We’ve known since ancient times that physical activity can prevent and treat a broad range of mental and physical illnesses. But today, exercise is not a central focus of modern health-care systems. Why? This is the motivating question behind MIT’s class STS.041/PE&W.0537 (Exercise is Medicine: From Ancient Civilizations to Modern Healthcare Systems) — a collaboration between the MIT Program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS) and the Department of Athletics, Physical Education, and Recreation (DAPER).

Going beyond the MIT tradition of hands-on learning, Exercise is Medicine (EIM) offers full-body experiential education, combining readings, lectures, and physical activity at the Zesiger Center and on MIT’s playing fields. Students investigate topics including barriers to exercise, loneliness as a public health issue, and social determinants of health through partner acrobatics, broomball, and sailing. During midterm week, they reflect on the mental health impact of activities, including meditation and pickleball. They also learn about the principles of traditional Chinese medicine through Qigong.

Co-taught by professors Jennifer Light and Carrie Moore, in addition to other DAPER instructors, EIM was first offered in spring 2024 for 20 undergraduates. Students from every major are invited to enroll — the next offering filled quickly, doubling in size to 40 students, with a long waitlist.

Exercise is Medicine is one of three courses Light and Moore offer as part of the MIT Project on Embodied Education, launched in 2022. Professor Light was eager to create an academic class where students spent at least 50 percent of their learning time out of their seats doing a physical activity that reinforced the academic objectives she was presenting.

“I was developing a new research project on the ancient wisdom and modern science of movement and learning, and was looking to develop courses that put this method into practice. Through Anthony Grant, athletic director and head of the DAPER, I connected with Carrie. We are having so much fun collaborating; one course quickly became two, and now three,” says Light.

History of medicine and health systems courses have long been a staple of the STS program. In EIM, students visit with MIT Chief Health Officer Cecelia Stuopis, who offers insight into the place of exercise in health care throughout the history of the Institute. Discussions also include the economic factors that may impact ideas and innovations from STEM fields.

The partnership with DAPER helps students deepen their understanding of the readings and lectures and, Light hopes, sets them up to find ways to integrate movement into their lives after the semester’s end. Moore adds, “This course allows students to reflect on the impact of movement on their cognition — experiencing increases in motivation, mood, focus, and community, as well as improved retention of content by engaging more parts of the brain.”

“DAPER instructors have an amazing ability to make so many physical activities accessible at the beginner level, and students come away from the course appreciating new activities they can do while on campus or as they move into the real world,” says Light.

Nathan Kim, a senior in Course 15 (Management), says, “When I think of my MIT education, I mostly think about problem sets and studying for exams. Learning is initially thought of as a cognitive output and performance. Even in project-based classes, there’s little attention to the body’s role in comprehension. However, this course broke that mold. Instead of treating the body as separate from the mind, it treated it as an essential partner in learning.”

“I love that this class stretches students’ minds and bodies at the same time. They get to learn serious academic content, try all sorts of new physical activities, and do so in a context that aims to make what they’re learning personally relevant to the remainder of their time in college and life beyond. The idea that their bodies aren’t just there to transport their heads around campus — but can be resources for academic learning — is a revelation to pretty much everyone in the class,” says Light.

Emily Zhou, a senior in computer science and engineering, adds, “After reading about the role of team sports in reducing loneliness and improving mental health, I didn’t expect the connection to feel so immediate. But the moment I was slipping and falling on the ice [while playing broomball] with my teammates, some of whom I had never met before, it clicked for me. As we coordinated strategies and cheered together every time we made a goal, I gained a deeper understanding of the reading, and why collective physical activity builds meaningful connections. I could genuinely feel how community forms differently when I’m trusting people with my physical body.”

“It’s a unique and enriching experience for the students to have experiential learning be a component of the class. Not only does it create shared memories of something special that we hope they will have for a lifetime, but it’s also a lot of fun. It frees their minds from to-do lists and other tasks and it gives them extra energy throughout the day. Their brains may be tired at the end of the day, but not their bodies,” says Moore.

The class also fulfills MIT’s General Institute Requirements. Students who successfully complete the class earn HASS credit and two Physical Education and Wellness points. 

Earlier this year, Light and Moore presented findings from their ongoing class collaborations at the National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education conference. The pair showcased how they connected the academic side of MIT with the activity side of campus, with the hopes of inspiring others to follow in a similar direction. They’re also working to help other MIT instructors bridge the two sides of Massachusetts Avenue.

“Professor Light and I have created a synergy of what education could be,” says Moore. “The model created works at MIT and is received well by our students, so we want to help faculty reshape the way they teach to enrich learning and the student experience. We hope that when our students become leaders in their careers, they will share the lessons they learned in our classes with their colleagues. If they do so, then we’ve done our job.”

MIT professors Michael McDonald and Kristala Prather embody a form of mentorship defined not only by technical expertise, but by care. They remind us that the most lasting academic guidance is not only about advancing research, but about nurturing their students along the way.

For McDonald’s students, his presence is one of deep empathy and steady support. They describe him as fully committed to their well-being and success — someone whose influence reaches beyond academics to the heart of what it means to feel valued in a community. Prather is celebrated for the way she invests in her mentees beyond formal advising, offering guidance and encouragement that helps them chart paths forward with confidence.

Together, they create spaces where students are affirmed as individuals as well as scholars. 

Professors McDonald and Prather are members of the 2023–25 Committed to Caring cohort, recognized for their dedication to fostering growth, resilience, and belonging across MIT.

Michael McDonald: Empathetic, dedicated, and deeply understanding

Michael McDonald is an associate professor of physics at the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. His research focuses on the evolution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and the role that environment plays in dictating this evolution. 

A shining example of an empathetic and caring advisor, McDonald supports his students, fostering an environment where they can overcome challenges and grow with confidence. One of his students says that “if one of his research or class students is progressing slowly or otherwise struggling, he treats them with respect, care, and understanding, enabling them to maintain confidence and succeed.”

McDonald also goes above and beyond in offering help and guidance, never expecting thanks, praise, or commendation. A student expressed, “he does not need to be asked to advocate for students experiencing personal or academic challenges. He does not need to be asked to improve graduate student education and well-being at MIT. He does not need to be asked to care for students who may otherwise be left behind.”

When asked to describe his advising style, McDonald shared the mantra “we’re humans first, scientists second." He models his commitment to this idea, prioritizing balance for himself while also ensuring that his students feel happy and fulfilled. “If I’m not doing well, or am unhappy with my own work/life balance, then I’m not going to be a very good or understanding advisor,” McDonald says.

Students are quick to identify McDonald as a dedicated and deeply understanding teacher and mentor. “Mike was consistently engaging, humble, and kind, both bolstering our love of astrophysics and making us feel welcome and supported,” one advisee commended.

On top of weekly meetings, he conducts separate check-ins with his students on a semesterly basis to track not only their accomplishments and progress toward their personal goals, but also to evaluate his own mentoring and identify areas of improvement.

McDonald “thinks deeply and often about the long-term trajectory of his advisees, how they will fit into the modern research landscape, and helps them to develop professional and personal support networks that will help them succeed and thrive.”

McDonald feels that projects should be so much fun that they do not feel like work. To this end, he spends a lot of time developing and fleshing out a wide variety of research projects. When he takes on a new student, he presents them with five to 10 possible projects that they could lead, and works with them to find the one that is best matched to the student’s interests and abilities. 

“This is a lot of work on my end — and many of these projects never see the light of day — but I think it leads to better outcomes and happier group members,” McDonald says. One of the most impactful qualities in a mentor and supervisor is how they deal with challenges and failures, both their own and those of others, which McDonald does very effectively.

One nominator sums up McDonald’s character, writing that “Michael McDonald fully embodies the spirit of Committed to Caring as a teacher, advisor, counselor, and role model for the MIT community. He consistently impacts the lives of his students, mentees, and the physics community as a whole, encouraging us to be the best versions of ourselves while striving to be a better mentor, father, and friend.”

Kristala Prather: Meaningful support and departmental impact

Kristala Prather is the Arthur Dehon Little Professor of Chemical Engineering and is the head of the Department of Chemical Engineering. Her research involves the design and assembly of novel pathways for biological synthesis, enhancement of enzyme activity and control of metabolic flux, and bioprocess engineering and design.

Prather has proven to be a dedicated mentor and role model for her students, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds. One nominator mentions that as an immigrant woman of color with no prior exposure to academia before coming to MIT, Prather’s guidance has been extremely important for her. Prather has pointed the nominator to resources that she didn't know existed, and helped her navigate U.S. and academic norms that she was not well-versed in. 

“As an international student navigating two new cultures (that of the U.S. as well as that of academia), it is easy to feel inadequate, confused, frustrated, or undeserving,” the student stated. Prather’s level of mentorship may not be easy to find, and it is extremely important to the success of all students, especially to marginalized students. 

Prather actively listens to her students’ concerns and helps them to identify their areas of academic improvement with regard to their desired career path. She consistently creates a comfortable space for authentic conversations where mentees feel supported both professionally and personally. Through her deep caring, advisees feel a sense of belonging and worthiness in academia.

“I treat everyone fairly, which is not the same as treating everyone the same,” Prather says. This is Prather’s way of acknowledging the reality that each individual comes as a unique person; different people need different advising approaches. The goal is to get everyone to the same endpoint, irrespective of where they start.

In addition to the meaningful support which Prather provides her students, she has also dedicated extra time to mentoring. One nominator explained that Prather has been known to meet with individual students in the department to check in on their progress and help them navigate academia. She also works closely with the Office of Graduate Education to connect students from disadvantaged backgrounds to resources that will help them succeed. In the department, she is known to be a trustworthy and caring mentor. 

Since much of Prather’s mentoring goes beyond her official duties, this work can easily be overlooked. It is clear that she has deliberately dedicated extra time to help students, adding to her numerous commitments and official positions both inside and outside of the department. Through their nominations, students called for the recognition of Prather’s mentorship, stating that it  “has meaningfully impacted so many in the department.”

I assume I don’t have to explain last week’s Louvre jewel heist. I love a good caper, and have (like many others) eagerly followed the details. An electric ladder to a second-floor window, an angle grinder to get into the room and the display cases, security guards there more to protect patrons than valuables—seven minutes, in and out.

There were security lapses:

The Louvre, it turns out—at least certain nooks of the ancient former palace—is something like an anopticon: a place where no one is observed. The world now knows what the four thieves (two burglars and two accomplices) realized as recently as last week: The museum’s Apollo Gallery, which housed the stolen items, was monitored by a single outdoor camera angled away from its only exterior point of entry, a balcony. In other words, a free-roaming Roomba could have provided the world’s most famous museum with more information about the interior of this space. There is no surveillance footage of the break-in...

Professor Ioannis V. Yannas SM ’59, a physical chemist and engineer known for the invention of artificial skin for the treatment of severe burns, and a longtime member of the MIT faculty, died on Oct. 19 at the age of 90.

“Professor Yannas was a beloved and distinguished colleague, teacher, and mentor. The impact of his inventions, and his legacy on the field of bioengineering was immense,” says John Hart, the Class of 1922 Professor and head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. 

Yannas, known to friends and colleagues as Yanni, held appointments in the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology. His principal research interest throughout his career was the process of induced organ regeneration used to replace organs that are either severely injured or terminally diseased. His work also advanced the clinical use of collagen tubes to treat peripheral nerve injuries.

In 1969, when Yannas approached the late John Burke of Massachusetts General Hospital to collaborate, Burke took him on a tour of a children’s burn unit. “There was a great deal of human misery that was confronting me, and I felt I had to do something about it,” said Yannas in later interviews. In 1981, the pair announced their success: an amalgam of a silicone outer sheet over a scaffolding of molecular material drawn from cow tendon and shark cartilage. Offering protection from infection and dehydration, the scaffolding enabled healthy skin cells to grow. Their discovery would be transformative for the treatment of burn victims.

Their artificial skin, patented and now manufactured as Integra, is still widely used on patients with severe and extensive burns, and for other applications including some types of plastic surgery and the treatment of chronic skin wounds commonly suffered by people with diabetes. The groundbreaking advance, which was later recognized as the first example of organ regeneration in adults, had previously been considered impossible.

“Yanni’s boldness in attacking a wide array of medical problems, including spinal cord transection, in his investigations of applications of collagen-based implants, inspired others, including myself, to work toward solutions to devastating conditions such as blindness, stroke, and spinal cord injury,” says Myron Spector, professor emeritus of orthopedic surgery (biomaterials) at Massachusetts General Brigham and Harvard Medical School, and an affiliate of the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology. Yannas and Spector created several MIT courses together, including 2.79 (Biomaterial-Tissue Interactions).

“As we were talking about the content [for 2.79], Yanni proposed that we codify the cell behavior underlying the tissue response to implants,” explains Spector. “Within a short time, we laid out the plan for ‘unit cell processes’ to offer students a code to decipher the often inconceivably complex cellular processes that not only underlie the tissue response to implants, but that can guide the selection of the tools necessary to engineer medical devices and reveal their targets for treatment. This was all Yanni, taking a fundamental concept, the control volume used in chemical engineering to analyze systems, and applying it to cellular processes in the human body. I since use UCPs myself all the time.”

As a colleague serving as a collaborator in teaching and in research, Spector says Yannas was eager to help and to learn, bold in his thinking, smart in his choices, able to keep his eye on the goal, respectful of students as well as faculty and other colleagues, and selfless. “These are just the traits that we teach our students to look for when seeking the collaborators who are so necessary in science and engineering.”

Yannas was born on April 14, 1935, in Athens, Greece, where he completed his high school education at Athens College. He received a BA in chemistry at Harvard College in 1957, followed by an MS in chemical engineering from MIT in 1959. After a period of industrial research on polymers at W. R. Grace & Co., in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he attended Princeton University, where he completed an MS degree in 1965 and a PhD in 1966, both in physical chemistry. Yannas joined the MIT faculty immediately thereafter and remained at the Institute for the next 59 years until his passing.

For his discoveries in organ regeneration, Yannas was elected member of the National Academy of Medicine (1987), the National Inventors Hall of Fame (2015), and the National Academy of Engineering (2017). He was also elected Fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biomedical Engineering.

Further, he was the recipient of many prestigious awards including the Society for Biomaterials Founders Award (1982) and the Society’s Clemson Award for Applied Science and Engineering (1992). He was an author of numerous journal articles, and the sole author of the influential book, “Tissue and Organ Regeneration in Adults.”

Yannas’ work, and 2015 induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, was the subject of “Hope Regenerated,” a video produced by the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering. The film chronicles the development of Integra, which was initially characterized as a “failed experiment” but became a life-saving discovery that launched a new field of regenerative medicine.

“My father's relationship with MIT was deeply meaningful to him,” says Tania Yannas Kluzak. “He regarded MIT as the ideal partner in his life's work — pioneering lifesaving research in organ regeneration.”

Yannas was predeceased by his brother, Pavlos. He is survived by his two children, Tania Kluzak and her husband Gordon, and Alexi Yannas and his wife Maria; his grandchildren — Alexandra, Marina, Sophia, Philippos, and Nefeli; his sister, Elizabeth Sitinas; and many loving relatives and friends. A celebration of life will be announced at a later date. 

Mother Jones has a long article on surveillance arms manufacturers, their wares, and how they avoid export control laws:

Operating from their base in Jakarta, where permissive export laws have allowed their surveillance business to flourish, First Wap’s European founders and executives have quietly built a phone-tracking empire, with a footprint extending from the Vatican to the Middle East to Silicon Valley.

It calls its proprietary system Altamides, which it describes in promotional materials as “a unified platform to covertly locate the whereabouts of single or multiple suspects in real-time, to detect movement patterns, and to detect whether suspects are in close vicinity with each other.”...

Nations' failure to submit stronger carbon goals comes as President Donald Trump is pushing world leaders to abandon the climate fight.

The embattled industry has retained a firm founded by former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and other lobbyists close to the president.

The oil company contends that the state's requirements violate the First Amendment.

Ford and GM stocks jump as they project profits despite tariffs and the end of EV tax credits. "We expect to reduce EV losses," GM says.

"What might seem small is, in fact, really impactful in the context of the state budget," a Pew analyst says in a report showing state fiscal vulnerability.

The effort to identify hot spots in the state's countryside comes as people are dying of illnesses related to extreme heat.

The constellation of orbiters could enhance forecasts as extreme weather worsens.

The lack of available rooms for COP30 participants has cast a shadow over the talks.

The climate policy is a "scam," said a leading conservative politician.

There is a new cigar named “El Pulpo The Squid.” Yes, that means “The Octopus The Squid.”

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Blog moderation policy.

Knowledge production doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every great scientific breakthrough is built on prior work, and an ongoing exchange with peers in the field. That’s why we need to address the threat of major publishers and platforms having an improper influence on how scientific knowledge is accessed—or outright suppressed.

In the digital age, the collaborative and often community-governed effort of scholarly research has gone global and unlocked unprecedented potential to improve our understanding and quality of life. That is, if we let it. Publishers continue to monopolize access to life-saving research and increase the burden on researchers through article processing charges and a pyramid of volunteer labor. This exploitation makes a mockery of open inquiry and the denial of access as a serious human rights issue.

While alternatives like Diamond Open Access are promising, crashing through publishing gatekeepers isn’t enough. Large intermediary platforms are capturing other aspects of the research process—inserting themselves between researchers and between the researchers and these published works—through platformization. 

Funneling scholars into a few major platforms isn’t just annoying, it’s corrosive to privacy and intellectual freedom. Enshittification has come for research infrastructure, turning everyday tools into avenues for surveillance. Most professors are now worried their research is being scrutinized by academic bossware, forcing them to worry about arbitrary metrics which don’t always reflect research quality. While playing this numbers game, a growing threat of surveillance in scholarly publishing gives these measures a menacing tilt, chilling the publication and access of targeted research areas. These risks spike in the midst of governmental campaigns to muzzle scientific knowledge, buttressed by a scourge of platform censorship on corporate social media.

The only antidote to this ‘platformization’ is Open Science and decentralization. Infrastructure we rely on must be built in the open and on interoperable standards, and hostile to corporate (or governmental) takeovers. Universities and the science community are well situated to lead this fight. As we’ve seen in EFF’s TOR University Challenge, promoting access to knowledge and public interest infrastructure is aligned with the core values of higher education. 

Using social media as an example, universities have a strong interest in promoting the work being done at their campuses far and wide. This is where traditional platforms fall short: algorithms typically prioritizing paid content, downrank off-site links, and prioritize sensational claims to drive engagement. When users are free from enshittification and can themselves control the  platform’s algorithms, as they can on platforms like Bluesky, scientists get more engagement and find interactions are more useful. 

Institutions play a pivotal role in encouraging the adoption of these alternatives, ranging from leveraging existing IT support to assist with account use and verification, all the way to shouldering some of the hosting with Mastodon instances and/or Bluesky PDS for official accounts. This support is good for the research, good for the university, and makes our systems of science more resilient to attacks on science and the instability of digital monocultures.

This subtle influence of intermediaries can also appear in other tools relied on by researchers, while there are a number of open alternatives and interoperable tools developed for everything from citation management, data hosting to online chat among collaborators. Individual scholars and research teams can implement these tools today, but real change depends on institutions investing in tech that puts community before shareholders.

When infrastructure is too centralized, gatekeepers gain new powers to capture, enshittify, and censor. The result is a system that becomes less useful, less stable, and with more costs put on access. Science thrives on sharing and access equity, and its future depends on a global and democratic revolt against predatory centralized platforms.

EFF is proud to celebrate Open Access Week.

Today, EFF joined a coalition of civil society organizations in urging UN Member States not to sign the UN Convention Against Cybercrime. For those that move forward despite these warnings, we urge them to take immediate and concrete steps to limit the human rights harms this Convention will unleash. These harms are likely to be severe and will be extremely difficult to prevent in practice.

The Convention obligates states to establish broad electronic surveillance powers to investigate and cooperate on a wide range of crimes—including those unrelated to information and communication systems—without adequate human rights safeguards. It requires governments to collect, obtain, preserve, and share electronic evidence with foreign authorities for any “serious crime”—defined as an offense punishable under domestic law by at least four years’ imprisonment (or a higher penalty).

In many countries, merely speaking freely; expressing a nonconforming sexual orientation or gender identity; or protesting peacefully can constitute a serious criminal offense per the definition of the convention. People have faced lengthy prison terms, or even more severe acts like torture, for criticizing their governments on social media, raising a rainbow flag, or criticizing a monarch. 

In today’s digital era, nearly every message or call generates granular metadata—revealing who communicates with whom, when, and from where—that routinely traverses national borders through global networks. The UN cybercrime convention, as currently written, risks enabling states to leverage its expansive cross-border data-access and cooperation mechanisms to obtain such information for political surveillance—abusing the Convention’s mechanisms to monitor critics, pressure their families, and target marginalized communities abroad.

As abusive governments increasingly rely on questionable tactics to extend their reach beyond their borders—targeting dissidents, activists, and journalists worldwide—the UN Cybercrime Convention risks becoming a vehicle for globalizing repression, enabling an unprecedented multilateral infrastructure for digital surveillance that allows states to access and exchange data across borders in ways that make political monitoring and targeting difficult to detect or challenge.

EFF has long sounded the alarm over the UN Cybercrime Treaty’s sweeping powers of cross-border cooperation and its alarming lack of human-rights safeguards. As the Convention opens for signature on October 25–26, 2025 in Hanoi, Vietnam—a country repeatedly condemned by international rights groups for jailing critics and suppressing online speech—the stakes for global digital freedom have never been higher.

The Convention’s many flaws cannot easily be mitigated because it fundamentally lacks a mechanism for suspending states that systematically fail to respect human rights or the rule of law. States must refuse to sign or ratify the Convention. 

Read our full letter here.

Two people found the solution. They used the power of research, not cryptanalysis, finding clues amongst the Sanborn papers at the Smithsonian’s Archives of American Art.

This comes as an awkward time, as Sanborn is auctioning off the solution. There were legal threats—I don’t understand their basis—and the solvers are not publishing their solution.

The administration’s pursuit of its perceived enemies has compelled environmental groups to take new precautions.

The fundraising haul marks strong enthusiasm for experiments aimed at lowering temperatures, said the company. But it also raises questions about commercializing technologies with potentially damaging consequences.