Warren Wilkinson, Jason Yao, T.J. Yi, Anders W. Sandvik, Gonzalo Alvarez, Roger G. Melko, Juan Carrasquilla, Marcel Franz, and Mohammad H. Amin. Science 12 Mar 2025 First Release DOI: 10.1126/science.ado6285

This paper appears to be open access.Note: I usually tag all of the authors but not this time either.

A controversy of sorts

Madison McLauchlan’s March 19, 2025 article for Betakit (website for Canadian Startup News & Tech Innovation), Note: Links have been removed,

Canadian-born company D-Wave Quantum Systems said it achieved “quantum supremacy” last week after publishing what it calls a groundbreaking paper in the prestigious journal Science. Despite the lofty term, Canadian experts say supremacy is not the be-all, end-all of quantum innovation. 

D-Wave, which has labs in Palo Alto, Calif., and Burnaby, BC, claimed in a statement that it has shown “the world’s first and only demonstration of quantum computational supremacy on a useful, real-world problem.”

Coined in the early 2010s by physicist John Preskill, quantum supremacy is the ability of a quantum computing system to solve a problem no classical computer can in a feasible amount of time. The metric makes no mention of whether the problem needs to be useful or relevant to real life. Google researchers published a paper in Nature in 2019 claiming they cleared that bar with the Sycamore quantum processor. Researchers at the University of Science and Technology in China claimed they demonstrated quantum supremacy several times. 

D-Wave’s attempt differs in that its researchers aimed to solve a real-world materials-simulation problem with quantum computing—one the company claims would be nearly impossible for a traditional computer to solve in a reasonable amount of time. D-Wave used an annealing designed to solve optimization problems. The problem is represented like an energy space, where the “lowest energy state” corresponds to the solution. 

While exciting, quantum supremacy is just one metric among several that mark the progress toward widely useful quantum computers, industry experts told BetaKit. 

“It is a very important and mostly academic metric, but certainly not the most important in the grand scheme of things, as it doesn’t take into account the usefulness of the algorithm,” said Martin Laforest, managing partner at Quantacet, a specialized venture capital fund for quantum startups. 

He added that Google and Xanadu’s [Xanadu Quantum Technologies based in Toronto, Canada] past claims to quantum supremacy were “extraordinary pieces of work, but didn’t unlock practicality.” 

Laforest, along with executives at Canadian quantum startups Nord Quantique and Photonic, say that the milestones of ‘quantum utility’ or ‘quantum advantage’ may be more important than supremacy. 

According to Quantum computing company Quera [QuEra?], quantum advantage is the demonstration of a quantum algorithm solving a real-world problem on a quantum computer faster than any classical algorithm running on any classical computer. On the other hand, quantum utility, according to IBM, refers to when a quantum computer is able to perform reliable computations at a scale beyond brute-force classical computing methods that provide exact solutions to computational problems. 

Error correction hasn’t traditionally been considered a requirement for quantum supremacy, but Laforest told BetaKit the term is “an ever-moving target, constantly challenged by advances in classical algorithms.” He added: “In my opinion, some level of supremacy or utility may be possible in niche areas without error correction, but true disruption requires it.”

Paul Terry, CEO of Vancouver-based Photonic, thinks that though D-Wave’s claim to quantum supremacy shows “continued progress to real value,” scalability is the industry’s biggest hurdle to overcome.

But as with many milestone claims in the quantum space, D-Wave’s latest innovation has been met with scrutiny from industry competitors and researchers on the breakthrough’s significance, claiming that classical computers have achieved similar results. Laforest echoed this sentiment.

“Personally, I wouldn’t say it’s an unequivocal demonstration of supremacy, but it is a damn nice experiment that once again shows the murky zone between traditional computing and early quantum advantage,” Laforest said.

Originally founded out of the University of British Columbia, D-Wave went public on the New York Stock Exchange just over two years ago through a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company in 2022. D-Wave became a Delaware-domiciled corporation as part of the deal.

Earlier this year, D-Wave’s stock price dropped after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang publicly stated that he estimated that useful quantum computers were more than 15 years away. D-Wave’s stock price, which had been struggling, has seen a considerable bump in recent months alongside a broader boost in the quantum market. The price popped after its most recent earnings, shared right after its quantum supremacy announcement. 

The beat goes on

Some of this is standard in science. There’s always a debate over big claims and it’s not unusual for people to get over excited and have to make a retraction. Scientists are people too. That said, there’s a lot of money on the line and that appears to be making situation even more volatile than usual.

That last paragraph was completed on the morning of March 21, 2025 and later that afternoon I came across this March 21, 2025 article by Michael Grothaus for Fast Company, Note: Links have been removed,

Quantum computing stocks got pummeled yesterday, with the four most prominent public quantum computing companies—IonQ, Rigetti Computing, Quantum Computing Inc., and D-Wave Quantum Inc.—falling anywhere from over 9% to over 18%. The reason? A lot of it may have to do with AI chip giant Nvidia. Again.

Stocks crash yesterday on Nvidia quantum news

Yesterday was a bit of a bloodbath on the stock market for the four most prominent publicly traded quantum computing companies. …

All four of these quantum computing stocks [IonQ, Inc.; Rigetti Computing, Inc.; Quantum Computing Inc.; D-Wave Quantum Inc.] tumbled on the day that AI chip giant Nvidia kicked off its two-day Quantum Day event. In a blog post from January 14 announcing Quantum Day, Nvidia said the event “brings together leading experts for a comprehensive and balanced perspective on what businesses should expect from quantum computing in the coming decades — mapping the path toward useful quantum applications.”

Besides bringing quantum experts together, the AI behemoth also announced that it will be launching a new quantum computing research center in Boston.

Called the NVIDIA Accelerated Quantum Research Center (NVAQC), the new research lab “will help solve quantum computing’s most challenging problems, ranging from qubit noise to transforming experimental quantum processors into practical devices,” the company said in a press release.

The NVAQC’s location in Boston means it will be near both Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 

Before Nvidia’s announcement yesterday, IonQ, Rigetti, D-Wave, and Quantum Computing Inc. were the leaders in the nascent field of quantum computing. And while they still are right now (Nvidia’s quantum research lab hasn’t been built yet), the fear is that Nvidia could use its deep pockets to quickly buy its way into a leadership spot in the field. With its $2.9 trillion market cap, the company can easily afford to throw billions of research dollars into quantum computing.

As noted by the Motley Fool, the location of the NVIDIA Accelerated Quantum Research Center in Boston will also allow Nvidia to more easily tap into top quantum talent from Harvard and MIT—talent that may have otherwise gone to IonQ, Rigetti, D-Wave, and Quantum Computing Inc.

Nvidia’s announcement is a massive about-face from the company in regard to how it views quantum computing. It’s also the second time that Nvidia has caused quantum stocks to crash this year. Back in January, shares in prominent quantum computing companies fell after Huang said that practical use of quantum computing was decades away.

Those comments were something quantum computing company CEOs like D-Wave’s Alan Baratz took issue with. “It’s an egregious error on Mr. Huang’s part,” Bartaz told Fast Company at the time. “We’re not decades away from commercial quantum computers. They exist. There are companies that are using our quantum computer today.”

According to Investor’s Business Daily, Huang reportedly got the idea for Nvidia’s Quantum Day event after the blowback to his comments, inviting quantum computing executives to the event to explain why he was incorrect about quantum computing.

The word is volatile.