In an increasingly crowded, for-profit landscape for scholarly research, the health of a publishing program is often measured by the influence of its publications. This year, three MIT Press journals demonstrated their stature by earning the highest impact factors in their disciplines.

Computational Linguistics ranked first in the Linguistics category, International Security led the International Relations category, and The Review of Economics and Statistics topped the Social Sciences, Mathematical Models category in Clarivate’s 2026 journal impact factor rankings.

For the MIT Press, this achievement highlights the distinctive strength of its journals program. Although relatively small compared to other commercial and university press publishers, MIT Press journals consistently publish widely cited scholarship across a broad range of disciplines, from social science and the humanities to neuroscience and artificial intelligence. 

Clarivate’s impact factors capture the previous year’s scholarly citation activity, but the influence of MIT Press journals often extends well beyond academia. In recent months, International Security articles have been cited by Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Conversation, CBC, and Brookings. The journal has also published research with significant real-world policy relevance, including a widely discussed article by MIT political scientist Caitlin Talmadge that anticipated how a limited strike on Iran could escalate into attempts to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a broader military and economic crisis. 

“I am proud and humbled that International Security has had the number one impact factor in International Relations for two years running,” says Jacqueline Hazelton, editor of International Security. “Thanks are due to our generous reviewers, our brilliant authors, our talented editors who handle the often-thankless work of copy editing and production, and, of course, our readers. We plan to continue leading the field in IR/security studies with rigorous scholarship that challenges the conventional wisdom, identifies new threats and opportunities, engages with policy and theory, and illuminates history.”

The MIT Press journals team is small, with under 10 people working across production, sales, and marketing; but that small team collaborates with the editorial staff of 50 disparate journals to publish around 2,500 articles annually. “Some of the joy I take in editing International Security stems from working with the people at MIT Press,” Hazelton adds. “They are helpful and patient. They know what to do, and they do it.”

“The journals division at MIT Press has undergone significant change over the past decade — from business model upheaval and rapid technological advances to the ongoing challenge of competing with commercial publishers many times our size,” says Nick Lindsay, director of journals and institutional partnerships at the MIT Press. “Through it all, the journals group has adapted and evolved to meet those challenges and remains a home for experimentation and fair and equitable publishing.”

The MIT Press’ reputation for influential publishing has attracted many prestigious partners to its journals program, including Harvard University, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the University of California at Berkeley. Amid this growth and development, the program continues to launch and support new journals in emerging and interdisciplinary fields while upholding the high editorial and publishing standards that have made it what it is today.

“Computational Linguistics has long stood for depth and rigor, and in a field that moves remarkably fast, our aspiration is for it to remain a home for work that lasts — scholarship the community can keep building on for years to come,” says Wei Lu, editor of Computational Linguistics. “We are very proud of this result, which reflects both the strength of the work our authors publish and the care our reviewers and editors bring to the journal. We are grateful to MIT Press for being such a steadfast partner.”

This strong performance extended well beyond the press’ three top-ranked publications. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics was ranked 2nd in the Linguistics Category out of 312 journals; Global Environmental Politics was 2nd in the International Relations category out of 173 journals; and The Review of Economics and Statistics was 17th in the Economics category among 626 journals. Other highlights include Harvard Data Science Review ranking 7th in Statistics and Probability; European Societies ranking No. 13 in Sociology; and Neurobiology of Language ranking No. 13 in Psychology, Experimental.

Overall, 13 MIT Press journals earned impact factors that place them in the top quartile of their area of publishing, including: 

• Computational Linguistics 
• European Societies
• Evolutionary Computation 
• Global Environmental Politics
• Harvard Data Science Review
• International Security
• Journal of Cold War Studies
• The Journal of Interdisciplinary History
• Linguistic Inquiry
• Neurobiology of Language
• Quantitative Science Studies
• The Review of Economics and Statistics
• Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Together, these rankings point to the strong reputation that the MIT Press has built for its journals portfolio, a relatively small program that shapes conversations across the humanities, social sciences, and STEM fields.

This year the state of New York had the dubious honor of being the first to pass a controversial provision to mandate all 3D printers come with surveillance and censorship. That means not only is there a ticking clock to protect every artist, researcher, engineer, and hobbyist in the state, but there is a real risk of other states thoughtlessly following suit—prior to the New York rules even taking effect.

We, along with many other experts, already warned about this bill buried in the state’s crowded budget process. Hundreds of our supporters and 3D printing enthusiasts in New York reached out to their representatives hoping to kill this farcical bill. While there were some welcome amendments in response to the outcry, Albany passed it anyway.

It might be well-intentioned, but bills like these sell a fantasy that can only have an untold negative impact on the privacy, free expression, and consumer rights of anyone using these general purpose devices. Behind the banner of reducing gun violence, which is nearly always committed with commercial firearms, New York lawmakers have passed draconian legislation that will let manufacturers lock in users and collect their data.

Now that the bill has passed and been signed by Governor Hochul, let’s look at two important ways the final legislation changed since we last wrote about it, and why states like California shouldn’t make the same mistake.

Reduced Risk for Lawful File Sharing 

The New York bill includes language that criminalizes access to firearm print files, a proposal correctly dropped by states like Colorado due to First Amendment concerns. While this made it through to the passed legislation, a few wins were still gained.

Originally the legislation threatened felony charges for the storing and sharing of files, potentially impacting researchers, artists, and journalists with no intention of printing a firearm component. These charges were downgraded to a Class A misdemeanor.

Two provisions criminalized file sharing. The first of the two provisions criminalizing this file sharing, which pertains to the sale or distribution of files in the state, gained an important exception for when a sender has a reasonable belief that the recipient won’t illegally print these components. However the second provision, pertaining to criminalizing file possession, complicates this. Under 2.12 of the subpart, people who possess the file with intent to share the files do not clearly get this same reasonable belief exception.

In other words, if you share one of these files the actual sharing is covered by the exception, but the law makes it ambiguous whether possessing those same files is covered when you intend to share them.

While this exception could have created some breathing room for researchers and journalists operating in good faith, this slapdash bill language leaves plenty of ambiguity and potential speech-chilling effects. However, these changes do offer a modicum of harm reduction in this unconstitutional law.

Saving Face by Preserving Online Sale

Originally the bill had a strange requirement for all 3D printers and Computer Numerical Control, or CNC, machines to be sold and delivered face-to-face, with no exception. That would have meant a major barrier to access, particularly for people in agricultural and rural areas of the state who uniquely benefit from in-home fabrication and repair. It also would have meant a major inconvenience for businesses using these devices. For everyone though, it meant fewer retailers to choose from and facing more stigma for using these devices. 

Fortunately this was dropped from the bill entirely. 

Next Step: We Find Out What Was Actually Passed

In addition to being buried in the complicated legislative process of the NY budget and avoiding proper scrutiny, this bill also kicked the can down the road in determining what exactly is being mandated. In many respects, legislators passed a vibe. We’ll see how the actual law be developed over the next year by a working group with no mandated transparency to the public. Further, they have no obligation to ensure consumer safeguards in developing this state-mandated censorware.

We are still concerned by the possibility of a biased working group acting in the interest of manufacturers or facing pressure to accept consumer harms in the standards they produce. Our remaining hope is this working group convened by the Department of State and the state university system is composed of actual experts who are aware of how unfeasible and harmful this mandate is, and prevent it from being realized.

The Fight Continues

New York is the first to go down this path of state-mandated censorship and surveillance software on 3D printers, but it’s far from the only one to entertain it. It is now more urgent that we fiercely oppose this trend in other states, like California,  as they attempt to join the bandwagon—before even seeing the real-world impacts. 

Take action

Don’t Let California Repeat NY’s Mistake

We cannot allow this to be the foundation for future restrictions on speech and design, or serve as a playbook for the state and corporations to wrest control over our tools.

The wiring and rewiring of the brain never ends. Neural pathways are constantly being reshaped as we interact with the world and learn new things. At MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and York University in Toronto, Ontario, scientists are combining detailed analysis of brain activity with computational modeling to better understand that change.

McGovern Institute postdoc Lynn Sörensen, McGovern investigator and MIT Professor James DiCarlo, and York University Assistant Professor Kohitij Kar, worked together to compare what happened when animals and an artificial neural network with brain-like architecture were trained to visually identify the same objects. As the model’s performance improved, it reorganized itself in ways that closely paralleled changes the team detected in the animal brains.

Their open-access work, reported July 8 in the journal Nature Communications, shows how changes in visual processing support animals’ ability to learn to discriminate new kinds of objects. By modeling these changes, the researchers hope to better predict how training reshapes perception, which could one day inform educational strategies for a wide range of learners.

Subtle changes

Learning about a new object calls on many parts of the brain. Visual-processing areas work together to make sense of information taken in through the eyes, then communicate with other brain areas to give the visual information meaning and guide behavior. Multiple parts of this system likely change during learning, and the research team wanted a clearer understanding of how that change is distributed.

Neuroscientists have debated how much change occurs in the brain’s visual-processing areas when an animal learns to recognize new objects. Some suspected that visual-processing pathways remain largely unchanged during learning to avoid broadly disrupting visual perception, but others have reported changes in activity within dedicated visual-processing areas with this kind of learning in humans and other primates.  

To take a closer look, the team focused on neural activity in a key component of the brain’s visual object-processing network, the inferior temporal (IT) cortex. By the time visual information reaches the IT cortex, key object features are clearly represented — so much so that it’s possible to “decode” what object the subject is seeing and even predict what errors it’s likely to make in identifying it, simply by analyzing patterns of neural activity there.

The team recorded neural activity in the IT cortex from animals as they looked at and identified images of objects. Some of the animals were untrained, so the images they saw had little meaning to them. Others had already learned to identify similar objects, so they could usually discriminate between elephants, chairs, and other select objects, even when those objects were presented at different sizes, from different angles, or against different backgrounds than the ones they had seen before.

The broad pattern of activity in the IT cortex was largely similar in trained and untrained animals, suggesting that learning had not dramatically rewritten this high-level visual representation. Still, the group found subtle but reliable differences in the way neurons in the IT cortex responded to images in animals that had learned to recognize the kinds of objects they were shown, compared to the untrained animals.

Modeling learning

The group turned to computational models to investigate how those modest changes might contribute to learning. Sörensen trained a suite of artificial neural networks whose internal components had been mapped to the IT cortex to identify the same categories of objects the animals had seen. The models were designed to learn using gradient descent, meaning they continually improved their accuracy by adjusting their parameters in response to errors.

Only some of the animal models showed learning behavior that matched that of the subjects. In those that did, the IT-like stage changed in ways that resembled the learning-related changes the researchers had observed in the IT cortex of trained animals.

While gradient descent is commonly used to train artificial intelligence, it is generally considered biologically implausible as a direct model of how the brain learns. The researchers say the strong match in learning effects between the animals and their model demonstrates that these kinds of artificial neural networks can offer insights into biological learning at a useful level of abstraction, even if the brain does not learn in the same way.

“This shows that you can actually build in silico versions of future experiments,” Sörensen says. “I think that gives us this playground of asking ‘what if’ questions — and potentially predicting new things that go beyond the experimenter’s intuition.”

Most of the changes that allowed for learning in the model occurred outside of the IT cortex. “This tells us that there is a lot between the area we recorded from and the final behavioral readout that needs to change during this process,” Kar says. He adds that the team’s model will be useful as researchers look more deeply into how downstream brain areas contribute to learning.

The researchers stress that their study allowed more granular measurements of brain activity than would be possible in humans, and because the animal brains are organized similarly to our own, their experiments have direct relevance to human learning. They say understanding the impact of plasticity in the subjects’ IT cortex could help researchers design new learning strategies for humans.

“Our prior conceptual working model of you learning new objects was that your brain makes changes to synaptic connections that are largely downstream of your visual system, so you don’t destroy your visual system,” says DiCarlo, who is also the Peter de Florez Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and director of the MIT Siegel Family Quest for Intelligence. “You wouldn’t want your whole visual system to become an elephant detector [just because you’ve learned to identify an elephant]. But this study went beyond that to say actually, when you learn ‘elephant,’ your IT does change a little bit to make it a little more relevant to elephants.”

That likely has consequences for recognizing other visual features, too. Subtle changes in the IT cortex that support elephant recognition might also make you better at identifying things other than elephants, DiCarlo says. Likewise, the same changes might make it a little harder to identify something else.

These kinds of consequences may be difficult to predict intuitively, but become obvious with computational modeling. For instance, the team’s models revealed that after learning to recognize new objects, the IT cortex contained more information about objects’ locations. By providing insights like these, models could aid the design of more effective training strategies for visual tasks, including for people with altered sensory processing, who may learn from visual information in atypical ways.

Artificial intelligence has rapidly transformed software engineering. Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) can create huge volumes of code and documentation; machine-learning algorithms can monitor performance and detect security vulnerabilities. But when the task is to conceive, design, and make a complex physical system such as a jet engine, are those AI tools equally transformative?

This past semester, the JARVIS Challenge (Jet-engine AI Research and Validation Intensive Sprint) set out to explore whether AI can compress the design-build-test cycle, asking MIT undergraduates to discover whether AI can help them to build faster and better. 

“The JARVIS challenge showed that AI can substantially accelerate safety-critical hardware engineering, but engineering judgment remains the decisive differentiator. An AI-native engineer is not defined by using AI, but by leading it — knowing when to trust it, when to challenge it, and how to translate AI outputs into working hardware. Manufacturing — not engineering design or analysis — remained the fundamental rate-limiting step,” says Professor Zolti Spakovszky, director of the MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory.

The teams, the tools, the task

The challenge gave undergraduates four weeks to design, fabricate, assemble, and test a small gas turbine aero engine, using AI as their primary engineering partner. The objective: build a “JARVIS-class” single-spool jet engine producing 50–100 pounds of thrust, running on Jet-A, and completing five 60-second runs. Teams had total freedom over design, materials, and fabrication. 

Representing nearly every department in the School of Engineering, 31 students organized into seven teams, ranging from all first-years to senior-heavy groups. Many of the competitors initially had little experience in turbomachinery, compressible flows, or, in the case of the younger students, even thermodynamics. Many had never seen the inside of a gas turbine before signing up to build one.  

At their disposal: MIT’s machine shops and manufacturing vendors; commercial software including Concepts NREC, SolidWorks, and ABAQUS; and various test rigs for characterizing and assembling individual components.

The teams also had access to MIT Parley, a newly launched platform that aggregates frontier large language models through a single interface. Through Parley, JARVIS leads could see directly how the students were using the AI tools, including their prompts, the cost per prompt, the specific LLMs being used, and other critical information. The JARVIS leads secured early access to Parley for all participants, and with financial support from MIT Lincoln Laboratory, the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and corporate sponsors Safran, Voyager Technologies, and Beehive Industries, students had access to essentially unlimited use of AI.

The sponsors were drawn by recruiting interest and genuine curiosity about how AI might reshape engineering workflows. 

“We see this as the future of engineering,” Ryan (Hal) Hefron of Voyager Technologies told the students. “You’re honing skills that are not just nice to have — they’re going to be the future baseline in the engineering workforce.”

Vincent Garnier, managing director of Safran Tech, watched the competition unfold with excitement. “JARVIS was a genuine experiment, a learning endeavor. We frankly didn’t know what to expect, from the students or from the AI models. What struck me coming from the students was: first, the enthusiasm to explore; then, as the project developed, they all came to the cool-headed realization of what AI could or could not help them with, and then almost instantly adapted for that,” he says. “It makes me confident that this generation of leading engineers will probably not fall prey to easy and shortsighted use of AI, and will do so by keeping ever more in contact with experiments — physical or thought experiments.”

The faculty leadership — professors Zachary Cordero, Zolti Spakovszky, Masha Folk, and Andreea Bobu of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, along with Lincoln Laboratory engineers and a team of teaching assistants — were there to ensure safety. In weekly progress reviews, they would critically evaluate the student progress and assess how the students were using AI.

Spakovszky developed a careful technique for guiding teams in the right direction without giving away answers or providing help. After a team’s presentation, he might ask: “Do you know what a rabbet fit is? Take in the comment.”

Where AI helps and hurts

By the end of week 1, one team withdrew from the competition; the others had, with varying degrees of success, developed an initial design for their gas turbines. Different teams used AI to summarize textbooks, teach them to use design software, source vendors, create Excel sheets, answer specific questions, find references, and create comparative analysis between design decisions. One team created an agent in Parley and tasked it with serving as their project manager. 

By week 2, teams had to start working on detailed CAD designs, ordering parts, and prototyping their combustors. This is where the teams started to hit limitations in their use of AI. While Claude and ChatGPT were good at offering design alternatives and filling knowledge gaps, teams found that the hallucinations, sycophancy, and lack of physical understanding that have become notorious features of generative AI were undermining their confidence and slowing them down. 

“AI is a helpful tool, great at finding information, helping organize things, and can write well, but it can’t do design,” says Elizabeth Tupaj, a member of team 811 Crew. “The moment the engineer doesn’t know what is going on and the AI is in charge is the moment the design becomes unreliable, at least with AI at its present capabilities.”

Teaching assistant John Zhang notes, “seeing this firsthand with the students reminded me how much first impressions matter. If the students couldn’t get answers from the AI early on, they quickly grew frustrated and formed a lasting opinion that precluded them from using it later.” 

In the final weeks, the finalists hit another obstacle no AI could solve: working with vendors. “AI searches found vendors we had no rapport with, who had no interest in our tight timeline,” students reported. “The vendors who came through were the ones our team had personal relationships with.”

Of the three finalists, only Fast and Fractured achieved first-attempt ignition of their mini-combustor. The team had used AI heavily for trade studies and architecture comparisons, arriving at a viable design despite none of them having prior gas turbine experience.

“The JARVIS Challenge showed what’s possible when you combine AI-enabled design with motivated students and a culture of rapid experimentation,” says Masha Folk, the Charles Stark Draper Career Development Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics. “The moment that stood out most was when the first student-designed combustor was installed on the test stand. It ignited flawlessly, ramped to full power, transitioned to dual-fuel operation, and then sustained stable combustion on 100 percent Jet-A fuel. This was proof that we can dramatically accelerate the cycle of design, build, and test while giving students hands-on experience with a real engineering challenge.”

At the vanguard of AI-native engineering

By the end of May, the two more senior teams – Fast and Fractured and 811 Crew – had completed full engine tests. Fast and Fractured, with their AI-assisted design, were delayed by vendor headaches week after week, but finally made it to test. Unfortunately, their hot fire was cut short when the rotor rubbed and seized against the stationary housing. Team 811 Crew, however, who had more exposure to turbomachinery and propulsion concepts going into the competition, emerged victorious. Their engine started, successfully transitioned to Jet-A, and generated net thrust. 

“As we stood there with the air-starter, hearing their engines spool up and watching them spit fire, it felt like my heart was racing out of my chest. There were so many ways it could go wrong! What these students accomplished in such a short time span is nothing short of amazing,” says PhD student Joe Chiapperi. 

The 811 team had been resistant to using AI throughout the competition, trusting instead to their fundamentals and teamwork. “We had people who were at least somewhat familiar with the design software, mechanical engineers who knew how to build anything, and aerospace engineers who had taken classes on the design of gas turbine engines specifically,” says Tupaj. 

From the start of the JARVIS Challenge, younger students used Parley more frequently and cleverly, while the juniors and seniors leveraged deeper experience. 

“JARVIS taught me that getting value from AI takes two things: enough expertise to judge what it tells you and catch it when it’s wrong, and enough curiosity to actually lean on it where it could help,” says Professor Andreea Bobu. “The team that moved fastest in the sprint was experienced and leaned heavily on AI to get there. The team that eventually won was more resistant to AI; they had the expertise, but that skepticism made them slower. The sweet spot seems to be knowing enough to stay in charge of the tool, and being eager enough to pick it up in the first place. To me, that’s the real opportunity ahead: training the next generation of engineers who have the judgment to direct these AI tools and the instinct to reach for them.”

The competition’s clearest finding: engineering experience is a multiplier, and the human factor remains a vital element. Mastering the first principles and fundamental concepts breeds good engineering judgment and the ability to navigate strings of tough decisions in the face of incomplete information. And when it comes to building safety-critical physical systems, nothing can replace human hands and human accountability. 

“JARVIS has shown that AI copilots can have a multiplicative effect on engineering productivity, with judgment and first-principles thinking serving as the key differentiators among teams,” adds teaching assistant Kyle Woody. 

But the implications of AI in aerospace are significant. If small teams using well-managed AI copilots can compress design-build-test cycles from years to weeks, the consequences for workforce structure, R&D timelines, and competitive dynamics could be substantial. The students who tackled the JARVIS Challenge are among the first engineers to grapple with those stakes not as a thought experiment, but in a machine shop, with a jet engine on the test stand.

“JARVIS highlighted the power of AI in the design of physical systems,” says Cordero, associate director of the MIT Gas Turbine Laboratory. “But it also showed that the key to unlocking that power is education, through coursework, internships, and hands-on extracurriculars like MIT Motorsports and Rocket Team. Performance in JARVIS correlated strongly with year in school. My main takeaway is that in the AI era, education is more valuable than ever.”

This is a current list of where and when I am scheduled to speak:

• I’m speaking (virtually) at the Policy-Relevant Privacy Research Workshop in Calgary, Canada, on Monday, July 20, 2026.
• I’m speaking at Boston Leadership Exchange in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, on Wednesday, July 22, 2026.
• I’m speaking at Cognitive Security Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. The conference runs August 6-7, 2026; my speaking time is TBD.
• I’m speaking at DEF CON 34 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. The conventions runs August 6-9, 2026; my speaking time is TBD...

FIFA’s network was vulnerable to anyone with even minimal access.

Roger Worthington, one of the lawyers at the center of a huge climate lawsuit against the oil and gas industry, faces congressional scrutiny.

The groups accuse the Supreme Court justice of endorsing climate science by writing the foreword to a judicial reference manual.

The new budget adds reporting requirements for the power-hungry facilities. But more aggressive requirements were left out.

POLITICO calculations show thousands of excess deaths across six worst-hit countries.

Extreme heat forces the country to shut down nuclear reactors, just as the appetite for cheap, carbon-free electricity is set to explode.

Meanwhile in Spain, 10 people were still unaccounted for Monday from a fire that ripped through a remote southern community last week.

Restored ecosystems in drylands can become increasingly self-sustaining over time, but they still require careful management and long-term monitoring.

President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella has pledged to revive Colombia’s oil sector and voiced support for fracking.

Tissue engineers are finding ways to grow living organs and tissues from cells, with the aim of replacing diseased and damaged counterparts in the body. Scientists have successfully grown artificial muscles, livers, kidneys, skin, and other tissues. But there’s been no reliable way to engineer precisely patterned networks of blood vessels, some of which can be finer than a human hair. 

Without a vascular network to deliver nutrients, any artificial tissues, no matter how life-like, can’t function. 

Now MIT engineers have found they can engineer and control the growth of blood vessels by mechanically stretching them. 

The team has built a human “blood vessel on a chip,” composed of a central artery made from human endothelial cells, that is embedded in a gel that also contains a small magnet. The researchers studied how the main artery responded as they jostled the gel back and forth using an external magnet to move the magnet embedded within the gel.

They found that the simple mechanical action of repeatedly jostling the artery stimulated the artery to sprout other, smaller capillaries. By changing the direction in which the artery is jostled or stretched, the researchers could redirect the growing new vessels. And stretching the artery by various degrees influenced how many more new vessels sprouted. 

Their results, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offer scientists a new way to engineer artificial blood vessels and program the patterns in which they grow. 

“Healthy tissues depend on organized blood vessel networks, but state-of-the-art protocols don't enable fabricating such networks within engineered tissues,” says Ritu Raman, associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and the study’s co-lead author. “The ability to program blood vessel growth with physical cues may enable reproducible and scalable fabrication of engineered tissues that can be implanted in the body to restore function after debilitating disease or injury.”

The study’s MIT co-authors include Sina Kheiri, Jessica Shah, Shashaank Venkatesh, and Roger Kamm, along with Peiyuan Chai and Ryan Flynn at Harvard University. 

“Moving is good”

Blood vessels are tricky to grow and control using conventional fabrication techniques. While 3D printers can produce vessels at the scale of major arteries and veins, the technology is not precise enough to print intricate networks of much finer, thread-like capillaries. Scientists have had some success with growing blood vessels from individual cells, by cultivating them in Petri dishes filled with nutrients and growth factors. But controlling how and where they grow remains a challenge. 

“You can try to pattern chemical cues, like growth factors, to direct where vessels grow, but you can’t do this very precisely,” Raman says. “We thus need other types of patternable cues that can help us build tissues with organized vessels.”

She and her students wondered whether they could grow and control new blood vessels using a protocol they previously developed to grow artificial muscles and nerves. In their previous works, the team engineered a small chip filled with a gel that they infused with nutrients and growth factors. They embedded a small magnet within the gel, and then carpeted the surface of the gel with live muscle or neuron cells. They then manipulated an external magnet to pull the embedded magnet, and the cell-covered gel, back and forth. This work revealed that mechanical “exercise,” pulling the cells back and forth, directly influenced how the cells grew. 

In their new work, the team used a similar setup to see if they could grow and control new blood vessels. 

The researchers built a “blood-vessel-on-a-chip,” smaller than a postage stamp, and filled it with a similar nutrient-rich gel containing a small magnet. They poked a thin tube lengthwise through the gel to create a hollow channel, and coated the channel with live endothelial cells, which naturally grow and fuse to form blood vessels in the body. Once the cells took on the channel’s shape, they started sprouting new, capillary-like vessels in the gel. 

Placing the device under a motorized stage fitted with small, suspended magnets, the researchers moved the magnets back and forth in different directions, and by various degrees, and observed whether and how blood vessels sprouted from the central artery in response. 

“The main takeaway is: Stretching the blood vessel back and forth seems to enhance the number of new capillaries that grow,” Raman says. 

If the main artery were simply left alone in the gel, it would grow some new vessels in random locations along its length. But when the artery was jostled, significantly more vessels sprouted. When the team used the magnets to stretch the gel back and forth, by 5 percent of the gel’s total width, many new vessels grew out from the main artery. When they stretched by 15 percent, fewer vessels sprouted, but those that did grew longer. And when the team changed the direction of stretching, the new vessels followed in response, taking turns and following the pattern of the team’s mechanical stimulation.

“We’re finding that moving is good, which is always the takeaway of everything we do in our lab,” Raman says. “Mechanical forces play an important role in our bodies. That means that if you want to grow more or less vessels, or shorter or longer vessels, or vessels in certain directions, we now know how to do that.”

A gatekeeping gene

The researchers went a step further to investigate why blood vessels grow in response to mechanical forces. To do so, they looked to gene editing, and the role of one particular gene: Piezo1. 

Raman had recently attended a talk by molecular biologist Ardem Patapoutian. In 2021, Patapoutian received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of ion channels in cell membranes that open and close in response to mechanical pressure. These channels, named PIEZO1 and PIEZO2, act as a cell’s gatekeepers, controlling what goes in and what comes out of a cell. Both types of channels, Patapoutian found, are regulated by their respective genes, also named PIEZO1 and PIEZO2. 

After his talk, Raman showed Patapoutian her group’s experimental results, which showed a connection between blood vessel growth and mechanical stimulation. Patapoutian in turn proposed that the explanation could be the PIEZO1 channel; by mechanically exercising the central artery, Raman may have been stimulating ion channels in the artery’s cells to open, triggering new blood vessels to grow. 

To test this hypothesis, Raman looked to knock down the PIEZO1 gene. If this gene were less active, and fewer blood vessels grew as a result, then it would mean that blood vessels do indeed grow in response to mechanical stimulation, and specifically, through the activation of PIEZO1 ion channels. 

The team repeated their experiments, this time with endothelial cells that were genetically edited to suppress the PIEZO1 gene. Sure enough, they observed that significantly fewer new blood vessels sprouted, even as they mechanically exercised the central artery.

Now that the team has found a way to grow and control blood vessel growth, they plan to apply the protocol to grow organized networks of vessels to supply artificial organs and tissues. “We are now investigating how precisely patterning blood vessel growth can help improve muscle function,” says co-author Jessica Shah.

This work was supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of War Army Research Office Early Career Program and PECASE Grant, and a Department of War DURIP Program Grant.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 14 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02699-6

The timescale on which river runoff reacts to glacier melt changes differs strongly between individual basins. Here we discuss how an article published in 2018 linked the buffering role of glaciers to future seasonal runoff losses, and how later work has extended this insight towards drought, water resources and the consequences for downstream societies.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 14 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02695-w

Enhancing local adaptive capacity to reduce extreme weather-related health harms is essential in a warming world; understanding and sharing strategies that work helps to scale-up impact. Now a study focusing on China highlights the role of institutions, infrastructure and cities.

Professor Arthur Bahr has been named head of the MIT Literature Section, effective July 1. 

“Arthur is an exceptional scholar and a proven leader. I am confident that he will guide the unit with judgment, insight, and a deep commitment to its continued success,” says Agustín Rayo, the Kenan Sahin Dean of the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. “I very much look forward to having him join the school’s leadership team.”

Bahr’s work blends formalist and materialist approaches to find literary resonance in the physical particularities of medieval manuscripts. He joined the MIT faculty in 2007 and helped lead the Ancient and Medieval Studies program in 2009-18 and 2022-23, working with colleagues from across the Institute to strengthen and expand the program. He has also been curriculum chair and undergraduate officer of the Literature Section.

“Lit@MIT has some of the world’s most innovative literary scholars and some of the Institute’s most dedicated teachers,” Bahr says. “It has also been my home for nearly 20 years, and I feel both humbled and energized by the opportunity to help shape its future. 

“Literature creates opportunities to slow down and reflect on what really matters, and in a fast-paced, increasingly automated world, those skills are more vital than ever,” he continues.

Bahr succeeds Associate Professor Sandy Alexandre, who served as head of the unit since July 2025.

Bahr is the author of “Chasing the Pearl-Manuscript: Speculation, Shapes, Delight” (University of Chicago Press, 2025); “Fragments and Assemblages: Forming Compilations of Medieval London” (University of Chicago Press, 2013); and co-editor of “Medieval English Manuscripts: Form, Aesthetics, and the Literary Text,” a special volume of The Chaucer Review (47.4, April 2013). His essays have appeared in ELH, Studies in the Age of Chaucer, Studies in Philology, and The Chaucer Review, among others. 

Bahr has been named a SHASS Faculty Fellow for the spring 2027 semester. His next project combines his interest in manuscripts with his training as a figure skating judge to explore analogies between sheets of parchment and sheets of ice, as sites of performance, inscription, and erasure.  

Bahr was named a MacVicar Faculty Fellow in 2015. He received the James A. (’48) and Ruth Levitan Award for Excellence in Teaching in 2012.

Bahr has served MIT as chair of the Committee on the Undergraduate Program from 2019 to 2021, and served on the pandemic-era Academic Policies and Regulations Team. He was also a subcommittee chair of the Education Group of Task Force 2021 and Beyond, and member of the subsequent Refinement and Implementation Committee on the Undergraduate Program. 

Bahr earned his undergraduate degree from Amherst College and his PhD in English Language and Literature from the University of California at Berkeley.

In May 2019, the government of Baltimore, Maryland, fell into chaos. Cybercriminals had locked the city out of many of its critical files and demanded payment to decrypt them. The city refused to pay ransom. The attack incapacitated a swath of services, including real estate transactions and bill payment, and recovery costs soared into the millions.

The syllabus of class 11.074/11.274 (Cybersecurity Clinic), a course in the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), includes a case study on Baltimore’s situation as an example of increasingly common ransomware attacks on municipal governments and other public agencies. To counter such threats, Lecturer Jungwoo Chun and Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning Lawrence Susskind launched the MIT Cybersecurity Clinic in 2019. They have offered the course nearly every semester since.

Much like a legal or medical clinic, the course doubles as hands-on training for students and a pro-bono service to at-risk communities. After completing instructional modules and passing a certification exam, students are assigned in teams to a client. By the end of the semester, each team creates a report assessing the client’s vulnerabilities to cyberattack and recommending steps to improve protection. So far, the clinic has provided more than 40 assessments, confidential and free of charge, primarily for New England municipalities and health-care organizations.

In 2025, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center documented an average of 2,765 cyberattacks targeting Americans every day. When these attacks strike cities and towns, the fallout goes beyond finances, says Chun: “There’s a terrifying, cascading effect on every dimension of our lives.” 

In recent years, cyberattacks targeting the kinds of client communities served by MIT’s clinic have imperiled water supplies, impeded 911 and police services, and exposed citizens’ personal data.

Despite being gateways to essential infrastructure, many small municipalities and hospitals lack in-house staff trained in cybersecurity. Demand for such experts far exceeds supply in today’s labor market, and public sector budgets rarely can match the high salaries private companies offer qualified candidates.

According to Comparitech, from 2018 to 2024, there have been 525 ransomware attacks on U.S. government entities, approximately one every five days, leading to an estimated $1.09 billion in downtime costs.  

“Underfunded public and not-for-profit bodies need to follow a self-help pathway,” Susskind says. “There are many low-cost moves that these organizations can implement with a little coaching from a free-service clinic.”

Defensive social engineering

Some might be surprised to find a university cybersecurity program housed outside the computer science department. Chun is an applied social scientist with expertise in public policy and planning, and Susskind is a leading scholar of conflict resolution and consensus building. They call the approach they’ve developed for the clinic “defensive social engineering” to emphasize that cybersecurity isn’t solely a technical challenge.

Chun acknowledges that the rapid development of artificial intelligence has created alarming new tools for criminals — “now AI can not only identify the vulnerability, but do the attack itself, which is really scary” — and an ever-evolving menu of software claims to guard against these attacks. Accordingly, the course spends considerable time on the technical aspects of cybersecurity. “But at the end of the day,” Chun says, “the biggest attack vector is still through humans.”

The term “social engineering” commonly refers to ways cybercrime victims are manipulated into compromising security (for example, by sending money to a scammer, downloading malicious code, or disclosing sensitive information). Susskind and Chun’s concept of defensive social engineering is similarly grounded in human psychology. The approach emphasizes that cybersecurity must be part of everyone’s job, technical or otherwise.

“It’s about people knowing what to do, people making the right choices,” says Chun. “It’s helping them use the resources and budget they have now on things that can be long-lasting, rather than just spending on the latest antivirus software.”

“Students with computer science backgrounds are surprised by the importance we attach to helping clients build organizational capacity,” says Susskind. “Students need to understand the leadership dynamics in their client communities. The IT director can’t just do what she or he wants. They depend on the local government for their budget. They need approval to hire new staff.”

On the other hand, Susskind says, students from planning or social science backgrounds often study smart city innovations without learning much about the technologies needed to manage the associated risks. And there are aspects of AI and advanced system design — along with cyber law and other topics critical to cybersecurity — that engineering students may not learn in their other courses. The Cybersecurity Clinic aims to round out the knowledge of students from every discipline. The course aims to broaden those students’ knowledge, too, by inviting at least half a dozen guest speakers each semester from industry, other universities and MIT academic departments, industry, and/or relevant public agencies.

This past spring, for example, the lineup of lecturers included Dan Ricci, the founder of Industrial Data Works, on the modeling of risk in energy systems within budget-constrained environments; Gus Serino, president of I&C Secure Inc., on operational-technology cybersecurity for industrial control systems; and representatives from the MassCyberCenter and the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency providing overviews of their respective state- and federal-level organizations’ programs and initiatives.

“There are highly specialized things to learn, especially about the ways AI is changing cybersecurity, that we need help teaching,” Susskind says. “The rate at which the field of cybersecurity is changing means that most academics will have a very hard time keeping up.”

A roadmap for improvement

Clinic students spend the first four weeks of the semester preparing for field assignments. A series of online modules, supplemented by class discussion, outline the scope and nature of cyberattacks against critical urban infrastructure; review the 23 risk areas most relevant to their type of clients; and provide guidance for each step of the assessment process. This includes simulations of tricky client interactions. What if clients don’t take students seriously, or fail to provide the necessary information? What if they argue to receive a more positive assessment than the facts warrant?

“I’ve never ever had a class that prepared us for such realistic scenarios before,” says Diego Contreras, a rising senior majoring in computer science and engineering who completed the course this spring.

The modules culminate in an exam students must pass on their first try to receive a field assignment. For the remainder of the semester, they’ll receive continued support via weekly class meetings and get faculty input on their drafted reports, but the onus is on students to coordinate their team’s activities and build client trust.

“You represent MIT, and that is quite the responsibility,” Contreras says. “This course has given me people skills I wouldn’t have developed in any other context.”

“The most delicate aspect of the project was balancing our assessment findings,” says Zev Moore ’26, who took the class last fall as a senior studying mathematical economics and finance. “Our approach was to provide important feedback while simultaneously validating the positive security measures our client already had in place, which ensured our report felt like a collaborative roadmap for improvement.”

Certain key recommendations show up in the majority of reports. For example, clients are advised to inventory all hardware and software tied into their network and track who has access; patch software and back up data regularly; require multi-factor authentication and frequent password updates; train employees not to open attachments from unknown parties; prepare an attack response plan that clarifies lines of authority and includes the organization’s stance on paying ransoms; and only use vendors with good cybersecurity hygiene.

“None of these items is costly,” Susskind says. “Together, they will probably avoid 80 percent or more of the possible cost and danger of cyberattacks.”

Spreading the model

To date, more than 120 students have completed the full course at MIT. The online modules that prepare students for certification are freely available to the public as a massive open online course on MITx called Cybersecurity for Critical Urban Infrastructure, which has attracted tens of thousands of learners. The modules are also used by universities with their own cybersecurity clinics — a growing cohort, thanks in part to a consortium (with 61 member institutions and counting) co-founded by MIT in 2021 with the University of California at Berkeley, Indiana University, and the University of Alabama.

Most student teams wrap up client work after finalizing their recommendations; a few have volunteered to stay on after semester’s end to advise on implementation. In either case, Susskind and Chun check in periodically with clients for at least two years following each engagement.

“We often hear of the vulnerability assessment report serving as the organization's blueprint for their short-term, mid-term, and long-term agenda to be more prepared for future attacks,” says Chun. “We primarily work with IT directors or chief technology officers, and many of them have been telling us post-engagement that they shared the MIT report with the city or town leadership and were able to convince them they needed extra budget or a specific line item. They were using the student report as leverage to say, ‘it’s not just me saying it. We have a credible team who dedicated their time and these are the findings.’

“It's really a humbling experience,” Chun adds, “when some of our past clients reach out to us again after some time to say: ‘Now we have different people, we just purchased new equipment. Can we do this all over again?’”

Robots walking down the street, surrounded by astounded onlookers, is an increasingly common sight. But these machines aren’t yet the do-it-all assistants you’d want working in a kitchen or factory, and a major bottleneck is data. Much like humans, robots learn best by experience. The challenge is that it’s labor-intensive and time-consuming to physically teach these machines so many actions across different settings. 

“One natural idea is to use simulation as a training ground. While there has been significant progress over the last few years in the physics engines that power robotics simulators, one of the remaining challenges has been creating sufficiently rich and diverse simulation content to capture the complexity of the real world,” says Russ Tedrake, the Toyota Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Mechanical Engineering at MIT, and a principal investigator at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

It turns out that AI agents, or semi-autonomous programs that “think” and complete well-defined tasks, could help produce the lifelike virtual settings that robots need. The new “SceneSmith” system developed by researchers at MIT CSAIL and Toyota Research Institute uses three agents to piece together the objects, walls, and overall look of a 3D scene. Its recreations of indoor spaces such as restaurants, bedrooms, and hotels are more realistic and detailed than prior systems, helping robots practice skills and try out different ways of doing tasks before they’re powered on. In turn, engineers save time on real-world testing.

The agents have a sense of how everyday places are supposed to look because they each call on a multi-modal system called a vision-language model (VLM), specifically the state-of-the-art VLM GPT-5.2. It’s trained on lots of text and images from the internet to handle more visual prompts. This advanced model gives each agent a sort of spatial knowledge: First, a “designer” agent generates the elements of a scene, then a “critic” advises whether it looks realistic, and finally, an “orchestrator” manages their back-and-forth, deciding when the design is done. Once the three VLMs wrap up their creative collaboration, the scene is ready to load directly into physics simulation software.

“We’ve found that the system can construct 3D scenes the way a human designer would,” says MIT EECS PhD student Nicholas Pfaff, a CSAIL researcher and a lead author on a paper with Tedrake presenting the work. “We made over 1,300 scenes using a leading VLM that has internet-scale priors, and it made insanely creative and diverse arrangements. I hadn’t taught the system to do that in the prompts; it just improvised.”

Talk to my agent

Thanks to VLM agents, you can ask SceneSmith to do things like “generate a garage with a car, a workbench, tires stacked in the corner, and a ladder against the wall,” and get a virtual playground rich with objects a robot can tinker with. These rooms are decorated with up to six times more items per scene than prior methods, making them great for helping robots learn skills such as putting a cup in the sink, placing fruit on plates, and moving a soda can from a shelf to a table.

With so many rich virtual environments handy, you can evaluate whether your robot is ready for deployment without so much trial and error in the physical world. The researchers tested out different action plans (also called “policies”) in SceneSmith’s digital worlds, generating 100 unique spaces in the process. A VLM agent evaluated each attempt, and it found the robot’s plans were faulty, with the machine often failing at its chores. Humans agreed with the model’s verdicts over 99 percent of the time, which could help roboticists weed out flawed approaches in simulation before a robot moves in the real world.

But how realistic are these virtual worlds, really? It can be difficult to prove outright, so the researchers approached the question from several angles. The most telling test: they dropped a pretrained robot policy — an AI controller trained largely on real-world data, which had never seen a SceneSmith scene — into the generated environments. In one test, users told the system to “take the apple from the bowl and place it onto the cutting board,” and the simulated robot did exactly that. If the scenes didn’t closely resemble the real settings the policy had learned from, it simply wouldn’t have worked. 

The team also teleoperated robots through the virtual spaces, guiding them to open cabinets, put away bottles, and navigate between rooms. Their experiments revealed that the environments hold up under sustained physical interaction, expanding beyond visual inspection.

Behind the scenes

The agents that SceneSmith uses each have a well-defined role in the generative process, fleshing out scenes in stages. They essentially create a floor plan and bring it to life. 

Let’s say you wanted to create a scene similar to the first floor of a house. The “designer” VLM would start with a general layout, which the “critic” reviews, and then the “orchestrator” signs off. The agents repeat this approach for each step: adding furniture, placing objects on walls and then ceilings, and finally, dropping in objects that robots can manipulate. For example, the VLMs can add cabinets that the robots can open and close — an articulated item, which prior baselines didn’t often have.

At each stage, the second VLM ensures the scene is practical, advising that a bathtub is removed from a living room, for example. The third VLM ensures a high-quality scene is generated, even taking the design process a few turns back if the visuals aren’t up to par. Once the three VLMs wrap up their creative collaboration, the mechanics of the physical world are added via simulation software.

With a sound understanding of how rooms should look, where objects should be placed, and real-world physics, SceneSmith has a noticeable edge over prior methods. Compared to scene-generation baselines such as “HSM” and “Holodeck,” SceneSmith made environments with more objects, including a private office, a pottery store, and even a Minecraft-themed gaming room.

SceneSmith was also a favorite among over 200 users. They found the system’s visuals to be more realistic over 90 percent of the time. They also observed that, generally speaking, it followed prompts more closely than other approaches did. In other words, it was the best at generating the virtual playgrounds users actually wanted to see.

A system of many talents

Realism, diversity, and richness are all strong suits for SceneSmith, even when it comes to generating individual 3D objects. You can prompt it to create a rolling serving cart, and it’ll make a 2D image that it then turns into a detailed model with physical properties like mass, friction, and inertia.

Such a detailed process does come with a speed trade-off, though. It can take multiple hours to produce a single scene because the agents are creating and closely scrutinizing each object. With more computing power, the system could see dramatic increases in efficiency. CSAIL engineers are also hoping to expand to deformable objects (like sponges), should extensive 3D libraries become available.

“SceneSmith represents a significant advance in this regard by providing an agentic framework for generating simulation-ready indoor environments just from a simple text prompt,” says Jeremy Binagia, an applied scientist at Amazon Robotics who wasn’t involved in the research. “It advances the state of the art in several ways, including pushing the limits of the density of objects in the simulated environment, ensuring that all of the objects are physically accurate (versus just being visually realistic), and creating assets that are not constrained to a fixed library, since they can be generated via text-to-3D.”

Pfaff and Tedrake wrote the paper with Thomas Cohn SM ’24, an MIT PhD student and CSAIL researcher; and Toyota Research Institute roboticists Sergey Zakharov and Rick Cory SM ’08, PhD ’10. Their work was supported, in part, by Amazon, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, the Toyota Research Institute, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.

The team presented their findings as a spotlight at last week’s International Conference on Machine Learning.