Society
As Oppenheimer wins the Oscars, here is an epiphany
We can’t unmix science from politics. They’re intertwined.

Earlier today, Christopher Nolan’s much acclaimed film, Oppenheimer (2023), won 7 awards at the Oscars – including Best Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Score, Cinematography, Editing and Director.
And what better moment can there be to discuss threats and fears about the wildest creations of nuclear physics?
Oppenheimer made some seminal contributions in quantum mechanics and in black hole physics. He brought ‘quantum physics to the US’. However, Oppenheimer was also a public intellectual, who dabbled with left wing politics in his younger days. He rose to national prominence after he led Los Alamos National Laboratory as Director, in an effort that saw the US develop and wield nuclear weapons. He forever became known as the ‘father of the atom bomb’, a label that didn’t do anything to stop him spiraling into depression, as he saw his legacy tainted with death and destruction.
Nolan’s movie was a biopic, based on authors Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
In a scene that shakes you to the core, Oppenheimer (played by Cilian Murphy) imagines seeing the horrific effects of a nuclear bombing on humans. A corpse flash fried, that crumbles upon the lightest touch. People mourning deaths of their loved ones, people vaporized leaving no traces behind. Others left alive with burns, and others vomiting irrecoverably from radiation sickness. Just imagine this is a time when people didn’t even really know what radiation sickness was all about. How many people would’ve dabbled with radioactivity? And now all it takes is one bomb to exact such a devastating toll on human life.
We wonder – who’s accountable for all this? The maker or the master? Or both?

Image of the nuclear detonation in US’ Castle Romeo test in 1954. Credit: United States Department of Energy
Oppenheimer lends an opportunity to assess scientists by holding them at the same pedestal as we do with politicians – especially when they’re prone to serious misjudgment. Oppenheimer thought the best way to demonstrate deterrence was to demonstrate the weapon’s capability. He assumed it wouldn’t proliferate, if they were demonstrated with an attack. ‘They (people) won’t fear it, unless they understand it, and they won’t understand it, until they’ve used it,’ as Cilian Murphy said in the movie. And they did use it.
Did people fear it? Yes and no. On one end there’s the physical damage of it all. But on the other end there came the political chain reaction – with nuclear arsenal stockpiling to record highs during the Cold War. There are still enough nukes around the world to end human civilization many times over.
Frankenstein died, but the monster lives on.
It’s an age-old claim now, as old as the Trinity test itself that it was impossible to stop the nuclear bomb developments. Somebody else or the other would have made it. This is sadly true. However, when we think of science itself – as Isidor Rabbi in the movie (played by David Krumholtz) said, ‘I don’t wish the culmination of three centuries of physics to be a weapon of mass destruction.’ Is science really divorced from political realities? Sure, a nuclear chain reaction isn’t dependent on policy. Of course, but launching an initiative to trigger one surely is. Leo Szilard’s letter sent to US President Theodore Roosevelt, signed off by Albert Einstein, discussed the feasibility of the US wielding a nuclear weapon to deter the Germans. That’s as straightforward as it can get.
It reflects policy change, when Nobel Peace Prize winner and nuclear physicist, Joseph Rotblat claimed General Leslie Groves (who oversaw the Manhattan Project) stating that it was the Soviets who the US seeked to intimidate with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. And when the Soviets surprised the US by revealing their own sophisticated nuclear program with a growing arsenal, the world locked up in a race for their own weapons. There was a total snafu.
Although Nolan used Sherwin and Bird’s source material as the inspiration for Oppenheimer to be depicted as a Prometheus, he’s also undoubtedly similar to Frankenstein as well.
Frankenstein died, but the monster lives on. What can we learn from all of this? Well, science and society are so intertwined that they both shape each other. The other is we may need to figure out who’s accountable for technological and scientific innovations.
Innovation may not really be unstoppable, if there’s collective action and we decide for ourselves what the world ought to be. Perhaps nuclear holocaust isn’t fictional, but at least we can do something for innovations in our society today.
“I have been interested to talk to some of the leading researchers in the AI field, and hear from them that they view this as their ‘Oppenheimer moment’,” said Nolan in an interview to The Guardian. AI can provide jobs as much as it takes away them, and that’s the challenge of our times. “And they’re clearly looking to his story for some kind of guidance … as a cautionary tale in terms of what it says about the responsibility of somebody who’s putting this technology to the world, and what their responsibilities would be in terms of unintended consequences.”
We’d rather be wise and learn from history, than repeat it. May that lead to an era of responsible innovation.
Society
INM: MIT’s Bold Push to Regain America’s Productive Edge
The ambitious initiative aims at reinvigorating U.S. manufacturing with cutting-edge innovation

In a move to reshape the future of American industry, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has launched its Initiative for New Manufacturing (INM), an Institute-wide effort aimed at revitalizing U.S. manufacturing through next-generation technologies, research, education, and deep collaboration with industry.
Announced today, INM seeks to strengthen key sectors of the U.S. economy and spark nationwide job creation. The initiative will bring together MIT’s extensive research capabilities and educational resources to help companies of all sizes increase productivity and build a more resilient and human-centered manufacturing landscape.
“We want to work with firms big and small, in cities, small towns and everywhere in between, to help them adopt new approaches for increased productivity,” MIT President Sally A. Kornbluth wrote in a letter to the Institute community this morning. “We want to deliberately design high-quality, human-centered manufacturing jobs that bring new life to communities across the country.”
“We want to work with firms big and small, in cities, small towns and everywhere in between, to help them adopt new approaches for increased productivity
Kornbluth emphasized the significance of the effort, stating in a media statement: “Helping America build a future of new manufacturing is a perfect job for MIT — and I’m convinced that there is no more important work we can do to meet the moment and serve the nation now.”
Industry Collaboration
INM has already attracted strong industry support, with its first five founding consortium members — Amgen, GE Vernova, PTC, Siemens, and Sanofi — joining forces to fund initial research projects, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence for manufacturing.
“There is tremendous opportunity to bring together a vibrant community working across every scale — from nanotechnology to large-scale manufacturing,” said Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT’s chief innovation and strategy officer and dean of engineering. “MIT is uniquely positioned to harness the transformative power of digital tools and AI to shape the future of manufacturing.”
The initiative will support research, education, and real-world applications — including new manufacturing labs, a “factory observatory” program to connect students with live production sites, and thematic pillars ranging from semiconductors and biomanufacturing to defense and aviation.
Workforce development is also central to INM’s mission. It will include TechAMP, a program designed to bridge the gap between technicians and engineers through collaboration with community colleges, along with AI-powered teaching tools and expanded manufacturing education on campus.
The initiative is co-directed by three MIT faculty: John Hart, head of mechanical engineering; Suzanne Berger, an Institute Professor and political scientist; and Chris Love, professor of chemical engineering. Julie Diop serves as executive director.
At a recent MIT symposium titled “A Vision for New Manufacturing,” Berger underscored the urgency of the moment: “The rationale for growing and transforming U.S. manufacturing has never been more urgent than it is today. What we are trying to build at MIT now is not just another research project. … Together, with people in this room and outside this room, we’re trying to change what’s happening in our country.”
Love added: “We need to think about the importance of manufacturing again, because it is what brings product ideas to people… There is a real urgency about this issue for both economic prosperity and creating jobs.”
Echoing the sentiment, Hart emphasized the long-term significance of the initiative: “While manufacturing feels very timely today, it is of enduring importance… Working with industry — from small to large companies, and from young startups to industrial giants — will be instrumental to creating impact and realizing the vision for new manufacturing.”
A Continuum of Commitment
INM builds on a legacy of MIT initiatives aimed at supporting manufacturing, including the 1989 book Made in America, the Production in the Innovation Economy project, and The Engine, a venture fund launched in 2016 to back hardware-based startups.
As Kornbluth noted in her letter, “We want to reimagine manufacturing technologies and systems to advance fields like energy production, health care, computing, transportation, consumer products, and more… and we want to reach well beyond the shop floor to tackle challenges like how to make supply chains more resilient, and how to inform public policy to foster a broad, healthy manufacturing ecosystem that can drive decades of innovation and growth.”
With its launch, MIT’s Initiative for New Manufacturing marks a renewed commitment to restoring American manufacturing leadership through innovation, collaboration, and education — aimed squarely at building a stronger, more equitable industrial future.
EDUNEWS & VIEWS
Harvard Pledges $250 Million for Research After Federal Funding Slash
The administration has defended the funding freeze as part of a broader campaign to address what it characterizes as pervasive anti-Semitism on campuses and to roll back diversity programs

Harvard University has announced a $250 million investment to sustain vital research programs in the face of steep federal funding cuts imposed by the Trump administration.
The move follows a sweeping $2.6 billion reduction in government grants to the Ivy League institution, citing alleged discriminatory practices and refusal to comply with federal oversight mandates. The cuts, which Harvard is actively challenging in court, have already suspended or canceled dozens of projects—some of which were considered critical to public health and technological innovation.
University President Alan Garber and Provost John Manning issued a joint statement on Wednesday, emphasizing the urgent need to protect research initiatives. “While we cannot fully offset the financial blow from halted federal support, we are committed to backing essential research during this transitional period,” they said. The university is also working with faculty to secure alternative funding channels.
Harvard has strongly criticized the federal measures, calling the termination of grants “unlawful” and accusing the administration of interfering with academic independence. The university contends that the loss of funding not only halts groundbreaking work but also threatens years of scientific progress.
At the heart of the dispute is a broader political clash over university governance. Harvard, whose endowment reached $53.2 billion in 2024, has become a focal point of the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape higher education policy. The White House has demanded greater control over admissions, hiring, and the political climate on campus—demands Harvard has resisted.
The administration has defended the funding freeze as part of a broader campaign to address what it characterizes as pervasive anti-Semitism on campuses and to roll back diversity programs. Critics argue these moves are part of a larger effort to suppress progressive academic culture and penalize dissent over U.S. foreign policy, especially in light of recent student protests against the war in Gaza.
In recent weeks, federal authorities have also taken steps to revoke visas of international students involved in these demonstrations, accusing them of ties to militant organizations—allegations civil rights groups and university leaders have strongly disputed.
With tensions between the federal government and top academic institutions mounting, Harvard’s legal challenge could set a precedent for how universities navigate political interference while safeguarding research, free speech, and academic autonomy.
Health
Robot Helps Elderly Sit, Stand, and Stay Safe from Falls
The innovation comes at a time when the United States faces a dramatic demographic shift

As America’s population ages faster than ever before, a team of engineers at MIT is turning to robotics to meet the growing eldercare crisis. Their latest invention, the Elderly Bodily Assistance Robot—or E-BAR—aims to provide critical physical support to seniors navigating life at home, potentially reducing the risk of injury and relieving pressure on a strained care system.
The innovation comes at a time when the United States faces a dramatic demographic shift. The nation’s median age has climbed to 38.9, nearly ten years older than in 1980. By 2050, the number of adults over 65 is projected to surge from 58 million to 82 million. As demand for care rises, the country is simultaneously grappling with shortages in care workers, escalating healthcare costs, and evolving family structures that leave many elderly adults without daily support.
“Eldercare is the next great challenge,” said Roberto Bolli, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering and one of E-BAR’s lead designers, in a media statement. “All the demographic trends point to a shortage of caregivers, a surplus of elderly persons, and a strong desire for elderly persons to age in place.”
E-BAR is designed to address exactly that challenge. The mobile robot acts as a robotic support system, following a user from behind and offering both steadying handlebars and rapid intervention in case of a fall. It can support a person’s full weight and includes side airbags that inflate instantly to catch users if they begin to fall—without requiring them to wear any equipment or harnesses.
“Many older adults underestimate the risk of fall and refuse to use physical aids, which are cumbersome, while others overestimate the risk and may not exercise, leading to declining mobility,” said Harry Asada, the Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT, in a media statement. “Our design concept is to provide older adults having balance impairment with robotic handlebars for stabilizing their body. The handlebars go anywhere and provide support anytime, whenever they need.”
The robot consists of a heavy, 220-pound base equipped with omnidirectional wheels, allowing it to maneuver easily through typical home spaces. From its base, articulated bars extend and adjust to assist users in standing or sitting, and the handlebars provide a natural, unrestrictive grip. In testing, E-BAR successfully helped an older adult complete everyday movements such as bending, reaching, and even stepping over the edge of a bathtub.
“Seeing the technology used in real-life scenarios is really exciting,” said Bolli.
The team’s design, which will be presented later this month at the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), aims to eliminate the physical constraints and stigmas often associated with eldercare devices. Their approach prioritizes both independence and safety—key values for aging Americans seeking to remain in their homes longer.
While E-BAR currently operates via remote control, the team plans to add autonomous capabilities and streamline the device’s design for home and facility use. The researchers are also exploring ways to integrate fall-prediction algorithms, developed in a parallel project in Asada’s lab, to adapt robotic responses based on a user’s real-time risk level.
“Eldercare conditions can change every few weeks or months,” Asada noted. “We’d like to provide continuous and seamless support as a person’s disability or mobility changes with age.”
As the nation prepares for the realities of an aging population, MIT’s work offers a glimpse into a future where robotics play a central role in eldercare—enhancing both quality of life and personal dignity for millions of older adults.
-
Earth3 months ago
How IIT Kanpur is Paving the Way for a Solar-Powered Future in India’s Energy Transition
-
Space & Physics2 months ago
Could dark energy be a trick played by time?
-
Society3 months ago
Starliner crew challenge rhetoric, says they were never “stranded”
-
Space & Physics5 months ago
Obituary: R. Chidambaram, Eminent Physicist and Architect of India’s Nuclear Program
-
Society4 months ago
DeepSeek: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
-
Space & Physics2 months ago
Sunita Williams aged less in space due to time dilation
-
Society4 months ago
Sustainable Farming: The Microgreens Model from Kerala, South India
-
EDUNEWS & VIEWS4 months ago
Indian kids use different math skills at work vs. school