Japan Airlines began testing humanoid robots for ground operations at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport amid chronic labor shortages.

The airline is partnering with GMO AI & Robotics to trial robots for tasks such as baggage loading and cabin cleaning starting in May, according to a joint statement Monday.

The initiative comes as Japan’s aviation sector struggles with rising tourism demand and a shrinking workforce, driven by an aging population.

Japan Airlines said the humanoid robots are expected to be deployed progressively across Haneda Airport, with the trial lasting for two years.

In a video demonstration of the technology, a humanoid robot produced by China’s Unitree can be seen sliding a payload across a conveyor belt, waving to onlookers, and shaking a coworker’s hand. 

Shares of Japan Airlines rose 3.4% in the first trading day of May, but were trading around 13% lower so far this year.

Unitree, one of China’s leading robotics firms, debuted its flagship H1 model in a Kung Fu demonstration at China’s Spring Festival Gala in February to much fanfare.

It is, however, unclear whether Unitree is directly involved in the Haneda Airport trial or is part of a broader evaluation of commercially available humanoid technologies. In a response to CNBC’s queries, Japan Airlines said that “feasibility studies and risk assessments” were ongoing.

Unitree did not respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.

Japan’s working-age population is projected to decline by 31% from 2023 to 2060, according to an employment outlook by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Marc Einstein, research director from Counter Research, expects humanoid robots to play an increasing role in Japan’s workforce.

With Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s support base premised on tougher immigration policies, Einstein expects the government to “very much encourage the deployment of humanoids in Japan.”

In March, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry published guidelines on the use of robotics and artificial intelligence to address workforce challenges, including “decreasing labor caused by a declining birthrate and aging population.”

Data from Japan’s National Tourism Organization showed international arrivals

Intellia Therapeutics said its Crispr-based treatment for a rare swelling condition met its goals in a late-stage trial, marking a milestone for the field of gene editing and putting the company on track to seek approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The company’s treatment uses Nobel Prize-winning technology Crispr to edit DNA and turn off the gene that controls production of a peptide that’s overactive in people with hereditary angioedema, causing them to experience potentially life-threatening swelling attacks. Intellia’s treatment is administered once through an hourslong infusion, making the edits directly in the liver.

Intellia said the one-time treatment reduced attacks by 87% compared with a placebo, meeting the study’s main goal. Six months after treatment, 62% of patients were free from attacks and weren’t using other therapies, Intellia said.

The company described the safety and tolerability of the treatment as “favorable,” reporting the most common side effects were infusion-related reactions, headaches and fatigue. Analysts were closely watching safety in the trial since a patient in a separate trial of a different treatment from Intellia died. That patient developed a liver injury and ultimately died from septic shock following an ulcer, according to the company.

“When you think about where we started with Crispr, just 12 years ago with some of the fundamental insights, I think there was a lot of talk about what might be possible, and we’ve had reports along the way in terms of milestones, but this is the first Phase 3 data in any indication with in vivo Crispr where you’re actually changing a gene that causes disease,” said Intellia CEO John Leonard.

The only FDA-approved Crispr-based medicine comes from Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Called Casgevy, the gene editing is done outside the body, or ex vivo. The process requires collecting a person’s blood cells, making the edits outside the body, then reinfusing them back into a patient. Intellia’s treatment, meanwhile, makes the edits inside the body, or in vivo.

Intellia said it has started a rolling application with the FDA and plans to complete the filing in the second half of this year. The company expects to launch the treatment in the U.S. in the first half of next year, if it’s approved.

If approved, Intellia’s treatment, lonvoguran ziclumeran, will compete with about a dozen other chronic drugs for HAE. Despite the allure of a one-time treatment, genetic medicines haven’t always been a commercial successes. BioMarin withdrew its gene therapy for Hemophilia A because of weak sales, for example.

Leonard said there are important differences between the two, like the fact that BioMarin’s therapy faced questions about how long the effects would last. In contrast, he said Intellia hasn’t seen a single case in almost six years where…

Jury selection is beginning in the high-stakes legal battle between longtime friends turned rivals Elon Musk and Sam Altman at a federal courthouse in Oakland, California.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is overseeing the proceedings, starting Monday, between the world’s richest person and the CEO of OpenAI. Nine jurors will be seated and there will be no alternates, according to a March filing. CNBC is in the courtroom for the proceedings. 

Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015, sued the company, Altman and Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, in 2024, alleging they reneged on their commitments to keep the artificial intelligence lab a nonprofit and follow its charitable mission. OpenAI has repeatedly dismissed Musk’s lawsuit as “baseless.” Musk left OpenAI’s board in 2018, and five years later started xAI as a rival, merging that company with SpaceX earlier this year.

Musk has sought a number of different remedies over the course of the case, including the removal of Altman and Brockman from their roles at OpenAI. Musk’s lawyers said in January that he should receive up to $134 billion in “wrongful gains,” though he has since asked to funnel those funds back into the OpenAI charity. 

Gonzalez Rogers opted to divide the trial into two parts: a liability phase to decide if any wrongdoing occurred, and a remedies phase to determine the appropriate damages and next steps. The jury will weigh in during the liability phase only, and its verdict will be advisory, which means Gonzalez Rogers will make the final decision in both sections of the trial. 

The liability phase of the trial is expected to wrap up by May 21, Gonzalez Rogers said Monday.

Gonzalez Rogers started the proceedings by welcoming the prospective jurors to the courtroom. She cracked some jokes as she explained the case laid out the trial’s schedule. She then began asking prospective jurors questions, including their opinions on Musk and AI.

Altman and Brockman were in the courtroom on Monday.

Musk alleges in his lawsuit that he was “assiduously manipulated” and “deceived” by OpenAI, Altman and Brockman and their promises to “chart a safer, more open course than profit-driven tech giants.” He has asked the judge to consider unwinding the company’s recent restructuring, which cemented its structure as a nonprofit with a controlling stake in its for-profit business.

Musk and Altman have been in a public war of words for months leading up to the trial. That continued on Monday, with Musk writing in a post on X, “Scam Altman and Greg…

AstraZeneca‘s stock jumped as much as 4% after Britain’s most valuable company said its experimental lung disease medicine met its target in two late-stage clinical trials.

The respiratory treatment Tozorakimab, reduced flare-ups of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in both former smokers and in the overall population versus placebo, the company said.

“This marks a notable shift in sentiment, given limited conviction in the IL-33 mechanism following prior IL-33 failures from Sanofi and Roche,” said Jefferies analysts.

Tozorakimab and rival drugs belong to a class of treatments called monoclonal antibodies. They work ​by suppressing the action ⁠of the protein interleukin-33 (IL-33) and can reduce inflammation.

London-listed shares were last seen up 3.5% in midday trading, contrasting with the UK’s FTSE 100 index which fell 0.6%.

This is a breaking news story. Please refresh for updates.

A jury in Los Angeles determined on Wednesday that Meta and Google were negligent and failed to warn users of the dangers associated with using their platforms, in a case that could have repercussions across the social media and the broader technology market.

The personal injury trial commenced in late January in Los Angeles Superior Court. A young woman identified as K.G.M., or Kaley, alleged that she became addicted to apps like Instagram and YouTube as a child. Deliberations began Friday, March 13.

Jurors ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, who claimed that Meta and YouTube’s negligence played a “substantial factor” in causing mental health-related harms.

It’s one of several trials taking place this year that experts have characterized as the social media industry’s “Big Tobacco” moment, comparing it the 1990s, when tobacco companies were forced to pay billions of dollars for lying to the public about the safety and potential harms of their products.

On Tuesday, jurors in Santa Fe, New Mexico found that Meta willfully violated the state’s unfair practices after Attorney General Raúl Torrez alleged that the company failed to properly safeguard its apps from online predators targeting children. Meta was ordered to pay $375 million in damages based on the number of violations. The company said that it would appeal the case.

The New Mexico case is separate from other social media lawsuits that state attorneys general have brought against companies including Meta and TikTok.

During the six-week trial in L.A., jury members were tasked with determining whether Meta and YouTube implemented certain design features in their apps like recommendation algorithms and auto-play that contributed to K.G.M.’s crippling, mental distress. The 20-year-old woman alleged that she suffered from severe body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts due to her near-constant use of the apps and the constant notifications that made it difficult for her to stop.

Meta and YouTube denied the plaintiff’s claims, and said they take safety and health concerns seriously and have implemented features intended to minimize potential harms. Attorneys representing the tech giants alleged that K.G.M.’s mental health problems stemmed from a turbulent childhood and related family issues, and that she used the services as a way to cope with trauma.  

The court chose the plaintiff’s case as a bellwether to help determine verdicts in similar and connected litigation throughout the state of California under so-called Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings. Although TikTok and Snap were originally part of the case, they settled with the plaintiff before the trial began, and are still involved in other legal proceedings.

A federal trial is set…

Pfizer on Monday said it will seek regulatory approval for a Lyme disease vaccine candidate despite the shot failing a late-stage trial.

Pfizer said the vaccine missed the trial’s statistical goal because not enough people in the study contracted Lyme disease to be confident in the results. Still, the company said the shot reduced the rate of infection by more than 70% in people who received the vaccine versus placebo, efficacy the company thinks is strong enough to take to regulators.

“The efficacy shown in the VALOR study of more than 70% is highly encouraging and creates confidence in the vaccine’s potential to protect against this disease that can be debilitating,” Pfizer Chief Vaccines Officer Annaliesa Anderson said in a statement.

A vaccine for Lyme disease isn’t expected to become a best-seller for Pfizer, with the company’s partner Valneva estimating peak annual sales of $1 billion. Pfizer expects overall revenue of around $60 billion this year, with its Covid-19 vaccine representing more than $5 billion of that forecast.

But Pfizer had billed the Lyme vaccine results as one of its major catalysts this year, and it represented a chance to introduce the only human vaccine for Lyme disease.

Moving forward with a shot that technically failed a clinical trial under an administration that has preached stricter scrutiny for vaccines may prove risky for Pfizer, and it could serve as a litmus test for vaccine policy in the U.S.

Lyme disease is an illness caused by bacteria most commonly spread to humans from ticks. It can cause arthritis, muscle weakness and pain. About half a million Americans are diagnosed with or treated for Lyme disease every year, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Despite the disease’s prevalence, especially in the Northeast, there isn’t a vaccine for humans available. A company that would later become GSK introduced a shot called LYMErix in 1998 but pulled it only a few years later after public concerns about safety tanked demand. That experience hobbled development of Lyme vaccines for humans, though multiple companies now make them for dogs.

Pfizer and Valneva have faced their own setbacks. In 2023, the companies dropped about half of the participants in the Phase 3 trial because of quality concerns with third-party clinical trial site operator Care Access. The trial had initially enrolled about 18,000 people and after the cuts ended up with about 9,400.

The companies’ vaccine targets the outer surface protein A of the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. A vaccinated person creates antibodies that are passed to a tick and prevent the bacterium from being transferred from the tick to the human. The series involves three shots in the first year, then a booster dose the following year.

The companies said they didn’t observe any safety concerns in the trial.

Eli Lilly on Thursday said its next-generation obesity drug retatrutide cleared its first late-stage trial on Type 2 diabetes patients, helping them manage their blood sugar levels and lose weight. 

The drug lowered hemoglobin A1c — a key measure of blood sugar levels — by an average of 1.7% to 2% across different doses at 40 weeks compared with placebo, meeting the study’s main goal. Patients started the trial with an A1c in the range of 7% to 9.5%, and were not taking other diabetes medications. 

Retatrutide also met the study’s second goal, helping patients at the highest dose lose an average of 16.8% of their weight, or 36.6 pounds, at 40 weeks, when evaluating only patients who stayed on the drug. When analyzing all participants, including those who discontinued treatment, the highest dose of the drug helped patients lose 15.3% of their weight.

Patients with Type 2 diabetes historically struggle to lose weight, so Lilly is “very excited” to see that the drug led to both a competitive drop in blood sugar levels and significant weight loss, Ken Custer, president of Lilly Cardiometabolic Health, said in an interview. 

The company was also “very pleased” with the relatively low discontinuation rates due to side effects, which were up to 5%, he added.

They are the second late-stage results to date on retatrutide, which works differently from existing injections and appears to be more effective, at least for weight loss. Lilly is betting big on retatrutide as the next pillar of its obesity portfolio after its blockbuster weight loss injection Zepbound and its upcoming pill, orforglipron. 

But Lilly has yet to file for approval of the drug for obesity or diabetes. The company expects to report findings from seven additional phase three trials on the drug by the end of the year. 

There are no head-to-head trials of retatrutide against other drugs, making it difficult to directly compare efficacy. 

Still, retatrutide’s A1C reduction doesn’t appear to be the greatest Lilly has seen within its portfolio: The highest dose of Zepbound lowered the measure by more than 2% at 40 weeks in two separate trials on diabetes patients.

But Custer said retatrutide’s A1C reduction is still “very, very strong” compared with other diabetes medications that don’t target gut hormones. 

He also said that having options in the obesity and diabetes space will be important because “not everybody is going to be helped with or satisfied with the same treatment.” Choosing which drug to take will depend on “individualized tailoring of solutions and patients,” particularly earlier in their diabetes treatment, he added. 

For example, Custer said patients who want to regulate their blood sugar could benefit from either Zepbound or retatrutide. But if they are looking to lose more weight, the latter might be a better option, he said….

The chief executive of drugmaker Zealand Pharma sought to calm investors about the latest trial results, which showed patients lost less weight than expected and prompted the stock to fall more than 35%.

Speaking to CNBC, CEO Adam Steensberg criticized what he called the “weight loss Olympics,” where markets and companies focus too heavily on the amount of weight lost, rather than on factors such as staying on the medicine long-term and dealing with side effects.

The world doesn’t need these products that amount to very high rates of weight loss, he said, referring to medicines developed by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. The latest trial had also not been optimized for maximum weight loss, he added.

“I need to focus on what the patients need, not what the current market like to see,” Steensberg said. “We have for a long time called to end the weight loss Olympics.”

Zealand is developing the drug petrelintide in partnership with Swiss pharma heavyweight Roche. Mid-stage trial results released after the closing bell on Thursday showed the drug led to an average weight reduction of 10.7% over 42 weeks. Analysts had largely expected between 13% and 20% weight loss.

Shares of Zealand were last seen trading 35% lower, on track for their worst day ever and the lowest close since August 2023. Shares of Roche fell 3%.

Addressing weight maintenance, rather than losing the most amount of weight quickly, has emerged as a way for companies to differentiate themselves as they try to enter the lucrative weight-loss drug market, which has been estimated to be worth as much as $150 billion by 2030.

Steensberg said he was “extremely certain” there would be a shift in the industry “towards tolerability,” referring to how well patients can cope with side effects of the medications.

“I think very, very soon, people start to realize that it’s not about that weight loss number, it’s about how you achieve that weight loss number.”

“If you then look into real world, you will actually discover that most patients who are on treatment today with the current products never get to those numbers that we see in clinical studies,” because “in a real-world setting, people cannot tolerate it,” he said, referring to Novo Nordisk’s and Eli Lilly’s drugs already on the market.

Petrelintide is an amylin analog that targets a hormone produced in the pancreas that affects appetite and slows gastric emptying, rather than the GLP-1 or GIP gut hormones targeted by weight-loss treatments currently on the market, such as Novo’s Wegovy and Lilly’s Zepbound.

A majority of patients on Novo’s Wegovy experience some form of side effects, most commonly gastrointestinal, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Most are mild to moderate and…