Back and better than ever, the Cambridge Science Carnival, an annual free family-friendly science extravaganza, was held on Sunday, Sept. 21, at the Kendall/MIT Open Space.

Founded by the MIT Museum in 2007, and organized with the support of MIT and the City of Cambridge, the 2025 event drew approximately 20,000 attendees and featured more than 140 activities, demonstrations, and installations tied to the topics of science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM).

Among the carnival’s wide variety of activities was the popular robot petting zoo, an annual showcase involving more than a dozen companies and local robotics clubs, including FIRST Tech Challenge and FIRST Robotics Competition. Participants were invited to engage with a range of different robots, from building with LEGOs and erector sets to piloting underwater robots to learning about the science of automation.

“Every exhibit and every moment of discovery today reinforces why Cambridge remains a global leader in STEAM,” Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons said in her remarks at the event. “The creativity, ingenuity, and joy on display here today are a powerful reminder that science isn’t just for labs and lecture halls — it’s for everyone.”

Other activities included an appearance from the popular kid-friendly podcast “Tumble Science,” with co-host Marshall Escamilla testing fans’ knowledge of different STEAM topics drawn from “Tumble Science.” Clark University’s smoke-ring air cannons were a particular hit with the under-7-year-old set, while “Cycle To Science” showed off a gravity-defying bicycle wheel that, while spinning, was suspended on one side by a simple piece of string. Attendees also enjoyed live music, food trucks, and activities exploring everything from pipette art to the chemistry of glass. 

At the robot petting zoo, FIRST Robotics volunteer mentor Dominique Regli reflected on the event as someone who was herself first inspired by similar festivals more than a decade earlier. 

“Seeing kids of all ages interact with the robots made me think back to when I was a seventh grader, and how getting to see some of these robots for the first time was truly life-changing for me,” said Regli, who has been involved with FIRST Robotics since 2018 and is now an MIT computer science PhD student and affiliate of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). “These types of events are so important to expose students to what's possible.”

Throughout its history, a key aspect of the carnival has been MIT’s close collaboration with the City of Cambridge, which ran several activities. Cambridge Public School teachers led and the Public Works Department hosted a “Trash or Treasure” activity, which helped teach kids about recycling and composting. The carnival is a major contribution to the Institute’s objective of connecting the MIT ecosystem with Cambridge residents and local communities. 

“Cambridge is one of the world’s leading science cities, with more Nobel laureates per capita than any other city on the planet,” says Michael John Gorman, director of the MIT Museum. “The Cambridge Science Carnival is a beloved day in the Cambridge calendar which brings science out of the labs and onto the streets.” 

With a focus on engaging families and kids ranging from kindergarten to the eighth grade, one important outcome this year was to give undergraduate and graduate students the opportunity to showcase their work and hone their skills in clearly communicating science concepts to the public. There were over 50 activities led by MIT students, as well as participants from other local schools such as Boston College and Boston, Clark, Harvard, Northeastern, and Tufts universities.

Typically organized as part of the annual Cambridge Science Festival, this year the Cambridge Science Carnival returned as a standalone event while the larger festival undergoes a strategic transition for its relaunch in 2026. The MIT Museum offered free admission during the carnival and is always free to Cambridge residents, as well as active military, EBT cardholders, members of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and MIT ID holders.

“For MIT researchers, discovery often happens in a lab or a classroom, but the truth is, the spark of discovery can happen anywhere,” said Alfred Ironside, MIT vice president for communications, in remarks at the event. “That’s really what today is about: feeding curiosity, encouraging questions, and showing that science is not locked away behind closed doors. It’s for everyone.”

Both Google and Apple are cramming new AI features into their phones and other devices, and neither company has offered clear ways to control which apps those AI systems can access. Recent issues around WhatsApp on both Android and iPhone demonstrate how these interactions can go sideways, risking revealing chat conversations beyond what you intend. Users deserve better controls and clearer documentation around what these AI features can access.

After diving into how Google Gemini and Apple Intelligence (and in some cases Siri) currently work, we didn’t always find clear answers to questions about how data is stored, who has access, and what it can be used for.

At a high level, when you compose a message with these tools, the companies can usually see the contents of those messages and receive at least a temporary copy of the text on their servers.

When receiving messages, things get trickier. When you use an AI like Gemini or a feature like Apple Intelligence to summarize or read notifications, we believe companies should be doing that content processing on-device. But poor documentation and weak guardrails create issues that have lead us deep into documentation rabbit holes and still fail to clarify the privacy practices as clearly as we’d like.

We’ll dig into the specifics below as well as potential solutions we’d like to see Apple, Google, and other device-makers implement, but first things first, here’s what you can do right now to control access:

Control AI Access to Secure Chat on Android and iOS

Here are some steps you can take to control access if you want nothing to do with the device-level AI features' integration and don’t want to risk accidentally sharing the text of a message outside of the app you’re using.

How to Check and Limit What Gemini Can Access

If you’re using Gemini on your Android phone, it’s a good time to review your settings to ensure things are set up how you want. Here’s how to check each of the relevant settings:

• Disable Gemini App Activity: Gemini App Activity is a history Google stores of all your interactions with Gemini. It’s enabled by default. To disable it, open Gemini (depending on your phone model, you may or may not even have the Google Gemini app installed. If you don’t have it installed, you don’t really need to worry about any of this). Tap your profile picture > Gemini Apps Activity, then change the toggle to either “Turn off,” or “Turn off and delete activity” if you want to delete previous conversations. If the option reads “Turn on,” then Gemini Apps Activity is already turned off. 
• Control app and notification access: You can control which apps Gemini can access by tapping your profile picture > Apps, then scrolling down and disabling the toggle next to any apps you do not want Gemini to access. If you do not want Gemini to potentially access the content that appears in notifications, open the Settings app and revoke notification access from the Google app.
• Delete the Gemini app: Depending on your phone model, you might be able to delete the Gemini app and revert to using Google Assistant instead. You can do so by long-pressing the Gemini app and selecting the option to delete. 

How to Check and Limit what Apple Intelligence and Siri Can Access

Similarly, there are a few things you can do to clamp down on what Apple Intelligence and Siri can do: 

• Disable the “Use with Siri Requests” option: If you want to continue using Siri, but don’t want to accidentally use it to send messages through secure messaging apps, like WhatsApp, then you can disable that feature by opening Settings > Apps > [app name], and disabling “Use with Siri Requests,” which turns off the ability to compose messages with Siri and send them through that app.
• Disable Apple Intelligence entirely: Apple Intelligence is an all-or-nothing setting on iPhones, so if you want to avoid any potential issues your only option is to turn it off completely. To do so, open Settings > Apple Intelligence & Siri, and disable “Apple Intelligence” (you will only see this option if your device supports Apple Intelligence, if it doesn’t, the menu will only be for “Siri”). You can also disable certain features, like “writing tools,” using Screen Time restrictions. Siri can’t be universally turned off in the same way, though you can turn off the options under “Talk to Siri” to make it so you can’t speak to it. 

For more information about cutting off AI access at different levels in other apps, this Consumer Reports article covers other platforms and services.

Why It Matters  Sending Messages Has Different Privacy Concerns than Receiving Them

Let’s start with a look at how Google and Apple integrate their AI systems into message composition, using WhatsApp as an example.

Google Gemini and WhatsApp

On Android, you can optionally link WhatsApp and Gemini together so you can then initiate various actions for sending messages from the Gemini app, like “Call Mom on WhatsApp” or “Text Jason on WhatsApp that we need to cancel our secret meeting, but make it a haiku.” This feature raised red flags for users concerned about privacy.

By default, everything you do in Gemini is stored in the “Gemini Apps Activity,” where messages are stored forever, subject to human review, and are used to train Google’s products. So, unless you change it, when you use Gemini to compose and send a message in WhatsApp then the message you composed is visible to Google.

If you turn the activity off, interactions are still stored for 72 hours. Google’s documentation claims that even though messages are stored, those conversations aren't reviewed or used to improve Google machine learning technologies, though that appears to be an internal policy choice with no technical limits preventing Google from accessing those messages.

By default, everything you do in Gemini is stored in the “Gemini Apps Activity,” where messages are stored forever, subject to human review, and are used to train Google’s products.

The simplicity of invoking Gemini to compose and send a message may lead to a false sense of privacy. Notably, other secure messaging apps, like Signal, do not offer this Gemini integration.

For comparison’s sake, let’s see how this works with Apple devices.

Siri and WhatsApp

The closest comparison to this process on iOS is to use Siri, which it is claimed, will eventually be a part of Apple Intelligence. Currently, Apple’s AI message composition tools are not available for third-party apps like Signal and WhatsApp.

According to its privacy policy, when you dictate a message through Siri to send to WhatsApp (or anywhere else), the message, including metadata like the recipient phone number and other identifiers, is sent to Apple’s servers. This was confirmed by researchers to include the text of messages sent to WhatsApp. When you use Siri to compose a WhatsApp message, the message gets routed to both Apple and WhatsApp. Apple claims it does not store this transcript unless you’ve opted into “Improve Siri and Dictation.” WhatsApp defers to Apple’s support for data handling concerns. This is similar to how Google handles speech-to-text prompts.

In response to that research, Apple said this was expected behavior with an app that uses SiriKit—the extension that allows third-party apps to integrate with Siri—like WhatsApp does.

Both Siri and Apple Intelligence can sometimes run locally on-device, and other times need to rely on Apple-managed cloud servers to complete requests. Apple Intelligence can use the company’s Private Cloud Compute, but Siri doesn’t have a similar feature.

The ambiguity around where data goes makes it overly difficult to decide on whether you are comfortable with the sort of privacy trade-off that using features like Siri or Apple Intelligence might entail.

How Receiving Messages Works

Sending encrypted messages is just one half of the privacy puzzle. What happens on the receiving end matters too. 

Google Gemini

By default, the Gemini app doesn’t have access to the text inside secure messaging apps or to notifications. But you can grant access to notifications using the Utilities app. Utilities can read, summarize, and reply to notifications, including in WhatsApp and Signal (it can also read notifications in headphones).

This could open up any notifications routed through the Utilities app to the Gemini app to access internally or from third-parties.

We could not find anything in Google’s Utilities documentation that clarifies what information is collected, stored, or sent to Google from these notifications. When we reached out to Google, the company responded that it “builds technical data protections that safeguard user data, uses data responsibly, and provides users with tools to control their Gemini experience.” Which means Google has no technical limitation around accessing the text from notifications if you’ve enabled the feature in the Utilities app. This could open up any notifications routed through the Utilities app to the Gemini app to be accessed internally or from third-parties. Google needs to publicly make its data handling explicit in its documentation.

If you use encrypted communications apps and have granted access to notifications, then it is worth considering disabling that feature or controlling what’s visible in your notifications on an app-level.

Apple Intelligence

Apple is more clear about how it handles this sort of notification access.

Siri can read and reply to messages with the “Announce Notifications” feature. With this enabled, Siri can read notifications out loud on select headphones or via CarPlay. In a press release, Apple states, “When a user talks or types to Siri, their request is processed on device whenever possible. For example, when a user asks Siri to read unread messages… the processing is done on the user’s device. The contents of the messages aren’t transmitted to Apple servers, because that isn’t necessary to fulfill the request.”

Apple Intelligence can summarize notifications from any app that you’ve enabled notifications on. Apple is clear that these summaries are generated on your device, “when Apple Intelligence provides you with preview summaries of your emails, messages, and notifications, these summaries are generated by on-device models.” This means there should be no risk that the text of notifications from apps like WhatsApp or Signal get sent to Apple’s servers just to summarize them.

New AI Features Must Come With Strong User Controls

As more device-makers cram AI features into their devices, the more necessary it is for us to have clear and simple controls over what personal data these features can access on our devices. If users do not have control over when a text leaves a device for any sort of AI processing—whether that’s to a “private” cloud or not—it erodes our privacy and potentially threatens the foundations of end-to-end encrypted communications.

Per-app AI Permissions

Google, Apple, and other device makers should add a device-level AI permission, just like they do for other potentially invasive privacy features, like location sharing, to their phones. You should be able to tell the operating system’s AI to not access an app, even if that comes at the “cost” of missing out on some features. The setting should be straightforward and easy to understand in ways the Gemini an Apple Intelligence controls currently are not.

Offer On-Device-Only Modes

Device-makers should offer an “on-device only” mode for those interested in using some features without having to try to figure out what happens on device or on the cloud. Samsung offers this, and both Google and Apple would benefit from a similar option.

Improve Documentation

Both Google and Apple should improve their documentation about how these features interact with various apps. Apple doesn’t seem to clarify notification processing privacy anywhere outside of a press release, and we couldn’t find anything about Google’s Utilities privacy at all. We appreciate tools like Gemini Apps Activity as a way to audit what the company collects, but vague information like “Prompted a Communications query” is only useful if there’s an explanation somewhere about what that means.

The current user options are not enough. It’s clear that the AI features device-makers add come with significant confusion about their privacy implications, and it’s time to push back and demand better controls. The privacy problems introduced alongside new AI features should be taken seriously, and remedies should be offered to both users and developers who want real, transparent safeguards over how a company accesses their private data and communications.

Creating and sharing knowledge are defining traits of humankind, yet copyright law has grown so restrictive that it can require acts of civil disobedience to ensure that students and scholars have the books they need and to preserve swaths of culture from being lost forever.

Reputable research generally follows a familiar pattern: Scientific articles are written by scholars based on their research—often with public funding. Those articles are then peer-reviewed by other scholars in their fields and revisions are made according to those comments. Afterwards, most large publishers expect to be given the copyright on the article as a condition of packaging it up and selling it back to the institutions that employ the academics who did the research and to the public at large. Because research is valuable and because copyright is a monopoly on disseminating the articles in question, these publishers can charge exorbitant fees that place a strain even on wealthy universities and are simply out of reach for the general public or universities with limited budgets, such as those in the global south. The result is a global human rights problem.

This model is broken, yet science goes on thanks to widespread civil disobedience of the copyright regime that locks up the knowledge created by researchers. Some turn to social media to ask that a colleague with access share articles they need (despite copyright’s prohibitions on sharing). Certainly, at least some such sharing is protected fair use, but scholars should not have to seek a legal opinion or risk legal threats from publishers to share the collective knowledge they generate.

Even more useful, though on shakier legal ground, are so-called “shadow archives” and aggregators such as SciHub, Library Genesis (LibGen), Z-Library, or Anna’s Archive. These are the culmination of efforts from volunteers dedicated to defending science.

SciHub alone handles tens of millions of requests for scientific articles each year and remains operational despite adverse court rulings thanks both to being based in Russia, and to the community of academics who see it as an ethical response to the high access barriers that publishers impose and provide it their log-on credentials so it can retrieve requested articles. SciHub and LibGen are continuations of samizdat, the Soviet-era practice of disobeying state censorship in the interests of learning and free speech.

Unless publishing gatekeepers adopt drastically more equitable practices and become partners in disseminating knowledge, they will continue to lose ground to open access alternatives, legal or otherwise.

EFF is proud to celebrate Open Access Week.

In early September, EFF submitted an amicus brief to Ecuador’s Constitutional Court supporting a constitutional challenge filed by Ecuadorian NGOs, including INREDH and LaLibre. The case challenges the constitutionality of the Ley Orgánica de Inteligencia (LOI) and its implementing regulation, the General Regulation of the LOI.

EFF’s amicus brief argues that the LOI enables disproportionate surveillance and secrecy that undermine constitutional and Inter-American human rights standards. EFF urges the Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulation unconstitutional in their entirety.

More specifically, our submission notes that:

“The LOI presents a structural flaw that undermines compliance with the principles of legality, legitimate purpose, suitability, necessity, and proportionality; it inverts the rule and the exception, with serious harm to rights enshrined constitutionally and under the Convention; and it prioritizes indeterminate state interests, in contravention of the ultimate aim of intelligence activities and state action, namely the protection of individuals, their rights, and freedoms.”

Core Legal Problems Identified

Vague and Overbroad Definitions

The LOI contains key terms like “national security,” “integral security of the State,” “threats,” and “risks” that are left either undefined or so broadly framed that they could mean almost anything. This vagueness grants intelligence agencies wide, unchecked discretion, and fails short of the standard of legal certainty required under the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH).

Secrecy and Lack of Transparency

The LOI makes secrecy the rule rather than the exception, reversing the Inter-American principle of maximum disclosure, which holds that access to information should be the norm and secrecy a narrowly justified exception. The law establishes a classification system—“restricted,” “secret,” and “top secret”—for intelligence and counterintelligence information, but without clear, verifiable parameters to guide its application on a case-by-case basis. As a result, all information produced by the governing body (ente rector) of the National Intelligence System is classified as secret by default. Moreover, intelligence budgets and spending are insulated from meaningful public oversight, concentrated under a single authority, and ultimately destroyed, leaving no mechanism for accountability.

Weak or Nonexistent Oversight Mechanisms

The LOI leaves intelligence agencies to regulate themselves, with almost no external scrutiny. Civilian oversight is minimal, limited to occasional, closed-door briefings before a parliamentary commission that lacks real access to information or decision making power. This structure offers no guarantee of independent or judicial supervision and instead fosters an environment where intelligence operations can proceed without transparency or accountability.

Intrusive Powers Without Judicial Authorization

The LOI allows access to communications, databases, and personal data without prior judicial order, which enables the mass surveillance of electronic communications, metadata, and databases across public and private entities—including telecommunication operators. This directly contradicts rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which establish that any restriction of the right to privacy must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to independent oversight. It also runs counter to CAJAR vs. Colombia, which affirms that intrusive surveillance requires prior judicial authorization.

International Human Rights Standards Applied

Our amicus curiae draws on the CAJAR vs. Colombia judgment, which set strict standards for intelligence activities. Crucially, Ecuador’s LOI fall short of all these tests: it doesn’t constitute an adequate legal basis for limiting rights; contravenes necessary and proportionate principles; fails to ensure robust controls and safeguards, like prior judicial authorization and solid civilian oversight; and completely disregards related data protection guarantees and data subject’s rights.

At its core, the LOI structurally prioritizes vague notions of “state interest” over the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It legalizes secrecy, unchecked surveillance, and the impunity of intelligence agencies. For these reasons, we urge Ecuador’s Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulations unconstitutional, as they violate both the Ecuadorian Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH).

Read our full amicus brief here to learn more about how Ecuador’s intelligence framework undermines privacy, transparency, and the human rights protected under Inter-American human rights law.

This is bad:

F5, a Seattle-based maker of networking software, disclosed the breach on Wednesday. F5 said a “sophisticated” threat group working for an undisclosed nation-state government had surreptitiously and persistently dwelled in its network over a “long-term.” Security researchers who have responded to similar intrusions in the past took the language to mean the hackers were inside the F5 network for years.

During that time, F5 said, the hackers took control of the network segment the company uses to create and distribute updates for BIG IP, a line of server appliances that F5 ...

The administration says the shutdown prevented its work on the case. But greens say EPA is “racing” to repeal the endangerment finding.

GE Vernova reported increasing sales of grid equipment to technology companies racing to plug in new data centers.

The move comes as the Trump administration has set its sights on stopping the industry’s growth.

Private companies — led by Tesla — constructed thousands of new EV ports during the third quarter.

A new study says the region has shifted into a new climate state — and the transition began decades ago.

Researchers found that 90 percent of organic aerosols over Long Island were affected by climate events like extreme heat and wildfire smoke.

The EU should learn from losing its solar panel industry to China and protect its share of green tech as it surges around the world.

Its computing power can make buildings more efficient, charge devices at optimal times, make oil and gas production less polluting, and schedule traffic lights, for example.

The wealth fund is emerging as an outspoken proponent of AI as some other money managers eye the technology cautiously.

The center-right government that won power in late 2023 has softened a number of initiatives aimed at tackling emissions, citing their impact on farmers and business.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 23 October 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02467-y

Standardized quantitative emissions benchmarking is essential for corporate climate accountability, yet recent literature has critiqued this approach. We argue for structured pluralism with budget compliance — balancing methodological flexibility while preserving the disciplining power of carbon budgets.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 23 October 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02454-3

Marine diatoms, tiny algae that underpin ocean food webs, face rising ocean temperatures. Now, a study shows that genome duplication helps diatoms adapt faster to warming, reshaping our understanding of phytoplankton resilience in a changing ocean.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 23 October 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02464-1

The authors obtained large-volume individuals of diatom cultures under thermal stress. These polyploids (having more than two sets of chromosomes) are shown to rapidly adapt to high temperatures, highlighting polyploidization as a possible adaptive measure for diatoms under climate change.

Pills are by far the most convenient form of cancer treatment, but most oral cancer drugs quickly dissolve in the stomach, delivering a burst of chemicals into the bloodstream all at once. That can cause side effects. It also may limit the drug’s effectiveness because its concentration in the blood may become too low after the initial burst.

Now, the startup Enzian Pharmaceutics, founded by Aron Blaesi PhD ’14 and former principal research scientist Nannaji Saka ScD ’74, is developing an oral tablet that delivers drugs into the gastric fluid and the blood steadily over time. The company’s tablets use tiny 3D-printed fibers that turn into a gel-like substance when exposed to water. The tablets have been shown to stay in the stomach of animals for up to a day, slowly degrading while releasing the drug in controlled quantities.

The company is currently validating its tablets’ ability to stay in place in a small number of healthy human volunteers. In about a year, it plans to begin testing the technology’s ability to improve the effectiveness and safety of cancer drugs in patients.

“A lot of orally delivered cancer drugs could benefit from this,” says Blaesi, who incorporated the company in 2016. “Right now, soon after someone has taken a cancer drug, its concentration in the blood can be up to 50 times greater than when they are supposed to take the next pill. During the peak, the drug goes into the heart, it goes into the liver, the brain, and it can cause a lot of problems, while at the end of the dosing interval the concentration in the blood may be too low. By taking out that peak and increasing the time the drug is released, we could improve the effectiveness of treatments and mitigate certain side effects.”

In search of innovation

When Blaesi came to MIT, he knew he wanted his mechanical engineering PhD work to form the basis of a company. Early on, as part of the Novartis-MIT Center for Continuous Manufacturing, he worked on manufacturing pills with an injection molding machine that melted and solidified the material, in contrast to the traditional process of compacting powder. He noticed injection molding made the pills far less porous.

“If you put a typical pill into a fluid or into the stomach, the fluid percolates the pores and quickly dissolves it,” Blaesi explains. “That’s not the case when you have an injection molded product. That’s when Dr. Saka, who I met almost daily to discuss my research with, and I started to realize that microstructure is very important.”

The researchers began exploring how different tablet microstructures changed the rate at which drugs are released. For more precision, they moved from injection molding to 3D printing.

Using MIT machine shops, Blaesi built a 3D printer and produced tightly wound microstructures that could carry the drugs. He focused on fibrous structures with space between the fibers, because they would allow gastrointestinal fluid to percolate the pill and dissolve rapidly. He tested the structures in both his Cambridge, Massachusetts, apartment and at MIT’s shared facilities.

Blaesi then experimented with different carrier materials, finding that the higher the molecular weight, the longer it took the pill to dissolve because the material would absorb water and expand before degrading.

“Initially I thought, ‘Oh no, the drug isn’t being dissolved fast enough anymore,’” Blaesi recalls. “Then we thought, ‘Everything has its place.’ This could stay in the stomach for longer because of the expansion. Then it could release the drug over time. We realized this wouldn’t just improve manufacturing, it would improve the product.”

In 2019, Blaesi and Saka published the first paper on their expandable fibrous tablets for prolonged drug delivery. It received a mixed reception.

“Some reviewers said, ‘Research on similar gastroretentive dosage forms has been done for 40 years and no one’s really succeeded,’” Blaesi recalls. “People said, ‘It will never work. Do experiments in animals and then we’ll talk.’”

Blaesi moved back to Switzerland during the Covid-19 pandemic and ran his animal experiments there.

“The reviewers were right: What we had didn’t work,” Blaesi says. “But we adjusted the design and showed we could make the pill stay in the stomach for longer.”

Inside Enzian’s final tablet design, tiny fibers are arranged in a grid. When water flows into the spaces between the fibers, they expand to form a strong gel-like substance that slowly erodes in the stomach, steadily releasing the drug. In animal studies, Enzian’s team showed its technology allowed tablets to remain in the stomach for 12 to 24 hours before being safely excreted.

The team soon found cancer drugs would be a good fit for their technology.

“A lot of cancer drugs are only soluble in acidic solutions, so they can only be absorbed while the drug is in the stomach,” Blaesi explains. “But on an empty stomach, the drug may be in the stomach for just 30 or 40 minutes at present. For a full stomach, it’s a few hours. And because you have a short time to deliver the drug, you need to release a high dose immediately. That shoots up the blood concentration, and if you dose every 12 hours, the concentration is going down during the other 10 hours.”

From the lab to patients

In upcoming human trials, Enzian plans to use its tablets to deliver a drug for prostate cancer that Blaesi says is currently dosed at several hundred milligrams a day. He hopes to get down to about a tenth of that with a better therapeutic effect.

Enzian also believes its technology could improve treatments for blood, skin, and breast cancers.

“This could really be used to improve treatment for a variety of cancers,” Blaesi says. “We believe this is a more efficient and effective way to deliver drugs.”

Maximizing effectiveness and minimizing side effects is also important in clinical trials, where a new drug’s superiority over existing treatments must be shown, and a single adverse event can end its development.

The upcoming move into patients is the culmination of more than a decade of work for Blaesi, who is confident Enzian can deliver on its promise of improving treatments.

“The opportunity is enormous,” Blaesi says. “So many oral cancer drugs have this delivery problem. We still have to do the efficacy and safety studies on patients, but we expect this to be a game changer.”

On Oct. 20 during its annual meeting, the National Academy of Medicine announced the election of 100 new members, including MIT faculty members Dina Katabi and Facundo Batista, along with three additional MIT alumni.

Election to the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) is considered one of the highest honors in the fields of health and medicine, recognizing individuals who have demonstrated outstanding professional achievement and commitment to service.

Facundo Batista is the associate director and scientific director of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, as well as the first Phillip T. and Susan M. Ragon Professor in the MIT Department of Biology. The National Academy of Medicine recognized Batista for “his work unraveling the biology of antibody-producing B cells to better understand how our body’s immune systems responds to infectious disease.” More recently, Facundo’s research has advanced preclinical vaccine and therapeutic development for globally important diseases including HIV, malaria, and influenza.

Batista earned a PhD from the International School of Advanced Studies and established his lab in 2002 as a member of the Francis Crick Institute (formerly the London Research Institute), simultaneously holding a professorship at Imperial College London. In 2016, he joined the Ragon Institute to pursue a new research program applying his expertise in B cells and antibody responses to vaccine development, and preclinical vaccinology for diseases including SARS-CoV-2 and HIV. Batista is an elected fellow or member of the U.K. Academy of Medical Sciences, the American Academy of Microbiology, the Academia de Ciencias de América Latina, and the European Molecular Biology Organization, and he is chief editor of The EMBO Journal.

Dina Katabi SM ’99, PhD ’03 is the Thuan (1990) and Nicole Pham Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT. Her research spans digital health, wireless sensing, mobile computing, machine learning, and computer vision. Katabi’s contributions include efficient communication protocols for the internet, advanced contactless biosensors, and novel AI models that interpret physiological signals. The NAM recognized Katabi for “pioneering digital health technology that enables non-invasive, off-body remote health monitoring via AI and wireless signals, and for developing digital biomarkers for Parkinson’s progression and detection. She has translated this technology to advance objective, sensitive measures of disease trajectory and treatment response in clinical trials.”

Katabi is director of the MIT Center for Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing. She is also a member of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), where she leads the Networks at MIT Research Group. Katabi received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Damascus and MS and PhD degrees in computer science from MIT. She is a MacArthur Fellow; a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering; and a recipient of the ACM Computing Prize. 

Additional MIT alumni who were elected to the NAM for 2025 are:

• Christopher S. Chen SM ’93, PhD ’97, an alumnus of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology;
   
• Michael E. Matheny SM ’06, an alumnus of the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology; and
   
• Rebecca R. Richards-Kortum SM ’87, PhD ’90, and alumna of the Department of Physics and the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Established originally as the Institute of Medicine in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine addresses critical issues in health, science, medicine, and related policy, and inspires positive actions across sectors.

“I am deeply honored to welcome these extraordinary health and medicine leaders and researchers into the National Academy of Medicine,” says NAM President Victor J. Dzau. “Their demonstrated excellence in tackling public health challenges, leading major discoveries, improving health care, advancing health policy, and addressing health equity will critically strengthen our collective ability to tackle the most pressing health challenges of our time.”