Transistors, the building blocks of modern electronics, are typically made of silicon. Because it’s a semiconductor, this material can control the flow of electricity in a circuit. But silicon has fundamental physical limits that restrict how compact and energy-efficient a transistor can be.

MIT researchers have now replaced silicon with a magnetic semiconductor, creating a magnetic transistor that could enable smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient circuits. The material’s magnetism strongly influences its electronic behavior, leading to more efficient control of the flow of electricity. 

The team used a novel magnetic material and an optimization process that reduces the material’s defects, which boosts the transistor’s performance.

The material’s unique magnetic properties also allow for transistors with built-in memory, which would simplify circuit design and unlock new applications for high-performance electronics.

“People have known about magnets for thousands of years, but there are very limited ways to incorporate magnetism into electronics. We have shown a new way to efficiently utilize magnetism that opens up a lot of possibilities for future applications and research,” says Chung-Tao Chou, an MIT graduate student in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Physics, and co-lead author of a paper on this advance.

Chou is joined on the paper by co-lead author Eugene Park, a graduate student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Julian Klein, a DMSE research scientist; Josep Ingla-Aynes, a postdoc in the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center; Jagadeesh S. Moodera, a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics; and senior authors Frances Ross, TDK Professor in DMSE; and Luqiao Liu, an associate professor in EECS, and a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics; as well as others at the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. The paper appears today in Physical Review Letters.

Overcoming the limits

In an electronic device, silicon semiconductor transistors act like tiny light switches that turn a circuit on and off, or amplify weak signals in a communication system. They do this using a small input voltage.

But a fundamental physical limit of silicon semiconductors prevents a transistor from operating below a certain voltage, which hinders its energy efficiency.

To make more efficient electronics, researchers have spent decades working toward magnetic transistors that utilize electron spin to control the flow of electricity. Electron spin is a fundamental property that enables electrons to behave like tiny magnets.

So far, scientists have mostly been limited to using certain magnetic materials. These lack the favorable electronic properties of semiconductors, constraining device performance.

“In this work, we combine magnetism and semiconductor physics to realize useful spintronic devices,” Liu says.

The researchers replace the silicon in the surface layer of a transistor with chromium sulfur bromide, a two-dimensional material that acts as a magnetic semiconductor.

Due to the material’s structure, researchers can switch between two magnetic states very cleanly. This makes it ideal for use in a transistor that smoothly switches between “on” and “off.”

“One of the biggest challenges we faced was finding the right material. We tried many other materials that didn’t work,” Chou says.

They discovered that changing these magnetic states modifies the material’s electronic properties, enabling low-energy operation. And unlike many other 2D materials, chromium sulfur bromide remains stable in air.

To make a transistor, the researchers pattern electrodes onto a silicon substrate, then carefully align and transfer the 2D material on top. They use tape to pick up a tiny piece of material, only a few tens of nanometers thick, and place it onto the substrate.

“A lot of researchers will use solvents or glue to do the transfer, but transistors require a very clean surface. We eliminate all those risks by simplifying this step,” Chou says.

Leveraging magnetism

This lack of contamination enables their device to outperform existing magnetic transistors. Most others can only create a weak magnetic effect, changing the flow of current by a few percent or less. Their new transistor can switch or amplify the electric current by a factor of 10.

They use an external magnetic field to change the magnetic state of the material, switching the transistor using significantly less energy than would usually be required.

The material also allows them to control the magnetic states with electric current. This is important because engineers cannot apply magnetic fields to individual transistors in an electronic device. They need to control each one electrically.

The material’s magnetic properties could also enable transistors with built-in memory, simplifying the design of logic or memory circuits.

A typical memory device has a magnetic cell to store information and a transistor to read it out. Their method can combine both into one magnetic transistor.

“Now, not only are transistors turning on and off, they are also remembering information. And because we can switch the transistor with greater magnitude, the signal is much stronger so we can read out the information faster, and in a much more reliable way,” Liu says.

Building on this demonstration, the researchers plan to further study the use of electrical current to control the device. They are also working to make their method scalable so they can fabricate arrays of transistors.

This research was supported, in part, by the Semiconductor Research Corporation, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Research Office, and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. The work was partially carried out at the MIT.nano facilities.

Characterized by weakened or damaged heart musculature, heart failure results in the gradual buildup of fluid in a patient’s lungs, legs, feet, and other parts of the body. The condition is chronic and incurable, often leading to arrhythmias or sudden cardiac arrest. For many centuries, bloodletting and leeches were the treatment of choice, famously practiced by barber surgeons in Europe, during a time when physicians rarely operated on patients. 

In the 21st century, the management of heart failure has become decidedly less medieval: Today, patients undergo a combination of healthy lifestyle changes, prescription of medications, and sometimes use pacemakers. Yet heart failure remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, placing a substantial burden on health-care systems across the globe. 

“About half of the people diagnosed with heart failure will die within five years of diagnosis,” says Teya Bergamaschi, an MIT PhD student in the lab of Nina T. and Robert H. Rubin Professor Collin Stultz and the co-first author of a new paper introducing a deep learning model for predicting heart failure. “Understanding how a patient will fare after hospitalization is really important in allocating finite resources.”

The paper, published in Lancet eClinical Medicine by a team of researchers at MIT, Mass General Brigham, and Harvard Medical School, shares results from developing and testing PULSE-HF, which stands loosely for “Predict changes in left ventricULar Systolic function from ECGs of patients who have Heart Failure.” The project was conducted in Stultz’s lab, which is affiliated with the MIT Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health. Developed and retrospectively tested across three different patient cohorts from Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and MIMIC-IV (a publicly available dataset), the deep learning model accurately predicts changes in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which is the percentage of blood being pumped out of the left ventricle of the heart.

A healthy human heart pumps out about 50 to 70 percent of blood from the left ventricle with each beat — anything less is considered a sign of a potential problem. “The model takes an [electrocardiogram] and outputs a prediction of whether or not there will be an ejection fraction within the next year that falls below 40 percent,” says Tiffany Yau, an MIT PhD student in Stultz’s lab who is also co-first author of the PULSE-HF paper. “That is the most severe subgroup of heart failure.” 

If PULSE-HF predicts that a patient’s ejection fraction is likely to worsen within a year, the clinician can prioritize the patient for follow-up. Subsequently, lower-risk patients can reduce their number of hospital visits and the amount of time spent getting 10 electrodes adhered to their body for a 12-lead ECG. The model can also be deployed in low-resource clinical settings, including doctors offices in rural areas that don’t typically have a cardiac sonographer employed to run ultrasounds on a daily basis.

“The biggest thing that distinguishes [PULSE-HF] from other heart failure ECG methods is instead of detection, it does forecasting,” says Yau. The paper notes that to date, no other methods exist for predicting future LVEF decline among patients with heart failure.

During the testing and validation process, the researchers used a metric known as "area under the receiver operating characteristic curve" (AUROC) to measure PULSE-HF’s performance. AUROC is typically used to measure a model’s ability to discriminate between classes on a scale from 0 to 1, with 0.5 being random and 1 being perfect. PULSE-HF achieved AUROCs ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 across all three patient cohorts.

Notably, the researchers also built a version of PULSE-HF for single-lead ECGs, meaning only one electrode needs to be placed on the body. While 12-lead ECGs are generally considered superior for being more comprehensive and accurate, the performance of the single-lead version of PULSE-HF was just as strong as the 12-lead version.

Despite the elegant simplicity behind the idea of PULSE-HF, like most clinical AI research, it belies a laborious execution. “It’s taken years [to complete this project],” Bergamaschi recalls. “It’s gone through many iterations.” 

One of the team’s biggest challenges was collecting, processing, and cleaning the ECG and echocardiogram datasets. While the model aims to forecast a patient’s ejection fraction, the labels for the training data weren’t always readily available. Much like a student learning from a textbook with an answer key, labeling is critical for helping machine-learning models correctly identify patterns in data.

Clean, linear text in the form of TXT files typically works best when training models. But echocardiogram files typically come in the form of PDFs, and when PDFs are converted to TXT files, the text (which gets broken up by line breaks and formatting) becomes difficult for the model to read. The unpredictable nature of real-life scenarios, like a restless patient or a loose lead, also marred the data. “There are a lot of signal artifacts that need to be cleaned,” Bergamaschi says. “It’s kind of a never-ending rabbit hole.”

While Bergamaschi and Yau acknowledge that more complicated methods could help filter the data for better signals, there is a limit to the usefulness of these approaches. “At what point do you stop?” Yau asks. “You have to think about the use case — is it easiest to have this model that works on data that is slightly messy? Because it probably will be.”

The researchers anticipate that the next step for PULSE-HF will be testing the model in a prospective study on real patients, whose future ejection fraction is unknown.

Despite the challenges inherent to bringing clinical AI tools like PULSE-HF over the finish line, including the possible risk of prolonging a PhD by another year, the students feel that the years of hard work were worthwhile. 

“I think things are rewarding partially because they’re challenging,” Bergamaschi says. “A friend said to me, ‘If you think you will find your calling after graduation, if your calling is truly calling, it will be there in the one additional year it takes you to graduate.’ … The way we’re measured as researchers in [the ML and health] space is different from other researchers in ML space. Everyone in this community understands the unique challenges that exist here.”

“There’s too much suffering in the world,” says Yau, who joined Stultz’s lab after a health event made her realize the importance of machine learning in health care. “Anything that tries to ease suffering is something that I would consider a valuable use of my time.” 

“It’s a real validation of all the work behind the scenes,” says Karl Berggren, faculty head of electrical engineering within the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS). He’s looking at the numbers of new enrollees in Course 6-5, Electrical Engineering With Computing, the flagship electrical engineering degree offered by EECS, which was launched last fall. 

The new major has been embraced by the MIT student community. “The fact that Course 6-5 is now the third-most selected major among first-year students shows that the department is clearly meeting a growing need for a curriculum that bridges electrical engineering and computing. This growth is coming from students already interested in pursuing a degree in EECS,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT’s provost. “The major was thoughtfully designed to offer a strong foundation in core electrical engineering concepts — such as circuits, signals, systems, and architecture — while also providing well-structured specialization tracks that prepare students for the future of the field.”

Those tracks include structured paths to explore not only the traditional domains of electrical engineering (such as hardware design and energy systems), but cutting-edge fields such as nanoelectronics, quantum systems engineering, and photonics. 

“They are very flexible, and essentially allow me to take whatever I want, with the tracks filling up almost automatically,” says 6-5 major Charles Reischer. “For me, it essentially reduces the amount of specific required classes in the major, which has been helpful for choosing the classes I find interesting.” 

Jelena Notaros, who helped develop the Electromagnetics and Photonics track within the new major, has seen the new wave of student interest from the other side. “It’s been incredibly rewarding … I think students are excited to have the opportunity to take a class where they can learn about a cutting-edge field and test real state-of-the-art chip hardware using industry-standard equipment.” Notaros’s class, 6.2320  (Silicon Photonics), includes features not found in a university class anywhere else, such as a sequence in which students can test actual chips at three electronic-photonic probe stations. 

Another 6-5 track, Quantum Systems Engineering, features direct student access to quantum hardware, including electron-nuclear systems and state-of-the-art simulations methods and tools. Professor Dirk Englund, who teaches multiple courses within the track, explains, “it’s been so successful in part through strong industry support, including from QuTools Inc. Students work with the same tech we use in the Boston-Area Quantum Network Testbed — the metro quantum network linking MIT, Lincoln Lab, and Harvard, and the NSF CQN.” 

Many of Englund’s students have gone on to pursue a career in quantum information science, either in grad school or in industry. “Students recognize quantum engineering is the future. They see they’re building the foundation for metro-scale quantum networks.” 

The new curriculum’s emphasis on hands-on learning is deliberate, and ubiquitous throughout 6-5. Within the Circuits track, students who enroll in class 6.208 (Semiconductor Electronic Circuits) will get an opportunity not only to design a circuit, but to actually see their design made, in a process called “tape-out.” Professor Ruonan Han, who helped design the course, explains, “a tape-out is a perfect training that poses [real-life] constraints and forces the students to solve practical engineering problems. Through circuit simulation using mainstream industry CAD tools, the students better understand how deep-scaled transistors differ from the ideal behaviors taught in textbooks. By drawing the layouts of the silicon and metal patterns, the students learn how a modern chip is made, layer by layer. The complex (and often frustrating) rules of the layout also keep reminding the students of all the technical limitations during the chip manufacturing, and make them better appreciate all the accomplishments in semiconductor manufacturing. Even the firm and non-negotiable tape-out submission deadline forces the students to not only wisely manage their development timeline, but also to experience heart-beating moments when decisions on critical engineering trade-offs should be made (in order to deliver). To these students, it was such relentless efforts that gave them lots of satisfaction and pride when they finally hold their own chips in hand.” 

The sense of completing a full problem-solving cycle is echoed in class 6.900 (Engineering for Impact), a capstone course designed by Professor Joel Voldman, a former faculty head of electrical engineering, along with Senior Lecturer Joe Steinmeyer. Over the course of a semester, students team with city governments and nonprofits to solve complex local issues. The course is designed not only to introduce students to realistic project management factors (such as budgets, timelines, and stakeholders), but also to give them a taste of the satisfaction of engineering a solution that meets a real community’s need. 

“I’ve taken 6.900, and it’s been eye-opening in the collaboration of hardware, firmware, and software to create a cohesive and working product,” says Andrea Leang, a senior majoring in 6-2 who nonetheless decided to try the new course. “In my 6-2 experience, I spent the first two years taking more CS [computer science] classes, but as I went into junior year, I wanted to explore more EE [electrical engineering].” That desire led Leang to Voltage, the student group for electrical engineers. “Honestly, it was the first big community of EE I’ve joined. Joining Voltage opened my eyes to what MIT had to offer on EE, and a community who was enthusiastic to share their knowledge.” 

Matthew Kim, one of the executives of the Voltage group, echoes Leang’s experience. “​​It has been great working [...] to build a community for EE. We heard faculty say that they wanted to be more engaged with students and communicate more, and it has definitely been felt with the restart and support of Voltage. And I’m hopeful that the community will continue to grow.” 

That growth has been rapid. The new major’s enrollment is now roughly equivalent to the combined enrollment in the older 6-1 and 6-2 programs, showing the desirability of a major that incorporates fundamentals of both computing and electrical engineering. 

Department head Professor Asu Ozdaglar is thrilled with the energizing effect of the new major. “We are delighted to see the initial success of the 6-5 major, which provides our students an exciting and forward-looking curriculum, developed through extensive work and great deal of thought by electrical engineering faculty. The new curriculum reflects the critical role computing plays in electrical engineering, whether in designing new devices and circuits, analyzing data, or in studying complex systems, which almost invariably combine hardware and software."

“What excites me most about this major is how it empowers students to bring ideas to life — from the invisible signals that connect our world to the complex systems that drive modern technology,” says Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Henry Warren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “Students are using computation as a creative and analytical tool to expand the boundaries of engineering. They gain a deep understanding of how hardware and software come together to drive technological progress.” 

The new degree program’s designers are gratified by the swell of student interest. 

“The buzz surrounding the classes and the new 6-5 degree program is fantastic,” says Voldman. “It’s great to see the strong student interest in what we’ve put together.” 

Apple announcement:

…iPhone and iPad are the first and only consumer devices in compliance with the information assurance requirements of NATO nations. This enables iPhone and iPad to be used with classified information up to the NATO restricted level without requiring special software or settings—a level of government certification no other consumer mobile device has met.

This is out of the box, no modifications required.

Boing Boing post.

EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Such mandates strike at the foundation of the free and open internet. They create unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers for adults and young people to access information and express themselves online. They hurt small and open-source developers. And none of the available age verification options are perfect in terms of protecting private information, providing access to everyone, and safely handling sensitive data. 

Last year, EFF raised concerns about A.B. 1043 as one of several bills in the California legislature that took the wrong approach to protecting young people online—by focusing on censorship rather than privacy. Now that A.B. 1043 is set to go into effect in 2027, we've received a lot of questions about its possible effects. 

A.B. 1043’s Censorship Trap

Even proposals that may not explicitly mandate age verification, such as A.B. 1043, can still create many of the same censorship problems. A.B. 1043 requires all operating systems and app stores to create age bracketing systems that will segment their users based on their ages. Users are then required to provide operating systems and apps their birth date or age so that they can be placed in their respective age bracket. A.B. 1043 also requires application and software developers to collect this age bracket information when a user want to use that software or application.

A.B. 1043 treats the age-bracket signal sent by a user as giving the application or service actual knowledge of users’ ages. Knowledge that the user is a minor could provide the basis for liability under other laws, such as California Age-Appropriate Design Code.

The result is a recipe for censorship. Applications and software developers for operating systems may interpret A.B. 1043 and its potential enforcement by the California Attorney General as requiring them to exclude users who say they are minors or who don’t fit in a specific age bracket they believe is acceptable to use their application or software. But minors have a First Amendment right to access the vast majority of these apps and services. What California has done is essentially outsource censorship to developers, who are likely to lean into over-censorship.

Broad Language Undercuts Policy Goals

A.B. 1043’s one-size-fits-all approach is also problematic because it disregards the many ways in which we make and use digital tools. It assumes the internet and digital devices begin and end with the dominant technology companies and device makers, when we know that’s not the case. Additionally, many families share devices, especially in low-income households. These proposals do not account for situations where there is more than one user of a device.

Additionally, broad proposals that demand the implementation of such censorship tools under the guise of protecting young people's safety force developers to reach for imperfect solutions—or risk being found non-compliant and pushed out of markets. Many of these mandates imagine technology that does not currently exist. Such poorly thought-out mandates, in truth, cannot achieve the purported goal of age verification. Often, they are easy to circumvent and many also expose consumers to real data breach risk.

Squeezing Small and Open-Source Developers Hurts Everyone

A.B. 1043’s burdens fall particularly heavily on developers who aren’t at large, well-resourced companies, such as those developing open-source software. Not recognizing the diversity of software development when thinking about liability in these proposals effectively limits software choices—which is especially harmful at a time when computational power is being rapidly concentrated in the hands of the few. This harms users' and developers' right to free expression, their digital liberties, privacy, and ability to create and use open platforms. It also, perversely, entrenches the dominance of major operating system developers and device makers.

A.B. 1043 and similar proposals also raise considerable implementation issues because they cast a potentially wide net. A.B. 1043, for example, carves out “broadband internet access service," "telecommunications service,” and the “use of a physical product,” whereas “mobile devices” and “computers” are covered. However, so many devices could fall into these categories; people consider smart watches to be computers, for example. Virtually every digital device that runs software built in the past three decades could fall into that category. This means that consumers may have to submit age information to more companies than ever, again increasing the possibility of data misuse and data breach.

There Is Still A Better Way

Legislators do not need to sacrifice their constituents' First Amendment rights and privacy to make a safer internet, but they can address many of the harms these proposals seek to mitigate. Many lawmakers have recognized these approaches, such as data minimization, in their proposals. Rather than creating age gates, a well-crafted privacy law that empowers all of us—young people and adults alike—to control how our data is collected and used would be a crucial step in the right direction.

When Rep. Leigh Finke spoke last month before the Minnesota House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee to testify against HF1434, a broad-sweeping proposal to age-gate the internet, she began with something disarming: agreement.

“I want to support the basic part of this,” she said, the shared goal of protecting young people online. Because that is not controversial: everyone wants kids to be safe. But HF1434, Minnesota’s proposed age-verification bill, simply won’t “protect children.” It mandates that websites hosting speech that is protected by the First Amendment for both adults and young people to verify users’ identities, often through government IDs or biometric data. As we’ve discussed before, the bill’s definition of speech that lawmakers deem “harmful to minors” is notoriously broad—broad enough to sweep in lawful, non-pornographic speech about sexual orientation, sexual health, and gender identity.

Rep. Finke, an openly transgender lawmaker, next raised a point that her critics have since tried to distort: age-verification laws like the Minnesota bill are already being used to block young LGBTQ+ people from exercising their First Amendment rights to access information that may be educational, affirming, or life-saving. Referencing the Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, she noted that state attorneys general have been “almost jubilant” about the ability to use these laws to restrict queer youth from accessing content. “We know that ‘prurient interest’ could be for many people, the very existence of transgender kids,” she added, referring to the malleable legal standard that would govern what content must be age-gated under the law. 

But despite years’ worth of evidence to back her up, Finke has faced a wave of attacks from countless media outlets and religious advocacy groups for her statements. Rep. Finke’s testimony was repeatedly mischaracterized as not having young people’s best interests in mind, when really she was accurately describing the lived reality of LGBTQ+ youth and advocating in support of their access to vital resources and community.

In fact, this backlash proves her point. Beyond attempting to silence queer voices and to scare other legislators from speaking up against these laws, it reveals how age-verification mandates are part of a larger effort to give the government much greater control of what young people are allowed to say, read, or see online. 

Rep. Finke was also right that these proposals are bad policy—they prevent all young people from finding community online—and that they violate young people’s First Amendment rights.

Why FSC v. Paxton Matters

Rep. Finke was similarly right to bring up the Paxton case, because beyond the troubling Supreme Court precedent it produced, Texas’s age-verification law also drew eager support from an extraordinary number of amicus briefs from anti-LGBTQ organizations (some even designated hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center). 

In FSC v. Paxton, the Supreme Court gave Texas the green light to require age verification for sites where at least one-third of the content is sexual material deemed “harmful to minors,” which generally means explicit sexual content. This ruling, based on how young people do not have a First Amendment right to access explicit sexual content, allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law. 

But laws enacted by other states and Minnesota HF 1434 go further than the Texas statute. Rather than restricting minors’ from accessing sexual content, these proposals expand what the state deems “harmful to minors” to include any speech that may reference sex, sexuality, gender, and reproductive health. But young people have a First Amendment right to both speak on those topics and to access information online about them.

We will continue to fight against all online age restrictions, but bills like Minnesota’s HF 1434, which seek to restrict minors from accessing speech about their bodies, sexuality, and other truthful information, are especially pernicious.

EFF and Rep. Finke are on the same page here: age verification mandates create immense harm to our First Amendment rights, our right to privacy, as well as our online safety and security. These proposals also fully ignore the reality that LGBTQ young people often rely on the internet for information they cannot get elsewhere. 

But the Paxton case, and the coalition behind it, illustrates exactly how these laws can be weaponized. They weren’t there just to stand up for young people’s privacy online—they were there to argue that the state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from material that, in practice, often includes LGBTQ content. Ultimately, these groups would like to age-gate not just porn sites, but also any content that might discuss sex, sexuality, gender, reproductive health, abortion, and more.

Using Children as Props to Enact Censorship 

The coalition of organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’s age verification law tells us everything we need to know about the true intentions behind legislating access to information online: censorship, surveillance, and control. After all, if the race to age-gate the internet was purely about child safety, we would expect its strongest supporters to be child-development experts or privacy advocates. Instead, the loudest advocates are organizations dedicated to policing sexuality, attacking LGBTQ+ folks and reproductive rights, and censoring anything that doesn’t fit within their worldview.

Below are some of the harmful platforms that the organizations supporting the age-gating movement are advancing, and how their arguments echo in the attacks on Rep. Finke today:

Policing sexuality, bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights

Many of the organizations backing age-verification laws have spent decades trying to restrict access to accurate sexual health information and reproductive care.

Groups like Exodus Cry, for example, who filed a brief in support of the Texas AG in the SCOTUS case, frame pornography as part of a broader moral crisis. Founded by a “Christian dominionist” activist, Exodus Cry advocates for the criminalization of porn and sex work, and promotes a worldview that defines “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman. Its leadership describes the internet as a battleground in a “pornified world” that has to be reclaimed. 

Another brief in support of the age-verification law was filed by a group of organizations including the Public Advocate of the United States (an SPLC-designated hate group) and America’s Future. America’s Future is an organization that was formed to “revitalize the role of faith in our society” and fiercely advocates in favor of trans sports bans. 

These groups see age-verification laws as attractive solutions because they create a legal mechanism to wall off large swaths of content that merely mentions sex from not only young people but millions of adults, too.

Attacking LGBTQ+ Rights

Several of the most prominent legal advocates behind age-verification laws have also led the crusade against LGBTQ+ equality. The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information. 

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), for instance (which is another SPLC-designated hate group), built its reputation on litigation aimed at rolling back LGBTQ+ protections—including  allowing businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples, criminalizing same-sex relationships abroad, and restricting transgender rights. 

The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information. 

Then there’s other groups like Them Before Us and Women’s Liberation Front, both of which submitted amici in support of the Texas Attorney General and are devoted to upending LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Them Before Us says it’s “committed to putting the rights and well-being of children ahead of the desires and agendas of adults.” But it’s also running a campaign to “End Obergefell,” the 2015 Supreme Court case that upheld the right to same-sex marriage, and has been on the cutting edge of transphobic campaigning and pseudoscientific fearmongering about IVF and surrogacy. The Women’s Liberation Front, on the other hand, is an organization that has a long track record of supporting transphobic policies such as bathroom bills, bans on gender-affirming healthcare, and efforts to define “sex” strictly as the biological sex assigned at birth. 

Through cases like FSC v. Paxton, groups like these three continue to advance a vision of society that creates government mandates to enforce their worldviews over personal freedom, while hiding behind a shroud of concern for children’s safety. But when they also describe LGBTQ+ people as “evil” threats to children and run countless campaigns against their human rights, they are being clear about their intentions. This is why we continue to say: the impact of age verification measures goes beyond porn sites.

Expanding censorship beyond the internet into real-life public spaces

As we’ve said for years now, the push to age-gate the internet is part of a broader campaign to control what information people can access in public life both on- and offline. Many of the same organizations advancing these proposals claim to be acting on behalf of young people, but their arguments consistently use children as props to justify giving the government more control over speech and information.

Many of the organizations advocating for online age verification have also supported book bans, attacks on DEI policies and education, and efforts to remove LGBTQ+ materials from schools and libraries. Two of the organizations who supported the Texas Attorney General, Citizens Defending Freedom and Manhattan Institute, have led campaigns around the country to “abolish DEI” and ban classical books like “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison from school libraries. These efforts are not different from the efforts to restrict access to the internet—they reflect a broader strategy to restrict access to ideas or information that these groups find objectionable. And they discourage free thought, inquiry, and the ability for people to decide how to live their lives. 

These campaigns rely on the same core argument: that certain ideas are inherently dangerous to young people and must therefore be restricted. But that framing misrepresents an important reality: if lawmakers genuinely want to address harms that young people experience online, they should start by listening to young people themselves. When EFF spoke directly with young people about their online experiences, they overwhelmingly rejected restrictions on their access to the internet and came back with nuanced and diverse perspectives. Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target. 

Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target. 

This also wouldn’t be the first time a vulnerable group is used as a prop to advance internet censorship laws. We’ve seen this playbook during the debate over FOSTA/SESTA, where many of the same advocates claimed to speak for trafficking victims/survivors and sex workers, while pushing legislation that ultimately censored online speech and harmed the very communities it invoked. It’s a familiar pattern: invoke a vulnerable group, frame certain speech as a threat, and use that as a way to expand government control over the flow of information. And as we said in the fight against FOSTA: if lawmakers are serious about addressing harms to particular communities, they should start by talking to those communities. This means that lawmakers seeking to address online harms to young people should be talking to young people, not groups who claim their interests. 

Rep. Finke Was Not Radical. She Was Right.

The Paxton case, and the coalition backing age verification laws in the U.S., shows us exactly why the messaging around these laws draws superficial support from parents and lawmakers. But we’ve heard the quiet part said out loud before. Marsha Blackburn, a sponsor of the federal Kids Online Safety Act, has said that her goal with the legislation was to address what she called “the transgender” in society. When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy.

When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy.

In defending free speech, privacy, and the right of young people to access truthful information about themselves, Rep. Leigh Finke was not radical—she was right. She was warning that broad, ideologically driven laws will be used to erase, silence, and isolate young people under the banner of child protection. 

What’s at stake in the fight against age verification is not just a single bill in a single state, or even multiple states, for that matter. It’s about whether “protecting children” becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control over the internet to enforce specific moral and religious judgments—judgments that deny marginalized people access to speech, community, history, and truth—into law. 

And more people in public office need the courage of Rep. Finke to call this out.

Tanker backlogs, damaged energy infrastructure and threats in the Strait of Hormuz could keep gasoline prices elevated.

Xcel Energy floated the idea in response to the expectation it would face "significant capacity shortfalls” through the winter of 2028.

The leader of the U.N. International Maritime Organization speaks about the president’s campaign to kill a net-zero initiative.

A leading ratings group warns that the utility faces $50 billion in liability for Oregon wildfires in 2020 and might not be able to pay.

Senators blocked rival plans Wednesday to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Some lawmakers argued the bill language was overly broad and could stifle clean energy policy.

CARB’s proposed cap-and-trade rules are getting political blowback from in-state Democrats — and the Nevada governor — because of refinery concerns.

State Farm has also agreed not to cancel any new policies this year, and it won’t be canceling some policies it had planned not to renew in wildfire-affected areas.

Brussels must take urgent measures to reduce the carbon footprint of food and farming, a scientific advisory board report says.

A sub-Antarctic island population is succeeding even though the water is warming and the food web that it relies on is changing with it, says a seabird ecologist.

When people think of asteroids, they tend to picture rare, civilization-ending impacts like those depicted in movies such as “Armageddon.” In reality, the asteroids most likely to affect modern society are much smaller. While kilometer-scale impacts occur only every tens of millions of years, decameter-scale (building-sized) objects strike Earth far more frequently: roughly every couple decades. As astronomers develop new ways to detect and track these smaller asteroids, planetary defense becomes increasingly relevant for protecting the space-based infrastructure that underpins modern life, from GPS navigation to global communications.

The good news for us earthlings is that a team of MIT researchers is on this space-case. Associate Professor Julien de Wit, Research Scientist Artem Burdanov, and their colleagues recently developed a new asteroid-detection method that could be used to track potential asteroid impactors and help protect our planet. They have now applied this new technique to the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), demonstrating that JWST can be used to detect and characterize decameter-scale asteroids all the way out to the main belt, a crucial step in fortifying our planetary safety and security. De Wit and his colleagues recently co-led with with Andrew Rivkin PhD ’91 new observations of an asteroid called 2024 YR4, which made headlines last year when it was first discovered. They were able to determine that the asteroid will not collide with the Moon, which could have had impacts on Earth’s critical satellite systems.

De Wit, Burdanov, Assistant Professor Richard Teague, and Research Scientist Saverio Cambioni spoke to MIT News about the importance of planetary defense and how MIT astronomers are helping to lead the charge to ensure our planet’s safety.

Q: What is planetary defense and how is the field changing?

Burdanov: Planetary defense is a field of science and engineering that’s focused on preventing asteroids and comets from hitting the Earth. While traditionally the field has been focused on much larger asteroids, thanks to new observational capabilities the field is growing to include monitoring much smaller asteroids that could also have an impact.

De Wit: When people think about asteroids they tend to think of impacts along the lines of these rare, civilization-ending “dinosaur killer” asteroids — objects that are scientifically fascinating but, happily, statistically unlikely on human timescales. But as soon as you move to smaller asteroids, there are so many of them that you’re looking at impacts happening every few decades or less. That becomes much more relevant on human timescales.

Now that our society has become increasingly reliant on space-based infrastructure for communication, navigation technologies like GPS and satellite-based security systems, we can be affected by different populations of smaller asteroids. These smaller asteroids will probably lead to zero direct human casualties but would have very different consequences on our space infrastructure. At the same time, because they are smaller, they require different technologies to monitor and understand them, both for the detection and for the characterization. At MIT, we are working to redefine planetary defense in a way that is far more pertinent, personable, and practical — focusing on these much smaller asteroids that could have real consequences. In other words, planetary defense is no longer just about avoiding extinction-level events. It is about protecting the systems we depend on in the near term.

Q: Why are observations with telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) so important to keeping our planet safe?

Teague: We’re entering a time now where we have these large-scale sky surveys that are going to be producing an incredible amount of data. We’re trying to develop the framework here at MIT where we can sift through that data as quickly and efficiently as possible, and then use the resources that we have available, such as the optical and radio observatories that we run like the MIT Haystack and Wallace Observatories, to follow up on those potential threats as quickly as possible and determine whether they could be problematic.

We’ve been doing trial observations to try and piece together how fast we can do this. The challenging thing is that the smaller objects that we’ve been talking about, the decameter ones, they’re really hard to detect from the ground. They’re just so small, and so that’s why we really need to use space-based facilities like JWST to help keep our planet safe. JWST is just incomparable, really, for detecting these very small, faint objects. A lot of our work at the moment at MIT is trying to understand is how do we build that entire pipeline ­— from detection to risk assessment to mitigation — under one roof to make it as efficient as possible. And I think this is a really MIT-type of problem to solve. There’s not many places that have the same range of experts in astronomy and engineering and technology to really tackle this properly. It’s really exciting that MIT hosts all these sorts of experts that we’re bringing together to solve this problem and keep our planet safer.

Cambioni: There is going to be what I like to call an asteroid revolution coming up because in addition to JWST’s observational capabilities, there is a new observatory in Chile called the Vera Rubin Observatory that could increase the detection of known small objects in space by a factor of 10. The most important thing to keep in mind, though, is that this observatory will detect the objects but may lose a lot of them. This is where a part of our work is coming in, to basically follow that object and map it as soon as possible. Additionally, Vera Rubin only looks at the reflected light, and it doesn’t get a precise estimate of an asteroid’s size. This gap between detection and characterization is a fundamental problem of asteroid science, between how many objects we discover and how fast we can characterize them. At MIT, we are using our in-house capabilities to help characterize these objects. That includes the MIT Wallace Observatory and the MIT Haystack Observatory.

Q: What role can MIT play in this new era of planetary defense?

De Wit: The reality is that, given the occurrence rate of these smaller asteroids and the new observational capabilities now coming online — from the Rubin Observatory to space-based facilities like JWST — we expect that within the next decade we will identify a handful of decameter-scale objects whose trajectories place them on course to impact the Earth-Moon system within this century. At that point, society will face a very practical question: whether, and how, to respond. Because these are much smaller objects than the dinosaur-killing asteroids, the types of mitigation strategies that we may envision are different. This is also where I think MIT might have an important role to play in the development, design, and potentially even construction of cost-effective, rapid-response asteroid-mitigation strategies. To help organize that effort, we have begun bringing together researchers across the Institute through the Planetary Defense at MIT project, working closely with colleagues on the engineering side.

Teague: What I’m particularly excited about is the way we’ve managed to engage students at MIT in this research as well. We’ve really focused on the impactful research and the way we’re bridging departments and labs within MIT, and this has been a fantastic way to engage students with practical astronomy and research. Saverio has run an IAP [Independent Activities Period] course, and we’re also running a student observing lab with the Wallace Observatory, where we hire a cohort of students every semester, and they’re taught how to use these observatories remotely. They take the data, do the analysis, and this semester, we've got on the order of 10 undergraduate students that are going to be working throughout the semester to take these observations and help us build this observation pipeline.

It's great that here at MIT we’re not only pushing the forefront of the research, but we’re also training the next generation of astronomers that is going to come in and carry this project through and into the future.

Two outstanding MIT educators have been named MacVicar Faculty Fellows: professor of mechanical engineering Amos Winter and professor of electrical engineering and computer science Nickolai Zeldovich.

For more than 30 years, the MacVicar Faculty Fellows Program has recognized exemplary and sustained contributions to undergraduate education at MIT. The program is named in honor of Margaret MacVicar, MIT’s first dean for undergraduate education and founder of the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). Fellows are chosen through an annual and highly competitive nomination process. The Registrar’s Office coordinates and administers the award on behalf of the Division of Graduate and Undergraduate Education. Nominations are reviewed by an advisory committee, and the provost selects the fellows.

Amos Winter: Bringing excitement to the classroom

Amos Winter is the Germeshausen Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering (MechE). He joined the faculty in 2012 and is best known for teaching class 2.007 (Design and Manufacturing I).

A hallmark of Winter’s pedagogy is the way he connects technical learning and core engineering science with real-world impacts. His approach keeps students actively engaged and encourages critical thinking while developing their competence and confidence as design engineers. Current graduate student Ariel Mobius ’24 writes, “Professor Winter is a transformative educator. He successfully blends rigorous technical instruction with lessons on problem scoping and hands-on learning and backs it all up with personalized mentorship. He is a committed advocate for his students and has fundamentally shaped my path as a mechanical engineer.”

Especially notable is Winter’s energetic style and use of interactive materials and demonstrations to make fundamental topics tangible. “He wheels in a large steamer trunk filled with demos he has built or collected to illustrate the day’s topic,” writes Class of 1948 Career Development Professor and assistant professor of mechanical engineering Kaitlyn Becker. “Some demos are enduring classics and others newly designed each year.” Through his “Gearhead Moment of Zen” Winter will share an astonishing car stunt to explain the mechanics using course material. “The theatrics stay in students’ minds,” says Becker, highlighting how Winter’s dramatic examples reinforce learning.

These techniques, combined with a supportive culture, allowed Winter to transform 2.007 from a core class and first subject in engineering design into a celebration of student effort and learning. Throughout the term, students learn how to design and build objects culminating in a robot competition in which their creations tackle themed challenges on a life-size game board. In the past, fewer than half the students were able to compete and today, boosted by Winter’s mentorship and enthusiasm, nearly 97 percent finish a competition-ready robot.

Ralph E. and Eloise F. Cross Professor of Mechanical Engineering David Hardt writes, “Thanks to Amos, this subject has become transformative for many MechE undergraduates.” Becker concurs: “He is the heart and captain of the 2.007 ‘cheer squad,’ cultivating a caring and motivated teaching team.”

Current graduate student Aidan Salazar ’25 notes, “His teaching philosophy is grounded in empowerment: he encourages students to take risks when designing while giving them the confidence and support needed to do so with thoughtful engineering analysis.”

Winter is also deeply invested in students’ growth outside the classroom. He serves as faculty supervisor for MIT’s Formula SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and Solar Car teams and guides related UROP projects. In fall 2025 alone, he advised nearly 50 UROP students from the teams, demonstrating his commitment to experiential learning and ability to mentor students at scale.

Salazar continues: “He has offered extraordinary contributions in helping MIT undergraduates embody the Institute’s ‘mens-et-manus’ [‘mind-and-hand’] motto, and I am grateful to be one of the individuals shaped by his teaching.”

“I have always looked up to my colleagues who are MacVicar Fellows as the best educators at the Institute,” writes Winter. “What makes this acknowledgement even more special to me is by earning it from teaching 2.007, which I often cite as one of the best parts of my job. The class is where most mechanical engineering undergraduates gain their first real engineering experience by physically realizing a machine of their own conception. It has been extremely gratifying to watch a generation of students translate their knowledge of engineering and design from the class into their careers … I am honored to have played a role in their intellectual growth and done so meaningfully enough to be recognized as a MacVicar Fellow.”

Nickolai Zeldovich: Inspiring independent thinkers and future teachers

Nickolai Zeldovich is the Joan and Irwin M. (1957) Jacobs Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS). Student testimonials highlight his unique ability to activate their problem-solving skills, cultivate their intellectual curiosity, and infuse learning with joy.

Katarina Cheng ’25 writes, “From my first day of lecture in the course, I was immediately drawn in by Professor Zeldovich’s joy and enthusiasm for every facet of security and its power,” and Rotem Hemo ’17, ’18 says that Zeldovich “empowers students to find solutions themselves.”

Yael Tauman Kalai, the Ellen Swallow Richards (1873) Professor and professor of EECS concurs. She notes that his lectures — with back-and-forth discussion and probing questions — encourage independent thinking and ensure that “everyone feels a little smarter at the end. It is not surprising that students love him.”

Zeldovich’s affinity for problem-solving translates to his curricular work as well. When he arrived at MIT in 2008, Course 6 offered classes in theoretical and applied cryptography, but lacked a dedicated systems security subject. Recognizing this as a significant gap, Zeldovich took it upon himself to create class 6.566/6.858 (Computer Systems Security) in 2009. Since then, the subject has become a central part of the curriculum, but sustained interest from undergraduates revealed another need, and in 2021 he partnered with colleagues to create a dedicated introductory course: 6.1600 (Foundations of Computer Security).

Edwin Sibley Webster Professor of EECS Srini Devadas writes: “What our curriculum was sorely in need of was a systems security class, and Nickolai immediately and single-handedly created [it],” and has “taught this class to rave reviews ever since.”

The impact of Zeldovich’s thoughtful, inquiry-driven approach to pedagogy extends beyond the walls of his classroom, inspiring future educators, teaching assistants (TAs), and even his faculty colleagues at MIT.

Henry Corrigan-Gibbs, the Douglas Ross (1954) Career Development Professor of Software Technology and associate professor of computer science, writes that Zeldovich has “proven himself to be a dedicated teacher of teachers … One of the things that makes teaching with Nickolai so much fun is that he shares his passion with the undergraduates and MEng students who join the course staff as TAs.”

“[He] encourages the TAs to contribute their own creative ideas to the course,” continues Corrigan-Gibbs. “It should not be a surprise then that 100% of the TAs that we have had in our class have signed up to teach with Nickolai again.”

“Due, in no small part, to how I saw Nickolai lead his classroom, I was inspired to become an educator myself,” writes MIT alumna Anna Arpaci-Dusseau ’23, SM ’24. “I saw that the role of an instructor is not only to teach, but to innovate by thinking of creative projects, and to connect by listening to students’ concerns. As I go forward in my career, I am grateful to have such a wonderful example of an educator to look up to.”

Kalai adds, “I have learned a great deal from the two times that I have ‘taken’ (part of) the class from Nickolai. His extensive knowledge and experience are evident in every lecture. There is so much variety to Nickolai’s teaching.”

Nickolai Zeldovich is the recipient of numerous awards including the EECS Spira Teaching Award (2013), the Edgerton Faculty Achievement Award (2014), the EECS Faculty Research Innovation Fellowship (2018), and the EECS Jamieson Award for Excellence in Teaching (2024).

On receiving this award, Zeldovich says, “MIT has a culture of strong undergraduate education, so being selected as a MacVicar Fellow was truly an honor. It’s a joy to teach smart students about computer systems, and the tradition of co-teaching classes in the EECS department helped me improve as a teacher. Most of all, I look forward to continuing to teach MIT’s students!”

Learn more about the MacVicar Faculty Fellows Program on the Registrar’s Office website. 

(Note: This post is also cross-posted on the Let's Encrypt blog)

As announced earlier this year, Let's Encrypt now issues IP address and six-day certificates to the general public. The Certbot team here at the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been working on two improvements to support these features: the --preferred-profile flag released last year in Certbot 4.0, and the --ip-address flag, new in Certbot 5.3. With these improvements together, you can now use Certbot to get those IP address certificates!

If you want to try getting an IP address certificate using Certbot, install version 5.4 or higher (for webroot support with IP addresses), and run this command:

sudo certbot certonly --staging \
--preferred-profile shortlived \
--webroot \
--webroot-path <filesystem path to webserver root> \
--ip-address <your ip address>

Two things of note:

• This will request a non-trusted certificate from the Let's Encrypt staging server. Once you've got things working the way you want, run without the --staging flag to get a publicly trusted certificate.
• This requests a certificate with Let's Encrypt's "shortlived" profile, which will be good for 6 days. This is a Let's Encrypt requirement for IP address certificates.

As of right now, Certbot only supports getting IP address certificates, not yet installing them in your web server. There's work to come on that front. In the meantime, edit your webserver configuration to load the newly issued certificate from /etc/letsencrypt/live/<ip address>/fullchain.pem and /etc/letsencrypt/live/<ip address>/privkey.pem.

The command line above uses Certbot's "webroot" mode, which places a challenge response file in a location where your already-running webserver can serve it. This is nice since you don't have to temporarily take down your server.

There are two other plugins that support IP address certificates today: --manual and --standalone. The manual plugin is like webroot, except Certbot pauses while you place the challenge response file manually (or runs a user-provided hook to place the file). The standalone plugin runs a simple web server that serves a challenge response. It has the advantage of being very easy to configure, but has the disadvantage that any running webserver on port 80 has to be temporarily taken down so Certbot can listen on that port. The nginx and apache plugins don't yet support IP addresses.

You should also be sure that Certbot is set up for automatic renewal. Most installation methods for Certbot set up automatic renewal for you. However, since the webserver-specific installers don't yet support IP address certificates, you'll have to set a --deploy-hook that tells your webserver to load the most up-to-date certificates from disk. You can provide this --deploy-hook through the certbot reconfigure command using the rest of the flags above.

We hope you enjoy using IP address certificates with Let's Encrypt and Certbot, and as always if you get stuck you can ask for help in the Let's Encrypt Community Forum.

Curiosity-driven research has long sparked technological transformations. A century ago, curiosity about atoms led to quantum mechanics, and eventually the transistor at the heart of modern computing. Conversely, the steam engine was a practical breakthrough, but it took fundamental research in thermodynamics to fully harness its power. 

Today, artificial intelligence and science find themselves at a similar inflection point. The current AI revolution has been fueled by decades of research in the mathematical and physical sciences (MPS), which provided the challenging problems, datasets, and insights that made modern AI possible. The 2024 Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry, recognizing foundational AI methods rooted in physics and AI applications for protein design, made this connection impossible to miss.

In 2025, MIT hosted a Workshop on the Future of AI+MPS, funded by the National Science Foundation with support from the MIT School of Science and the MIT departments of Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics. The workshop brought together leading AI and science researchers to chart how the MPS domains can best capitalize on — and contribute to — the future of AI. Now a white paper, with recommendations for funding agencies, institutions, and researchers, has been published in Machine Learning: Science and Technology. In this interview, Jesse Thaler, MIT professor of physics and chair of the workshop, describes key themes and how MIT is positioning itself to lead in AI and science.

Q: What are the report’s key themes regarding last year’s gathering of leaders across the mathematical and physical sciences?

A: Gathering so many researchers at the forefront of AI and science in one room was illuminating. Though the workshop participants came from five distinct scientific communities — astronomy, chemistry, materials science, mathematics, and physics — we found many similarities in how we are each engaging with AI. A real consensus emerged from our animated discussions: Coordinated investment in computing and data infrastructures, cross-disciplinary research techniques, and rigorous training can meaningfully advance both AI and science.

One of the central insights was that this has to be a two-way street. It’s not just about using AI to do better science; science can also make AI better. Scientists excel at distilling insights from complex systems, including neural networks, by uncovering underlying principles and emergent behaviors. We call this the “science of AI,” and it comes in three flavors: science driving AI, where scientific reasoning informs foundational AI approaches; science inspiring AI, where scientific challenges push the development of new algorithms; and science explaining AI, where scientific tools help illuminate how machine intelligence actually works.

In my own field of particle physics, for instance, researchers are developing real-time AI algorithms to handle the data deluge from collider experiments. This work has direct implications for discovering new physics, but the algorithms themselves turn out to be valuable well beyond our field. The workshop made clear that the science of AI should be a community priority — it has the potential to transform how we understand, develop, and control AI systems.

Of course, bridging science and AI requires people who can work across both worlds. Attendees consistently emphasized the need for “centaur scientists” — researchers with genuine interdisciplinary expertise. Supporting these polymaths at every career stage, from integrated undergraduate courses to interdisciplinary PhD programs to joint faculty hires, emerged as essential.

Q: How do MIT’s AI and science efforts align with the workshop recommendations?

A: The workshop framed its recommendations around three pillars: research, talent, and community. As director of the NSF Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions (IAIFI) — a collaborative AI and physics effort among MIT and Harvard, Northeastern, and Tufts universities — I’ve seen firsthand how effective this framework can be. Scaling this up to MIT, we can see where progress is being made and where opportunities lie.

On the research front, MIT is already enabling AI-and-science work in both directions. Even a quick scroll through MIT News shows how individual researchers across the School of Science are pursuing AI-driven projects, building a pipeline of knowledge and surfacing new opportunities. At the same time, collaborative efforts like IAIFI and the Accelerated AI Algorithms for Data-Driven Discovery (A3D3) Institute concentrate interdisciplinary energy for greater impact. The MIT Generative AI Impact Consortium is also supporting application-driven AI work at the university scale.

To foster early-career AI-and-science talent, several initiatives are training the next generation of centaur scientists. The MIT Schwarzman College of Computing's Common Ground for Computing Education program helps students become “bilingual” in computing and their home discipline. Interdisciplinary PhD pathways are also gaining traction; IAIFI worked with the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society to create one in physics, statistics, and data science, and about 10 percent of physics PhD students now opt for it — a number that's likely to grow. Dedicated postdoctoral roles like the IAIFI Fellowship and Tayebati Fellowship give early-career researchers the freedom to pursue interdisciplinary work. Funding centaur scientists and giving them space to build connections across domains, universities, and career stages has been transformative.

Finally, community-building ties it all together. From focused workshops to large symposia, organizing interdisciplinary events signals that AI and science isn’t siloed work — it’s an emerging field. MIT has the talent and resources to make a significant impact, and hosting these gatherings at multiple scales helps establish that leadership.

Q: What lessons can MIT draw about further advancing its AI-and-science efforts?

A: The workshop crystallized something important: The institutions that lead in AI and science will be the ones that think systematically, not piecemeal. Resources are finite, so priorities matter. Workshop attendees were clear about what becomes possible when an institution coordinates hires, research, and training around a cohesive strategy.

MIT is well positioned to build on what’s already underway with more structural initiatives — joint faculty lines across computing and scientific domains, expanded interdisciplinary degree pathways, and deliberate “science of AI” funding. We’re already seeing moves in this direction; this year, the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Department of Physics are conducting their first-ever joint faculty search, which is exciting to see.

The virtuous cycle of AI-and-science has the potential to be truly transformative — offering deeper insight into AI, accelerating scientific discovery, and producing robust tools for both. By developing an intentional strategy, MIT will be well positioned to lead in, and benefit from, the coming waves of AI.