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.

America has been making steel from iron ore the same way for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been making enough of it. Today the U.S. is the world’s largest steel importer, relying on other countries to produce a material that serves as the backbone of our society.

That’s not to say the U.S. is alone: Globally, most steel today is made in enormous, multi-billion-dollar plants using a coal-based process that hasn’t changed much in 300 years.

Now Hertha Metals, founded by CEO Laureen Meroueh SM ’18, PhD ’20, is scaling up a new steel production system powered by natural gas and electricity. The process, which can also run on hydrogen, uses a continuous electric arc furnace within which iron ore of any grade and format is reduced and carburized into molten steel in a single step. It also eliminates the need for coking and sintering plants, along with other dangerous and expensive components of traditional systems. As a result, the company says its process uses 30 percent less energy and costs less to operate than conventional steel mills in America.

“The real headline is the fact that we can make steel from iron ore more cost-competitive by 25 percent in the United States, while also reducing emissions.” Meroueh says. “The United States hasn’t been competitive in steelmaking in decades. Now we’re enabling that.”

Since late 2024, Hertha has been operating a 1-tonne-per-day pilot plant at its first production facility outside Houston, Texas. The company calls it the world’s largest demonstration of a single-step steelmaking process. This year, the company will begin construction of a plant that will be able to produce 10,000 tons of steel each year. That plant, which Hertha expects to reach full production capacity at the end 2027, will also produce high-purity iron for the magnet industry, helping America onshore another critical material.

“By importing so much of our pig iron and steel, we are completely reliant on global trade mechanisms and geopolitics remaining the way they are today for us to continue making the materials that are critical for our infrastructure, our defense systems, and our energy systems,” Meroueh says. “Steel is the most foundational material to our society. It is simply irreplaceable.”

Streamlining steelmaking

Meroueh earned her master’s degree in the lab of Gang Chen, MIT’s Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering. She studied thermal energy storage and the fundamental physics of heat transfer, eventually getting her first taste of entrepreneurship when she explored commercializing some of that research. Meroueh received a grant from the MIT Sandbox Innovation Fund and considers Executive Director Jinane Abounadi a close mentor today.

The experience taught Meroueh a lot about startups, but she ultimately decided to stay at MIT to pursue her PhD in metallurgy and hydrogen production in the lab of Douglas Hart, MIT professor of mechanical engineering. After earning her PhD in 2020, she was recruited to lead a hydrogen production startup for a year and a half.

“After that experience, I was looking at all of the hard-to-abate, high-emissions sectors of the economy to find the one receiving the least attention,” Meroueh says. “I stumbled onto steel and fell in love.”

Meroueh became an Innovators Fellow at the climate and energy startup investment firm Breakthrough Energy and officially founded Hertha Metals in 2022.

The company is named after Hertha Ayrton, a 19th-century physicist and inventor who advanced our understanding of electric arcs, which the company uses in its furnaces.

Globally, most steel today is made by combining iron ore with coke (from coal) and limestone in a blast furnace to make molten iron. That “pig iron” is then sent to another furnace to burn off excess carbon and impurities. Alloying elements are then added, and the steel is sent for casting and finishing, requiring additional machinery.

The U.S. makes most of its steel from recycled scrap metal, but it still must import iron made from a blast furnace to reach useful grades of steel.

“The United States has a massive need to make steel from iron ore, not just scrap, so we can stop relying on importing so much,” Meroueh explains. “We only have about 11 operational blast furnaces in the U.S., so we end up importing about 90 percent of the pig iron needed to feed into domestic scrap steel furnaces.”

To solve the problem, Meroueh leveraged a fuel America has in abundance: natural gas. Hertha’s system uses natural gas (the process also works with hydrogen) to reduce iron ore while using electricity to melt it in a single step. She says the closest competing technology requires scarce and expensive pelletized, high-grade iron ore and multiple furnaces to produce liquid steel. Meroueh’s process uses iron ore of any format or grade, producing refined liquid steel in a single furnace, cutting both cost and emissions.

“Many reactions that were previously run sequentially though a conventional steelmaking process are now occurring simultaneously, within a single furnace,” Meroueh explains. “We’re melting, we’re reducing, and we’re carburizing the steel to the exact amount we need. What exits our furnace is a refined molten steel. We can process any grade and format of iron ore because everything is occurring in the molten phase. It doesn’t matter whether the ore came in as a pellet or clumps and fines out of the ground.”

Meroueh says the company’s biggest innovation is performing the gaseous reduction when the iron oxide is a molten liquid using proprietary gas technologies.     

“All of the conventional steelmaking technologies perform reduction while the iron ore is in a solid state, and they use gas — whether that’s combusted coke or natural gas — to perform that reduction,” Meroueh says. “We saw the inefficiency in doing that and how it restricted the grade and form of usable iron ore, because at the end of the day you have to melt the ore anyway.”

Hertha’s system is modular and uses standard off-gas handling equipment, steam turbines, and heat exchangers. It also recycles natural gas to regenerate electricity from the hot off-gas leaving the furnace.

“Our steel mill has its own little power plant attached that leads to 35 percent recovery in energy and minimizes grid power demand in an age in which we are competing with data centers,” Meroueh says.

Onshoring critical materials

Today’s steel mills are the result of enormous investments and are designed to run for at least 50 years. Hertha Metals doesn’t envision replacing those entirely — at least not anytime soon.

“You’re not just going to shut off a steel mill in the middle of its life,” Meroueh says. “Sure, you can build new steel mills, but we really want to be able to displace the blast furnace and the basic oxygen furnace while still utilizing all the mill’s downstream equipment.”

The company’s Houston plant began producing one ton of steel per day just two years after Hertha’s founding and less than one year after Meroueh opened up Hertha’s headquarters. She calls it an important first step.

“This is the largest-scale demonstration of a single-step steelmaking company,” Meroueh says. “It’s a true breakthrough in terms of scalability, pace of progress, and capital efficiency.”

The company’s next plant, which will be capable of producing 10,000 tons of steel each year, will also be producing high-purity iron for permanent magnets, which are used in electric motors, robotics, consumer electronics, aerospace and military hardware.

“It’s insane that we don’t make rare earth magnets domestically,” Meroueh says. “It’s insane that any country doesn’t make their own rare earth magnets. Most rare earth magnets are permanent magnets, so neodymium magnets. What’s interesting is that by weight, 70 percent of that magnet is not a rare earth, it’s high-purity iron. America doesn’t currently make any high-purity iron, but Hertha has already made it in our pilot plant.”

Hertha plans to quickly scale up its production of high-purity iron so that, by 2030, it will be able to meet about a quarter of total projected demand for magnets in the U.S.

After that, the company plans to run a full-scale commercial steel plant in partnership with a steel manufacturer in America. Meroueh says that plant, which will be able to produce around half a million tons of steel each year, should be operational by 2030.

“We are eager to partner with today’s steel producers so that we can collectively leverage the existing infrastructure alongside Hertha’s innovation,” Meroueh says. “That includes the $1.5 billion of capital downstream of a melt shop that Hertha’s process can integrate into. The melt shop is the ore-to-liquid steel portion of the steel mill. That’s just the start.  It’s a smaller scale than a conventional plant in which we still economically out compete traditional production processes. Then we’re going to scale to 2 million tons per year once we build up our balance sheet.”

The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) at MIT has awarded funding to eight new research studies to understand how artificial intelligence innovations can be used in the fight against poverty through its new Project AI Evidence.

The age of AI has brought wide-ranging optimism and skepticism about its effects on society. To realize AI’s full potential, Project AI Evidence (PAIE) will identify which AI solutions work and for whom, and scale only the most effective, inclusive, and responsible solutions — while scaling down those that may potentially cause harm.

PAIE will generate evidence on what works by connecting governments, tech companies, and nonprofits with world-class economists at MIT and across J-PAL’s global network to evaluate and improve AI solutions to entrenched social challenges.

The new initiative is prioritizing questions policymakers are already asking: Do AI-assisted teaching tools help all children learn? How can early-warning flood systems help people affected by natural disasters? Can machine learning algorithms help reduce deforestation in the Amazon? Can AI-powered chatbots help improve people’s health? In the coming years, PAIE will run a series of funding competitions to invite proposals for evaluations of AI tools that address questions like these, and many more.

PAIE is financially supported by a grant from Google.org, philanthropic support from Community Jameel, a grant from Canada’s International Development Research Centre and UK International Development, and a collaboration agreement with Amazon Web Services. Through a grant from Eric and Wendy Schmidt, awarded by recommendation of Schmidt Sciences, the initiative will also study generative AI in the workplace, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Alex Diaz, head of AI for social good at Google.org, says, “we’re thrilled to collaborate with MIT and J-PAL, already leaders in this space, on Project AI Evidence. AI has great potential to benefit all people, but we urgently need to study what works, what doesn’t, and why, if we are to realize this potential.”

“Artificial intelligence holds extraordinary potential, but only if the tools, knowledge, and power to shape it are accessible to all — that includes contextually grounded research and evidence on what works and what does not,” adds Maggie Gorman-Velez, vice president of strategy, regions, and policies at IDRC. “That is why IDRC is proud to be supporting this new evaluation work as part of our ongoing commitment to the responsible scaling of proven safe, inclusive, and locally relevant AI innovations.”

J-PAL is uniquely positioned to help understand AI’s effects on society: Since its inception in 2003, J-PAL’s network of researchers has led over 2,500 rigorous evaluations of social policies and programs around the world. Through PAIE, J-PAL will bring together leading experts in AI technology, research, and social policy, in alignment with MIT president Sally Kornbluth’s focus on generative AI as a strategic priority.

PAIE is chaired by Professor Joshua Blumenstock of the University of California at Berkeley; J-PAL Global Executive Director Iqbal Dhaliwal; and Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott of the University of Zurich.

New evaluations of urgent policy questions

The studies funded in PAIE’s first round of competition explore urgent questions in key sectors like education, health, climate, and economic opportunity.

How can AI be most effective in classrooms, helping both students and teachers?

Existing research shows that personalized learning is important for students, but challenging to implement with limited resources. In Kenya, education social enterprise EIDU has developed an AI tool that helps teachers identify learning gaps and adapt their daily lesson plans. In India, the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Pratham is developing an AI tool to increase the impact and scale of the evidence-informed Teaching at the Right Level approach. J-PAL researchers Daron Acemoglu, Iqbal Dhaliwal, and Francisco Gallego will work with both organizations to study the effects and potential of these different use cases on teachers’ productivity and students’ learning.

Can AI tools reduce gender bias in schools?

Researchers are collaborating with Italy’s Ministry of Education to evaluate whether AI tools can help close gender gaps in students’ performance by addressing teachers’ unconscious biases. J-PAL affiliates Michela Carlana and Will Dobbie, along with Francesca Miserocchi and Eleonora Patacchini, will study the impacts of two AI tools, one that helps teachers predict performance and a second that gives real-time feedback on the diversity of their decisions.

Can AI help career counselors uncover more job opportunities?

In Kenya, researchers are evaluating if an AI tool can identify overlooked skills and unlock employment opportunities, particularly for youth, women, and those without formal education. In collaboration with NGOs Swahilipot and Tabiya, Jasmin Baier and J-PAL researcher Christian Meyer will evaluate how the tool changes people’s job search strategies and employment. This study will shed light on AI as a complement, rather than a substitute, for human expertise in career guidance.

Looking forward

As use of AI in the social sector evolves, these evaluations are a first step in discovering effective, responsible solutions that will go the furthest in alleviating poverty and inequality.

J-PAL’s Dhaliwal notes, “J-PAL has a long history of evaluating innovative technology and its ability to improve people’s lives. While AI has incredible potential, we need to maximize its benefits and minimize possible harms. We’re grateful to our donors, sponsors, and collaborators for their catalytic support in launching PAIE, which will help us do exactly that by continuing to expand evidence on the impacts of AI innovations.”

J-PAL is also seeking new collaborators who share its vision of discovering and scaling up real-world AI solutions. It aims to support more governments and social sector organizations that want to adopt AI responsibly, and will continue to expand funding for new evaluations and provide policy guidance based on the latest research.

To learn more about Project AI Evidence, subscribe to J-PAL's newsletter or contact paie@povertyactionlab.org.

Discord has begun rolling out mandatory age verification and the internet is, understandably, freaking out.

At EFF, we’ve been raising the alarm about age verification mandates for years. In December, we launched our Age Verification Resource Hub to push back against laws and platform policies that require users to hand over sensitive personal information just to access basic online services. At the time, age gates were largely enforced in polities where it was mandated by law. Now they’re landing in platforms and jurisdictions where they’re not required.

Beginning in early March, users who are either (a) estimated by Discord to be under 18, or (b) Discord doesn't have enough information on, may find themselves locked into a “teen-appropriate experience.” That means content filters, age gates, restrictions on direct messages and friend requests, and the inability to speak in “Stage channels,” which are the large-audience audio spaces that power many community events. Discord says most adults may be sorted automatically through a new “age inference” system that relies on account tenure, device and activity data, and broader platform patterns. Those whose age isn’t estimated due to lack of information or who are estimated to not be adults will be asked to scan their face or upload a government ID through a third-party vendor if they want to avoid the default teen account restrictions.

We’ve written extensively about why age verification mandates are a censorship and surveillance nightmare. Discord’s shift only reinforces those concerns. Here’s why:

The 2025 Breach and What's Changed Since

Discord literally won our 2025 “We Still Told You So” Breachies Award. Last year, attackers accessed roughly 70,000 users’ government IDs, selfies, and other sensitive information after compromising Discord’s third-party customer support system.

To be clear: Discord is no longer using that system, which involved routing ID uploads through its general ticketing system for age verification. It now uses dedicated age verification vendors (k-ID globally and Persona for some users in the United Kingdom).

That’s an improvement. But it doesn’t eliminate the underlying potential for data breaches and other harms. Discord says that it will delete records of any user-uploaded government IDs, and that any facial scans will never leave users’ devices. But platforms are closed-source, audits are limited, and history shows that data (especially this ultra-valuable identity data) will leak—whether through hacks, misconfigurations, or retention mistakes. Users are being asked to simply trust that this time will be different.

Age Verification and Anonymous Speech

For decades, we’ve taught young people a simple rule: don’t share personal information with strangers online.

Age verification complicates that advice. Suddenly, some Discord users will now be asked to submit a government ID or facial scan to access certain features if their age-inference technology fails. Discord has said on its blog that it will not associate a user’s ID with their account (only using that information to confirm their age) and that identifying documents won’t be retained. We take those commitments seriously. However, users have little independent visibility into how those safeguards operate in practice or whether they are sufficient to prevent identification.

Even if Discord can technically separate IDs from accounts, many users are understandably skeptical, especially after the platform’s recent breach involving age-verification data. For people who rely on pseudonymity, being required to upload a face scan or government ID at all can feel like crossing a line.

Many people rely on anonymity to speak freely. LGBTQ+ youth, survivors of abuse, political dissidents, and countless others use aliases to explore identity, find support, and build community safely. When identity checks become a condition of participation, many users will simply opt out. The chilling effect isn’t only about whether an ID is permanently linked to an account; it’s about whether users trust the system enough to participate in the first place. When you’re worried that what you say can be traced back to your government ID, you speak differently—or not at all.

No one should have to choose between accessing online communities and protecting their privacy.

Age Verification Systems Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Discord says it is trying to address privacy concerns by using device-based facial age estimation and separating government IDs from user accounts, retaining only a user’s age rather than their identity documents. This is meant to reduce the risks associated with retaining and collecting this sensitive data. However, even when privacy safeguards are in place, we are faced with another problem: There is no current technology that is fully privacy-protective, universally accessible, and consistently accurate. Facial age estimation tools are notoriously unreliable, particularly for people of color, trans and nonbinary people, and people with disabilities. The internet has now proliferated with stories of people bypassing these facial age estimation tools. But when systems get it wrong, users may be forced into appeals processes or required to submit more documentation, such as government-issued IDs, which would exclude those whose appearance doesn’t match their documents and the millions of people around the world who don’t have government-issued identity documents at all.

Even newer approaches (things like age inference, behavior tracking, financial database checks, digital ID systems) expand the web of data collection, and carry their own tradeoffs around access and error. As we mentioned earlier, no current approach is simultaneously privacy-protective, universally accessible, and consistently accurate across all demographics. 

That’s the challenge: the technology itself is not fit for the sweeping role platforms are asking it to play.

That’s the challenge: the technology itself is not fit for the sweeping role platforms are asking it to play.

The Aftermath

Discord reports over 200 million monthly active users, and is one of the largest platforms used by gamers to chat. The video game industry is larger than movies, TV, and music combined, and Discord represents an almost-default option for gamers looking to host communities.

Many communities, including open-source projects, sports teams, fandoms, friend groups, and families, use Discord to stay connected. If communities or individuals are wrongly flagged as minors, or asked to complete the age verification process, they may face a difficult choice: submit to facial scans or ID checks, or accept a more restricted “teen” experience. For those who decline to go through the process, the result can mean reduced functionality, limited communication tools, and the chilling effects that follow. 

Most importantly, Discord did not have to “comply in advance” by requiring age verification for all users, whether or not they live in a jurisdiction that mandates it. Other social media platforms and their trade groups have fought back against more than a dozen age verification laws in the U.S., and Reddit has now taken the legal fight internationally. For a platform with as much market power as Discord, voluntarily imposing age verification is unacceptable. 

So You’ve Hit an Age Gate. Now What?

Discord should reconsider whether expanding identity checks is worth the harm to its communities. But in the meantime, many users are facing age checks today.

That’s why we created our guide, “So You’ve Hit an Age Gate. Now What?” It walks through practical steps to minimize risk, such as:

• Submit the least amount of sensitive data possible.
• Ask: What data is collected? Who can access it? How long is it retained?
• Look for evidence of independent, security-focused audits.
• Be cautious about background details in selfies or ID photos.

There is unfortunately no perfect option, only tradeoffs. And every user will have their own unique set of safety concerns to consider. Amidst this confusion, our goal is to help keep you informed, so you can make the best choices for you and your community.

In light of the harms imposed by age-verification systems, EFF encourages all services to stop adopting these systems when they are not mandated by law. And lawmakers across the world that are considering bills that would make Discord’s approach the norm for every platform should watch this backlash and similarly move away from the idea.

If you care about privacy, free expression, and the right to participate online without handing over your identity, now is the time to speak up.

Join us in the fight.

The move discards a scientific determination that empowered the government to limit climate pollution.

Maria Yang ’91, the William E. Leonhard (1940) Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, has been appointed vice provost for faculty at MIT, a role in which she will oversee programs and strategies to recruit and retain faculty members and support them throughout their careers.

Provost Anantha Chandrakasan announced Yang’s appointment, which is effective Feb. 16, in an email to MIT faculty and staff today.

“In the nearly two decades since Maria joined the MIT faculty, she has exemplified dedicated service to the Institute and deep interdisciplinary collaboration,” Chandrakasan wrote. He added that, in a series of leadership positions within the School of Engineering, Yang “consistently demonstrated her skill as a leader, her empathy as a colleague, and her values-driven decision-making.”

As vice provost for faculty, Yang will play a pivotal role in creating an environment where MIT’s faculty members are able to do their best work, “pursuing bold ideas with excellence and creativity,” according to Chandrakasan’s letter. She will partner with school and department leaders on faculty recruitment and retention, mentorship, and strategic planning, and she will oversee programs to support faculty members’ professional development at every stage of their careers.

“Part of what makes MIT unique is the way it provides faculty the room and the encouragement to do work that they think is important, impactful, and sometimes unexpected,” says Yang. “I think it’s vital to foster a culture and a sense of community that really enables our faculty to perform at their best — as researchers, of course, but also as educators and mentors, and as citizens of MIT.”

In addition to her role supporting MIT faculty, Yang will also handle oversight and planning responsibilities for campus academic and research spaces, in partnership with the Office of the Executive Vice President and Treasurer. She will also serve as the principal investigator for the National Science Foundation’s New England Innovation Corps Hub, oversee MIT Solve, and represent the provost on various boards and committees, such as MIT International and the Axim Collaborative.

Yang, who attended MIT as an undergraduate in mechanical engineering as part of the Class of 1991 before earning her master’s and PhD degrees from the design division of the mechanical engineering department at Stanford University, returned to MIT in 2007 as an assistant professor. She has held a number of leadership positions at MIT, including associate dean, deputy dean, and interim dean of the School of Engineering. 

In 2021, Yang co-chaired an Institute-wide committee on the future of design, which recommended the creation of a center to support design opportunities at MIT. Through a generous gift from the Morningside Foundation, the recommendation came to life as the interdisciplinary Morningside Academy for Design (MAD), where Yang has served as associate director since inception. Yang has been instrumental in the development of several new programs at MAD, including design-focused graduate fellowships open to students across MIT and a new design-themed first-year learning community.

Since 2017, Yang has also served as academic faculty director for MIT D-Lab, which uses participatory design to collaborate with communities around the world on the development of solutions to poverty challenges. And since 2024, Yang has served as a co-chair of the SHASS+ Connectivity Fund, which funds research projects in which scholars in the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences collaborate with faculty colleagues from other schools at MIT.

Given Yang’s extensive track record of working across disciplinary lines, Chandrakasan said in his letter that he had “no doubt that in her new role she will be an effective and trusted champion for colleagues across the Institute.”

An internationally recognized leader in design theory and methodology, Yang is currently focused on researching the early-stage processes used to create successful designs for everything from consumer products to complex, large-scale engineering systems, and the role that these early-stage processes play in determining design outcomes.

Yang, a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), received the 2024 ASME Design Theory and Methodology Award, recognizing “sustained and meritorious contributions” in the field. She has also been recognized with a National Science Foundation CAREER award and the American Society of Engineering Education Fred Merryfield Design Award. In 2017 Yang was named a MacVicar Faculty Fellow, one of MIT’s highest teaching honors.

Yang succeeds Institute Professor Paula Hammond, who served in the role from 2023 before being named dean of the School of Engineering, a role she assumed in January.

New York is contemplating a bill that adds surveillance to 3D printers:

New York’s 2026­2027 executive budget bill (S.9005 / A.10005) includes language that should alarm every maker, educator, and small manufacturer in the state. Buried in Part C is a provision requiring all 3D printers sold or delivered in New York to include “blocking technology.” This is defined as software or firmware that scans every print file through a “firearms blueprint detection algorithm” and refuses to print anything it flags as a potential firearm or firearm component...

Legislators aim to use climate superfund programs to force oil companies to help cover the cost of global warming. A member of Congress wants to stop them.

A Federal Emergency Management Agency official told appropriators that funding delays are "more complex than just what’s out there."

Lawmakers from Oklahoma to Massachusetts say workers need protection from deadly heat waves.

The American Federation of Government Employees and other groups are trying to stop the Trump administration from further reducing FEMA’s disaster workforce.

The country's carbon pollution has plateaued or fallen for 21 months, the longest-ever stretch not associated with a decrease in power demand.

The ultra-polluting sector says the EU’s carbon price is putting it out of business.

AB 1777 would give the agency power to reduce emissions from sources such as warehouses and ports.

The research brings the first scientific assessment of global warming's role in intensifying some of the most serious wildfire emergencies to grip the region in years.

The island nation is especially vulnerable to cyclones blowing in off the Indian Ocean and was battered by another deadly cyclone less than two weeks ago.

For more than a decade, MIT Associate Professor Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli has used artificial intelligence to create new materials. As the technology has expanded, so have his ambitions.

Now, the newly tenured professor in materials science and engineering believes AI is poised to transform science in ways never before possible. His work at MIT and beyond is devoted to accelerating that future.

“We’re at a second inflection point,” Gómez-Bombarelli says. “The first one was around 2015 with the first wave of representation learning, generative AI, and high-throughput data in some areas of science. Those are some of the techniques I first brought into my lab at MIT. Now I think we’re at a second inflection point, mixing language and merging multiple modalities into general scientific intelligence. We’re going to have all the model classes and scaling laws needed to reason about language, reason over material structures, and reason over synthesis recipes.”

Gómez Bombarelli’s research combines physics-based simulations with approaches like machine learning and generative AI to discover new materials with promising real-world applications. His work has led to new materials for batteries, catalysts, plastics, and organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). He has also co-founded multiple companies and served on scientific advisory boards for startups applying AI to drug discovery, robotics, and more. His latest company, Lila Sciences, is working to build a scientific superintelligence platform for the life sciences, chemical, and materials science industries.

All of that work is designed to ensure the future of scientific research is more seamless and productive than research today.

“AI for science is one of the most exciting and aspirational uses of AI,” Gómez-Bombarelli says. “Other applications for AI have more downsides and ambiguity. AI for science is about bringing a better future forward in time.”

From experiments to simulations

Gómez-Bombarelli grew up in Spain and gravitated toward the physical sciences from an early age. In 2001, he won a Chemistry Olympics competition, setting him on an academic track in chemistry, which he studied as an undergraduate at his hometown college, the University of Salamanca. Gómez-Bombarelli stuck around for his PhD, where he investigated the function of DNA-damaging chemicals.

“My PhD started out experimental, and then I got bitten by the bug of simulation and computer science about halfway through,” he says. “I started simulating the same chemical reactions I was measuring in the lab. I like the way programming organizes your brain; it felt like a natural way to organize one’s thinking. Programming is also a lot less limited by what you can do with your hands or with scientific instruments.”

Next, Gómez-Bombarelli went to Scotland for a postdoctoral position, where he studied quantum effects in biology. Through that work, he connected with Alán Aspuru-Guzik, a chemistry professor at Harvard University, whom he joined for his next postdoc in 2014.

“I was one of the first people to use generative AI for chemistry in 2016, and I was on the first team to use neural networks to understand molecules in 2015,” Gómez-Bombarelli says. “It was the early, early days of deep learning for science.”

Gómez-Bombarelli also began working to eliminate manual parts of molecular simulations to run more high-throughput experiments. He and his collaborators ended up running hundreds of thousands of calculations across materials, discovering hundreds of promising materials for testing.

After two years in the lab, Gómez-Bombarelli and Aspuru-Guzik started a general-purpose materials computation company, which eventually pivoted to focus on producing organic light-emitting diodes. Gómez-Bombarelli joined the company full-time and calls it the hardest thing he’s ever done in his career.

“It was amazing to make something tangible,” he says. “Also, after seeing Aspuru-Guzik run a lab, I didn’t want to become a professor. My dad was a professor in linguistics, and I thought it was a mellow job. Then I saw Aspuru-Guzik with a 40-person group, and he was on the road 120 days a year. It was insane. I didn’t think I had that type of energy and creativity in me.”

In 2018, Aspuru-Guzik suggested Gómez-Bombarelli apply for a new position in MIT’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering. But, with his trepidation about a faculty job, Gómez-Bombarelli let the deadline pass. Aspuru-Guzik confronted him in his office, slammed his hands on the table, and told him, “You need to apply for this.” It was enough to get Gómez-Bombarelli to put together a formal application.

Fortunately at his startup, Gómez-Bombarelli had spent a lot of time thinking about how to create value from computational materials discovery. During the interview process, he says, he was attracted to the energy and collaborative spirit at MIT. He also began to appreciate the research possibilities.

“Everything I had been doing as a postdoc and at the company was going to be a subset of what I could do at MIT,” he says. “I was making products, and I still get to do that. Suddenly, my universe of work was a subset of this new universe of things I could explore and do.”

It’s been nine years since Gómez Bombarelli joined MIT. Today his lab focuses on how the composition, structure, and reactivity of atoms impact material performance. He has also used high-throughput simulations to create new materials and helped develop tools for merging deep learning with physics-based modeling.

“Physics-based simulations make data and AI algorithms get better the more data you give them,” Gómez Bombarelli’s says. “There are all sorts of virtuous cycles between AI and simulations.”

The research group he has built is solely computational — they don’t run physical experiments.

“It’s a blessing because we can have a huge amount of breadth and do lots of things at once,” he says. “We love working with experimentalists and try to be good partners with them. We also love to create computational tools that help experimentalists triage the ideas coming from AI .”

Gómez-Bombarelli is also still focused on the real-world applications of the materials he invents. His lab works closely with companies and organizations like MIT’s Industrial Liaison Program to understand the material needs of the private sector and the practical hurdles of commercial development.

Accelerating science

As excitement around artificial intelligence has exploded, Gómez-Bombarelli has seen the field mature. Companies like Meta, Microsoft, and Google’s DeepMind now regularly conduct physics-based simulations reminiscent of what he was working on back in 2016. In November, the U.S. Department of Energy launched the Genesis Mission to accelerate scientific discovery, national security, and energy dominance using AI.

“AI for simulations has gone from something that maybe could work to a consensus scientific view,” Gómez-Bombarelli says. “We’re at an inflection point. Humans think in natural language, we write papers in natural language, and it turns out these large language models that have mastered natural language have opened up the ability to accelerate science. We’ve seen that scaling works for simulations. We’ve seen that scaling works for language. Now we’re going to see how scaling works for science.”

When he first came to MIT, Gómez-Bombarelli says he was blown away by how non-competitive things were between researchers. He tries to bring that same positive-sum thinking to his research group, which is made up of about 25 graduate students and postdocs.

“We’ve naturally grown into a really diverse group, with a diverse set of mentalities,” Gomez-Bombarelli says. “Everyone has their own career aspirations and strengths and weaknesses. Figuring out how to help people be the best versions of themselves is fun. Now I’ve become the one insisting that people apply to faculty positions after the deadline. I guess I’ve passed that baton.”

Criticize the government online? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) might ask Google to cough up your name. By abusing an investigative tool called "administrative subpoenas," DHS has been demanding that tech companies hand over users' names, locations, and more. We're explaining how companies can stand up for users—and covering the latest news in the fight for privacy and free speech online—with our EFFector newsletter.

For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This latest issue tracks our campaign to expand end-to-end encryption protections, a bill to stop government face scans from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others, and why Section 230 remains the best available system to protect everyone’s ability to speak online.

Prefer to listen in? In our audio companion, EFF Senior Staff Attorney F. Mario Trujillo explains how Homeland Security's lawless subpoenas differ from court orders. Find the conversation on YouTube or the Internet Archive.

LISTEN TO EFFECTOR

EFFECTOR 38.3 - 🗣 Homeland Security Wants Names

Want to stay in the fight for privacy and free speech online? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight against unlawful government surveillance when you support EFF today!

Surveillance technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy private donors have long helped provide local law enforcement “free” access to surveillance equipment that bypasses local oversight. The result is predictable: serious accountability gaps and data pipelines to other entities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that expose millions of people to harm.

The cost of “free” surveillance tools — like automated license plate readers (ALPRs), networked cameras, face recognition, drones, and data aggregation and analysis platforms — is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties. 

The cost of “free” surveillance tools is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties.

The collection and sharing of our data quietly generates detailed records of people’s movements and associations that can be exposed, hacked, or repurposed without their knowledge or consent. Those records weaken sanctuary and First Amendment protections while facilitating the targeting of vulnerable people.   

Cities can and should use their power to reject federal grants, vendor trials, donations from wealthy individuals, or participation in partnerships that facilitate surveillance and experimentation with spy tech. 

If these projects are greenlit, oversight is imperative. Mechanisms like public hearings, competitive bidding, public records transparency, and city council supervision aid to ensure these acquisitions include basic safeguards — like use policies, audits, and consequences for misuse — to protect the public from abuse and from creeping contracts that grow into whole suites of products. 

Clear policies and oversight mechanisms must be in place before using any surveillance tools, free or not, and communities and their elected officials must be at the center of every decision about whether to bring these tools in at all.

Here are some of the most common methods “free” surveillance tech makes its way into communities.

Trials and Pilots

Police departments are regularly offered free access to surveillance tools and software through trials and pilot programs that often aren’t accompanied by appropriate use policies. In many jurisdictions, trials do not trigger the same requirements to go before decision-makers outside the police department. This means the public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city. 

The public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city.  

In Denver, Colorado, the police department is running trials of possible unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program from two competing drone vendors: Flock Safety Aerodome drones (through August 2026) and drones from the company Skydio, partnering with Axon, the multi-billion dollar police technology company behind tools like Tasers and AI-generated police reports. Drones create unique issues given their vantage for capturing private property and unsuspecting civilians, as well as their capacity to make other technologies, like ALPRs, airborne. 

Functional, Even Without Funding 

We’ve seen cities decide not to fund a tool, or run out of funding for it, only to have a company continue providing it in the hope that money will turn up. This happened in Fall River, Massachusetts, where the police department decided not to fund ShotSpotter’s $90,000 annual cost and its frequent false alarms, but continued using the system when the company provided free access. 

 Police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later.

In May 2025, Denver's city council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension for Flock Safety ALPR cameras after weeks of public outcry over mass surveillance data sharing with federal immigration enforcement. But Mayor Mike Johnston’s office allowed the cameras to keep running through a “task force” review, effectively extending the program even after the contract was voted down. In response, the Denver Taskforce to Reimagine Policing and Public Safety and Transforming Our Communities Alliance launched a grassroots campaign demanding the city “turn Flock cameras off now,” a reminder that when surveillance starts as a pilot or time‑limited contract, communities often have to fight not just to block renewals but to shut the systems off.

 Importantly, police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later. 

Gifts from Police Foundations and Wealthy Donors

Police foundations and the wealthy have pushed surveillance-driven agendas in their local communities by donating equipment and making large monetary gifts, another means of acquiring these tools without public oversight or buy-in.

In Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Foundation (APF) attempted to use its position as a private entity to circumvent transparency. Following a court challenge from the Atlanta Community Press Collective and Lucy Parsons Labs, a Georgia court determined that the APF must comply with public records laws related to some of its actions and purchases on behalf of law enforcement.
In San Francisco, billionaire Chris Larsen has financially supported a supercharging of the city’s surveillance infrastructure, donating $9.4 million to fund the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) Real-Time Investigation Center, where a menu of surveillance technologies and data come together to surveil the city’s residents. This move comes after the billionaire backed a ballot measure, which passed in March 2025, eroding the city’s surveillance technology law and allowing the SFPD free rein to use new surveillance technologies for a full year without oversight.

Free Tech for Federal Data Pipelines

Federal grants and Department of Homeland Security funding are another way surveillance technology appears free to, only to lock municipalities into long‑term data‑sharing and recurring costs. 

Through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which includes the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security (UASI) Initiative, and Department of Justice programs like Byrne JAG, the federal government reimburses states and cities for "homeland security" equipment and software, including including law‑enforcement surveillance tools, analytics platforms, and real‑time crime centers. Grant guidance and vendor marketing materials make clear that these funds can be used for automated license plate readers, integrated video surveillance and analytics systems, and centralized command‑center software—in other words, purchases framed as counterterrorism investments but deployed in everyday policing.

Vendors have learned to design products around this federal money, pitching ALPR networks, camera systems, and analytic platforms as "grant-ready" solutions that can be acquired with little or no upfront local cost. Motorola Solutions, for example, advertises how SHSP and UASI dollars can be used for "law enforcement surveillance equipment" and "video surveillance, warning, and access control" systems. Flock Safety, partnering with Lexipol, a company that writes use policies for law enforcement, offers a "License Plate Readers Grant Assistance Program" that helps police departments identify federal and state grants and tailor their applications to fund ALPR projects. 

Grant assistance programs let police chiefs fast‑track new surveillance: the paperwork is outsourced, the grant eats the upfront cost, and even when there is a formal paper trail, the practical checks from residents, councils, and procurement rules often get watered down or bypassed.

On paper, these systems arrive “for free” through a federal grant; in practice, they lock cities into recurring software, subscription, and data‑hosting fees that quietly turn into permanent budget lines—and a lasting surveillance infrastructure—as soon as police and prosecutors start to rely on them. In Santa Cruz, California, the police department explicitly sought to use a DHS-funded SHSP grant to pay for a new citywide network of Flock ALPR cameras at the city's entrances and exits, with local funds covering additional cameras. In Sumner, Washington, a $50,000 grant was used to cover the entire first year of a Flock system — including installation and maintenance — after which the city is on the hook for roughly $39,000 every year in ongoing fees. The free grant money opens the door, but local governments are left with years of financial, political, and permanent surveillance entanglements they never fully vetted.

The most dangerous cost of this "free" funding is not just budgetary; it is the way it ties local systems into federal data pipelines. Since 9/11, DHS has used these grant streams to build a nationwide network of at least 79–80 state and regional fusion centers that integrate and share data from federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners. Research shows that state fusion centers rely heavily on the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (especially SHSP and UASI) to "mature their capabilities," with some centers reporting that 100 percent of their annual expenditures are covered by these grants. 

Civil rights investigations have documented how this funding architecture creates a backdoor channel for ICE and other federal agencies to access local surveillance data for their own purposes. A recent report by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) describes ICE agents using a Philadelphia‑area fusion center to query the city’s ALPR network to track undocumented drivers in a self‑described sanctuary city.

Ultimately, federal grants follow the same script as trials and foundation gifts: what looks “free” ends up costing communities their data, their sanctuary protections, and their power over how local surveillance is used.

Protecting Yourself Against “Free” Technology

The most important protection against "free" surveillance technology is to reject it outright. Cities do not have to accept federal grants, vendor trials, or philanthropic donations. Saying no to "free" tech is not just a policy choice; it is a political power that local governments possess and can exercise. Communities and their elected officials can and should refuse surveillance systems that arrive through federal grants, vendor pilots, or private donations, regardless of how attractive the initial price tag appears. 

For those cities that have already accepted surveillance technology, the imperative is equally clear: shut it down. When a community has rejected use of a spying tool, the capabilities, equipment, and data collected from that tool should be shut off immediately. Full stop.

And for any surveillance technology that remains in operation, even temporarily, there must be clear rules: when and how equipment is used, how that data is retained and shared, who owns data and how companies can access and use it, transparency requirements, and consequences for any misuse and abuse. 

“Free” surveillance technology is never free. Someone profits or gains power from it. Police technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy donors do not offer these systems out of generosity; they offer them because surveillance serves their interests, not ours. That is the real cost of “free” surveillance.

I just noticed that the ebook version of Rewriring Democracy is on sale for $5 on Amazon, Apple Books, Barnes & Noble, Books A Million, Google Play, Kobo, and presumably everywhere else in the US. I have no idea how long this will last.