In the past few years, governments across the world have rolled out different digital identification options, and now there are efforts encouraging online companies to implement identity and age verification requirements with digital ID in mind. This blog is the third in a short series that explains digital ID and the pending use case of age verification. Here, we cover alternative frameworks on age controls, updates on parental controls, and the importance of digital privacy in an increasingly hostile climate politically. You can read the first two posts here, and here.

Observable harms of age verification legislation in the UK, US, and elsewhere:

As we witness the effects of the Online Safety Act in the UK and over 25 state age verification laws in the U.S, it has become even more apparent that mandatory age verification is more of a detriment than a benefit to the public. Here’s what we’re seeing:

• Scope creep is already occurring with various website shutdowns and excessive requests from various websites.
• Data is being handed to age assurance providers with questionable privacy policies.
• Older teenagers (voting age is set to be 16 in the UK) are having their ability to communicate online blocked on various platforms.
• Adults aren’t able to use the internet to access content that is lawfully available to them if they do not agree to third-party usage of their information.

It’s obvious: age verification will not keep children safe online. Rather, it is a large proverbial hammer that nails everyone—adults and young people alike—into restrictive parameters of what the government deems appropriate content. That reality is more obvious and tangible now that we’ve seen age-restrictive regulations roll out in various states and countries. But that doesn’t have to be the future if we turn away from age-gating the web.

Keeping kids safe online (or anywhere IRL, let’s not forget) is a complex social issue that cannot be resolved with technology alone.

The legislators responsible for online age verification bills must confront that they are currently addressing complex social issues with a problematic array of technology. Most of policymakers’ concerns about minors' engagement with the internet can be sorted into one of three categories:

• Content risks: The negative implications from exposure to online content that might be age-inappropriate, such as violent or sexually explicit content, or content that incites dangerous behavior like self-harm. 
• Conduct risks: Behavior by children or teenagers that might be harmful to themselves or others, like cyberbullying, sharing intimate or personal information or problematic overuse of a service.
• Contact risks: The potential harms stemming from contact with people that might pose a risk to minors, including grooming or being forced to exchange sexually explicit material.

Parental controls—which already exist!—can help.

These three categories of possible risks will not be eliminated by mandatory age verification—or any form of techno-solutionism, for that matter. Mandatory age checks will instead block access to vital online communities and resources for those people—including young people—who need them the most. It’s an ineffective and disproportionate tool to holistically address young people’s online safety. 

However, these can be partially addressed with better-utilized and better-designed parental controls and family accounts. Existing parental controls are woefully underutilized, according to one survey that collected answers from 1,000 parents. Adoption of parental controls varied widely, from 51% on tablets to 35% on video game consoles. Making parental controls more flexible and accessible, so parents better understand the tools and how to use them, could increase adoption and address content risk more effectively than a broad government censorship mandate.  

Recently, Android made its parental controls easier to set up. It rolled out features that directly address content risk by assisting parents who wish to block specific apps and filter out mature content from Google Chrome and Google Search. Apple also updated its parental controls settings this past summer by instituting new ways for parents to manage child accounts and giving app developers access to a Declared Age Range API. Where parents can declare age range and apps can respond to declared ranges established in child accounts, without giving over a birthdate. With this, parents are given some flexibility like age-range information beyond just 13+. A diverse range of tools and flexible settings provide the best options for families and empower parents and guardians to decide and tailor what online safety means for their own children—at any age, maturity level, or type of individual risk.

Privacy laws can also help minors online.

Parental controls are useful in the hands of responsible guardians. But what about children who are neglected or abused by those in charge of them? Age verification laws cannot solve this problem; these laws simply share possible abuse of power with the state. To address social issues, we need more efforts directed at the family and community structures around young people, and initiatives that can mitigate the risk factors of abuse instead of resorting to government control over speech.

While age verification is not the answer, those seeking legislative solutions can instead focus their attention on privacy laws—which are more than capable of assisting minors online, no matter the state of their at-home care. Comprehensive data privacy, which EFF has long advocated for, is perhaps the most obvious way to keep the data of young people safe online. Data brokers gather a vast amount of data and assemble new profiles of information as a young person uses the internet. These data sets also contribute to surveillance and teach minors that it is normal to be tracked as they use the web. Banning behavioral ads would remove a major incentive for companies to collect as much data as they do and be able to sell it to whomever will buy it from them. For example, many age-checking tools use data brokers to establish “age estimation” on emails used to sign up for an online service, further incentivizing a vicious cycle of data collection and retention. Ultimately, privacy-encroaching companies are rewarded for the years of mishandling our data with lucrative government contracts.

These systems create much more risk online and offline for young people in terms of their privacy over time from online surveillance and in authoritarian political climates. Age verification proponents often acknowledge that there are privacy risks, and dismiss the consequences by claiming the trade off will “protect children.” These systems don’t foster safer online practices for young people; they encourage increasingly invasive ways for governments to define who is and isn’t free to roam online. If we don’t re-establish ways to maintain online anonymity today, our children’s internet could become unrecognizable and unusable for not only them, but many adults as well. 

Actions you can take today to protect young people online:

• Use existing parental controls to decide for yourself what your kid should and shouldn’t see, who they should engage with, etc.
• Discuss the importance of online privacy and safety with your kids and community.
• Provide spaces and resources for young people to flexibly communicate with their schools, guardians, and community.
• Support comprehensive privacy legislation for all.
• Support legislators’ efforts to regulate the out-of-control data broker industry by banning behavioral ads.

Join EFF in opposing mandatory age verification and age gating laws—help us keep your kids safe and protect the future of the internet, privacy, and anonymity.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 26 November 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02494-9

Self-reported emissions data are widely used to evaluate corporations’ climate performance, yet concerns exist regarding their credibility. By examining major US companies, researchers find that more than half of them revise, and mainly understate, their emissions data after first report.

Large language models (LLMs) sometimes learn the wrong lessons, according to an MIT study.

Rather than answering a query based on domain knowledge, an LLM could respond by leveraging grammatical patterns it learned during training. This can cause a model to fail unexpectedly when deployed on new tasks.

The researchers found that models can mistakenly link certain sentence patterns to specific topics, so an LLM might give a convincing answer by recognizing familiar phrasing instead of understanding the question.

Their experiments showed that even the most powerful LLMs can make this mistake.

This shortcoming could reduce the reliability of LLMs that perform tasks like handling customer inquiries, summarizing clinical notes, and generating financial reports.

It could also have safety risks. A nefarious actor could exploit this to trick LLMs into producing harmful content, even when the models have safeguards to prevent such responses.

After identifying this phenomenon and exploring its implications, the researchers developed a benchmarking procedure to evaluate a model’s reliance on these incorrect correlations. The procedure could help developers mitigate the problem before deploying LLMs.

“This is a byproduct of how we train models, but models are now used in practice in safety-critical domains far beyond the tasks that created these syntactic failure modes. If you’re not familiar with model training as an end-user, this is likely to be unexpected,” says Marzyeh Ghassemi, an associate professor in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), a member of the MIT Institute of Medical Engineering Sciences and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, and the senior author of the study.

Ghassemi is joined by co-lead authors Chantal Shaib, a graduate student at Northeastern University and visiting student at MIT; and Vinith Suriyakumar, an MIT graduate student; as well as Levent Sagun, a research scientist at Meta; and Byron Wallace, the Sy and Laurie Sternberg Interdisciplinary Associate Professor and associate dean of research at Northeastern University’s Khoury College of Computer Sciences. A paper describing the work will be presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.

Stuck on syntax

LLMs are trained on a massive amount of text from the internet. During this training process, the model learns to understand the relationships between words and phrases — knowledge it uses later when responding to queries.

In prior work, the researchers found that LLMs pick up patterns in the parts of speech that frequently appear together in training data. They call these part-of-speech patterns “syntactic templates.”

LLMs need this understanding of syntax, along with semantic knowledge, to answer questions in a particular domain.

“In the news domain, for instance, there is a particular style of writing. So, not only is the model learning the semantics, it is also learning the underlying structure of how sentences should be put together to follow a specific style for that domain,” Shaib explains.   

But in this research, they determined that LLMs learn to associate these syntactic templates with specific domains. The model may incorrectly rely solely on this learned association when answering questions, rather than on an understanding of the query and subject matter.

For instance, an LLM might learn that a question like “Where is Paris located?” is structured as adverb/verb/proper noun/verb. If there are many examples of sentence construction in the model’s training data, the LLM may associate that syntactic template with questions about countries.

So, if the model is given a new question with the same grammatical structure but nonsense words, like “Quickly sit Paris clouded?” it might answer “France” even though that answer makes no sense.

“This is an overlooked type of association that the model learns in order to answer questions correctly. We should be paying closer attention to not only the semantics but the syntax of the data we use to train our models,” Shaib says.

Missing the meaning

The researchers tested this phenomenon by designing synthetic experiments in which only one syntactic template appeared in the model’s training data for each domain. They tested the models by substituting words with synonyms, antonyms, or random words, but kept the underlying syntax the same.

In each instance, they found that LLMs often still responded with the correct answer, even when the question was complete nonsense.

When they restructured the same question using a new part-of-speech pattern, the LLMs often failed to give the correct response, even though the underlying meaning of the question remained the same.

They used this approach to test pre-trained LLMs like GPT-4 and Llama, and found that this same learned behavior significantly lowered their performance.

Curious about the broader implications of these findings, the researchers studied whether someone could exploit this phenomenon to elicit harmful responses from an LLM that has been deliberately trained to refuse such requests.

They found that, by phrasing the question using a syntactic template the model associates with a “safe” dataset (one that doesn’t contain harmful information), they could trick the model into overriding its refusal policy and generating harmful content.

“From this work, it is clear to me that we need more robust defenses to address security vulnerabilities in LLMs. In this paper, we identified a new vulnerability that arises due to the way LLMs learn. So, we need to figure out new defenses based on how LLMs learn language, rather than just ad hoc solutions to different vulnerabilities,” Suriyakumar says.

While the researchers didn’t explore mitigation strategies in this work, they developed an automatic benchmarking technique one could use to evaluate an LLM’s reliance on this incorrect syntax-domain correlation. This new test could help developers proactively address this shortcoming in their models, reducing safety risks and improving performance.

In the future, the researchers want to study potential mitigation strategies, which could involve augmenting training data to provide a wider variety of syntactic templates. They are also interested in exploring this phenomenon in reasoning models, special types of LLMs designed to tackle multi-step tasks.

“I think this is a really creative angle to study failure modes of LLMs. This work highlights the importance of linguistic knowledge and analysis in LLM safety research, an aspect that hasn’t been at the center stage but clearly should be,” says Jessy Li, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved with this work.

This work is funded, in part, by a Bridgewater AIA Labs Fellowship, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, a Google Research Award, and Schmidt Sciences.

Interviewer: Jillian York

Laura Vidal is a Venezuelan researcher and writer focused on digital rights, community resilience, and the informal ways people learn and resist under authoritarian pressure. She holds a Doctorate in Education Sciences and intercultural communication, and her work explores how narratives, digital platforms, and transnational communities shape strategies of care, resistance, and belonging, particularly in Latin America and within the Venezuelan diaspora. She has investigated online censorship, disinformation, and digital literacy and is currently observing how regional and diasporic actors build third spaces online to defend civic space across borders. Her writing has appeared in Global Voices, IFEX, EFF, APC and other platforms that amplify underrepresented voices in tech and human rights.

Jillian York: Hi Laura, first tell me who you are. 

Laura Vidal: I am an independent researcher interested in digital security and how people learn about digital security. I'm also a consultant and a person of communications for IFEX and Digital Action. 

JY: Awesome. And what does free speech mean to you? 

LV: It means a responsibility. Free speech is a space that we all hold. It is not about saying what you want when you want, but understanding that it is a right that you have and others have. And that also means keeping the space as safe as possible and as free as possible for everybody to express themselves as much as possible safely. 

JY: We've known each other for nearly 20 years at this point. And like me, you have this varied background. You're a writer, you've shifted toward digital rights, you pursued a PhD. Tell me more about the path that led you to this work and why you do it. 

LV: Okay, so as you know well, we both started getting into these issues with Global Voices. I started at Global Voices as a translator and then as an author, then as an editor, and then as a community organizer. Actually, community organizer before editor, but anyways, because I started caring a lot about the representation of Latin America in general and Venezuela in particular. When I started with Global Voices, I saw that the political crisis and the narratives around the crisis were really prevalent. And it would bother me that there would be a portrait that is so simplistic. And at that time, we were monitoring the blogosphere, and the blogosphere was a reflection of this very interesting place where so many things happened. 

And so from there, I started my studies and I pursued a PhD in education sciences because I was very interested in observing how communities like Global Voices could be this field in which there was potential for intercultural exchange and learning about other cultures. At the end, of course, things were a lot more complicated than that. There are power imbalances and backgrounds that were a lot more complex, and there was this potential, but not in the way I thought it would be. Once my time in Global Voices was up and then I started pursuing research, I was very, very interested in moving from academia to research among communities and digital rights organizations and other non profits. I started doing consultancies with The Engine Room, with Tactical Tech, Internews, Mozilla and with other organizations in different projects. I've been able to work on issues that have to do with freedom of expression, with digital security and how communities are formed around digital security. And my big, big interest is how is it that we can think about security and digital rights as something that is ours, that is not something that belongs only to the super techies or the people that are super experts and that know very well this, because this is a world that can be a bit intimidating for some. It was definitely intimidating for me. So I really wanted to study and to follow up on the ways that this becomes more accessible and it becomes part of, becomes a good element to digital literacy for everyone. 

JY: That really resonates with me. I hadn't heard you articulate it that way before, but I remember when you were starting this path. I think we had that meeting in Berlin. Do you remember? 

LV: Yeah. In like 2017. Many meetings in Berlin, and we were talking about so many things. 

JY: Yeah, and I just, I remember like, because we've seen each other plenty of times over the past few years, but not as much as we used to….It's interesting, right, though, because we've both been in this space for so long. And we've seen it change, we've seen it grow. You know, I don't want to talk about Global Voices too much, but that was our entry point, right?

LV: It was. 

JY: And so that community—what did it mean for you coming from Venezuela? For me, coming from the US, we’ve both come from our home countries and moved to other countries…we have similar but different life paths. I guess I just see myself in you a little bit.

LV: That’s flattering to me. 

JY: I admire you so much. I've known you for 17 years.

LV: It's definitely mutual. 

JY: Thank you. But a lot of that comes from privilege, I recognize that.

LV: But it's good that you do, but it's also good that you use privilege for good things. 

JY: That's the thing: If you have privilege, you have to use it. And that's what I was raised with. My mother works for a non-profit organization. And so the idea of giving back has always been part of me. 

LV: I get it. And I also think that we are all part of a bigger chain. And it's very easy to get distracted by that. I definitely get distracted by those values, like the idea of being validated by a community. Coming from academia, that's definitely the case, that you really need to shine to be able to think that you're doing some work. And then also coming into the maturity of thinking, we're part of a chain. We're doing something bigger. Sometimes we are kind of going all places and we're making mistakes as a whole, but we're all part of a bigger system. And if you're part of the chain, if you have certain privileges and you can push forward the rest of the chain, that's what it is for. 

JY: Tell me about an experience that shaped your views on free expression, like a personal experience. 

LV: I'm thinking of the experience of writing about Venezuela while being abroad. That has been a very complicated, complex experience because I left Venezuela in 2008. 

JY: That's the year we met. 

LV: Exactly. I was in Budapest [for the Global Voices Summit] in 2008. And then I left Venezuela a few months later. So this experience about freedom of expression…when I left, it wasn't yet the time of the big exodus. This exodus translates today into a huge Venezuelan community all around the world that had to leave, not because they wanted to, but because they had basically no choice. It was very complicated to talk about the crisis because immediately you will get hit back. I will never forget that even in that summit that we keep discussing, the Budapest Summit of Global Voices, whenever I would talk about Venezuela, people would shut me down—people that were not Venezuelans. It was the big beginning of what we call the “Venezuelansplaining”. Because it was this political movement that was very much towards the left, that it was very much non-aligned…

JY: You had that in common with Syria. 

LV: Yeah. And so at the same time, they [the Venezuelan government] were so good at selling themselves as this progressive, non-aligned, global majority movement, feminist, you see…to me, it was shocking to see a lot of feminist groups aligning with the government, that it was a government led by a big, strong man, with a lot of discourse and very little policy change behind it. However, it was the ones that for the first time were talking about these issues from the side of the state. So from the outside, it really looked like this big government that was for the people and all the narratives of the 1960s, of the American interventions in the South that were definitely a reality, but in the case of Venezuela in the 2010s and now it is a lot more complex. And so whenever I would talk about the situation in Venezuela, it was very easy to shut me down. At first, I literally had somebody telling me, somebody who's not from Venezuela, telling me “You don't know what you're talking about. I cannot hear what you say about Venezuela because you're a privileged person.”

And I could totally take the idea of privilege, yes, but I did grow up in that country. He didn’t know it, and I did, and he definitely didn’t know anything about me. It was very easy to be shut down and very easy to self-censor because after that experience, plus writing about it or having opinions about it and constantly being told “you're not there, you cannot speak,” I just started not talking about it. And I think my way of responding to that was being able to facilitate conversations about that. 

And so I was very happy to become the editor of the Americas of Global Voices back then, because if I couldn't write about it because of these reasons—which I guess I understand—I will push others to talk about it. And not only about Venezuela, but Latin America, there are so many narratives that are very reductive, really simplistic about the region that I really wanted to really push back against. So that's why I see freedom of expression as this really complex thing, this really, really complicated thing. And I guess that's why I also see it not only as a right too, but also as a responsibility. Because the space that we have today is so messy and polluted with so many things that you can claim freedom of expression just to say anything, and your goal is not to express yourself, but to harm other people, vulnerable people in particular. 

JY: What do you think is the ideal online environment for free expression? What are the boundaries or guardrails that should be put in place? What guides you? 

LV: I'm not even sure that something guides me completely. I guess that I'm guided by the organizations that observe and defend the space, because they're constantly monitoring, they're constantly explaining, they're talking to people, they have an ear on the ground. It is impossible to think of a space that can be structured and have certain codes. We are a really complicated species. We had these platforms that we started seeing as this hope for people to connect, and then they ended up being used to harm. 

I guess that's also why the conversations about regulations are always so complicated, because whenever we push for legislation or for different kinds of regulations, those regulations then take a life of their own and everybody's able to weaponize them or manipulate them. So yes, there are definitely guidelines and regulations, but I think it's a pendular movement. You know, it's recognizing that the space in which people communicate is always going to be chaotic because everybody will want to have their say. But at the same time, it's important to keep observing and having guidelines. I will go with you, having UN guidelines that translate from organizations that observe the space. I hate to answer saying that I have no guidelines, but at the same time, I guess it's also the idea of the acceptance that it's a chaotic space. And for it to be healthy, we need to accept that it's going to be. It cannot be very structured. It cannot function if it's too structured because there will not be free expression. 

JY: I get that. So ultimately then, where do you stand on regulation? 

LV: I think it's necessary; at some point we need rules to go by and we need some rules of the game. But it cannot be blindly, and we cannot think that regulations are going to stay the same over time. Regulations need to be discussed. They need to evolve. They need to be studied. Once they're in place, you observe how they're used and then how they can be adjusted. It's like they need to be as alive as the spaces of expression are. 

JY: Yes. What countries do you think or entities do you think are doing the best job of this right now? I feel that the EU is maybe trying its hardest, but it's not necessarily enough. 

LV: And I think it's also a little bit dangerous to think of whatever the European Union does as an example. There have been so many cases of copy-paste legislation that has nothing to do with the context. When we talk about privacy, for example, the way that Europe, the way that France and Germany understand privacy, it's not the way that Colombia, for example, understands privacy. It's very different. Culturally, it's different. You can see that people understand legislation, thinking about privacy very differently. And so this kind of way, which I think is like, I will even dare to say is a bit colonial, you know? Like, we set the example, we put the rules and you should follow suit. And why? I like the effort of the European Union as an entity. The fact that so many countries that have been at war for so long managed to create a community, I'm impressed. The jury's still out on how that's working, but I'm still impressed. 

JY: Do you think that because—maybe because of Global Voices or our experience of moving countries, or our friendships—having a global worldview and seeing all of these different regulations and different failures and different successes makes it more complex for us than, say, somebody who's working only on policy in the EU or in the US or in the UK? Do you think it's harder for us then to reconcile these ideas, because we see this broader picture?

LV: That's a really good point. I'm not sure. I do believe very strongly in the idea that we should be in contact. As with everything that has to do with freedom of expression, initiatives, and the fight for spaces and to protect journalists and to regulate platforms, we should be looking at each other's notes. Absolutely. Is there a way to look at it globally? I don't know. I don't think so. I think that I was very much a believer of the idea of a global world where we're all in contact and the whole thing of the global village. 

But then when you start exchanging and when you see how things play out—whenever we think about “globalities”—there's always one overpowering the rest. And that's a really difficult balance to get. Nothing will ever be [truly] global. It will not. We're still communicating in English, we're still thinking about regulations, following certain values. I'm not saying that's good or bad. We do need to create connections. I wouldn't have been able to make friendships and beautiful, beautiful relations that taught me a lot about freedom of expression and digital security had I not spoken this language, because I don't speak Arabic, and these Egyptian friends [that I learned from early on] don't speak Spanish. So those connections are important. They're very important. But the idea of a globality where everybody is the same…I see that as very difficult. And I think it goes back to this idea that we could have perfect regulation or perfect structures—like, if we had these perfect structures, everything would be fine. And I think that we're learning very painfully that is just not possible. 

Everything that we will come up with, every space that we will open, will be occupied by many other people's powers and interests. So I guess that the first step could be to recognize that there's this uneasy relation of things that cannot be global, that cannot be completely horizontal, that doesn't obey rules, it doesn't obey structures…to see what it is that we're going to do. Because so far, I believe that there's been so many efforts towards equalizing spaces. I have been thinking about this a lot. We tend to think so much about solutions and ways in which we all connect and everything. And at the end, it ends up emptying those words of their meaning, because we're reproducing imbalances, we reproduce power relations. So, I don't know how to go back to the question, because I don't think that there's an ideal space. If there was an ideal space, I don't think that we'd be human, you know? I think that part of what will make it realistic is that it moves along. So I guess the ideal place is, it will be one that is relatively safe for most, and especially that it will have special attention to protect vulnerable groups. 

If I could dream of a space with regulations and structures that will help, I think that my priority would be structures that at least favor the safety of the most vulnerable, and then the others will find their ground. I hope this makes sense. 

JY: No, it does. It does. I mean, it might not make sense to someone who is purely working on policy, but it makes sense to me because I feel the same way. 

LV: Yeah, I think a policy person will already be like looking away, you know, like really hoping to get away from me as soon as possible because this woman is just rambling. But they have this really tough job. They need to put straight lines where there are only curves. 

JY: Going back for a moment to something you mentioned, learning from people elsewhere in the world. That Global Voices meeting changed my life.

LV: It changed my life too. I was 26.

JY: I was 26 too! I’d been living in Morocco until just recently, and I remember meeting all of these people from other parts of the region, and beginning to understand through meeting people how different Morocco was from Syria, or Egypt. How the region wasn’t a monolith.

LV: And that’s so important. These are the things I feel that we might know intellectually, but when you actually “taste” them, there are no words you can express when you realize the complexity of people that you didn’t think of as complex as you. That was the year I met Mohamed El Gohary. I will never forget that as critical as I was of the government of Venezuela back then, never in a million years would I have imagined that they would be like they are now. I used to work in a ministry, which means that I was very much in contact with people that were really big believers of [Chavismo’s] project, and I would listen to them being really passionate and see how people changed their lives because they had employment and many other things they lacked before: representation in government among them. All of those projects ended up being really short-term solutions, but they changed the perspective of a lot of people and a lot of people that believed so wholeheartedly in it. I remember that most of the Latin America team, we were very shaken by the presentations coming from Advox, seeing the blogs and the bloggers were in prison. I remember Gohary asking me “have you had any platforms blocked, or shutdowns, or have any newspapers been closed?” I said no, and he said “that’s coming.”

JY: I remember this. I feel like Tunisia and Egypt really served as examples to other countries of what states could do with the internet. And I think that people without a global view don’t recognize that as clearly.

LV: That's very true. And I think we still lack this global view. And in my opinion, we lack a global view that doesn't go through the United States or Europe. Most of the conveners and the people that put us in contact have been linked or rooted in Western powers. And connections were made, which is good. I would have never understood these issues of censorship had it not been for these Egyptian friends that were at Global Voices. That's very important. And ever since, I am convinced that you can grow through people from backgrounds that are very different from yours, because you align on one particular thing. And so I've always been really interested in South, quote unquote, “South-South” relationships, the vision Latin America has of Africa. And I really dislike saying Africa as if it was one thing. 

But the vision that we need to have is...I love, there's a writer that I love, Ryszard Kapuściński, and he wrote a book about Africa. He's a Polish journalist and he wrote about the movements of independence because he was the only journalist that the newspaper had for internationals. He would go to every place around, and it was the 60s. So there were like independence movements all around. And at the end, he wrote this big summary of his experiences in “Africa.” And the first page says, other than for the geographic name that we put to it, Africa doesn't exist. This is a whole universe. This is a whole world. And so the vision, this reductionist vision that a lot of us in Latin America have come through these, you know, glasses that come from the West. So to me, when I see cases in which you have groups from Venezuela, collaborating with groups in Senegal because the shutdowns that happen in both countries rhyme, I am passionately interested in these connections, because these are connections of people that don't think are similar, but they're going through similar, very similar things, and they realize how similar they are in the process. That was my feeling with [other friends from Egypt] and Gohary. The conversations that we had, the exchanges that we had, let's say at the center of our table, our excuse was this idea of freedom on the internet and how digital security will work. But that was the way that we could dialogue. And to me, it was one proof of how you grow through the experiences of people that you mistakenly think are not like you. 

JY: Yes. Yeah, no, exactly, And that was really, that was my experience too, because in the U.S. at the time, obviously there were no restrictions on the internet, but I moved to Morocco and immediately on my first day there, I had a LiveJournal. I think I've written about this many times. I had LiveJournal, which was my blogging platform at the time, and I went to log in and the site was blocked. And LiveJournal was blocked because there had been a lot of blogs about the Western Sahara, which was a taboo topic at the time, still is in many ways. And so I had to, I had to make a decision. Do I figure out a circumvention tool? I had an American friend who was emailing me about how to get around this, or maybe we had a phone call. And so I ended up, I ended up becoming a public blogger because of censorship. 

LV: That's so interesting because it is the reaction. Somebody says, I like, I didn't want to talk, but now that you don't want me to, now I will. 

JY:  Yeah, now I will. And I never crossed the red lines while I was living there because I didn't want to get in trouble. And I wrote about things carefully. But that experience connected me to people. That's how I found Global Voices. 

I want to ask you another question. When we met in Portugal in September, we discussed the idea that what’s happening in the U.S. has made it easier for people there to understand repression in other countries…that some Americans are now more able to see creeping authoritarianism or fascism elsewhere because they’re experiencing it themselves. What are your thoughts on that?

LV: So what pops in my mind is this, because I always find this fantasy very interesting that things cannot happen in certain countries, even if they've already happened. There are a lot of ideas of, we were talking about having the European Union as an example. And yes, the United States were very much into, you know, this idea of freedom of the press, freedom of expression. But there was also this idea, this narrative that these kinds of things will never happen in a place like the United States, which I think is a very dangerous idea, because it gets you to not pay attention. And there are so many ways in which expression can be limited, manipulated, weaponized, and it was a long time coming, that there were a lot of pushes to censor books. When you start seeing that, you push for libraries to take certain books out, you really start seeing like the winds blowing in that direction. And so now that it has become probably more evident, with the case of the Jimmy Kimmel show and the ways that certain media have been using their time to really misinform, you really start seeing parallels with other parts of the continent. I think it's very important, this idea that we look at each other. I will always defend the idea that we need to be constantly in dialogue and not necessarily look for examples.

Let’s say from Mexico downward, this idea of “look at this thing that people are doing in the States”—I don’t think that has ever served us, and it won’t serve us now. It is very important that we remain in dialogue. Because one thing that I found beautiful and fascinating that is happening among Venezuelan journalists is that you will see media that would  be competing with one in other circumstances are  now working together. They wouldn't survive otherwise. And also countries in the region that wouldn't look at each other before, they are working together as well. So you have Venezuelan journalists working with Nicaraguan journalists and also human rights defenders really looking at each other's cases because authoritarian regimes look at each other. We were talking about Egypt as an example before. And we keep seeing this but we're not paying enough attention. When we see events, for example, how they are regional, and that is really important. We need to talk amongst ourselves. We understand the realities of our regions, but it is so important that there's always somebody invited, somebody looking at other regions, how is it playing out, what are people doing. Latin America is a really great place where people should be looking at when thinking about counter-power and looking for examples of different ways of resistance. And unfortunately, also where things can go. How are technologies being used to censor? 

In the case of Venezuela, you had newspapers being progressively harassed. Then they wouldn't find paper. Then they had to close down. So they pushed them online where they're blocking them and harassing them. So it is a slow movement. It's very important to understand that this can happen anywhere. Everyone is at risk of having an authoritarian regime. This idea, these regressive ideas about rights, they are happening globally and they're getting a lot of traction. So the fact that we need to be in contact is crucial. It is crucial to really go beyond the narratives that we have of other countries and other cultures and to think that is particular to that place because of this and that. I think if there's a moment in which we can understand all of us as a whole group, as a region, like from the whole of the Americas, it is now. 

JY: That's such a good point. I agree. And I think it's important both to look at it on that semi-local scale and then also scale it globally, but understand like the Americas in particular, yeah, have so much in common. 

LV: No. I really believe that if there was something that I will be pushing forward, it's this idea that, first of all, these borders that are imagined, they're artificial, we created it to protect things that we have accumulated. And we, like the whole of the continent, have this history of people that came to occupy other people's lands. That's their origin story. All of the continent. Yeah. So maybe trying to understand that in terms of resistance and in terms of communities, we should be aware of that and really think about communities of counter power, resistance and fight for human rights should be, I guess they should have its own borders, you know, like not American groups or Nicaraguan groups or Colombian groups, like really create some sort of I guess, way to understand that these national borders are, they're not serving us. We really need to collaborate in ways that go really beyond that. Fully understanding the backgrounds and the differences and everything, but really connecting in things in ways that make sense. I don't think that one human rights defense community can go against its own state. They are outnumbered. The power imbalance is too big. But these groups in combination, looking at each other and learning from each other, being in contact, collaborating, it makes, well, you know, it's just simple math. It will make for more of us working together. 

JY: Absolutely. At EFF, we have a team that works on issues in Latin America, and some are based in Latin America. And it’s been interesting, because I came to EFF from having worked in a Middle East perspective, and my colleague Katitza Rodriguez, who started just a year or two before me came from a Latin American perspective, and apart from our EU work, those remain the two regional strongholds of EFF’s international work. And we’ve bridged that. I remember a couple of years ago having calls between Colombians and Palestinians because they were experiencing the same censorship issues online.

LV: That’s what I dream of.

JY: That's the sort of bridging work that you and I kind of came up in. And I think that like that experience for me, and similarly for Katitza, and then bringing that to EFF. And so we had these ties. And I think of everything you’ve said, one of the things that struck me the most is that this is a generational thing. We’re all Gen X, or early Millennials, or whatever you want to call it. I know it differs globally, but we all grew up under similar circumstances in terms of the information age, and I think that shaped our worldview in a way that—if we’re open to it—our generation thinks uniquely from the ones before and after us, because we lived a little bit in both worlds. I think it’s a really unique experience.

LV: I feel really excited to hear you say this because at times I feel that I'm thinking about this and it looks like it sounds like very weird ideas, but we are definitely part of this generation that lived the transition to online worlds and we are living in these—I love to call them digital third spaces. We're constantly negotiating our identities. We are creating new ones. We're creating homes that are “in the air.” Because yes, you are in Berlin now and I'm in France and other friends are in Venezuela, others are in Colombia and so on. But we are in this kind of commonplace, in this space where we meet that is neither nor. And it is a place that has let me understand borders very differently and understand identity very differently. And I think that is the door that we have to go through to understand how community and collaboration cross regionally and beyond borders. It's not only necessary, it's more realistic. 

JY: Absolutely, I agree. Let me ask you the last question: Who's your free expression hero? Or somebody who's inspired you. Somebody who really changed your world. 

LV: I am so proud of the Venezuelan community. So proud. They're all people that are inspiring, intelligent, dynamic. And if I had to pick one with a lot of pain, I would say Valentina Aguana. She works with Connexion Segura y Libre. She's like twenty-something. I love to see this person in her twenties. And very often, especially now that you see younger generations going to places that we don't understand. I love that she's a young person in this space, and I love how well she understands a lot of these things. I love very much how she integrates this idea of having the right to do things. That was very hard for me when I was growing up. It was very hard when I was her age to understand I had the right to do things, that I had the right to express myself. Not only does she understand that her work is devoted to ensuring that other people have the right as well, and they have the space to do that safely. 

JY: I love that. Thank you so much Laura.

More than 300 people across academia and industry spilled into an auditorium to attend a BoltzGen seminar on Thursday, Oct. 30, hosted by the Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health (MIT Jameel Clinic). Headlining the event was MIT PhD student and BoltzGen’s first author Hannes Stärk, who had announced BoltzGen just a few days prior.

Building upon Boltz-2, an open-source biomolecular structure prediction model predicting protein binding affinity that made waves over the summer, BoltzGen (officially released on Sunday, Oct. 26.) is the first model of its kind to go a step further by generating novel protein binders that are ready to enter the drug discovery pipeline.

Three key innovations make this possible: first, BoltzGen’s ability to carry out a variety of tasks, unifying protein design and structure prediction while maintaining state-of-the-art performance. Next, BoltzGen’s built-in constraints are designed with feedback from wetlab collaborators to ensure the model creates functional proteins that don’t defy the laws of physics or chemistry. Lastly, a rigorous evaluation process tests the model on “undruggable” disease targets, pushing the limits of BoltzGen’s binder generation capabilities.

Most models used in industry or academia are capable of either structure prediction or protein design. Moreover, they’re limited to generating certain types of proteins that bind successfully to easy “targets.” Much like students responding to a test question that looks like their homework, as long as the training data looks similar to the target during binder design, the models often work. But existing methods are nearly always evaluated on targets for which structures with binders already exist, and end up faltering in performance when used on more challenging targets.

“There have been models trying to tackle binder design, but the problem is that these models are modality-specific,” Stärk points out. “A general model does not only mean that we can address more tasks. Additionally, we obtain a better model for the individual task since emulating physics is learned by example, and with a more general training scheme, we provide more such examples containing generalizable physical patterns.”

The BoltzGen researchers went out of their way to test BoltzGen on 26 targets, ranging from therapeutically relevant cases to ones explicitly chosen for their dissimilarity to the training data. 

This comprehensive validation process, which took place in eight wetlabs across academia and industry, demonstrates the model’s breadth and potential for breakthrough drug development.

Parabilis Medicines, one of the industry collaborators that tested BoltzGen in a wetlab setting, praised BoltzGen’s potential: “we feel that adopting BoltzGen into our existing Helicon peptide computational platform capabilities promises to accelerate our progress to deliver transformational drugs against major human diseases.”

While the open-source releases of Boltz-1, Boltz-2, and now BoltzGen (which was previewed at the 7th Molecular Machine Learning Conference on Oct. 22) bring new opportunities and transparency in drug development, they also signal that biotech and pharmaceutical industries may need to reevaluate their offerings. 

Amid the buzz for BoltzGen on the social media platform X, Justin Grace, a principal machine learning scientist at LabGenius, raised a question. “The private-to-open performance time lag for chat AI systems is [seven] months and falling,” Grace wrote in a post. “It looks to be even shorter in the protein space. How will binder-as-a-service co’s be able to [recoup] investment when we can just wait a few months for the free version?” 

For those in academia, BoltzGen represents an expansion and acceleration of scientific possibility. “A question that my students often ask me is, ‘where can AI change the therapeutics game?’” says senior co-author and MIT Professor Regina Barzilay, AI faculty lead for the Jameel Clinic and an affiliate of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). “Unless we identify undruggable targets and propose a solution, we won’t be changing the game,” she adds. “The emphasis here is on unsolved problems, which distinguishes Hannes’ work from others in the field.” 

Senior co-author Tommi Jaakkola, the Thomas Siebel Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science who is affiliated with the Jameel Clinic and CSAIL, notes that "models such as BoltzGen that are released fully open-source enable broader community-wide efforts to accelerate drug design capabilities.”

Looking ahead, Stärk believes that the future of biomolecular design will be upended by AI models. “I want to build tools that help us manipulate biology to solve disease, or perform tasks with molecular machines that we have not even imagined yet,” he says. “I want to provide these tools and enable biologists to imagine things that they have not even thought of before.”

The U.S. military is mighty, formidable, and singular in influence, stationed in at least 128 overseas bases across 51 countries. Concealed beneath the United States’ biggest investment is a surprise: The military was responsible for the birth of an industry. Today, that industry is essential for its operations.

“If you think about it, logistics started as a military function,” says Chris Caplice, executive director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics (CTL). “The idea of getting supplies, ammunition, food, all the material you need to the front line was the core of logistics, and really supply chain came out of that over the last decades or centuries.”

For Caplice and the leadership at MIT CTL, a collaboration with the U.S. military seemed inevitable. In 2006, MIT CTL launched the Military Fellows program, wherein three military logistics officers participate in the MIT Supply Chain Management master’s program. “The education goes two ways: One is that these people who have been in the service for more than 20 years step out of their silo and see all the research we’re doing that’s more focused on the private sector, and is cutting-edge. On the other side, you have students who may have never interacted with the military are able to learn from them,” reflects Caplice.

This year’s cohort holds 80 years of combined military service. It comprises Lukas Toth from the Army Reserve, Duston Mullen from the South Dakota Army National Guard, and Charles Greene from the Active Army. Though they work in different components of the U.S. Army, they all agree that their experience in the program so far has been humbling. 

“All of the MIT SCM students have strong academic backgrounds and are exceptionally better at math than us,” Toth laughs. “If you’re coming to this program, you’re sharp and you want to make a difference, not just in your life, but you want to make a difference in the world. Getting to sit in a room with 40 young people who want to make change happen and want to solve complex problems has been super rewarding.”

No strangers to being challenged, adversity is what called the fellows to become logistics officers in the first place. “It comes down to a quote I heard: Operations is easy, fighting the war is easy, but logistics is hard,” says Mullen. 

As logistics officers are responsible for everything from feeding soldiers to fixing trucks to warehousing and distribution, they must perform these functions at varying scales, and with varying threats to their operations. “Our work is: How do we enable the war fighter to be able to deliver when the nation requires? We’re looking at the supply chain and ensuring that we can deliver at the right time, right place, and in the right quantity with precision and accuracy,” says Greene. 

Although companies focus extensively on optimizing their supply chains for cost and efficiency, logistics officers in the military have an additional obstacle. “That last mile could be a contested mile, and the enemy gets a vote,” adds Toth. “At the end of the day, the civilian industry’s consumer has a product they want, and at the end of the day, our war fighters have a product that they want, but we have the added challenge of having to overcome a competitor who may go so far as to destroy us.”

Despite the fellows’ rich practical experience in the military, their academic experience still brings applicable use in terms of introduction to new technologies with which they hope to engage senior military leaders, insight into industry problem-solving to reduce overall military spending and influence decision-making, and, above all, communication. In the military, the stakes are higher than in the private sector, making communication rife with consequence. 

“This experience is helping us better communicate with industry and build an industry and logistics network so that if a challenge does come our country's way, we can better communicate with everybody to solve those challenges,” reflects Toth. 

In 1965, after completing his PhD in civil engineering at MIT, Professor Richard de Neufville joined the first class of White House Fellows, one of the nation’s most prestigious programs for leadership and public service, through which he spent an intensive year working full-time at the highest levels of government. Soon after, de Neufville joined the MIT faculty and led a steering committee that developed what would become the MIT Technology and Policy Program (TPP). TPP was approved in 1975 and launched in 1976 as an Institute-wide hub of education and research, and included a two-year, research-based master’s degree, with de Neufville serving as its founding chair.

This October, TPP held a symposium and celebration at MIT, marking TPP’s 50th year as an interdisciplinary effort focused on advancing the responsible leadership of technology through the integration of technical expertise and rigorous policy analysis in critical areas such as energy, the environment, security, innovation, and beyond.

As the 1988 “TPP Fact Book” stated: “The Technology and Policy Program educates men and women for leadership on the important technological issues confronting society. We prepare our graduates to excel in their technical fields, and to develop and implement effective strategies for dealing with the risks and opportunities associated with those technologies. This kind of education is vital to the future of our society.”

Now in its 50th year, TPP’s legacy of education, research, and impact has shaped more than 1,500 alumni who are among the most distinguished technology policy leaders across the world. TPP alumni often describe the program as life-changing and transformative — an educational experience that shaped their understanding of purpose, systems, and leadership in ways that continue to guide their careers throughout their lives. Today, over 50 TPP graduate students conduct research across the Institute on topics such as energy grid modeling, environmental protection, nuclear safety, industrial decarbonization, space system engineering and public policy, technoeconomic modeling of materials value chains, and governance of global digital systems and artificial intelligence.

Working to bring technically-informed and scientifically robust insights to technology policy is as urgent today as it was 50 years ago, says Christine Ortiz, Morris Cohen Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and the current director of TPP. “The role of technology policy is more essential than ever, helping to shape national and international priorities and underpinning societal and planetary well-being,” said Ortiz in her opening remarks. “Today’s symposium is convened with urgency amid a rapidly shifting landscape. We are situated here today at the epicenter of profound technological advancement, reaffirming our collective responsibility to ensure that innovation advances the well-being of humanity and the health of our planet.”

North stars and new routes

The TPP 50th Anniversary Symposium — North Stars and New Routes — held on Oct. 11, convened more than 630 participants from 30 countries, both in-person and virtually. The gathering brought together alumni, faculty, students, and global leaders to celebrate five decades of impact while exploring bold new directions for the future of technology and policy.

Over the course of seven thematic sessions and 45 speakers, the symposium offered a sweeping view of the current issues shaping the next era of technology policy. Discussions spanned a wide range of topics, including energy systems modeling, global environmental governance, ecologically neutral manufacturing, design of global digital systems, trust as national security infrastructure, the future of technology policy as a domain of scholarship, and the role of technology policy in the future of the research university.

The day opened with a dynamic panel examining the technical frontiers and possibilities of interactive energy systems modeling. Speakers highlighted the dual role of simulation tools as both advanced instruments for understanding decision outcomes and uncertainties, as well participatory platforms for engaging policymakers and stakeholders.

The next session, focused on global environmental governance, explored new approaches to planetary cooperation and emphasized how data-driven policy, equitable technology transfer, and accountability mechanisms can strengthen international climate action. Panelists called for adaptive and integrated governance frameworks that mirror the interconnectedness and complexity of the environmental systems they aim to protect.

In a session on ecologically neutral manufacturing, participants discussed advances in circular materials design and life-cycle modeling that reduce industrial emissions and resource intensity. Speakers underscored the importance of policies promoting reuse, recycling, and cleaner production — linking manufacturing innovation with both economic competitiveness and ecological resilience.

Turning to the design and governance of global digital systems, keynote speaker David Clark, senior research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and a pioneering architect of the internet, examined how the architecture of digital networks both reflects and shapes societal values, power, and accountability. He noted that the internet’s original open design — built for innovation and resilience — now faces pressing challenges of trust, privacy, and control. The next generation of digital infrastructure, he argued, must embed trust and accountability into its very foundations. The subsequent panel expanded on these themes, exploring how global digital ecosystems are influenced by the competing incentives of governments, corporations, and users. Speakers called for governance models that integrate technical, economic, and ethical considerations — emphasizing that true accountability depends not only on external regulation, but on embedding human values directly into the design of technology.

The theme of trust carried into the next discussion, with the focus on trust as infrastructure for security policy, where experts emphasized that national and global security must evolve to encompass cyber-trust, space governance, and technological resilience as essential infrastructures for stability in an era defined by AI and geopolitical complexity and uncertainty.

In the final session, which explored the role of technology policy in the future of the research university, panelists discussed how research institutions can strengthen their societal role by embedding technology policy and interdisciplinary scholarship into the institutional structure. Speakers emphasized the need for universities to evolve into more cohesive, outward-looking engines of policy innovation — coordinating existing centers of excellence, improving communication between research and government, and expanding educational pathways that integrate engineering, social science, and civic engagement.

Technology, policy, and power

In a keynote address, Senator Edward J. Markey, U.S. senator for Massachusetts, delivered a compelling call for moral and democratic leadership in governing the technologies shaping modern life. He warned that the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and digital systems has outpaced the ethical and policy frameworks needed to protect society, declaring that “the privacy protections of all preceding generations have broken down.” Markey called for a renewed commitment to AI civil rights and accountability in the digital age, urging that technology must be harnessed as “a tool for connection, not addiction,” and developed to advance human dignity, fairness, and shared prosperity.

Framing technology as both a source of immense potential and a concentration of power, Markey argued that the defining question of our era is who controls that power, and to what end. He urged policymakers, researchers, and citizens alike to ensure that innovation strengthens democracy rather than undermines it. Closing on a note of determination and hope, Markey reminded the audience that technology policy is inseparable from human and planetary well-being: “Technology is power … the question is, who wields it and for what purpose. We must ensure it serves democracy, equality, and the future of our planet.”

New Institute-wide policy initiative announced

The symposium concluded with the announcement of an exciting new Institute-wide initiative, Policy@MIT, introduced by Maria Zuber, E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Presidential Advisor for Science and Technology Policy. Zuber described the effort as a bold and unifying step to synergize and amplify policy initiatives across MIT, strengthening the Institute’s capacity to inform evidence-based policymaking. 

Building upon the foundational work of TPP — within which the program will serve as a core pillar — Policy@MIT aims to connect MIT’s deep technical expertise with real-world policy challenges, foster collaboration across schools and disciplines, and train the next generation of leaders to ensure that science and technology continue to serve humanity and the planet.

Extending MIT TPP’s legacy of technology and policy leadership 

As MIT charts the next half-century of leadership at the intersection of technology, policy, and society, TPP continues to serve as a cornerstone of this mission. Operating within the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), the MIT School of Engineering, and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, TPP distinctively engages and integrates state-of-the-art modeling, simulation, and analytical methods in information and decision systems, statistics and data science, and the computational social sciences, with a diverse range of foundational, emerging, and cross-disciplinary policy analysis methods. Sitting at the confluence of engineering, computer science, and the social sciences, TPP equips students and researchers to study some of the most important and complex emerging issues related to technology through systems thinking, technical rigor, and policy analysis.

Founding IDSS director Munther Dahleh, the William A. Coolidge Professor in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, described this integration as cultivating the “trilingual student” — someone fluent in data and information, social reasoning, and a technical domain. “What we’re trying to produce in the TPP program,” he explained, “is the person who can navigate all three dimensions of a problem.”

Reflecting on TPP’s enduring mission, Ortiz concluded the symposium, “As we look ahead to the next 50 years, this is a pivotal moment for the Technology and Policy Program — both at MIT and globally. TPP holds tremendous potential for growth, translation, and impact as a leader in technology policy for the nation and the world.”

On a sunny, warm Sunday MIT students, staff, and faculty spread out across the fields of Hannan Healthy Foods in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Some of these volunteers pluck tomatoes from their vines in a patch a few hundred feet from the cars whizzing by on Route 117. Others squat in the shade cast by the greenhouse to snip chives. Still others slice heads of Napa cabbage from their roots in a bed nearer the woods. Everything being harvested today will wind up in Harvest Boxes, which will be sold at a pop-up farm stand the next day in the lobby of the Stata Center back on the MIT campus.

This initiative — a pilot collaboration between MIT’s Office of Sustainability (MITOS), MIT Anthropology, Hannan Healthy Foods, and the nascent MIT Farm student organization — sold six-pound boxes of fresh, organic produce to the MIT community for $10 per box — half off the typical wholesale price. The weekly farm stands ran from Sept. 15 through Oct. 27.

“There is a documented need for accessible, affordable, fresh food on college campuses,” says Heather Paxson, William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Anthropology and one of the organizers of the program. “The problems for a small farmer in finding a sufficient market … are connected to the challenges of food insecurity in even wealthy areas. And so, it really is about connecting those dots.”

Through the six weeks of the project, farm stand shoppers purchased more than 2,000 pounds of fresh produce that they wouldn’t otherwise have had access to. Hannan, Paxson, and the team hope that this year’s pilot was successful enough to continue into future growing seasons, either in this farm stand form or as something else that can equally serve the campus community.

“This year we decided to pour our heart, soul, and resources into this vision and prove what’s possible,” says Susy Jones, senior sustainability project manager at MITOS. “How can we do it in a way that is robust and goes through the official MIT channels, and yet pushes the boundaries of what’s possible at MIT?”

A growing idea

Mohammed Hannan, founder of Hannan Healthy Foods, first met Paxson and Jones in 2022. Jones was looking for someone local who grew vegetables common in Asian cuisine in response to a student request. Paxson wanted a small farm to host a field trip for her subject 21A.155 (Food, Culture and Politics). In July, Paxson and Jones learned about an article in the Boston Globe featuring Hannan as an example of a small farmer hit hard by federal budget cuts.

They knew right away they wanted to help. They pulled in Zachary Rapaport and Aleks Banas, architecture master’s students and the co-founders of MIT Farm, an organization dedicated to getting the MIT community off campus and onto local farms. This MIT contingent connected with Hannan to come up with a plan.

“These projects — when they flow, they flow,” says Jones. “There was so much common ground and excitement that we were all willing to jump on calls at 7 p.m. many nights to figure it out.”

After a series of rapid-fire brainstorming sessions, the group decided to host weekly volunteer sessions at Hannan’s farm during the autumn growing season and sell the harvest at a farm stand on campus.

“It fits in seamlessly with the MIT motto, ‘mind and hand,’ ‘mens et manus,’ learning by doing, as well as the heart, which has been added unofficially — mind, hand, heart,” says Paxson.

Jones tapped into the MITOS network for financial, operational, student, and city partners. Rapaport and Banas put out calls for volunteers. Paxson incorporated a volunteer trip into her syllabus and allocated discretionary project funding to subsidize the cost of the produce, allowing the food to be sold at 50 percent of the wholesale price that Hannan was paid for it.

“The fact that MIT students, faculty, and staff could come out to the farm, and that our harvest would circulate back to campus and into the broader community — there’s an energy around it that’s very different from academics. It feels essential to be part of something so tangible,” says Rapaport.

The volunteer sessions proved to be popular. Throughout the pilot, about 75 students and half a dozen faculty and staff trekked out to Lincoln from MIT’s Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus at least once to clear fields and harvest vegetables. Hannan hopes the experience will change the way they think about their food.

“Harvesting the produce, knowing the operation, knowing how hard it is, it’ll stick in their brain,” he says.

On that September Sunday, second-year electrical engineering and computer science major Abrianna Zhang had come out with a friend after seeing a notification on the dormspam email lists. Zhang grew up in a California suburb big on supporting local farmers, but volunteering showed her a different side of the job.

“There’s a lot of work that goes into raising all these crops and then getting all this manual labor,” says Zhang. “It makes me think about the economy of things. How is this even possible … for us to gain access to organic fruits or produce at a reasonable price?”

Setting up shop

Since mid-September, Monday has been Farm Stand day at MIT. Tables covered in green gingham tablecloths strike through the Stata Center lobby, holding stacks of cardboard boxes filled with produce. Customers wait in line to claim their piece of the fresh harvest — carrots, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, herbs, and various greens.

Many of these students typically head to off-campus grocery stores to get their fresh produce. Katie Stabb, a sophomore civil and environmental engineering major and self-proclaimed “crazy plant lady,” grows her own food in the summer, but travels far from campus to shop for her vegetables during the school year. Having this stand right at MIT gives her time back, and she’s been spreading the news to her East Campus dorm mates — even picking boxes up for them when they can’t make it themselves and helping them figure out what to do with their excess ingredients.

“I have encountered having way too many chives before, but that’s new for some folks,” she says. “Last week we pooled all of our chives and I made chive pancakes, kind of like scallion pancakes.”

Stabb is not alone. In a multi-question customer survey conducted at the close of the Farm Stand season, 62 percent of respondents said the Harvest Box gave them the chance to try new foods and 49 percent experimented with new recipes. Seventy percent said this project helped them increase their vegetable intake.

Nearly 60 percent of the survey respondents were graduate students living off campus. Banas, one of the MIT Farm co-leads, is one of those grad students enjoying the benefits.

“I was cooking and making food that I bought from the farm stand and thought, ‘Oh, this is very literally influencing my life in a positive way.’ And I’m hoping that this has a similar impact for other people,” she says.

The impact goes beyond the ability of students to nourish themselves with fresh vegetables. New communities have grown from this collaboration. Jones, for example, expanded her network at MITOS by tapping into expertise and resources from MIT Dining, the Vice President for Finance Merchant Services, and the MIT Federal Credit Union.

“There were just these pockets of people in every corner of MIT who know how to do these very specific things that might seem not very glamorous, but make something like this possible,” says Jones. “It’s such a positive, affirming moment when you’re starting from scratch and someone’s like, ‘This is such a cool idea, how can I help?’”

Strengthening community

Inviting people from MIT to connect across campus and explore beyond Cambridge has helped students and employees alike feel like they’re part of something bigger.

“The community that’s grown around this work is what keeps me so engaged,” says Rapaport. “MIT can have a bit of a siloing effect. It’s easy to become so focused on your classes and academics that your world revolves around them. Farm club grew out of wanting to build connections across the student body and to see ourselves and MIT as part of a larger network of people, communities, and relationships.”

This particular connection will continue to grow, as Rapaport and Banas will use their architectural expertise to lead a design-build team in developing a climate-adaptive and bio-based root cellar at Hannan Healthy Foods, to improve the farm’s winter vegetable storage conditions. 

Community engagement is an ethos Hannan has embraced since the start of his farming journey in 2018, motivated by a desire to provision first his family and then others with healthy food.

“One thing I have done over the years, I was not trying to do farming by myself,” he says. “I always reached out to as many people as I could. The idea is, if community is not involved, they just see it as an individual business.”

It’s why he gifts his volunteers huge bags of tomatoes at the end of a shift, or donates some of his harvest to food banks, or engages an advisory committee of local residents to ensure he’s filling the right needs.

“There’s a reciprocal dimension to gifting that needs to continue,” says Paxson. “That is what builds and maintains community — it’s classic anthropology."

And much of what’s exchanged in this type of reciprocity can’t be charted or graded or marked on a spreadsheet. It’s cooking pancakes with dorm mates. It’s meeting and appreciating new colleagues. It’s grabbing a friend to harvest cabbage on a beautiful autumn Sunday.

“Seeing a student who volunteered over the weekend harvesting chives come to the market on Monday and then want to take a selfie with those chives,” says Jones. “To me, that’s a cool moment.”

Democracy is colliding with the technologies of artificial intelligence. Judging from the audience reaction at the recent World Forum on Democracy in Strasbourg, the general expectation is that democracy will be the worse for it. We have another narrative. Yes, there are risks to democracy from AI, but there are also opportunities.

We have just published the book Rewiring Democracy: How AI will Transform Politics, Government, and Citizenship. In it, we take a clear-eyed view of how AI is undermining confidence in our information ecosystem, how the use of biased AI can harm constituents of democracies and how elected officials with authoritarian tendencies can use it to consolidate power. But we also give positive examples of how AI is transforming democratic governance and politics for the better...

The president denied the state’s request for federal aid to rebuild power lines after a fierce ice storm last March, a move that could force thousands of rural electricity customers to pay the entire tab.

Federal judges in California and Illinois sided with local governments who say the Trump administration is violating the Constitution.

Farmers, the state's second-largest insurer, pledged to write thousands of new policies in wildfire-prone areas where coverage is scarce.

Amazon also announced plans Monday to invest up to $50 billion to expand data centers and AI technology for federal customers.

The West African nation was among a group of countries that pushed for a deal to reduce fossil fuels.

A report catalogs halting progress since the Oil & Gas Decarbonization Charter was signed at the U.N. climate summit in 2023.

“This was a COP where we were visible but not empowered,” a member of a global Indigenous group said.

TotalEnergies denies it is liable for the damage that Hugues Falys has suffered.

The British government says it will force down bills and emissions by insulating millions of cold, drafty homes. That plan is unraveling.

Scientists warn that a warming climate is intensifying storms and rainfall across Southeast Asia, making floods and landslides increasingly destructive and frequent.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 25 November 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02501-z

Research on climate change requires continued support from funding agencies. Nature Climate Change spoke to experts from different organizations across the world to discuss how funding agencies can better promote future climate research and actions regarding interdisciplinary studies, international collaborations, supporting young scholars and more.