To Vanessa Chan PhD ’00, effective engineers don’t just solve technical problems. To make an impact with a new product or technology, they need to bring it to market, deploy it, and make it mainstream. Yet this is precisely what they aren’t trained to do.

In fact, 97 percent of patents fail to make it over the “commercialization wall.”

“Only 3 percent of patents succeed, and one of the biggest challenges is we are not training our PhDs, our undergrads, our faculty, to commercialize technologies,” said Chan, vice dean of innovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Engineering and Applied Science. She delivered the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE)’s spring 2025 Wulff Lecture at MIT on March 10. “Instead, we’re focused on the really hard technical issues that we have to overcome, versus everything that needs to be addressed for something to make it to market.”

Chan spoke from deep experience, having led McKinsey & Co.’s innovation practice, helping Fortune 100 companies commercialize technologies. She also invented the tangle-free headphones Loopit at re.design, the firm she founded, and served as the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE)’s chief commercialization officer and director of the Office of Technology Transitions during the Biden administration.

From invention to impact

A DMSE alumna, Chan addressed a near-capacity crowd about the importance of materials innovation. She highlighted how new materials — or existing materials used in new ways — could solve key challenges, from energy sustainability to health care delivery. For example, carbon fiber composites have replaced aluminum in the airline industry, leading to reduced fuel consumption, lower emissions, and enhanced safety. Modern lithium-ion and solid-state batteries use optimized electrode materials for higher efficiency and faster charging. And biodegradable polymer stents, which dissolve over time, have replaced traditional metallic stents that remain in arteries and can cause complications.

The Wulff Lecture is a twice-yearly talk aimed at educating students, especially first-years, about materials science and engineering and its impact on society.

Inventing a groundbreaking technology is just the beginning, Chan said. She gave the example of Thomas Edison, often thought of as the father of the electric light bulb. But Edison didn’t invent the carbonized filament — that was Joseph Swan.

“Thomas Edison was the father of the deployed light bulb,” Chan said. “He took Swan’s patents and figured out, how do we actually pull a vacuum on this? How do we manufacture this at scale?”

For an invention to make an impact, it needs to successfully traverse the commercialization journey from research to development, demonstration, and deployment in the market. “An invention without deployment is a tragedy, because you’ve invented something where you may have a lot of paper publications, but it is not making a difference at all in the real world.”

Materials commercialization is difficult, Chan explained, because new materials are at the very beginning of a value chain — the full range of activities in producing a product or service. To make it to market, the materials invention must be adopted by others along the chain, and in some cases, companies must navigate how each part of the chain gets paid. A new material for hip replacements, for example, designed to reduce the risk of infection and rehospitalization, might be a materials breakthrough, but getting it to market is complicated by the way insurance works.

“They will not pay more to avoid hospitalization,” Chan said. “If your material is more expensive than what is currently being used today, the providers will not reimburse for that.”

Beyond technology

But engineers can increase their odds in commercialization if they know the right language. “Adoption readiness levels” (ARLs), developed in Chan’s Office of Technology Transitions, help assess the nontechnical risks technologies face on their journey to commercialization. These risks cover value proposition — whether a technology can perform at a price customers will pay — market acceptance, and other potential barriers, such as infrastructure and regulations.

In 2022, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act allocated $370 billion toward clean energy deployment — 10 times the Department of Energy’s annual budget — to advance clean energy technologies such as carbon management, clean hydrogen, and geothermal heating and cooling. But Chan emphasized that the real prize was unlocking an estimated $23 trillion from private-sector investors.

“Those are the ones who are going to bring the technologies to market. So, how do we do that? How do we convince them to actually commercialize these technologies which aren’t quite there?” Chan asked.

Chan’s team spearheaded “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff,” a roadmap to bridge the gap between innovation and commercial adoption, helping identify scaling requirements, key players, and the acceptable risk levels for early adoption.

She shared an example from the DoE initiative, which received $8 billion from Congress to create a market for clean hydrogen technologies. She tied the money to specific pathways, explaining, “the private sector will start listening because they want the money.”

Her team also gathered data on where the industry was headed, identifying sectors that would likely adopt hydrogen, the infrastructure needed to support it, and what policies or funding could accelerate commercialization.

“There’s also community perception, because when we talk to people about hydrogen, what's the first thing people think about? The Hindenburg,” Chan said, referencing the 1937 dirigible explosion. “So these are the kinds of things that we had to grapple with if we’re actually going to create a hydrogen economy.”

“What do you love?”

Chan concluded her talk by offering students professional advice. She encouraged them to do what they love. On a slide, she shared a Venn diagram of her passions for technology, business, and making things — she recently started a pottery studio called Rebel Potters — illustrating the motivations behind her career journey.

“So I need you to ask yourself, What is your Venn diagram? What is it that you love?” Chan asked. “And you may say, ‘I don’t know. I’m 18 right now, and I just need to figure out what classes I want to take.’ Well, guess what? Get outside your comfort zone. Go do something new. Go try new things.”

Attendee Delia Harms, a DMSE junior, found the exercise particularly useful. “I think I’m definitely lacking a little bit of direction in where I want to go after undergrad and what I want my career path to look like,” Harms said. “So I’ll definitely try that exercise later — thinking about what my circles are, and how they come together.”

Jeannie She, a junior majoring in artificial intelligence and bioengineering, found inspiration in Chan’s public sector experience.

“I have always seen government as bureaucracy, red tape, slow — but I’m also really interested in policy and policy change,” She said. “So learning from her and the things that she’s accomplished during her time as an appointee has been really inspiring, and makes me see that there are careers in policy where things can actually get done.”

Last week, a federal judge rejected the government’s motion to dismiss our Privacy Act lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). OPM is disclosing to DOGE agents the highly sensitive personal information of tens of millions of federal employees, retirees, and job applicants. This disclosure violates the federal Privacy Act, a watershed law that tightly limits how the federal government can use our personal information.

We represent two unions of federal employees: the AFGE and the AALJ. Our co-counsel are Lex Lumina LLP, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and The Chandra Law Firm LLC.

We’ve already explained why the new ruling is a big deal, but let’s take a deeper dive into the Court’s reasoning.

Plaintiffs have standing

A plaintiff must show they have “standing” to bring their claim. Article III of the U.S. Constitution empowers courts to decide “cases” and “controversies.” Courts have long held this requires the plaintiff to show an “injury in fact” that is, among other things, “concrete.” In recent years, two Supreme Court decisions – Spokeo v. Robins (2016) and TransUnion v. Ramirez (2021) – addressed when an “intangible” injury, such as invasion of data privacy, is sufficiently concrete. They ruled that such injury must have “a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.”

In our case, the Court held that our clients passed this test: “The complaint alleges concrete harms analogous to intrusion upon seclusion.” That is one of the common law privacy torts, long recognized in U.S. law. According to the Restatement of Torts, it occurs when a person “intrudes” on the “seclusion of another” in a manner “highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

The Court reasoned that the records at issue here “contain information about the deeply private affairs of the plaintiffs,” including “social security numbers, health history, financial disclosures, and information about family members.” The court also emphasized plaintiffs’ allegation that these records were “disclosed to DOGE agents in a rushed and insecure manner,” including “administrative access, enabling them to alter OPM records and obscure their own access to those records.”

The Court rejected defendants’ argument that our clients supposedly pled “only that DOGE agents were granted access to OPM’s data system,” and not also that “the DOGE agents in fact used that access to examine OPM records.” As a factual matter, plaintiffs in fact pled that “DOGE agents actually exploited their access to review, possess, and use OPM records.”

As a legal matter, such use is not required: “Exposure of the plaintiff’s personally identifiable information to unauthorized third parties, without further use or disclosure, is analogous to harm cognizable under the common law right to privacy.” So ruling, the Court observed: “at least four federal courts have found that the plaintiffs before them had made a sufficient showing of concrete injury, as analogous to common law privacy torts, when agencies granted DOGE agents access to repositories of plaintiffs’ personal information.”

To have standing, a plaintiff must also show that their “injury in fact” is “actual or imminent.” The Court held that our clients passed this test, too. It ruled that plaintiffs adequately alleged an actual injury: “ongoing unauthorized access by the DOGE agents to the plaintiffs’ data.” It also ruled that plaintiffs adequately alleged a separate, imminent injury: OPM’s disclosure to DOGE “has made the OPM data more vulnerable to hacking, identity theft, and other activities that are substantially harmful to the plaintiffs.” The Court emphasized the allegations of “sweeping and uncontrolled access to DOGE agents who were not properly vetted or trained,” as well as the notorious 2015 OPM data breach.

Finally, the Court held that our clients sufficiently alleged the remaining two elements of standing: that defendants caused plaintiffs’ injuries, and that an injunction would redress them.

Plaintiffs may proceed on their Privacy Act claims

The Court held: “The plaintiffs have plausibly alleged violations of two provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), which prohibits certain disclosures of records, and 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10), which imposes a duty to establish appropriate safeguards and ensure security and confidentiality of records.” The Court cited two other judges who had recently “found a likelihood that plaintiffs will succeed” in their wrongful disclosure claims.

Reprising their failed standing arguments, the government argued that to plead a violation of the Privacy Act’s no-disclosure rule, our clients must allege “not just transmission to another person but also review of the records by that individual.” Again, the Court rejected this argument for two independent reasons. Factually, “the complaint amply pleads that DOGE agents viewed, possessed, and used the OPM records.” Legally, “the defendants misconstrue the term ‘disclose.’” The Court looked to the OPM’s own regulations, which define the term to include “providing personal review of a record,” and an earlier appellate court opinion, interpreting the term to include “virtually all instances [of] an agency’s unauthorized transmission of a protected record.”

Next, the government asserted an exception from the Privacy Act’s no-disclosure rule, for disclosure “to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties.” The Court observed that our clients disputed this exception on two independent grounds: “both because [the disclosures] were made to DOGE agents who were not officers or employees of OPM and because, even if the DOGE agents were employees of OPM, they did not have a need for those records in the performance of any lawful duty.” On both grounds, the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficed.

Plaintiffs may seek to enjoin Privacy Act violations

The Court ruled that our clients may seek injunctive and declaratory relief against the alleged Privacy Act violations, by means of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), though not the Privacy Act itself. This is a win: What ultimately matters is the availability of relief, not the particular path to that relief.

As discussed above, plaintiffs have two claims that the government violated the Privacy Act: unlawful disclosures and unlawful cybersecurity failures. Plaintiffs also have an APA claim of agency action “not in accordance with law,” which refers back to these two Privacy Act violations.

To be subject to APA judicial review, the challenged agency action must be “final.” The Court found finality: “The complaint plausibly alleges that actions by OPM were not representative of its ordinary day-to-day operations but were, in sharp contrast to its normal procedures, illegal, rushed, and dangerous.”

Another requirement for APA judicial review is the absence of an “other adequate remedy.” The Court interpreted the Privacy Act to not allow the injunction our clients seek, but then ruled: “As a result, the plaintiffs have no adequate recourse under the Privacy Act and may pursue their request for injunctive relief under the APA.” The Court further wrote:

The defendants’ Kafkaesque argument to the contrary would deprive the plaintiffs of any recourse under the law. They contend that the plaintiffs have no right to any injunctive relief – neither under the Privacy Act nor under the APA. … This argument promptly falls apart under examination.

Plaintiffs may proceed on two more claims

The Court allowed our clients to move forward on their two other claims.

They may proceed on their claim that the government violated the APA by acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. The Court reasoned: “The complaint alleges that OPM rushed the onboarding process, omitted crucial security practices, and thereby placed the security of OPM records at grave risk.”

Finally, our clients may proceed on their claim that DOGE acted “ultra vires,” meaning outside of its legal power, when it accessed OPM records. The Court reasoned: “The complaint adequately pleads that DOGE Defendants plainly and openly crossed a congressionally drawn line in the sand.”

Next steps

Congress passed the Privacy Act following the Watergate and COINTELPRO scandals to restore trust in government and prevent a future President from creating another “enemies list.” Congress found that the federal government’s increasing use of databases full of personal records “greatly magnified the harm to individual privacy,” and so it tightly regulated how agencies may use these databases.

The ongoing DOGE data grab may be the worst violation of the Privacy Act since its enactment in 1974. So it is great news that a judge has denied the government’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit. Now we will move forward to prove our case.

Related Cases: American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Enabling and sustaining a clean energy transition depends not only on groundbreaking technology to redefine the world’s energy systems, but also on that innovation happening at scale. As a part of an ongoing speaker series, the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) hosted Emily Knight, the president and CEO of The Engine, a nonprofit incubator and accelerator dedicated to nurturing technology solutions to the world’s most urgent challenges. She explained how her organization is bridging the gap between research breakthroughs and scalable commercial impact.

“Our mission from the very beginning was to support and accelerate what we call ‘tough tech’ companies — [companies] who had this vision to solve some of the world’s biggest problems,” Knight said.

The Engine, a spinout of MIT, coined the term “tough tech” to represent not only the durability of the technology, but also the complexity and scale of the problems it will solve. “We are an incubator and accelerator focused on building a platform and creating what I believe is an open community for people who want to build tough tech, who want to fund tough tech, who want to work in a tough tech company, and ultimately be a part of this community,” said Knight.

According to Knight, The Engine creates “an innovation orchard” where early-stage research teams have access to the infrastructure and resources needed to take their ideas from lab to market while maximizing impact. “We use this pathway — from idea to investment, then investment to impact — in a lot of the work that we do,” explained Knight.

She said that tough tech exists at the intersection of several risk factors: technology, market and customer, regulatory, and scaling. Knight highlighted MIT spinout Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) — one of many MIT spinouts within The Engine’s ecosystem that focus on energy — as an example of how The Engine encourages teams to work through these risks.

In the early days, the CFS team was told to assume their novel fusion technology would work. “If you’re only ever worried that your technology won’t work, you won’t pick your head up and have the right people on your team who are building the public affairs relationships so that, when you need it, you can get your first fusion reactor sited and done,” explained Knight. “You don’t know where to go for the next round of funding, and you don’t know who in government is going to be your advocates when you need them to be.”

“I think [CFS’s] eighth employee was a public affairs person,” Knight said. With the significant regulatory, scaling, and customer risks associated with fusion energy, building their team wisely was essential. Bringing on a public affairs person helped CFS build awareness and excitement around fusion energy in the local community and build the community programs necessary for grant funding.

The Engine’s growing ecosystem of entrepreneurs, researchers, institutions, and government agencies is a key component of the support offered to early-stage researchers. The ecosystem creates a space for sharing knowledge and resources, which Knight believes is critical for navigating the unique challenges associated with Tough Tech.

This support can be especially important for new entrepreneurs: “This leader that is going from PhD student to CEO — that is a really, really big journey that happens the minute you get funding,” said Knight. “Knowing that you’re in a community of people who are on that same journey is really important.”

The Engine also extends this support to the broader community through educational programs that walk participants through the process of translating their research from lab to market. Knight highlighted two climate and energy startups that joined The Engine through one such program geared toward graduate students and postdocs: Lithios, which is producing sustainable, low-cost lithium, and Lydian, which is developing sustainable aviation fuels.

The Engine also offers access to capital from investors with an intimate understanding of tough tech ventures. She said that government agency partners can offer additional support through public funding opportunities and highlighted that grants from the U.S. Department of Energy were key in the early funding of another MIT spinout within their ecosystem, Sublime Systems.

In response to the current political shift away from climate investments, as well as uncertainty surrounding government funding, Knight believes that the connections within their ecosystem are more important than ever as startups explore alternative funding. “We’re out there thinking about funding mechanisms that could be more reliable. That’s our role as an incubator.”

Being able to convene the right people to address a problem is something that Knight attributes to her education at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration. “My ethos across all of this is about service,” stated Knight. “We’re constantly evolving our resources and how we help our teams based on the gaps they’re facing.”

MITEI Presents: Advancing the Energy Transition is an MIT Energy Initiative speaker series highlighting energy experts and leaders at the forefront of the scientific, technological, and policy solutions needed to transform our energy systems. The next seminar in this series will be April 30 with Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Visit MITEI’s Events page for more information on this and additional events.

Last week, EFF joined 30 civil society groups and academics in warning UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Department for Science, Innovation & Technology Secretary Peter Kyle about the law enforcement risks contained within the draft Data Use and Access Bill (DUA Bill).

Clause 80 of the DUA Bill weakens the safeguards for solely automated decisions in the law-enforcement context and dilutes crucial data protection safeguards. 

Under sections 49 and 50 of the Data Protection Act 2018, solely automated decisions are prohibited from being made in the law enforcement context unless the decision is required or authorised by law. Clause 80 reverses this in all scenarios unless the data processing involves special category data. 

In short, this would enable law enforcement to use automated decisions about people regarding their socioeconomic status, regional or postcode data, inferred emotions, or even regional accents. This increases the already broad possibilities for bias, discrimination, and lack of transparency at the hands of law enforcement.

In the government’s own Impact Assessment for the DUA Bill, the Government acknowledged that “those with protected characteristics such as race, gender, and age are more likely to face discrimination from ADM due to historical biases in datasets.” Yet, politicians in the UK have decided to push forward with this discriminatory and dangerous agenda regardless. 

Further, given the already minimal transparency around automated decision making, individuals affected in the law enforcement context would have no or highly limited routes to redress.

The DUA Bill puts marginalised groups at risk of opaque, unfair and harmful automated decisions. Yvette Cooper and Peter Kyle must address the lack of safeguards governing law enforcement use of automated decision-making tools before time runs out.

The full letter can be found here. 

When the International Maritime Organization enacted a mandatory cap on the sulfur content of marine fuels in 2020, with an eye toward reducing harmful environmental and health impacts, it left shipping companies with three main options.

They could burn low-sulfur fossil fuels, like marine gas oil, or install cleaning systems to remove sulfur from the exhaust gas produced by burning heavy fuel oil. Biofuels with lower sulfur content offer another alternative, though their limited availability makes them a less feasible option.

While installing exhaust gas cleaning systems, known as scrubbers, is the most feasible and cost-effective option, there has been a great deal of uncertainty among firms, policymakers, and scientists as to how “green” these scrubbers are.

Through a novel lifecycle assessment, researchers from MIT, Georgia Tech, and elsewhere have now found that burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers in the open ocean can match or surpass using low-sulfur fuels, when a wide variety of environmental factors is considered.

The scientists combined data on the production and operation of scrubbers and fuels with emissions measurements taken onboard an oceangoing cargo ship.

They found that, when the entire supply chain is considered, burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers was the least harmful option in terms of nearly all 10 environmental impact factors they studied, such as greenhouse gas emissions, terrestrial acidification, and ozone formation.

“In our collaboration with Oldendorff Carriers to broadly explore reducing the environmental impact of shipping, this study of scrubbers turned out to be an unexpectedly deep and important transitional issue,” says Neil Gershenfeld, an MIT professor, director of the Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), and senior author of the study.

“Claims about environmental hazards and policies to mitigate them should be backed by science. You need to see the data, be objective, and design studies that take into account the full picture to be able to compare different options from an apples-to-apples perspective,” adds lead author Patricia Stathatou, an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, who began this study as a postdoc in the CBA.

Stathatou is joined on the paper by Michael Triantafyllou, the Henry L. and Grace Doherty and others at the National Technical University of Athens in Greece and the maritime shipping firm Oldendorff Carriers. The research appears today in Environmental Science and Technology.

Slashing sulfur emissions

Heavy fuel oil, traditionally burned by bulk carriers that make up about 30 percent of the global maritime fleet, usually has a sulfur content around 2 to 3 percent. This is far higher than the International Maritime Organization’s 2020 cap of 0.5 percent in most areas of the ocean and 0.1 percent in areas near population centers or environmentally sensitive regions.

Sulfur oxide emissions contribute to air pollution and acid rain, and can damage the human respiratory system.

In 2018, fewer than 1,000 vessels employed scrubbers. After the cap went into place, higher prices of low-sulfur fossil fuels and limited availability of alternative fuels led many firms to install scrubbers so they could keep burning heavy fuel oil.

Today, more than 5,800 vessels utilize scrubbers, the majority of which are wet, open-loop scrubbers.

“Scrubbers are a very mature technology. They have traditionally been used for decades in land-based applications like power plants to remove pollutants,” Stathatou says.

A wet, open-loop marine scrubber is a huge, metal, vertical tank installed in a ship’s exhaust stack, above the engines. Inside, seawater drawn from the ocean is sprayed through a series of nozzles downward to wash the hot exhaust gases as they exit the engines.

The seawater interacts with sulfur dioxide in the exhaust, converting it to sulfates — water-soluble, environmentally benign compounds that naturally occur in seawater. The washwater is released back into the ocean, while the cleaned exhaust escapes to the atmosphere with little to no sulfur dioxide emissions.

But the acidic washwater can contain other combustion byproducts like heavy metals, so scientists wondered if scrubbers were comparable, from a holistic environmental point of view, to burning low-sulfur fuels.

Several studies explored toxicity of washwater and fuel system pollution, but none painted a full picture.

The researchers set out to fill that scientific gap.

A “well-to-wake” analysis

The team conducted a lifecycle assessment using a global environmental database on production and transport of fossil fuels, such as heavy fuel oil, marine gas oil, and very-low sulfur fuel oil. Considering the entire lifecycle of each fuel is key, since producing low-sulfur fuel requires extra processing steps in the refinery, causing additional emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter.

“If we just look at everything that happens before the fuel is bunkered onboard the vessel, heavy fuel oil is significantly more low-impact, environmentally, than low-sulfur fuels,” she says.

The researchers also collaborated with a scrubber manufacturer to obtain detailed information on all materials, production processes, and transportation steps involved in marine scrubber fabrication and installation.

“If you consider that the scrubber has a lifetime of about 20 years, the environmental impacts of producing the scrubber over its lifetime are negligible compared to producing heavy fuel oil,” she adds.

For the final piece, Stathatou spent a week onboard a bulk carrier vessel in China to measure emissions and gather seawater and washwater samples. The ship burned heavy fuel oil with a scrubber and low-sulfur fuels under similar ocean conditions and engine settings.

Collecting these onboard data was the most challenging part of the study.

“All the safety gear, combined with the heat and the noise from the engines on a moving ship, was very overwhelming,” she says.

Their results showed that scrubbers reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 97 percent, putting heavy fuel oil on par with low-sulfur fuels according to that measure. The researchers saw similar trends for emissions of other pollutants like carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide.

In addition, they tested washwater samples for more than 60 chemical parameters, including nitrogen, phosphorus, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and 23 metals.

The concentrations of chemicals regulated by the IMO were far below the organization’s requirements. For unregulated chemicals, the researchers compared the concentrations to the strictest limits for industrial effluents from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European Union.

Most chemical concentrations were at least an order of magnitude below these requirements.

In addition, since washwater is diluted thousands of times as it is dispersed by a moving vessel, the concentrations of such chemicals would be even lower in the open ocean.

These findings suggest that the use of scrubbers with heavy fuel oil can be considered as equal to or more environmentally friendly than low-sulfur fuels across many of the impact categories the researchers studied.

“This study demonstrates the scientific complexity of the waste stream of scrubbers. Having finally conducted a multiyear, comprehensive, and peer-reviewed study, commonly held fears and assumptions are now put to rest,” says Scott Bergeron, managing director at Oldendorff Carriers and co-author of the study.

“This first-of-its-kind study on a well-to-wake basis provides very valuable input to ongoing discussion at the IMO,” adds Thomas Klenum, executive vice president of innovation and regulatory affairs at the Liberian Registry, emphasizing the need “for regulatory decisions to be made based on scientific studies providing factual data and conclusions.”

Ultimately, this study shows the importance of incorporating lifecycle assessments into future environmental impact reduction policies, Stathatou says.

“There is all this discussion about switching to alternative fuels in the future, but how green are these fuels? We must do our due diligence to compare them equally with existing solutions to see the costs and benefits,” she adds.

This study was supported, in part, by Oldendorff Carriers.

At a Congressional hearing earlier this week, Matt Blaze made the point that CALEA, the 1994 law that forces telecoms to make phone calls wiretappable, is outdated in today’s threat environment and should be rethought:

In other words, while the legally-mandated CALEA capability requirements have changed little over the last three decades, the infrastructure that must implement and protect it has changed radically. This has greatly expanded the “attack surface” that must be defended to prevent unauthorized wiretaps, especially at scale. The job of the illegal eavesdropper has gotten significantly easier, with many more options and opportunities for them to exploit. Compromising our telecommunications infrastructure is now little different from performing any other kind of computer intrusion or data breach, a well-known and endemic cybersecurity problem. To put it bluntly, something like Salt Typhoon was inevitable, and will likely happen again unless significant changes are made...

Agency officials said Monday that NOAA would continue to maintain the Joint Polar Satellite System. A March 28 memo had outlined steps to put that work on hold.

A major focus will be on keeping coal-fired electricity generators running past the dates of their scheduled retirements.

The agency hasn't released six of the 10 chapters that constitute the sprawling inventory of U.S. climate pollution sources.

One change aims to attract a new gas-fired power plant to the state, with conditions.

The Council on Foreign Relations launched an initiative to promote climate policy for a world that will surpass 2 degrees Celsius.

A report shows that California electric vehicle sales could drop if Republicans eliminate a tax credit, increasing pollution and the cost of pollution allowances.

Justice Department attorneys argued that a Supreme Court ruling last week supported their position in two other federal cases challenging halted grant funding.

Rather than deal with recovery risk themselves, insurers sell "subrogation claims" to alternative investment managers.

The U.S. canceled plans to contribute $1 billion in loans and $48 million in grants to the Just Energy Transition Partnership.

Heavy rains began last week, causing the key Ndjili River to overflow and submerge hundreds of buildings.

The project's largest site is home to critically endangered and endemic mammals, birds and turtles and to several Indigenous groups.

U.S. News and Word Report has again placed MIT’s graduate program in engineering at the top of its annual rankings, released today. The Institute has held the No. 1 spot since 1990, when the magazine first ranked such programs.

The MIT Sloan School of Management also placed highly, in rankings announced April 8. It occupies the No. 5 spot for the best graduate business programs.

Among individual engineering disciplines, MIT placed first in six areas: aerospace/aeronautical/astronautical engineering, chemical engineering, computer engineering (tied with the University of California at Berkeley), electrical/electronic/communications engineering (tied with Stanford University and Berkeley), materials engineering, and mechanical engineering. It placed second in nuclear engineering and third in biomedical engineering/bioengineering.

In the rankings of individual MBA specialties, MIT placed first in four areas: information systems, production/operations, project management, and supply chain/logistics. It placed second in business analytics and third in entrepreneurship.

U.S. News bases its rankings of graduate schools of engineering and business on two types of data: reputational surveys of deans and other academic officials, and statistical indicators that measure the quality of a school’s faculty, research, and students. The magazine’s less-frequent rankings of graduate programs in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities are based solely on reputational surveys. Among the peer-review disciplines ranked this year, MIT placed first in computer science, and its doctoral program in economics also placed first (tied with Harvard University, Stanford, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago).

Well into the late 19th century, the U.S. retail sector was overwhelmingly local, consisting of small, independent merchants throughout the country. That started changing after Sears and Roebuck’s famous catalog became popular, allowing the firm to grow, while a rival, Montgomery Ward, also expanded. By the 1930s, the U.S. had 130,000 chain stores, topped by Atlantic and Pacific supermarkets (the A&P), with over 15,000 stores.

A century onward, the U.S. retail landscape is dominated by retail giants. Today, 90 percent of Americans live within 10 miles of a Walmart, while five of the country’s 10 biggest employers — Walmart, Amazon, Home Depot, Kroger, and Target— are retailers. Two others in the top 10, UPS and FedEx, are a major part of the retail economy.

The ubiquity of these big retailers, and the sheer extent of the U.S. shopping economy as a whole, is unusual compared to the country’s European counterparts. Domestic consumption plays an outsized role in driving growth in the United States, and credit plays a much larger role in supporting that consumption than in Europe. The U.S. has five times as much retail space per capita as Japan and the U.K., and 10 times as much as Germany. Unlike in Europe, shopping hours are largely unregulated.

How did this happen? To be sure, Walmart, Amazon, Target, and other massive chains have plenty of business acumen. But the full story involves a century or more of political tectonics and legal debates, which helped shape the size of U.S. retailing and the prominence of its large discount chains. 

“The markets that we take as given, that we think of as the natural outcome of supply and demand, are heavily shaped by policy and by politics,” says MIT political scientist Kathleen Thelen.

Thelen examines the subject in a new book, “Attention, Shoppers! American Retail Capitalism and the Origins of the Amazon Economy,” published today by Princeton University Press. In it, she examines the growth of the particular model of supersized, low-cost, low-wage retailing that now features so prominently in the U.S. economy.

Prioritizing prices

While a great deal has been written about specific American companies, Thelen’s book has some distinctive features. One is a comparison to the economies of Europe, where she has focused much of her scholarship. Another is her historical lens, extending back to the start of chain retailing.

“It seems like every time I set out to explain something in the present, I’m thrown back to the 19th century,” Thelen says.

For instance, as both Sears and Montgomery Ward grew, producers and consumers were still experimenting with alternate commercial arrangements, like cooperatives, which pooled suppliers together, but they ultimately ran into economic and legal headwinds. Especially, at the time, legal headwinds.

“Antitrust laws in the United States were very forbearing toward big multidivisional corporations and very punitive toward alternative types of arrangements like cooperatives, so big retailers got a real boost in that period,” Thelen says. Separately, the U.S. Postal Service was also crucial, since big mail order houses like Sears relied on not just on its delivery services but also its money order system, to sell goods to the company’s many customers who lacked bank accounts.

Smaller retailers fought large chains during the Depression, especially in the South and the West, which forms another phase of the story. But low-cost discounters worked around some laws through regulatory arbitrage, finding friendlier regulations in some states — and sometimes though outright rule-breaking. Ultimately, larger retailers have thrived again in the last half century, especially as antitrust law increasingly prioritized consumer prices as its leading measuring stick.

Most antitrust theorizing since the 1960s “valorizes consumer welfare, which is basically defined as price, so anything that delivers the lowest price to consumers is A-OK,” Thelen says. “We’re in this world where the large, low-cost retailers are delivering consumer welfare in the way the courts are defining it.”

That emphasis on prices, she notes, then spills over into other areas of the economy, especially wages and labor relations.

“If you prioritize prices, one of the main ways to reduce prices is to reduce labor costs,” Thelen says. “It’s no coincidence that low-cost discounters are often low-wage employers. Indeed, they often squeeze their vendors to deliver goods at ever-lower prices, and by extension they’re pressing down on wages in their supplier networks as well.”

As Thelen’s book explains, legal views supporting large chains were also common during the first U.S. wave of chain-retail growth. She writes, “large, low-cost retailers have almost always enjoyed a privileged position in the American antitrust regime.”

In the “deep equilibrium”

“Attention, Shoppers!” makes clear that this tendency toward lower prices, lower employee pay, and high consumer convenience is particularly pronounced in the U.S., where 22.6 percent of employees count as low-wage workers (making two-thirds or less of the country’s median wage). In the other countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 13.9 percent of workers fit that description. About three-quarters of U.S. retail workers are in the low-wage category.

In other OECD countries, on aggregate, manufacturers and producers make up bigger chunks of the economy and, correspondingly, often have legal frameworks more friendly to manufacturers and to labor. But in the U.S., large retailers have gained more leverage, if anything, in the last half-century, Thelen notes.

“You might think mass retailers and manufacturers would have a symbiotic relationship, but historically there has been great tension between them, especially on price,” Thelen says. “In the postwar period, the balance of power became tilted toward retailers, and away from manufacturers and labor. Retailers also had consumers on their side, and had more power over data to dictate the terms on which their vendors would supply goods to them.”

Currently, as Thelen writes in the book, the U.S. is in a “deep equilibrium” on this front, in that many low-wage workers now rely on these low-cost retailers to make ends meet — and because Americans as a whole now find it normal to have their purchases delivered at lightning speed. Things might be different, Thelen suggests, if there are changes to U.S. antitrust enforcement, or, especially, major reforms to labor law, such as allowing workers to organize for higher wages across companies, not just at individual stores. Short of that, the equilibrium is likely to hold.

“Attention, Shoppers!” has received praise from other scholars. Louis Hyman, a historian at Johns Hopkins University, has called it a “pathbreaking study that provides insight into not only the past but also the future of online retail.”

For her part, Thelen hopes readers will learn more about an economic landscape we might take for granted, even while we shop at big chains, around us and online.

“The triumph of these types of retailers was not inevitable,” Thelen says. “It was a function of politics and political choice.”

The Homeland Security secretary outlined "workforce transition programs" in an email Monday evening.