Nature Climate Change, Published online: 22 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02697-8

The authors review ecological novelty—ecological situations with no precedent—arising from climate change. They discuss ecological novelty due to direct and indirect effects of climate change, and due to adaptation and mitigation measures, and explore management options that are against, for or tolerant of ecological novelty.

Stars and galaxies make up much of the universe’s ordinary, observable matter. But for decades, scientists have wrestled with a cosmic conflict: There should be much more. 

Physicists have good estimates of how much matter was present in the early universe. Shortly after the Big Bang, roughly 83 percent of all matter in the universe was composed of invisible dark matter, with ordinary matter making up the rest. And yet, these estimates exceed the amount of ordinary matter seen in stars and galaxies today. Where, then, did all the missing ordinary matter go? 

Now MIT scientists, as part of the CHIME/FRB Collaboration, are using far-off radio signals to reveal missing matter in the vast space between galaxies. The team has developed a new method to search out missing matter by combining locations of galaxies with detections of fast radio bursts. 

A fast radio burst, or FRB, is an ultrabright, millisecond flash of radio waves emitted by extremely energetic phenomena in the distant universe. As it travels through space, the signal from a fast radio burst gets stretched, or “smeared,” in time. The more missing matter that it passes through, the more smeared the signal becomes. 

The MIT-led team measured the degree of smearing experienced by thousands of FRB signals detected on Earth. Then they compared each FRB smear with locations of galaxies across the universe to determine how much of an FRB’s smearing was due to galaxy matter versus other, missing matter. 

The new method revealed not only whether missing matter was present, but also where. Specifically, the researchers discovered that it exists in very diffuse clouds surrounding groups of galaxies. These clouds extend out from the galaxies, to much further distances than scientists had predicted. 

“We find that, overall, where there are more galaxies, there tends to be more missing matter around them,” says Haochen Wang, a graduate student in MIT’s Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research.

The results, reported today in the journal Physical Review Letters, support the idea that matter is flung outside a galaxy through black hole jets, exploding stars, and other highly energetic processes within a galaxy. What’s more, the findings suggest that such processes are more energetic than scientists had thought. 

“We’re finding missing matter that is pushed out to larger scales,” says Kiyoshi Masui, associate professor of physics at MIT. “These measurements indicate that star activity, and activity from black holes, is stronger and much more violent than predicted.”

Masui and Wang are co-authors of the new study, which includes Shion Andrew, Adam Lanman, Kenzie Nimmo, and Ryan Raikman from MIT, and collaborators from multiple other institutions as part of the CHIME/FRB Collaboration. 

The shape of matter

The vast majority of ordinary, observable matter in the universe is built from baryons — a type of subatomic particle that includes protons and neutrons, and that makes up most of an atom’s mass. Scientists estimate that just 17 percent of the early universe was made from this “baryonic” matter, shortly after the Big Bang. 

Some of that early matter was forged into every substantial thing we see today, from planets, stars, and galaxies, to our own bodies. But as scientists have realized, this matter doesn’t quite add up. The total mass of all the stars, galaxies, and galactic clouds is about a tenth of the baryonic matter that existed in the early universe. There must be more matter, likely in the spaces between galaxies. But the universe is vast. Any leftover matter likely exists at extremely low densities, of around a single proton per cubic meter, making it extremely challenging to detect.  

Recently, however, Masui and others have found that such missing matter could be sussed out using fast radio bursts. FRBs were first discovered in 2007, and since then astronomers have detected several thousand of the mysterious, ultrashort signals from distant galaxies, billions of light years away. 

“What makes FRBs good to probe missing matter is that they have a special property,” Wang says. “They start out as a very quick flash, and as they pass through matter, they smear out in time. And we can measure that smearing very precisely, which is directly proportional to how much missing matter the FRB passed through.”

Researchers have previously taken advantage of this smearing property of FRBs to detect missing matter around galaxies. These efforts have confirmed that tenous clouds exist in the vast spaces between galaxies. Masui and Wang wanted to go a step further. 

“We’re not just probing if the gas is with the galaxy or not, but we are seeing the shape of the missing matter that’s around the galaxies,” Wang says. “By mapping the shape of missing matter, we can understand how galaxies form and how they interact with their environment.”

Galactic fountains

For their new study, the team mapped the shape of missing matter around galaxies by cross-correlating thousands of FRB measurements with locations of millions of galaxies. They used data from two sources: the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey. 

CHIME is a large radio telescope located in British Columbia, Canada, that is designed to scan the entire northern sky for incoming radio waves. The telescope is sensitive to ultrashort, ultrabright radio signals, and since it began observing, CHIME has detected about 4,000 fast radio bursts across the sky. 

DESI is an instrument that is mounted on the Mayall Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory, near Tucson, Arizona. The instrument makes detailed measurements of the light coming from over 30 million galaxies, to provide estimates of dark energy — the mysterious force that drives the expansion of the universe. 

From CHIME’s catalog of detections, members of the CHIME/FRB collaboration analyzed 2,870 FRB signals. Each signal is a burst of radio waves, at multiple wavelengths, from highest to lowest energy. The higher-energy “blue” waves typically are less affected by any missing matter they travel through, and therefore should arrive at a detector before lower-energy “red” wavelengths, which are more delayed, or “smeared,” in time. 

The team measured the smearing of each FRB’s various wavelengths, which they could then directly relate to the amount of matter that the FRB must have traveled through before reaching CHIME’s detectors. Masui and Wang then correlated these measurements with the locations of over 6 million galaxies provided by DESI data. In this way, they could look for an association between the missing matter and the galaxies, and measure where one is in relation to the other. 

Their analysis revealed a pattern: Missing baryonic matter tended to be found around galaxies and galaxy clusters. But rather than gathering close to galaxies in a dense ball, missing matter was scattered across a large radius, similar to a diffuse puff. 

“A galaxy is maybe a few 100,000 light years across, and we found missing matter out to about 4 million light years,” Masui says. “That’s further than the simulations predict, by quite a bit.”

“We are finding that the activity in galaxies is messier than we thought,” Wang says. “They’re more like fountains, and really push out gas to very large distances.”

The new results show that fast radio bursts can be a reliable method by which to search for missing matter. As CHIME continues to detect more FRBs, the team says its method can only improve.

“We got it to work for the first time, and will get it to work even more precisely as data gets better,” Masui says. 

CHIME and CHIME/FRB are supported by the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and, the provinces of British Columbia, Québec, and Ontario. This study was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

On June 4, colleagues held homemade signs, waved pompoms, and cheered loudly for award recipients in Kresge Auditorium. Twenty individuals and three teams received MIT Excellence Awards — the Institute’s highest honor for staff. Additional honors included the Collier Medal, the Staff Award for Distinction in Service, and the Gordon Y. Billard Award. 

The Collier Medal honors the memory of MIT police officer Sean Collier, who gave his life in service to the MIT community. Recipients embody a deep commitment to community and approach their work with compassion for others. The Staff Award for Distinction in Service is presented to an individual who approaches their work with kindness, empathy, and approachability, and serves as a trusted adviser at the Institute. The Gordon Y. Billard Award is given to staff or faculty members, or MIT-affiliated individuals, who make "significant and lasting contributions to the MIT community."

The 2026 MIT Excellence Award recipients and their categories are: 

Bringing Out the Best 

• Robin Elices 

• Kate McCarthy 

• Jim Mitchell 

Embracing Inclusion 

• Allison Chang 

• Mandana Sassanfar 

Innovative Solutions 

• Kayla S. (KB) Burt 

• Amanda Jarvis 

• Julie Uva 

• Sustainability Team (Yu Cheng, Brian Goldberg, Susy Jones, Steve Lanou, Ellie McLane, and Julie Newman) 

Outstanding Contributor 

• Barry Pugatch 

• Emma Shortall 

• Chao Li 

• Catherine Nunziata 

• Trinidad Carney 

• Gang Liu 

• Laura von Bosau 

• James Daley 

• Craig Rowe 

• MIT Health Housekeeping Team (Michael Batista, Maria Coelho, Mae Evans, Maria Fatima Rosario, Selam Stefanos, Claudia Teixeira, and Claudia Vidal)

Serving Our Community 

• Olivia Cheo 

• Clayton Hainsworth 

• Atsushi Takahashi 

• MIT Health Ambulatory Safety Net and Population Management Team (Michele M. A. David, Solanlly Mendez, Pamela Mensah, Nicole Napier, Lucus David Sensius, and Stephanie Shaprio)

The 2026 Collier Medal recipient was Michael Grenier, pub manager, dining, Division of Student Life. At the Muddy Charles and the Thirsty Ear pubs, Grenier creates spaces where MIT community members can relax, meet friends, and find unconditional support. His acts of kindness are woven into the atmosphere he creates, and alumni regard him as someone who shaped an important part of their early adult lives. 

This year’s winner of the Staff Award for Distinction in Service was Christina Couch, associate director and lecturer, MIT Graduate Program in Science Writing, Comparative Media Studies, School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (SHASS). Couch has been an invaluable member of the SHASS community — as a student, alumna, and staff member. Through her work, she has created opportunities for students to interact and build relationships with professional journalists, and underlying everything she does is her compassion and deep belief in student potential.

Three community members were honored with a 2026 Gordon Y. Billard Award.  

• Cullen R. Buie, professor of mechanical and biological engineering, associate department head of mechanical engineering, and head of house, Maseeh Hall 

• Traci Swartz, assistant director, Community Services Office, Institute Affairs, Office of the President 

• David L. Verrill, executive director, Initiative on the Digital Economy, MIT Sloan School of Management 

Presenters included Provost Anantha Chandrakasan; MIT Chief of Police John DiFava and Captain Andrew Turco; Executive Vice President and Treasurer Glen Shor; Associate Provost Maria Yang; Dean of the School of Science Nergis Mavalvala; Lincoln Laboratory Assistant Director Justin Brooke; Vice President for Human Resources Ramona Allen; and Chancellor Melissa Nobles. 

Visit the MIT Human Resources website for more information about the award recipients, categories, and to view photos and video of the event. 

Every year, MIT’s graduation coincides with the joyful reunion of classes past, but this year brought a special occasion for the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS). Senior Lecturer Gim Hom hosted a special reunion for around 15 of his classmates from the Class of 1971 in the Cypress Engineering Design Studio, a staffed makerspace and classroom run by the department. (Yes, for those of you doing some hasty subtraction, that is a 55th-year reunion.) Participants worked with electronic components just as they did in labs long ago, building their choice of two projects: a simplified electrocardiogram (ECG) and an audio amplifier. But the event wasn’t only a reunion. For Hom, the activity doubled as his chance to teach a “last class.” 

He explains: “As a lecturer, I use real-world problems and solutions to teach concepts in analog and digital design. For the reunion activity, I drew upon two existing labs from my courses and stripped out the theory material, leaving only the assembly for the reunion activity.”

For the first activity, attendees refreshed their soldering skills, assembling a printed circuit board (PCB) that approximated the design of an ECG before attaching electrodes and rolling up their sleeves (literally) to view the electrical impulses of their heartbeats. Hom explains that “in 6.2040 (Analog Lab), I use the ECG as a platform for teaching signal acquisition, filtering, and display. Students first analyze the design of an ECG circuit and then build and solder the board themselves, gaining hands-on experience with printed circuit board assembly. For many students, this is their first exposure to soldering.”

In the second activity, the alumni learned to surface mount solder, a skill that, while technically possible, had not yet become popularized during their time as undergraduates at MIT. “Modern electronics primarily rely on surface-mount technology (SMT),” explains Hom. “To give students exposure to SMT assembly, I designed an optional laboratory project: a small USB-powered audio amplifier that students can use to play music from their phones. While external speakers must be connected, the amplifier yields surprisingly good sound quality.”

Throughout the day, technical instructors Anthony Pennes and Liam Ackerman (both coincidentally celebrating their own reunions, at 10 and 5 years out from MIT, respectively) remained on hand to answer questions and familiarize attendees with the technology available in the Engineering Design Studio, which is open to the EECS community from morning until nearly midnight throughout the school year. 

“It was wonderful to see alumni leave with a working board with big smiles on their faces,” says Hom, who, while no longer teaching, will continue part time as an advisor to EECS students.

Meanwhile, his classmates have a working memento of their time at MIT — and a reminder that technical skills can last a lifetime. 

It’s a lot:

According to information obtained by The Tech, MIT is spending over $3 million on more than 500 AI surveillance cameras in academic buildings, residence halls, and outdoor areas along Memorial Drive. Installation of the new cameras, along with the wiring and infrastructure that will support them, began November 2025 and will likely continue until September 2026.

Technical specifications for the cameras suggest that they will be capable of collecting real-time face and object classification data, including detection of motion, loitering, crowds, face masks, and camera tampering. Individuals can also be automatically classified on the basis of clothing color, gender, and age, up to a distance of 35 feet (11 meters) from the camera. According to a statement from MIT spokesperson Kimberly Allen, any collected data is “retained up to 30 days,” unless an exception is granted...

The president invoked an obscure process to review the institution's federal grants over what he says is "climate fraud."

A third of the research offices the agency is evaluating to possibly close works in climate adaptation and wildfire prevention.

The latest Ratepayer Protection Act would apply more specifically to data centers.

The Trump EPA recently asked Congress to undo four more federal waivers underpinning California air pollution rules.

Fossil fuel firms claim the rules will trigger catastrophic supply disruptions if implemented next year.

MOPO rents out batteries charged at its own solar power plants, removing the need for customers and communities with limited income to invest in solar home systems or mini-grids.

Long regarded as an outlier scenario, climate tipping points are now making their way into portfolio analysis and even informing financial regulations.

Stories of people again surprised to find their homes inundated by rising rivers illustrate the challenges of trying to bolster early warning systems in a vast, rural area known as Flash Flood Alley.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino got some serious air time over the course of the 2026 World Cup, the tournament's most far-flung edition ever.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 21 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02716-8

Whether news presents climate change as something happening now or in the future impacts public risk perceptions and climate action. A recent study shows that, in US news, the timing of anticipated climate impacts has got closer but coordinated climate actions are consistently deferred to the future.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 21 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02723-9

COP meetings have faced criticism and calls for reform, yet evidence on reform choices remains limited. Here a survey of COP participants reveals broad support for enhancing transparency and implementation, while proposals to change consensus rules or the COP presidency are less favoured.

Are you a California resident? Then we've got exciting news for you: there's a tool just for you that lets you take a single, relatively easy step to protect your privacy. 

It's called a DROP request. (That's Delete Request and Opt-out Platform, if you're fancy). This one bit of paperwork lets you tell every data broker registered in the state of California that you'd like them to delete your information from their databases and request they stop selling and sharing your information. 

Here are some things to know about DROP. 

(Don’t want all the details and want to just learn how to file a request? Skip to this section.)

What does a request do?

Filing a request on the DROP will send a request to delete and opt-out of sale to all the data brokers in California's registry. Data brokers are companies that collect information about people, repackage that information, and sell it. As of time of writing, a single DROP request reaches 614 brokers.

After August 1, once data brokers receive a request, they will have 45 days to address the request. 

DROP officially launched on Jan. 1 of this year, but companies have until Aug. 1 to begin complying with requests. That means if you file a request now, you'll be in on the ground floor.

Didn't I hear about this before?

If you pay attention to EFF, you sure did. With your help, we advocated for the law creating the DROP tool, the Delete Act. As we said then, we needed the DROP because Californians have a right to request that companies delete information collected about them, and a right to opt-out of having businesses sell information about them. Yet, in reality, making those requests is an incredibly time-consuming and tedious process. Filing each request is hard. Plus, because data brokers buy, sell, and exchange information with so many companies (and each other) people may not even know who to file a request with. By linking a request to California's data broker registry, DROP cuts this process down considerably.

We advocated for DROP and the Delete Act because it makes our privacy law more user-friendly, which gives us better control over our data and reduces the risks that the uncontrolled collection and sale of personal information creates in our everyday lives. 

What's in it for me?

Filing a request benefits you in a few ways. For one, data brokers are often how spammers (or companies that act like spammers) get your email address, phone number, and other ways of contacting you. Removing yourself from data broker lists could lead to a decrease in these kinds of messages. Second, reducing the number of companies that have your personal information also improves your personal cybersecurity, as it decreases the number of firms with your information who could be hacked. Third and finally, it gives you an opportunity to exert more control over how your personal information is collected and used—an important element of privacy. Unless you opt out, data brokers can sell your private information to predatory companies, scammers, stalkers, insurance companies, and law enforcement.

What kinds of information will (and won't) be deleted?

The California Privacy Protection Agency, which administers the DROP, has a great resource explaining what data are and are not included in a request. But in summary, a request will often deal with identifying information such as: social security number, precise geolocation, browsing history, email address, and phone numbers. It will also enter a request to delete guesses that data brokers may have made about you based on identifying information, such as political views, inferences about your health—inferences about pregnancy or chronic illness, for example, that may be based on purchases or browsing history.

Not all information will be deleted. Some information, such as vehicle or real estate ownership, contains information that is a matter of public record. 

If there is a specific data broker you'd like to be able to retain and continue selling your data, the system also gives you a way to remove them from the list of brokers that get any given request. 

How do I file?

Head to the California Privacy Protection Agency's DROP website to start your request. Before you start, there are a few pieces of information you may want to gather for your request, such as your advertising ID or your VIN number, if you want this information to be deleted from data broker databases. 

The agency does ask to collect some personal information—name, address, phone number, email address, etc.—in order to fulfill a request. (Yes, there is an irony to this.) This is to verify that you're the right person asking for your deletion and opt-out request in any given database, and the agency itself is bound to its terms of service that say they won't sell or share it for other purposes.  

If you're interested in filing a request for someone else, such as an elderly relative drowning in junk mail, you can also do that but will need to attest that you're filing for someone else who is a resident of California. 

Once you've filed, you will get a DROP ID, which you can use to check in on your request. If you lose this ID, you can contact the agency to recover it, but keep it in a safe place if you want to check in on the status of your request.  

If I file once, am I done forever?

Unfortunately, no. While the opt-out of sale request should last indefinitely, California's privacy law still allows companies to collect information without asking for permission first in most cases. That means data brokers are likely to continue to collect information for profiles of you—but they will will have less data and be limited in how they use it after an opt-out request. New data brokers may also register with the state after you file your request. And DROP won't stop companies who aren't registered data brokers, like Google, from collecting and sharing your personal information.

Two things can be true. DROP is a fantastic tool to help more people exercise their California privacy rights. We also still need even stronger privacy laws to make things more fair for everyday people. 

That fact shouldn't undercut the power of this tool, but it does mean that you may want to make updating your request a regular part of a broader plan to manage your digital footprint. For example, might we suggest doing it as a part of Opt-Out October—a thing we totally made up but also totally stand behind?

What if I'm not in California?

Also unfortunately for those who don't live in California, this tool only works for California residents. But it's not all bad news. Versions of the Delete Act have been introduced around the country, and many regulators are monitoring how California's system works to see whether a similar system might work in their own states. Residents of all states can use EFF’s Opt-Out October guide to bolster their online privacy and limit the ways that data brokers harvest their personal data. 

A new report from the Government Accounting Office reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to nearly triple the number of surveillance towers along U.S. borders, from the current 830 to 2,300 by 2034.

DHS expects to expend $1 billion in taxpayer dollars for this dangerous expansion of a surveillance network indiscriminately trained on towns, school playgrounds, backyards, and vehicles—threatening the privacy and civil liberties of everyone in the border regions.

The towers are planned as part of DHS component Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Integrated Surveillance Tower (IST) program, which captures images of people and vehicles. The IST program operates autonomous surveillance towers, consisting of autonomous surveillance towers, consisting of AI-based systems using radar, thermal infrared and optical systems to track targets over long distances; integrated fixed towers, optimized for surveilling foot traffic and vehicles; and remote video surveillance systems, which can often be found very close to the border fence in Arizona, including residential neighborhoods where cameras are capable of spying on homes on both sides of the border. (For a description and photos of these technologies, see EFF’s updated guide to surveillance at the U.S.-Mexico Border.)

DHS expects to purchase more long-range autonomous towers and to upgrade existing towers with autonomous capabilities. The $1 billion comes from the so-called One Big Beautiful Act—a massive tax and spending law that President Trump signed in 2025, the report says.

The explosive expansion of border surveillance is a digital dumpster fire for human rights and civil liberties. It’s not just surveillance towers; drones, aerostats, surveillance vehicles, ground sensors, game cameras, and license plate readers are also part of the vast taxpayer-funded infrastructure that threatens all those who live, work, or seek refuge in the borderlands. This technology isn’t exclusive to U.S. federal agencies: it’s also deployed by state and local law enforcement, and even by governments on the Mexican side.

Since 2022, EFF has studied and mapped surveillance technology along the U.S.-Mexico border using public records research, open-source intelligence, and fact-finding trips, and created a handy interactive map to provide researchers and journalists with the tools they need to analyze the impact of U.S. border security policy. We have also documented the different types of surveillance technology in a zine, "Surveillance Technology at the U.S.-Mexico Border." We updated the publication earlier this year to help people identify the machinery of homeland security by adding more models of surveillance towers, newly deployed military tech, and a gallery of disguised trail cams and automated license plate readers.

EFF’s work includes defending the rights of individuals whose devices have been searched or seized upon entering the country; pushing back on the collection of biometric and social media identifiers; and developing digital security guidance for people crossing borders.

With the web of surveillance tech at the borders about to explode, EFF will continue to investigate and expose it and find ways to fight back with the communities that live in the shadow of this technological threat to human rights.

There’s a new boogeyman in the battles over AI: so-called “stealth crawlers.” We’ll admit it—the term “stealth crawlers” sounds quite nefarious. In reality, they’re anything but.

“Stealth crawlers” are simply automated tools to access and collect public web data—without disclosing the user’s identity. Private crawlers like these facilitate all kinds of important work that benefits the public, including investigative reporting, academic research, cybersecurity protection, and more.

Many publishers want to unmask crawlers anyways—and are pushing for new legislation that would give them new powers to do so. These legislative proposals threaten the open web, user privacy, and valuable research without directly addressing the problems they’re supposedly intending to solve.

Alarmingly, these harmful proposals are gaining traction. The New York state legislature has already passed such a bill, the NY Stealth Crawler Protection Act, which is now on Governor Hochul’s desk. We expect to see similar bills introduced in other states, and potentially in Congress. That’s a big problem for the open web—and the many benefits it provides.

Anonymous crawling is worth protecting

Anonymous crawling enables some of the most publicly beneficial uses of the open web. Researchers, journalists, and other watchdog groups use unidentified automated tools to gather the information necessary to hold powerful institutions accountable and protect the public.

Anonymous crawling fuels important investigative journalism. For example, The Markup, a non-profit news site, used anonymous crawlers to investigate potentially anti-competitive practices by tech companies, such as Amazon’s tendency to prioritize Amazon brands and Amazon-exclusive products over competitors with higher ratings. The crawlers identified themselves as ordinary Firefox browsers to web servers, which allowed The Markup to understand how Amazon search results pages would appear to ordinary users. Similarly, ProPublica used an automated tool designed to simulate an ordinary Amazon customer to reveal that the site steered shoppers to more expensive products over cheaper alternatives.

Anonymous web scraping is also crucial for cybersecurity professionals, who use automated tools to monitor the web for information that helps them protect against malicious attackers. Privacy tools, including EFF’s own Privacy Badger, also crawl sites anonymously to identify trackers without compromising user privacy.

However, without the ability to scrape anonymously, these tools would likely be blocked. Sites can—and do—block crawlers operated by researchers, journalists, and activists who criticize them. For example, Facebook shut down accounts belonging to researchers who used automated tools to study misinformation on the platform and demanded that they take down published research. Many sites block automated access by anyone who hasn’t paid to crawl public webpages.    

Unmasking crawlers threatens the open web

News publishers—and their allies in government—say that unmasking crawlers is necessary to protect news organizations from technological strain caused by AI-related crawling, and fears that AI could reduce news sites’ traffic and ad revenue. These are legitimate concerns.

But enacting broad, reactionary restrictions on automated access is not the answer. Legislation targeting anonymous crawling threatens the open web, user privacy, and valuable research without actually addressing these technological and potential economic harms of scraping.

The New York state legislature recently passed the NY Stealth Crawler Protection Act, a law that would make it illegal to crawl news websites without revealing who is operating the crawler and all possible future uses of the data collected by the crawler. The law would give websites the power to obtain court orders that unmask anyone using an unidentified crawler—without any evidence that they broke the law.

Laws like the New York bill sweep far beyond AI, and do not meaningfully address the technological or potential harms of AI-related web scraping. These policies would chill beneficial crawling by allowing publishers to veto lawful public access, giving them the power to block not just bad actors, but also security professionals, researchers, dissidents, or anyone who has not paid for a license to view public text. This needlessly undermines the free and open internet.

Digital news publishers—like most websites—face real technological challenges in the AI era. While web crawling has been around for decades, with the proliferation of AI, crawlers now collect far more public web data than they used to. This pushes servers closer to their maximum capacity, and if some bots collect information too aggressively, they may strain web servers to the point that it degrades site performance. The problem is not anonymity—so unmasking crawlers won’t solve it. The real problem is overaggressive crawling, which can be effectively addressed with technical measures that target harmful conduct without impeding anonymous access to information.

A better path forward

There are other, far less harmful ways to protect publishers from the harms these “stealth crawler” laws claim to target. Addressing the harms of AI-related crawling requires policies that narrowly target the causes of these issues–without undermining free expression and the open web. Policies that target crawlers and scrapers are anything but.

A physician and neuroscientist who studies how anesthesia affects the brain; a leader in aerospace engineering, policy, and education; and the founding head of MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering have been awarded MIT’s highest faculty honor: the title of Institute Professor.

With the appointments of Emery Brown, Daniel Hastings SM ’78, PhD ’80, and Douglas Lauffenburger, there are now 12 Institute Professors at MIT, along with 10 Institute Professors Emeriti.

The appointments, which took effect July 1, were announced today in an email to the faculty from Sally Kornbluth, MIT’s president; Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT provost; and Roger Levy, chair of the faculty and a professor of brain and cognitive sciences. 

Emery Brown

Brown, who has been a member of the MIT faculty since 2005, says he is “tremendously honored” to be appointed as an Institute Professor.

“It’s a pleasure to know that your colleagues hold you in such high esteem and that the work that you’re doing is valued,” says Brown, who is the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Medical Engineering and Computational Neuroscience, an investigator at The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and a professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science. “When you look down the list of people who have had this title, it’s an amazing group.”

After graduating from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics in 1978, Brown earned a PhD in statistics, also from Harvard, and an MD from Harvard Medical School. Since 1992, he has been a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty, and until recently he was a practicing anesthesiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. 

Throughout his career, Brown has made contributions in several different areas of neuroscience. In the early stages of his research career, he developed statistical methods to characterize the properties of the human circadian clock. He showed how light exposure can shift the phase of the human clock, depending on the circadian phase during which the light is administered. He also developed methods to demonstrate, from analyses of physiological data collected under special low-light conditions, that the intrinsic period of the human clock, like that of other species, is closer to 24 hours and not 25. Brown also measured the impact of shift work schedules that were designed using circadian physiology. 

Later, he developed new statistical techniques and signal processing methods to analyze data collected in systems neuroscience experiments. As part of this work, he devised algorithms to decode the position of an animal in its environment by reading the activity of a small group of place cell neurons in the animal’s brain. 

Joining MIT’s faculty just over 20 years ago represented an “inflection point” in his career, Brown says. 

“I was an anesthesiologist doing statistical research, interested in neuroscience, and MIT allowed me to tie all those together,” he says. “I could work with colleagues who could help me understand the neuroscience of anesthesia, have another outlet for the statistical research that I was doing, and also more direct interactions with undergraduates and grad students.”

Over the past two decades, Brown has applied statistical techniques to studying what happens to the brain under anesthesia. His work has revealed how drugs such as propofol alter the brain’s intrinsic oscillations, which can be seen with electroencephalography (EEG).

During the awake state, these oscillations usually have high frequencies and low amplitudes, but as anesthetic drugs are given, they shift to low frequencies and high amplitudes. These changes disrupt normal communication between different brain regions, leading to loss of consciousness.

Brown has also shown that these EEG oscillations can be used to monitor whether a patient is too deeply unconscious, and he has developed a closed-loop anesthesia delivery system that can monitor these oscillations in real-time and guide anesthetic dosing during surgery. 

In 2024, Brown was presented with the National Medal of Science. Among his other awards, he is also a recipient of a National Institute of Health Director’s Pioneer Award, the Gruber Prize in Neuroscience, and the Swartz Prize for Computational and Theoretical Neuroscience. He one of a small group of researchers to be an elected member of all three National Academies of Medicine, Sciences, and Engineering, as well as the National Academy of Inventors.

From 2012 to 2022, he served as co-director of the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology. He has also played an instrumental role in several important efforts at MIT, including the 2010 Report on the Initiative for Faculty Race and Diversity, and the founding of the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) in 2015.

Outside of his work at MIT, Brown served on President Obama’s Brain Initiative Working Group, as well as the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Women in Science and Engineering and the Council of the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Brown is also known for his commitment to teaching and mentoring students. In 2024, he was named a recipient of MIT’s “Committed to Caring” award — an honor given by MIT’s Office of Graduate Education to faculty members who have served as exceptional mentors to graduate students.

Daniel Hastings

When Hastings, the Cecil (1923) and Ida Green Professor in Education, was notified of the new distinction, it came as a total surprise.

“The people who were there will tell you that I could not believe it at first,” he says. “I never thought of myself as being in the same league as some of the Institute Professors I knew.”

Hastings grew up in England and Jamaica, and developed an early fascination with space, as a fan of the fictional “Star Trek,” and later “Star Wars” and “Stargate” (he’s seen every episode and movie of all three franchises), as well as the very real NASA Apollo program. 

After receiving a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Oxford University, he enrolled at MIT, earning his master’s degree in 1978 and PhD in 1980, both in aeronautics and astronautics. In 1985 he joined the faculty as an assistant professor and was promoted to full professor in 1993. 

Throughout his tenure, Hastings has made significant and lasting impacts in astronautical engineering, particularly through his studies in space plasma environment interactions, electric propulsion, and space systems architecture. 

His early research on the physical interactions between plasma and spacecraft, for which he co-wrote the definitive text (“Spacecraft Environment Interactions,” published in 1996), enabled the safe operation of solar panels on spacecraft today. Prior to Hastings’ work, high voltage solar arrays on satellites often experienced catastrophic arcing — a dangerous jumping of electrical current from one panel to another. These failures turned out to be a result of interactions with the surrounding space plasma. 

Hastings developed theories to characterize these interactions. His theories informed NASA’s design of the solar panels to power the International Space Station, which are still in operation today. His work also established guidelines across the aerospace industry on the design of resilient solar panels and ways to handle issues once in orbit. 

In his studies of electric propulsion, Hastings characterized the fundamental physical interactions between ion engine plumes and spacecraft systems. His work was pivotal in incorporating ion propulsion systems into many commercial satellites and deep space probes and helped to push what was an experimental technology into mainstream use in space propulsion.

In his more recent work, Hastings has explored the concept of flexible and distributed space architectures. He and his students are developing models for spacecraft that can serve purposes beyond their original mission intent. For instance, a spacecraft may incorporate a port that could serve as a waystation for future satellites to dock and refuel. Such a flexible and distributed system could help to support future missions to the moon and Mars.

In recognition of his research contributions, Hastings received the AIAA Losey Atmospheric Sciences Award in 2002, was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2017, and was recognized as an honorary fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) in 2021. 

Throughout his career, Hastings has taken on numerous leadership roles, at the national, international, and Institute levels. Shortly after becoming full professor, he served as associate department head of research in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro). He then took a two-year leave from the Institute to serve as chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force. During that time, he advised the Air Force chief of staff and secretary and successfully strengthened investments in space research in the U.S.  Air Force space program. 

Hastings has served as an advisor on multiple expert panels and boards, including as the chair of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, and as a member of the NASA Advisory Council, the National Science Board, the Intelligence Science Board, and most recently, the Defense Science Board and User Advisory Group of the National Space Council. He has also chaired multiple National Research Council studies and advised the space and engineering industries in various capacities, including serving on the boards of the Aerospace Corporation, Draper, and Blue Origin. He has just finished a two-year term as president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

At MIT, Hastings has stepped up to serve in pivotal leadership posts. From 2000 to 2005, he served as the director of MIT’s Technology and Policy Program, then director of the Engineering Systems Division. From 2006 to 2013, as dean for undergraduate education, he helped to develop initiatives in equity, financial aid, and curriculum development, and strengthened international education and study abroad programs during a nationally challenging economic period. He received the Gordon Y. Billard Award in 2013 for his work on international education. In 2014 he began a five-year term as director of the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology, during which he worked to reinforce MIT’s global collaborations. And from 2019 to 2023 he served as head of AeroAstro, supporting new research and educational initiatives as he navigated the department through the global pandemic.

Hastings has also worked in multiple capacities to make the Institute a more welcoming and inclusive community. He has served as associate dean of engineering for diversity, equity, and inclusion (2021-2023), Institute Community and Equity Officer (interim, 2023-2024), and co-chair of the MIT Values Statement Committee, as well as vice chancellor for undergraduate and graduate education (interim, 2024-2025). 

“MIT has been a great place for me,” Hastings reflects. “It has a mission to address some of the most pressing problems in the world. It is a high-energy place. This is a place that I am excited to work in and I want to give back to make it better.”

Douglas Lauffenburger

Lauffenburger, who is the Ford Professor of Biological Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Biology, was the central founder of MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering, which he chaired from its inception in 1998 until 2019.

Before coming to MIT, Lauffenburger earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1975 and a PhD from the University of Minnesota at the Twin Cities in 1979, both in chemical engineering. 

While in graduate school, he became fascinated by the biological sciences. Early in his career, as a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and at the University of Illinois, his research and teaching straddled the line between chemical engineering and cell biology. Due to his unique background, MIT recruited Lauffenburger in the late 1990s to launch its new Department of Biological Engineering.

At the time, many universities had programs in biomedical engineering — an interdisciplinary field that applies techniques from electrical, chemical, or mechanical engineering to medical problems. Lauffenburger envisioned a distinct discipline of biological engineering, in which engineers would pursue an understanding of how biological systems function at the level of molecular and cellular mechanisms, with the goal of manipulating them to create new technologies for applications across medicine, energy, the environment, nutrition, and manufacturing.

“What was clear to me was that because biological systems comprise molecular processes, which are integrated in very complex ways, a true engineering analysis and design approach ought to be useful in moving it beyond mere tinkering and trial-and-error,” he says. “We needed to develop engineering frameworks for biology based on design principles, models, and predictions.”

As department head, Lauffenburger guided the development of new curricula at both graduate and undergraduate levels, and recruited faculty members whose work spanned engineering, molecular and cellular biology, microbiology, and immunology. The new department began offering graduate degrees in the late 1990s, and an undergraduate major beginning in 2005. Since its inception, the program has served as a model for similar programs at many other institutions worldwide.

Lauffenburger described being named an Institute Professor as “an honor that is especially gratifying because it recognizes the extraordinary impact of our unique MIT biological engineering department. I’ve been blessed with the rare opportunity to help create something revolutionary, here in this remarkable institution.”

Lauffenburger also played key roles in launching new interdisciplinary programs within MIT and with other institutions, including the Center for Biomedical Engineering, the Computational and Systems Biology Initiative, the DuPont-MIT Alliance, and the Cambridge-MIT Initiative.

His research has touched on many areas of biological science, including molecular cell biology, systems biology, and computational biology. Much of his work focuses on unraveling cell signaling mechanisms, using a combination of computational modeling and quantitative experiments. This work has shed light on processes such as cell proliferation, death, adhesion, and migration.

In the field of systems biology, he has created computational models across a spectrum of mathematical approaches, which can be used to identify drug targets and patient stratification strategies for a variety of diseases, including cancer and chronic inflammation, and predict the efficacy of drugs against those targets. 

In 2021, he and Linda Griffith, the School of Engineering Professor of Teaching Innovation at MIT, were jointly awarded the Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education, the most prestigious engineering education award in the United States.

Lauffenburger is an elected member of the National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a founding fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering, and has served as president of the Biomedical Engineering Society.