Nature Climate Change, Published online: 04 April 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02301-5

The emotional toll of fieldwork

Due to the inherent ambiguity in medical images like X-rays, radiologists often use words like “may” or “likely” when describing the presence of a certain pathology, such as pneumonia.

But do the words radiologists use to express their confidence level accurately reflect how often a particular pathology occurs in patients? A new study shows that when radiologists express confidence about a certain pathology using a phrase like “very likely,” they tend to be overconfident, and vice-versa when they express less confidence using a word like “possibly.”

Using clinical data, a multidisciplinary team of MIT researchers in collaboration with researchers and clinicians at hospitals affiliated with Harvard Medical School created a framework to quantify how reliable radiologists are when they express certainty using natural language terms.

They used this approach to provide clear suggestions that help radiologists choose certainty phrases that would improve the reliability of their clinical reporting. They also showed that the same technique can effectively measure and improve the calibration of large language models by better aligning the words models use to express confidence with the accuracy of their predictions.

By helping radiologists more accurately describe the likelihood of certain pathologies in medical images, this new framework could improve the reliability of critical clinical information.

“The words radiologists use are important. They affect how doctors intervene, in terms of their decision making for the patient. If these practitioners can be more reliable in their reporting, patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries,” says Peiqi Wang, an MIT graduate student and lead author of a paper on this research.

He is joined on the paper by senior author Polina Golland, a Sunlin and Priscilla Chou Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), a principal investigator in the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), and the leader of the Medical Vision Group; as well as Barbara D. Lam, a clinical fellow at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Yingcheng Liu, at MIT graduate student; Ameneh Asgari-Targhi, a research fellow at Massachusetts General Brigham (MGB); Rameswar Panda, a research staff member at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab; William M. Wells, a professor of radiology at MGB and a research scientist in CSAIL; and Tina Kapur, an assistant professor of radiology at MGB. The research will be presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations.

Decoding uncertainty in words

A radiologist writing a report about a chest X-ray might say the image shows a “possible” pneumonia, which is an infection that inflames the air sacs in the lungs. In that case, a doctor could order a follow-up CT scan to confirm the diagnosis.

However, if the radiologist writes that the X-ray shows a “likely” pneumonia, the doctor might begin treatment immediately, such as by prescribing antibiotics, while still ordering additional tests to assess severity.

Trying to measure the calibration, or reliability, of ambiguous natural language terms like “possibly” and “likely” presents many challenges, Wang says.

Existing calibration methods typically rely on the confidence score provided by an AI model, which represents the model’s estimated likelihood that its prediction is correct.

For instance, a weather app might predict an 83 percent chance of rain tomorrow. That model is well-calibrated if, across all instances where it predicts an 83 percent chance of rain, it rains approximately 83 percent of the time.

“But humans use natural language, and if we map these phrases to a single number, it is not an accurate description of the real world. If a person says an event is ‘likely,’ they aren’t necessarily thinking of the exact probability, such as 75 percent,” Wang says.

Rather than trying to map certainty phrases to a single percentage, the researchers’ approach treats them as probability distributions. A distribution describes the range of possible values and their likelihoods — think of the classic bell curve in statistics.

“This captures more nuances of what each word means,” Wang adds.

Assessing and improving calibration

The researchers leveraged prior work that surveyed radiologists to obtain probability distributions that correspond to each diagnostic certainty phrase, ranging from “very likely” to “consistent with.”

For instance, since more radiologists believe the phrase “consistent with” means a pathology is present in a medical image, its probability distribution climbs sharply to a high peak, with most values clustered around the 90 to 100 percent range.

In contrast the phrase “may represent” conveys greater uncertainty, leading to a broader, bell-shaped distribution centered around 50 percent.

Typical methods evaluate calibration by comparing how well a model’s predicted probability scores align with the actual number of positive results.

The researchers’ approach follows the same general framework but extends it to account for the fact that certainty phrases represent probability distributions rather than probabilities.

To improve calibration, the researchers formulated and solved an optimization problem that adjusts how often certain phrases are used, to better align confidence with reality.

They derived a calibration map that suggests certainty terms a radiologist should use to make the reports more accurate for a specific pathology.

“Perhaps, for this dataset, if every time the radiologist said pneumonia was ‘present,’ they changed the phrase to ‘likely present’ instead, then they would become better calibrated,” Wang explains.

When the researchers used their framework to evaluate clinical reports, they found that radiologists were generally underconfident when diagnosing common conditions like atelectasis, but overconfident with more ambiguous conditions like infection.

In addition, the researchers evaluated the reliability of language models using their method, providing a more nuanced representation of confidence than classical methods that rely on confidence scores. 

“A lot of times, these models use phrases like ‘certainly.’ But because they are so confident in their answers, it does not encourage people to verify the correctness of the statements themselves,” Wang adds.

In the future, the researchers plan to continue collaborating with clinicians in the hopes of improving diagnoses and treatment. They are working to expand their study to include data from abdominal CT scans.

In addition, they are interested in studying how receptive radiologists are to calibration-improving suggestions and whether they can mentally adjust their use of certainty phrases effectively.

“Expression of diagnostic certainty is a crucial aspect of the radiology report, as it influences significant management decisions. This study takes a novel approach to analyzing and calibrating how radiologists express diagnostic certainty in chest X-ray reports, offering feedback on term usage and associated outcomes,” says Atul B. Shinagare, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved with this work. “This approach has the potential to improve radiologists’ accuracy and communication, which will help improve patient care.”

The work was funded, in part, by a Takeda Fellowship, the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, the MIT CSAIL Wistrom Program, and the MIT Jameel Clinic.

For over a decade, through a collaboration managed by MIT.nano, MIT and Tecnológico de Monterrey (Tec), one of the largest universities in Latin America, have worked together to develop innovative academic and research initiatives with a particular focus in nanoscience and nanotechnology and, more recently, an emphasis on design and smart manufacturing. Now, the collaboration has also expanded to include undergraduate education. Seven Tec undergrads are developing methods to manufacture low-cost, desktop fiber-extrusion devices, or FrEDs, alongside peers at MIT in an “in-the-lab” teaching and learning factory, the FrED Factory.

“The FrED Factory serves as a factory-like education platform for manufacturing scale-up, enabling students and researchers to engage firsthand in the transition from prototype development to small-scale production,” says Brian Anthony, MIT.nano associate director and principal research scientist in the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering (MechE).

Through on-campus learning, participants observe, analyze, and actively contribute to this process, gaining critical insights into the complexities of scaling manufacturing operations. The product of the FrED Factory are FrED kits — tabletop manufacturing kits that themselves produce fiber and that are used to teach smart manufacturing principles. “We’re thrilled to have students from Monterrey Tec here at MIT, bringing new ideas and perspectives, and helping to develop these new ways to teach manufacturing at both MIT and Tec,” says Anthony.

The FrED factory was originally built by a group of MIT graduate students in 2022 as their thesis project in the Master of Engineering in Advanced Manufacturing and Design program. They adapted and scaled the original design of the device, built by Anthony’s student David Kim, into something that could be manufactured into multiple units at a substantially lower cost. The resulting computer-aided design files were shared with Tec de Monterrey for use by faculty and students. Since launching the FrED curriculum at Tec in 2022, MIT has co-hosted two courses led by Tec faculty: “Mechatronics Design: (Re) Design of FrED,” and “Automation of Manufacturing Systems: FrED Factory Challenge.”

New this academic year, undergraduate Tec students are participating in FrED Factory research immersions. The students engage in collaborative FrED projects at MIT and then return to Tec to implement their knowledge — particularly to help replicate and implement what they have learned, with the launch of a new FrED Factory at Tec de Monterrey this spring. The end goal is to fully integrate this project into Tec’s mechatronics engineering curriculum, in which students learn about automation and robotics firsthand through the devices.

Russel Bradley, a PhD student in MechE supervised by Anthony, is the project lead of FrED Factory and has been working closely with the undergraduate Tec students.

“The process of designing and manufacturing FrEDs is an educational experience in itself,” says Bradley. “Unlike a real factory, which likely wouldn’t welcome students to experiment with the machines, the FrED factory provides an environment where you can fail and learn.”

The Tec undergrads are divided into groups working on specific projects, including Development of an Education 4.0 Framework for FrED, Immersive Technology (AR) for Manufacturing Operations, Gamifying Advanced Manufacturing Education in FrED Factory, and Immersive Cognitive Factory Twins.

Sergio Siller Lobo is a Tec student who is working on the development of the education framework for FrED. He and other students are revising the code to make the interface more student-friendly and best enable the students to learn while working with the devices. They are focused particularly on helping students to engage with the topics of control systems, computer vision, and internet of things (IoT) in both a digital course that they are developing, and in directly working with the devices. The digital course can be presented by an instructor or done autonomously by students.

“Students can be learning the theory with the digital courses, as well as having access to hands-on, practical experience with the device,” says Siller Lobo. “You can have the best of both ways of learning, both the practical and the theoretical.”

Arik Gómez Horita, an undergrad from Tec who has also been working on the education framework, says that the technology that currently exists in terms of how to teach students about control systems, computer vision, and IoT is often very limited in either its capability or quantity.

“A key aspect of the value of the FrEDs is that we are integrating all these concepts and a module for education into a single device,” says Gómez Horita. “Bringing FrED into a classroom is a game-changer. Our main goal is trying to put FrED into the hands of the teacher, to use it for all its teaching capabilities.”

Once the students return to Tec de Monterrey with the educational modules they’ve developed, there will be workshops with the FrEDs and opportunities for Tec students to use their own creativity and iterate on the devices.

“The FrED is really a lab in a box, and one of the best things that FrEDs do is create data,” says Siller Lobo. “Finding new ways to get data from FrED gives it more value.”

Tec students Ángel Alarcón and André Mendoza are preparing to have MIT students test the FrED factory, running a simulation with the two main roles of engineer and operator. The operator role assembles the FrEDs within the workstations that simulate a factory. The engineer role analyzes the data created on the factory side by the operator and tries to find ways to improve production.

“This is a very immersive way to teach manufacturing systems,” says Alarcón. “Many students studying manufacturing, undergraduate and even graduate, finish their education never having even gone to an actual factory. The FrED Factory gives students the valuable opportunity to get to know what a factory is like and experience an industry environment without having to go off campus.”

The data gained from the workstations — including cycle time and defects in an operation — will be used to teach different topics about manufacturing. Ultimately, the FrED factory at Tec will be used to compare the benefits and drawbacks of automation versus manual labor.

Bradley says that the Tec students bring a strong mechatronics background that adds a lot of important insights to the project, and beyond the lab, it’s also a valuable multicultural exchange.

“It’s not just about what the students are learning from us,” says Bradley, “but it’s really a collaborative process in which we’re all complementing each other.”

Renewable power sources have seen unprecedented levels of investment in recent years. But with political uncertainty clouding the future of subsidies for green energy, these technologies must begin to compete with fossil fuels on equal footing, said participants at the 2025 MIT Energy Conference.

“What these technologies need less is training wheels, and more of a level playing field,” said Brian Deese, an MIT Institute Innovation Fellow, during a conference-opening keynote panel.

The theme of the two-day conference, which is organized each year by MIT students, was “Breakthrough to deployment: Driving climate innovation to market.” Speakers largely expressed optimism about advancements in green technology, balanced by occasional notes of alarm about a rapidly changing regulatory and political environment.

Deese defined what he called “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of the current energy landscape. The good: Clean energy investment in the United States hit an all-time high of $272 billion in 2024. The bad: Announcements of future investments have tailed off. And the ugly: Macro conditions are making it more difficult for utilities and private enterprise to build out the clean energy infrastructure needed to meet growing energy demands.

“We need to build massive amounts of energy capacity in the United States,” Deese said. “And the three things that are the most allergic to building are high uncertainty, high interest rates, and high tariff rates. So that’s kind of ugly. But the question … is how, and in what ways, that underlying commercial momentum can drive through this period of uncertainty.”

A shifting clean energy landscape

During a panel on artificial intelligence and growth in electricity demand, speakers said that the technology may serve as a catalyst for green energy breakthroughs, in addition to putting strain on existing infrastructure. “Google is committed to building digital infrastructure responsibly, and part of that means catalyzing the development of clean energy infrastructure that is not only meeting the AI need, but also benefiting the grid as a whole,” said Lucia Tian, head of clean energy and decarbonization technologies at Google.

Across the two days, speakers emphasized that the cost-per-unit and scalability of clean energy technologies will ultimately determine their fate. But they also acknowledged the impact of public policy, as well as the need for government investment to tackle large-scale issues like grid modernization.

Vanessa Chan, a former U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) official and current vice dean of innovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, warned of the “knock-on” effects of the move to slash National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for indirect research costs, for example. “In reality, what you’re doing is undercutting every single academic institution that does research across the nation,” she said.

During a panel titled “No clean energy transition without transmission,” Maria Robinson, former director of the DoE’s Grid Deployment Office, said that ratepayers alone will likely not be able to fund the grid upgrades needed to meet growing power demand. “The amount of investment we’re going to need over the next couple of years is going to be significant,” she said. “That’s where the federal government is going to have to play a role.”

David Cohen-Tanugi, a clean energy venture builder at MIT, noted that extreme weather events have changed the climate change conversation in recent years. “There was a narrative 10 years ago that said … if we start talking about resilience and adaptation to climate change, we’re kind of throwing in the towel or giving up,” he said. “I’ve noticed a very big shift in the investor narrative, the startup narrative, and more generally, the public consciousness. There’s a realization that the effects of climate change are already upon us.”

“Everything on the table”

The conference featured panels and keynote addresses on a range of emerging clean energy technologies, including hydrogen power, geothermal energy, and nuclear fusion, as well as a session on carbon capture.

Alex Creely, a chief engineer at Commonwealth Fusion Systems, explained that fusion (the combining of small atoms into larger atoms, which is the same process that fuels stars) is safer and potentially more economical than traditional nuclear power. Fusion facilities, he said, can be powered down instantaneously, and companies like his are developing new, less-expensive magnet technology to contain the extreme heat produced by fusion reactors.

By the early 2030s, Creely said, his company hopes to be operating 400-megawatt power plants that use only 50 kilograms of fuel per year. “If you can get fusion working, it turns energy into a manufacturing product, not a natural resource,” he said.

Quinn Woodard Jr., senior director of power generation and surface facilities at geothermal energy supplier Fervo Energy, said his company is making the geothermal energy more economical through standardization, innovation, and economies of scale. Traditionally, he said, drilling is the largest cost in producing geothermal power. Fervo has “completely flipped the cost structure” with advances in drilling, Woodard said, and now the company is focused on bringing down its power plant costs.

“We have to continuously be focused on cost, and achieving that is paramount for the success of the geothermal industry,” he said.

One common theme across the conference: a number of approaches are making rapid advancements, but experts aren’t sure when — or, in some cases, if — each specific technology will reach a tipping point where it is capable of transforming energy markets.

“I don’t want to get caught in a place where we often descend in this climate solution situation, where it’s either-or,” said Peter Ellis, global director of nature climate solutions at The Nature Conservancy. “We’re talking about the greatest challenge civilization has ever faced. We need everything on the table.”

The road ahead

Several speakers stressed the need for academia, industry, and government to collaborate in pursuit of climate and energy goals. Amy Luers, senior global director of sustainability for Microsoft, compared the challenge to the Apollo spaceflight program, and she said that academic institutions need to focus more on how to scale and spur investments in green energy.

“The challenge is that academic institutions are not currently set up to be able to learn the how, in driving both bottom-up and top-down shifts over time,” Luers said. “If the world is going to succeed in our road to net zero, the mindset of academia needs to shift. And fortunately, it’s starting to.”

During a panel called “From lab to grid: Scaling first-of-a-kind energy technologies,” Hannan Happi, CEO of renewable energy company Exowatt, stressed that electricity is ultimately a commodity. “Electrons are all the same,” he said. “The only thing [customers] care about with regards to electrons is that they are available when they need them, and that they’re very cheap.”

Melissa Zhang, principal at Azimuth Capital Management, noted that energy infrastructure development cycles typically take at least five to 10 years — longer than a U.S. political cycle. However, she warned that green energy technologies are unlikely to receive significant support at the federal level in the near future. “If you’re in something that’s a little too dependent on subsidies … there is reason to be concerned over this administration,” she said.

World Energy CEO Gene Gebolys, the moderator of the lab-to-grid panel, listed off a number of companies founded at MIT. “They all have one thing in common,” he said. “They all went from somebody’s idea, to a lab, to proof-of-concept, to scale. It’s not like any of this stuff ever ends. It’s an ongoing process.”

The process of catalysis — in which a material speeds up a chemical reaction — is crucial to the production of many of the chemicals used in our everyday lives. But even though these catalytic processes are widespread, researchers often lack a clear understanding of exactly how they work.

A new analysis by researchers at MIT has shown that an important industrial synthesis process, the production of vinyl acetate, requires a catalyst to take two different forms, which cycle back and forth from one to the other as the chemical process unfolds.

Previously, it had been thought that only one of the two forms was needed. The new findings are published today in the journal Science, in a paper by MIT graduate students Deiaa Harraz and Kunal Lodaya, Bryan Tang PhD ’23, and MIT professor of chemistry and chemical engineering Yogesh Surendranath.

There are two broad classes of catalysts: homogeneous catalysts, which consist of dissolved molecules, and heterogeneous catalysts, which are solid materials whose surface provides the site for the chemical reaction. “For the longest time,” Surendranath says, “there’s been a general view that you either have catalysis happening on these surfaces, or you have them happening on these soluble molecules.” But the new research shows that in the case of vinyl acetate — an important material that goes into many polymer products such as the rubber in the soles of your shoes — there is an interplay between both classes of catalysis.

“What we discovered,” Surendranath explains, “is that you actually have these solid metal materials converting into molecules, and then converting back into materials, in a cyclic dance.”

He adds: “This work calls into question this paradigm where there’s either one flavor of catalysis or another. Really, there could be an interplay between both of them in certain cases, and that could be really advantageous for having a process that’s selective and efficient.”

The synthesis of vinyl acetate has been a large-scale industrial reaction since the 1960s, and it has been well-researched and refined over the years to improve efficiency. This has happened largely through a trial-and-error approach, without a precise understanding of the underlying mechanisms, the researchers say.

While chemists are often more familiar with homogeneous catalysis mechanisms, and chemical engineers are often more familiar with surface catalysis mechanisms, fewer researchers study both. This is perhaps part of the reason that the full complexity of this reaction was not previously captured. But Harraz says he and his colleagues are working at the interface between disciplines. “We’ve been able to appreciate both sides of this reaction and find that both types of catalysis are critical,” he says.

The reaction that produces vinyl acetate requires something to activate the oxygen molecules that are one of the constituents of the reaction, and something else to activate the other ingredients, acetic acid and ethylene. The researchers found that the form of the catalyst that worked best for one part of the process was not the best for the other. It turns out that the molecular form of the catalyst does the key chemistry with the ethylene and the acetic acid, while it’s the surface that ends up doing the activation of the oxygen.

They found that the underlying process involved in interconverting the two forms of the catalyst is actually corrosion, similar to the process of rusting. “It turns out that in rusting, you actually go through a soluble molecular species somewhere in the sequence,” Surendranath says.

The team borrowed techniques traditionally used in corrosion research to study the process. They used electrochemical tools to study the reaction, even though the overall reaction does not require a supply of electricity. By making potential measurements, the researchers determined that the corrosion of the palladium catalyst material to soluble palladium ions is driven by an electrochemical reaction with the oxygen, converting it to water. Corrosion is “one of the oldest topics in electrochemistry,” says Lodaya, “but applying the science of corrosion to understand catalysis is much newer, and was essential to our findings.”

By correlating measurements of catalyst corrosion with other measurements of the chemical reaction taking place, the researchers proposed that it was the corrosion rate that was limiting the overall reaction. “That’s the choke point that’s controlling the rate of the overall process,” Surendranath says.

The interplay between the two types of catalysis works efficiently and selectively “because it actually uses the synergy of a material surface doing what it’s good at and a molecule doing what it’s good at,” Surendranath says. The finding suggests that, when designing new catalysts, rather than focusing on either solid materials or soluble molecules alone, researchers should think about how the interplay of both may open up new approaches.

“Now, with an improved understanding of what makes this catalyst so effective, you can try to design specific materials or specific interfaces that promote the desired chemistry,” Harraz says. Since this process has been worked on for so long, these findings may not necessarily lead to improvements in this specific process of making vinyl acetate, but it does provide a better understanding of why the materials work as they do, and could lead to improvements in other catalytic processes.

Understanding that “catalysts can transit between molecule and material and back, and the role that electrochemistry plays in those transformations, is a concept that we are really excited to expand on,” Lodaya says.

Harraz adds: “With this new understanding that both types of catalysis could play a role, what other catalytic processes are out there that actually involve both? Maybe those have a lot of room for improvement that could benefit from this understanding.”

This work is “illuminating, something that will be worth teaching at the undergraduate level," says Christophe Coperet, a professor of inorganic chemistry at ETH Zurich, who was not associated with the research. “The work highlights new ways of thinking. ... [It] is notable in the sense that it not only reconciles homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis, but it describes these complex processes as half reactions, where electron transfers can cycle between distinct entities.”

The research was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation as a Phase I Center for Chemical Innovation; the Center for Interfacial Ionics; and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Court Confirms That, If Proven, DOGE’s Ongoing Access to Personnel Records Is Illegal

NEW YORK—A lawsuit seeking to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing tens of millions of Americans’ private, sensitive information to Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) can continue, a federal judge ruled Thursday. 

Judge Denise L. Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York partially rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed Feb. 11 on behalf of two labor unions and individual current and former government workers across the country. This decision is a victory: The court agreed that the claims that OPM illegally disclosed highly personal records of millions of people to DOGE agents can move forward with the goal of stopping that ongoing disclosure and requiring that any shared information be returned. 

Cote ruled current and former federal employees "may pursue their request for injunctive relief under the APA [Administrative Procedure Act]. ...  The defendants’ Kafkaesque argument to the contrary would deprive the plaintiffs of any recourse under the law." 

"The complaint plausibly alleges that actions by OPM were not representative of its ordinary day-to-day operations but were, in sharp contrast to its normal procedures, illegal, rushed, and dangerous,” the judge wrote.  

The Court added: “The complaint adequately pleads that the DOGE Defendants 'plainly and openly crossed a congressionally drawn line in the sand.'" 

OPM maintains databases of highly sensitive personal information about tens of millions of federal employees, retirees, and job applicants. The lawsuit by EFF, Lex Lumina LLP, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and The Chandra Law Firm argues that OPM and OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell illegally disclosed personnel records to DOGE agents in violation of the federal Privacy Act of 1974, a watershed anti-surveillance statute that prevents the federal government from abusing our personal information. 

The lawsuit’s union plaintiffs are the American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO and the Association of Administrative Law Judges, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Judicial Council 1 AFL-CIO. 

“Today’s legal victory sends a crystal-clear message: Americans’ private data stored with the government isn't the personal playground of unelected billionaires,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. “Elon Musk and his DOGE cronies have no business rifling through sensitive data stored at OPM, period. AFGE and our allies fought back – and won – because we will not compromise when it comes to protecting the privacy and security of our members and the American people they proudly serve.” 

As the federal government is the nation’s largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country. In addition to personally identifiable information such as names, social security numbers, and demographic data, these records include work information like salaries and union activities; personal health records and information regarding life insurance and health benefits; financial information like death benefit designations and savings programs;  nondisclosure agreements; and information concerning family members and other third parties referenced in background checks and health records.  

OPM holds these records for tens of millions of Americans, including current and former federal workers and those who have applied for federal jobs. OPM has a history of privacy violations—an OPM breach in 2015 exposed the personal information of 22.1 million people—and its recent actions make its systems less secure.  

With few exceptions, the Privacy Act limits the disclosure of federally maintained sensitive records on individuals without the consent of the individuals whose data is being shared. It protects all Americans from harms caused by government stockpiling of our personal data. This law was enacted in 1974, the last time Congress acted to limit the data collection and surveillance powers of an out-of-control President. The judge ruled that the request for an injunction under the Privacy Act claims can go forward under the Administrative Procedures Act, but not directly under the Privacy Act.  

For the order denying the motion to dismiss: https://www.eff.org/document/afge-v-opm-opinion-and-order-motion-dismiss 

For the complaint: https://www.eff.org/document/afge-v-opm-complaint 

For more about the case: https://www.eff.org/cases/american-federation-government-employees-v-us-office-personnel-management 

Contacts 

Electronic Frontier Foundation: press@eff.org 

Lex Lumina LLP: Managing Partner Rhett Millsaps, rhett@lex-lumina.com 

EFF has joined the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal advocacy organizations across the ideological spectrum in filing an amicus brief asking a federal judge to strike down President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie for its past work on voting rights lawsuits and its representation of the President’s prior political opponents. 

As a legal organization that has fought in court to defend the rights of technology users for almost 35 years, including numerous legal challenges to federal government overreach, EFF unequivocally supports Perkins Coie’s challenge to this shocking, vindictive, and unconstitutional executive order. In punishing the law firm for its zealous advocacy on behalf of its clients, the March 6 order offends the First Amendment, the rule of law, and the legal profession broadly in numerous ways. We commend Perkins Coie and other targeted law firms that have chosen to do so (and their legal representatives) for fighting back.  

“If allowed to stand, these pressure tactics will have broad and lasting impacts on Americans' ability to retain legal counsel in important matters, to arrange their business and personal affairs as they like, and to speak their minds,” our brief says. 

Lawsuits against the federal government are a vital component of the system of checks and balances that undergirds American democracy. They reflect a confidence in both the judiciary to decide such matters fairly and justly, and the executive to abide by the court’s determination. They are a backstop against autocracy and a sustaining feature of American jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).   

The executive order, if enforced, would upend that system and set an appalling precedent: Law firms that represent clients adverse to a given administration can and will be punished for doing their jobs.   

This is a fundamental abuse of executive power.   

The constitutional problems are legion, but here are a few:   

• The First Amendment bars the government from “distorting the legal system by altering the traditional role of attorneys” by controlling what legal arguments lawyers can make. See Legal Services Corp. v. Velasquez, 531 U.S. 533, 544 (2001). “An informed independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar.” Id. at 545.  

• The executive order is also unconstitutional retaliation for Perkins Coie’s engaging in constitutionally protected speech during the course of representing its clients. See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87, 90 (2018). 

• The executive order violates fundamental precepts of separation of powers and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of litigants to select the counsel of their choice. See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 147–48 (2006).  

An independent legal profession is a fundamental component of democracy and the rule of law. As a nonprofit legal organization that frequently sues the federal government, we well understand the value of this bedrock principle and how it – and First Amendment rights more broadly – are threatened by President Trump’s executive orders targeting Perkins Coie and other law firms. It is especially important that the whole legal profession speak out against the executive orders in light of the capitulation by a few large law firms. 

The order must be swiftly nullified by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and must be uniformly vilified by the entire legal profession. 

The ACLU’s press release with quotes from fellow amici can be found here.

Polymer-coated nanoparticles loaded with therapeutic drugs show significant promise for cancer treatment, including ovarian cancer. These particles can be targeted directly to tumors, where they release their payload while avoiding many of the side effects of traditional chemotherapy.

Over the past decade, MIT Institute Professor Paula Hammond and her students have created a variety of these particles using a technique known as layer-by-layer assembly. They’ve shown that the particles can effectively combat cancer in mouse studies.

To help move these nanoparticles closer to human use, the researchers have now come up with a manufacturing technique that allows them to generate larger quantities of the particles, in a fraction of the time.

“There’s a lot of promise with the nanoparticle systems we’ve been developing, and we’ve been really excited more recently with the successes that we’ve been seeing in animal models for our treatments for ovarian cancer in particular,” says Hammond, who is also MIT’s vice provost for faculty and a member of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research. “Ultimately, we need to be able to bring this to a scale where a company is able to manufacture these on a large level.”

Hammond and Darrell Irvine, a professor of immunology and microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute, are the senior authors of the new study, which appears today in Advanced Functional Materials. Ivan Pires PhD ’24, now a postdoc at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a visiting scientist at the Koch Institute, and Ezra Gordon ’24 are the lead authors of paper. Heikyung Suh, an MIT research technician, is also an author.

A streamlined process

More than a decade ago, Hammond’s lab developed a novel technique for building nanoparticles with highly controlled architectures. This approach allows layers with different properties to be laid down on the surface of a nanoparticle by alternately exposing the surface to positively and negatively charged polymers.

Each layer can be embedded with drug molecules or other therapeutics. The layers can also carry targeting molecules that help the particles find and enter cancer cells.

Using the strategy that Hammond’s lab originally developed, one layer is applied at a time, and after each application, the particles go through a centrifugation step to remove any excess polymer. This is time-intensive and would be difficult to scale up to large-scale production, the researchers say.

More recently, a graduate student in Hammond’s lab developed an alternative approach to purifying the particles, known as tangential flow filtration. However, while this streamlined the process, it still was limited by its manufacturing complexity and maximum scale of production.

“Although the use of tangential flow filtration is helpful, it’s still a very small-batch process, and a clinical investigation requires that we would have many doses available for a significant number of patients,” Hammond says.

To create a larger-scale manufacturing method, the researchers used a microfluidic mixing device that allows them to sequentially add new polymer layers as the particles flow through a microchannel within the device. For each layer, the researchers can calculate exactly how much polymer is needed, which eliminates the need to purify the particles after each addition.

“That is really important because separations are the most costly and time-consuming steps in these kinds of systems,” Hammond says.

This strategy eliminates the need for manual polymer mixing, streamlines production, and integrates good manufacturing practice (GMP)-compliant processes. The FDA’s GMP requirements ensure that products meet safety standards and can be manufactured in a consistent fashion, which would be highly challenging and costly using the previous step-wise batch process. The microfluidic device that the researchers used in this study is already used for GMP manufacturing of other types of nanoparticles, including mRNA vaccines.

“With the new approach, there’s much less chance of any sort of operator mistake or mishaps,” Pires says. “This is a process that can be readily implemented in GMP, and that’s really the key step here. We can create an innovation within the layer-by-layer nanoparticles and quickly produce it in a manner that we could go into clinical trials with.”

Scaled-up production

Using this approach, the researchers can generate 15 milligrams of nanoparticles (enough for about 50 doses) in just a few minutes, while the original technique would take close to an hour to create the same amount. This could enable the production of more than enough particles for clinical trials and patient use, the researchers say.

“To scale up with this system, you just keep running the chip, and it is much easier to produce more of your material,” Pires says.

To demonstrate their new production technique, the researchers created nanoparticles coated with a cytokine called interleukin-12 (IL-12). Hammond’s lab has previously shown that IL-12 delivered by layer-by-layer nanoparticles can activate key immune cells and slow ovarian tumor growth in mice.

In this study, the researchers found that IL-12-loaded particles manufactured using the new technique showed similar performance as the original layer-by-layer nanoparticles. And, not only do these nanoparticles bind to cancer tissue, but they show a unique ability to not enter the cancer cells. This allows the nanoparticles to serve as markers on the cancer cells that activate the immune system locally in the tumor. In mouse models of ovarian cancer, this treatment can lead to both tumor growth delay and even cures.

The researchers have filed for a patent on the technology and are now working with MIT’s Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation in hopes of potentially forming a company to commercialize the technology. While they are initially focusing on cancers of the abdominal cavity, such as ovarian cancer, the work could also be applied to other types of cancer, including glioblastoma, the researchers say.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Marble Center for Nanomedicine, the Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation, and the Koch Institute Support (core) Grant from the National Cancer Institute.

Technologists play a huge role in building alternative tools and resources when our right to privacy and security are undermined by governments and major corporations. This direct resistance ensures that even in the face of powerful adversaries, communities can find some safety and autonomy through community-built tools.

One of the most renowned names in this work is the Calyx Institute, a New York based 501(c)3 nonprofit founded by Nicholas Merrill, after a successful and influential constitutional challenge to the National Security Letter (NSL) statute in the USA Patriot Act. Today Calyx’s mission is to defend digital privacy, advance connectivity, and strive for a future where everyone has access to the resources and tools they need to remain securely connected. Their work is made possible thanks to the generous donations of their over 12,000 grassroots members.

More recently, Calyx joined EFF’s network of grassroots organizations across the US, the Electronic Frontier Alliance (EFA). Members of the alliance are not-for-profit local organizations dedicated to EFA’s five guiding principles: privacy, free expression, access to knowledge, creativity, and security. Calyx has since been an exceptional ally, lifting up and collaborating with fellow members.

If you’re inspired by Calyx to start making a difference in your community, you can get started with our organizer toolkits. Once you’re ready, we hope you consider applying to join the alliance.

JOIN EFA

Defend Digital Rights Locally

We corresponded with Calyx over email to discuss the group's ambitious work, and what the future holds for Calyx. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Thanks for chatting with us, to get started could you tell us a bit about Calyx’s current work?

Calyx focuses on three areas: (1) developing a privacy-respecting software ecosystem, (2) bridging the digital divide with affordable internet access, and (3) sustaining our community through grants, and research, and educational initiatives.

We build and maintain a digital ecosystem of free and open-source software (FOSS) centering on CalyxOS, an Android operating system that encrypts communications, combats invasive metadata collection, and protects users from geolocation tracking. The Calyx Internet Membership Program offers mobile hotspots so people have a way to stay connected despite limited resources or a lack of viable alternatives. Finally, Calyx actively engages with diverse stakeholder groups to build a shared understanding of privacy and expand digital-security literacy and provide grants to directly support aligned organizations. By partnering with our peers, funders, and service providers, we hope to drive collective action toward a privacy-and-rights-respecting future of technology.

Calyx projects work with a wide range of technologies. What are some barriers Calyx runs into in this work?

Our biggest challenge is one shared by many tech communities, particularly FOSS advocates: it is difficult to balance privacy and security with usability in tool development. On the one hand, the current data-mining business model of the tech sector makes it extremely hard to provide FOSS solutions to proprietary tech while keeping the tool intuitive and easy to use. On the other, there is a general lack of momentum for funding and growing an alternative digital ecosystem.

As a result, many digital rights enthusiasts are left with scarce resources and a narrow space within which to work on technical solutions. We need more people to work together and collectively advocate for a privacy-respecting tech ecosystem that cares about all communities and does not marginalize anyone.

Take CalyxOS, for example. Before it became a tangible project, our founder Nick spent years thinking about an alternative mobile operating system that put privacy first. Back in 2012, Nick spoke to Moxie Marlinspike, the creator of the Signal messaging app, about his idea. Moxie shared several valid concerns that almost led Nick to stop working on it. Fortunately, these warnings, which came from Moxie’s experience and success with Signal, made Nick even more determined, and he recruited an expert global team to help realize his idea.

What do you see as the role of technologists in defending civil liberties with local communities?

Technologists are enablers—they build tools and technical infrastructures, fundamental parts of the digital ecosystem within which people exercise their rights and enjoy their lives. A healthy digital ecosystem consists of technologies that liberate people. It is an arena where people willingly and actively connect and share their expertise, confident in the shared protocols that protect everyone’s rights and dignity. That is why Calyx builds and advocates for people-centered, privacy-focused FOSS tools.

How has Calyx supported folks in NYC? What have you learned from it?

It’s a real privilege to be part of the NYC tech community, which has such a wealth of technologists, policy experts, human rights watchdogs, and grassroots activists. In recent years, we joined efforts led by multiple networks and organizations to mobilize against unjustifiable mass surveillance and other digital threats faced by millions of people of color, immigrants, and other underrepresented groups.

We’re particularly proud of the support we provided to another EFA member, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, on the Ban the Scan campaign to ban facial recognition in NYC, and CryptoHarlem to sustain their work bringing digital privacy and cybersecurity education to communities in Harlem and beyond. Most recently, we funded Sunset Spark—a small nonprofit offering free education in science and technology in the heart of Brooklyn—to develop a multipurpose curriculum focused on privacy, internet infrastructure, and the roles of the public and private sectors in our digital world.

These experiences deeply inspired us to shape a funding philosophy that centers the needs of organizations and groups with limited resources, helps local communities break barriers and build capacity, and grows reciprocal relationships between each member of the community.

You mentioned a grantmaking program, which is a really unique project for an EFA member. Could you tell us a bit about your theory of change for the program?

Since 2020, the Calyx Institute has been funding the development of digital privacy and security tools, research on mass surveillance systems, and training efforts to equip people with the knowledge and tools they need to protect their right to privacy and connectivity. In 2022, Calyx launched the Fusion Center Research Fund to aid investigations into law enforcement harvesting of personal data through intelligence-sharing centers. This effort, with nearly $200,000 disbursed to grantees, helped reveal the deleterious impact of surveillance technology on privacy and freedom of expression.

These efforts have led to the Sepal Fund, Calyx’s pilot program to offer small groups unrestricted and holistic grants. This program will provide five organizations, collectives, or projects a yearly grant of up to $50,000 for a total of three years. In addition, we will provide our grantees opportunities for professional development, as well as other resources. Through this program, we hope to sustain and elevate research, tool development, and education that will support digital privacy and defend internet freedom.

Could you tell us a bit about how people can get involved?

All our projects are, at their core, community projects, and we welcome insights and involvement from anyone to whom our work is relevant. CalyxOS offers a variety of ways to connect, including a CalyxOS Matrix room and GitLab repository where users and programmers interact in real time to troubleshoot and discuss improvements. Part of making CalyxOS accessible is ensuring that it’s as widely available as possible, so anyone who would like to be part of that translation and localization effort should visit our weblate site.

What does the future look like for Calyx?

We are hoping that the future holds big things for us, like CalyxOS builds on more affordable and globally available mobile devices so that people in different locations with varied resources can equally enjoy the right to privacy. We are also looking forward to updating our visual communication—we have been “substance over style” for so long that it will be exciting to see how a refreshed look will help us reach new audiences.

Finally, what’s your “moonshot”? What’s the ideal future Calyx wants to build?

The Calyx dream is accessible digital privacy, security, and connectivity for all, regardless of budget or tech background, centering communities that are most in need.

We want a future where everyone has access to the resources and tools they need to remain securely connected. To get there, we’ll need to work on building a lot of capacity, both technological and informational. Great tools can only fulfill their purpose if people know why and how to use them. Creating those tools and spreading the word about them requires collaboration, and we are proud to be working toward that goal alongside all the organizations that make up the EFA.

Our thanks to the Calyx Institute for their continued efforts to build private and secure tools for targeted groups, in New York City and across the globe. You can find and support other Electronic Frontier Alliance affiliated groups near you by visiting eff.org/fight.

If you’ve ever taken a computer security class, you’ve probably learned about the three legs of computer security—confidentiality, integrity, and availability—known as the CIA triad. When we talk about a system being secure, that’s what we’re referring to. All are important, but to different degrees in different contexts. In a world populated by artificial intelligence (AI) systems and artificial intelligent agents, integrity will be paramount.

What is data integrity? It’s ensuring that no one can modify data—that’s the security angle—but it’s much more than that. It encompasses accuracy, completeness, and quality of data—all over both time and space. It’s preventing accidental data loss; the “undo” button is a primitive integrity measure. It’s also making sure that data is accurate when it’s collected—that it comes from a trustworthy source, that nothing important is missing, and that it doesn’t change as it moves from format to format. The ability to restart your computer is another integrity measure...

The administration has canceled climate-related contracts and grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development amounting to $1.2 billion, according to an analysis by POLITICO’s E&E News.

Layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services have dealt a critical blow to the agency's efforts to manage rising temperatures made worse by climate change.

Combining California and Washington state programs could cause "worse outcomes for disadvantaged communities," a Seattle group says.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin is considering grant recipients’ challenge of EPA’s abrupt termination of $14 billion in green bank awards.

The tariffs are likely to raise prices for domestic and foreign cars and throw wrenches into how they are produced, analysts say. Electric vehicles are no exception.

The Transportation secretary also supports charging electric vehicles for road repair and construction.

Bankers' fear of President Donald Trump wasn’t the only reason for their exodus from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance.

Invasive fungal infections are now surfacing with alarming frequency as climate change expands their geographic reach.

The severe weather primarily affected islands in the Cyclades chain in the central Aegean, a popular vacation destination.

At Sydney's premier Bondi Beach, the coast was lashed by a 18-foot swell, officials said.