404 Media is reporting on all the apps that are spying on your location, based on a hack of the location data company Gravy Analytics:

The thousands of apps, included in hacked files from location data company Gravy Analytics, include everything from games like Candy Crush to dating apps like Tinder, to pregnancy tracking and religious prayer apps across both Android and iOS. Because much of the collection is occurring through the advertising ecosystem­—not code developed by the app creators themselves—­this data collection is likely happening both without users’ and even app developers’ knowledge...

An unstable state-chartered insurance program might be forced to impose assessments on insurance companies and policyholders.

Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — the Paris Agreement’s most ambitious target — looks increasingly unlikely.

The nation increased renewable energy, but those environmental gains were washed away by rising pollution from transportation and natural gas.

Joseph Uddo, a Trump appointee in the first term, is helping the president-elect staff up.

The president-elect is using one of his most frequent political cudgels against Gov. Gavin Newsom as the Los Angeles fires continue burning.

Steel demand is ballooning in the South Asian nation thanks to a wave of infrastructure projects and swelling demand for new homes.

The guidelines come as fresh data shows insured losses globally from natural catastrophes were more than double the 30-year average last year.

El Niño often leads to rainier weather in the United States and tends to increase temperatures globally while La Niña has the opposite effect.

Analysis of the ancient ice is expected to show how Earth’s atmosphere and climate have evolved.

Awed as a young child by the majesty of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, civil engineer and MIT Morningside Academy for Design (MAD) Fellow Zane Schemmer has retained his fascination with bridges: what they look like, why they work, and how they’re designed and built.

He weighed the choice between architecture and engineering when heading off to college, but, motivated by the why and how of structural engineering, selected the latter. Now he incorporates design as an iterative process in the writing of algorithms that perfectly balance the forces involved in discrete portions of a structure to create an overall design that optimizes function, minimizes carbon footprint, and still produces a manufacturable result.

While this may sound like an obvious goal in structural design, it’s not. It’s new. It’s a more holistic way of looking at the design process that can optimize even down to the materials, angles, and number of elements in the nodes or joints that connect the larger components of a building, bridge, tower, etc.

According to Schemmer, there hasn’t been much progress on optimizing structural design to minimize embodied carbon, and the work that exists often results in designs that are “too complex to be built in real life,” he says. The embodied carbon of a structure is the total carbon dioxide emissions of its life cycle: from the extraction or manufacture of its materials to their transport and use and through the demolition of the structure and disposal of the materials. Schemmer, who works with Josephine V. Carstensen, the Gilbert W. Winslow Career Development Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT, is focusing on the portion of that cycle that runs through construction.

In September, at the IASS 2024 symposium "Redefining the Art of Structural Design in Zurich," Schemmer and Carstensen presented their work on Discrete Topology Optimization algorithms that are able to minimize the embodied carbon in a bridge or other structure by up to 20 percent. This comes through materials selection that considers not only a material’s appearance and its ability to get the job done, but also the ease of procurement, its proximity to the building site, and the carbon embodied in its manufacture and transport.

“The real novelty of our algorithm is its ability to consider multiple materials in a highly constrained solution space to produce manufacturable designs with a user-specified force flow,” Schemmer says. “Real-life problems are complex and often have many constraints associated with them. In traditional formulations, it can be difficult to have a long list of complicated constraints. Our goal is to incorporate these constraints to make it easier to take our designs out of the computer and create them in real life.”

Take, for instance, a steel tower, which could be a “super lightweight, efficient design solution,” Schemmer explains. Because steel is so strong, you don’t need as much of it compared to concrete or timber to build a big building. But steel is also very carbon-intensive to produce and transport. Shipping it across the country or especially from a different continent can sharply increase its embodied carbon price tag. Schemmer’s topology optimization will replace some of the steel with timber elements or decrease the amount of steel in other elements to create a hybrid structure that will function effectively and minimize the carbon footprint. “This is why using the same steel in two different parts of the world can lead to two different optimized designs,” he explains.

Schemmer, who grew up in the mountains of Utah, earned a BS and MS in civil and environmental engineering from University of California at Berkeley, where his graduate work focused on seismic design. He describes that education as providing a “very traditional, super-strong engineering background that tackled some of the toughest engineering problems,” along with knowledge of structural engineering’s traditions and current methods.

But at MIT, he says, a lot of the work he sees “looks at removing the constraints of current societal conventions of doing things, and asks how could we do things if it was in a more ideal form; what are we looking at then? Which I think is really cool,” he says. “But I think sometimes too, there’s a jump between the most-perfect version of something and where we are now, that there needs to be a bridge between those two. And I feel like my education helps me see that bridge.”

The bridge he’s referring to is the topology optimization algorithms that make good designs better in terms of decreased global warming potential.

“That’s where the optimization algorithm comes in,” Schemmer says. “In contrast to a standard structure designed in the past, the algorithm can take the same design space and come up with a much more efficient material usage that still meets all the structural requirements, be up to code, and have everything we want from a safety standpoint.”

That’s also where the MAD Design Fellowship comes in. The program provides yearlong fellowships with full financial support to graduate students from all across the Institute who network with each other, with the MAD faculty, and with outside speakers who use design in new ways in a surprising variety of fields. This helps the fellows gain a better understanding of how to use iterative design in their own work.

“Usually people think of their own work like, ‘Oh, I had this background. I’ve been looking at this one way for a very long time.’ And when you look at it from an outside perspective, I think it opens your mind to be like, ‘Oh my God. I never would have thought about doing this that way. Maybe I should try that.’ And then we can move to new ideas, new inspiration for better work,” Schemmer says.

He chose civil and structural engineering over architecture some seven years ago, but says that “100 years ago, I don’t think architecture and structural engineering were two separate professions. I think there was an understanding of how things looked and how things worked, and it was merged together. Maybe from an efficiency standpoint, it’s better to have things done separately. But I think there’s something to be said for having knowledge about how the whole system works, potentially more intermingling between the free-form architectural design and the mathematical design of a civil engineer. Merging it back together, I think, has a lot of benefits.”

Which brings us back to the Golden Gate Bridge, Schemmer’s longtime favorite. You can still hear that excited 3-year-old in his voice when he talks about it.

“It’s so iconic,” he says. “It’s connecting these two spits of land that just rise straight up out of the ocean. There’s this fog that comes in and out a lot of days. It's a really magical place, from the size of the cable strands and everything. It’s just, ‘Wow.’ People built this over 100 years ago, before the existence of a lot of the computational tools that we have now. So, all the math, everything in the design, was all done by hand and from the mind. Nothing was computerized, which I think is crazy to think about.”

As Schemmer continues work on his doctoral degree at MIT, the MAD fellowship will expose him to many more awe-inspiring ideas in other fields, leading him to incorporate some of these in some way with his engineering knowledge to design better ways of building bridges and other structures.

Earlier this week, when Meta announced changes to their content moderation processes, we were hopeful that some of those changes—which we will address in more detail in this post—would enable greater freedom of expression on the company’s platforms, something for which we have advocated for many years. While Meta’s initial announcement primarily addressed changes to its misinformation policies and included rolling back over-enforcement and automated tools that we have long criticized, we expressed hope that “Meta will also look closely at its content moderation practices with regards to other commonly censored topics such as LGBTQ+ speech, political dissidence, and sex work.”

Facebook has a clear and disturbing track record of silencing and further marginalizing already oppressed peoples, and then being less than forthright about their content moderation policy.

However, shortly after our initial statement was published, we became aware that rather than addressing those historically over-moderated subjects, Meta was taking the opposite tack and —as reported by the Independent—was making targeted changes to its hateful conduct policy that would allow dehumanizing statements to be made about certain vulnerable groups. 

It was our mistake to formulate our responses and expectations on what is essentially a marketing video for upcoming policy changes before any of those changes were reflected in their documentation. We prefer to focus on the actual impacts of online censorship felt by people, which tends to be further removed from the stated policies outlined in community guidelines and terms of service documents. Facebook has a clear and disturbing track record of silencing and further marginalizing already oppressed peoples, and then being less than forthright about their content moderation policy. These first changes to actually surface in Facebook's community standards document seem to be in the same vein.

Specifically, Meta’s hateful conduct policy now contains the following:

• People sometimes use sex- or gender-exclusive language when discussing access to spaces often limited by sex or gender, such as access to bathrooms, specific schools, specific military, law enforcement, or teaching roles, and health or support groups. Other times, they call for exclusion or use insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality. Finally, sometimes people curse at a gender in the context of a romantic break-up. Our policies are designed to allow room for these types of speech. 

But the implementation of this policy shows that it is focused on allowing more hateful speech against specific groups, with a noticeable and particular focus on enabling more speech challenging the legitimacy of LGBTQ+ rights. For example, 

• While allegations of mental illness against people based on their protected characteristics remain a tier 2 violation, the revised policy now allows “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism [sic] and homosexuality.”

• The revised policy now specifies that Meta allows speech advocating gender-based and sexual orientation-based-exclusion from military, law enforcement, and teaching jobs, and from sports leagues and bathrooms.

• The revised policy also removed previous prohibitions on comparing people to inanimate objects, feces, and filth based on their protected characteristics.

These changes reveal that Meta seems less interested in freedom of expression as a principle and more focused on appeasing the incoming U.S. administration, a concern we mentioned in our initial statement with respect to the announced move of the content policy team from California to Texas to address “appearances of bias.” Meta said it would be making some changes to reflect that these topics are “the subject of frequent political discourse and debate” and can be said “on TV or the floor of Congress.” But if that is truly Meta’s new standard, we are struck by how selectively it is being rolled out, and particularly allowing more anti-LGBTQ+ speech.

We continue to stand firmly against hateful anti-trans content remaining on Meta’s platforms, and strongly condemn any policy change directly aimed at enabling hate toward vulnerable communities—both in the U.S. and internationally.

Real and Sincere Reforms to Content Moderation Can Both Promote Freedom of Expression and Protect Marginalized Users

In its initial announcement, Meta also said it would change how policies are enforced to reduce mistakes, stop reliance on automated systems to flag every piece of content, and add staff to review appeals. We believe that, in theory, these are positive measures that should result in less censorship of expression for which Meta has long been criticized by the global digital rights community, as well as by artists, sex worker advocacy groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, Palestine advocates, and political groups, among others.

But we are aware that these problems, at a corporation with a history of biased and harmful moderation like Meta, need a careful, well-thought-out, and sincere fix that will not undermine broader freedom of expression goals.

For more than a decade, EFF has been critical of the impact that content moderation at scale—and automated content moderation in particular—has on various groups. If Meta is truly interested in promoting freedom of expression across its platforms, we renew our calls to prioritize the following much-needed improvements instead of allowing more hateful speech.

Meta Must Invest in Its Global User Base and Cover More Languages 

Meta has long failed to invest in providing cultural and linguistic competence in its moderation practices often leading to inaccurate removal of content as well as a greater reliance on (faulty) automation tools. This has been apparent to us for a long time. In the wake of the 2011 Arab uprisings, we documented our concerns with Facebook’s reporting processes and their effect on activists in the Middle East and North Africa. More recently, the need for cultural competence in the industry generally was emphasized in the revised Santa Clara Principles.

Over the years, Meta’s global shortcomings became even more apparent as its platforms were used to promote hate and extremism in a number of locales. One key example is the platform’s failure to moderate anti-Rohingya sentiment in Myanmar—the direct result of having far too few Burmese-speaking moderators (in 2015, as extreme violence and violent sentiment toward the Rohingya was well underway, there were just two such moderators).

If Meta is indeed going to roll back the use of automation to flag and action most content and ensure that appeals systems work effectively, which will solve some of these problems, it must also invest globally in qualified content moderation personnel to make sure that content from countries outside of the United States and in languages other than English is fairly moderated. 

Reliance on Automation to Flag Extremist Content Allows for Flawed Moderation

We have long been critical of Meta’s over-enforcement of terrorist and extremist speech, specifically of the impact it has on human rights content. Part of the problem is Meta’s over-reliance on moderation to flag extremist content. A 2020 document reviewing moderation across the Middle East and North Africa claimed that algorithms used to detect terrorist content in Arabic incorrectly flag posts 77 percent of the time. 

More recently, we have seen this with Meta’s automated moderation to remove the phrase “from the river to the sea.” As we argued in a submission to the Oversight Board—with which the Board also agreed—moderation decisions must be made on an individualized basis because the phrase has a significant historical usage that is not hateful or otherwise in violation of Meta’s community standards.

Another example of this problem that has overlapped with Meta’s shortcomings with respect to linguistic competence is in relation to the term “shaheed,” which translates most closely to “martyr” and is used by Arabic speakers and many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims elsewhere in the world to refer primarily (though not exclusively) to individuals who have died in the pursuit of ideological causes. As we argued in our joint submission with ECNL to the Meta Oversight Board, use of the term is context-dependent, but Meta has used automated moderation to indiscriminately remove instances of the word. In their policy advisory opinion, the Oversight Board noted that any restrictions on freedom of expression that seek to prevent violence must be necessary and proportionate, “given that undue removal of content may be ineffective and even counterproductive.”

Marginalized communities that experience persecution offline often face disproportionate censorship online. It is imperative that Meta recognize the responsibilities it has to its global user base in upholding free expression, particularly of communities that may otherwise face censorship in their home countries.

Sexually-Themed Content Remains Subject to Discriminatory Over-censorship

Our critique of Meta’s removal of sexually-themed content goes back more than a decade. The company’s policies on adult sexual activity and nudity affect a wide range of people and communities, but most acutely impact LGBTQ+ individuals and sex workers. Typically aimed at keeping sites “family friendly” or “protecting the children,” these policies are often unevenly enforced, often classifying LGBTQ+ content as “adult” or “harmful” when similar heterosexual content isn’t. These policies were often written and enforced discriminatorily and at the expense of gender-fluid and nonbinary speakers—we joined in the We the Nipple campaign aimed at remedying this discrimination.

In the midst of ongoing political divisions, issues like this have a serious impact on social media users. 

Most nude content is legal, and engaging with such material online provides individuals with a safe and open framework to explore their identities, advocate for broader societal acceptance and against hate, build communities, and discover new interests. With Meta intervening to become the arbiters of how people create and engage with nudity and sexuality—both offline and in the digital space—a crucial form of engagement for all kinds of users has been removed and the voices of people with less power have regularly been shut down. 

Over-removal of Abortion Content Stifles User Access to Essential Information 

The removal of abortion-related posts on Meta platforms containing the word ‘kill’ have failed to meet the criteria for restricting users’ right to freedom of expression. Meta has regularly over-removed abortion related content, hamstringing its user’s ability to voice their political beliefs. The use of automated tools for content moderation leads to the biased removal of this language, as well as essential information. In 2022, Vice reported that a Facebook post stating "abortion pills can be mailed" was flagged within seconds of it being posted.

At a time when bills are being tabled across the U.S. to restrict the exchange of abortion-related information online, reproductive justice and safe access to abortion, like so many other aspects of managing our healthcare, is fundamentally tied to our digital lives. And with corporations deciding what content is hosted online, the impact of this removal is exacerbated. 

What was benign data online is effectively now potentially criminal evidence. This expanded threat to digital rights is especially dangerous for BIPOC, lower-income, immigrant, LGBTQ+ people and other traditionally marginalized communities, and the healthcare providers serving these communities. Meta must adhere to its responsibility to respect international human rights law, and ensure that any abortion-related content removal be both necessary and proportionate.

Meta’s symbolic move of its content team from California to Texas, a state that is aiming to make the distribution of abortion information illegal, also raises serious concerns that Meta will backslide on this issue—in line with local Texan state law banning abortion—rather than make improvements. 

Meta Must Do Better to Provide Users With Transparency 

EFF has been critical of Facebook’s lack of transparency for a long time. When it comes to content moderation the company’s transparency reports lack many of the basics: how many human moderators are there, and how many cover each language? How are moderators trained? The company’s community standards enforcement report includes rough estimates of how many pieces of content of which categories get removed, but does not tell us why or how these decisions are taken.

Meta makes billions from its own exploitation of our data, too often choosing their profits over our privacy—opting to collect as much as possible while denying users intuitive control over their data. In many ways this problem underlies the rest of the corporation’s harms—that its core business model depends on collecting as much information about users as possible, then using that data to target ads, as well as target competitors. 

That’s why EFF, with others, launched the Santa Clara Principles on how corporations like Meta can best obtain meaningful transparency and accountability around the increasingly aggressive moderation of user-generated content. And as platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X continue to occupy an even bigger role in arbitrating our speech and controlling our data, there is an increased urgency to ensure that their reach is not only stifled, but reduced.

Flawed Approach to Moderating Misinformation with Censorship 

Misinformation has been thriving on social media platforms, including Meta. As we said in our initial statement, and have written before, Meta and other platforms should use a variety of fact-checking and verification tools available to it, including both community notes and professional fact-checkers, and have robust systems in place to check against any flagging that results from it. 

Meta and other platforms should also employ media literacy tools such as encouraging users to read articles before sharing them, and to provide resources to help their users assess reliability of information on the site. We have also called for Meta and others to stop privileging governmental officials by providing them with greater opportunities to lie than other users.

While we expressed some hope on Tuesday, the cynicism expressed by others seems warranted now. Over the years, EFF and many others have worked to push Meta to make improvements. We've had some success with its "Real Names" policy, for example, which disproportionately affected the LGBTQ community and political dissidents. We also fought for, and won improvements on, Meta's policy  on allowing images of breastfeeding, rather than marking them as "sexual content." If Meta truly values freedom of expression, we urge it to redirect its focus to empowering historically marginalized speakers, rather than empowering only their detractors.

In 2018, when Inc. Magazine named Boston one of the country’s top places to start a business, it highlighted one significant reason: Boston is an innovation hub for products and services catering toward the aging population. The “longevity economy” represents a massive chunk of economic opportunity: As of 2020, the over-50 market contributed $45 trillion to global GDP, or 34 percent of the total, according to AARP and Economist Impact.

What makes Boston such a good place to do business in aging? One important factor, according to the Inc. story, was MIT — specifically, MIT’s AgeLab, a research organization devoted to creating a high quality of life for the world’s growing aging population.

Inspired by that claim, AgeLab Director Joseph Coughlin, AgeLab science writer and researcher Luke Yoquinto, and The Boston Globe organized a yearlong series of articles to explore what makes Boston such a fertile ground for businesses in the longevity economy — and what might make its soil even richer. The series, titled “The Longevity Hub,” had a big goal in mind: describing what would be necessary to transform Boston into the “Silicon Valley of aging.”

The articles from the Globe series stand as a primer on key issues related to the wants, needs, and economic capabilities of older people, not just in Boston but for any community with an aging population. Importantly, creating a business and research environment conducive to innovation on behalf of older users and customers would create the opportunity to serve national and global aging markets far larger than just Boston or New England.

But that project with the Globe raised a new question for the MIT AgeLab: What communities, Boston aside, were ahead of the curve in their support of aging innovation? More likely than Boston standing as the world’s lone longevity hub, there were doubtless many international communities that could be identified using similar terms. But where were they? And what makes them successful?

Now The MIT Press has published “Longevity Hubs: Regional Innovation for Global Aging,” an edited volume that collects the original articles from The Boston Globe series, as well as a set of new essays. In addition to AgeLab researchers Coughlin, Yoquinto, and Lisa D’Ambrosio, this work includes essays by members of the MIT community including Li-Huei Tsai, director of the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory; the author team of Rafi Segal (associate professor of architecture and urbanism) and Marisa Moràn Jahn (senior researcher at MIT Future Urban Collectives); as well as Elise Selinger, MIT’s director of residential renewal and renovation.

In addition to these Boston Globe articles, the book also includes a new collection of essays from an international set of contributors. These new essays highlight sites around the world that have developed a reputation for innovation in the longevity economy. 

The innovative activity described throughout the book may exemplify a phenomenon called clustering: when businesses within a given sector emerge or congregate close to one another geographically. On its face, industrial or innovation clustering is something that ought not to happen, since, when businesses get physically close to one another, rent and congestion costs increase — incentivizing their dispersal. For clustering to occur, then, additional mechanisms must be at play, outweighing these natural costs. One possible explanation, many researchers have theorized, is that clusters tend to occur where useful, tacit knowledge flows among organizations.

In the case of longevity hubs, the editors hypothesize that two sorts of tacit knowledge are being shared. First is the simple awareness that the older market is worth serving. Second is insight into how best to meet its needs — a trickier proposition than many would-be elder-market conquerors realize. An earlier book by Coughlin, “The Longevity Economy” (PublicAffairs, 2017), discusses a long history of failed attempts by companies to design products and services for older adults. Speaking to the longevity economy is not easy, but these international longevity hubs represent successful, ongoing efforts to address the needs of older consumers.   

The book’s opening chapters on the Greater Boston longevity hub encompass a swathe of sectors including biotech, health care, housing, transportation, and financial services. “Although life insurance is perhaps the clearest example of a financial services industry whose interests align with consumer longevity, it is far from the only one,” writes Brooks Tingle, president and CEO of John Hancock, in his entry. “Financial companies — especially those in Boston's increasingly longevity-aware business community — should dare to think big and join the effort to build a better old age.”

The book’s other contributions range far beyond Boston. They highlight, for example, Louisville, Kentucky, which is “the country’s largest hot spot for businesses specializing in aging care,” writes contributor and Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, in a chapter describing the city’s mix of massive health-care companies and smaller, nimbler startups. In Newcastle, in the U.K., a thriving biomedical industry laid the groundwork for a burst of innovation around the idea of aging as an economic opportunity, with initial funding from the public sector and academic research giving way to business development in the city. In Brazil’s São Paulo, meanwhile, in the absence of public funding from the national government, a grassroots network of academics, companies, and other institutions called Envelhecimento 2.0 is the main driver of aging innovation in the country.

“We are seeing a Cambrian explosion of efforts to provide a high quality of life for the world’s booming aging population,” says Coughlin. “And that explosion includes not just startups and companies, but also different regional economic approaches to taking the longevity dividend of living longer, and transforming it into an opportunity for everyone to live longer, better.”

By 2034, for the first time in history, older adults will outnumber children in the United States. That demographic shift represents an enormous societal challenge, and a grand economic opportunity. Greater Boston stands as a premier global longevity hub, but, as Coughlin and Yoquinto’s volume illustrates, there are potential competitors — and collaborators — popping up left and right. If and when innovation clusters befitting the title of “the Silicon Valley of longevity” do arise, it remains to be seen where they will appear first.

William Thilly ’67, ScD ’71, a professor in MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering, died Dec. 24 at his home in Winchester, Massachusetts. He was 79.

Thilly, a pioneer in the study of human genetic mutations, had been a member of the MIT faculty since 1972. Throughout his career, he developed novel ways to measure how environmental mutagens affect human cells, creating assays that are now widely used in toxicology and pharmaceutical development.

He also served as a director of MIT’s Center for Environmental Health Sciences and in the 1980s established MIT’s first Superfund research program — an example of his dedication to ensuring that MIT’s research would have a real-world impact, colleagues say.

“He really was a giant in the field,” says Bevin Engelward, a professor of biological engineering at MIT. “He took his scientific understanding and said, ‘Let’s use this as a tool to go after this real-world problem.’ One of the things that Bill really pushed people on was challenging them to ask the question, ‘Does this research matter? Is this going to make a difference in the real world?’”

In a letter to the MIT community today, MIT President Sally Kornbluth noted that Thilly’s students and postdocs recalled him as “a wise but tough mentor.”

“Many of the students and postdocs Bill trained have become industry leaders in the fields of drug evaluation and toxicology. And he changed the lives of many more MIT students through his generous support of scholarships for undergraduates from diverse educational backgrounds,” Kornbluth wrote.

Tackling real-world problems

Thilly was born on Staten Island, New York, and his family later moved to a farm in Rush Township, located in central Pennsylvania. He earned his bachelor’s degree in biology in 1967 and an ScD in nutritional biochemistry in 1971, both from MIT. In 1972, he joined the MIT faculty as an assistant professor of genetic toxicology.

His research group began with the aim of discovering the origins of disease-causing mutations in humans. In the 1970s, his lab developed an assay that allows for quantitative measurement of mutations in human cells. This test, known as the TK6 assay, allows researchers to identify compounds that are likely to cause mutations, and it is now used by pharmaceutical companies to test whether new drug compounds are safe for human use.

Unlike many previous assays, which could identify only type of mutation at a time, Thilly’s TK6 assay could catch any mutation that would disrupt the function of a gene.

From 1980 to 2001, Thilly served as the director of MIT’s Center for Environmental Health Sciences. During that time, he assembled a cross-disciplinary team, including experts from several MIT departments, that examined the health effects of burning fossil fuels.

“Working in a coordinated manner, the team established more efficient ways to burn fuel, and, importantly, they were able to assess which combustion methods would have the least impact on human and environmental health,” says John Essigmann, the William R. and Betsy P. Leitch Professor of Chemistry, Toxicology, and Biological Engineering at MIT.

Thilly was also instrumental in developing MIT’s first Superfund program. In the 1980s, he mobilized a group of MIT researchers from different disciplines to investigate the effects of the toxic waste at a Superfund site in Woburn, Massachusetts, and help devise remediation plans.

Bringing together scientists and engineers from different fields, who were at the time very siloed within their own departments, was a feat of creativity and leadership, Thilly’s colleagues say, and an example of his dedication to tackling real-world problems.

Later, Thilly utilized a protocol known as denaturing gel electrophoresis to visualize environmentally caused mutations by their ability to alter the melting temperature of the DNA duplex. He used this tool to study human tissue derived from people who had experienced exposure to agents such as tobacco smoke, allowing him to create a rough draft of the mutational spectrum that such agents produce in human cells. This work led him to propose that the mutations in many cancers are likely caused by inaccurate copying of DNA by specialized polymerases known as non-replicative polymerases.

One of Thilly’s most significant discoveries was the fact that cells that are deficient in a DNA repair process called mismatch repair were resistant to certain DNA-damaging agents. Later work by Nobel laureate Paul Modrich ’68 showed how cells lacking mismatch repair become resistant to anticancer drugs.

In 2001, Thilly joined MIT’s newly formed Department of Biological Engineering. During the 2000s, Thilly’s wife, MIT Research Scientist Elena Gostjeva, discovered an unusual, bell-shaped structure in the nuclei of plant cells, known as metakaryotic nuclei. Thilly and Gostjeva later found these nuclei in mammalian stem cells. In recent years, they were exploring the possibility that these cells give rise to tumors, and investigating potential compounds that could be used to combat that type of tumor growth.

A wrestling mentality

Thilly was a dedicated teacher and received the Everett Moore Baker Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching in 1974. In 1991, a series of courses he helped to create, called Chemicals in the Environment, was honored with the Irwin Sizer Award for the Most Significant Improvement to MIT Education. Many of the students and postdocs that he trained have become industry leaders in drug evaluation and toxicant identification. This past semester, Thilly and Gostjeva co-taught two undergraduate courses in the biology of metakaryotic stem cells.

A champion wrestler in his youth, Thilly told colleagues that he considered teaching “a contact sport.” “He had this wrestling mentality. He wanted a challenge,” Engelward says. “Whatever the issue was scientifically that he felt needed to be hashed out, he wanted to battle it out.”

In addition to wrestling, Thilly was also a captain of the MIT Rugby Football Club in the 1970s, and one of the founders of the New England Rugby Football Union.

Thilly loved to talk about science and often held court in the hallway outside his office on the seventh floor of Building 16, regaling colleagues and students who happened to come by.

“Bill was the kind of guy who would pull you aside and then start going on and on about some aspect of his work and why it was so important. And he was very passionate about it,” Essigmann recalls. “He was also an amazing scholar of the early literature of not only genetic toxicology, but molecular biology. His scholarship was extremely good, and he'd be the go-to person if you had a question about something.”

Thilly also considered it his duty to question students about their work and to make sure that they were thinking about whether their research would have real-world applications.

“He really was tough, but I think he really did see it as his responsibility. I think he felt like he needed to always be pushing people to do better when it comes to the real world,” Engelward says. “That’s a huge legacy. He affected probably hundreds of students, because he would go to the graduate student seminar series and he was always asking questions, always pushing people.”

Thilly was a strong proponent of recruiting more underserved students to MIT and made many trips to historically Black universities and colleges to recruit applicants. He also donated more than $1 million to scholarship funds for underserved students, according to colleagues.

While an undergraduate at MIT, Thilly also made a significant mark in the world of breakfast cereals. During the summer of 1965, he worked as an intern at Kellogg’s, where he was given the opportunity to create his own cereal, according to the breakfast food blog Extra Crispy. His experiments with dried apples and leftover O’s led to the invention of the cereal that eventually became Apple Jacks.

In addition to his wife, Thilly is survived by five children: William, Grethe, Walte and Audrey Thilly, and Fedor Gostjeva; a brother, Walter; a sister, Joan Harmon; and two grandchildren. 

It’s being actively exploited.

The president-elect launched a fusillade of attacks to pin blame for the Los Angeles wildfires on his enemies.

Downtown Los Angeles has received just 0.14 inch of rain since October.

The damages could overwhelm the state's already-stressed insurer of last resort.

Meeting electricity demand for big tech data centers could give Trump reason to get behind Biden on transmission.

A group led by former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is challenging Biden administration actions that would move the nation away from gasoline-powered vehicles.