Is it the Department of Defense or the Department of War? The Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of America? A vaccine—or an “individualized neoantigen treatment”?

That’s the Trump-era vocabulary paradox facing Moderna, the covid-19 shot maker whose plans for next-generation mRNA vaccines against flus and emerging pathogens have been dashed by vaccine skeptics in the federal government. Canceled contracts and unfriendly regulators have pushed the Massachusetts-based biotech firm to a breaking point. Last year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., head of the Department of Health and Human Services, zeroed in on mRNA, unwinding support for dozens of projects—including a $776 million award to Moderna for a bird flu vaccine. By January, the company was warning it might have to stop late-stage programs to develop vaccines against infections altogether.

That raises the stakes for a second area of Moderna’s research. In a partnership with Merck, it’s been using its mRNA technology to destroy tumors through a very, very promising technique known as a cancer vacc—

“It’s not a vaccine,” a spokesperson for Merck jumped in before the V-word could leave my mouth. “It’s an individualized neoantigen therapy.”

Oh, but it is a vaccine. And here’s how it works. Moderna sequences a patient’s cancer cells to find the ugliest, most peculiar molecules on their surface. Then it packages the genetic code for those same molecules, called neoantigens, into a shot. The patient’s immune system has its orders: Kill any cells with those yucky surface markers.

Mechanistically, it’s similar to the covid-19 vaccines. What’s different, of course, is that the patient is being immunized against a cancer, not a virus.

And it looks like a possible breakthrough. This year, Moderna and Merck showed that such shots halved the chance that patients with the deadliest form of skin cancer would die from a recurrence after surgery.

In its formal communications, like regulatory filings, Moderna hasn’t called the shot a cancer vaccine since 2023. That’s when it partnered up with Merck and rebranded the tech as individualized neoantigen therapy, or INT. Moderna’s CEO said at the time that the renaming was to “better describe the goal of the program.” (BioNTech, the European vaccine maker that’s also working in cancer, has shifted its language too, moving from “neoantigen vaccine” in 2021 to “mRNA cancer immunotherapies” in its latest report.)

The logic of casting it as a therapy is that patients already have cancer—so it’s a treatment as opposed to a preventive measure. But it’s no secret what the other goal is: to distance important innovation from vaccine fearmongering, which has been inflamed by high-ranking US officials. “Vaccines are maybe a dirty word nowadays, but we still believe in the science and harnessing our immune system to not only fight infections, but hopefully to also fight … cancers,” Kyle Holen, head of Moderna’s cancer program, said last summer during BIO 2025, a big biotech event in Boston.

Not everyone is happy with the word games. Take Ryan Sullivan, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital who has enrolled patients in Moderna’s trials. He says the change raises questions over whether trial volunteers are being properly informed. “There is some concern that there will be patients who decline to treat their cancer because it is a vaccine,” Sullivan told me. “But I also felt it was important, as many of my colleagues did, that you have to call it what it is.”

But is it worth going to the mat for a word? Lillian Siu, a medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, in Toronto, who has played a role in safety testing for the new shots, watches US politics from a distance. She believes name change is acceptable “if it allows the research to continue.”

Holen told me the doctors complaining to Moderna were basically motivated by a desire to defend vaccines—which are, of course, among the greatest public health interventions of all time. They wanted the company to stand strong. 

But that’s not what’s happening. When Moderna’s latest results were published in February, the paper’s main text didn’t use the word “vaccine” at all. It was only in the footnotes that you could see the term—in the titles of old papers and patents.

All this could be a sign that Kennedy’s strategy is working. His agencies often appear to make mRNA vaccines a focus of people’s worries, impede their reach, devalue them for companies, and sideline their defenders. 

Still, Moderna’s strategy may be working too. So far, at least, the government hasn’t had much to say about the company’s cancer vacc— I mean, its individualized neoantigen therapy.

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.

I.

We had crash-landed on the planet. We were far from home. The spaceship could not be repaired, and the rescue beacon had failed. Besides me, only the astrogator, part of the captain, and the ship’s AI mind were left. 

Outside, the atmosphere registered as hostile to most organisms. We huddled in the lifeboat, which was inoperable but still held air. Vast storms buffeted our cockleshell shelter, although we knew from prior readings that other areas remained calm. All that remained to us was to explore, if we wanted to live. The captain gave me the sole weapon. She tasked the astrogator with carrying some tools that would not unduly weigh him down.

Little existed on the planet except deserts of snow. But alien artifacts lay in an area near us. We were an exploration team, so this discovery had oddly comforted us, even though we had been on our way elsewhere. The massive systems failure had no discernible source, and the planet had been our only choice for landfall.

The artifacts took the form of 13 domes, spread out over that hostile terrain. The domes had been linked by cables just below shoulder level, threaded through the tops of metal posts at irregular intervals. Whether intended or not, these cables and rods formed a series of paths between the domes. 

Before our instruments failed, the AI had reported that the domes appeared to have a heat signature. The cables pulsed under our grip in a way that teased promised warmth far ahead. It took some time to get used to the feeling.

The shortest path between domes was a thousand miles long. The longest path was 10 thousand miles long. Our suit technology was good: A suit could recycle water, generate food, create oxygen. It could push us into various states of near hibernation while motors in the legs drove us forward. For the captain, the suit would compensate for having lost her legs and ease her pain. We estimated we could reach the nearest path and follow it to the nearest dome … and that was it. If the dome had life support capabilities, or even just a way to replenish our suits, we would live. Otherwise, we would probably die.

We revised the estimate of our survival downward when we reached the path and soon encountered the skeletons of dead astronauts littering the way. In all shapes and sizes, cocooned within their suits. Their huddled forms under the snow displayed a serenity at odds with their fate. But when I wiped the frost from face plates, we saw the extremity of their suffering.

It is difficult to explain how we felt walking among so many fatalities. So many dead first contacts. 

We no longer had to puzzle over the systems failure. Spaceships came here to crash, and intelligent entities came here to die, for whatever reason. We could not presume our fate would be any different, and adjusted our expectations accordingly. The AI’s platitudes about courage did not raise morale. There were too many lost there in the frozen wastes. 

Here were the ghastly emissaries of hundreds of spacefaring species we had never before encountered.

The number of the bodies and their haphazard positioning hampered our ability to make progress to the dome. The AI estimated our chances of survival at below 50% for the first time. We would starve in our suits as the motors propelled us forward. We would become desiccated and exist in an elongation of our thoughts that made us weak and stupid until the light winked out. But still, we had no choice. So even in places where the dead in their suits were piled high, we would simply plunge forward, over and through them, headed for the dome. 

What we would find there, as I have said, we did not know. But we were in an area of the galaxy where ancient civilizations had died out millions of years ago. We had been on our way to a major site, an ancient city on a moon with no atmosphere in a wilderness of stars. 

Although our emotions fluctuated, a professional awe and curiosity about the dead eventually came over us. This created much debate over the comms. We had made a discovery for the ages, but our satisfaction was bittersweet. Even if we lived longer than expected, we would never return home, never see our friends or family again. The AI might continue on after we were dead, but I doubt it envied being the one to report on our discovery centuries hence. And to who?

Here were the ghastly emissaries of hundreds of spacefaring species we had never before encountered. Their suits displayed an extraordinary range, although our examination was cursory. Some even appeared to be made out of scales and other biological substances from their home worlds, giving us further clues as to their origins. 

The burial of the suits by snow and the lack of access to anything other than a screaming face or faces, often distorted by time and ice, worked against recording much usable data. This issue was compounded in those cases where the suit was part of the organism and they had not needed any “artificial skin,” as the AI put it, to survive harsh conditions. That many had died despite appearing well-­prepared for the planet’s environment sobered us up even before our own suits dispensed drugs to help our mental states. 

After a time, each face seemed to express some aspect of our own stress and terror at the seriousness of our situation. After a time, the sheer welter of detail defeated us and caused us extreme distress. The captain made the observation that even one instance of alien contact might cause physiological and mental conditions, including anxiety, stress, fatigue. Here, we were constantly encountering the alien dead of what seemed at times an infinite number of civilizations. 

We stopped recording. We recommitted ourselves to the slog toward the nearest dome. 

The captain’s drugs unit had failed, but the AI found a way to help her by turning off the heating element in select panels of her suit. Some parts of her would soon be lost to the cold, but the system would allow her to live on with some measure of comfort.

I must admit, we were just glad the screaming had stopped and welcomed her counsel.

II.

For a long time, as we labored in our spacesuits on that planet—following the path, beleaguered by snowstorms—we could not understand why we found so many dead astronauts, of so many unknown alien types, and yet no spaceships. During good visibility, our line of sight reached, unbroken, for 500 miles. Where were the crash sites? 

But one day we chanced upon an antenna sticking up out of the ground. Clumsy attempts at excavation soon revealed that below this antenna lay a vast dead spaceship of a kind we had never seen before. The gash that had opened it to the elements had laid bare its unique architecture, but also gave the illusion that the snow had spilled out of it to create the world around us rather than having infiltrated and accumulated inside over time.

Aspects of the spaceship’s texture gave the startling suggestion that it had been made of some ultra-hard wood or wood equivalent. Clambering partway up to stare at the inner compartments, we all felt the strangeness of the dimensions and proportions of the living quarters. There was no sign of the occupants. Perhaps, I suggested, they had headed for the domes. Perhaps they had even made it to the domes. I tried and failed to keep hope from my voice.

But the captain had ordered the AI to perform a materials analysis. The “snow” in this region had been contaminated by ash and tiny particles of bone. The AI estimated that more than 70% of the white surrounding us was made of the remains of vertebrate sentient life and the remnants of suits. Of invertebrates there was no telling. A thaw might bring not just the drip, drip of water but a shushing sound indicative of bone particulate in the mixture. I imagined there might even be the clink of small objects not rendered down by whatever intense heat had created the ash.

The astrogator had insisted on digging deeper into the ship, with the idea that some recognizable commonality between technologies might yield a part or parts with which he could fix our ship. The rest of us allowed this delusion for the obvious reasons. But upon his return, he held in his hands ovals of snow not much larger than the space formed by the circle between a thumb and finger. Many of them had soft indentations, as one might find in the afterbirth of reptiles from eggs. A kind of ghostly cilia-like tread appeared along the bottoms of these objects.

The astrogator did not find any technology of use to us. Instead, he discovered that the species piloting the spaceship had been so different from us as to be safely encapsuled in suits the size of eggs. Much of what had spilled into or spilled out of the gash constituted the bodies of the crew, in their hundreds of thousands. Their suits had been inadequate to the conditions. They had died en masse attempting to escape their own ship.

The AI speculated that it had been a generation ship, perhaps fleeing a planet with a dying star. If we wondered how the AI had reached this conclusion, it was because we did not want it to be true.

The captain became silent upon receiving this further news and did not speak to us for more than 100 miles of further progress. 

As we left that site, unsure exactly what we stepped upon, we also knew that since the spaceship was entirely covered by snow, it had been falling into the sediment for days or months or years. We knew then that our ship might not be visible against the horizon should we retrace our steps. The already bleak probability of rescue through visual identification of a crash site from above would be lost to us in time, even as the line of cables remained perpetually visible to the horizon. We now thought of the planet as a trap. But of what sort? 

III.

We could not be sure, but in the absence of the captain’s voice, it may have been the AI that put forward the idea of the planet’s being “duplicitous.” The phrasing concerned us, for there was a duplicity in using the planet as the subject of the spoken sentence. A sphere rotating around a sun in deep space could not exhibit forethought or premeditation or other qualities of sentience. 

The AI meant whoever or whatever had created the conditions on the planet that allowed spacecraft to be trapped and then the occupants placed in a perilous situation with no recourse. But I distinctly recall the AI using the words “the planet.” In addition to being inaccurate, this also let us know that the AI did not have any analysis available that might help us understand the agency and motivations acting upon us. 

But in a sense, the AI only voiced something I had felt for several miles: that there existed an overlay to the planet’s surface, an area or space or different landscape unavailable to us. This overlay had also not been available to any of the prior astronauts who had died here. In this area or space or different landscape existed a wealth of the usual hoped-for things: a breathable atmosphere and abundant food and water. 

While we struggled with the line through the snow and through the storms that welled up, others could see us but chose to ignore us for reasons or perhaps just for their own well-being. For hundreds, possibly thousands of years, as explorers had died here in merciless and terrible ways, there raged a sumptuous feast for the senses, as excessive as it was ancient and unending.

I cannot tell you how powerfully the AI’s words struck us, so that our mouths watered at the thought of real food and of clean, unrecycled water, of a freedom unencumbered by suits and breathing apparatus. Even at our intended destination, we would have spent most of our days aboard a small space station. This tedium would have been broken only by the arduous process of reaching the unbreathable surface and its ancient ruins of jagged black stone. 

This vision that overtook us functioned not just as tantalizing delusion. It scared us so much that we could not compartmentalize it in our thoughts. It continued to overwhelm us like a wave.

We fought for the first time, with the astrogator expressing the wish to return to the ruined spacecraft and explore nearby areas for parts, while the captain broke silence to order us to continue to make progress toward the nearest dome. The AI, which had brought us to this point, stole the captain’s silence and said no more.

For each of us, those endless white plains with no real elevation, just the metal rope and the metal posts, had become a kind of repetition that hurt the brain, and the mind with it.

IV.

About halfway to the nearest dome, amid a storm that reduced our progress incrementally and our line of sight to nothing, we came upon a peculiar tableau. 

Six astronaut suits had fallen across and around the metal rope. With the flurries of snow, it took us, even with our powerful headlamps, some minutes to determine the nature of the obstruction. The six suits had been created for a humanoid species that must have had torsos like nine-foot-long slabs, attached to six limbs, three for walking. Their heads had flared out like thick fans. All the helmets were cracked open, and curled inside were the skeletons of some other intelligent species no larger than 40 or 50 pounds, possibly warm-blooded. With no sign of the original occupants. 

After a brief analysis cut short by the conditions, we postulated that the warm-blooded species had worn breathable skin suits that, as they failed, required these intruders to seek shelter. All they could find were these six dead astronauts. Because we could discover no trace of the original occupants, the AI put forward the theory that this smaller species had eaten every scrap of the remains within the suits. 

Then they too had perished, and in time, the AI suggested, something smaller would take up residence inside those bodies, then smaller still within those, and smaller still—

At this point, the captain attempted a soft reboot of the AI using a coded question. We could hear the concern in her voice.

Yet the AI continued undeterred, suggesting that we might find this to be a common situation. It might be replicated across the planet, depending on a system’s ability to break down and process meat that had not evolved alongside the devourer for millions of years. In all likelihood, most who attempted to eat in this way died soon after, poisoned by alien flesh.

V.

The AI began to talk to us in strange alien voices at mile 700, as we labored through the snowstorm to hold onto the cables and thus the path. The AI warbled and chirped and howled and hummed and clucked. The AI spoke in voices like fossilized choruses of beasts, vast and harmonious. And in voices like dry grass spun to fire by the sun. And in voices like the dissolution of all things, darkness in the blinding white that scared me. 

At first we thought the AI was deranged. Then that the AI channeled voices from the dome 300 miles ahead. But finally, the AI managed to make known to us that these were the voices of the dead astronauts we had come across from time to time. Huddled frozen. The suits in so many shapes and sizes. That the voices of the dead were channeled through the AI, and nothing could stop them.

VI.

The snow began to betray us, as the storms created different forms of ice. Often, our arms became weary, our legs cramping, and we had to rest with greater frequency. We came to accept the solid crunch that could support our weight. We came to reject the feather-light freshness that felt effortless underfoot but could give way just as easily as if it were air. In some places, slick purple-hued ice welled up in sluggish layers as if something half-alive. In others, we discovered strange islands of elevation, with brutal curls and curves that suggested two continental shelves had clashed in that space.

As we adapted to these conditions, and as conditions worsened and still we adapted, we came to feel an illusion of competency, one that made even the astrogator temporarily cheerful. The sounds through the comms of our efforts, the deeper breathing, the occasional muffled curse, seduced us in this regard. We felt that we were becoming adroit at handling the snow. We began to believe if we could only make it to the dome, we would be saved.

Yet this uptick in morale ran parallel to, rather than intersected with, the idea of our ultimate survival.

VII.

We lost track of the distance left to us without the AI to tell us. Or the captain, in her pain, no longer thought to issue updates. But across the distance left to us came sights beyond reckoning: three giant astronauts spaced 50 miles apart. Larger than most starships, each body lay sprawled across an area larger than several fields and in very different conditions.

The first had been badly burned and was thus unrecoverable, even in terms of salvage. The astronaut had crawled or pulled itself along for some distance. It had left a long smudge of black and red across that expanse. The alien species was, as ever, unknown to us, but the five arms were sunk in the ground as if in agony. The skull had once held three eyes, and the face plate had been cracked by force so strong it resembled a meteor strike. The body was bloated, the fabric of the suit gray with a shimmer of green that came and went, linked to photosensitive skin cells. The way the flesh took up space, and how it exhibited aspects more plant than animal, made it impossible to study further.

The second was a sprawl of limbs, with the suggestion of a defensive posture. The debris of conflict flared out to the side in an incomprehensible display. The suit had an intactness that surprised us, but a similar crack in the face plate without any trace of body within. The rest of the suit had become inhabited by a wealth of other dead astronauts of varying sizes and shapes, who had sought shelter or sustenance and then become trapped or simply … given up. As the AI had predicted, we had once again encountered bodies providing other bodies with temporary sustenance and shelter.

I felt like a parasite who beheld a god. Or was the scale even more ludicrous?

But this condition was not at first evident to us, becoming apparent only after we had clambered for an hour to reach the cracked face plate and the entry hole extended like a broken archway before us.

Despite the number of remains within, and the difficulty in moving through them to explore, the captain ordered an exhaustive recon. Her pulse in the readings had a thready quality. Sometimes I felt, and the astrogator too when we took private comms, that the captain had begun to say things similar to the AI’s delusions. Yet we obeyed the order, on the chance that some internal calculation on the captain’s part meant she believed this was the only way we would survive. 

What did we expect to find in the dead body of a once-­intelligent giant? Food? Oxygen? Some cause of death? To put off the thought of our own death by seeking shelter with a death so large we could not comprehend it?

I felt like a parasite who beheld a god. Or was the scale even more ludicrous? I had trouble envisioning the way the body must have twisted as it pitched forward into that icy ground. I had trouble holding onto my own thoughts.

More and more pressure moved through my skull as I contemplated that scene. We were in the midst of something none of my kind had ever known. We might be the only ones, ever. I better understood the unraveling of the AI and of the captain. My sharpness had dulled, taking my calm with it.

It was impossible to tell how long the astronaut had taken to die. Unless somewhere within that fallen figure some hint of life hid that we would never find.

The storms fell away, rose, then fell away again. 

VIII.

The third huge astronaut was full of light and life and shone out across the wasteland of snow like a beacon. For a moment, I thought we had pierced the invisible layer and could see what lay beyond the veil. We would have comforts beyond anything found on our ruined spaceship even when it had been fit to cross galactic space. There would not be recycled urine for our water. There would not be the faint stink of sweat creeping into our suits as the ventilation system began to fail. Our liquid food would not taste stale and moldy. 

As we approached, the suit extended almost to the horizon in that foreshortened perspective created by the left foot. We noted through our remaining instrumentation that the suit remained intact. The pressure told us a kind of air circulated within its sealed surfaces. 

We climbed with a renewed energy, the promise of sanctuary so close making us giddy. We each exhorted the others on with such exuberance that it made me a little afraid. What lay on the other side of this state of mind but a fall?

When we reached the helmet plate, we could see inside not a face or a skull, but instead such a richness of healthy growth that we fell silent before it. None of us could, I believe, understand exactly what we saw, except that it equaled ecosystem—resplendent with vibrant greens and blues, stippled with other colors. There might be some parallel to a terrarium full of moss and exotic plants. There might be some sense of life moving amongst those plants, as of jewel-like amphibians or even tiny shy sapphire birds. We could not smell or taste or hear what lay behind the face plate. We could not experience it in that way, but somehow we each imagined enough to be calmed and comforted by it. 

The astrogator said he might be able to create a hole in the plate or elsewhere on the body to let us in, and then patch the surface such that not too much air or vitality would spill out. This workaround might take an hour or two, due to the delicate nature of what we saw within. But it was possible.

The captain considered the astrogator’s proposal and then agreed. The weather had begun to turn dangerous again. That we should begin immediately did not need to be said. With the proper pressure brought to bear, we would have some measure of sanctuary from which to recover for a final push to the dome. It could be the difference between life and death, the astrogator said. If the atmosphere was breathable, we might even be able to give the captain some better solution to her pain.

I unclipped the astrogator’s equipment from his waist and threw it off the mountain that was the astronaut and watched it sail through the air and into the snow. Then I used my weapon to fry it where it lay. Then I threw my weapon into the snow, too, in a place where the featheriness would cover it and hide it forever. 

We were a team and I had helped my team while showing them I posed no threat—although I knew the astrogator and the captain would not see it that way. I stood there on the face plate that we could no longer open with the diminished tools at our disposal as they both yelled at me through the comms. It’s unimportant what they said to me. They were admonishing me for something that had already happened and that they had no power to stop. I did not bother to explain, but began to make the descent to the ground so we could once again take up the metal rope and make for the dome.

That in that frozen hellscape, the persistence of life in that manner, an oasis in the midst of nothing, could be categorized as a miracle.

ROGAN BROWN

This reply incensed him and he castigated me in words not used among members of a team that respect each other. Once more, I ignored him, but told him if our oxygen got low, he could have mine if we calculated he could make it to the base. I meant this, as I knew the odds were low anyway. I had hurt my knee taking the equipment from the astrogator and then making my way so rapidly down from the dead astronaut.

The astrogator did not reply, by which I knew he did not accept my answer.

The reason I took the tools and destroyed them is because the wind had told me something it had not whispered to the captain or the astrogator. The wind had not spoken to me before, so I believed what it told me. That the astronaut within the suit lived on, if unable to move. That what we saw on the outside and registered as ecosystem, as separate “plants” and “animals,” instead formed a composite life-form and that to crack open the suit or cut through the suit at a leg would have been a violation.

That in that frozen hellscape, the persistence of life in that manner, an oasis in the midst of nothing, could be categorized as a miracle. 

I would not snuff that out. I could not allow that to be snuffed out. But I remembered too how I felt looking at that vast and alien country behind the face plate. So calm, so comforted, overcome by the depths of an emotion I could not place. Would I replace that feeling with the feeling of seeing all those explorers dead within the other vast suit? Even as I become one of them? 

Because the planet had already told us the rules, the consequences, and the ultimate outcome. There are no odds so terrible that they could not be experienced, and in dozens of ways, in this place. 

So I trudged on and the astrogator cursed me and cursed me and called out my childhood and how badly I must have been brought up and how I must have cheated to pass the psych exams, and yet I had thought the same of him at various points during our journey.

See how beautiful the snow is, falling now, I said to him over the comms. See how precise and geometric this line we follow across this expanse. 

He did not reply, but a little later he told me he no longer believed in the line at all, and by his calculations he would get to the dome faster if he abandoned it and struck out on his own.

I could not stop the astrogator and did not want to, so I watched him become a smaller and smaller figure against the white until the white ate him up and I was alone.

X.

I have been walking a long time, visiting with the dead. Here, against an arch of heaven that appears no different than what I see directly in front of me. 

Jeff VanderMeer is the author of the critically acclaimed, bestselling Southern Reach series, translated into 38 languages. His short fiction has appeared in Vulture, Slate, New York Magazine, Black Clock, Interzone, American Fantastic Tales (Library of America), and many others.

A rare warm spell in January melted enough snow to uncover Cornell University’s newest athletic field, built for field hockey. Months before, it was a meadow teeming with birds and bugs; now it’s more than an acre of synthetic turf roughly the color of the felt on a pool table, almost digital in its saturation. The day I walked up the hill from a nearby creek to take a look, the metal fence around the field was locked, but someone had left a hallway-size piece of the new simulated grass outside the perimeter. It was bristly and tough, but springy and squeaky under my booted feet. I could imagine running around on it, but it would definitely take some getting used to.

My companion on this walk seemed even less favorably disposed to the thought. Yayoi Koizumi, a local environmental advocate, has been fighting synthetic-turf projects at Cornell since 2023. A petite woman dressed that day in a faded plum coat over a teal vest, with a scarf the colors of salmon, slate, and sunflowers, Koizumi compulsively picked up plastic trash as we walked: a red Solo cup, a polyethylene Dunkin’ container, a five-foot vinyl panel. She couldn’t bear to leave this stuff behind to fragment into microplastic bits—as she believes the new field will. “They’ve covered the living ground in plastic,” she said. “It’s really maddening.” 

The new pitch is one part of a $70 million plan to build more recreational space at the university. As of this spring, Cornell plans to install something like a quarter million square feet of synthetic grass—what people have colloquially called “astroturf” since the middle of the last century. University PR says it will be an important part of a “health-promoting campus” that is “supportive of holistic individual, social, and ecological well-being.” Koizumi runs an anti-plastic environmental group called Zero Waste Ithaca, which says that’s mostly nonsense.

This fight is more than just the usual town-versus-gown tension. Synthetic turf used to be the stuff of professional sports arenas and maybe a suburban yard or two; today communities across the United States are debating whether to lay it down on playgrounds, parks, and dog runs. Proponents say it’s cheaper and hardier than grass, requiring less water, fertilizer, and maintenance—and that it offers a uniform surface for more hours and more days of the year than grass fields, a competitive advantage for athletes and schools hoping for a more robust athletic program.

But while new generations of synthetic turf look and feel better than that mid-century stuff, it’s still just plastic. Some evidence suggests it sheds bits that endanger users and the environment, and that it contains PFAS “forever chemicals”—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are linked to a host of health issues. The padding within the plastic grass is usually made from shredded tires, which might also pose health risks. And plastic fields need to be replaced about once a decade, creating lots of waste.

Yet people are buying a lot of the stuff. In 2001, Americans installed just over 7 million square meters of synthetic turf, just shy of 11,000 metric tons. By 2024, that number was 79 million square meters—enough to carpet all of Manhattan and then some, almost 120,000 metric tons. Synthetic turf covers 20,000 athletic fields and tens of thousands of parks, playgrounds, and backyards. And the US is just 20% of the global market. 

Where real estate is limited and demand for athletic facilities is high, artificial turf is tempting. “It all comes down to land and demand.”

Frank Rossi, professor of turf science, Cornell

Those increases worry folks who study microplastics and environmental pollution. Any actual risk is hard to parse; the plastic-making industry insists that synthetic fields are safe if properly installed, but lots of researchers think that isn’t so. “They’re very expensive, they contain toxic chemicals, and they put kids at unnecessary risk,” says Philip Landrigan, a Boston College epidemiologist who has studied environmental toxins like lead and microplastics.

But at Cornell, where real estate is limited and demand for athletic facilities is high, synthetic turf was a tempting option. As Frank Rossi, a professor of turf science at Cornell, told me: “It all comes down to land and demand.”

In 1965, Houston’s new, domed base­ball stadium was an icon of space-age design. But the Astrodome had a problem: the sun. Deep in the heart of Texas, it shined brightly through the Astrodome’s skylights—so much so that players kept missing fly balls. So the club painted over the skylights. Denied sunlight, the grass in the outfield withered and died.

A replacement was already in the works. In the late 1950s a Ford Foundation–funded educational laboratory determined that a soft, grasslike surface material would give city kids more places to play outside and had prevailed upon the Monsanto corporation to invent one. The result was clipped blades of nylon stuck to a rubber base, which the company called ChemGrass. Down it went into Houston’s outfield, where it got a new, buzzier name: AstroTurf.

AP PHOTO/ED KOLENOVSKY, FILE

That first generation of simulated lawn was brittle and hard, but quality has improved. Today, there are a few competing products, but they’re all made by extruding a petroleum-based polymer—that’s plastic—through tiny holes and then stitching or fusing the resulting fibers to a carpetlike bottom. That gets attached to some kind of padding, also plastic. In the 1970s the industry started layering that over infill, usually sand; by the 1990s, “third generation” synthetic turf had switched to softer fibers made of polyethylene. Beneath that, they added infill that combined sand and a soft, cheap shredded rubber made from discarded automobile tires, which pile up by the hundreds of millions every year. This “crumb rubber” provides padding and fills spaces between the blades and the backing.

In the early 1980s, nearly half the professional baseball and football fields in the US had synthetic turf. But many players didn’t like it. It got hotter than real grass, gave the ball different action, and seemed to be increasing the rate of injuries among athletes. Since the 1990s, most pro sports have shifted back toward grass—water and maintenance costs pale in comparison to the importance of keeping players happy or sparing them the risk of injury. 

But at the same time, more universities and high schools are buying the artificial stuff. The advantages are clear, especially in places where it rains either too much or not enough. A natural-grass field is usable for a little more than 800 hours a year at the most, spread across just eight months in the cooler, wetter northern US. An artificial-turf field can see 3,000 hours of activity per year. For sports like lacrosse, which begins in late winter, this makes artificial turf more appealing. Most lacrosse pitches are now synthetic. So are almost all field hockey pitches; players like the way the even, springy turf makes the ball bounce.

Furthermore, supporters say synthetic turf needs less maintenance than grass, saving money and resources. That’s not always true; workers still have to decompact the playing surface and hose it off to remove bird poop or cool it down. Sometimes the infill needs topping up. But real grass allows less playing time, and because grass athletic fields often need to be rotated to avoid damage, synthetic ground cover can require less space. Hence the market’s explosive growth in the 21st century.

The city and town of Ithaca—two separate political entities with overlapping jurisdiction over Cornell construction projects—held multiple public meetings about the university’s new synthetic fields: the field hockey pitch and a complex called the Meinig Fieldhouse. Koizumi’s group turned up in force, and a few folks who worked at Cornell came to oppose the idea too—submitting pages of citations and studies on the risks of synthetic grass.

At two of those meetings, dozens of Cornell athletes turned out to support the turf. Representatives of the university and the athletic department declined to speak with me for this story, citing an ongoing lawsuit from Zero Waste Ithaca. But before that, Nicki Moore, Cornell’s director of athletics, told a local newspaper that demand from campus groups and sports teams meant the fields were constantly overcrowded. “Activities get bumped later and later, and sometimes varsity teams won’t start practicing until 10 at night, you know?” Moore told the paper. “Availability of all-weather space should normalize scheduling a great deal.”

That argument wasn’t universally convincing. “It’s a bad idea, but that’s from the environmental perspective,” says Marianne Krasny, director of Cornell’s Civic Ecology Lab and one of the speakers at those hearings. “Obviously the athletic department thinks it’s a great idea.”

GETTY IMAGES

Members of Cornell on Fire, a climate action group with members from both the university and the town, joined in opposing the use of artificial turf, citing the fossil-fuel origins of the stuff. They described the nominal support of the project from student athletes as inauthentic, representing not grassroots support but, yes, an astroturf campaign. 

Sorting out the actual science here isn’t simple. Over time, the plastic that synthetic turf is made of sheds bits of itself into the environment. In one study, published in 2023 in the journal Environmental Pollution, researchers found that 15% of the medium-­size and microplastic particles in a river and the Mediterranean Sea outside Barcelona, Spain, came from artificial turf, mostly in the form of tiny green fibers. Back in 2020, the European Chemicals Agency estimated that infill material from artificial-­turf fields in the European Union was contributing 16,000 metric tons of microplastics to the environment each year—38% of all annual microplastic pollution. Most of that came from the crumb rubber infill, which Europe now plans to ban by 2031. 

This pollution worries the Cornell activists. Ithaca is famous for scenic gorges and waterways. The new field hockey pitch is uphill from a local creek that empties into Cayuga Lake, the longest of the Finger Lakes and the source of drinking water for over 40,000 people.

And it’s not just the plastic bits. When newer generations of synthetic turf switched to durable high-density polyethylene, the new material gunked up the extruders used in the manufacturing process. So turf makers started adding fluorinated polymers—a type of PFAS. Some of these environmentally persistent “forever chemicals” cause cancer, disrupt the endocrine system, or lead to other health problems. Research in several different labs has found PFAS in many types of plastic grass.

But the key to assessing the threat here is exposure. Heather Whitehead, an analytical chemist then at the University of Notre Dame, found PFAS in synthetic turf at levels around five parts per billion—but estimated it’d be in water running off the fields at three parts per trillion; for context, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s legal drinking-water limit on one of the most widespread and dangerous PFAS chemicals is four parts per trillion. “These chemicals will wash off in small amounts for long periods of time,” says Graham Peaslee, Whitehead’s advisor and an emeritus nuclear physicist who studies PFAS concentrations. “I think it’s reason enough not to have artificial turf.”

This gets confusing, though. There are over 16,000 different types of PFAS, few have been well studied, and different ­companies use different manufacturing techniques. Companies represented by the Synthetic Turf Council now “use zero intentionally added PFAS,” says Melanie Taylor, the group’s president. “This means that as the field rolls off the assembly line, there are zero PFAS-formulated materials present.”

Some researchers are skeptical of the industry’s assurances. They’re hard to confirm, especially because there are a lot of ways to test for PFAS. The type of synthetic turf going onto the new field hockey pitch at Cornell is called GreenFields TX; the university had a sample tested using an EPA method that looks for 40 different PFAS compounds. It came back negative for all of them. The local activists countered that the test doesn’t detect the specific types they’re most concerned about, and in 2025 they paid for three more tests on newly purchased synthetic turf. Two clearly found fluorine—the F in “PFAS”—and one identified two distinct PFAS compounds. (The company that makes GreenFields TX, TenCate, declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.)

PFAS isn’t the only potential problem. There’s also the crumb rubber made from tires. A billion tires get thrown out every year worldwide, and if they aren’t recycled they sit in giant piles that make great habitats for rats and mosquitoes; they also occasionally catch fire. Lots of the tires that go into turf are made of styrene-­butadiene rubber, or SBR. In bulk, that’s bad. Butadiene is a carcinogen that causes leukemia, and fumes from styrene can cause nervous system damage. SBR also contains high levels of lead.

But how much of that comes out of synthetic-­turf infill? Again, that’s hotly debated. Researchers around the world have published suggestive studies finding potentially dangerous levels of heavy metals like zinc and lead in synthetic turf, with possible health risks to people using the fields. But a review of many of the relevant studies on turf and crumb rubber from Canada’s National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health determined that most well-conducted health risk assessments over the last decade found exposures below levels of concern for cancer and certain other diseases. A 2017 report by the European Chemicals Agency—the same people who found all those microplastics in the environment—“found no reason to advise people against playing sports on synthetic turf containing recycled rubber granules as infill material.” And a multiyear study from the EPA, published in 2024, found much the same thing—although the researchers said that levels of certain synthetic chemicals were elevated inside places that used indoor artificial turf. They also stressed that the paper was not a risk assessment. 

The problem is, the kinds of cancers these chemicals can cause may take decades to show up. Long-term studies haven’t been done yet. All the evidence available so far is anecdotal—like a series for the Philadelphia Inquirer that linked the deaths of six former Phillies players from a rare type of brain cancer called glioblastoma to years spent playing on PFAS-containing artificial turf. That’d be about three times the usual rate of glioblastoma among adult men, but the report comes with a lot of cautions—small sample size, lots of other potential causes, no way to establish causation.

Synthetic turf has one negative that no one really disputes: It gets very hot in the sun—as hot as 150 °F (66 °C). This can actually burn players, so they often want to avoid using a field on very hot days.

GETTY IMAGES

Athletes playing on artificial turf also have a higher rate of foot and ankle injuries, and elite-level football players seem to be more predisposed to knee injuries on those surfaces. But other studies have found rates of knee and hip injury to be roughly comparable on artificial and natural turf—a point the landscape architect working on the Cornell project made in the information packet the university sent to the city. Athletic departments and city parks departments say that the material’s upsides make it worthwhile, given that there’s no conclusive proof of harm.

Back in Ithaca, Cornell hired an environmental consulting firm called Haley & Aldrich to assess the evidence. The company concluded that none of the university’s proposed installations of artificial turf would have a negative environmental impact. People from Cornell on Fire and Zero Waste Ithaca told me they didn’t trust the firm’s findings; representatives from Haley & Aldrich declined to comment.

Longtime activists say that as global consumption of fossil fuels declines, petrochemical companies are desperate to find other markets. That means plastics. “There’s a big push to shift more petrochemicals into plastic products for an end market,” says Jeff Gearhart, a consumer product researcher at the Ecology Center. “Industry people, with a vested interest in petrochemicals, are looking to expand and build out alternative markets for this stuff.”

All that and more went before the decision-­makers in Ithaca. In September 2024, the City of Ithaca Planning Board unanimously issued a judgment that the Meinig Fieldhouse would not have a significant environmental impact and thus would not need to complete a full environmental impact assessment. Six months later, the town made the same determination for the field hockey pitch.

Zero Waste Ithaca sued in New York’s supreme court, which ruled against the group. Koizumi and lawyers from Pace University’s Environmental Litigation Clinic have appealed. She says she’s still hopeful the court might agree that Ithaca authorities made a mistake by not requiring an environmental impact statement from the college. “We have the science on our side,” she says.

Ithaca is a pretty rarefied place, an Ivy League university town. But these same tensions—potential long-term environmental and public health consequences versus the financial and maintenance concerns of the now—are pitting worried citizens against their representatives and city agencies around the country. 

New York City has 286 municipal synthetic-­turf fields, with more under construction. In Inwood, the northernmost neighborhood in Manhattan, two fields were approved via Zoom meetings during the pandemic, and Massimo Strino, a local artist who makes kaleidoscopes, says he found out only when he saw signs announcing the work on one of his daily walks in Inwood Hill Park, along the Hudson River. He joined a campaign against the plan, gathering more than 4,300 signatures. “I was canvassing every weekend,” Strino says. “You can count on one hand, literally, the number of people who said they were in favor.” 

But that doesn’t include the group that pushed for one of those fields in the first place: Uptown Soccer, which offers free and low-cost lessons and games to 1,000 kids a year, mostly from underserved immigrant families. “It was turning an unused community space into a usable space,” says David Sykes, the group’s executive director. “That trumped the sort of abstract concerns about the environmental impacts. I’m not an expert in artificial turf, but the parks department assured me that there was no risk of health effects.”

Artificial turf doesn’t go away. “You’re going to be paying to get rid of it. Somebody will have to take it to a dump, where it will sit for a thousand years.”

Graham Peaslee, emeritus nuclear physicist studying PFAS concentrations, University of Notre Dame

New York City councilmember Christopher Marte disagrees. He has introduced a bill to ban new artificial turf from being installed in parks, and he hopes the proposal will be taken up by the Parks Committee this spring. Last session, the bill had 10 cosponsors—that’s a lot. Marte says he expects resistance from lobbyists, but there’s precedent. The city of Boston banned artificial turf in 2022.  

Upstate, in a Rochester suburb called Brighton, the school district included synthetic-­turf baseball and softball diamonds in a wide-ranging February 2024 capital improvement proposition. The measure passed. In a public meeting in November 2025, the school board acknowledged the intent to use synthetic grass—or, as concerned parents had it, “to rip up a quarter ­million square feet of this open space and replace it with artificial turf,” says David Masur, executive director of the environmental group PennEnvironment, whose kids attend school in Brighton. Parents and community members mobilized against the plan, further angered when contractors also cut down a beloved 200-year-old tree. School superintendent Kevin McGowan says it’s too late to change course. Masur has been working to oppose the plan nevertheless—he says school boards are making consequential decisions about turf without sharing information or getting input, even though these fields can cost millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

In short, the fights can get tense. On Martha’s Vineyard, in Massachusetts, a meeting about plans to install an artificial field at a local high school had to be ended early amid verbal abuse. A staffer for the local board of health who voiced concern about PFAS in the turf quit the board after discovering bullet casings in her tote bag, she said, which she perceived as a death threat. After an eight-year fight, the board eventually banned artificial turf altogether. 

What happens next? Well, outdoor artificial turf lasts only eight to 12 years before it needs to be taken up and replaced. The Synthetic Turf Council says it’s at least partially recyclable and cites a company called BestPLUS Plastic Lumber as a purveyor of products made from recycled turf. The company says one of its products, a liner called GreenBoard that artificial turf can be nailed into, is at least 40% recycled from fake grass. Joseph Sadlier, vice president and general manager of plastics recycling at BestPLUS, says the company recycles over 10 million pounds annually. 

Yet the material is piling up. In 2021, a Danish company called Re-Match announced plans to open a recycling plant in Pennsylvania and began amassing thousands of tons of used plastic turf in three locations. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2025.

In Ithaca, university representatives told planning boards that it would be possible to recycle the old artificial turf they ripped out to make way for the Meinig Fieldhouse. That didn’t happen. An anonymous local activist tracked the old rolls to a hauling company a half-hour’s drive south of campus and shared pictures of them sitting on the lot, where they stayed for months. It’s unclear what their ultimate fate will be.

That’s the real problem: Artificial turf just doesn’t go away. “You’re going to be paying to get rid of it,” says Peaslee, the PFAS expert. “Somebody will have to take it to a dump, where it will sit for a thousand years.” At minimum, real grass is a net carbon sink, even including installation and maintenance. Synthetic turf releases greenhouse gases. One life-­cycle analysis of a 2.2-acre synthetic field in Toronto determined that it would emit 55 metric tons of carbon dioxide over a decade. Plastic fields need less water to maintain, but it takes water to make plastic, and natural grass lets rainwater seep into the ground. Synthetic turf sends most of it away as runoff.

It’s a boggling set of issues to factor into a decision. Rossi, the Cornell turf scientist, says he can understand why a school in the northern United States might go plastic, even when it cares about its students’ health. “It was the best bad option,” he says. Concerns about microplastics and PFAS are “significant issues we have not fully addressed.” And they need to be. 

Douglas Main is a journalist and former senior editor and writer at National Geographic.

When I started digging into desalination technology for a new story, I couldn’t help but obsess over the numbers.

I’d known on some level that desalination—pulling salt out of seawater to produce fresh water—was an increasingly important technology, especially in water-stressed regions including the Middle East. But just how much some countries rely on desalination, and how big a business it is, still surprised me.

For more on how this crucial water infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable during the war in Iran, check out my latest story. Here, though, let’s look at the state of desalination technology, by the numbers.

Desalination produces 77% of all fresh water and 99% of drinking water in Qatar.

Globally, we rely on desalination for just 1% of fresh-water withdrawals. But for some countries in the Middle East, and particularly for the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman), it’s crucial.

Qatar, home to over 3 million people, is one of the most staggering examples, with nearly all its drinking water supplies coming from desalination. But many major cities in the region couldn’t exist without the technology. There are no permanent rivers on the Arabian Peninsula, and supplies of fresh water are incredibly limited, so countries rely on facilities that can take in seawater and pull out the salt and other impurities.

The Middle East is home to just 6% of the world’s population and over 27% of its desalination facilities.

The region has historically been water-scarce, and that trend is only continuing as climate change pushes temperatures higher and changes rainfall patterns.

Of the 17,910 desalination facilities that are operational globally, 4,897 are located in the Middle East, according to a 2026 study in npj Clean Water. The technology supplies not only municipal water used by homes and businesses, but also industries including agriculture, manufacturing, and increasingly data centers.

One massive desalination plant in Saudi Arabia produces over 1 million cubic meters of fresh water per day.

The Ras Al-Khair water and power plant in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia, is one of a growing number of gigantic plants that output upwards of a million cubic meters of water each day. That amount of water can meet the needs of millions of people in Riyadh City. Producing it takes a lot of power—the attached power plant has a capacity of 2.4 gigawatts.

While this plant is just one of thousands across the region, it’s an example of a growing trend: The average size of a desalination plant is about 10 times what it was 15 years ago, according to data from the International Energy Agency. Communities are increasingly turning to larger plants, which can produce water more efficiently than smaller ones.

Between 2024 and 2028, the Middle East’s desalination capacity could grow by over 40%.

Desalination is only going to be more crucial for life in the Middle East. The region is expected to spend over $25 billion on capital expenses for desalination facilities between 2024 and 2028, according to the 2026 npj Clean Water study. More massive plants are expected to come online in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt during that time.

All this growth could consume a lot of electricity. Between growth of the technology generally and the move toward plants that use electricity rather than fossil fuels, desalination could add 190 terawatt-hours of electricity demand globally by 2035, according to IEA data. That’s the equivalent of about 60 million households.

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

We evolved for a linear world. If you walk for an hour, you cover a certain distance. Walk for two hours and you cover double that distance. This intuition served us well on the savannah. But it catastrophically fails when confronting AI and the core exponential trends at its heart.

Three advances are now converging to enable this. First, the basic calculators got faster. Nvidia’s chips have delivered an over sevenfold increase in raw performance in just six years, from 312 teraflops in 2020 to 2,250 teraflops today. Our own Maia 200 chip, launched this January, delivers 30% better performance per dollar than any other hardware in our fleet. Second, the numbers arrive faster thanks to a technology called HBM, or high bandwidth memory, which stacks chips vertically like tiny skyscrapers; the latest generation, HBM3, triples the bandwidth of its predecessor, feeding data to processors fast enough to keep them busy all the time. Third, the room of people with calculators became an office and then a whole campus or city. Technologies like NVLink and InfiniBand connect hundreds of thousands of GPUs into warehouse-size supercomputers that function as single cognitive entities. A few years ago this was impossible.

Mustafa Suleyman is CEO of Microsoft AI.

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here.

As the conflict in Iran has escalated, a crucial resource is under fire: the desalination technology that supplies water across much of the region.

In early March, Iran’s foreign minister accused the US of attacking a desalination plant on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting the water supply to nearly 30 villages. (The US denied responsibility.) In the weeks since, both Bahrain and Kuwait have reported damage to desalination plants and blamed Iran, though Iran also denied responsibility.

In late March, President Donald Trump threatened the destruction of “possibly all desalinization plants” in Iran if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened. Since then, he’s escalated his threats against Iran, warning of plans to attack other crucial civilian infrastructure like power plants and bridges.

Countries in the Middle East, particularly the Gulf states, rely on the technology to turn salt water into fresh water for farming, industry, and—crucially—drinking. The mounting attacks and threats to date highlight just how vital the industry is to the region—a situation made even more precarious by rising temperatures and extreme weather driven by climate change.

Right now, 83% of the Middle East is under extremely high water stress, says Liz Saccoccia, a water security associate at the World Resources Institute. Future projections suggest that’s going to increase to about 100% by 2050, she adds: “This is a continuing trend, and it’s getting worse, not better.”

Here’s a look at desalination technology in the Middle East and what wartime threats to the critical infrastructure could mean for people in the region. 

A vital resource

Desalination technology has helped provide water supplies in the Middle East since the early 20th century and became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s.

There are two major categories of desalination plants. Thermal plants use heat to evaporate water, leaving salt and other impurities behind. The vapor can then be condensed into usable fresh water. The alternative is membrane-based technology like reverse osmosis, which pushes water through membranes that have tiny pores—so small that salt can’t get through.

Early desalination plants in the Middle East were the first type, burning fossil fuels to evaporate water, leaving the salt behind. This technique is incredibly energy-intensive, and over time, processes that rely on filters became the dominant choice.

Membrane technologies have made up essentially all new desalination capacity in recent years; the last major thermal plant built in the Gulf came online in 2018. Many reverse osmosis plants still rely on fossil fuels, but they’re more efficient. Since then, membrane technologies have added more than 15 million cubic meters of daily capacity—enough to supply water to millions of people.

Capacity has expanded quickly in recent years; between 2006 and 2024, countries across the Middle East collectively spent over $50 billion building and upgrading desalination facilities, and nearly that much operating them.

Today, there are nearly 5,000 desalination plants operational across the Middle East.

And looking ahead, growth is continuing. Between 2024 and 2028, daily capacity is expected to grow from about 29 million cubic meters to 41 million cubic meters.

Uneven vulnerabilities

Some countries rely on the technology more than others. Iran, for example, uses desalination for about 3% of its municipal fresh water. The country has access to groundwater and some surface water, including rivers, though these resources are being stretched thin by agriculture and extreme drought.

Other nations in the region, particularly the Gulf countries (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman), have much more limited water resources and rely heavily on desalination. Across these six nations, all but the UAE get more than half their drinking water from desalination, and for Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait the figure is more than 90%.

“The Gulf countries are much, much more vulnerable to attacks on their desalination plants than Iran is,” says David Michel, a senior associate in the global food and water security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

There are thousands of desalination facilities across the region, so the system wouldn’t collapse if a small number were taken offline, Michel says. However, in recent years there’s been a trend toward larger, more centralized plants.

The average desalination plant is about 10 times larger than it was 15 years ago, according to data from the International Energy Agency. The largest desalination plants today can produce 1 million cubic meters of water daily, enough for hundreds of thousands of people. Taking one or more of these massive facilities offline could have a significant effect on the system, Michel says.

Escalating threats

Desalination facilities are quite linear, meaning there are multiple steps and pieces of equipment that work in sequence—and the failure of a component in that chain can take an entire facility down. Attacks on water inlets, transportation networks, and power supplies can also disrupt the system, Michel says. 

During the Gulf War in 1991, Iraqi forces pumped oil into the gulf, contaminating the water and shutting down desalination plants in Kuwait. 

The facilities are also generally located close to other targets in this conflict. Desalination is incredibly energy intensive, so about three-quarters of facilities in the region are next to power plants. Trump has repeatedly threatened power plants in Iran. In response, Iran’s military has said that if civilian targets are hit, the country will respond with strikes that are “much more devastating and widespread.” Other governments and organizations, including the United Nations, the European Union, and the Red Cross, have broadly condemned threats to infrastructure as illegal. 

But war isn’t the only danger facing these plants, even if it is the most immediate. Some studies have suggested that global warming could strengthen cyclones in the region, and these extreme weather events could force shutdowns or damage equipment.

Water pollution could also cause shutdowns. Oil spills, whether accidental or intentional, as in the case of the Gulf War, can  wreak havoc. And in 2009, a red algae bloom closed desalination plants in Oman and the United Arab Emirates for weeks. The algae fouled membranes and blocked the plants from being able to take water in from the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

Desalination facilities could become more resilient to threats in the future, and they may need to as their importance continues to grow. 

There’s increasing interest in running desalination facilities at least partially on solar power, which could help reduce dependence on the oil that powers most facilities today. The Hassyan seawater desalination project in the UAE, currently under construction, would be the largest reverse osmosis plant in the world to operate solely with renewable energy. 

Another way to increase resilience is for countries to build up more strategic water storage to meet demand. Qatar recently issued new policies that aim to improve management and storage of desalinated water, for example. Countries could also work together to invest in shared infrastructure and policies that help strengthen the water supply through the region. 

Preparedness, resilience, and cooperation will be key for the Middle East broadly as critical infrastructure, including the water supply, is increasingly under threat. 

“The longer the conflict goes on, the more likely we’ll see significant water infrastructure damage,” says Ginger Matchett, an assistant director at the Atlantic Council. “What worries me is that after this war ends, some of the lessons will show how water can be weaponized more strategically than previously imagined.” 

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

Within Silicon Valley’s orbit, an AI-fueled jobs apocalypse is spoken about as a given. The mood is so grim that a societal impacts researcher at Anthropic, responding Wednesday to a call for more optimistic visions of AI’s future, said there might be a recession in the near term and a “breakdown of the early-career ladder.” Her less-measured colleague Dario Amodei, the company’s CEO, has called AI “a general labor substitute for humans” that could do all jobs in less than five years. And those ideas are not just coming from Anthropic, of course. 

These conversations have unsurprisingly left many workers in a panic (and are probably contributing to support for efforts to entirely pause the construction of data centers, some of which gained steam last week). The panic isn’t being helped by lawmakers, none of whom have articulated a coherent plan for what comes next.

Even economists who have cautioned that AI has not yet cut jobs and may not result in a cliff ahead are coming around to the idea that it could have a unique and unprecedented impact on how we work. 

Alex Imas, based at the University of Chicago, is one of those economists. He shared two things with me when we spoke on Friday morning: a blunt assessment that our tools for predicting what this will look like are pretty abysmal, and a “call to arms” for economists to start collecting the one type of data that could make a plan to address AI in the workforce possible at all. 

On our abysmal tools: consider the fact that any job is made up of individual tasks. One part of a real estate agent’s job, for example, is to ask clients what sort of property they want to buy. The US government chronicled thousands of these tasks in a massive catalogue first launched in 1998 and updated regularly since then. This was the data that researchers at OpenAI used in December to judge how “exposed” a job is to AI (they found a real estate agent to be 28% exposed, for example). Then in February, Anthropic used this data in its analysis of millions of Claude conversations to see which tasks people are actually using its AI to complete and where the two lists overlapped.

But knowing the AI exposure of tasks leads to an illusory understanding of how much a given job is at risk, Imas says. “Exposure alone is a completely meaningless tool for predicting displacement,” he told me.

Sure, it is illustrative in the gloomiest case—for a job in which literally every task could be done by AI with no human direction. If it costs less for an AI model to do all those tasks than what you’re paid—which is not a given, since reasoning models and agentic AI can rack up quite a bill—and it can do them well, the job likely disappears, Imas says. This is the oft-mentioned case of the elevator operator from decades ago; maybe today’s parallel is a customer service agent solely doing phone call triage. 

But for the vast majority of jobs, the case is not so simple. And the specifics matter, too: Some jobs are likely to have dark days ahead, but knowing how and when this will play out is hard to answer when only looking at exposure.

Take writing code, for example. Someone who builds premium dating apps, let’s say, might use AI coding tools to create in one day what used to take three days. That means the worker is more productive. The worker’s employer, spending the same amount of money, can now get more output. So then will the employer want more employees or fewer? 

This is the question that Imas says should keep any policymaker up at night, because the answer will change depending on the industry. And we are operating in the dark. 

In this coder’s case, these efficiencies make it possible for dating apps to lower prices. (A skeptic might expect companies to simply pocket the gains, but in a competitive market, they risk being undercut if they do.) These lower prices will always drive some increase in demand for the apps. But how much? If millions more people want it, the company might grow and ultimately hire more engineers to meet this demand. But if demand barely ticks up—maybe the people who don’t use premium dating apps still won’t want them even at a lower price—fewer coders are needed, and layoffs will happen.

Repeat this hypothetical across every job with tasks that AI can do, and you have the most pressing economic question of our time: the specifics of price elasticity, or how much demand for something changes when its price changes. And this is the second part of what Imas emphasized last week: We don’t currently have this data across the economy. But we could. 

We do have the numbers for grocery items like cereal and milk, Imas says, because the University of Chicago partners with supermarkets to get data from their price scanners. But we don’t have such figures for tutors or web developers or dietitians (all jobs found to have “exposure” to AI, by the way). Or at least not in a way that’s been widely compiled or made accessible to researchers; sometimes it’s scattered across private companies or consultancies. 

“We need, like, a Manhattan Project to collect this,” Imas says. And we don’t need it just for jobs that could obviously be affected by AI now: “Fields that are not exposed now will become exposed in the future, so you just want to track these statistics across the entire economy.”

Getting all this information would take time and money, but Imas makes the case that it’s worth it; it would give economists the first realistic look at how our AI-enabled future could unfold and give policymakers a shot at making a plan for it.

For years Mike McClary sold the Guardian LTE Flashlight, a heavy-duty black model, online through his small outdoor brand. The product, designed for brightness and durability, became one of his most popular items ever. Even after he stopped offering it around 2017, customers kept sending him emails asking where they could buy it. 

When McClary decided to revisit the Guardian flashlight in 2025, he didn’t begin the way he might have in the past, by combing through supplier listings and sending inquiries to factories. Instead, he opened Accio, an AI sourcing and researching tool on Alibaba.com.

For small entrepreneurs in the US, deciding what to sell and where to make it has traditionally been a slow, labor-intensive process that can take months. Now that work is increasingly being done by AI tools like Accio, which help connect businesses with manufacturers in countries including China and India. Business owners and e-commerce experts told MIT Technology Review that these AI tools are making sourcing more accessible and significantly shortening the time it takes to go from product idea to launch. 

McClary, 51, who runs his business from his Illinois living room, has sold products ranging from leather conditioner to camping lights, including one rechargeable lantern that brought in half a million dollars. Like many small online merchants, he built his business by being extremely scrappy—spotting demand for a product, tweaking existing designs, finding a factory, doing modest marketing, and getting the goods in front of customers fast. 

This time, though, he began by telling Accio about the flashlight’s original design, production cost, and profit margin. Then Accio suggested several changes, making it smaller and slightly less bright and switching its charging method to battery power. It also identified a manufacturer in Ningbo, China, that McClary said could cut the manufacturing cost from $17 to about $2.50 per unit.

McClary took the process from there, contacting the supplier himself to discuss the revised design. Within a month, the new version of the Guardian flashlight was back up for sale on Amazon and on his brand’s website.

The new factory hunt

Although Alibaba is better known for owning Taobao, the biggest shopping site in China, its first business was Alibaba.com, the primary website that lists Chinese factories open for bulk orders. Placing an order with a manufacturer usually requires far more than clicking “Buy.” Sellers often spend days or weeks browsing listings, comparing suppliers’ reviews and manufacturing capacities, asking about minimum order quantities, requesting samples, and negotiating timelines and customization options. 

But Accio has gained significant momentum by changing how that sourcing gets done. Launched in 2024, Accio exceeded 10 million monthly active users in March 2026, according to the company. That means about one in five Alibaba users consults with AI about product sourcing.

Accio’s interface looks a lot like ChatGPT or Claude: Users type a question into an empty box and choose between “fast” and “thinking” modes. But when asked about products, the tool returns more than text, offering charts, links, and visuals and asking follow-up questions to clarify the buyer’s needs. It then narrows the field to one or a handful of suppliers that appear capable of delivering. After that, the human work begins: Users still have to reach out to suppliers themselves and negotiate the details.

Zhang Kuo, the president of Alibaba.com, told MIT Technology Review that the tool is built on multiple frontier models, including the company’s own Qwen series, a popular family of open-source large language models. The system is able to pull from the site’s millions of supplier profiles and is trained on 26 years of proprietary transaction data.

For tasks like product research and sourcing analysis, the tool “blows it away” compared with general AI tools like ChatGPT, says Richard Kostick, CEO of the beauty brand 100% Pure.

Many websites have tried using AI to assist shopping, but Alibaba has been one of the most aggressive. In March, Eddie Wu, CEO of the site’s parent company Alibaba Group, told managers that integrating the company’s core services with Qwen’s AI capabilities is a top priority. During a Chinese New Year promotion of Qwen’s personal shopping AI agent, where the company gave away cash, customers placed 200 million orders, the firm says.

Vincenzo Toscano, an e-commerce seller and consultant, recommended Accio to his clients before deciding to try it himself for a new sunglasses brand. He came in with a rough vision: a brand shaped by his Italian heritage, his personal style, and a boutique aesthetic. He says the AI helped turn that concept into something more concrete, suggesting materials, refining the look, and pointing to design ideas that felt current.

But the tool has clear limits. McClary, who uses AI tools regularly, says Accio is strongest when it comes to product ideation, but less helpful on marketing questions such as advertising and social media outreach. To use it well, he says, buyers still need to challenge its recommendations, since some can be generic.

The rest of the business

As platforms become more AI-driven, manufacturers are adjusting too. Sally Li, a representative at a makeup packaging company in Wuhan, China, says her firm has started writing more detailed product descriptions and adding information about its equipment and manufacturing experience on Alibaba.com because it suspects those details make its listings more likely to be surfaced by AI.

Yan says manufacturers cannot tell whether an inquiry from a customer was generated or guided by AI, and that her firm is not using AI to negotiate pricing or product details.

“AI agents are increasingly used by people to assist purchase decisions and even directly making transactions, and with clear guardrails, they can become extremely useful,” says Jiaxin Pei, a research scientist at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, “but agents need to act transparently, securely, and in the customer’s best interest.” Pei says developers of these tools should disclose the data they collect and the incentives built into them to ensure that the marketplace remains fair.

Zhang, of Alibaba.com, says Accio currently does not include advertising. Suppliers can pay for higher placement in Alibaba.com’s regular search results, but Zhang says Accio is “not integrated” with that system. “We haven’t had a clear answer in terms of how to monetize this tool,” he says. For now, users can pay for additional tokens to continue chatting with the agent after their free queries run out.

Sellers say that while AI tools have made it easier to come up with ideas and get a business off the ground, they do not replace the core skills that make someone good at e-commerce. McClary believes that even when sellers have access to the same market information, some are still better at making decisions, acting quickly, and actually delivering on orders. Those differences, he says, still go a long way.

Toscano, the brand founder and e-commerce consultant, feels good about officially launching his new brand of sunglasses in just a few months: “We [small business owners] always have to bootstrap a lot of decisions. Deciding what to sell often comes down to an educated guess,” he says, “And we’re now in an era when making those decisions is easier than ever.”

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here.

In January, Elon Musk’s SpaceX filed an application with the US Federal Communications Commission to launch up to one million data centers into Earth’s orbit. The goal? To fully unleash the potential of AI without triggering an environmental crisis on Earth. But could it work?

SpaceX is the latest in a string of high-tech companies extolling the potential of orbital computing infrastructure. Last year, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said that the tech industry will move toward large-scale computing in space. Google has plans to loft data-crunching satellites, aiming to launch a test constellation of 80 as early as next year. And last November Starcloud, a startup based in Washington State, launched a satellite fitted with a high-performance Nvidia H100 GPU, marking the first orbital test of an advanced AI chip. The company envisions orbiting data centers as large as those on Earth by 2030.

Proponents believe that putting data centers in space makes sense. The current AI boom is straining energy grids and adding to the demand for water, which is needed to cool the computers. Communities in the vicinity of large-scale data centers worry about increasing prices for those resources as a result of the growing demand, among other issues.

In space, advocates say, the water and energy problems would be solved. In constantly illuminated sun-synchronous orbits, space-borne data centers would have uninterrupted access to solar power. At the same time, the excess heat they produce would be easily expelled into the cold vacuum of space. And with the cost of space launches decreasing, and mega-rockets such as SpaceX’s Starship promising to push prices even lower, there could be a point at which moving the world’s data centers into space makes sound business sense. Detractors, on the other hand, tell a different story and point to a variety of technological hurdles, though some say it’s possible they may be surmountable in the not-so-distant future. Here are four of the must-haves we’d need to make space-based data centers a reality. 

A way to carry away heat 

AI data centers produce a lot of heat. Space might seem like a great place to dispel that heat without using up massive amounts of water. But it’s not so simple. To get the power needed to run 24-7, a space-based data center would have to be in a constantly illuminated orbit, circling the planet from pole to pole, and never hide in Earth’s shadow. And in that orbit, the temperature of the equipment would never drop below 80 °C, which is way too hot for electronics to operate safely in the long term. 

Getting the heat out of such a system is surprisingly challenging. “Thermal management and cooling in space is generally a huge problem,” says Lilly Eichinger, CEO of the Austrian space tech startup Satellives.

On Earth, heat dissipates mostly through the natural process of convection, which relies on the movement of gases and liquids like air and water. In the vacuum of space, heat has to be removed through the far less efficient process of radiation. Safely removing the heat produced by the computers, as well as what’s absorbed from the sun, requires large radiative surfaces. The bulkier the satellite, the harder it is to send all the heat inside it out into space.

But Yves Durand, former director of technology at the European aerospace giant Thales Alenia Space, says that technology already exists to tackle the problem.

The company previously developed a system for large telecommunications satellites that can pipe refrigerant fluid through a network of tubing using a mechanical pump, ultimately transferring heat from within a spacecraft to radiators on the exterior. Durand led a 2024 feasibility study on space-based data centers, which found that although challenges exist, it should be possible for Europe to put gigawatt-scale data centers (on par with the largest Earthbound facilities) into orbit before 2050. These would be considerably larger than those envisioned by SpaceX, featuring solar arrays hundreds of meters in size—larger than the International Space Station.

Computer chips that can withstand a radiation onslaught

The space around Earth is constantly battered by cosmic particles and lashed by solar radiation. On Earth’s surface, humans and their electronic devices are protected from this corrosive soup of charged particles by the planet’s atmosphere and magnetosphere. But the farther away from Earth you venture, the weaker that protection becomes. Studies show that aircraft crews have a higher risk of developing cancer because of their frequent exposure to high radiation at cruising altitude, where the atmosphere is thin and less protective.

Electronics in space are at risk of three types of problems caused by high radiation levels, says Ken Mai, a principal systems scientist in electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Phenomena known as single-event upsets can cause bit flips and corrupt stored data when charged particles hit chips and memory devices. Over time, electronics in space accumulate damage from ionizing radiation that degrades their performance. And sometimes a charged particle can strike the component in a way that physically displaces atoms on the chip, creating permanent damage, Mai explains.

Traditionally, computers launched to space had to undergo years of testing and were specifically designed to withstand the intense radiation present in Earth’s orbit. These space-hardened electronics are much more expensive, though, and their performance is also years behind the state-of-the-art devices for Earth-based computing. Launching conventional chips is a gamble. But Durand says cutting-edge computer chips use technologies that are by default more resistant to radiation than past systems. And in mid-March, Nvidia touted hardware, including a new GPU, that is “bringing AI compute to orbital data centers.” 

Nvidia’s head of edge AI marketing, Chen Su, told MIT Technology Review, that “Nvidia systems are inherently commercial off the shelf, with radiation resilience achieved at the system level rather than through radiation‑hardened silicon alone.” He added that satellite makers increase the chips’ resiliency with the help of shielding, advanced software for error detection, and architectures that combine the consumer-grade devices with bespoke, hardened technologies.

Still, Mai says that the data-crunching chips are only one issue. The data centers would also need memory and storage devices, both of which are vulnerable to damage by excessive radiation. And operators would need the ability to swap things out or adapt when issues arise. The feasibility and affordability of using robots or astronaut missions for maintenance is a major question mark hanging over the idea of large-scale orbiting data centers.

“You not only need to throw up a data center to space that meets your current needs; you need redundancy, extra parts, and reconfigurability, so when stuff breaks, you can just change your configuration and continue working,” says Mai. “It’s a very challenging problem because on one hand you have free energy and power in space, but there are a lot of disadvantages. It’s quite possible that those problems will outweigh the advantages that you get from putting a data center into space.”

In addition to the need for regular maintenance, there’s also the potential for catastrophic loss. During periods of intense space weather, satellites can be flooded with enough radiation to kill all their electronics. The sun has just passed the most active phase of its 11-year cycle with relatively little impact on satellites. Still, experts warn that since the space age began, the planet has not experienced the worst the sun is capable of. Many doubt whether the low-cost new space systems that dominate Earth’s orbits today are prepared for that.

A plan to dodge space debris

Both large-scale orbiting data centers such as those envisioned by Thales Alenia Space and the mega-constellations of smaller satellites as proposed by SpaceX give a headache to space sustainability experts. The space around Earth is already quite crowded with satellites. Starlink satellites alone perform hundreds of thousands of collision avoidance maneuvers every year to dodge debris and other spacecraft. The more stuff in space, the higher the likelihood of a devastating collision that would clutter the orbit with thousands of dangerous fragments.

Large structures with hundreds of square meters of solar arrays would quickly suffer damage from small pieces of space debris and meteorites, which would over time degrade the performance of their solar panels and create more debris in orbit. Operating one million satellites in low Earth orbit, the region of space at the altitude of up to 2,000 kilometers, might be impossible to do safely unless all satellites in that area are part of the same network so they can communicate effectively to maneuver around each other, Greg Vialle, the founder of the orbital recycling startup Lunexus Space, told MIT Technology Review.

“You can fit roughly four to five thousand satellites in one orbital shell,” Vialle says. “If you count all the shells in low Earth orbit, you get to a number of around 240,000 satellites maximum.”

And spacecraft must be able to pass each other at a safe distance to avoid collisions, he says. 

“You also need to be able to get stuff up to higher orbits and back down to de-orbit,” he adds. “So you need to have gaps of at least 10 kilometers between the satellites to do that safely. Mega-constellations like Starlink can be packed more tightly because the satellites communicate with each other. But you can’t have one million satellites around Earth unless it’s a monopoly.”

On top of that, Starlink would likely want to regularly upgrade its orbiting data centers with more modern technology. Replacing a million satellites perhaps every five years would mean even more orbital traffic—and it could increase the rate of debris reentry into Earth’s atmosphere from around three or four pieces of junk a day to about one every three minutes, according to a group of astronomers who filed objections against SpaceX’s FCC application. Some scientists are concerned that reentering debris could damage the ozone layer and alter Earth’s thermal balance. 

Economical launch and assembly

The longer hardware survives in orbit, the better the return on investment. But for orbital data centers to make economic sense, companies will have to find a relatively cheap way to get that hardware in orbit. SpaceX is betting on its upcoming Starship mega-rocket, which will be able to carry up to six times as much payload as the current workhorse, Falcon 9. The Thales Alenia Space study concluded that if Europe were to build its own orbital data centers, it would have to develop a similarly potent launcher. 

But launch is only part of the equation. A large-scale orbital data center won’t fit in a rocket—even a mega-rocket. It will need to be assembled in orbit. And that will likely require advanced robotic systems that do not exist yet. Various companies have conducted Earth-based tests with precursors of such systems, but they are still far from real-world use.

Durand says that in the short term, smaller-scale data centers are likely to establish themselves as an integral part of the orbital infrastructure, by processing images from Earth-observing satellites directly in space without having to send them to Earth. That would be a huge help for companies selling insights from space, as many of these data sets are extremely large, and competition for opportunities to downlink them to Earth for processing via ground stations is growing.

“The good thing with orbital data centers is that you can start with small servers and gradually increase and build up larger data centers,” says Durand. “You can use modularity. You can learn little by little and gradually develop industrial capacity in space. We have all the technology, and the demand for space-based data processing infrastructure is huge, so it makes sense to think about it.”

Smaller facilities probably won’t do much to offset the strain that terrestrial data centers are placing on the planet’s water and electricity, though. That vision of the future might take decades to come to fruition, some critics think—if it even gets off the ground at all. 

As the war in Iran continues to engulf the Middle East and the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, one of the most visible global economic ripple effects has been fossil-fuel prices. In particular, you can’t get away from news about the price of gasoline, which just topped an average of $4 a gallon in the US, its highest level since 2022.

But looking ahead, further consequences for the global economy could be looming in plastics. Plastics are made using petrochemicals, and the supply chain impacts of the oil bottleneck near Iran are starting to build up. 

Plastic production accounts for roughly 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions today. And our current moment shows just how embedded oil and gas products are in our lives. It goes far beyond their use for energy. 

As I write this, I’m wearing clothes that contain plastic fibers, typing on a plastic keyboard, and looking through the plastic lenses of my glasses. It’s hard to imagine what our world looks like without plastic. And in some ways, moving away from fossil-derived plastic could prove even more complicated than decarbonizing our energy system. 

Crude oil prices have been on a roller-coaster in recent weeks, and prices have recently topped $100 a barrel.

Crude oil contains a huge range of hydrocarbons, and it’s typically refined by putting it through a distillation unit that separates the raw material into different fractions according to their boiling point. Those fractions then go on to be further processed into everything from jet fuel to asphalt binder. We’ve already seen the price spikes for some materials pulled out of crude oil, like gasoline and jet fuel.

Let’s zoom in on another component, naphtha. It can be added to gasoline and jet fuel to improve performance. It can also be used as a solvent or as a raw material to make plastics.

The Middle East currently accounts for about 20% of global naphtha production­ and supplies about 40% of the market in Asia, where prices are already up by 50% over the last month.

We’re starting to see these effects trickle down already. The price of polypropylene (which is made from naphtha and used for food containers, bottle caps, and even automotive parts) is climbing, especially in Asia.  

Typically, manufacturers have a bit of stock built up, but that’ll be exhausted soon, likely in the coming weeks. The largest supplier of water bottles in India recently announced that it would raise prices by 11% after its packaging costs went up by over 70%, according to reporting from Reuters. Toys could be more expensive this holiday season as manufacturers grapple with supply chain concerns.

Americans will likely feel these ripples especially hard if disruptions continue. The average US resident used over 250 kilograms of new plastics in 2019, according to a 2022 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That’s an absolutely massive number—the global average is just 60 kilograms.

The effects of higher prices for both fuels and feedstocks could compound and multiply, and alternatives aren’t widely available. Bio-based plastics made with materials like plant sugars exist, but they still make up a vanishingly tiny portion of the market. As of 2025, global plastics production totaled over 431 million metric tons per year. Bio-based and bio-degradable plastics made up about 0.5% of that, a share that could reach 1% by 2030.

Bio-based plastics are much more expensive than their fossil-derived counterparts. And many are made using agricultural raw materials, so scaling them up too much could be harmful for the environment and might compete with other industries like food production.

Recycling isn’t the easy answer either. Mechanical recycling is the current standard method used for materials like the plastics that make up water bottles and disposable coffee cups. But that degrades the materials over time, so they can’t be used infinitely. Chemical recycling has its own host of issues—the facilities that do it can be highly polluting, and today plastics that go into advanced recycling plants largely don’t actually go into new plastics.

There’s been a lot of talk in recent weeks about how this energy crisis is going to push the world more toward renewable energy. Solar panels, electric vehicles, and batteries could suddenly become more attractive as we face the drastic consequences of a disruption in the global fossil-fuel supply.

But when it comes to plastic, the future looks far more complicated. Even though the plastics industry is facing much the same disruptions as the energy sector, there aren’t the same obvious alternatives available for a transition. Our lives are tied up in plastic, with uses ranging from the essential (like medical equipment) to the mundane (my to-go coffee cup). Soon, our economy could feel the effects of just how much we rely on fossil-derived plastics, and how hard it’s going to be to replace them. 

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. 

When Zeus, a medical student living in a hilltop city in central Nigeria, returns to his studio apartment from a long day at the hospital, he turns on his ring light, straps his iPhone to his forehead, and starts recording himself. He raises his hands in front of him like a sleepwalker and puts a sheet on his bed. He moves slowly and carefully to make sure his hands stay within the camera frame. 

Zeus is a data recorder for Micro1, a US company based in Palo Alto, California that collects real-world data to sell to robotics companies. As companies like Tesla, Figure AI, and Agility Robotics race to build humanoids—robots designed to resemble and move like humans in factories and homes—videos recorded by gig workers like Zeus are becoming the hottest new way to train them. 

Micro1 has hired thousands of contract workers in more than 50 countries, including India, Nigeria, and Argentina, where swathes of tech-savvy young people are looking for jobs. They’re mounting iPhones on their heads and recording themselves folding laundry, washing dishes, and cooking. The job pays well by local standards and is boosting local economies, but it raises thorny questions around privacy and informed consent. And the work can be challenging at times—and weird.

Zeus found the job in November, when people started talking about it everywhere on LinkedIn and YouTube. “This would be a real nice opportunity to set a mark and give data that will be used to train robots in the future,” he thought. 

Zeus is paid $15 an hour, which is good income in Nigeria’s strained economy with high unemployment rates. But as a bright-eyed student dreaming of becoming a doctor, he finds ironing his clothes for hours every day boring. 

“I really [do] not like it so much,” he says. “I’m the kind of person that requires … a technical job that requires me to think.” 

Zeus, and all the workers interviewed by MIT Technology Review, asked to be referred to only by pseudonyms because they were not authorized to talk about their work.

Humanoid robots are notoriously hard to build because manipulating physical objects is a difficult skill to master. But the rise of large language models underlying chatbots like ChatGPT has inspired a paradigm shift in robotics. Just as large language models learned to generate words by being trained on vast troves of text scraped from the internet, many researchers believe that humanoid robots can learn to interact with the world by being trained on massive amounts of movement data. 

Editor’s note: In a recent poll, MIT Technology Review readers selected humanoid robots as the 11th breakthrough for our 2026 list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.

Robotics requires far more complex data about the physical world, though, and that is much harder to find. Virtual simulations can train robots to perform acrobatics, but not how to grasp and move objects, because simulations struggle to model physics with perfect accuracy. For robots to work in factories and serve as housekeepers, real-world data, however time-consuming and expensive to collect, may be what we need. 

Investors are pouring money feverishly into solving this challenge, spending over $6 billion on humanoid robots in 2025. And at-home data recording is becoming a booming gig economy around the world. Data companies like Scale AI and Encord are recruiting their own armies of data recorders, while DoorDash pays delivery drivers to film themselves doing chores. And in China, workers in dozens of state-owned robot training centers wear virtual-reality headsets and exoskeletons to teach humanoid robots how to open a microwave and wipe down the table. 

“There is a lot of demand, and it’s increasing really fast,” says Ali Ansari, CEO of Micro1. He estimates that robotics companies are now spending more than $100 million each year to buy real-world data from his company and others like it.

A day in the life

Workers at Micro1 are vetted by an AI agent named Zara that conducts interviews and reviews samples of chore videos. Every week, they submit videos of themselves doing chores around their homes, following a list of instructions about things like keeping their hands visible and moving at natural speed. The videos are reviewed by both AI and a human and are either accepted or rejected. They’re then annotated by AI and a team of hundreds of humans who label the actions in the footage.

Because this approach to training robots is in its infancy, it’s not clear yet what makes good training data. Still, “you need to give lots and lots of variations for the robot to generalize well for basic navigation and manipulation of the world,” says Ansari.

But many workers say that creating a variety of “chore content” in their tiny homes is a challenge. Zeus, a scrappy student living in a humble studio, struggles to record anything beyond ironing his clothes every day. Arjun, a tutor in Delhi, India, takes an hour to make a 15-minute video because he spends so much time brainstorming new chores.

“How much content [can be made] in the home? How much content?” he says. 

There’s also the sticky question of privacy. Micro1 asks workers not to show their faces to the camera or reveal personal information such as names, phone numbers, and birth dates. Then it uses AI and human reviewers to remove anything that slips through. 

But even without faces, the videos capture an intimate slice of workers’ lives: the interiors of their homes, their possessions, their routines. And understanding what kind of personal information they might be recording while they’re busy doing chores on camera can be tricky. Reviews of such footage might not filter out sensitive information beyond the most obvious identifiers.

For workers with families, keeping private life off camera is a constant negotiation. Arjun, a father of two daughters, has to wrangle his chaotic two-year-old out of frame. “Sometimes it’s very difficult to work because my daughter is small,” he says. 

Sasha, a banker turned data recorder in Nigeria, tiptoes around when she hangs her laundry outside in a shared residential compound so she won’t record her neighbors, who watch her in bewilderment.

While the workers interviewed by MIT Technology Review understand that their data is being used to train robots, none of them know how exactly their data will be used, stored, and shared with third parties, including the robotics companies that Micro1 is selling the data to. For confidentiality reasons, says Ansari, Micro1 doesn’t name its clients or disclose to workers the specific nature of the projects they are contributing to.

“It is important that if workers are engaging in this, that they are informed by the companies themselves of the intention … where this kind of technology might go and how that might affect them longer term,” says Yasmine Kotturi, a professor of human-centered computing at the University of Maryland.

Occasionally, some workers say, they’ve seen other workers asking on the company Slack channel if the company could delete their data. Micro1 declined to comment on whether such data is deleted.

“People are opting into doing this,” says Ansari. “They could stop the work at any time.”

Hungry for data

With thousands of workers doing their chores differently in different homes, some roboticists wonder if the data collected from them is reliable enough to train robots safely. 

“How we conduct our lives in our homes is not always right from a safety point of view,” says Aaron Prather, a roboticist at ASTM International. “If those folks are teaching those bad habits that could lead to an incident, then that’s not good data.” And the sheer volume of data being collected makes reviewing it for quality control challenging. But Ansari says the company rejects videos showing unsafe ways of performing a task, while clumsy movements can be useful to teach robots what not to do.

Then there’s the question of how much of this data we need. Micro1 says it has tens of thousands of hours of footage, while Scale AI announced it had gathered more than 100,000 hours.

“It’s going to take a long time to get there,” says Ken Goldberg, a roboticist at the University of California, Berkeley. Large language models were trained on text and images that would take a human 100,000 years to read, and humanoid robots may need even more data, because controlling robotic joints is even more complicated than generating text. “It’s going to take longer than people think,” he says.

When Dattu, an engineering student living in a bustling tech hub in India, comes home after a full day of classes at his university, he skips dinner and dashes to his tiny balcony, cramped with potted plants and dumbbells. He straps his iPhone to his forehead and records himself folding the same set of clothes over and over again. 

His family stares at him quizzically. “It’s like some space technology for them,” he says. When he tells his friends about his job, “they just get astounded by the idea that they can get paid by recording chores.”

Juggling his university studies with data recording, as well as other data annotation gigs, takes a toll on him. Still, “it feels like you’re doing something different than the whole world,” he says. 

For decades, artificial intelligence has been evaluated through the question of whether machines outperform humans. From chess to advanced math, from coding to essay writing, the performance of AI models and applications is tested against that of individual humans completing tasks. 

This framing is seductive: An AI vs. human comparison on isolated problems with clear right or wrong answers is easy to standardize, compare, and optimize. It generates rankings and headlines. 

But there’s a problem: AI is almost never used in the way it is benchmarked. Although   researchers and industry have started to improve benchmarking by moving beyond static tests to more dynamic evaluation methods, these  innovations resolve only part of the issue. That’s because they still evaluate AI’s performance outside the human teams and organizational workflows where its real-world performance ultimately unfolds. 

While AI is evaluated at the task level in a vacuum, it is used in messy, complex environments where it usually interacts with more than one person. Its performance (or lack thereof) emerges only over extended periods of use. This misalignment leaves us misunderstanding AI’s capabilities, overlooking systemic risks, and misjudging its economic and social consequences.

To mitigate this, it’s time to shift from narrow methods to benchmarks that assess how AI systems perform over longer time horizons within human teams, workflows, and organizations. I have studied real-world AI deployment since 2022 in small businesses and health, humanitarian, nonprofit, and higher-education organizations in the UK, the United States, and Asia, as well as within leading AI design ecosystems in London and Silicon Valley. I propose a different approach, which I call HAIC benchmarks—Human–AI, Context-Specific Evaluation.

What happens when AI fails 

For governments and businesses, AI benchmark scores appear more objective than vendor claims. They’re a critical part of determining whether an AI model or application is “good enough” for real-world deployment. Imagine an AI model that achieves impressive technical scores on the most cutting-edge benchmarks—98% accuracy, groundbreaking speed, compelling outputs. On the strength of these results, organizations may decide to adopt the model, committing sizable financial and technical resources to purchasing and integrating it. 

But then, once it’s adopted, the gap between benchmark and real-world performance quickly becomes visible. For example, take the swathe of FDA-approved AI models that can read medical scans faster and more accurately than an expert radiologist. In the radiology units of hospitals from the heart of California to the outskirts of London, I witnessed staff using highly ranked radiology AI applications. Repeatedly, it took them extra time to interpret AI’s outputs alongside hospital-specific reporting standards and nation-specific regulatory requirements. What appeared as a productivity-enhancing AI tool when tested in a vacuum introduced delays in practice. 

It soon became clear that the benchmark tests on which medical AI models are assessed do not capture how medical decisions are actually made. Hospitals rely on multidisciplinary teams—radiologists, oncologists, physicists, nurses—who jointly review patients. Treatment planning rarely hinges on a static decision; it evolves as new information emerges over days or weeks. Decisions often arise through constructive debate and trade-offs between professional standards, patient preferences, and the shared goal of long-term patient well-being. No wonder even highly scored AI models struggle to deliver the promised performance once they encounter the complex, collaborative processes of real clinical care.

The same pattern emerges in my research across other sectors: When embedded within real-world work environments, even AI models that perform brilliantly on standardized tests don’t perform as promised. 

When high benchmark scores fail to translate into real-world performance, even the most highly scored AI is soon abandoned to what I call the “AI graveyard.” The costs are significant: Time, effort and money end up being wasted. And over time, repeated experiences like this erode organizational confidence in AI and—in critical settings such as health—may erode broader public trust in the technology as well. 

When current benchmarks provide only a partial and potentially misleading signal of an AI model’s readiness for real-world use, this creates regulatory blind spots: Oversight is shaped by metrics that do not reflect reality. It also leaves organizations and governments to shoulder the risks of testing AI in sensitive real-world settings, often with limited resources and support. 

How to build better tests 

To close the gap between benchmark and real-world performance, we must pay attention to the actual conditions in which AI models will be used. The critical questions: Can AI function as a productive participant within human teams? And can it generate sustained, collective value? 

Through my research on AI deployment across multiple sectors, I have seen a number of organizations already moving—deliberately and experimentally—toward the HAIC benchmarks I favor. 

HAIC benchmarks reframe current benchmarking in four ways: 

1.     From individual and single-task performance to team and workflow performance (shifting the unit of analysis)

2.     From one-off testing with right/wrong answers to long-term impacts (expanding the time horizon)

3.     From correctness and speed to organizational outcomes, coordination quality, and error detectability (expanding outcome measures)

4.     From isolated outputs to upstream and downstream consequences (system effects)

Across the organizations where this approach has emerged and started to be applied, the first step is shifting the unit of analysis. 

For example, in one UK hospital system in the period 2021–2024, the question expanded from whether a medical AI application improves diagnostic accuracy to how the presence of AI within the hospital’s multidisciplinary teams affects not only accuracy but also coordination and deliberation. The hospital specifically assessed coordination and deliberation in human teams using and not using AI. Multiple stakeholders (within and outside the hospital) decided on metrics like how AI influences collective reasoning, whether it surfaces overlooked considerations, whether it strengthens or weakens coordination, and whether it changes established risk and compliance practices. 

This shift is fundamental. It matters a lot in high-stakes contexts where system-level effects matter more than task-level accuracy. It also matters for the economy. It may help recalibrate inflated expectations of sweeping productivity gains that are so far predicated largely on the promise of improving individual task performance. 

Once that foundation is set, HAIC benchmarking can begin to take on the element of time. 

Today’s benchmarks resemble school exams—one-off, standardized tests of accuracy. But real professional competence is assessed differently. Junior doctors and lawyers are evaluated continuously inside real workflows, under supervision, with feedback loops and accountability structures. Performance is judged over time and in a specific context, because competence is relational. If AI systems are meant to operate alongside professionals, their impact should be judged longitudinally, reflecting how performance unfolds over repeated interactions. 

I saw this aspect of HAIC applied in one of my humanitarian-sector case studies. Over 18 months, an AI system was evaluated within real workflows, with particular attention to how detectable its errors were—that is, how easily human teams could identify and correct them. This long-term “record of error detectability” meant the organizations involved could design and test context-specific guardrails to promote trust in the system, despite the inevitability of occasional AI mistakes.

A longer time horizon also makes visible the system-level consequences that short-term benchmarks miss. An AI application may outperform a single doctor on a narrow diagnostic task yet fail to improve multidisciplinary decision-making. Worse, it may introduce systemic distortions: anchoring teams too early in plausible but incomplete answers, adding to people’s  cognitive workloads, or generating downstream inefficiencies that offset any speed or efficiency gains at the point of the AI’s use. These knock-on effects—often invisible to current benchmarks—are central to understanding real impact. 

The HAIC approach, admittedly promises to make benchmarking more complex, resource-intensive, and harder to standardize. But continuing to evaluate AI in sanitized conditions detached from the world of work will leave us misunderstanding what it truly can and cannot do for us. To deploy AI responsibly in real-world settings, we must measure what actually matters: not just what a model can do alone, but what it enables—or undermines—when humans and teams in the real world work with it.

 Angela Aristidou is a professor at University College London and a faculty fellow at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab and the Stanford Human-Centered AI Institute. She speaks, writes, and advises about the real-life deployment of artificial-intelligence tools for public good.

Earlier this month, Microsoft launched Copilot Health, a new space within its Copilot app where users will be able to connect their medical records and ask specific questions about their health. A couple of days earlier, Amazon had announced that Health AI, an LLM-based tool previously restricted to members of its One Medical service, would now be widely available. These products join the ranks of ChatGPT Health, which OpenAI released back in January, and Anthropic’s Claude, which can access user health records if granted permission. Health AI for the masses is officially a trend. 

There’s a clear demand for chatbots that provide health advice, given how hard it is for many people to access it through existing medical systems. And some research suggests that current LLMs are capable of making safe and useful recommendations. But researchers say that these tools should be more rigorously evaluated by independent experts, ideally before they are widely released. 

In a high-stakes area like health, trusting companies to evaluate their own products could prove unwise, especially if those evaluations aren’t made available for external expert review. And even if the companies are doing quality, rigorous research—which some, including OpenAI, do seem to be—they might still have blind spots that the broader research community could help to fill.

“To the extent that you always are going to need more health care, I think we should definitely be chasing every route that works,” says Andrew Bean, a doctoral candidate at the Oxford Internet Institute. “It’s entirely plausible to me that these models have reached a point where they’re actually worth rolling out.”

“But,” he adds, “the evidence base really needs to be there.”

Tipping points 

To hear developers tell it, these health products are now being released because large language models have indeed reached a point where they can effectively provide medical advice. Dominic King, the vice president of health at Microsoft AI and a former surgeon, cites AI advancement as a core reason why the company’s health team was formed, and why Copilot Health now exists. “We’ve seen this enormous progress in the capabilities of generative AI to be able to answer health questions and give good responses,” he says.

But that’s only half the story, according to King. The other key factor is demand. Shortly before Copilot Health was launched, Microsoft published a report, and an accompanying blog post, detailing how people used Copilot for health advice. The company says it receives 50 million health questions each day, and health is the most popular discussion topic on the Copilot mobile app.

Other AI companies have noticed, and responded to, this trend. “Even before our health products, we were seeing just a rapid, rapid increase in the rate of people using ChatGPT for health-related questions,” says Karan Singhal, who leads OpenAI’s Health AI team. (OpenAI and Microsoft have a long-standing partnership, and Copilot is powered by OpenAI’s models.)

It’s possible that people simply prefer posing their health problems to a nonjudgmental bot that’s available to them 24-7. But many experts interpret this pattern in light of the current state of the health-care system. “There is a reason that these tools exist and they have a position in the overall landscape,” says Girish Nadkarni, chief AI officer​ at the Mount Sinai Health System. “That’s because access to health care is hard, and it’s particularly hard for certain populations.”

The virtuous vision of consumer-facing LLM health chatbots hinges on the possibility that they could improve user health while reducing pressure on the health-care system. That might involve helping users decide whether or not they need medical attention, a task known as triage. If chatbot triage works, then patients who need emergency care might seek it out earlier than they would have otherwise, and patients with more mild concerns might feel comfortable managing their symptoms at home with the chatbot’s advice rather than unnecessarily busying emergency rooms and doctor’s offices.

But a recent, widely discussed study from Nadkarni and other researchers at Mount Sinai found that ChatGPT Health sometimes recommends too much care for mild conditions and fails to identify emergencies. Though Singhal and  some other experts have suggested that its methodology might not provide a complete picture of ChatGPT Health’s capabilities, the study has surfaced concerns about how little external evaluation these tools see before being released to the public.

Most of the academic experts interviewed for this piece agreed that LLM health chatbots could have real upsides, given how little access to health care some people have. But all six of them expressed concerns that these tools are being launched without testing from independent researchers to assess whether they are safe. While some advertised uses of these tools, such as recommending exercise plans or suggesting questions that a user might ask a doctor, are relatively harmless, others carry clear risks. Triage is one; another is asking a chatbot to provide a diagnosis or a treatment plan. 

The ChatGPT Health interface includes a prominent disclaimer stating that it is not intended for diagnosis or treatment, and the announcements for Copilot Health and Amazon’s Health AI include similar warnings. But those warnings are easy to ignore. “We all know that people are going to use it for diagnosis and management,” says Adam Rodman, an internal medicine physician and researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a visiting researcher at Google.

Medical testing

Companies say they are testing the chatbots to ensure that they provide safe responses the vast majority of the time. OpenAI has designed and released HealthBench, a benchmark that scores LLMs on how they respond in realistic health-related conversations—though the conversations themselves are LLM-generated. When GPT-5, which powers both ChatGPT Health and Copilot Health, was released last year, OpenAI reported the model’s HealthBench scores: It did substantially better than previous OpenAI models, though its overall performance was far from perfect. 

But evaluations like HealthBench have limitations. In a study published last month, Bean—the Oxford doctoral candidate—and his colleagues found that even if an LLM can accurately identify a medical condition from a fictional written scenario on its own, a non-expert user who is given the scenario and asked to determine the condition with LLM assistance might figure it out only a third of the time. If they lack medical expertise, users might not know which parts of a scenario—or their real-life experience—are important to include in their prompt, or they might misinterpret the information that an LLM gives them.

Singhal, the OpenAI health lead, notes that the company’s current GPT-5 series of models, which had not yet been released when the original HealthBench study was conducted, do a much better job of soliciting additional information than their predecessors. However, OpenAI has reported that GPT-5.4, the current flagship, is actually worse at seeking context than GPT-5.2, an earlier version.

Ideally, Bean says, health chatbots would be subjected to controlled tests with human users, as they were in his study, before being released to the public. That might be a heavy lift, particularly given how fast the AI world moves and how long human studies can take. Bean’s own study used GPT-4o, which came out almost a year ago and is now outdated. 

Earlier this month, Google released a study that meets Bean’s standards. In the study, patients discussed medical concerns with the company’s Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer (AMIE), a medical LLM chatbot that is not yet available to the public, before meeting with a human physician. Overall, AMIE’s diagnoses were just as accurate as physicians’, and none of the conversations raised major safety concerns for researchers. 

Despite the encouraging results, Google isn’t planning to release AMIE anytime soon. “While the research has advanced, there are significant limitations that must be addressed before real-world translation of systems for diagnosis and treatment, including further research into equity, fairness, and safety testing,” wrote Alan Karthikesalingam, a research scientist at Google DeepMind, in an email. Google did recently reveal that Health100, a health platform it is building in partnership with CVS, will include an AI assistant powered by its flagship Gemini models, though that tool will presumably not be intended for diagnosis or treatment.

Rodman, who led the AMIE study with Karthikesalingam, doesn’t think such extensive, multiyear studies are necessarily the right approach for chatbots like ChatGPT Health and Copilot Health. “There’s lots of reasons that the clinical trial paradigm doesn’t always work in generative AI,” he says. “And that’s where this benchmarking conversation comes in. Are there benchmarks [from] a trusted third party that we can agree are meaningful, that the labs can hold themselves to?”

They key there is “third party.” No matter how extensively companies evaluate their own products, it’s tough to trust their conclusions completely. Not only does a third-party evaluation bring impartiality, but if there are many third parties involved, it also helps protect against blind spots.

OpenAI’s Singhal says he’s strongly in favor of external evaluation. “We try our best to support the community,” he says. “Part of why we put out HealthBench was actually to give the community and other model developers an example of what a very good evaluation looks like.” 

Given how expensive it is to produce a high-quality evaluation, he says, he’s skeptical that any individual academic laboratory would be able to produce what he calls “the one evaluation to rule them all.” But he does speak highly of efforts that academic groups have made to bring preexisting and novel evaluations together into comprehensive evaluations suites—such as Stanford’s MedHELM framework, which tests models on a wide variety of medical tasks. Currently, OpenAI’s GPT-5 holds the highest MedHELM score.

Nigam Shah, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the MedHELM project, says it has limitations. In particular, it only evaluates individual chatbot responses, but someone who’s seeking medical advice from a chatbot tool might engage it in a multi-turn, back-and-forth conversation. He says that he and some collaborators are gearing up to build an evaluation that can score those complex conversations, but that it will take time, and money. “You and I have zero ability to stop these companies from releasing [health-oriented products], so they’re going to do whatever they damn please,” he says. “The only thing people like us can do is find a way to fund the benchmark.”

No one interviewed for this article argued that health LLMs need to perform perfectly on third-party evaluations in order to be released. Doctors themselves make mistakes—and for someone who has only occasional access to a doctor, a consistently accessible LLM that sometimes messes up could still be a huge improvement over the status quo, as long as its errors aren’t too grave. 

With the current state of the evidence, however, it’s impossible to know for sure whether the currently available tools do in fact constitute an improvement, or whether their risks outweigh their benefits.

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

Last Thursday, a California judge temporarily blocked the Pentagon from labeling Anthropic a supply chain risk and ordering government agencies to stop using its AI. It’s the latest development in the month-long feud. And the matter still isn’t settled: The government was given seven days to appeal, and Anthropic has a second case against the designation that has yet to be decided. Until then, the company remains persona non grata with the government. 

The stakes in the case—how much the government can punish a company for not playing ball—were apparent from the start. Anthropic drew lots of senior supporters with unlikely bedfellows among them, including former authors of President Trump’s AI policy.

But Judge Rita Lin’s 43-page opinion suggests that what is really a contract dispute never needed to reach such a frenzy. It did so because the government disregarded the existing process for how such disputes are governed and fueled the fire with social media posts from officials that would eventually contradict the positions it took in court. The Pentagon, in other words, wanted a culture war (on top of the actual war in Iran that began hours later). 

The government used Anthropic’s Claude for much of 2025 without complaint, according to court documents, while the company walked a branding tightrope as a safety-focused AI company that also won defense contracts. Defense employees accessing it through Palantir were required to accept terms of a government-specific usage policy that Anthropic cofounder Jared Kaplan said “prohibited mass surveillance of Americans and lethal autonomous warfare” (Kaplan’s declaration to the court didn’t include details of the policy). Only when the government aimed to contract with Anthropic directly did the disagreements begin. 

What drew the ire of the judge is that when these disagreements became public, they had more to do with punishment than just cutting ties with Anthropic. And they had a pattern: Tweet first, lawyer later. 

President Trump’s post on Truth Social on February 27 referenced “Leftwing nutjobs” at Anthropic and directed every federal agency to stop using the company’s AI. This was echoed soon after by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said he’d direct the Pentagon to label Anthropic a supply chain risk. 

Doing so necessitates that the secretary take a specific set of actions, which the judge found Hegseth did not complete. Letters sent to congressional committees, for example, said that less drastic steps were evaluated and deemed not possible, without providing any further details. The government also said the designation as a supply chain risk was necessary because Anthropic could implement a “kill switch,” but its lawyers later had to admit it had no evidence of that, the judge wrote.

Hegseth’s post also stated that “No contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.” But the government’s own lawyers admitted on Tuesday that the Secretary doesn’t have the power to do that, and agreed with the judge that the statement had “absolutely no legal effect at all.”

The aggressive posts also led the judge to also conclude that Anthropic was on solid ground in complaining that its First Amendment rights were violated. The government, the judge wrote while citing the posts, “set out to publicly punish Anthropic for its ‘ideology’ and ‘rhetoric,’ as well as its ‘arrogance’ for being unwilling to compromise those beliefs.”

Labeling Anthropic a supply chain risk would essentially be identifying it as a “saboteur” of the government, for which the judge did not see sufficient evidence. She issued an order last Thursday halting the designation, preventing the Pentagon from enforcing it and forbidding the government from fulfilling the promises made by Hegseth and Trump. Dean Ball, who worked on AI policy for the Trump administration but wrote a brief supporting Anthropic, described the judge’s order on Thursday as “a devastating ruling for the government, finding Anthropic likely to prevail on essentially all of its theories for why the government’s actions were unlawful and unconstitutional.”

The government is expected to appeal the decision. But Anthropic’s separate case, filed in DC, makes similar allegations. It just references a different segment of the law governing supply chain risks. 

The court documents paint a pretty clear pattern. Public statements made by officials and the President did not at all align with what the law says should happen in a contract dispute like this, and the government’s lawyers have consistently had to create justifications for social media lambasting of the company after the fact.

Pentagon and White House leadership knew that pursuing the nuclear option would spark a court battle; Anthropic vowed on February 27 to fight the supply chain risk designation days before the government formally filed it on March 3. Pursuing it anyway meant senior leadership was, to say the least, distracted during the first five days of the Iran war, launching strikes while also compiling evidence that Anthropic was a saboteur to the government, all while it could have cut ties with Anthropic by simpler means. 

But even if Anthropic ultimately wins, the government has other means to shun the company from government work. Defense contractors who want to stay on good terms with the Pentagon, for example, now have little reason to work with Anthropic even if it’s not flagged as a supply chain risk. 

“I think it’s safe to say that there are mechanisms the government can use to apply some degree of pressure without breaking the law,” says Charlie Bullock, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Law and AI. “It kind of depends how invested the government is in punishing Anthropic.”

From the evidence thus far, the administration is committing top-level time and attention to winning an AI culture war. At the same time, Claude is apparently so important to its operations that even President Trump said the Pentagon needed six months to stop using it. The White House demands political loyalty and ideological alignment from top AI companies, But the case against Anthropic, at least for now, exposes the limits of its leverage.

If you have information about the military’s use of AI, you can share it securely via Signal (username jamesodonnell.22).

After operating in secrecy for years, a startup company called R3 Bio, in Richmond, California, suddenly shared details about its work last week—saying it had raised money to create nonsentient monkey “organ sacks” as an alternative to animal testing.

In an interview with Wired, R3 listed three investors: billionaire Tim Draper, the Singapore-based fund Immortal Dragons, and life-extension investors LongGame Ventures.

But there is more to the story. And R3 doesn’t want that story told.

MIT Technology Review discovered that the stealth startup’s founder John Schloendorn also pitched a startling, medically graphic, and ethically charged vision for what he’s called “brainless clones” to serve the role of backup human bodies.

Imagine it like this: a baby version of yourself with only enough of a brain structure to be alive in case you ever need a new kidney or liver.

Or, alternatively, he has speculated, you might one day get your brain placed into a younger clone. That could be a way to gain a second lifespan through a still hypothetical procedure known as a body transplant.

The fuller context of R3’s proposals, as well as activities of another stealth startup with related goals, have not previously been reported. They’ve been kept secret by a circle of extreme life-extension proponents who fear that their plans for immortality could be derailed by clickbait headlines and public backlash.

And that’s because the idea can sound like something straight from a creepy science fiction film. One person who heard R3’s clone presentation, and spoke on the condition of anonymity, was left reeling by its implications and shaken by Schloendorn’s enthusiastic delivery. The briefing, this person said, was like a “close encounter of the third kind” with “Dr. Strangelove.”

A key inspiration for Schloendorn is a birth defect in which children are born missing most of their cortical hemispheres; he’s shown people medical scans of these kids’ nearly empty skulls as evidence that a body can live without much of a brain. 

And he’s talked about how to grow a clone. Since artificial wombs don’t exist yet, brainless bodies can’t be grown in a lab. So he’s said the first batch of brainless clones would have to be carried by women paid to do the job. In the future, though, one brainless clone could give birth to another.

Last Monday, the same day it announced itself to the world in Wired, R3 sent us a sweeping disavowal of our findings. It said Schloendorn “never made any statement regarding hypothetical ‘non-sentient human clones’ [that] would be carried by surrogates.” The most overarching of these challenges was its insistence that “any allegations of intent or conspiracy to create human clones or humans with brain damage are categorically false.”

But even Schloendorn and his cofounder, Alice Gilman, can’t seem to keep away from the topic. Just last September, the pair presented at Abundance Longevity, a $70,000-per-ticket event in Boston organized by the anti-aging promoter Peter Diamandis. Although the presentation to about 40 people was not recorded and was meant to be confidential, a copy of the agenda for the event shows that Schloendorn was there to outline his “final bid to defeat aging” in a session called “Full Body Replacement.”

According to a person who was there, both animal research and personal clones for spare organs were discussed. During the presentation, Gilman and Schloendorn even stood in front of an image of a cloning needle. Pressed on whether this was a talk about brainless clones, Gilman told us that while R3’s current business is replacing animal models, “the team reserves the right to hold hypothetical futuristic discussions.”

MIT Technology Review found no evidence that R3 has cloned anyone, or even any animal bigger than a rodent. What we did find were documents, additional meeting agendas, and other sources outlining a technical road map for what R3 called “body replacement cloning” in a 2023 letter to supporters. That road map involved improvements to the cloning process and genetic wiring diagrams for how to create animals without complete brains. 

DIMITRI AGAMANOLIS, M.D. VIA WIKIPEDIA

A main purpose of the fundraising, investors say, was to support efforts to try these techniques in monkeys from a base in the Caribbean. That offered a path to a nearer-term business plan for more ethical medical experiments and toxicology testing—if the company could develop what it now calls monkey “organ sacks.” However, this work would clearly inform any possible human version. 

Though he holds a PhD, Schloendorn is a biotech outsider who has published little and is best known for having once outfitted a DIY lab in his Bay Area garage. Still, his ties to the experimental fringe of longevity science have earned him a network in Silicon Valley and allies at a risk-taking US health innovation agency, ARPA-H. Together with his success at raising money from investors, this signals that the brainless-clone concept should be taken seriously by a wider community of scientists, doctors, and ethicists, some of whom expressed grave concerns. 

“It sounds crazy, in my opinion,” said Jose Cibelli, a researcher at Michigan State University, after MIT Technology Review described R3’s brainless-clone idea to him. “How do you demonstrate safety? What is safety when you’re trying to create an abnormal human?”

Twenty-five years ago, Cibelli was among the first scientists to try to clone human embryos, but he was trying to obtain matched stem cells, not make a baby. “There is no limit to human imagination and ways to make money, but there have to be boundaries,” he says. “And this is the boundary of making a human being who is not a human being.” 

“Feasibility research”

Since Dolly the sheep was born in 1996, researchers have cloned dogs, cats, camels, horses, cattle, ferrets, and other species of mammal. Injecting a cell from an existing animal into an egg creates a carbon-copy embryo that can develop, although not always without problems. Defects, deformities, and stillbirths remain common. 

Those grave risks are why we’ve never heard of a human clone, even though it’s theoretically possible to create one. 

But brainless clones flip the script. That’s because the ultimate aim is to create not a healthy person but an unconscious body that would probably need life support, like a feeding tube, to stay alive. Because this body would share the DNA of the person being copied, its organs would be a near-perfect immunological match. 

Backers of this broad concept argue that a nonsentient body would be ethically acceptable to harvest organs from. Some also believe that swapping in fresh, young body parts—known as “replacement”—is the likeliest path to life extension, since so far no drug can reverse aging. 

And then there’s the idea of a complete body transplant. “Certainly, for the cryonics patients, that sounds like something really promising,” says Anders Sandberg, a prominent Swedish transhumanist and expert in the ethics of future technologies. He notes that many people who opt to be stored in cryonic chambers after death choose the less expensive “head only” option, so “there might be a market for having an extra cloned body.”

MIT Technology Review first approached Schloendorn two years ago after learning he’d led a confidential online seminar called the Body Replacement Mini Conference, in which he presented “recent lab progress towards making replacement bodies.” 

According to a copy of the agenda, that 2023 session also included a presentation by a cloning expert, Young Gie Chung. And there was another from Jean Hébert, who was then a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and is now a program manager at ARPA-H, where he oversees a project to use stem cells to restore damaged brain tissue. Hébert popularized the so-called replacement solution to avoiding death in a 2020 book called Replacing Aging. 

In an interview prior to joining the government in 2024, Hébert described an informal but “very collaborative” relationship with Schloendorn. The overall idea was that to stop aging, one of them would determine how to repair a brain, while the other would figure out how to create a body without one. “It’s a perfect match, right? Body, brain,” Hébert told MIT Technology Review at the time. 

Schloendorn, by working outside the mainstream, had the huge advantage of “not being bound by getting the next paper out, or the next grant,” Hébert said, adding, “It’s such a wonderful way of doing research. It’s just clean and pure.” R3 now appears on the ARPA-H website on a list of prospective partners for Hébert’s program.

In a LinkedIn message exchanged with Schloendorn that same year, he described his work as “feasibility research in body replacement.”

“We will try to do it in a way that produces defined societal benefits early on, and we need to be prepared to take no for an answer, if it turns out that this cannot be done safely,” Schloendorn wrote at the time. He declined an interview then, saying that before exiting stealth mode, he wants to be sure the benefits are “reasonably grounded in reality.”

That could prove challenging. While body-part replacement sounds logical, like swapping the timing belt on an old car, in reality there’s scant evidence that receiving organs from a younger twin would make you live any longer. 

A complete body transplant, meanwhile, would probably be fatal, at least with current techniques. In the latest test of the concept, published last July, Russian surgeons removed a pig’s head and then sewed it back on. The animal did live—breathing weakly and lapping water from a syringe. But because its spinal cord had been cut, it was otherwise totally paralyzed. (As yet, there’s no proven method to rejoin a severed spinal cord.) In an act of mercy, the doctors ended the pig’s life after about 12 hours. 

Even some of R3’s investors say the endeavor is a risky, low-odds project, on par with colonizing Mars. Boyang Wang, head of Immortal Dragons, has spoken at longevity conferences about body-swapping technology, referring to the chance that “when the time comes, you can transplant your brain into a new body.” Wang confirmed in a January Zoom call that he’d been referring to R3 and that he invested $500,000 in the company during a 2024 fundraising round.

But since making his investment, Wang says, he’s become less bullish. He now views whole-body transplant as “very infeasible, not even very scientific” and “far away from hope for any realistic application.” 

Still, he says, the investment in R3 fits with his philosophy of making unorthodox bets that could be breakthroughs against aging. “What can really move the needle?” he asks. “Because time is running out.”

Stealth mode

Clonal bodies sit at the extreme frontier of an advancing cluster of technologies all aimed at growing spare parts. Researchers are exploring stem cells, synthetic embryos, and blob-like organoids, and some companies are cloning genetically engineered pigs whose kidneys and hearts have already been transplanted into a few patients. Each of these methods seeks to harness development—the process by which animal bodies naturally form in the womb—to grow fully functional organs. 

There’s even a growing cadre of mainstream scientists who say nonsentient bodies could solve the organ shortage, if they could be grown through artificial means. Two Stanford University professors, calling these structures “bodyoids,” published an editorial in favor of manufacturing spare human bodies in MIT Technology Review last year. While that editorial left many details to the imagination, they called the idea “at least plausible—and possibly revolutionary.” 

“There are a lot of variations on this where they’re trying to find a socially acceptable form,” says George Church, a Harvard University professor who advises startups in the field. But Church says gestating an entire body is probably taking things too far, especially since nearly all patients on transplant lists are waiting for just a single organ, like a heart or kidney. 

“There’s almost no scenario where you need a whole body,” he says. “I just think even if it’s someday acceptable, it’s not a good place to start.” For the moment, Church says, brainless human bodies are “not very useful, in addition to being repulsive.”

That’s arguably why body replacement technology still feels risky to talk about, even among life-extension enthusiasts who are otherwise ready to inject Chinese peptides or have their bodies cryogenically frozen. “I think it’s exciting or interesting from a scientific perspective, but I think the world is not fully ready for it yet,” says Emil Kendziorra, CEO of Tomorrow Bio, a company in Berlin that stores bodies at -196 °C in the hope they can be restored to life in the future. 

“Everybody’s like, yeah, you know, cryopreservation makes total sense,” he says. “And then you talk about total body replacement. And then everybody’s like, Whoa, whoa, whoa.”

Even so, “replacement” technology has found a fervent base of support among a group of self-described “hardcore” longevity adherents who follow a philosophy called Vitalism, which holds that society should redirect resources toward achieving unlimited lifespans. The growing influence of this movement, achieved through lobbying, investment, recruiting, and public messaging, was detailed earlier this year in MIT Technology Review.

Last spring, during a meetup for this community, Kendziorra was among the attendees at an invite-only “Replacement Day” gathering that took place off the public schedule. It was where more radical ideas could be discussed freely, since to some in the Vitalist circle, replacing body parts has emerged as the most plausible, least expensive way to beat death. 

At least that was the conclusion of a road map for anti-aging technology produced by one Vitalist group, the Longevity Biotech Fellowship, which reckoned that a proof-of-concept human clone lacking a neocortex would cost $40 million to create—a tiny amount, relatively speaking. 

Its report cited the existence of two stealth companies working on cloning whole nonsentient bodies, although it took care not to name them. If these companies’ activities become public, “there will be a huge backlash—people will hate it,” the entrepreneur Kris Borer said while presenting the road map at a French resort last August. 

“There are a ton of dystopian movies and novels about this kind of stuff. That is why I didn’t talk about any of the companies working on it. They are trying to hide from public attention,” he said. “We have to have the angel investors and other people invest kind of in secret until things are ready.” 

Borer did say what he sees as the best way to go public: first, to slowly ease body replacement into society’s awareness by disclosing more limited aims, which will be palatable. “We are not going to start with Let’s clone you and give you a body. We are going to start with Let’s solve the organ shortage,” he said. “Eventually people will warm up to it, and then we can go to the more hardcore stuff.”

In an interview earlier this month, Borer declined to name the companies involved in his immortality road map, or to say if R3 is one of them. But we did identify one additional stealthy startup, this one focused on replacing a person’s internal organs, not the whole body. Called Kind Biotechnology, it is a New Hampshire–based company headed by the anti-aging researcher Justin Rebo, a sometime collaborator of Schloendorn’s.

WO2025260099 VIA WIPO

According to patent applications filed by the company, Rebo’s team is working to create animals with a “complete lack of ability to feel, think, or sense the environment.” Images included in the patents show mice the company produced that lack a complete brain, and others that don’t have faces or limbs. They did that by deleting genes in embryos using the gene-editing technology CRISPR with the goal of creating a “sack of organs that grows mostly on its own,” with only a minimal nervous system. A cartoon rendering submitted to the patent office shows what looks like a fleshy duffel bag connected to life support tubes. 

In an email, Rebo said his company is working on an “ethical and scalable” way to create animal organs for experimental transplant to humans. He notes that “thousands die while waiting” for an organ. 

Some of Kind’s patent applications do cover the possibility of producing these organ sacks from human cells. Rebo says that’s more of a speculative possibility. But he does see his work as part of the “replacement” approach to longevity. Firstly, that’s because a “scalable production of young, high-quality organs” would let surgeons try transplants in more types of patients, including many with heart disease in old age who aren’t candidates for a transplant now. 

“With abundant high-quality organs, replacement could become a direct form of rejuvenation by replacement of failing parts,” he says. 

And Rebo imagines that simultaneously replacing multiple internal organs (grown together in the sack) could have even broader rejuvenating effects. “Ultimately, replacing failing parts is a direct path to extending healthy human lifespan,” he says. 

Church, who agreed earlier this year to advise Kind Bio, sees this work as part of an effort to “nudge” these technologies “toward something that is more useful and more acceptable from the get-go,” he says. “And then let’s see how society responds to that—rather than jumping to the most repulsive and most useless form, which some of them seem to be aiming for.” 

“There’s one way to find out”

People who know Schloendorn describe a dynamo-like presence who is “100% dedicated” to the goal of extreme life extension. In 2006, he penned a paper in a bioethics journal outlining why the “desire to live forever” is rational, and his doctoral research at the University of Arizona was sponsored by a longevity research organization called the SENS Foundation.  

He’s also well connected. In an interview, Aubrey de Grey, the influential and controversial fundraiser and prognosticator who cofounded SENS, called Schloendorn “one of my protégés.” And around 2010, Peter Thiel reportedly invested $1.5 million in ImmunePath, a company started by Schloendorn to develop stem-cell treatments, though it soon failed. (A representative for Thiel did not respond to a request to confirm the figure.)

By 2021, Schloendorn had moved on, founding R3 Biotechnologies. He began to circulate the body replacement idea and discuss a step-by-step scheme to get there: assess techniques in the lab first, then in monkeys, and maybe eventually in humans. 

A 2023 “letter to stakeholders” signed by Schloendorn begins by saying that “body replacement cloning will require multicomponent genetic engineering on a scale that has never been attempted in primates.” Fortunately, it adds, molecular techniques for “brain knockout” are well known in mice and should also be expected to function in “birthing whole primates,” a class that includes both monkeys and humans. 

Would it work? “There’s one way to find out,” the letter says. 

Wang, the investor at Immortal Dragons, says he put money into R3 after it showed him it is possible to create mice without complete brains. “There were imperfections, but the resulting mice survived, grew up, and to me, that is a pretty strong experiment,” he says; it was evidence enough for him to fund R3’s attempt to “replicate the result in primates.” 

(In its emailed statement, R3 said the company and its founders “never produced any degree of brain alterations in any species, did not attempt to do so, did not hire another party to do so, and have no specific plans to do so in the future.” It added: “We do not work with live non-human primates.”) 

The bigger technical obstacle, though, remains the cloning. Out of 100 attempts to clone an animal, only a few typically succeed. That fact alone makes cloning a human—or a monkey—almost infeasible.

But R3 does seem to have made an effort to tackle the efficiency problem. In one document reviewed by MIT Technology Review, it claims to have implemented improvements to the basic procedure in rodents, referencing a protein, called a histone demethylase, that helps erase a cell’s genetic memory. Adding it can greatly increase the chance that the cell will form a cloned embryo after being injected into an egg in the lab.

Those molecules were used in the first successful cloning of a monkey, which occurred in 2018 in China. But it still wasn’t easy—in fact, it was a huge and costly effort to handle a crowd of monkeys in estrus and perform IVF on them. According to Michigan State’s Cibelli, monkey cloning remains nearly impossible, at least on US territory, just because it’s “unaffordable.”

Nevertheless, success in monkeys did help prove, at least biologically, that human reproductive cloning could be possible. 

The company may also have tried to tackle a second long-standing obstacle to cloning: defects in how the placenta works. Because of such problems, some cloned animals die quickly after birth.

The R3 document refers to a “birthing fix” it developed to further improve the cloning success rate. While MIT Technology Review didn’t learn what R3’s process entails, we found a reference to it on the LinkedIn page of Maitriyee Mahanta, a scientist who cosigned the 2023 letter to R3 stakeholders and is a former research assistant to Hébert. (We were unable to reach Mahanta for comment.)

Her page described her current role as “molecular lead” studying cloning, “birth rate fixing,” and cortical development using cells from nonhuman primates. Her job affiliation is given as the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation, a nonprofit where de Grey is the president and chief science officer. But de Grey says his foundation only arranged a work visa for Mahanta as part of a partnership “with the company she actually spends her time at.”

Like several other people interviewed for this article, de Grey made a resourceful effort to avoid directly confirming the existence of R3 when we spoke, while at the same time freely discussing theoretical aspects of body cloning technology. For instance, he talked about ways to shorten the wait for your double to grow up to a size suitable for organ harvesting; a further genetic mutation could be added to cause “central precocious puberty” in the clone, he said. This condition causes a growth spurt, even pubic hair, in a toddler. 

Cloning dictators

Who would clone a body and pay to keep it alive for years, until it’s needed? The first customers for this costly technology (if it ever proves feasible) would likely be the ultra-rich or the ultra-powerful. 

Indeed, somehow the world’s top dictators seem to have gotten the memo about replacement parts. In September, a hot mic picked up a conversation between Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping as they walked through Beijing with North Korean autocrat Kim Jong Un; in the exchange, the Russian speculated on life extension.  

“Biotechnology is continuously developing. Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you become, and [you can] even achieve immortality,” Putin said through an interpreter.

“Some predict that in this century, humans will live to 150 years old,” Xi responded agreeably.

How the leaders learned of these possibilities is unknown. But scenarios involving dictators are a constant topic among body replacement enthusiasts. 

“There are companies working on this. They are in stealth—we can’t reveal too much about them—but the general concept on this is if you didn’t have any ethical qualms, you could do most of it today,” Will Harborne, the chief investment officer of LongGame Advisors, said last year, during an interview with the podcaster Julian Issa. “If you were the dictator of some country and wanted a clone of yourself, you can already go grow one. You can create a cloned embryo of yourself, you can get a surrogate to carry it to term, and you can grow [a] body until age 18 with a brain, and eventually, if you were a dictator, you could kill them and try to transplant your head on their body.”

“And now no one is suggesting you do that—it’s very unethical—but most of the technology is there,” he said. He noted that the reason for removing the cortex of a clone created for such a purpose is that “we don’t want to kill other people to live forever.” 

Harborne subsequently confirmed to MIT Technology Review that the fund invested $1 million in R3 about a year and a half ago.

In order to make the body replacement process ethical, the clone’s brain needs to be stunted so it lacks consciousness. That is where the interest in birth defects comes in. Remarkable medical scans of kids with a rare condition, hydranencephaly, show a total absence of the cerebral hemispheres. Yet if they are cared for, they may be able to live into their 20s, even though they cannot speak or engage in purposeful movement. 

The technical question, then, is how to intentionally produce such a condition in a clone. Sandberg, the futurist, says he’s visited R3’s lab, talked to Gilman, and sat through a presentation about how genetic engineering can be used to shape brain growth. Previous work has shown that by adding a toxic gene, it is possible to kill specific cell types in a growing embryo but spare others, leading to a mouse without a neocortex.

While Sandberg isn’t an expert in biotechnology, he says R3’s theory looked sensible to him. “I think it’s possible to actually prevent the development of the brain well enough that you can say ‘Yeah, there is almost certainly no consciousness here,’” Sandberg says. “Hence, there can’t be any suffering, or any individual, in a practical sense.”

“I think the overall aim—actually, it looks ethically pretty good,” he says. 

QIANG SUN AND MU-MING POO/CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES VIA AP

Yet it could be difficult to really determine where consciousness starts and ends. Under current medical standards, taking the organs of people with hydranencephaly isn’t allowed because they don’t meet the standard of brain death: They have a functioning brain stem. An even more serious problem is evidence that the brain stem alone produces a basic form of consciousness. If that is so, says Bjorn Merker, a neuroscientist who surveyed caretakers of more than a hundred children with hydranencephaly, a plan “to harvest organs from organisms modeled on this condition would be unethical.”

Of course, the most extreme version of the replacement dream isn’t just to take organs. It’s to take over the body entirely. Sergio Canavero, a controversial Italian surgeon who has proposed head and brain transplants, says he was approached for advice by Schloendorn and others a few years ago. “They told me they were looking at a head transplant on a two- or three-year-old,” he says. “I stopped short. How could you even conceive of that? The biomechanical compatibility is not there. You have to wait until at least 14. And I would say 16. It was very clear to me these guys are not surgeons—they are biologists.” 

Canavero says he’s not opposed to cloning bodies for transplant—he thinks it could work. “But if you want to use a clone,” he says, “it must be a nonsentient clone. Otherwise it’s murder, a homicide.”    

MIT Technology Review has not found any evidence that R3 has yet created an “organ sack,” much less a brainless human clone. And there are many reasons to believe their hypothetical future of “full body replacement” will never come to pass—that it is just a live-forever fantasy.

“There are so many barriers,” says Cibelli. It’s a long list: Human cloning is illegal in many countries, it’s unsafe, and few competent experts would want, or dare, to participate. And then there’s the inconvenient fact that for now, there’s no way to grow a brainless clone to birth, except in a woman’s body. Think about it, Cibelli says: “You’d have to convince a woman to carry a fetus that is going to be abnormal.”

Sandberg agrees that is where things could start to get tricky. “The problem here, of course,” he says, “is that the yuck factor is magnificent.”

“Think of this as a human body,” says Javier González.

In front of me is essentially a metal box on wheels. Standing at around a meter in height, it reminds me of a stainless-steel counter in a restaurant kitchen. It is covered in flexible plastic tubing—which act as veins and arteries—connecting a series of transparent containers, the organs of this machine.

What makes it extra special is the role of the cream-colored tub that sits on its surface. Ten months ago, González, a biomedical scientist who developed the device with his colleagues at the Carlos Simon Foundation, carefully placed a freshly donated human uterus in the tub. The team connected it to the device’s tubes and pumped in modified human blood.

The device kept the uterus alive for a day—a new feat that could represent the first step to the long-term maintenance of uteruses outside the human body. The work has not yet been published. 

The team members want to keep donated human uteruses alive long enough to see a full menstrual cycle. They hope this will help them study diseases of the uterus and learn more about how embryos burrow their way into the organ’s lining at the start of a pregnancy. They also hope that future iterations of their device might one day sustain the full gestation of a human fetus.

The machine is technically called PUPER, which stands for “preservation of the uterus in perfusion.” But González’s colleague Xavier Santamaria says the team has adopted a nickname for it: “We call it ‘Mother.’”

The organ in the machine

González and Santamaria, medical vice president of the Carlos Simon Foundation, demonstrated how the device might work when I visited the foundation in Valencia, Spain, earlier this month (although it held no organs on that day). 

Both are interested in learning more about implantation, the moment at which an embryo attaches itself to the lining of a uterus—essentially, the very first moment of pregnancy.

The foundation’s founder and director, Carlos Simon, believes it’s a sticking point in IVF: Scientists have made many improvements to the technology over the years, but the failure of embryos to implant underlies plenty of unsuccessful IVF cycles, he says. Being able to carefully study how the process works in a real, living organ might give the team a better idea of how to prevent those failures.

JESS HAMZELOU

JAVIER GONZALES/CARLOS SIMON FOUNDATION

Javier González demonstrates the perfusion machine. A previous iteration of the device kept a sheep’s uterus (right) alive for a day.

The team took inspiration from advances in technologies designed to maintain donated organs for transplantation. In recent years, researchers around the world have created devices that deliver nutrients and filter waste so that organs can survive longer after being removed from donors’ bodies.

The main goal here is to buy time. A human organ might last only a matter of hours outside the body, so a transplant may require frantic preparation for the recipient, sometimes in the middle of the night. With a little more time, doctors could find better donor-patient matches and potentially test the quality of donated organs.

This approach is called normothermic or machine perfusion, and it is already being used clinically for some liver, kidney, and heart transplants.

The team at the Carlos Simon Foundation built a similar machine for uteruses. A blood bag hangs on one side. From there, blood is ferried via plastic tubing to a pump, which functions as the heart. The pump shunts the blood through an oxygenator, which adds oxygen and removes carbon dioxide as the lungs would in a human body.

The blood is warmed and passed through sensors that monitor the levels of glucose and oxygen, along with other factors. It passes through a “kidney” to remove waste. And finally the blood reaches the uterus, hooked up to its own plastic “arteries” and “veins.” The organ itself sits at a tilt, just as in the body, and is kept in a humid environment to stay moist.

Mother’s first uterus

The team first began testing an early prototype of the device with sheep uteruses around four years ago. That meant carting the machine to an animal research center in Zaragoza, around 200 miles away. Over the course of the preliminary study, veterinary surgeons removed the uteruses of six sheep and hooked them up to the machine. They kept each uterus alive for a day, using blood from the same animals.

After the sheep experiments, the researchers carted their machine back to Valencia and modified it to achieve its current incarnation, “Mother.” They started working with a local hospital that performed hysterectomies. And in May last year, they were offered their first human uterus.

The team needed to be quick. “You need to put [the uterus in the machine] within a couple of hours, maximum, of the extraction,” says Santamaria. He and his colleagues also needed to connect the uterus’s blood vessels to the tubing delicately, taking care to avoid any blockages (clotting is a major challenge in organ perfusion). The organ was hooked up to human blood obtained from a blood bank.

It seemed to work—at least temporarily. “We kept it alive for one day,” says Santamaria.

“As a proof of concept, it is impressive,” says Keren Ladin, a bioethicist who has focused on organ transplantation and perfusion at Tufts University. “These are early days.”

It might not sound like much, but 24 hours is a long time for an organ to be out of the body. Maintaining a donated uterus for that long could expand the options for uterus transplant, a fairly new procedure offered to some people who want to be pregnant but don’t have a functional uterus, says Gerald Brandacher, professor of experimental and translational transplant surgery at the Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria.

“It is better than what we currently have, because we have only a couple of hours,” he says. So far, most uterus transplants have been planned operations involving organs from living donors. A technology like this could allow for the use of more organs from deceased donors, he says.

That work is “not in the immediate pipeline” for the team in Spain, says Santamaria. “We are working on other problems.”

Pregnancy in the lab?

Santamaria, González, and their colleagues are more interested in using sustained human uteruses for research. 

They’ve mounted a camera to a wall in the corner of the room, pointed at their machine. It allows the team to monitor “Mother” remotely, and to check if any valves disconnect. (That happened once before—a spike in pressure caused the blood bag to come loose, spilling a liter of blood on the floor, Santamaria says.)

They’d like to be able to keep their uteruses alive for around 28 days to study the menstrual cycle and disorders that affect the uterus, like endometriosis and fibroids.

It won’t be easy to maintain a uterus for that long, cautions Brandacher. As far as he knows, no one has been able to maintain a liver for more than seven days. “No studies out there … have shown 30-day survival in a machine perfusion circuit,” he says.

But it’s worth the effort. The team’s main interest is learning more about how embryos implant in the uterine lining at the start of a pregnancy. They hope to be able to test the process in their outside-the-body uteruses.

They won’t be allowed to use human embryos for this, says González—that would cross an ethical boundary. Instead, they plan to use embryo-like structures made from stem cells. The structures closely resemble human embryos but are created in a lab without sperm or eggs.

Simon himself has grander ambitions.

He sees a future in which a machine like “Mother” will be able to fully gestate a human, all the way from embryo to newborn. It could offer a new path to parenthood for people who don’t have a uterus, for example, or who are not able to get pregnant for other reasons.

He appreciates that it sounds futuristic, to say the least. “I don’t know if we will end up having pregnancies inside of the uterus outside of the body, but at least we are ready to understand all the steps to do that,” he says. “You have to start somewhere.”

Qichao Hu doesn’t mince words about how he sees the state of the battery industry. “Almost every Western battery company has either died or is going to die. It’s kind of the reality,” he says.

Hu is the CEO of SES AI, a Massachusetts-based battery company. It once had aims of making huge amounts of advanced lithium metal batteries for major industries like electric vehicles—but now the company is placing its bets on AI materials discovery.

Hu sees the pivot as an essential one. “It’s just not possible for a Western company to build a sustainable business,” he says. The company is still making some batteries, but only for smaller markets like drones rather than those that would require higher volumes, like EVs. The new focus is the company’s battery materials discovery platform—which it can either license to other battery companies or use to develop materials to sell. 

Some leading US EV battery companies have folded in recent months, and others, like SES AI, are making dramatic changes in strategy. This shift in who’s building batteries and where they’re doing it could shape the future geopolitics of energy. 

The work that would eventually evolve into SES AI began at MIT, where Hu completed his graduate research. His battery work was aimed at applications in oil and gas exploration. The industry uses sensors that go deep underground, where temperatures can top 120 °C (about 250 °F). The team hoped to develop a battery that could withstand those high temperatures and last longer on a single charge. 

The chosen technology was a solid polymer lithium metal battery. These cells use lithium metal for their anode and a polymer for their electrolyte (the material that ions move through in a battery cell). Together, these components can increase the energy density of a cell significantly, relative to the lithium-ion batteries that are common in personal devices and EVs today. (Lithium-ion batteries generally use a graphite material for their anode and a liquid for the electrolyte.)

That solid-state battery technology became the foundation of Solid Energy, a startup Hu founded that spun out from MIT in 2012 and raised its first private investment in 2013.

The team eventually realized that underground oil exploration was a small market, so after several years of operation they began to focus on electric vehicles, which were starting to come into the mainstream. After the team tweaked the chemistry to work better at lower temperatures, the company built its first pilot facility in Massachusetts and eventually another facility in Shanghai.

By 2021, the battery industry was booming, Hu recalls, and EVs were the hottest industry to be in. There was a ton of interest in next-generation battery technology from major automakers at the time, and Solid Energy started developing technology with GM, Hyundai, and Honda.

Larger vehicles, like SUVs and trucks, seemed like a good fit for next-generation batteries, Hu says. Massive vehicles like the ones Americans like to drive would need lighter batteries so they could have a reasonable range without being prohibitively heavy.

The company also shifted its chemistry focus, and in 2022 it announced a battery with a silicon anode rather than a lithium metal one. That shift could help make the battery easier to manufacture.

Since then, growth in the EV market has slowed, at least in the US, partly because of major pullbacks in funding from the Trump administration. EV tax credits for drivers, a key piece of support pushing Americans toward electric options, ended in late 2025. With the market for large electric cars in trouble, Hu says, “now we have to look at every market.”  

The AI materials discovery platform on which it’s pinning many of its hopes is called Molecular Universe. The company seeks not only to provide its software to other battery companies but also to identify new battery materials and either license them or sell them to those companies.

COURTESY OF SES AI

The platform has already identified six new electrolyte materials, according to the company. Hu says one is an additive that could help improve the lifetime of batteries with silicon anodes. 

One of the challenges with silicon anodes is that they tend to swell a lot during use, which can cause physical damage and prevent efficient charging and discharging. To address the problem, the industry typically uses a material called fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), which can help form an elastic film on the anode so the battery can still charge effectively. That additive can degrade at high temperatures, though, producing gases that can harm a battery’s lifetime. The SES platform identified a compound that works like FEC but doesn’t release those gases.

The company’s long history and deep battery knowledge could help make its platform a useful tool, Hu says. He sees the actual model as less crucial than SES’s domain expertise and data from years of making and testing batteries. 

“By not actually making the physical battery, we’re actually able to scale and then generate revenue faster,” he says. 

But some experts are skeptical about the near-term prospects for AI materials discovery to revive the industry. “New materials development, as much as we thought that was what people wanted (and, frankly, it should be what the cell makers want)—I don’t know that that seems to be the real linchpin of the battery industry’s progress,” says Kara Rodby, a technical principal at Volta Energy Technologies, a venture capital firm that focuses on the energy storage industry.

Investors are pulling back, and a slowdown in public support is making things difficult for some parts of the battery industry, she adds: “I don’t know that the ability to discover any new material is going to unlock anything new for the battery industry at this point in time.”

Axiom Math, a startup based in Palo Alto, California, has released a free new AI tool for mathematicians, designed to discover mathematical patterns that could unlock solutions to long-standing problems.

The tool, called Axplorer, is a redesign of an existing one called PatternBoost that François Charton, now a research scientist at Axiom, co-developed in 2024 when he was at Meta. PatternBoost ran on a supercomputer; Axplorer runs on a Mac Pro.

The aim is to put the power of PatternBoost, which was used to crack a hard math puzzle known as the Turán four-cycles problem, in the hands of anyone who can install Axplorer on their own computer.

Last year, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency set up a new initiative called expMath—short for Exponentiating Mathematics—to encourage mathematicians to develop and use AI tools. Axiom sees itself as part of that drive.

Breakthroughs in math have enormous knock-on effects across technology, says Charton. In particular, new math is crucial for advances in computer science, from building next-generation AI to improving internet security.

Most of the successes with AI tools have involved finding solutions to existing problems. But finding solutions is not all that mathematicians do, says Axiom Math founder and CEO Carina Hong. Math is exploratory and experimental, she says. 

MIT Technology Review met with Charton and Hong last week for an exclusive video chat about their new tool and how AI in general could change mathematics. 

Math by chatbot

In the last few months, a number of mathematicians have used LLMs, such as OpenAI’s GPT-5, to find solutions to unsolved problems, especially ones set by the 20th-century mathematician Paul Erdős, who left behind hundreds of puzzles when he died.

But Charton is dismissive of those successes. “There are tons of problems that are open because nobody looked at them, and it’s easy to find a few gems you can solve,” he says. He’s set his sights on tougher challenges—“the big problems that have been very, very well studied and famous people have worked on them.” Last year, Axiom Math used another of its tools, called AxiomProver, to find solutions to four such problems in mathematics.   

The Turán four-cycles problem that PatternBoost cracked is another big problem, says Charton. (The problem is an important one in graph theory, a branch of math that’s used to analyze complex networks such as social media connections, supply chains, and search engine rankings. Imagine a page covered in dots. The puzzle involves figuring out how to draw lines between as many of the dots as possible without creating loops that connect four dots in a row.)

“LLMs are extremely good if what you want to do is derivative of something that has already been done,” says Charton. “This is not surprising—LLMs are pretrained on all the data that there is. But you could say that LLMs are conservative. They try to reuse things that exist.”

However, there are lots of problems in math that require new ideas, insights that nobody has ever had. Sometimes those insights come from spotting patterns that hadn’t been spotted before. Such discoveries can open up whole new branches of mathematics.

PatternBoost was designed to help mathematicians find new patterns. Give the tool an example and it generates others like it. You select the ones that seem interesting and feed them back in. The tool then generates more like those, and so on.  

It’s a similar idea to Google DeepMind’s AlphaEvolve, a system that uses an LLM to come up with novel solutions to a problem. AlphaEvolve keeps the best suggestions and asks the LLM to improve on them.

Special access

Researchers have already used both AlphaEvolve and PatternBoost to discover new solutions to long-standing math problems. The trouble is that those tools run on large clusters of GPUs and are not available to most mathematicians.

Mathematicians are excited about AlphaEvolve, says Charton. “But it’s closed—you need to have access to it. You have to go and ask the DeepMind guy to type in your problem for you.”

And when Charton solved the Turán problem with PatternBoost, he was still at Meta. “I had literally thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of machines I could run it on,” he says. “It ran for three weeks. It was embarrassing brute force.”

Axplorer is far faster and far more efficient, according to the team at Axiom Math. Charton says it took Axplorer just 2.5 hours to match PatternBoost’s Turán result. And it runs on a single machine.

Geordie Williamson, a mathematician at the University of Sydney, who worked on PatternBoost with Charton, has not yet tried Axplorer. But he is curious to see what mathematicians do with it. (Williamson still occasionally collaborates with Charton on academic projects but says he is not otherwise connected to Axiom Math.)

Williamson says Axiom Math has made several improvements to PatternBoost that (in theory) make Axplorer applicable to a wider range of mathematical problems. “It remains to be seen how significant these improvements are,” he says.

“We are in a strange time at the moment, where lots of companies have tools that they’d like us to use,” Williamson adds. “I would say mathematicians are somewhat overwhelmed by the possibilities. It is unclear to me what impact having another such tool will be.”

Hong admits that there are a lot of AI tools being pitched at mathematicians right now. Some also require mathematicians to train their own neural networks. That’s a turnoff, says Hong, who is a mathematician herself. Instead, Axplorer will walk you through what you want to do step by step, she says.

The code for Axplorer is open source and available via GitHub. Hong hopes that students and researchers will use the tool to generate sample solutions and counterexamples to problems they’re working on, speeding up mathematical discovery.

Williamson welcomes new tools and says he uses LLMs a lot. But he doesn’t think mathematicians should throw out the whiteboards just yet. “In my biased opinion, PatternBoost is a lovely idea, but it is certainly not a panacea,” he says. “I’d love us not to forget more down-to-earth approaches.”

AI is at war. Anthropic and the Pentagon feuded over how to weaponize Anthropic’s AI model Claude; then OpenAI swept the Pentagon off its feet with an “opportunistic and sloppy” deal. Users quit ChatGPT in droves. People marched through London in the biggest protest against AI to date. If you’re keeping score, Anthropic—the company founded to be ethical—is now turbocharging US strikes on Iran. 

On the lighter side, AI agents are now going viral online. OpenAI hired the creator of OpenClaw, a popular AI agent. Meta snapped up Moltbook, where AI agents seem to ponder their own existence and invent new religions like Crustafarianism. And on RentAHuman, bots are hiring people to deliver CBD gummies. The future isn’t AI taking your job. It’s AI becoming your boss and finding God.