In the vision disorder amblyopia (commonly known as “lazy eye”), impaired vision in one eye during development causes neural connections in the brain’s visual system to shift toward supporting the other eye, leaving the amblyopic eye less capable even after the original impairment is corrected. Current interventions are only effective during infancy and early childhood, while the neural connections are still being formed. 

Now a study in mice by neuroscientists in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT shows that if the retina of the amblyopic eye is temporarily and reversibly anesthetized just for a couple of days, the brain’s visual response to the eye can be restored, even in adulthood.

The open-access findings, published Nov. 25 in Cell Reports, may improve the clinical potential of the idea of temporarily anesthetizing a retina to restore the strength of the amblyopic eye’s neural connections. 

In 2021, the lab of Picower Professor Mark Bear and collaborators showed that anesthetizing the non-amblyopic eye could improve vision in the amblyopic one — an approach analogous in that way to the treatment used in childhood of patching the unimpaired eye. Those 2021 findings have now been replicated in adults of multiple species. But the new evidence on how inactivation works suggests that the proposed treatment also could be effective when applied directly to the amblyopic eye, Bear says, though a key next step will be to again show that it works in additional species and, ultimately, people.

“If it does, it’s a pretty substantial step forward, because it would be reassuring to know that vision in the good eye would not have to be interrupted by treatment,” says Bear, a faculty member in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. “The amblyopic eye, which is not doing much, could be inactivated and ‘brought back to life’ instead. Still, I think that especially with any invasive treatment, it’s extremely important to confirm the results in higher species with visual systems closer to our own.”

Madison Echavarri-Leet PhD ’25, whose doctoral thesis included this research, is the lead author of the study, which also demonstrates the underlying process in the brain that makes the potential treatment work.

A beneficial burst

Bear’s lab has been studying the science underlying amblyopia for decades, for instance by working to understand the molecular mechanisms that enable neural circuits to change their connections in response to visual experience or deprivation. The research has produced ideas about how to address amblyopia in adulthood. In a 2016 study with collaborators at Dalhousie University, they showed that temporarily anesthetizing both retinas could restore vision loss in amblyopia. Then, five years later, they published the study showing that anesthetizing just the non-amblyopic eye produced visual recovery for the amblyopic eye.

Throughout that time, the lab weighed multiple hypotheses to explain how retinal inactivation works its magic. Lingering in the lab’s archive of results, Bear says, was an unexplored finding in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) that relays information from the eyes to the visual cortex, where vision is processed: back in 2008, they had found that blocking inputs from a retina to neurons in the LGN caused those neurons to fire synchronous “bursts” of electrical signals to downstream neurons in the visual cortex. Similar patterns of activity occur in the visual system before birth and guide early synaptic development.

The new study tested whether those bursts might have a role in the potential amblyopia treatments the lab was reporting. To get started, Leet and Bear’s team used a single injection of tetrodotoxin (TTX) to anesthetize retinas in the lab animals. They found that the bursting occurred not only in LGN neurons that received input from the anesthetized eye, but also in LGN neurons that received input from the unaffected eye.

From there, they showed that the bursting response depended on a particular “T-type” channel for calcium in the LGN neurons. This was important, because knowing this gave the scientists a way to turn it off. Once they gained that ability, then they could test whether doing so prevented TTX from having a therapeutic effect in mice with amblyopia.

Sure enough, when the researchers genetically knocked out the channels and disrupted the bursting, they found that anesthetizing the non-amblyopic eye could no longer help amblyopic mice. That showed the bursting is necessary for the treatment to work.

Aiding amblyopia

Given their finding that bursting occurs when either retina is anesthetized, the scientists hypothesized it might be enough to just do it in the amblyopic eye. To test this, they ran an experiment in which some mice modeling amblyopia received TTX in their amblyopic eye and some did not. The injection took the retina offline for two days. After a week, the scientists then measured activity in neurons in the visual cortex to calculate a ratio of input from each eye. They found that the ratio was much more even in mice that received the treatment versus those left untreated, indicating that after the amblyopic eye was anesthetized, its input in the brain rose to be at parity with input from the non-amblyopic one.

Further testing is needed, Bear notes, but the team wrote in the study that the results were encouraging.

“We are cautiously optimistic that these findings may lead to a new treatment approach for human amblyopia, particularly given the discovery that silencing the amblyopic eye is effective,” the scientists wrote.

In addition to Leet and Bear, the paper’s authors are Tushar Chauhan, Teresa Cramer, and Ming-fai Fong.

The National Institutes of Health, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Severin Hacker Vision Research Fund, and the Freedom Together Foundation supported the study.

The state of streaming is... bad. It’s very bad. The first step in wanting to watch anything is a web search: “Where can I stream X?” Then you have to scroll past an AI summary with no answers, and then scroll past the sponsored links. After that, you find out that the thing you want to watch was made by a studio that doesn’t exist anymore or doesn’t have a streaming service. So, even though you subscribe to more streaming services than you could actually name, you will have to buy a digital copy to watch. A copy that, despite paying for it specifically, you do not actually own and might vanish in a few years. 

Then, after you paid to see something multiple times in multiple ways (theater ticket, VHS tape, DVD, etc.), the mega-corporations behind this nightmare will try to get Congress to pass laws to ensure you keep paying them. In the end, this is easier than making a product that works. Or, as someone put it on social media, these companies have forgotten “that their entire existence relies on being slightly more convenient than piracy.” 

It’s important to recognize this as we see more and more media mergers. These mergers are not about quality, they’re about control. 

In the old days, studios made a TV show. If the show was a hit, they increased how much they charged companies to place ads during the show. And if the show was a hit for long enough, they sold syndication rights to another channel. Then people could discover the show again, and maybe come back to watch it air live. In that model, the goal was to spread access to a program as much as possible to increase viewership and the number of revenue streams.  

Now, in the digital age, studios have picked up a Silicon Valley trait: putting all their eggs into the basket of “increasing the number of users.” To do that, they have to create scarcity. There has to be only one destination for the thing you’re looking for, and it has to be their own. And you shouldn’t be able to control the experience at all. They should.  

They’ve also moved away from creating buzzy new exclusives to get you to pay them. That requires risk and also, you know, paying creative people to make them. Instead, they’re consolidating.  

Media companies keep announcing mergers and acquisitions. They’ve been doing it for a long time, but it’s really ramped up in the last few years. And these mergers are bad for all the obvious reasons. There are the speech and censorship reasons that came to a head in, of all places, late night television. There are the labor issues. There are the concentration of power issues. There are the obvious problems that the fewer studios that exist the fewer chances good art gets to escape Hollywood and make it to our eyes and ears. But when it comes specifically to digital life there are these: consumer experience and ownership.  

First, the more content that comes under a single corporation’s control, the more they expect you to come to them for it. And the more they want to charge. And because there is less competition, the less they need to work to make their streaming app usable. They then enforce their hegemony by using the draconian copyright restrictions they’ve lobbied for to cripple smaller competitors, critics, and fair use.  

When everything is either Disney or NBCUniversal or Warner Brothers-Discovery-Paramount-CBS and everything is totally siloed, what need will they have to spend money improving any part of their product? Making things is hard, stopping others from proving how bad you are is easy, thanks to how broken copyright law is.  

Furthermore, because every company is chasing increasing subscriber numbers instead of multiple revenue streams, they have an interest in preventing you from ever again “owning” a copy of a work. This was always sort of part of the business plan, but it was on a scale of a) once every couple of years,  b) at least it came, in theory, with some new features or enhanced quality and c) you actually owned the copy you paid for. Now they want you to pay them every month for access to same copy. And, hey, the price is going to keep going up the fewer options you have. Or you will see more ads. Or start seeing ads where there weren’t any before.  

On the one hand, the increasing dependence on direct subscriber numbers does give users back some power. Jimmy Kimmel’s reinstatement by ABC was partly due to the fact that the company was about to announce a price hike for Disney+ and it couldn’t handle losing users due to the new price and due to popular outrage over Kimmel’s treatment.  

On the other hand, well, there's everything else. 

The latest kerfuffle is over the sale of Warner Brothers-Discovery, a company that was already the subject of a sale and merger resulting in the hyphen. Netflix was competiing against another recently merged media megazord of Paramount Skydance.  

Warner Brothers-Discovery accepted a bid from Netflix, enraging Paramount Skydance, which has now launched a hostile takeover.  

Now the optimum outcome is for neither of these takeovers to happen. There are already too few players in Hollywood. It does nothing for the health of the industry to allow either merger. A functioning antitrust regime would stop both the sale and the hostile takeover attempt, full stop. But Hollywood and the federal government are frequent collaborators, and the feds have little incentive to stop Hollywood’s behemoths from growing even further, as long as they continue to play their role as propagandists for the American empire.    

The promise of the digital era was in part convenience. You never again had to look at TV listings to find out when something would be airing. Virtually unlimited digital storage meant everything would be at your fingertips. But then the corporations went to work to make sure it never happened. And with each and every merger, that promise gets further and further away.  

In the horticultural world, some vines are especially grabby. As they grow, the woody tendrils can wrap around obstacles with enough force to pull down entire fences and trees.

Inspired by vines’ twisty tenacity, engineers at MIT and Stanford University have developed a robotic gripper that can snake around and lift a variety of objects, including a glass vase and a watermelon, offering a gentler approach compared to conventional gripper designs. A larger version of the robo-tendrils can also safely lift a human out of bed.

The new bot consists of a pressurized box, positioned near the target object, from which long, vine-like tubes inflate and grow, like socks being turned inside out. As they extend, the vines twist and coil around the object before continuing back toward the box, where they are automatically clamped in place and mechanically wound back up to gently lift the object in a soft, sling-like grasp.

The researchers demonstrated that the vine robot can safely and stably lift a variety of heavy and fragile objects. The robot can also squeeze through tight quarters and push through clutter to reach and grasp a desired object.

The team envisions that this type of robot gripper could be used in a wide range of scenarios, from agricultural harvesting to loading and unloading heavy cargo. In the near term, the group is exploring applications in eldercare settings, where soft inflatable robotic vines could help to gently lift a person out of bed.

“Transferring a person out of bed is one of the most physically strenuous tasks that a caregiver carries out,” says Kentaro Barhydt, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering. “This kind of robot can help relieve the caretaker, and can be gentler and more comfortable for the patient.”

Barhydt, along with his co-first author from Stanford, O. Godson Osele, and their colleagues, present the new robotic design today in the journal Science Advances. The study’s co-authors are Harry Asada, the Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT, and Allison Okamura, the Richard W. Weiland Professor of Engineering at Stanford University, along with Sreela Kodali and Cosmia du Pasquier at Stanford University, and former MIT graduate student Chase Hartquist, now at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Open and closed

The team’s Stanford collaborators, led by Okamura, pioneered the development of soft, vine-inspired robots that grow outward from their tips. These designs are largely built from thin yet sturdy pneumatic tubes that grow and inflate with controlled air pressure. As they grow, the tubes can twist, bend, and snake their way through the environment, and squeeze through tight and cluttered spaces.

Researchers have mostly explored vine robots for use in safety inspections and search and rescue operations. But at MIT, Barhydt and Asada, whose group has developed robotic aides for the elderly, wondered whether such vine-inspired robots could address certain challenges in eldercare — specifically, the challenge of safely lifting a person out of bed. Often in nursing and rehabilitation settings, this transfer process is done with a patient lift, operated by a caretaker who must first physically move a patient onto their side, then back onto a hammock-like sheet. The caretaker straps the sheet around the patient and hooks it onto the mechanical lift, which then can gently hoist the patient out of bed, similar to suspending a hammock or sling.

The MIT and Stanford team imagined that as an alternative, a vine-like robot could gently snake under and around a patient to create its own sort of sling, without a caretaker having to physically maneuver the patient. But in order to lift the sling, the researchers realized they would have to add an element that was missing in existing vine robot designs: Essentially, they would have to close the loop.

Most vine-inspired robots are designed as “open-loop” systems, meaning they act as open-ended strings that can extend and bend in different configurations, but they are not designed to secure themselves to anything to form a closed loop. If a vine robot could be made to transform from an open loop to a closed loop, Barhydt surmised that it could make itself into a sling around the object and pull itself up, along with whatever, or whomever, it might hold.

For their new study, Barhydt, Osele, and their colleagues outline the design for a new vine-inspired robotic gripper that combines both open- and closed-loop actions. In an open-loop configuration, a robotic vine can grow and twist around an object to create a firm grasp. It can even burrow under a human lying on a bed. Once a grasp is made, the vine can continue to grow back toward and attach to its source, creating a closed loop that can then be retracted to retrieve the object.

“People might assume that in order to grab something, you just reach out and grab it,” Barhydt says. “But there are different stages, such as positioning and holding. By transforming between open and closed loops, we can achieve new levels of performance by leveraging the advantages of both forms for their respective stages.”

Gentle suspension

As a demonstration of their new open- and closed-loop concept, the team built a large-scale robotic system designed to safely lift a person up from a bed. The system comprises a set of pressurized boxes attached on either end of an overhead bar. An air pump inside the boxes slowly inflates and unfurls thin vine-like tubes that extend down toward the head and foot of a bed. The air pressure can be controlled to gently work the tubes under and around a person, before stretching back up to their respective boxes. The vines then thread through a clamping mechanism that secures the vines to each box. A winch winds the vines back up toward the boxes, gently lifting the person up in the process.

“Heavy but fragile objects, such as a human body, are difficult to grasp with the robotic hands that are available today,” Asada says. “We have developed a vine-like, growing robot gripper that can wrap around an object and suspend it gently and securely.”

"There’s an entire design space we hope this work inspires our colleagues to continue to explore,” says co-lead author Osele. “I especially look forward to the implications for patient transfer applications in health care.”

“I am very excited about future work to use robots like these for physically assisting people with mobility challenges,” adds co-author Okamura. “Soft robots can be relatively safe, low-cost, and optimally designed for specific human needs, in contrast to other approaches like humanoid robots.”

While the team’s design was motivated by challenges in eldercare, the researchers realized the new design could also be adapted to perform other grasping tasks. In addition to their large-scale system, they have built a smaller version that can attach to a commercial robotic arm. With this version, the team has shown that the vine robot can grasp and lift a variety of heavy and fragile objects, including a watermelon, a glass vase, a kettle bell, a stack of metal rods, and a playground ball. The vines can also snake through a cluttered bin to pull out a desired object.

“We think this kind of robot design can be adapted to many applications,” Barhydt says. “We are also thinking about applying this to heavy industry, and things like automating the operation of cranes at ports and warehouses.”

This work was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

EFF Also Will Host a Reddit AMA and a Livestreamed Panel Discussion

SAN FRANCISCO—With ill-advised and dangerous age verification laws proliferating across the United States and around the world, creating surveillance and censorship regimes that will be used to harm both youth and adults, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched a new resource hub that will sort through the mess and help people fight back. 

To mark the hub's launch, EFF will host a Reddit AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) next week and a free livestreamed panel discussion on January 15 highlighting the dangers of these misguided laws. 

“These restrictive mandates strike at the foundation of the free and open internet,” said EFF Activist Molly Buckley. “While they are wrapped in the legitimate concern about children's safety, they operate as tools of censorship, used to block people young and old from viewing or sharing information that the government deems ‘harmful’ or ‘offensive.’ They also create surveillance systems that critically undermine online privacy, and chill access to vital online communities and resources. Our new resource hub is a one-stop shop for information that people can use to fight back and redirect lawmakers to things that will actually help young people, like a comprehensive privacy law.” 

Half of U.S. states have enacted some sort of online age verification law. At the federal level, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee last week held a hearing on “Legislative Solutions to Protect Children and Teens Online.” While many of the 19 bills on that hearing’s agenda involve age verification, none would truly protect children and teens. Instead, they threaten to make it harder to access content that can be crucial, even lifesaving, for some kids. 

It’s not just in the U.S.  Effective this week, a new Australian law requires social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account. 

We all want young people to be safe online. However, age verification is not the panacea that regulators and corporations claim it to be; in fact, it could undermine the safety of many. 

Age verification laws generally require online services to check, estimate, or verify all users’ ages—often through invasive tools like government ID checks, biometric scans, or other dubious “age estimation” methods—before granting them access to certain online content or services. These methods are often inaccurate and always privacy-invasive, demanding that users hand over sensitive and immutable personal information that links their offline identity to their online activity. Once that valuable data is collected, it can easily be leaked, hacked, or misused.  

To truly protect everyone online, including children, EFF advocates for a comprehensive data privacy law. 

EFF will host a Reddit AMA on r/privacy from Monday, Dec. 15 at 12 p.m. PT through Wednesday, Dec. 17 at 5 p.m. PT, with EFF attorneys, technologists, and activists answering questions about age verification on all three days. 

EFF will host a free livestream panel discussion about age verification at 12 p.m. PDT on Thursday, Jan. 15. Panelists will include Cynthia Conti-Cook, Director of Research and Policy at the Collaborative Research Center for Resilience; a representative of Gen Z for Change; EFF Director of Engineering Alexis Hancock; and EFF Associate Director of State Affairs Rindala Alajaji. RSVP at https://www.eff.org/livestream-age. 

For the age verification resource hub: https://www.eff.org/age 

For the Reddit AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/  

For the Jan. 15 livestream: https://www.eff.org/livestream-age  

 

Tags: age verificationage estimationage gatingContact:  MollyBuckleyActivistmollybuckley@eff.org

The FBI is warning of AI-assisted fake kidnapping scams:

Criminal actors typically will contact their victims through text message claiming they have kidnapped their loved one and demand a ransom be paid for their release. Oftentimes, the criminal actor will express significant claims of violence towards the loved one if the ransom is not paid immediately. The criminal actor will then send what appears to be a genuine photo or video of the victim’s loved one, which upon close inspection often reveals inaccuracies when compared to confirmed photos of the loved one. Examples of these inaccuracies include missing tattoos or scars and inaccurate body proportions. Criminal actors will sometimes purposefully send these photos using timed message features to limit the amount of time victims have to analyze the images...

Some executives hoped a low-conflict strategy and assistance from GOP moderates would help them survive the president's second term. Then President Donald Trump went to war.

A presidential panel plans to vote Thursday on overhauling the disaster agency. Previous attempts attracted widespread opposition.

The ruling asks a customer to hone her class-action complaint against Florida Crystals for advertising its products as climate-friendly.

The latest version of the National Security Strategy departs sharply from the edition released by the Biden administration.

A new report finds that both Republican- and Democratic-led states have cut environmental agency staff and funding over the past 15 years.

“God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if the EU expands its aviation emissions scheme, says an EU official.

The controversial “omnibus” bill saw center-right EU lawmakers side with the far right to water down environmental standards.

The ratings are far from perfect, a growing body of research shows, with different models often yielding different results.

The bailout aims to rebuild the country's reserves, strengthen its tax system and reform loss-making state-owned companies.

In everyday conversation, it’s critical to understand not just the words that are spoken, but the context in which they are said. If it’s pouring rain and someone remarks on the “lovely weather,” you won’t understand their meaning unless you realize that they’re being sarcastic.

Making inferences about what someone really means when it doesn’t match the literal meaning of their words is a skill known as pragmatic language ability. This includes not only interpreting sarcasm but also understanding metaphors and white lies, among many other conversational subtleties.

“Pragmatics is trying to reason about why somebody might say something, and what is the message they’re trying to convey given that they put it in this particular way,” says Evelina Fedorenko, an MIT associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences and a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

New research from Fedorenko and her colleagues has revealed that these abilities can be grouped together based on what types of inferences they require. In a study of 800 people, the researchers identified three clusters of pragmatic skills that are based on the same kinds of inferences and may have similar underlying neural processes.

One of these clusters includes inferences that are based on our knowledge of social conventions and rules. Another depends on knowledge of how the physical world works, while the last requires the ability to interpret differences in tone, which can indicate emphasis or emotion.

Fedorenko and Edward Gibson, an MIT professor of brain and cognitive sciences, are the senior authors of the study, which appears today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper’s lead authors are Sammy Floyd, a former MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor of psychology at Sarah Lawrence College, and Olessia Jouravlev, a former MIT postdoc who is now an associate professor of cognitive science at Carleton University.

The importance of context

Much past research on how people understand language has focused on processing the literal meanings of words and how they fit together. To really understand what someone is saying, however, we need to interpret those meanings based on context.

“Language is about getting meanings across, and that often requires taking into account many different kinds of information — such as the social context, the visual context, or the present topic of the conversation,” Fedorenko says.

As one example, the phrase “people are leaving” can mean different things depending on the context, Gibson points out. If it’s late at night and someone asks you how a party is going, you may say “people are leaving,” to convey that the party is ending and everyone’s going home.

“However, if it’s early, and I say ‘people are leaving,’ then the implication is that the party isn’t very good,” Gibson says. “When you say a sentence, there’s a literal meaning to it, but how you interpret that literal meaning depends on the context.”

About 10 years ago, with support from the Simons Center for the Social Brain at MIT, Fedorenko and Gibson decided to explore whether it might be possible to precisely distinguish the types of processing that go into pragmatic language skills.

One way that neuroscientists can approach a question like this is to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brains of participants as they perform different tasks. This allows them to link brain activity in different locations to different functions. However, the tasks that the researchers designed for this study didn’t easily lend themselves to being performed in a scanner, so they took an alternative approach.

This approach, known as “individual differences,” involves studying a large number of people as they perform a variety of tasks. This technique allows researchers to determine whether the same underlying brain processes may be responsible for performance on different tasks.

To do this, the researchers evaluate whether each participant tends to perform similarly on certain groups of tasks. For example, some people might perform well on tasks that require an understanding of social conventions, such as interpreting indirect requests and irony. The same people might do only so-so on tasks that require understanding how the physical world works, and poorly on tasks that require distinguishing meanings based on changes in intonation — the melody of speech. This would suggest that separate brain processes are being recruited for each set of tasks.

The first phase of the study was led by Jouravlev, who assembled existing tasks that require pragmatic skills and created many more, for a total of 20. These included tasks that require people to understand humor and sarcasm, as well as tasks where changes in intonation can affect the meaning of a sentence. For example, someone who says “I wanted blue and black socks,” with emphasis on the word “black,” is implying that the black socks were forgotten.

“People really find ways to communicate creatively and indirectly and non-literally, and this battery of tasks captures that,” Floyd says.

Components of pragmatic ability

The researchers recruited study participants from an online crowdsourcing platform to perform the tasks, which took about eight hours to complete. From this first set of 400 participants, the researchers found that the tasks formed three clusters, related to social context, general knowledge of the world, and intonation. To test the robustness of the findings, the researchers continued the study with another set of 400 participants, with this second half run by Floyd after Jouravlev had left MIT.

With the second set of participants, the researchers found that tasks clustered into the same three groups. They also confirmed that differences in general intelligence, or in auditory processing ability (which is important for the processing of intonation), did not affect the outcomes that they observed.

In future work, the researchers hope to use brain imaging to explore whether the pragmatic components they identified are correlated with activity in different brain regions. Previous work has found that brain imaging often mirrors the distinctions identified in individual difference studies, but can also help link the relevant abilities to specific neural systems, such as the core language system or the theory of mind system.

This set of tests could also be used to study people with autism, who sometimes have difficulty understanding certain social cues. Such studies could determine more precisely the nature and extent of these difficulties. Another possibility could be studying people who were raised in different cultures, which may have different norms around speaking directly or indirectly.

“In Russian, which happens to be my native language, people are more direct. So perhaps there might be some differences in how native speakers of Russian process indirect requests compared to speakers of English,” Jouravlev says.

The research was funded by the Simons Center for the Social Brain at MIT, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation. 

MIT has long bolstered U.S. manufacturing by developing key innovations and production technologies, and training entrepreneurs. This fall, the Institute introduced a new tool for U.S. manufacturing: an education program for workers, held at collaborating institutions, which teaches core principles of production, helping employees and firms alike.

The new effort, the Technologist Advanced Manufacturing Program, or TechAMP, developed with U.S. Department of Defense funding, features a mix of in-person lab instruction at participating institutions, online lectures by MIT faculty and staff, and interactive simulations. There are also capstone projects, in which employees study manufacturing issues with the aim of saving their firms money.

Ultimately, TechAMP is a 12-month certificate program aimed at making the concept of the accredited “technologist” a vital part of the manufacturing enterprise. That could help workers advance in their careers. And it could help firms develop a more skilled workforce.

“We think there’s a gap between the traditional worker categories of engineer and technician, and this technologist training fills it,” says John Liu, a principal research scientist in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering and co-principal investigator of the TechAMP program. “We’re very interested in creating new career pathways and allowing the manufacturing workforce to have a different kind of perspective. We want to formalize the path to becoming a technologist.”

Liu, who is also the principal investigator of the MIT Learning Engineering and Practice Group (LEAP), adds that the MIT program “is a pathway to leadership. No longer should a technician just think about one piece of equipment. They can think about the whole system, the whole operation, and help with decision-making.”

TechAMP launched this fall, in collaboration with multiple institutions, including the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, Cape Cod Community College, Ohio State University, the Community College of Rhode Island, the Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, and the Berkshire Innovation Center in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. More than 70 people are in the initial cohort of students.

“MIT has embraced the idea that we’re reaching this new type of learner,” says Julie Diop, executive director of MIT’s Initiative for New Manufacturing (INM). TechAMP forms a key part of the education arm of that initiative, a campus-wide effort to reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing that was announced in May 2025. INM also collaborates with several industry firms embracing innovative approaches to manufacturing.

“Through TechAMP and other programs, we’re excited to reach beyond MIT’s traditional realm of manufacturing education and collaborate with companies of all sizes alongside our community college partners,” says John Hart, the Class of 1922 Professor of Mechanical Engineering, head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, and faculty co-director of INM. “We hope that the program equips manufacturing technologists to be innovators and problem-solvers in their organizations, and to effectively deploy new technologies that can improve manufacturing productivity.”

INM is one of the key Institute-wide initiatives prioritized by MIT President Sally A. Kornbluth.

“Helping America build a future of new manufacturing is a perfect job for MIT,” Kornbluth said at the INM launch event in May. She continued: “I’m convinced that there is no more important work we can do to meet the moment and serve the nation now.”

A “confidence booster” for workers

TechAMP has been supported by two Department of Defense grants enabling the program’s development. MIT scholars collaborated with colleagues at Clemson University and Ohio State University to develop a number of the interactive simulations used in the course.

The course work is based around a “hub-and-spoke” model that includes segments on core principles of manufacturing — that’s the hub — as well as six areas, or spokes, where companies have advised MIT that workers need more training.

The four parts of the hub comprise manufacturing process controls and their statistical analysis; understanding manufacturing systems, including workflow and efficiency; leadership skills; and operations management, from factory analysis to supply chain issues. These are also the core issues studied in MIT’s online micromaster’s certificate in manufacturing.

The six spokes may change or expand over time but currently consist of mechatronics, automation programming, robotics, machining, digital manufacturing, and design and manufacturing fundamentals.

Having the TechAMP curriculum revolve around concepts common to all manufacturing industries helps technologists-in-training better understand how their companies are trying to function and how their own work relates to those principles.

“The hub concepts are what defines manufacturing,” Liu says. “We need to teach this undervalued set of principles to the workforce, including people without university degrees. If we do that, it means they have a timeless set of ideas. We can adapt ourselves to add industries like biomanufacturing, but we’re starting with the fundamentals.”

Students say they are enjoying the program.

“It’s been a confidence booster,” says Nicole Swan, an employee at the manufacturing firm Proterial, who is taking the TechAMP class at the Community College of Rhode Island campus in Westerly, Rhode Island. “This has really shown me so many different opportunities [for] what I could do in the future, and different avenues that are available.”

Direct value capture possible for firms

The TechAMP certificate program also involves a capstone project, in which the students try to analyze issues or challenges within their own firms. Ideally, if those projects lead to savings or add value, that could make it well worthwhile for manufacturing companies to pay for their students to attend the TechAMP program — which is about 10 to 14 hours of work per week, for the year.

“That could be a form of impact — direct value capture for the firm,” Diop says.

Some firms are already pleased with the development of TechAMP.

“There are so many manufacturing jobs that don’t need a four-year degree, but do require a very high skill level and good communications skills,” says Michael Trotta, CEO of Crystal Engineering, a versatile, 45-employee manufacturer in Newburyport, Massachusetts, whose products range from medical devices to aerospace and defense items. “I see TechAMP as a next logical step in developing a sustainable workforce."

Trotta and three of his employees worked with MIT on the TechAMP project last spring, studying the curriculum material and providing feedback about it to the program leaders, in an effort to make the coursework as useful as possible.

"What we want workers to do is progress to a point where they become that technologist making not $20 an hour, but $40 or $50 an hour, because they have that skill set to run a lot more than just one piece of the process,” Trotta explains. “They’re able to communicate effectively with the engineers, with operations, to identify strengths and weaknesses, to help the firm drive success."

And while the position of “technologist” may not yet be in every manufacturer’s vocabulary yet, the MIT program leaders think it makes eminent sense, as a way of further equipping workers who are currently regarded as technicians or machinists.

By analogy, Diop observes, “The role of nurse practitioner bridges the gap between nurse and doctor, and has changed how medicine is delivered.” Manufacturing, she adds, “has had a reputation for dead-end jobs, but if MIT can help break that image by providing a real pathway, I think that would be meaningful, especially for those without university degrees.”

Intriguingly — as shown by research from Ben Armstrong, executive director and a research scientist at MIT’s Industrial Performance Center — about 10 to 15 percent of titled engineers in manufacturing industries do not have engineering degrees, either. For that portion of the workforce as well, more formal training and credentials may prove useful over time.

TechAMP is new, evolving — and likely to be expanding soon. Diop and Liu are in talks with interested education networks in multiple manufacturing-heavy states, to see if they would like to partner with MIT. There is also new interest from more manufacturers, including some of the partners in MIT’s Initiative for New Manufacturing. Given that the initiative just launched in May, TechAMP has hit the ground running.

“There’s been a lot of excitement so far, we think,” Liu says. “And it’s coming from organizations and people who are eager to learn more.”  

This blog also appears in our Age Verification Resource Hub: our one-stop shop for users seeking to understand what age-gating laws actually do, what’s at stake, how to protect yourself, and why EFF opposes all forms of age verification mandates. Head to EFF.org/Age to explore our resources and join us in the fight for a free, open, private, and yes—safe—internet.

EFF is against all mandatory age verification. Not only does it turn the internet into an age-gated cul-de-sac, but it also leaves behind many people who can’t get or don’t have proper and up-to-date documentation. While populations like undocumented immigrants and people experiencing homelessness are more obviously vulnerable groups, these restrictions also impact people with more mundane reasons for not having valid documentation on hand. Perhaps they’ve undergone life changes that impact their status or other information—such as a move, name change, or gender marker change—or perhaps they simply haven’t gotten around to updating their documents. Inconvenient events like these should not be a barrier to going online. People should also reserve the right to opt-out of unreliable technology and shady practices that could endanger their personal information.

But age restriction mandates threaten all of that. Not only do age-gating laws block adults and youth alike from freely accessing services on the web, they also force users to trade their anonymity—a pillar of online expression—for a system in which they are bound to their real-life identities. And this surveillance regime stretches beyond just age restrictions on certain content; much of this infrastructure is also connected to government plans for creating a digital system of proof of identity.

So how does age gating actually work? The age and identity verification industry has devised countless different methods platforms can purchase to—in theory—figure out the ages and/or identities of their users.  But in practice, there is no technology available that is entirely privacy-protective, fully accurate, and that guarantees complete coverage of the population. Full stop.

Every system of age verification or age estimation demands that users hand over sensitive and oftentimes immutable personal information that links their offline identity to their online activity, risking their safety and security in the process.

But in practice, there is no technology available that is entirely privacy-protective, fully accurate, and that guarantees complete coverage of the population. Full stop.

With that said, as we see more of these laws roll out across the U.S. and the rest of the world, it’s important to understand the differences between these technologies so you can better identify the specific risks of each method, and make smart decisions about how you share your own data.

Age Assurance Methods

There are many different technologies that are being developed, attempted, and deployed to establish user age. In many cases, a single platform will have implemented a mixture of methods. For example, a user may need to submit both a physical government ID and a face scan as part of a liveliness check to establish that they are the person pictured on the physical ID. 

Age assurance methods generally fall into three categories:

1. Age Attestation
2. Age Estimation
3. ID-bound Proof

Age Attestation Self-attestation 

Sometimes, you’ll be asked to declare your age, without requiring any form of verification. One way this might happen is through one-off self-attestation. This type of age attestation has been around for a while; you may have seen it when an alcohol website asks if you’re over 21, or when Steam asks you to input your age to view game content that may not be appropriate for all ages. It’s usually implemented as a pop-up on a website, and they might ask you for your age every time you enter, or remember it between site accesses. This sort of attestation provides an indication that the site may not be appropriate for all viewers, but gives users the autonomy and respect to make that decision for themselves.

An alternative proposed approach to declaring your own age, called device-bound age attestation, is to have you set your age on your operating system or on App Stores before you can make purchases or browse the web. This age or age range might then be shared with websites or apps. On an Apple device, that age can be modified after creation, as long as an adult age is chosen. It’s important to separate device-bound age attestation from methods that require age verification or estimation at the device or app store level (common to digital ID solutions and some proposed laws). It’s only attestation if you’re permitted to set your age to whatever you choose without needing to prove anything to your provider or another party—providing flexibility for age declaration outside of mandatory age verification.

Attestation through parental controls

The sort of parental controls found on Apple and Android devices, Windows computers, and video game consoles provide the most flexible way for parents to manage what content their minor children can access. These settings can be applied through the device operating system, third-party applications, or by establishing a child account. Decisions about what content a young person can access are made via consent-driven mechanisms. As the manager, the parent or guardian will see requests and activity from their child depending on how strict or lax the settings are set. This could include requests to install an app, make a purchase on an app store, communicate with a new contact, or browse a particular website. The parent or guardian can then choose whether or not to accept the request and allow the activity. 

One survey that collected answers from 1,000 parents found that parental controls are underutilized. Adoption of parental controls varied widely, from 51% on tablets to 35% on video game consoles. To help encourage more parents to make use of these settings, companies should continue to make them clearer and easier to use and manage. Parental controls are better suited to accommodating diverse cultural contexts and individual family concerns than a one-size-fits-all government mandate. It’s also safer to use native settings–or settings provided by the operating system itself–than it is to rely on third-party parental control applications. These applications have experienced data breaches and often effectively function as spyware.

Age Estimation

Instead of asking you directly, the system guesses your age based on data it collects about you.

Age estimation through photo and facial estimation

Age estimation by photo or live facial age analysis is when a system uses an image of a face to guess a person’s age.

A poorly designed system might improperly store these facial images or retain them for significant periods, creating a risk of data leakage. Our faces are unique, immutable, and constantly on display. In the hands of an adversary, and cross-referenced to other readily available information about us, this information can expose intimate details about us or lead to biometric tracking.

This technology has also proven fickle and often inaccurate, causing false negatives and positives, exacerbation of racial biases, and unprotected usage of biometric data to complete the analysis. And because it’s usually conducted with AI models, there often isn’t a way for a user to challenge a decision directly without falling back on more intrusive methods like submitting a government ID. 

Age inference based on user data and third party services

Age inference systems are normally conducted through estimating how old someone is based on their account information or querying other databases, where the account may have done age verification already, to cross reference with the existing information they have on that account.

Age inference includes but not limited to:

• Partnering with data brokers to gather data associated with an email, like utility use or mortgage purchases, or associated with a name, such as transaction history from a credit bureau;
• Other AI model-assisted deployments that infer age based on existing account or web activity, such as account age or “happy birthday” messages;
• Credit card ownership checks.

In order to view how old someone is via account information associated with their email, services often use data brokers to provide this information. This incentivizes even more collection of our data for the sake of age estimation and rewards data brokers for collecting a mass of data on people. Also, regulation of these age inference services varies based on a country’s privacy laws.

ID-bound Proof

ID-bound proofs, methods that use your government issued ID, are often used as a fallback for failed age estimation. Consequently, any government-issued ID backed verification disproportionately excludes certain demographics from accessing online services. A significant portion of the U.S. population does not have access to government-issued IDs, with millions of adults lacking a valid driver’s license or state-issued ID. This disproportionately affects Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, immigrants, and individuals with disabilities, who are less likely to possess the necessary identification. In addition, non-U.S. citizens, including undocumented immigrants, face barriers to acquiring government-issued IDs. The exclusionary nature of document-based verification systems is a major concern, as it could prevent entire communities from accessing essential services or engaging in online spaces.

Physical ID uploaded and stored as an image 

When an image of a physical ID is required, users are forced to upload—not just momentarily display—sensitive personal information, such as government-issued ID or biometric identifiers, to third-party services in order to gain access to age-restricted content. This creates significant privacy and security concerns, as users have no direct control over who receives and stores their personal data, where it is sent, and how it may be accessed, used, or leaked outside the immediate verification process.

Requiring users to digitally hand over government-issued identification to verify their age introduces substantial privacy risks. Once sensitive information like a government-issued ID is uploaded to a website or third-party service, there is no guarantee that it will be handled securely. The verification process typically involves transmitting this data across multiple intermediaries, which means the risk of a data breach is heightened. The misuse of sensitive personal data, such as government IDs, has been demonstrated in numerous high-profile cases, including the breach of the age verification company AU10TIX, which exposed login credentials for over a year, and the hack of the messaging application Discord. Justifiable privacy and security concerns may chill users from accessing platforms they are lawfully entitled to access.

Device-bound digital ID

Device-bound digital ID is a credential that is locally stored on your device. This comes in the form of government or privately-run wallet applications, like those offered by Apple and Google. Digital IDs are subject to a higher level of security within the Google and Apple wallets (as they should be). This means they are not synced to your account or across services. If you lose the device, you will need to reissue a new credential to the new one. Websites and services can directly query your digital ID to reveal only certain information from your ID, like age range, instead of sharing all of your information. This is called “selective disclosure."

There are many reasons someone may not be able to acquire a digital ID, preventing them from relying on this option. This includes lack of access to a smartphone, sharing devices with another person, or inability to get a physical ID. No universal standards exist governing how ID expiration, name changes, or address updates affect the validity of digital identity credentials. How to handle status changes is left up to the credential issuer.

Asynchronous and Offline Tokens

This is an issued token of some kind that doesn’t necessarily need network access to an external party or service every time you use it to establish your age with a verifier when they ask. A common danger in age verification services is the proliferation of multiple third-parties and custom solutions, which vary widely in their implementation and security. One proposal to avoid this is to centralize age checks with a trusted service that provides tokens that can be used to pass age checks in other places. Although this method requires a user to still submit to age verification or estimation once, after passing the initial facial age estimation or ID check, a user is issued a digital token they can present later to to show that they've previously passed an age check. The most popular proposal, AgeKeys, is similar to passkeys in that the tokens will be saved to a device or third-party password store, and can then be easily accessed after unlocking with your preferred on-device biometric verification or pin code.

Lessons Learned

With lessons pulled from the problems with the age verification rollout in the UK and various U.S. states, age verification widens risk for everyone by presenting scope creep and blocking web information access. Privacy-preserving methods to determine age exist such as presenting an age threshold instead of your exact birth date, but have not been mass deployed or stress tested yet. Which is why policy safeguards around the deployed technology matter just as much, if not more. 

Much of the infrastructure around age verification is entangled with other mandates, like deployment of digital ID. Which is why so many digital offerings get coupled with age verification as a “benefit” to the holder. In reality it’s more of a plus for the governments that want to deploy mandatory age verification and the vendors that present their implementation that often contains multiple methods. Instead of working on a singular path to age-gate the entire web, there should be a diversity of privacy-preserving ways to attest age without locking everyone into a singular platform or method. Ultimately, offering multiple options rather than focusing on a single method that would further restrict those who can’t use that particular path.

“Can we make tissues that are made from you, for you?” asked Jennifer Lewis ScD ’91 at the 2025 Mildred S. Dresselhaus Lecture, organized by MIT.nano, on Nov. 3. “The grand challenge goal is to create these tissues for therapeutic use and, ultimately, at the whole organ scale.”

Lewis, the Hansjörg Wyss Professor of Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, is pursuing that challenge through advances in 3D printing. In her talk presented to a combined in-person and virtual audience of over 500 attendees, Lewis shared work from her lab that focuses on enhanced function in 3D printed components for use in soft electronics, robotics, and life sciences.

“How you make a material affects its structure, and it affects its properties,” said Lewis. “This perspective was a light bulb moment for me, to think about 3D printing beyond just prototyping and making shapes, but really being able to control local composition, structure, and properties across multiple scales.”

A trained materials scientist, Lewis reflected on learning to speak the language of biologists when she joined Harvard to start her own lab focused on bioprinting and biological engineering. How does one compare particles and polymers to stem cells and extracellular matrices? A key commonality, she explained, is the need for a material that can be embedded and then erased, leaving behind open channels. To meet this need, Lewis’ lab developed new 3D printing methods, sophisticated printhead designs, and viscoelastic inks — meaning the ink can go back and forth between liquid and solid form.

Displaying a video of a moving robot octopus named Octobot, Lewis showed how her group engineered two sacrificial inks that change from fluid to solid upon either warming or cooling. The concept draws inspiration from nature — plants that dynamically change in response to touch, light, heat, and hydration. For Octobot, Lewis’ team used sacrificial ink and an embedded printing process that enables free-form printing in three dimensions, rather than layer-by-layer, to create a fully soft autonomous robot. An oscillating circuit in the center guides the fuel (hydrogen peroxide), making the arms move up and down as they inflate and deflate.

From robots to whole organ engineering

“How can we leverage shape morphing in tissue engineering?” asked Lewis. “Just like our blood continuously flows through our body, we could have continuous supply of healing.”

Lewis’ lab is now working on building human tissues, primarily cardiac, kidney, and cerebral tissue, using patient-specific cells. The motivation, Lewis explained, is not only the need for human organs for people with diseases, but the fact that receiving a donated organ means taking immunosuppressants the rest of your life. If, instead, the tissue could be made from your own cells, it would be a stronger match to your own body.

“Just like we did to engineer viscoelastic matrices for embedded printing of functional and structural materials,” said Lewis, “we can take stem cells and then use our sacrificial writing method to write in perfusable vasculature.” The process uses a technique Lewis calls SWIFT — sacrificial writing into functional tissue. Sharing lab results, Lewis showed how the stem cells, differentiated into cardiac building blocks, are initially beating individually, but after being packed into a tighter space that will support SWIFT, these building blocks fuse together and become one tissue that beats synchronously. Then, her team uses a gelatin ink that solidifies or liquefies with temperature changes to print the complex design of human vessels, flushing away the ink to leave behind open lumens. The channel remains open, mimicking a blood vessel network that could have fluid actively, continuously flowing through it. “Where we’re going is to expand this not only to different tissue types, but also building in mechanisms by which we can build multi-scale vasculature,” said Lewis.

Honoring Mildred S. Dresselhaus

In closing, Lewis reflected on Dresselhaus’ positive impact on her own career. “I want to dedicate this [talk] to Millie Dresselhaus,” said Lewis. She pointed to a quote by Millie: “The best thing about having a lady professor on campus is that it tells women students that they can do it, too.” Lewis, who arrived at MIT as a materials science and engineering graduate student in the late 1980s, a time when there were very few women with engineering doctorates, noted that “just seeing someone of her stature was really an inspiration for me. I thank her very much for all that she’s done, for her amazing inspiration both as a student, as a faculty member, and even now, today.”

After the lecture, Lewis was joined by Ritu Raman, the Eugene Bell Career Development Assistant Professor of Tissue Engineering in the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, for a question-and-answer session. Their discussion included ideas on 3D printing hardware and software, tissue repair and regeneration, and bioprinting in space. 

“Both Mildred Dresselhaus and Jennifer Lewis have made incredible contributions to science and served as inspiring role models to many in the MIT community and beyond, including myself,” said Raman. “In my own career as a tissue engineer, the tools and techniques developed by Professor Lewis and her team have critically informed and enabled the research my lab is pursuing.”

This was the seventh Dresselhaus Lecture, named in honor of the late MIT Institute Professor Mildred Dresselhaus, known to many as the "Queen of Carbon Science.” The annual event honors a significant figure in science and engineering from anywhere in the world whose leadership and impact echo Dresselhaus’ life, accomplishments, and values. 

“Professor Lewis exemplifies, in so many ways, the spirit of Millie Dresselhaus,” said MIT.nano Director Vladimir Bulović. “Millie’s groundbreaking work, indeed, is well known; and the groundbreaking work of Professor Lewis in 3D printing and bio-inspired materials continues that legacy.”

"To really understand science policy, you have to step outside the lab and see it in action," says Jack Fletcher, an MIT PhD student in nuclear science and engineering and chair of the 15th annual Executive Visit Days (ExVD). 

Inspired by this mindset, ExVD — jointly organized by the MIT Science Policy Initiative (SPI) and the MIT Washington Office — convened a delegation of 21 MIT affiliates, including undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs, in Washington Oct. 27-28. 

Although the government shutdown prevented the delegation’s usual visits to executive agencies, participants met with experts across the federal science and technology policy ecosystem. These discussions built connections in the nation’s capital, displayed how evidence interacts with political realities, and demonstrated how scientists, engineers, and business leaders can pursue impactful careers in public service. 

A recurring theme across meetings was that political realities and institutional constraints, not just evidence and analysis, shape policy outcomes. As Mykyta Kliapets, a PhD student at KU Leuven (Belgium) and a visiting student at the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, reflected, “It was really helpful to hear how rarely straightforward policy environments are — sometimes, a solution that makes the most sense technically is not always politically feasible.” 

The group also heard how political forces directly impact science, from disruptions during government shutdowns to recent reductions in federal research support. Speakers underscored that effective science policy requires combined fluency in evidence, systems, and incentives.

For the first time, ExVD visited the Delegation of the European Union to the United States to meet with Francesco Maria Graziani, climate and energy counselor. He described E.U.-U.S. cooperation on energy and climate as “active and vital, but complex,” noting that the E.U. can struggle to navigate a diverse, multilevel, and variable U.S. policy landscape. “The E.U. and the U.S. share many goals, but we often operate on different timelines and with different tools,” said Graziani. He identified nuclear power, geothermal energy, and supply chain security as areas of continued E.U. and U.S. collaboration. 

Graziani also discussed ongoing collaborations like the Destination Earth project, which improves global climate models using U.S. state-level data. “As a European, hearing differences in how the U.S. navigates science policy gave me a new lens on how two advanced democracies balance innovation, regulation, and the urgency of scientific challenges,” said Sofia Karagianni, an MBA student at the MIT Sloan School of Management. 

The ExVD delegation also met with three MIT alumni at the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI). A federally funded research and development center, STPI provides technical and analytical support on science and technology issues to inform policy decisions by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and other federal sponsors. Recently, STPI’s research reports have focused on a number of topics including quantum computing, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. The discussion at STPI emphasized the importance of conducting  objective analyses that have relevance for policymakers. Director Asha Balakrishnan explained how it is often useful to provide “options” in their reports, rather than “recommendations,” because policymakers benefit from understanding the advantages and disadvantages of potential policy actions.

Participants found the speakers’ reflections on career development and fellowships particularly valuable. Several speakers discussed their experiences with the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship, which places scientists and engineers in federal agencies and congressional offices for a year. 

“In speaking with former fellows, I learned just how transformative these fellowships can be for scientists seeking to apply their academic research backgrounds to a wide range of careers at the intersection of science and policy,” said Amanda Hornick, a recent doctoral graduate of the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology. Eli Duggan, a graduate student in MIT's Technology and Policy Program, added that “seeing how the speakers’ work makes a real impact got me excited to apply my technical and policy background for the public good.”

The lessons from these conversations reflect the broader mission of the MIT Science Policy Initiative: to help the MIT community understand and engage with the policymaking process. SPI is a student- and postdoc-led organization dedicated to strengthening dialogue between MIT and the broader policy ecosystem. Each year, SPI organizes multiple trips to Washington, giving members the chance to meet directly with federal agencies and policymakers while exploring careers at the intersection of science, technology, and policy. These trips also spark connections and conversations that participants bring back to campus, enriching policy dialogue within the MIT community. 

SPI is grateful to the individuals and organizations who shared their time and insights at this year’s ExVD, giving participants a foundation to draw on as they explore career opportunities and the many ways technical expertise can shape public decision-making.

Students enrolled in MIT’s New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET) program recently collaborated across academic disciplines to design and construct a solar-powered charging station. Positioned in a quiet campus courtyard, the station provides the MIT community with climate-friendly power for phones, laptops, and tablets.

Its installation marked the “first time a cross-departmental team of undergraduates designed, created, and installed on campus a green technology artifact for the public good, as part of a class they took for credit,” says Amitava “Babi” Mitra, NEET founding executive director.

The project was very on-brand for the NEET program, which centers interdisciplinary, cross-departmental, and project-centric scholarship with experiential learning at its core. Launched in 2017 as an effort to reimagine undergraduate engineering education at MIT, NEET seeks to empower students to tackle complex societal challenges that straddle disciplines.

The solar-powered charging station project class is an integral part of NEET’s decarbonization-focused Climate and Sustainability Systems (CSS) “thread,” one of four pathways of study offered by the program. The class, 22.03/3.0061 (Introduction to Design Thinking and Rapid Prototyping), teaches the design and fabrication techniques used to create the station, such as laser cutting, 3D printing, computer-aided design (CAD), electronics prototyping, microcontroller programming, and composites manufacturing.

The project team included students majoring in chemical engineering, materials science and engineering, mechanical engineering, and nuclear science and engineering.

“What I really liked about this project was, at the beginning, it was really about ideation, about design, about brainstorming in ways that I haven’t seen before,” says NEET CSS student Aaron De Leon, a nuclear science and engineering major focused on clean energy development. 

During these brainstorming sessions, the team considered how their subjective design choices for the charging station would shape user experience, something De Leon, who enrolled in the class as a sophomore, says is often overlooked in engineering classes.

The team’s forest-inspired station design — complete with “tree trunks,” oyster mushroom-shaped desk space, and four solar panels curved to mimic the undulation of the forest canopy — was intended to evoke a sense of organic connectivity. The tree trunks were crafted from novel flax fiber-based composite layups the team developed through experiments designed to identify more sustainable alternatives to traditional composites.

The group also discussed how a dearth of device charging options made it difficult for students to work outside, according to NEET CSS student Celestina Pint, who enrolled in the class as a sophomore. The desk space was added to help MIT students work comfortably outdoors while also charging their devices with renewable energy.

Pint joined NEET because she wanted to “keep an open approach to climate and sustainability,” as opposed to relying on her materials science and engineering major alone, she says. “I like the interdisciplinary aspect.”

The project class presented abundant interdisciplinary learning opportunities that couldn’t be replicated in a purely theory-based curriculum, says Nathan Melenbrink, NEET lecturer, who teaches the project class and is the lead instructor for the NEET CSS thread.

For example, the team got a crash course in navigating real-world bureaucracy when they discovered that the installation of their charging station had to be approved by more than a dozen entities, including campus police, MIT’s insurance provider, and the campus facilities department.

The team also gained valuable experience with troubleshooting unanticipated design implementation challenges during the project’s fabrication phase.

“Adjustments had to be made,” Pint says. Once the station was installed, “it was interesting to see what was the same and what was different” from the team’s initial design.

This underscores a unique value of the project, according to NEET CSS student Tyler Ea, a fifth-year mechanical engineering major who joined the project team last year and is now a teaching assistant for the class.

Students “are able to take ownership of something physical, like a physical embodiment of their ideas, and something that they can point towards and say, ‘here’s something that I thought about, and this is how I went about building it, and then here’s the final result,’” he says.

While students only become eligible to join NEET in their second year, first-year students interested in the program were also able to learn from the solar-powered charging station project in the first-year discovery class SP.248 (The NEET Experience). After learning fundamental concepts in systems engineering, the class analyzed the station and suggested changes they thought would improve its design.

Melenbrink says student-built campus installations were once a hallmark of MIT’s academic culture, and he sees the NEET CSS solar-powered charging station project as an opportunity to help revive this tradition.

“What I hear from the old guard is that there was always somebody … lugging some giant, odd-looking prototype of something across campus,” Melenbrink says.

More collaborative, hands-on, student-led climate projects would also help the Institute meet its commitment to become a leading source of meaningful climate solutions, according to Elsa Olivetti, the Jerry McAfee (1940) Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and strategic advisor to the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium (MCSC).

“This local renewable energy project demonstrates that our campus community can learn through solution development,” she says. “Students don’t have to wait until they graduate or enter the job market to make a contribution.”

Students enrolled in this year’s Introduction to Design Thinking and Rapid Prototyping class will fabricate and install a new solar-powered charging station with a unique design. De Leon says he appreciates the latitude NEET students have to make the project their own.

“There was never the case of a professor saying, ‘We need to do it this way,’” he says. “I really liked that ability to learn as many things as you wanted to, and also have the autonomy to make your own design decisions along the way.”