Reframing leadership as a design problem

When Nicholas de Monchaux became head of the Department of Architecture at the School of Architecture and Planning (SA+P) in 2020, he stepped into an unusual set of leadership conditions. He had been due to start in July 2020. Instead, a springtime visit to Cambridge, Massachusetts, coincided with the first Covid-19 lockdowns, and he found himself taking on the role earlier than planned — several months before faculty, students, and staff were able to gather in the same room.

As he concludes his tenure as head of the department before becoming dean of the University of California at Berkeley’s College of Environmental Design, de Monchaux reflects on a period of disruption that became an opportunity to strengthen the department’s infrastructure and advance new models for architectural education and research: “One of the key accomplishments of my time as head of the department has involved finding ways to teach one of MIT’s most physical and collaborative subjects remotely, while keeping the community together and rebuilding our studio culture once we were back on campus,” he says. 

Engaging complexity

The questions that have motivated de Monchaux’s research became central to the challenge of leading the department. As an architect and design theorist, his work draws on the science of adaptive complex systems to examine how design can shape resilient forms of organization under changing conditions.

His first book, “Spacesuit: Fashioning Apollo,” argues that the design of the Apollo spacesuit succeeded through continual adaptation across materials, manufacturing practices, and institutional networks, rather than through engineering optimization alone. His subsequent book, “Local Code: 3,659 Proposals About Data, Design, and the Nature of Cities,” shifts this inquiry from the body to the city, using geospatial data to show how thousands of marginal city-owned vacant lots could collectively support new forms of ecological and civic infrastructure, replacing top-down master planning with coordinated, site-specific interventions. If the impacts of the pandemic could be characterized as an emergent complex system at the scale of the body, the city, the planet — then leadership could be framed as a design problem.

De Monchaux’s understanding of design in relation to complexity science is influenced by his long-standing engagement with the Santa Fe Institute, where he serves as external faculty alongside researchers in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. His instinct for combining multiple forms of knowledge can be traced back to MIT — he spent formative years here, where his father, John de Monchaux, served as dean of SA+P from 1981 to 1992. “I was shaped by the ethos of curiosity at MIT,” he says. “Not just when it comes to questions of science and technology, but also those of art, design, and culture.”

Paradox and works in progress

That way of thinking becomes especially relevant in the context of climate change. According to the U.N. Environment Program, the construction and operation of buildings account for almost 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, an even larger share when urbanization, transportation, and the wider built environment are taken into account. For architects, this presents a paradox: The systems they work within have contributed substantially to the problems they now seek to solve.

“Over the past six years, our department has focused on two fundamental climate-related challenges,” says de Monchaux. “One is how to build differently through new approaches to circularity and material reuse. The other is how to make our social, cultural, and physical systems more resilient.”

Those priorities find expression in the Climate Studios, a research and teaching initiative nestled under the Option Studios (course number 4.154) that brings together faculty members — including architects, engineers, and historians — to collaborate with students on impact-driven research projects related to climate across multiple years of integrated research and pedagogy. 

“The studios reorganize teaching in the department because students aren’t just working on speculative exercises, they’re working on real issues,” says de Monchaux. “Likewise, the studios reorganize research by allowing faculty to benefit from the boundless energy and imagination of our design students.”

The Climate Studios are part of a wider constellation of climate action initiatives in collaboration with the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP). One example is a collaboration with DUSP and outgoing Department Head Chris Zegras, toward creating an MIT Civilian Climate Corps. Including seminars and workshops on community-focused design for MIT and its neighbors, and student-staffed work on circular material use, the initiative served as an incubator for the MIT Farm. Other projects at different stages of development were presented in the exhibition “Climate Work: Un/Worlding the Planet,” the department’s exhibition at the 2025 Venice Architecture Biennale, curated by de Monchaux alongside incoming department head Ana Miljački and exhibition designer Calvin Zhong ’18, MA ’24, MCP ’24. The exhibition embodied its own principles of circularity: The modular display tables, fabricated in Venice, were designed for reuse, and have since been installed as worktables in the department’s forthcoming home, the Metropolitan Storage Warehouse (the Met) — a space designed, like the exhibition, to invite continual experimentation. 

Building connections

The transformation of the Met has provided another opportunity for de Monchaux to think about architecture as a process of adaptation and collaboration. Having previously worked at Diller Scofidio + Renfro, the architecture firm engaged for the renovation project, he brought a unique perspective to the process, acting as “a translator between two different languages.” Recognizing the shared culture of experimentation that linked the architecture firm and the department, he advocated for a more radical approach to the renovation, pushing the boundaries of what might be expected from an institutional building. 

“It was important that the building remain open-ended and a little raw, because there’s a long tradition at MIT of students and faculty shaping their own studios and spaces,” he explains.

While de Monchaux is proud of the initiatives that took shape during his tenure, as a scholar of complex systems he knows better than to claim ownership over any single project. He describes both architecture and administration as acts of organization and rearrangement, evolving the work of predecessors and making way for those who follow.

One of the clearest examples is the department’s collaboration with Tuskegee University, which will be carried forward by Miljački. The Robert R. Taylor Project builds on a relationship dating back to 1893, when MIT’s first Black graduate and the nation’s first professionally trained Black architect left Cambridge to design much of Tuskegee’s campus, playing an influential role in defining the university’s approach to architectural education. De Monchaux worked closely with Kwesi Daniels, head of architecture at Tuskegee, to establish an exchange program connecting students and faculty through complementary forms of expertise, from the study of historic preservation at Tuskegee to digital fabrication and entrepreneurship at MIT. 

“A relationship that was purely symbolic has now become part of the fabric of the two institutions, expanding access to different programs and ways of teaching,” says de Monchaux. 

Invisible infrastructure 

Less visible, but equally consequential, is the impact of strengthening the department’s underlying social and physical infrastructure. During de Monchaux’s tenure, this has included expanding student governance and community forums, increasing minimum fellowship support for MArch graduate students from 50 to 90 percent of tuition, earning accreditation for the department’s professional degree in architecture, and ensuring that every MArch student has access to a department-provided workstation in studio.

“What we’re really talking about is unlocking the latent curiosity and passion of every person in the department, providing the infrastructure that allows them to accomplish what they wouldn’t be able to do otherwise,” says de Monchaux. 

That statement resonates with an idea he put forth in a 2023 essay for MIT Technology Review, which argued for a return to the roots of the word “design.” Successful designers, he proposed, “reshape not just objects, but also the culture and institutions that create them.” And so, if leadership is a design problem, the goal is to create the conditions for continually new and productive outcomes. The infrastructures built during this period — physical, academic, and social — provide a strong foundation for the leadership of de Monchaux’s colleague and successor, “the incredibly capable and visionary Ana Miljački.”

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

Solving the solvent problem

Lithium-ion batteries are the leading choice in today’s electric vehicle and battery energy storage system industries, but they contain a number of critical minerals — including lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite — that are considered essential for economic and national security reasons, and therefore vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. As renewable energy, electrified infrastructure, and high-power digital technologies continue to grow, there is an increasing need for energy storage systems that are low-cost, resource-abundant, and capable of fast charging and discharging. 

That need, among other reasons, has motivated a group of researchers — based at MIT and led by Ju Li, the Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering in the departments of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE) and Materials Science and Engineering — to develop complementary energy storage solutions. 

The team is looking, in particular, at sodium-metal batteries, which offer several attractive features. Sodium is about 1,000 times more abundant than lithium and, pound for pound, about one-hundredth the cost. A key challenge, however, is that sodium metal is highly reactive, making it difficult for these batteries to achieve both long-term stability and fast cycling. 

A new paper in the journal Joule — written by 15 members of the MIT team and published online this week — shows how this dilemma can be addressed by finding the right electrolyte for this battery system.

Electrolytes behaving badly

An electrolyte is one of three main components of a battery, along with the negative electrode (the anode) and the positive electrode (the cathode). The electrolyte acts like the “blood” of the battery, allowing electrically charged ions to move between the two electrodes. “The electrolyte is supposed to just transmit those ions,” explains Li. “It’s supposed to be an ion conductor.” But unfortunately, most electrolytes get involved in unwanted chemical reactions with the electrodes, which can greatly undermine battery stability.

The consequences of these “side reactions” can be severe, says Weiyin Chen, a postdoc in NSE and one of four lead authors of the Joule paper. Insoluble compounds produced during the reactions can build up on the electrodes, creating a barrier that blocks ion transport and can eventually cause the battery to fail. 

Until recently, Chen says, no electrolyte used in sodium-metal batteries was fully stable against these unwanted reactions at both the anode and cathode, even though such stability is essential for rechargeable batteries to achieve a long cycle life. An initial breakthrough occurred in 2021, when the Li group and their collaborators identified a “sulfonamide” molecule — consisting of sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms — that, when used as a solvent, “is magically stable at both electrodes in lithium batteries,” according to Li. This molecule is known as DMTMSA. 

Building on that discovery, Li and his colleagues set out to see if related molecules could improve sodium batteries. The goal was not only to maintain stability, but also to enable fast charging and discharging. If charging is too slow, it could take all night to recharge, and if discharging is too slow, the battery cannot deliver much power when needed.

How did the solvent cross the road?

Chen explains the idea with an analogy: Suppose you need to cross a street jam-packed with pedestrians, much like ions traveling from one electrode to another. “You can move more quickly through the crowd with a small backpack that is snug against your body, rather than dragging a bulky suitcase on wheels,” Chen says. 

A similar situation occurs in batteries: When sodium ions are surrounded by smaller solvents, they can move faster than when they are surrounded by larger, bulkier solvents. Faster ion transport enables more-rapid charging and discharging. The team’s goal, accordingly, was to identify solvent molecules that are small enough to improve ion transport while still maintaining electrolyte stability.

There is, however, a complicating factor — a trade-off to be addressed: Faster ion transport often comes at the expense of electrolyte stability. Many highly conductive electrolytes react more easily with the electrodes, shortening battery life. Fortunately for their plan, Li says, “reducing the size of solvents provides a new pathway to overcome this trade-off.” 

The question then becomes how to find a smaller solvent that has other desirable properties. The idea they adopted is to look for molecules that are “congeneric,” says Li, “meaning that they belong to a similar family and are molecularly similar.” In particular, they searched for molecules related to DMTMSA, hoping to find candidates that were smaller but could retain the stability that made DMTMSA so promising.

Chia-Wei Hsu, an MIT PhD student in materials science and engineering, created an AI-guided algorithm, which designed 100,000 candidate molecules on his computer within 24 hours. Hsu then narrowed down the pool to 200 candidates by applying a set of technical criteria — including similarity in shape to DMTMSA and comparable electronic properties. Twenty-seven representative candidates covering the full range of possibilities were selected for experimental tests. 

“We tested them all under the same conditions to make it a fair, head-to-head competition,” Chen says. A clear winner emerged, a solvent called DMFSA, which was both the smallest and the best.

Small is beautiful

This work, claims Jinhyuk Lee, an associate professor of materials engineering at McGill University who is not part of the study, “addresses one of the most persistent challenges in battery research: improving battery performance at high charging and discharging rates without sacrificing long-term stability. By carefully tailoring the size of solvent molecules, the authors demonstrate a new design strategy that could enable lower-cost, higher performance batteries.” 

The group is not done. A new search is underway to find an even better solvent. This time, the approach is similar, but DMFSA (rather than the larger DMTMSA molecule) serves as the starting point. Chen believes the new solvents they are uncovering could eventually lead to rechargeable sodium-metal batteries that combine low-cost, abundant materials with fast charging and high-power performance, opening the door to broader energy storage applications.

The overriding goal of this work, the authors emphasize, is not only to advance sodium batteries. It’s also to introduce a new approach to electrolyte design that uses solvent size and molecular similarity as the key guideposts. Viewing the research in this light, sodium-metal batteries serve as a model system for demonstrating a more general design principle.

“Because the concept is broadly applicable,” Lee comments, “its impact could extend well beyond sodium batteries and influence the design of a wide range of future energy storage technologies.”

This work was supported, in part, by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the government of Korea government, as well as U.S. National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship. The characterization equipment used in this project is partly from the MIT.nano Characterization Facilities. 

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

The benefits of medical AI assistance vary based on user expertise

A one-size-fits-all approach likely isn’t the best strategy when designing artificial intelligence systems that assist users in disease diagnosis.

A new study by researchers at MIT and elsewhere found that, while AI assistance generally improved the accuracy of non-experts and clinicians in diagnosing skin diseases, AI explainability methods had different impacts depending on the users’ knowledge level. 

Explainable AI methods help users know when to trust a model’s predictions by describing or validating the model’s decision-making. For instance, a model might use a heat map to highlight image regions that were most important in its diagnosis or a large language model (LLM) to explain the prediction in plain language.

In this study, researchers tested non-experts and primary care providers in skin disease diagnosis, with and without the help of different explainable AI systems. 

They found that non-experts’ diagnostic accuracy improved, but it was largely due to deference to the AI system. Non-experts trusted LLM-based explanations whether they were right or wrong, and found explanations more convincing when they were vague or generic.

By contrast, clinicians were not tripped up by incorrect AI assistance and performed best when given only a model’s prediction, with no accompanying explanation. 

“Good AI systems can improve performance in some health settings, but this has to be balanced carefully with algorithmic deference that can lead to more error. We know that both AI and explainability methods can engage automation bias in humans, and this anchoring effect is something that must be accounted for when we design AI systems,” says Marzyeh Ghassemi, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), a member of the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, and a principal investigator at the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems and the Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health.

“These findings are important as patients increasingly turn to AI to help with their health care. Our findings show that those with the least medical knowledge are most likely to be led astray when explainable AI models give an erroneous output,” says Roxana Daneshjou, a co-author and assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University.

These results underscore the importance of building AI systems with users in mind and of developing explainability methods that encourage critical thinking rather than overreliance on the model, the researchers say.

“It’s getting obvious that we cannot just assume a good AI will solve all problems. We need to pay careful attention to the users who will be using the AI system, because the same explanation can help an expert and mislead a beginner. Often the people who could benefit most from AI are the ones most likely to be led astray by it, so how we present a recommendation matters as much as whether it’s correct,” says lead author Orson Xu, an assistant professor in the Department of Biomedical Informatics at Columbia University.

Ghassemi, Xu, and Daneshjou are joined on the paper by many authors, including MIT graduate student Haoran Zhang, undergraduate Reina Wang, and Luis Soenksen PhD ’20, a research affiliate at the Jameel Clinic, along with clinicians and researchers. A description of the work appears today in Nature Medicine.

Exploring explanations

Several FDA-approved AI interfaces are being used to help clinicians identify skin conditions in medical images, as a way to streamline early diagnosis. In addition to providing a prediction of whether disease is present in the image, these tools often use one of several methods that explain the model’s decision-making.

At the same time, non-experts can perform digital diagnosis on their own using AI-powered search engines that predict skin diseases based on user prompts. These systems often use LLMs to explain the model’s prediction in simpler terms.

The researchers explored the effects and potential benefits of these explainable AI tools on primary care physicians and non-experts in dermatological disease detection. They tested users by showing them medical images plus an AI prediction of skin disease, employing different explainable AI approaches. 

These approaches included: an AI prediction and confidence level with no explanation, a method that provides similar images to reinforce its prediction, a heat map-based approach that highlights important image regions, and an LLM that explains the model’s reasoning in plain language.

Non-experts were tasked with deciding whether an image of a skin mole was cancerous, with and without the help of explainable AI. Clinicians were given the more challenging task of providing a differential diagnosis of dermatological disease.

The researchers found that all explainable AI approaches improved the accuracy of non-experts, mostly because the tools helped users diagnose non-cancerous moles. 

In addition, when they employed a fairness-constrained model designed to combat bias against darker skin tones, the system significantly improved accuracy and reduced diagnostic disparities based on skin tone.

“But the reason non-expert users are better is because they are more reliant on the models. When the model is wrong, it hurts performance more than it helps performance when the model is right. We were just able to train very good AI models for this setting,” Ghassemi says.

This deference effect is largest with LLM explanations, and users were more confident about their wrong answers when aided by an LLM.

On the other hand, clinicians were resilient to incorrect AI explanations and, of all the explainability methods, LLMs boost their accuracy the least.

“It really comes down to how each group uses the explanation. A clinician already has a diagnosis in mind and checks the AI against their own training, so a bad explanation gets caught. Meanwhile, a non-expert can use that exact same explanation to form an opinion in the first place, so a plausible, confident-sounding rationale can pull them toward the wrong answer. The same tool ends up being an asset for one user and a liability for another,” Xu says.

Overcoming the deference effect

When the researchers dug deeper, they found that users who were most deferential to AI assistance were the worst performers on the task without the help of AI. 

They also found that the time at which users were presented with AI explanations influenced their behavior. If an explanation is given first, before the user can perform the diagnosis on their own, they tend to become more deferential to the model.

In addition, AI systems outperformed humans when the presentation of disease was subtle, but humans performed much better if there are atypical symptoms or unrelated features in an image.

Taken together, these results indicate that explainable AI can cause overreliance on models and lead users to blindly follow AI recommendations even when they are wrong. 

Rather than using LLMs to generate more detailed explanations, it might be more effective to force users to give a diagnostic hypothesis first, then provide an AI-based suggestion to highlight other possible conditions for consideration. 

“We really want AI to improve creativity and either upskill or fill in gaps where users are missing subtle presentations. Otherwise, we risk engaging automation bias and then, when the model is wrong, users can’t recover,” Ghassemi says. 

This research was funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation, Schmidt Sciences, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Columbia University.

de MIT News https://ift.tt/iFz7LGR

Alexander Rakhlin named director of the MIT Statistics and Data Science Center

Alexander “Sasha” Rakhlin PhD ’06, the Distinguished Professor in Data, Systems, and Society at the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS); and a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT, has been named the next director of the MIT Statistics and Data Science Center (SDSC). 

Rakhlin succeeds Ankur Moitra, the Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics, associate director of the IDSS, and a faculty member in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) who has been SDSC director since 2021. Philippe Rigollet, the Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Mathematics and a core faculty member in IDSS, also served as interim director in 2024-25.

“Sasha is one of the sharpest theoretical minds working in statistics and machine learning today, and also one of the most devoted mentors I know,” says Fotini Christia, the Ford International Professor of the Social Sciences and director of IDSS, which houses SDSC. “He has helped train an entire generation of interdisciplinary scholars through the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Statistics (IDPS), while his own research keeps pushing the boundaries. The SDSC could not ask for a more fitting leader.”

Rakhlin is the inaugural holder of the Distinguished Professorship in Data, Systems, and Society, an endowed chair created in 2025 by the generosity and vision of IDSS professor Richard “Dick” Larson, an “MIT lifer” and pioneer in operations research, queueing theory, and system optimization.

“I am honored to take on this role,” says Rakhlin. “The strength of the Statistics and Data Science Center has always been its people — students, postdocs, and faculty from across MIT who bring sharply different perspectives to the most interesting problems of the day in statistics, machine learning, and AI. My goal is to support that community as it takes on the constantly evolving questions reshaping the field.”

Rakhlin has been connected to the Statistics and Data Science Center as a visiting professor since 2016, before formally joining MIT in 2018 in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and IDSS. As the initial chair of the Interdisciplinary PhD in Statistics program at the SDSC, Rakhlin has seen the successful defense of over 75 IDPS PhD students across a variety of departments at MIT, including IDSS’ own Social and Engineering Systems program.

“I have been fascinated by machine learning since my PhD work more than 20 years ago, drawn by its beautiful connections to statistics, probability, algorithms, optimization, and game theory,” says Rakhlin. “At the Statistics and Data Science Center, I work alongside colleagues who share this fascination and pursue these connections in many directions. The recent revolution in AI is extending this web into the sciences; it promises to accelerate discovery, and it raises new questions for statistics. Answering them demands a rigorous science of the tools themselves. As AI enters medicine, energy, and public life, its safety and security are, at their core, statistical and mathematical questions: quantifying uncertainty, providing guarantees, understanding failure, and resisting manipulation.”

As Rakhlin puts it, the SDSC is built for this moment. “Statistics is a shared language across MIT,” he adds. “Through the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Statistics, the center connects students and faculty from economics and political science to physics and engineering. Collaborations in areas from biology to nuclear fusion have shown how statistical thinking accelerates science itself.” 

As director, one of his goals is to deepen these interdisciplinary connections. He hopes to help make SDSC the Institute’s home for the rigorous foundations of data science and AI, and a bridge to the scientific and societal questions where those foundations are most needed.

Rakhlin received his bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and computer science from Cornell University, and doctoral degree from MIT. He was a postdoc at the University of California at Berkeley in EECS before joining the University of Pennsylvania, where he was an associate professor in the Department of Statistics and co-director of the Penn Research in Machine Learning center.

de MIT News https://ift.tt/PWmDyT3

Connecting students with the future of microelectronics

The 2026 Northeast Microelectronics Internship Program (NMIP), organized by the MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories, brought together 30 exceptional students from leading universities across the Northeast for an immersive week exploring the rapidly evolving world of semiconductor technology and microelectronics. Held July 13-17, the externship provided undergraduate students with an opportunity to experience the complete microelectronics innovation ecosystem, from academic research laboratories to advanced manufacturing facilities.

Throughout the week, students visited several of the region's premier institutions, including MIT.nano, IBM Research, GlobalFoundries, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), and NY CREATES, where they engaged with researchers, engineers, faculty, graduate students, and industry leaders working at the forefront of semiconductor innovation.

The program began at MIT.nano with an inspiring overview of the microelectronics landscape led by Vladimir Bulović, director of MIT.nano, and Farhad Varzhegoo, director of strategic initiatives and partnerships at the Northeast Microelectronics Coalition Hub. Their presentations challenged students to think beyond today's technologies and consider the broader societal impact of tomorrow's innovations.

"What will the next innovation in microelectronics look like, and what should the world of tomorrow focus on?" they asked, encouraging participants to view engineering not only as a technical discipline, but also as a means to solve meaningful real-world challenges.

Following the opening session, Farnaz Niroui, the Emmanuel E. Landsman Career Development Chair and assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT, organized a series of graduate student research presentations showcasing the breadth of microelectronics research taking place across MIT. The presentations explored topics spanning integrated circuits, nanoelectronics, photonics, quantum technologies, and advanced materials.

After the student research presentations, participants attended an industry panel exploring the transition from academia to careers in microelectronics. Organized and moderated by Susan Feindt, fellow emeritus at Analog Devices and visiting research scientist at MIT, the panel featured professionals from Rage Systems, Cadence Design Systems, Analog Devices, and RTX (Raytheon), who shared their career journeys, discussed the differences between research and industry, and offered advice on navigating career opportunities in the semiconductor sector.

"What stood out to me most about our day at MIT was the opportunity to engage deeply with PhD students in this field and understand the kind of opportunities available by pursuing a doctoral program," says Shanti Visurakapalli, a current undergraduate student at MIT. "I think this experience, complemented with the industry panel, gave many of us in the program the perspective we needed to weigh future graduate and professional options."

Throughout the week, participants connected classroom concepts with real-world applications through behind-the-scenes access to some of the nation's most advanced research and manufacturing environments. Students explored MIT's interdisciplinary laboratories, observed High-NA EUV lithography and quantum hardware development at IBM Research, toured GlobalFoundries' state-of-the-art 300mm semiconductor fabrication facility, learned how groundbreaking academic research transitions into commercial manufacturing at RPI, and gained insight into next-generation semiconductor fabrication at NY CREATES.

"The externship gave me a behind-the-scenes look at the advanced technologies driving the microelectronics industry while allowing me to connect one-on-one with researchers and industry professionals," says Sean Kim, a student at Princeton University. "Learning about emerging research and receiving career advice broadened my perspective on the field and inspired me to pursue a career in microelectronics."

Beyond the technical experiences, the externship emphasized professional development and networking. Students engaged in meaningful conversations with engineers, scientists, faculty members, and graduate researchers who described their career paths, offered advice, and discussed the many pathways available within the semiconductor industry. These interactions provided participants with valuable perspectives on careers in research, manufacturing, design, and emerging technologies.

"One of the most rewarding aspects of the externship is seeing students from different universities come together around a shared passion for innovation," says Preetha Kingsview, NMIP program administrator. "The friendships they build, the conversations they have with researchers and industry leaders, and the excitement they bring to every visit create an experience that extends far beyond the technical program."

For many students, the experience proved both transformative and inspiring. The opportunity to witness cutting-edge research firsthand while building connections with leaders across academia and industry deepened their understanding of the semiconductor ecosystem and reinforced the critical role microelectronics plays in addressing global challenges.

"For more than half a century, microelectronics has transformed the world, but I believe its most exciting chapter is only just beginning," says Tomás Palacios, the Clarence J. LeBel Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT and faculty director of the NMIP Program. "From AI and quantum computing to sustainable energy and advanced manufacturing, nearly every technological revolution of the coming decades will be built on advances in semiconductor technology. Today's undergraduate students will become tomorrow's innovators, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders, and programs like the NMIP Externship help inspire and prepare them to shape that future."

By bringing together leading universities, research institutions, and industry partners, the program provides students with a comprehensive view of the semiconductor ecosystem while helping build the highly skilled workforce needed to sustain U.S. leadership in microelectronics.

The 2026 externship demonstrated the power of connecting education, research, and industry. Through a week of laboratory tours and technical presentations, it gave students a firsthand view of how scientific discovery becomes technological innovation — and inspired many to become part of the future of microelectronics themselves.

The NMIP Externship was made possible by the Microelectronics Commons Northeast Microelectronics Coalition Hub and the Microelectronics Commons Northeast Regional Defense Technology Hub (NordTech). Additional support was provided by the MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories, the MIT Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, and the Semiconductor University Research Program for Superior Energy-Efficient Materials and Devices (SUPREME) Center, part of the SRC JUMP 2.0 program.

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

Turning molecules into reliable electronic devices

Molecules are among the smallest building blocks available for making next-generation devices. Their unique, customizable properties enable promising applications in emerging computing, sensing, optical, and quantum technologies.

But integrating molecules into functional devices at scale remains a challenge. Traditional semiconductor manufacturing processes can damage small and fragile molecular materials. Now, MIT researchers have developed a scalable fabrication technique that incorporates delicate molecular materials into electronic devices on a chip without causing damage.

Their method extends the capabilities of standard semiconductor manufacturing processes to accommodate molecules. The researchers first prefabricate the device components using traditional processes. Then, they introduce the molecules and harness nanoscale surface forces to mechanically transform the fabricated device, which self-assembles without damaging the molecules. 

The team demonstrated the robustness and scalability of their technique by fabricating more than 1,000 devices using sub-nanometer molecular layers. 

“Our platform combines the scalability of conventional semiconductor manufacturing with the precision and control of self-assembly. This establishes a new fabrication framework for the scalable, high-throughput integration of emerging nanoscale and quantum materials, including molecules, into functional devices with architectures and capabilities that were previously infeasible,” says Farnaz Niroui, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science (EECS), a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE), and senior author of a new paper describing the work.

She is joined on the paper by co-lead authors Sarah Spector and Peter Satterthwaite, EECS graduate students; Jeremiah A. Johnson, the A. Thomas Guertin Professor of Chemistry at MIT; and others at MIT. The research appears today in Nature Nanotechnology.

Building with molecules

Molecules are small clusters of atoms with structures and chemistries that can be precisely designed. This allows their properties to be engineered across a wide design space.

Once integrated into device architectures, these molecules could enable next-generation electronics and computing platforms that are smaller, faster, and more adaptable, as well as higher-performance photonic devices and emerging quantum technologies.

To build a functional system, molecular building blocks need to be integrated with other device layers. In electronic systems, a critical step is making electrical contacts to the molecules by interfacing them with metallic surfaces. However, the harsh chemicals and processes needed for traditional chip manufacturing damages these fragile molecular materials, reducing reliability and performance.

To leverage the scalability of standard fabrication techniques while achieving the precision needed for handling molecules, the MIT researchers developed a decoupled, two-step approach.

They first fabricate all the device components using standard semiconductor manufacturing, then incorporate the molecular material after-the-fact to finish building the device.

“By bringing the delicate materials into the process only after we have fabricated the main device elements, it allows us to use conventional processes that are normally not compatible with these nanomaterials,” Satterthwaite says.

In their demonstration, the researchers fabricated a scaffold with two metal electrodes separated by a precisely sized gap. Then, they deposited the molecular layer on the electrode surfaces. 

Finally, the researchers leverage nanoscale forces to gently pull the top electrode onto the molecules, forming the final device in a nondestructive way. This creates a self-aligned, damage-free electrical contact to the molecules. 

Using the forces

While gravity is a dominant physical force that holds our world together, different forces dominate at the nanoscale. One, called the capillary force, causes liquid to get sucked into small spaces. (Plants rely on capillary forces to draw water into their stems.) 

By carefully engineering the stiffness of the electrodes, when the solution containing the molecules evaporates, capillary forces gently pull the two metal surfaces together with the molecules sandwiched in between.

Once the two electrodes are in place, the researchers must hold them in a stable state. To do so, they rely on another nanoscale force known as the van der Waals force. 

Van der Waals forces cause surfaces to attract one another. By controlling the device surface area and molecules properties, the researchers ensure these forces will be strong enough to hold the electrodes in a stable structure without damaging the molecules. 

“Nanoscale forces play a critical role in our approach. Instead of fabricating exactly the structures we ultimately want, we make something mechanically mobile and use forces to transform it into an architecture that would otherwise be impossible to fabricate,” Spector explains.

They used this technique to fabricate more than 1,000 devices with molecular layers less than 1 nanometer thick. Even at this tiny scale, the fabricated chips comprised a high yield of working devices, 96 percent on average. The robust devices also endured tens of thousands of electrical cycles without showing any sign of degradation.

“The stability really stands out. This is a critical feature for moving molecular devices toward practical applications, but it has been a persistent challenge in the field,” Satterthwaite says. 

Importantly, this versatile technique allows circuit- and system-level integration of molecular devices, pushing the field beyond the study of isolated devices, the researchers say. They demonstrated this by building an interconnected array of molecular memory devices which could have applications in next-generation computing platforms. 

Their technique can also be extended to other materials and device architectures. 

In the future, the researchers want to build on this platform to investigate and develop new classes of multifunctional computing and sensing devices and systems. 

“By enabling the pristine integration of emerging molecular materials and other atomic-scale matter into functional devices at scale, our platform accelerates discovery and design of these materials with tailored functionalities and their deployment in emerging technologies,” Niroui adds.

This research was funded, in part, by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Semiconductor Research Corporation, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the MathWorks Fellowship, and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. Device fabrication was carried out, in part, using MIT.nano facilities.

de MIT News https://ift.tt/lFHuvQ3

Using reason, again and again

You probably think you are rational. Day to day, you try to “make the best possible use of the information available to you,” as MIT philosopher Brian Hedden PhD ’12 writes in his 2015 book, “Reasons without Persons.” 

If you think you are rational because of how you plan for the future, and change your beliefs over time, however, Hedden will be skeptical. Circumstances change, and when using reason, he thinks, all that matters is the present. Thus, he also writes: “The requirements of rationality should be impersonal, avoiding reference to the relation of personal identity over time.”

This is what Hedden calls “time-slice rationality,” the idea that in applying reason, we exist in little slivers of time and knowledge. There are not permanently reasonable people, just reasonable decisions. 

“We are temporally extended people with hopefully long lifespans, but we’re made up of lots of different time slices,” Hedden says. “So there’s me now, me yesterday, me next year. We should think of the locus of rationality as the time slice, not the temporally extended person.” 

Those past versions of you, Hedden thinks, are like teammates in sports: You are connected to them, but not quite the same person. The payoff from viewing things this way, he contends, is a more streamlined and realistic picture of our thinking. 

“Time-slice rationality” helped launch Hedden’s career. Today he is a professor in MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy and associate dean for MIT’s Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) initiative. In a nod to his work, let’s examine some time slices from Hedden’s career.

Falling for philosophy

Hedden grew up in Virginia and attended Princeton University as an undergraduate, where he expected to study electrical engineering. But early on in college, he took some philosophy classes — an introductory course in logic, a history of early modern philosophy — and liked them. A lot. 

“Engineering is still near and dear to my heart, but I really got into philosophy,” Hedden says. 

Almost before he knew it, Hedden had found his primary intellectual interest. Upon graduating from Princeton, Hedden spent a year working for an education nonprofit in Nicaragua, but he had already decided on his next stop: graduate school in philosophy.

That led Hedden to MIT. He wanted to study the philosophy of language, and at MIT, the famous linguistics program is part of the same department as philosophy. Hedden applied to the Institute, was accepted, and arrived on campus eager to pursue his chosen field. 

Lounge life

A funny thing happened to Hedden after he arrived at MIT, however: He stopped studying the philosophy of language. Blame Frank Gehry, the architect. 

MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy is in the Stata Center, which opened in 2004 and was designed by Gehry to have all kinds of common spaces, including double-height lounges. After Hedden started graduate school at MIT, he got drawn into the philosophical discussions happening in these common areas. Before long, he had changed his intellectual focus. 

“This was largely due to conversations that were happening in the lounge,” Hedden recalls. “The Stata Center has spaces that really encourage collaboration. A lot of people there were talking about puzzles involving probability, epistemology, and decision theory, and I found those things really stimulating, and wound up specializing in those areas. Things wouldn’t be the same if the building were differently arranged.”

Advised by MIT professors Caspar Hare, Robert Stalnaker, and Roger White, Hedden wound up writing his doctoral thesis — three papers — on rationality and decision-making. That formed the basis of “Reasons without Persons,” whose title alludes to a famous work by philosopher Derek Parfit.

While it might seem unusual to draw to draw a distinction between our past, present, and future selves, Hedden thinks we actually do that frequently, in everyday life and cultural work. In Greek mythology, Odysseus rationally chains himself to the mast of his ship, anticipating that his future self will be irrationally unable to resist the call of the sirens.

“That’s a dramatic example, but we do this all the time, like when we buy a gym membership and hope that our future selves will irrationally care about sunk costs and go to the gym to avoid having wasted the money,” Hedden says. 

Heading down under

After earning his MIT PhD, Hedden spent two years as a junior research fellow at Oxford University, then landed his first faculty job in academia — at the University of Sydney, in Australia, in 2015. Five years later, he moved to Australian National University, in Canberra, leaving when he returned to MIT in 2025. 

“I love Australia; I think the quality of life is amazing, the culture is great, the natural world is unbelievable,” Hedden says. The country also has, he observes, “a great philosophy scene,” fed in part by decades of interaction with American scholars. 

Hedden’s work kept evolving during his decade in Australia. He started examining specific, applied topics more often, including many questions about legal processes and evidence. For instance: Should juries even deliberate? In one 2017 paper, Hedden suggested they should not, because, among other things, “deliberation destroys the independence of jurors’ judgments” in ways that can be counterproductive. 

Or: Is there such a thing as “higher-order” evidence, which is evidence about what conclusions your evidence supports? In a 2021 paper, Hedden and now-MIT colleague Kevin Dorst concluded that virtually all evidence fits this billing. 

Hindsight bias: Not bias

Or take another Hedden paper in this vein, from 2019, casting new light on the familiar topic of “hindsight bias.” We often alter our views about things after they happen, which can seem like gratuitous second-guessing. 

Is it, though? Suppose you are investigating a railroad crash and find evidence that a crash was more likely than people imagined. That might simply be useful new knowledge. Suppose your favorite basketball team loses a game, and you reexamine why you thought they would win; perhaps a star player’s injury was more serious than you imagined. Are you changing your basic views, or just conducting a realistic reassessment?

“This is perfectly rational and what we should expect,” Hedden says. “Some people say, ‘Oh, that’s hindsight bias.’ I think it’s just a reasonable conclusion to draw.”

To be sure, in the paper itself, Hedden engages with theoretical philosophical work about evidence and view formation; much of his work bridges academic theory and practical everyday applications. Like many of his papers, this one also evinces the fun of reworking conventional wisdom. 

“I do think that these contrarian views are right,” Hedden says. “But I also find a certain joy in going my own way, or having a skeptical take to get people to rethink views they’re falling into without fully realizing it.” 

After an odyssey, back at MIT

After nearly a decade in Australia, Hedden received an offer to return to one of his intellectual homes: MIT offered him a place on the faculty. Arriving back at the Institute in 2025, Hedden found many things had changed — new buildings on campus, new programs — while some were recognizably the same. 

“The philosophy department looks very similar in terms of the healthy culture,” Hedden says. “It’s always been known as a collaborative, high-energy place with a fantastic graduate program. And it’s really welcoming. That lounge discussion culture is still there. Sometimes cultures can be fragile. There could have been people who let it lapse. But it’s still there, and that’s great.”

Meanwhile, Hedden has added to his intellectual portfolio by becoming associate dean at SERC, a burgeoning initiative at MIT examining a wide range of civic issues around computing. SERC has supported 40 postdocs around MIT since 2022, in all five MIT schools plus the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing. It has also awarded 30 seed grants for faculty research in the last three years.

“There’s been really broad interest from faculty and students,” Hedden says. “I’m interacting a lot with computer scientists especially, but people across the Institute everywhere. The College of Computing is a unifying force.” 

For that matter, the SERC Scholars program had 75 students accepted last fall, from first-year undergraduates to doctoral candidates, working on projects including surveillance, artificial intelligence, the energy impact of the sector, and more. Hedden is also making a point to develop more courses across SERC topics.

“It’s often the younger people, undergraduates and graduate students, the postdocs, the junior faculty, that gives us a constant infusion of new ideas and energy,” Hedden says. “We’re hoping to keep the momentum going.”

In this slice of time, that sounds pretty reasonable. 

de MIT News https://ift.tt/hSPO2Ao