Documenting the tech worker movement

Despite the “dot-com crash” in 2000, the tech industry remained an attractive career destination for many who believed technology represented the future. The digital age — defined by global connectivity and computers — had firmly taken hold, and over time, the tech industry emerged as a dominant force in the labor market. High-paying jobs for engineers, designers, and professionals across a wide range of fields became increasingly common. 

MIT PhD student JS Tan SM ’22 was among those who, upon graduating from Brown University and Rhode Island School of Design in 2015, joined the tech industry. 

“A lot of us had this idea that technology, and in particular the technologies related to the internet, had the potential for bringing about a more progressive version of the world,” Tan says. 

Google echoed this ethos to its employees with its once-famous motto, “don’t be evil,” as their informal corporate philosophy and code of conduct guideline. They’ve since dropped the tagline.

But in time, particularly with the start of the first Trump administration, some tech industry employees found themselves questioning if their employers were really intent on supporting policies to support a more democratic world. According to Tan, their willingness to publicly oppose their employers’ actions — at first successfully — is currently experiencing an anti-worker backlash. 

Now, Tan and his former tech industry colleague Clarissa Redwine have published a book on the rise and fall of the tech worker labor movement. “Against Tech Oligarchy: Worker Resistance in the World’s Most Powerful Industry” (Haymarket Books, 2026) chronicles how tech workers organized themselves, the effective strategies they used, and the effect the movement had on Silicon Valley labor politics over the past decade.

Documenting a movement from within

In 2017, Tan was working for Microsoft and Redwine for Kickstarter, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending entry into the United States for nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days, and suspending Syrian refugees from entering the country indefinitely. 

“As a whole, I think the tech sector really pushed back against this,” says Tan. “[OpenAI co-founder] Sam Altman participated in protests of this ban at the airport. In fact, the day before he joined these protests, he wrote in his blog that the tech industry needed to take a stand against the Trump administration, and particularly its immigration policies.” 

Altman’s Jan. 28, 2017, blog post read, in part, “Tech companies go to extraordinary lengths to recruit and retain employees; those employees have a lot of leverage. If employees push companies to do something, I believe they’ll have to. At a minimum, companies should take a public stance. But talking is only somewhat effective, and employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”

Tan says Altman’s words inspired tech workers across the industry to publicly voice their opposition and “push for the values they believed in.” For the next several years, workers staged walkouts and protested their employers’ contracts with U.S. military and immigration enforcement agencies, as well as workplace policies they considered sexist. 

“That was a time in which a lot of tech workers felt that their companies were walking back the values that they had initially promised,” says Tan.

Their objections initially met with some success. In 2018, following protests by Google employees, the company decided not to renew its contract for Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative using artificial intelligence to analyze drone surveillance footage. Nearly 4,000 employees signed an open letter to their CEO stating, “Google should not be in the business of war.”

Fast forward eight years. Earlier this year, more than 600 employees signed an open letter urging Google’s CEO to reject classified AI work with the Pentagon, citing concerns about potential uses including lethal autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance. 

“The way Google responded to them this time was to say, basically, ‘Too bad, we’re committed to working with the Pentagon,’” says Tan. “So, there is this kind of shift as to how Google is positioning itself politically, as well as to their employees.”

What happened to the tech industry employee leverage? 

Tan’s book outlines several events that he argues have negatively impacted their formerly strong influence. First, following interest rate hikes in 2022, the tech industry lost hundreds of billions in market valuation and set out to cut costs, the most significant of them being the expensive salaries of their employees. In other words, the labor market soured on tech workers, giving employers opportunity to wrest back control, Tan suggests. 

Second, he points to the drastic effect of agentic AI coding systems on the nature of their work, arguing that these tools have deskilled workers and made everyone much more worried about job security.  

“Tech workers had to face these shocks on their own. With a union or some ability to coordinate across workers and bargain as a group, they might’ve had more power to actually push back,” says Tan.  

Documenting the past to support the future

Tan enrolled at MIT in 2020, earning a master’s degree at the MIT Media Lab. He is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning with a focus on the political economy of the tech sector.

At various points in their careers, Tan and his co-author had been involved with organizing in the tech sector. Redwine was a prominent organizer in the union drive at Kickstarter. She was fired from the company in 2019; Redwine said her dismissal was retaliation for her organizing activity, while Kickstarter denied that claim. One reason Tan and Redwine wrote this book is because they saw that the bandwidth for labor organizing among tech workers had hit a new low. 

“Tech workers want to have a say over the way their technologies are designed,” says Tan. “They want to be able to push for the right guardrails around technologies that they’re building. We wanted to use this book as an opportunity to analyze why it was that, within eight years, the tech worker movement had sort of fallen into this state of paralysis.”

They began writing the book in 2024, reliving the highs and lows of the past decade. This is Tan’s first book. He says writing it was an “exhilarating experience” and one that he profoundly enjoyed.

“It’s why, in part, I’m drawn to academia. To a large extent, I believe in the power of research and of writing. To have the opportunity to do this about a subject that I care deeply about has been an amazing experience.”

A book launch and discussion about “Against Tech Oligarchy,” co-hosted by the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, will take place on Oct. 26.

de MIT News https://ift.tt/guhQo4B

The next generation’s guide to the new space economy

On the first day of class 16.445J/STS.468J (Entrepreneurship in Aerospace and Mobility Systems), David Mindell, MIT professor of aeronautics and astronautics (AeroAstro) and the Frances and David Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing, asked his students to take a look at an image of a textbook. The cover featured a bright and inspiring collage of rockets, planets, and all manner of futuristic air- and spacecraft. The title: “Entrepreneurship in Aerospace: A Guide for Founders and Investors.”

“This is the most up-to-date guide on the topic,” Mindell said, describing the book’s treatment of the concepts and procedures involved in innovating in aerospace, an industry experiencing a renaissance of entrepreneurship led by venture-backed startups and rapid innovation, and one that, whether or not we realize it, we all depend on every day. 

Konark Chopra, a graduate student in MIT’s Leaders for Global Operations Program, raised his hand. “Sounds great — how can we get a copy?”

“It doesn’t exist,” replied Mindell. “You’re going to write it this semester.”

After conducting over 50 interviews with founders, operators, engineers, and investors across the aerospace industry, the class pulled it off. The 100-page industry report, titled “Entrepreneurship in Aerospace,” provides comprehensive insight into what it actually takes to build an aerospace venture today, and makes predictions about what is needed in the near future.

The challenge to produce the report was inspired by the bestselling guide “Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a Successful Startup,” by Bill Aulet, professor of the practice in the MIT Sloan School of Management and managing director of the Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship. Originally published in 2013, the book provides an outline for entrepreneurs in any industry to cultivate skills for success. “Entrepreneurship in Aerospace” builds on Aulet’s framework to provide an industry-specific guide. “Aerospace is its own special industry with a unique set of constraints and aspirations,” says Mindell.

“Putting together this report let the students learn what they won’t get from a regular class about aerospace entrepreneurship,” he says. “This is the view of the industry from the young people building its future. I’m incredibly proud of what they’ve accomplished.”

Betting on the known unknowns

During spring 2026, while the class was in session, major developments were shaping the aerospace sector, from NASA’s Artemis II mission to SpaceX’s launch of what would become the largest initial public offering in history. “The entire industry landscape shifted like crazy during the semester,” says Mindell, as just one of the reasons that the report was especially timely. 

The report argues that the volume of capital, talent, and policy attention directed toward aerospace is “structurally different from any prior point in the industry’s history,” creating a pivotal moment for the next generation of entrepreneurs and investors.

The report further outlines five predictions about the new space economy: terrestrial infrastructure for compute, manufacturing, and energy will move off-world; autonomous systems, robots, and humans will continue to work together, but with humans in a supervisory capacity; venture capital investment will run ahead of economic justifications; government investment will become the fastest way for young companies to fundraise; and that we are years away from a global regulatory framework for space companies to operate within. Each prediction, or “bet,” includes a section on “where serious people disagree,” laying out relevant counterarguments to their conclusions.

As a guide, the report also translates its findings into practical tools, including a diagnostic for determining how many independent breakthroughs a company needs to succeed. “One of my favorite tools from the report is the miracle count,” says Chopra. “If your company needs one breakthrough to work, that’s a venture bet. If it needs three, that’s a research project pretending to be a startup.”

The report’s findings were informed both by existing research and by interviews with current aerospace professionals. Students were graded, in part, on how many people they spoke with. Their interviews focused on what excites people about the industry, reasons for their optimism (or pessimism), and how people are working within their organizations to address the challenges they see. 

The experience also allowed the students to expand their professional networks, practicing a core entrepreneurial skill while gaining insider perspectives.

“We sought out people from different corners of aerospace and were always asking, ‘Who else should we talk to?’” says Nicole Lee, a graduate student in AeroAstro. “Not only was I able to reconnect with people in my own network, but I got to introduce classmates to those contacts, and then benefit from the networks they brought in, too. That exchange was a big part of what made the interview process, and the class, so special.”

Engineers as entrepreneurs

The report’s authors — 16 classmates from the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT Sloan School of Management, and Wellesley College — bring a range of academic backgrounds and career ambitions to the project, using those different perspectives to connect the realities of aerospace engineering with the economic forces impacting the industry. Their research interests and experiences range from spacecraft propulsion and human spaceflight to investment banking and military operations. Collectively, they have worked across organizations like NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, and a range of startups.

“What I’ll remember most is the team,” says Chopra. “Everyone showed up with their own wisdom and a willingness to challenge each other, learn from each other, and simply have fun. Those are the teams we hope to keep building with.” 

For Lee, those industry experiences support the report’s predictions about where the field itself is headed. “Entrepreneurship in space is going to involve a much broader group of founders, engineers, researchers, policymakers, and operators,” says Lee. “Everyone working in space can take something away from understanding the entrepreneurial mindset and the cultural shift we’re seeing in commercial space. A much wider range of people will be shaping entrepreneurship in the future. I think that shift has already started with us.”

Mindell sees value in that entrepreneurial mindset, regardless of whether the students go on to found companies of their own. “I don’t know if every student in this class is going to found their own company, and I don’t expect them to, but I do expect them to drive their own careers forward,” he says. “And I think for the moment we’re at, providing that opportunity is the best thing MIT can be doing for our students.”

For Chopra, who has had his sights set on founding an aerospace company for as long as he can remember, the findings from the report are immediately applicable. “The heart of a business, a sustainable business, is the demand. What do the customers want? Sure, I could build cool technology, but if we don’t have anyone buying it, it’s a project, not a company.”

Now armed with a clear and evidence-backed picture of the landscape, Chopra wants the report to generate even more activity across the industry. “If our industry report inspires one person to go out and found a company, or invest in a company, or even think about entrepreneurship in aerospace, it’s a pretty big win.”

de MIT News https://ift.tt/WYGsRSE

MIT class project turns into an FDA-cleared treatment for tremors

In 2017, a man named Michael walked onto stage in front of a packed Kresge Auditorium at MIT and attempted to draw a spiral, a common test doctors use to diagnose Parkinson’s disease. His tremors, caused by the disease, made the exercise difficult. 

Then, Michael put on a wristband device made by a team of MIT students as part of 2.009 (Product Engineering Processes), who were presenting their prototype that evening.

Michael pressed a button and the device produced a subtle vibration. The vibration sent signals up his wrist and into his brain. His tremors dramatically decreased, and within seconds he was able to draw the spiral with much more precision, to a roaring ovation from the audience.

“When this device is turned on, I feel like I used to feel when I didn’t have Parkinson’s disease,” Michael told the crowd. “It’s an amazing, amazing feeling.”

The performance was so impressive that the student team received requests from classmates and others asking where they could buy the device for family and friends living with tremors. Unfortunately, the students had to explain there was only one — for the time being.

The event set off a near decade-long journey that began by leveraging MIT entrepreneurial resources like MIT Sandbox, MIT FUSE, and the MIT Venture Mentoring Service. In 2020, the student team turned into an official company, Encora Therapeutics. But there were still dozens of hardware iterations ahead. Then there were clinical trials. In one trial, 78 percent of patients reported benefits after 90 days of home use.

This February, nine years after Michael’s brave demonstration, all that work finally paid off: The FDA cleared Encora’s device to help adults with essential tremor, a condition similar to Parkinson’s that causes shaking, often in the hands. 

“It’s been a long and difficult — very difficult — journey, but also very rewarding, especially when we get feedback from patients,” says Daniel Carballo ’18, SM ’20, an Encora co-founder and vice president of strategy. “We hear stories from patients about how they’ve struggled with their condition and how much they benefit from this. It reminds us why we keep going.”

From classroom to commercialization

The three founders of Encora who are still with the company are Carballo, Allison Davanzo ’18, and Kyle Pina ’18. They were each seniors in 2017 when they enrolled in 2.009, MIT’s popular product-design class.

The semester began with a brainstorming session in which groups of about 17 students were asked to come up with dozens of potential product ideas. Carballo proposed a wearable device that used mechanical vibration to send signals to the brain to reduce tremors. The initial idea was to help patients with Parkinson’s disease.

“It was one of hundreds of throwaway ideas,” Carballo recalls. “The initial concept was inspired by classes I had taken in robotics around neural control of movement. I had a preliminary understanding of how an electromechanical device might interact with the body’s control systems and feedback loops that control movement to relieve pathological control of movement.”

The team eventually whittled their long list of ideas down to a few. Carballo’s idea was finally selected by a vote of 16-1 — with Carballo the only dissenting vote.

“I tried to explain to the team that this was so far-fetched that there was no way, in one semester, we would be able to make anything,” Carballo recalls. “Thankfully, I got outvoted.”

Through most of the semester, Carballo’s pessimism looked justified. At every class milestone, the team lagged behind other teams. Then, the week before final presentations, they met Michael, whose severe hand tremors were the result of early-onset Parkinson’s.

“He was a home renovator, so he worked with his hands, but his tremors had progressed to the point that he struggled to turn a screwdriver, use a drill, or even fill out paperwork,” Carballo recalls. “He had become reliant on his wife and daughter not only to run his business, but to help him with everyday activities.”

By this point, the 2.009 team had a prototype that would vibrate to send mechanical feedback to the brain. Carballo described it as “a foamcore box with a Raspberry Pi chip and some wires coming out.” When Michael put on the device and turned it on, his tremors dramatically decreased.

“It was like a light switch turned on and his tremors stopped,” Carballo says. “His wife and daughter started crying. A week later, he was gracious enough to repeat the process on stage for the final presentations.”

The presentation — and the outpouring of interest from people who wanted it for loved ones with Parkinson’s — made the team determined.

“It showed us there were a lot of people with this problem that could really benefit from this,” Carballo says. “A subset of the team became possessed. It would have been such a shame to know this could exist and to have it never leave the classroom.”

Some team members began using MIT’s entrepreneurial resources to commercialize the technology, initially focusing on Parkinson’s. They ran their first clinical trial with 20 Parkinson’s patients in 2022 in collaboration with MassGeneral Brigham. But they soon learned more patients are living with essential tremor.

“It was a greater unmet need,” Carballo says. “There are a lot of drugs being developed for Parkinson’s disease, but essential tremor hasn’t experienced that same innovation.”

Today scientists think tremor is caused by malfunctioning signals in the regions of the brain responsible for interpreting sensory input and coordinating movement.

“In these diseases, neurotransmitter deficiencies result in this pulsed signaling in the brain that manifests as tremors that are basically pulsed motor outputs,” Carballo says.

One current approach to target those signals is surgery that involves drilling holes in the skull to insert electrodes that drive new electrical patterns in the brain. Encora’s watch-like product targets the same brain regions with mechanical vibrations at the wrist.

“We’re applying mechanical stimulus, basically vibration, to stretch receptors in the wrist, which tell your body where it is in space,” Carballo explains. “The stimulation causes the receptors to activate and send a patterned signal to peripheral nerves of the wrist, that then carry the signal to the peripheral nervous system and into the central nervous system, to the same regions of the brain targeted by surgery.”

In 2024, Encora ran a randomized control trial with 47 patients living with essential tremor. Last year, the team ran a 59-person trial where patients used the devices at home. In both trials, more than 70 percent of patients experienced meaningful improvement.

The results were promising enough to gain what’s known as 510(k) clearance from the FDA for use as a medical device, in February of this year.

Helping patients

Most patients see rapid benefit when using Encora’s device. Patients have described the device as life-changing. Some say it allows them to do tasks they haven’t been able to do in years.

“We see some patients using the device 12, 14 hours a day,” Carballo says.

Today, Encora is focused on building a national sales force and working to secure coverage from insurers. As the company ramps up production, the product will finally become available for patients who qualify.

Further down the line, Encora hopes to fulfill its original mission of helping mitigate tremors in patients with Parkinson’s. Carballo believes the approach also holds promise for many other patients.

“There is a surprisingly long list of diseases that this could work for,” Carballo says.  “The most obvious are neurological movement disorders, but the bigger picture of wearable neuromodulation is a rapidly growing field that has seen therapeutic benefit across a broad range of diseases. We see this as a platform technology.”

de MIT News https://ift.tt/IzNsGxH

New tool lets users repair AI-generated 3D models, then fabricate them just the way they want

“What you see is what you get” is a guiding principle for many software engineers — create programs where the content you’re editing looks the same as the final product. But when you’re using generative artificial intelligence systems to 3D print, say, a mug, you’ll likely get a cup that can’t hold your coffee. Why is that?

The issue is that AI models understand how an object should look, but not how it works, leading to impractical designs that undermine an item’s intended use. Even if you want to fix these errors, the models are typically hard to edit, especially for users new to 3D design.

A new approach called “InstructMesh” makes it much easier to design and print household items, accessories, and robots that work in the real world. The design software, which was developed by researchers at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), Google, and Northeastern University, can be prompted to generate a 3D design for a pair of glasses, for instance, and users can then highlight specific parts of the blueprint they’d like refined before 3D printing. It’s an AI-driven interface designed to understand how these designs should look and which edits experts and novices alike want to make, helping them create the objects they actually want to see.

CSAIL researchers used InstructMesh to put a personalized, creative spin on otherwise regular items. For example, the tool produced a mug that appears to be enveloped by a dragon, with its tail being the handle. It also fabricated a shiny blue whistle resembling a shell and a pair of glasses with butterfly wings spreading out just above the lens. Getting even more creative, it made an octopus-like dispenser, with liquids flowing out of each tentacle to distribute drinks into several cups at once.

What makes InstructMesh so adept at following such unique prompts? It pairs Microsoft’s TRELLIS system, which creates 3D models from text and image prompts, with the large language model (LLM) GPT-4, which supports ChatGPT — in other words, visual and textual knowledge combined.

“We wanted to bring together the talents of 3D generators and the reasoning skills of LLMs in an interactive space to make objects that people actually want,” says Faraz Faruqi SM ’22, PhD ’26, lead author on a paper presenting the project, graduate of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and recent CSAIL affiliate. “Language models are great at text and images, while TRELLIS’s talent lies in its ability to create 3D models, since it’s seen so many.”

InstructMesh’s strengths come in handy in other, more surprising areas. MIT scientists used the program to fabricate a knee brace that looks like denim to match a patient’s jeans. InstructMesh can even help create robots — that is, clever enclosures that house wireless components. The researchers made a “bristle bot” that resembles a colorful shrimp to demonstrate this. It has a motor hidden inside, and when switched on, it can slide across surfaces, sort of like a wind-up toy.

Faruqi and his colleagues found that InstructMesh could easily make their desired items. But what would someone who’s never 3D modeled anything think of their program? And could they really detect design flaws before fabrication?

The team has TRELLIS recreate popular 3D models found on Thingiverse, a platform home to millions of 3D printable models, to help them find out. Nearly 80 percent of the models it generated were structurally flawed in some way. CSAIL researchers then asked novices to identify and fix these issues in InstructMesh — and they were able to do both around 90 percent of the time, as reviewed by an expert. What these newcomers lacked in expertise, they made up for in intuition.

InstructMesh scaffolds the actual modeling process, which previously required domain expertise in 3D modeling tools. “With manipulation happening in the latent space of the generative model, InstructMesh supports natural language description of issues, and creates interpretive changes in the geometry for the user to evaluate and approve,” says Faruqi. 

Users then created items resembling things like phone stands and vases, noting that InstructMesh was easy to use. They also found that InstructMesh enabled them to express a wide range of ideas, while the sliders gave them more precision to make certain tweaks, such as enlarging or extruding a particular part of the model.

“The users got what they prompted for and easily tweaked designs where needed,” adds Faruqi. “What they saw is what they got, and the items worked as advertised, so to speak.” 

While users enjoyed using the InstructMesh, Faruqi has an even grander vision for the project. He now works at Google, where he may soon incorporate InstructMesh into an augmented reality (AR) platform. The idea: Prompt the system by explaining what you need using the context of your surroundings, then it’ll rapidly 3D print it (e.g., making a phone case that matches your wallet).

InstructMesh may also begin to incorporate physics simulations to model how your design may react to specific uses, such as whether a bowl breaks when dropped, and which materials would work best. The software might also integrate the more recent TRELLIS.2 to refine even smaller features in 3D models.

Stefanie Mueller, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) and mechanical engineering at MIT, and a member of CSAIL, is a senior author on the paper. Faruqi and Mueller wrote the paper with Google researchers Ahmed Katary ’23; Fabian Manhardt; Vrushank Phadnis MEng ’13, PhD ’20; Ruofei Du; and Federico Tombari. Other co-authors were Northeastern University Assistant Professor Megan Hofmann along with several CSAIL colleagues: Demircan Tas SM ’24 and SMArchS ’24, a PhD student in EECS and architecture; former visiting researcher Theresa Hradilak; Ning Zhang ’25, a graduate student in EECS; postdoc Jiaji Li; and Martin Nisser SM ’19, PhD ’24.

The researchers’ work was supported, in part, by Google and the MIT-HPI Collaborative Research Program. They will present it at the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology in November.

de MIT News https://ift.tt/skeP3B1

Media Advisory: Governor Healey, MIT President Kornbluth to Kick Off Festivities at MIT Future Fest

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and MIT President Sally Kornbluth will kick off MIT Future Fest, a new annual festival exploring the future of science, technology, art, and design, with “The Future Begins Here” panel, a celebration of Massachusetts innovation, talent and the bold questions shaping what comes next. The event will take place on Wednesday, September 30 at 3:30 PM at MIT’s Kresge Auditorium.

Curated and produced by the MIT Museum, the inaugural MIT Future Fest will take place across MIT’s campus from September 30–October 4, 2026. Governor Healy and President Kornbluth will be joined on the opening panel by Moderna co-founder and Flagship Pioneering founder and CEO Noubar Afeyan, MIT professor and entrepreneur Sangeeta Bhatia, and Bob Mumgaard, CEO and Co-Founder of Commonwealth Fusion Systems. Economic Development Secretary Eric Paley will moderate the discussion, which will explore how public, private, and educational institutions can work together to sustain talent pipelines, turn discovery into impact, and build the future

“Massachusetts is where the future is being invented, and MIT Future Fest is a chance to showcase our leadership in technology and design to the world,” said Governor Maura Healey. “From AI and robotics to clean energy and life sciences, the breakthroughs happening here are changing how we live and work. As Governor, I want Massachusetts to be the place where the best minds from around the world come to study, conduct research, start companies and scale their ideas. Our administration is investing in the talent, research and partnerships that make that possible, and we’re proud to launch MIT Future Fest with MIT.”

“The breakthrough discoveries that shape modern life came from decades of scientists and creators asking fundamental questions about how the world works. MIT Future Fest celebrates that same spirit of curiosity on mission," said MIT President Sally Kornbluth. "When you bring together engineers, inventors, artists, scientists, designers and entrepreneurs, you create the conditions for truly transformative innovation. This festival is an invitation to join that conversation, with the conviction that the future isn't something that happens to us—it's something we create together."

“The Future Beings Here” is one of more than 70 public talks, tours, performances, exhibitions, installations, and open laboratories included in the five-day program. Additional festival highlights and the full programming line-up are available at mitfuturefest.org. 

de MIT News https://ift.tt/XwoqU2e

Governor Healey and President Kornbluth launch MIT Future Fest

MIT Future Fest launched on Wednesday afternoon, featuring a visit from Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey before an opening panel at Kresge Auditorium.

Both Healey and MIT President Sally Kornbluth emphasized the power of curiosity and innovation during introductory remarks, while formally kicking off MIT Future Fest as a new kind of event that opens MIT’s doors to the world.

Spanning five days and featuring talks from leading MIT scholars, panel discussions, open labs, exhibitions, performances, screenings, and much more, MIT Future Fest adds up to a demonstration of campus research, teaching, thinking, and discovery.

“MIT and Massachusetts are known around the world as leaders in innovation,” Healey said. “Future Fest is a chance to celebrate that. But it’s also a chance to connect with each other. To learn from each other, and to imagine what comes next. In life sciences and biotech, robotics, advanced manufacturing, in energy and climate technology and quantum, and in the people who make it all happen.”  

In remarks preceding Healey’s talk, Kornbluth observed that “in a world as complex and interconnected as ours, we aim to invent the future. We need all the help we can get, and that’s why it’s so important to have all of you join us over the next five days in exploration, conversation, and curiosity.”

Future Fest also underscores that at MIT, as Kornbluth put it, “We feel a drive to explore, to understand, to solve, to invent, to design, all in service of society.” 

Since its founding, “MIT has long stood at the forefront of innovation and invention,” Healey noted. “‘The future starts here’ isn’t just a fitting theme for the next few days. It’s something we’ve been doing for the better part of 250 years in Massachusetts.”

Healey later appeared at an event about ocean sciences at the MIT Museum, whose staff have helped develop and organize MIT Future Fest. 

All told, MIT Future Fest features over 100 speakers at more than 50 events, among many other activities. The MIT Museum is free to the public during Future Fest; MIT’s newly opened Met Warehouse is hosting its first public events on Saturday; and Sunday features the Cambridge Science Carnival, a series of family activities. 

The remarks by Healey and Kornbluth were followed by a panel discussion, “The Future Begins Here,” featuring participants Noubar Afeyan PhD ’87, founder of Flagship Pioneering and co-founder of Moderna; Sangeeta Bhatia SM ’93, PhD ’97, the John J. and Dorothy Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, and director of MIT’s Marble Center for Cancer Nanomedicine; and Bob Mumgaard PhD ’15, CEO and co-founder of Commonwealth Fusion Systems. 

Massachusetts Economic Development Secretary Eric Paley moderated the wide-ranging discussion, which touched on the cutting-edge Massachusetts innovation ecosystem, the implications of artificial intelligence for research and industry, and more. 

The panelists noted that a confluence of ingredients — universities, other research institutions such as hospitals, venture capital, and more — has helped make Massachusetts the world leader in biotechnology and other forms of innovation. 

“You can’t be here and not feel like things that the rest of the world feel are not possible are possibly possible,” Afeyan said. “It’s really interesting how the environment makes you feel like you should also do something special.” He added that the various ecosystem elements have created a “critical mass” needed to sustain broad-ranging innovation. 

“This critical mass accumulated between the academic science, the hospital research, the entrepreneurial companies, large companies moved in, the government stepped in, state level, to try to help this community,” Afeyan observed. “It’s an inherent advantage of any ecosystem, it’s the co-location, it’s the connections.”

Mumgaard, whose company is building the first fusion power plant in the U.S., concurred that the combination of elements available in the state ecosystem is crucial for advanced innovation. 

“In many ways the challenge is simply scale,” Mumgaard said. “How do you get enough capital, how do you get enough smart people, how do you get enough people that are hard workers, how do you get the alignment from the institutions that can give you the permissions and tailwinds to be able to go and do that? And we did find that in Massachusetts.” 

He added: “You could not have really have built this company outside of Massachusetts.” 

For her part, Bhatia, a leader in developing nanoscale technologies that have made inroads in battling numerous forms of cancer, observed that part of the inspiration for her career came from visiting the MIT campus as a high school-age student.

“It was just that idea that you could engineer things, you could create instruments to improve human health, that started me on my journey,” Bhatia said. 

As a faculty member, she has helped found eight spinoff companies and helped direct an MIT study about how the Institute — which has already helped generate about 30,000 new companies — can do even more to produce startups and technology transfer. Ultimately, she has concluded, teaching researchers about the tools and skills they need to found companies can help generate even more productive networks of entrepreneurial activity.  

“We can be more intentional. We can create communities. … There are all kinds of ways to do more,” Bhatia said.

The panel discussion included reflections on AI and forecasts about the future of technology 20 years out, while ending with a reminder from Afeyan that, while the future is hard to forecast, it is at least partially shaped by people working consistently hard in pursuit of their goals. 

“We can envision the future a lot better than we can predict it,” Afeyan said, when asked to forecast the effects of technology in a couple of decades, near the end of the discussion.

Afeyan concluded: “My parting thought on this would be to say … I think you can either live in the present, do the things you do, and get the future you deserve, or you can envision the future you want, and do everything in service of that.”

de MIT News https://ift.tt/ehpCmFS