The new MIT-Air Force AI Accelerator “will look at improving Air Force operations and addressing larger societal needs, such as responses to disasters and medical readiness,” reports Breanne Kovatch for The Boston Globe. “The AI Accelerator provides us with an opportunity to develop technologies that will be vectors for positive change in the world,” says Prof. Daniela Rus.
In an excerpt from her new book published in The Wall Street Journal, President Emerita Susan Hockfield explores how the convergence between biology and engineering is driving the development of new tools to tackle pressing human problems. Hockfield writes that for these world-changing technologies to be realized requires “not only funding and institutional support but, more fundamentally, a commitment to collaboration among unlikely partners.”
President Emerita Susan Hockfield speaks with Jim Braude of WGBH’s Greater Boston about her book, “The Age of Living Machines.” “We are looking at a population of over 9.7 billion by 2050,” explains Hockfield. “We are not going to get there without war or epidemics or starvation if we don’t develop technologies that will allow us to provide energy, food, water, health and health care sustainably.”
In an article for Wired, K. Gretchen Greene, a research affiliate at the Media Lab, argues that the government’s proposed $2 trillion infrastructure plan should include robots. New technologies “offer the possibility of completing projects we otherwise couldn't afford, minimizing disruption, improving safety, and optimizing systems in ways humans working alone could not,” writes Greene.
In an article for The Wall Street Journal, senior lecturer Robert Pozen argues that a new Medicare for All proposal “differs from Medicare in fundamental ways—with much broader coverage, no cost sharing, and fewer choices of health-care plans.”
Writing for Bloomberg, Profs. Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson argue that federal investment in scientific research can help address income inequality. “America desperately needs more hubs of growth,” they write. “It’s a problem that the government can and should address, by identifying and investing in the technologies of the future – and ensuring that the American people as a whole share in the gains.”
In an article for The Boston Globe, Profs. Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson underscore how federal investment in scientific research could be used to help ease income inequality in America. “Scaled-up and deployed strategically across most states, we estimate that an investment of $100 billion per year in public research and development could help create 4 million good new jobs,” they write.
Writing for Wired, Prof. Joi Ito, director of the Media Lab, argues that online platforms should be designed to encourage young people to learn and explore through high-quality content. “We need to recognize that young people will make contact with commercial content and grown-ups online, and we need to figure out better ways to regulate and optimize platforms to serve participants of mixed ages,” writes Ito.
Profs. Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson speak with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle about their book, which argues that government investment in scientific research can help tackle income inequality. Gruber explains that inequality in America is place-based, noting that “we need a solution that is going to help the rest of the country, not just super-star cities, and we think place-based federal R&D can do that.”
Profs. Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson discuss their new book, which argues that investment in scientific research is key to jump-starting the American economy, on Boston Public Radio. “We invest in science, turn that science into jobs,” says Johnson, “and spread that around the country. The coastal superstar cities have become extremely expensive, but there’s a tremendous amount of talent spread across the U.S.”
Writing for The Boston Globe, Prof. Thomas Levenson argues that fears about China’s potential to dominate 5G demonstrate the need for the U.S. to invest in scientific research. “If our scientific dominance ends, it will not be because of Chinese perfidy, but because the US chose to surrender its commanding role in the search for knowledge,” writes Levenson.
Prof. Regina Bateson examines President Trump’s proposal to cut off aid to several countries in Central America in an article for WBUR. Bateson argues that the “decision isn’t really about policy. It’s about populism.”
A study co-authored by MIT researchers finds that a movie and texting campaign effectively encouraged people in Nigeria to report corruption, reports Yomi Kazeen for Quartz. “Given the popularity of the local movie industry and the prevalence of corruption in Nigeria,” writes Kazeen, “the researchers looked to study how Nigerians report corruption using high-profile actors to model behavior.”
Writing for The New York Times, Prof. Barry Posen argues for reevaluating America’s role in NATO. “President Trump has no strategy for returning the European allies to full responsibility for their own futures,” writes Posen, “the American foreign policy establishment could better spend its time devising such a strategy than defending the counterproductive trans-Atlantic status quo.”
New York Times reporter Dennis Overbye writes about the years of effort that go into ensuring that large-scale, Nobel-prize winning scientific endeavors like LIGO – which is jointly operated by MIT and Caltech – are funded and successful. Overbye writes that LIGO’s success “was a saga of persistence, ingenuity and just plain bravery in the face of nature and professional skepticism.”