This is a very weird story about how squid stayed on the menu of Byzantine monks by falling between the cracks of dietary rules.

At Constantinople’s Monastery of Stoudios, the kitchen didn’t answer to appetite.

It answered to the “typikon”: a manual for ensuring that nothing unexpected happened at mealtimes. Meat: forbidden. Dairy: forbidden. Eggs: forbidden. Fish: feast-day only. Oil: regulated. But squid?

Squid had eight arms, no bones, and a gift for changing color. Nobody had bothered writing a regulation for that. This wasn’t a loophole born of legal creativity but an oversight rooted in taxonomic confusion. Medieval monks, confronted with a creature that was neither fish nor fowl, gave up and let it pass...

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt presented a forceful analysis of the damage smartphones and social media are doing to our cognition, our civic fabric, and our children’s wellbeing, while calling for renewed action to ward off their effects, in the latest of MIT’s Compton Lectures on Wednesday.

“Around the world, people are getting diminished,” Haidt said. “Less intelligent, less happy, less competent. And it’s happening very fast … My argument is that if we continue with current trends as AI is coming in, it’s going to accelerate. The decline of humanity is going to accelerate.”

Haidt is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business and the author of the recent bestseller “The Anxious Generation,” which suggests that the widespread adoption of social media in the 2010s has been especially damaging to young women, making them prone to anxiety and depression.

But as Haidt has continued to examine the effects of social media on society, he has started focusing on additional issues. Our inability to put our phones away, our compulsion to check social media, and the way we spend hours a day watching short-form videos, may be causing problems that go far beyond any rise in anxiety and depression.

“It turns out, it’s not the biggest thing,” Haidt said. “There’s something bigger. It is the destruction of the human capacity to pay attention. Because this is affecting most people, including most adults. And if you imagine humanity with 10 to 50 percent of its attentional ability sucked out of it, there’s not much left. We’re not very capable of doing things if we can’t focus or stay on a task for more than 30 seconds.”

Whatever solution may emerge to these problems, Haidt declared, is going to have to come from “human agency. People see a problem, they figure out a way around it. That’s what I’m hoping to promote here [to] this very important audience. So please consider what I’m saying, these trends, and then work to change them.”

Haidt’s lecture, titled, “Life After Babel: Democracy and Human Development in the Fractured, Lonely World That Technology Gave Us,” was delivered before a capacity audience of over 400 people in MIT’s Huntington Hall (Room 10-250).

The lecture spanned a variety of related topics, with Haidt presenting chart after chart showing the onset of declines in cognition, educational achievement, and happiness, which all have seemed to occur soon after the widespread adoption of smartphones in the 2010s. The individual adoption of smartphones, he notes, has been compounded by the way schools brought internet-connected computing devices into classrooms around the same time.

“The biggest, the most costly mistake we’ve ever made in the history of American education [was] to put computers and high tech on people’s desks,” Haidt said.

Distractible students with shorter attention spans are reading fewer books, he noted; some cinema students cannot sit through films. The top quartile of students is continuing to do well, he noted, but for most students, proficiency levels have dipped notably since the 2010s.

“Fifty years of progress in education, 50 years of progress, up in smoke, gone,” Haidt said. “We’re back to where we were 50 years ago. That’s pretty big, that’s pretty serious.”

As Haidt mentioned multiple times in his remarks, he is not an opponent of all forms of technology, or even personal communication technology, but rather is seeking to mitigate its harmful effects.

“I love tech, I love modernity, we’re all dependent on it, I love my iPhone,” Haidt said. Just as he finished that sentence, an audience member’s cellphone started ringing loudly — drawing a huge laugh from the audience.

“I did not plant that, that was a truly spontaneous demonstration of what I’m talking about,” Haidt said.

Haidt was introduced by MIT President Sally A. Kornbluth, who called him “a leading voice for reforming society’s relationship with technology.” She praised Haidt’s work, noting that he wants to “encourage us to imagine a more positive role for technology in humanity’s future.”

The Karl Taylor Compton Lecture Series was introduced in 1957. It is named for MIT’s ninth president, who led the Institute from 1930 to 1948 and also served as chair of the MIT Corporation from 1948 to 1954.

Compton, as Kornbluth observed, helped MIT evolve from being more strictly an engineering school into “a great global university” with “a new focus on fundamental scientific research.” During World War II, she added, Compton “helped invent the longstanding partnership between the federal government and America’s research universities.”

Haidt received his undergraduate degree from Yale University and his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. He taught on the faculty at the University of Virginia for 16 years before joining New York University. He has written several widely discussed books about contemporary civic life. Haidt observed that the problems stemming from device distraction and compulsion appear to have hit so-called Gen Z — those born from roughly the mid 1990s to the early 2010s — especially hard, though he emphasized that people in that cohort are essentially victims of circumstance.

“I am not blaming Gen Z,” Haidt said. “I am saying we raised our kids in a way — we allowed the technology companies to take over childhood. We allowed a few giant companies to own our children’s attention, to show them millions of short videos, to destroy their ability to pay attention, to stop them from reading books, and this is the result.”

For a portion of his remarks, Haidt also examined the consequences of social media for politics, showing data that chart the global diminishment of democracy since the 2010s, while the world has become soaked in misinformation and conflictual online interactions.

“That, I think, is what digital technology has done to us,” Haidt said. “It was supposed to connect us, but instead it has broken things, divided us, and made it very, very hard to ever have common facts, common truths, common stories again.”

Towards the end of his remarks, Haidt also speculated that the effects of using AI will be corrosive as well, intellectually and psychologically.

“AI is not exactly going to make us better at interacting with human beings,” Haidt said.

With all this in mind, what is to be done, to limit the intellectual and social damage from tech devices and social media? For one thing, Haidt suggested, we should be less impressed by high-tech innovations and social media.

“We need to disenthrall ourselves from technology,” Haidt said, paraphrasing a line written by President Abraham Lincoln. He added: “I suggest that we have a generally negative view … of social media and of AI.” This kind of “more emotionally negative or ambivalent view” will make it easier for us to reverse the way technology seems to control us.

As a practical matter, Haidt suggested, that means taking steps to limit our exposure to technology. His own public-advocacy group, The Anxious Generation Movement, suggests a set of four reforms: No smartphones for kids before they are high-school age; no social media before age 16; making school phone-free, from bell to bell; and giving kids more independence, free play, and responsibility in the world.

Certainly there is movement toward some of these concepts. Some school districts in the U.S. are banning or limiting phone usage; Australia has also instituted a ban on social media for anyone under 16, while a handful of other countries have announced similar plans.

“There’s a gigantic techlash happening right now,” Haidt suggested. For all the sudden changes technology has introduced within the last 15 years, it is still possible, for now, for people to find a way out of our tech-induced predicament.

“The good news is, there is human agency,” Haidt said.

OpenAI is in and Anthropic is out as a supplier of AI technology for the US defense department. This news caps a week of bluster by the highest officials in the US government towards some of the wealthiest titans of the big tech industry, and the overhanging specter of the existential risks posed by a new technology powerful enough that the Pentagon claims it is essential to national security. At issue is Anthropic’s insistence that the US Department of Defense (DoD) could not use its models to facilitate “mass surveillance” or “fully autonomous weapons,” provisions the defense secretary Pete Hegseth ...

OpenAI, the maker of ChaptGPT, is rightfully facing widespread criticism for its decisions to fill the gap the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) created when rival Anthropic refused to drop its restrictions against using its AI for surveillance and autonomous weapons systems. After protests from both users and employees who did not sign up to support government mass surveillance—early reports show that ChaptGPT uninstalls rose nearly 300% after the company announced the deal—Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, conceded that the initial agreement was “opportunistic and sloppy.” He then re-published an internal memo on social media stating that additions to the agreement made clear that “Consistent with applicable laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, National Security Act of 1947, [and] FISA Act of 1978, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals.”

Trouble is, the U.S. government doesn’t believe “consistent with applicable laws” means “no domestic surveillance.” Instead, for the most part, the government has embraced a lax interpretation of “applicable law” that has blessed mass surveillance and large-scale violations of our civil liberties, and then fought tooth and nail to prevent courts from weighing in. 

"After all, many of the world’s most notorious human rights atrocities have historically been “legal” under existing laws at the time."

“Intentionally” is also doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. For years the government has insisted that the mass surveillance of U.S. persons only happens incidentally (read: not intentionally) because their communications with people both inside the United States and overseas are swept up in surveillance programs supposedly designed to only collect communications outside the United States. 

The company’s amendment to the contract continues in a similar vein, “For the avoidance of doubt, the Department understands this limitation to prohibit deliberate tracking, surveillance, or monitoring of U.S. persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information.” Here, “deliberate” is the red flag given how often intelligence and law enforcement agencies rely on incidental or commercially purchased data to sidestep stronger privacy protections.

Here’s another one: “The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with these authorities. The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law.” What, one wonders, does “unconstrained” mean, precisely—and according to whom? 

Lawyers sometimes call these “weasel words” because they create ambiguity that protects one side or another from real accountability for contract violations. As with the Anthropic negotiations, where the Pentagon reportedly agreed to adhere to Anthropic’s red lines only “as appropriate,” the government is likely attempting to publicly commit to limits in principle, but retain broad flexibility in practice.

OpenAI also notes that the Pentagon promised the NSA would not be allowed to use OpenAI’s tools absent a new agreement, and that its deployment architecture will help it verify that no red lines are crossed. But secret agreements and technical assurances have never been enough to rein in surveillance agencies, and they are no substitute for strong, enforceable legal limits and transparency.

OpenAI executives may indeed be trying, as claimed, to use the company’s contractual relationship with the Pentagon to help ensure that the government should use AI tools only in a way consistent with democratic processes. But based on what we know so far, that hope seems very naïve.

Moreover, that naïvete is dangerous. In a time when governments are willing to embrace extreme and unfounded interpretations of “applicable laws,” companies need to put some actual muscle behind standing by their commitments. After all, many of the world’s most notorious human rights atrocities have historically been “legal” under existing laws at the time. OpenAI promises the public that it will  “avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power,” but we know that enabling mass surveillance does both.     

OpenAI isn’t the only consumer-facing company that is, on the one hand, seeking to reassure the public that they aren’t participating in actions that violate human rights while, on the other, seeking to cash in on government mass surveillance efforts.  Despite this marketing double-speak, it is very clear that companies just cannot do both. It’s also clear that companies shouldn’t be given that much power over the limits of our privacy to begin with. The public should not have to rely on a small group of people—whether CEOs or Pentagon officials—to protect our civil liberties.

OpenAI, the maker of ChaptGPT, is rightfully facing widespread criticism for its decisions to fill the gap the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) created when rival Anthropic refused to drop its restrictions against using its AI for surveillance and autonomous weapons systems. After protests from both users and employees who did not sign up to support government mass surveillance—early reports show that ChaptGPT uninstalls rose nearly 300% after the company announced the deal—Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, conceded that the initial agreement was “opportunistic and sloppy.” He then re-published an internal memo on social media stating that additions to the agreement made clear that “Consistent with applicable laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, National Security Act of 1947, [and] FISA Act of 1978, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals.”

Trouble is, the U.S. government doesn’t believe “consistent with applicable laws” means “no domestic surveillance.” Instead, for the most part, the government has embraced a lax interpretation of “applicable law” that has blessed mass surveillance and large-scale violations of our civil liberties, and then fought tooth and nail to prevent courts from weighing in. 

"After all, many of the world’s most notorious human rights atrocities have historically been “legal” under existing laws at the time."

“Intentionally” is also doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. For years the government has insisted that the mass surveillance of U.S. persons only happens incidentally (read: not intentionally) because their communications with people both inside the United States and overseas are swept up in surveillance programs supposedly designed to only collect communications outside the United States. 

The company’s amendment to the contract continues in a similar vein, “For the avoidance of doubt, the Department understands this limitation to prohibit deliberate tracking, surveillance, or monitoring of U.S. persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information.” Here, “deliberate” is the red flag given how often intelligence and law enforcement agencies rely on incidental or commercially purchased data to sidestep stronger privacy protections.

Here’s another one: “The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with these authorities. The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law.” What, one wonders, does “unconstrained” mean, precisely—and according to whom? 

Lawyers sometimes call these “weasel words” because they create ambiguity that protects one side or another from real accountability for contract violations. As with the Anthropic negotiations, where the Pentagon reportedly agreed to adhere to Anthropic’s red lines only “as appropriate,” the government is likely attempting to publicly commit to limits in principle, but retain broad flexibility in practice.

OpenAI also notes that the Pentagon promised the NSA would not be allowed to use OpenAI’s tools absent a new agreement, and that its deployment architecture will help it verify that no red lines are crossed. But secret agreements and technical assurances have never been enough to rein in surveillance agencies, and they are no substitute for strong, enforceable legal limits and transparency.

OpenAI executives may indeed be trying, as claimed, to use the company’s contractual relationship with the Pentagon to help ensure that the government should use AI tools only in a way consistent with democratic processes. But based on what we know so far, that hope seems very naïve.

Moreover, that naïvete is dangerous. In a time when governments are willing to embrace extreme and unfounded interpretations of “applicable laws,” companies need to put some actual muscle behind standing by their commitments. After all, many of the world’s most notorious human rights atrocities have historically been “legal” under existing laws at the time. OpenAI promises the public that it will  “avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power,” but we know that enabling mass surveillance does both.     

OpenAI isn’t the only consumer-facing company that is, on the one hand, seeking to reassure the public that they aren’t participating in actions that violate human rights while, on the other, seeking to cash in on government mass surveillance efforts.  Despite this marketing double-speak, it is very clear that companies just cannot do both. It’s also clear that companies shouldn’t be given that much power over the limits of our privacy to begin with. The public should not have to rely on a small group of people—whether CEOs or Pentagon officials—to protect our civil liberties.

An unknown hacker used Anthropic’s LLM to hack the Mexican government:

The unknown Claude user wrote Spanish-language prompts for the chatbot to act as an elite hacker, finding vulnerabilities in government networks, writing computer scripts to exploit them and determining ways to automate data theft, Israeli cybersecurity startup Gambit Security said in research published Wednesday.

[…]

Claude initially warned the unknown user of malicious intent during their conversation about the Mexican government, but eventually complied with the attacker’s requests and executed thousands of commands on government computer networks, the researchers said...

The regime’s attacks on tankers and refineries could reverberate through the U.S. economy ahead of midterms.

A tech developer is trying to buy the Morgantown Generating Station to help power the AI boom.

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin — who would oversee FEMA if confirmed as Homeland Security secretary — represents a state that frequently receives federal disaster aid.

The plan aligns with China’s aims of scaling up clean energy as it seeks to cut its dependence on imported oil and gas.

"You've got to show it. You’ve got to trace it. And I'm not seeing that," said one federal judge Thursday in response to arguments that EPA's inaction on climate change has harmed future generations.

A former employee of a real estate giant contends the company failed to account for climate risks when assembling retirement plans for workers.

Estimates show that crude could reach $108 a barrel, adding a significant boost to inflation and even pushing some European economies to the brink of recession.

The strategy has attracted capital as real estate investors look for ways to create natural hedges against spikes in fossil fuel prices, an official said.

Both industries are struggling to accommodate the turn in the Chinese economy away from investment led by property and public works toward greener, higher-tech growth.

In Berlin in the early 1870s, tourists began visiting a neighborhood called Barackia. It did not have museums, palaces, or any other typical attractions. Barackia was a working-class neighborhood where people grew their own food, lived in small dwellings, and established communal arrangements outside the normal reach of government. For a while, anyway: In 1872, authorities moved in and cleared out Barackia.

Still, the concept of small urban farming caught on, and by 1900, about 50,000 Berlin households were growing food, often in so-called arbor colonies. The practice has never really been abandoned: Today, by law, Germany provides residents the right to garden, still a very popular activity in urban areas.

“In a little space, you can grow a lot of produce,” says MIT Professor Kate Brown, author of a new history of urban gardening. “Once you set things up, it need not take too much of your time. You can have another job and still grow food. You go to Berlin, and many German cities, and you’re surrounded by these allotment gardens.”

But as the residents of Barackia found out, there is a politics that comes with growing your own food on common land. Other interests may want to claim or at least control the land themselves. Or they may want to tap into the labor being applied to gardening. One way or another, when many people start gardening for themselves, core questions about the organization of society seem to sprout up, too.

Brown examines urban gardening and its politics in her book, “Tiny Gardens Everywhere: The Past Present, and Future of the Self-Provisioning City,” published by W.W. Norton. Brown is the Thomas M. Siebel Distinguished Professor in History of Science within MIT’s Program in Science, Technology, and Society. In a book with global scope, ranging from Estonia to Amsterdam and Washington, Brown contends that urban gardening has many positive spillover effects, from health and environmental benefits to community-building — apart from periods of pushback when others are trying to eliminate it.

“Community after community, people work together to create food provisioning practices,” Brown says. “And after people come together for food and gardening, then they start to solve other problems they have.”

Whose land?

“Tiny Gardens Everywhere” was several years in making, featuring extensive archival research, with firsthand material interspersed too. Brown’s story begins in England, which had a very long tradition of people farming on common land, often in ingenious, productive ways. “Every bit of space was used,” Brown says.

Then in the late 18th century, the advent of “enclosures” for wealthy landowners privatized much land and changed social life for many. Poorer residents, even when given allotments, found them not big enough for self-sustaining farming.

“Private property is largely an English invention of the late 18th century,” Brown says. “Before that, and in many parts of the world to this day, people live with a communal sense of the ownership of the land.”

In Brown’s interpretation, the enclosure movement did not just claim more land for Britain’s upper class. In an industrializing society, it forced peasants into the factory labor force, whether in cities or in rural mills.

“Really what they were doing when they were enclosing land was trying to control labor, as much as controlling land,” Brown says. “Because of their reliance on the commons, peasants were self-sufficient. Who wants to go work in a factory when you could be out having fun in the forest? Expelling people was a way to force them to become homeless, the landless proletariat, with nothing to sell but their labor, for 10 or 18 hours a day.”

As Brown chronicles in detail, conflicts between communal agriculture and propertied classes have often arisen since then, in varying forms. And sometimes, in now-surprising places, because urban gardening has been more extensive than we realize.

A core section of “Tiny Gardens Everywhere” focuses on Washington, in the middle of the 20th century. During the Great Migration, which started a few decades earlier, African Americans moved north en masse, resettling in cities. They brought extensive knowledge with them about agricultural practices. In the part of Washington east of the Anacostia River, Black neighborhoods relied heavily on local gardening.

“They set up workers’ cooperatives and food cooperatives,” Brown observes. Despite often living in difficult circumstances, she adds, “I think it’s very interesting that people found really smart ways to adapt. If the neighborhood had no garbage collection, they’ll compost. No sewers, they’ll compost.”

Over time, though, authorities started claiming more land, designating homes to be torn down, and restricting the ability of residents to garden. And as Brown chronicles in the book, local officials have used restrictions on urban gardening as a form of social control, with one outcome being a homogenized social and physical landscape characterized by grass lawns for the affluent.

How much food?

Even if urban gardening has been fairly common in the past, it is natural to ask: How much food can it really provide? As Brown sees it, there is not one simple answer to that question. At one point, victory gardens provided about 40 percent of all produce grown in the U.S. during World War II, for one thing. More recently, In 1996, 91 percent of the potatoes Russians ate came from urban allotment gardens on 1.5 percent of the country’s arable land.

As Brown also points out in the book, we may not be growing as much produce on giant farms as we think. Only 2 percent of agricultural land in the U.S. is used to produce fruit and vegetables, for instance. The U.S., as a variety of analysts and writers have observed, has corn-and soy-heavy agricultural systems at its largest scales, principally yielding corn-based products. That means, Brown says, “They’re really inefficiently [working] to produce ethanol, corn syrup, chips, and cookies.”

In sum, she adds, “Yes, I do think it’s possible to take an urban space and grow a good part of the fruits and vegetables that people need there.”

It is possible, Brown believes, for things to change on this front. For instance, Florida, Illinois, and Maine, three fairly different states in terms of politics, all have laws providing the right to garden. Oklahoma has a similar bill in the works.

“I think this approach to looking at our right to grow food, to self-provision, to step outside of markets for our most essential needs, is something that represents a unifying set of desires in our hyperpolarized political landscape,” Brown says.

Other scholars have praised “Tiny Gardens Everywhere.” Sunil Amrith, a professor of history at Yale University, has said that Brown uses “enviable skill, craft, and insight” to show “that the past of small-scale urban provisioning contains the seeds of a more resilient future for us all.”

For her part, Brown hopes the book will not only appeal to readers, but spur them to become more active about the issue, as gardeners, local policy advocates, or both.

“One of the drumbeats of this book is that people do — and maybe we all should — win the right to garden,” Brown says. 

When Associate Professor Eliezer Calo PhD ’11 was applying for faculty positions, he was drawn to MIT not only because it’s his alma mater, but also because the Department of Biology places high value on exploring fundamental questions in biology.

In his own lab, Calo studies how craniofacial malformations arise. One motivation is to seek new treatments for those conditions, but another is to learn more about fundamental biological processes such as protein synthesis and embryonic development.

“We use genes that are mutated in disease to uncover fundamental biology,” Calo says. “Mutations that happen in disease are an experiment of nature, telling us that those are the important genes, and then we follow them up not only to understand the disease, but to fundamentally understand what the genes are doing.”

Calo’s work has led to new insights into how ribosomes form and how they control protein synthesis, as well as how the nucleolus, the birthplace of ribosomes in eukaryotic cells, has evolved over hundreds of millions of years.

In addition to earning his PhD at MIT, Calo is also an alumnus of MIT’s Summer Research Program (MSRP), which helps to prepare undergraduate students to pursue graduate education. Since starting his lab at MIT, Calo has made a point to serve as a research mentor for the program every summer.

“I feel that it’s important to pay back to the program that helped me realize what I wanted to do,” he says.

A nontraditional path

Growing up in a mountainous region of Puerto Rico, Calo was the first person from his family to finish high school. While attending the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras, the largest university in Puerto Rico, he explored a few different majors before settling on chemistry.

One of Calo’s chemistry professors invited him to work in her lab, where he did a research project studying the pharmacokinetics of cell receptors found on the surface of astrocytes, a type of brain cell.

“It was a good mix of biology and chemistry,” he says. “I think that that was the catalyst to my pursuit of a career in the sciences.”

He learned about MSRP from Mandana Sassanfar, a senior lecturer in biology at MIT and director of outreach for several MIT departments, at an event hosted by the University of Puerto Rico for students interested in careers in science. He was accepted into the program, and during the summer after his junior year, he worked in the lab of Stephen Bell, an MIT professor of biology. That experience, he says, was transformative.

“Without that experience, I would have probably chosen another career,” Calo says. In Puerto Rico, “science was fun, but it was a struggle. We had to make everything from scratch, and then you spend more time making reagents than doing the experiments. When I came to MIT, I was always doing experiments.”

During that time, he realized he liked working in biology labs more than chemistry labs, so when he applied to graduate school, he decided to move into biology. He applied to five schools, including MIT. “Once MIT sent me the acceptance, I just had to say yes. There was no saying no.”

At MIT, Calo thought he might study biochemistry, but he ended up focusing on cancer biology instead, working with Jacqueline Lees, an MIT biology professor, to study the role of the tumor suppressor protein Rb.

After finishing his PhD, Calo felt burnt out and wasn’t sure if he wanted to continue along the academic track. His thesis committee advisors encouraged him to do a postdoc just to try it out, and he ended up going to Stanford University, where he fell in love with California and switched to a new research focus. Working with Joanna Wysocka, a professor of developmental biology at Stanford, he began investigating how development is affected by the regulation of proteins that make up cellular ribosomes — a topic his lab still studies today.

Returning to MIT

When searching for faculty jobs, Calo focused mainly on schools in California, but also sent an application to MIT. As he was deciding between offers from MIT and the University of California at Berkeley, a phone call from Angelika Amon, the late MIT professor of biology, convinced him to take the cross-country leap back to MIT.

“She had me on the phone for more than one hour telling me why I should come to MIT,” he recalls. “And that was so heartwarming that I could not say no.”

Since starting his lab in 2017, Calo has been studying how defects in the production of ribosomes give rise to diseases, in particular craniofacial malformations such as cleft palate.

Ribosomes, the organelles where protein synthesis occurs, consist of two subunits made of about 80 proteins. A longstanding question in biology has been why mutations that affect ribosome formation appear to primarily affect the development of the face, but not the rest of the body.

In a 2018 study, Calo discovered that this is because the mutations that affect ribosomes can have secondary effects that influence craniofacial development. In embryonic cells that form the face, a mutation in a gene called TCOF1 activates p53 at a higher level than in other embryonic cells. High levels of p53 cause some of those cells to undergo programmed cell death, leading to Treacher-Collins Syndrome, a disorder that produces underdeveloped bones in the jaw and cheek.

His lab has shown that p53 overactivation is also responsible for craniofacial disorders caused by mutations in RNA splicing factors.

Calo’s work on ribosome formation also led him to explore another cell organelle known as the nucleolus, whose role is to help build ribosomes. In 2023, he found that a gene called TCOF1, which can lead to craniofacial malformations when mutated, is critical for forming the three compartments that make up the nucleolus.

That finding, he says, could help to explain a major evolutionary shift that occurred around 300 million years ago, when the nucleolus transitioned from two to three compartments. This “tripartite” nucleolus is found in all reptiles, birds, and mammals.

“That was quite surprising,” Calo says. “Studying disease-related genes allowed us to understand a very fundamental biological process of how the nucleolus evolved, which has been a question in the field that nobody could figure out the answer for.”

To avoid the worst effects of climate change, many billions of metric tons of industrially generated carbon dioxide will have to be captured and stored away by the end of this century. One place to store such an enormous amount of greenhouse gas is in the Earth itself. If carbon dioxide were pumped into the cracks and crevices of certain underground rocks, the fluid would react with the rocks and solidify carbon into minerals. In this way, carbon dioxide could potentially be locked in the rocks in stable form for millions of years without escaping back into the atmosphere.

Some pilot projects are already underway to demonstrate such “carbon mineralization.” These efforts have shown promising results in terms of successfully mineralizing a large fraction of injected CO2. However, it’s less clear how the rocks will evolve in response. As carbonate minerals build up, could they clog up cracks and crevices, and ultimately limit the amount of CO2 that can be stored there?

In a new study appearing today in the journal AGU Advances, MIT geophysicists explored this question by injecting fluid into rocks and using X-ray imaging to reveal how the rocks’ pores and cracks changed as the fluid mineralized over time.

Their experiments showed that as fluid was pumped into a rock, the rock’s permeability (the ability of fluid to flow through the rock) dropped sharply. Meanwhile, the rock’s porosity (its total amount of empty space, in the form of pores, cracks, and crevices) remained relatively the same.

The researchers found that the minerals were precipitating out of the fluid in the narrower tunnels connecting larger pores, preventing the fluid from flowing into larger pore spaces. Even so, the fluid did keep flowing through the rock, albeit at a lower rate, and minerals continued to form in some cracks and crevices.

“This study gives you information about what the rock does during this complex mineralization process, which could give you ideas of how to engineer it in your favor,” says study co-author Matėj Peč, an associate professor of geophysics at MIT. 

“If you were injecting CO2 into the Earth and saw a massive drop in permeability, some operators might think they clogged up the well,” adds co-author Jonathan Simpson, a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “But as this study shows, in some cases, it might not matter that much. As long as you maintain some flow rate, you could still form minerals and sequester carbon.”

The study’s co-authors include EAPS Research Scientist Hoagy O’Ghaffari as well as Sharath Mahavadi and Jean Elkhoury of the Schlumberger-Doll Research Center.

Drilling down

Basalt is a type of erupted volcanic rock that is found in places such as Hawaii and Iceland. When fresh, it’s highly porous, with many pores, cracks, and fractures running through the rock. The material also is highly concentrated in iron, calcium, and magnesium. When these elements come in contact with fluid that is rich in carbon dioxide, they can dissolve and mix with CO2, and eventually form a new carbon-based mineral such as calcite or dolomite.

A project based in Iceland and piloted by the company CarbFix is currently injecting CO2-rich water into the region’s underground basalt to see how much of the gas can be converted and stored as minerals in the rock. The company’s runs have shown that more than 95 percent of the CO2 injected into the ground turns into minerals within two years. The project is proving that the chemistry works: CO2 can be stored as stone.

But the MIT team wondered how this mineralization process would change the basalt itself and its capacity to store carbon over time.

“Most studies investigating carbon mineralization have focused on optimizing the geochemistry, but we wanted to know how mineralization would affect real reservoir rocks,” Peč says.

Rocky X-rays

The team set out to study how the permeability and porosity of basalt changes as carbonate-rich fluid is pumped into and mineralized throughout the rock.

“Porosity refers to the total amount of open space in the rock, which could be in the form of vesicles, or fractures that connect vesicles, or even areas between sand grains,” Simpson explains. “Because there is so much variability in porosity patterns, there is no one-to-one relationship between porosity and permeability. You could have a lot of pores that are not necessarily connected. So, even if 20 percent of the rock is porous, if they’re not connected, then permeability would be zero.”

“The details of that are important to understand for all these problems of injecting fluids into the subsurface,” Peč emphasizes.

For their experiments, the team used samples of basalt that Peč and others collected during a trip to Iceland in 2023. They placed small samples of basalt in a custom-built holder that they connected to two tubes, through which they flowed two different fluids, each containing a solution that, when mixed, quickly forms carbonate minerals. The team chose this combination of fluids in order to speed up the mineralization process.

In the actual process of injecting CO2 into the ground, CO2 is mixed with water. When it is pumped through rock, the fluid first goes through a “dissolution” phase, in which it draws elements such as iron, calcium, and magnesium out from the basalt and into the CO2-rich fluid. This dissolution process can take some time, before the mineralization process, in which CO2 mixes with the drawn-out elements, can proceed.

The researchers used two different fluids that quickly mineralize when combined, in order to skip over the dissolution phase and efficiently study the effects of the mineralization process. The team was able to see the mineralization process occurring within the rock, at an unprecedented level of detail, by performing experiments inside an X-ray CT scanner. The team set up their experiment in a CT scanner (similar to the ones used for medical imaging in hospitals) and took frequent, high-resolution, three-dimensional snapshots of the basalt periodically over several days to weeks as they flowed the fluids through.

Their imaging revealed how the pores, cracks, and crevices in the rock evolved, and filled in with minerals as the fluid flowed through over time. Over multiple experiments, they found that the rock’s permeability quickly dropped within a day, by an order of magnitude. The rock’s porosity, however, decreased at a much slower rate. At the end of the longest-duration experiments, only about 5 percent of the original pore space was filled with new minerals.

“Our findings tell us that the minerals are initially forming in really small microcracks that connect the bigger pore spaces, and clogging up those spaces,” Simpson says. “You don’t need much to clog up the tiny microfractures. But when you do clog them up, that really drops the permeability.”

Even after the initial drop in permeability, however, the team could continue to flow fluid through, and minerals continued to form in tight spaces within the rock. This suggests that even when it seems like an underground reservoir is full, it might still be able to store more carbon.

The researchers also monitored the rock with ultrasonic sensors during each experiment and found that the sensor could track even small changes in the rock’s porosity. The less porous, or more filled in the rock was with minerals, the faster sound waves traveled through the material. These results suggest that seismic waves could be a reliable way to monitor the porosity of underground rocks and ultimately their capacity to store carbon.

“Overall, we think that carbon mineralization seems like a promising avenue to permanently store large volumes of CO2,” Peč concludes. “There are plenty of reservoirs and they should be injectable over extended periods of time if our results can be extrapolated.”

This work was supported by MIT’s Advanced Carbon Mineralization Initiative funded by Beth Siegelman SM ’84 and Russ Siegelman ’84, with additional funding from the Chan-Zuckerberg Foundation.

When Francis Wang ’21, MEng ’22 first joined the MIT Edgerton Center’s Solar Electric Vehicle Team (SEVT), his approach to engineering projects was “to focus my energy and attention on a tidy problem with neat boundaries that I could completely control.”

“But on Solar Car, I realized it takes a very different mindset to manage a substantial project with many moving pieces. It takes engineering leadership,” he recalls.

Wang was determined to strengthen his leadership skills. When he became Solar Car captain, he applied and was accepted into the Gordon Engineering Leadership (GEL) Program.

GEL’s courses and hands-on labs equip students with capabilities they need to lead and contribute to complex, real-world engineering challenges. The one- or two-year program for juniors and seniors complements MIT’s technical education, teaching teamwork, leadership, and communication skills in an engineering context. GEL students also benefit from personalized coaching, mentoring, industry networking, and career support throughout their professional lives.

“Before GEL, I saw the leadership parts of my role as a necessary evil to get to the actual interesting parts, which was the engineering,” says Wang. “The GEL Program gave me an understanding of how engineering leadership is crucial, because in the real world any project worth working on is larger than the scope of an individual engineer.”

In GEL he improved capabilities such as decision-making, taking initiative, and negotiating. He became a more effective SEVT team captain, able to navigate the challenges of taking an engineering project from concept to completion.

“It was often the case that the challenges I faced on Solar Car were not solely technical, involving aspects of communication, coordination, and negotiation. From GEL, I had the framework and the language to approach them,” says Wang.

Each year, 30-40 Edgerton students are accepted into the GEL Program. They come from a variety of teams and clubs including Arcturus, Assistive Technology Club, ChemE Club, Combat Robotics Club, Design Build Fly (DBF), Design for America, Electric Vehicle Team, Engineers Without Borders, First Nations Launch, MIT Electronics Research Society (MITERS), Motorsports, Robotics Team, Rocket Team, and Solar Electric Vehicle Team (SEVT).

“MIT’s best engineering students have GEL training and authentic project management experience with our competition teams,” says Professor J. Kim Vandiver, director of the Edgerton Center.

Edgerton project teams are entirely student-run organizations responsible for all levels of project and team management including fundraising, recruiting, designing, testing, risk mitigation, and project validation. The most successful teams have skilled leaders.

“Many of the excellent Edgerton project team students admitted to GEL are team or sub-team leaders who credit their GEL experience, particularly the experiential learning component, with improving their leadership skills,” says Leo McGonagle, executive director of GEL.

“It’s a win-win-win. GEL gets hard-working, motivated Edgerton Program students who are intent on self-development and improvement. Edgerton project teams often perform better with leaders who are GEL-trained. And the students gain leadership, teamwork, and communication abilities that they can use beyond their project team — in their capstones, course projects, internships, and jobs after MIT,” says McGonagle.

The overlapping connection between GEL and Edgerton truly becomes obvious when students begin to take ownership of project milestones.

“When you become the leader of a technical project, no one gives you a roadmap to team success,” says senior Hailey Polson, former captain of First Nations Launch team. “Technical expertise is not enough to leverage the talent and skills of an entire team or the ability to coordinate a multifaceted project; that’s where the tools, skills, and leadership theory I learned in GEL helped me bridge the gap between knowing how to accomplish our goals and actually leading my team successfully.”

Faris Elnager ’25 served as testing lead on the Motorsports team, which designs, manufactures, and competes with a formula-style electric race car every year.

“Making tough decisions was something that I learned in GEL. On Motorsports, I had to make high-stakes decisions about testing time that affected how we performed at a competition,” he says.

He found that GEL’s weekly Engineering Leadership Labs were a way to test for himself specific leadership capabilities that he could use to improve his Motorsports team.

“One of the most useful skills from GEL was evaluating your stakeholders and learning how to balance their needs. I remember thinking, we’re doing this right now in the [GEL] lab, and then we’re going back to the [Edgerton] shop to do this for real!” says Elnager. “It’s like a positive feedback loop. GEL labs make you better on project teams, and project teams make you better in GEL.”

Now a startup co-founder, Elnager says that the communication skills that he learned through Motorsports and GEL have been critical to his company’s early success. “You can build the best tech in the world. If you can’t pitch it to people, you’re never going to raise any money. Being able to explain a technical project to anyone, whether they're an investor or someone in your industry, is something that’s incredibly valuable.”

Adrienne Lai ’25 served as both mechanical lead and then captain of the Solar Electric Vehicle Team. She recalls how her GEL training would kick in on race day.

“It’s quite tricky to be captain of a build team, because there’s no adult to tell you what to do. You have to figure it all out for yourself. When you’re competing, it can be very chaotic. You are trying to maximize a score by driving more miles, but that comes with a trade-off of spending energy or ending the day in a more rural area, or with less sun, so there are a lot of trade-offs to consider. Sometimes someone just has to make a decision. I was very comfortable doing that because I had learned how to take initiative, which is one of the GEL capabilities,” she says.

Now a course assistant in GEL, Lai helps design scenarios that enable GEL students to become better and more resilient leaders. She particularly enjoys playing the role of an uncooperative supplier.

“We close our store randomly. We don’t have what they need. We won’t tell them what we have,” she laughs. “Students get very frustrated. They think that we’re just being mean. But from a real-world perspective, that is all very true. It simulates unpredictability, which is important not just in a job, but in life.”

The value of the engineering leadership skills learned in GEL and honed on Edgerton project teams carries forward into industry, graduate studies, and entrepreneurial ventures.

“GEL preparation, coupled with authentic project management on a competition team, prepares MIT students for great careers in industry,” says Vandiver.

Henry Smith ’25 says he still relies on skills such as negotiation, communication, and understanding stakeholder needs that he used when he was a Motorsports mechanical lead.

“I was doing high-level management, planning, and organization on the team. Being in the GEL Program really increased my value for the team and helped me be prepared to enter the job field. When I graduated, I wasn’t worried about being ready or not. It was a definite yes,” says Smith.

As project teams continue to address ambitious engineering challenges, the synergy between Edgerton and the Gordon Engineering Leadership (GEL) Program ensures that as students graduate, they’re prepared to not only become strong technical contributors, but confident leaders prepared to tackle complex engineering problems in the real world.

Some genetic mutations that are expected to completely stop a gene from working surprisingly cause only mild or even no symptoms. Researchers in previous studies have discovered one reason why: Cells can ramp up the activity of other genes that perform similar functions to make up for the loss of an important gene’s function. 

A new study published Feb. 12 in the journal Science by researchers in the lab of Jonathan Weissman, an MIT professor of biology and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research member, now reveals insights into how cells can coordinate this compensation response.

Cells are constantly reading instructions stored in DNA. These instructions, called genes, tell them how to make the many proteins that carry out complex processes needed to sustain life. But first, they need to make a temporary copy of these genetic instructions called messenger RNA, or mRNA.

As part of normal maintenance, cells routinely break down these temporary messages. This process helps control gene activity — or how much protein is made from a given gene — and ensures that old or unnecessary messages don’t accumulate. Cells also destroy faulty mRNAs that contain errors. These messages, if used, could produce damaged proteins that clump together and interfere with normal cellular processes.

In 2019, external studies suggested that this cleanup could be serving as more than just a quality-control check. Researchers showed that when faulty mRNAs are broken down, this breakdown can signal cells to activate the compensation response. These works also suggested that cells decide which backup genes to turn up based on how closely these genes resemble the mRNA that’s being degraded. 

But mRNA decay is a process that happens in the cytoplasm, outside the nucleus where DNA, and thereby genes, are stored. So, Mohamed El-Brolosy, a postdoc in the Weissman Lab and lead author of the study, and colleagues wondered how those two processes in different compartments of the cell could be connected. Understanding this mechanism with greater depth could enable development of therapeutics that trigger it in a targeted fashion.

The researchers started by investigating a specific gene that scientists know triggers a compensation response when its mRNA is destroyed by causing a closely related gene to become more active. To find out which molecules within the cell aid this process, the researchers systematically switched other genes off, one at a time.

That’s when they found a protein called ILF3. When the gene encoding this protein was turned off, cells could no longer ramp up the activity of the backup gene following mRNA decay.

Upon further investigation, the researchers identified small RNA fragments — left behind when faulty mRNAs are destroyed — underlying this response. These fragments contain a special sequence that acts like an “address.” The team proposed that this address guides ILF3 to related backup genes that share the same sequence as the faulty mRNA.

In fact, when they introduced mutations in this sequence, the cells’ compensation response dropped, suggesting that the system relies on precise sequence matching to target the correct backup genes.

“That was very exciting for us,” says Weissman, who is also an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. “It showed us that this isn’t a generic stress response. It’s a regulated system.”

The researchers’ findings point toward new therapeutic possibilities, where boosting the activity of a related gene could mitigate symptoms of certain genetic diseases. More broadly, their work characterizes a mysterious layer of gene regulation.