Mar. 06, 2026
A person wearing a blue lab coat stands with arms crossed in a laboratory filled with shelves of scientific equipment, supplies, and a refrigerator unit in the background.

Nick Housley’s latest advancement is a drug‑delivery system called SANGs, short for “self‑assembling nanohydrogels.” As these nanohydrogels move through the body, they keep the cancer‑fighting drug contained, passing through healthy tissue without releasing medicine. When they encounter the unique conditions created by a tumor, they remain in that environment and release the drug precisely where it’s needed.

Georgia Tech researcher Nick Housley is developing a drug‑delivery system designed to send cancer treatments directly to tumors while minimizing damage to healthy tissue. His team’s approach uses self‑assembling nanohydrogels (SANGs) that circulate through the body, remain inactive in healthy environments, and release their drug payload only when they encounter the unique chemical conditions created by tumors. This “cancer‑agnostic” strategy avoids the pitfalls of traditional targeted therapies, which can lose effectiveness as tumors evolve, and aims to reduce the harsh side effects patients often endure. Early preclinical results show that the nanohydrogels successfully concentrated drugs at tumor sites, and Housley’s team is now preparing for broader testing to move the technology toward clinical trials.

Read more »

Mar. 04, 2026
A cleanroom technician in protective gear works at a computer workstation in a semiconductor lab, with a blue signal light in the foreground and lab equipment behind them.

Gary Spinner working on a tool in the 20,000-sq.-ft. Marcus Nanotechnology Building cleanroom.

Gary Spinner’s unexpected path into higher education and microfabrication began after he shifted from working as a teenage cook to studying electronics, eventually launching a semiconductor career with IBM and Intel before joining Georgia Tech in 1994. Over three decades, he advanced from cleanroom technician to director of operations for the Institute for Matter and Systems, helping expand the cleanroom footprint, modernize tools and infrastructure, and transform student roles into hands-on engineering opportunities. His mentorship shaped the careers of many former students, several of whom now work alongside him, and his leadership led to the development of SUMS, the software platform that streamlines cleanroom access and tool management across campus. Spinner continues to drive growth in facilities and capabilities, positioning Georgia Tech at the center of a thriving semiconductor ecosystem.

Read more »

Feb. 26, 2026
Scanning electron microscope image of a tiny, arch-like structure made of looped, rope-textured material. A scale bar indicates the structure is on the order of 100 micrometers wide.

“The Lake Monster” By Genaro Soto Valle Angulo

Grid of glowing micro-scale patterns displayed in varying brightness and sharpness against a dark background. The repeated shapes appear in columns, showing differences in focus or intensity across the images.

“µCodes: A Universal Grid Platform for Microscale Mapping, Microscopy Navigation, and Multimodal Imaging” By Aref Valipour

Scanning electron microscope image showing a central vertical pillar surrounded by small, tree-like crystalline formations. A scale bar indicates features measuring about 30 micrometers.

“Snowy Christmas in Nano-ville” By Isha Lodhi

Close-up of nano tubes modified with red and white stripes to appear as canes standing upright in white foam, with green tips visible at the base. The shallow depth of field blurs the background, emphasizing the curved stripes and texture.

“Carbon Nanotube Candy Cane” By Gabriel Feng

The Institute for Matter and Systems (IMS) announced the winners of its first-ever IMS Users Image Contest. Selected through public voting, the winning images highlight the remarkable science, innovation, and artistry emerging from research conducted in IMS core facilities.

The contest invited facility users to submit visually compelling images generated through their research—ranging from advanced microscopy and materials characterization to device fabrication and nanoscale analysis. Submissions were showcased in an online gallery, where members of the campus community and broader public were invited to vote for their favorites.

The image contest was created to celebrate the intersection of science and art. Research images not only serve as essential analytical tools, but also reveal patterns, structures, and phenomena that inspire curiosity and creativity.

“We were excited by both the quality of submissions and the level of engagement from the community,” said Eric Vogel, IMS executive director. “These images reflect the extraordinary work happening every day in our facilities and the talent of the researchers who use them.”

The contest also underscores IMS’s commitment to supporting cutting-edge research by providing access to advanced instrumentation, expert staff, and collaborative spaces that enable discovery.

After a community vote, the following winners were identified:

Most Creative | "Carbon Nanotube Candy Cane” By Gabriel Feng

Close-up of red-and-white candy canes standing upright in white foam, with green tips visible at the base. The shallow depth of field blurs the background, emphasizing the curved stripes and texture.

This image was captured on the Hitachi SU8230 SEM in the Materials Characterization Facility. This was a failed overgrown sample from Carbon Nanotube Field Emissions Array.

Most Beautiful | “Snowy Christmas in Nano-ville” By Isha Lodhi

Scanning electron microscope image showing a central vertical pillar surrounded by small, tree-like crystalline formations. A scale bar indicates features measuring about 30 micrometers.

Created using the Hitachi SU8230 in the Materials Characterization Facility.

Most Technically Impressive | “The Lake Monster” By Genaro Soto Valle Angulo

Scanning electron microscope image of a tiny, arch-like structure made of looped, rope-textured material. A scale bar indicates the structure is on the order of 100 micrometers wide.

The image was taken on the Thermo Axia SEM. The structures on the image were printed with the Exaddon Metal 3D Printer, out of pure copper with the substrate being a Si wafer coated with a seed layer of copper. 

Best Use of Cleanroom Tools| “µCodes: A Universal Grid Platform for Microscale Mapping, Microscopy Navigation, and Multimodal Imaging” By Aref Valipour, part of the Cancer Neurobiology & Nanotechnology Group

 Grid of glowing micro-scale patterns displayed in varying brightness and sharpness against a dark background. The repeated shapes appear in columns, showing differences in focus or intensity across the images.

This image was captured on the Olympus MX61 Microscope in the IMS Cleanroom.

News Contact

Amelia Neumeister | Communications Manager

The Institute for Matter and Systems

Feb. 20, 2026
Tech in the Cold

While Italy’s 2026 Winter Olympics draw the world’s attention to snow and ice, Georgia Tech researchers are also confronting cold at its most extreme.

Some labs in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) use liquid nitrogen and liquid helium to chill cryogenic test systems to as low as 4 Kelvins (K), or -452.47 degrees Fahrenheit (F), temperatures that rival the coldest regions of deep space.

At this point, materials and electronic devices stop behaving in familiar ways, which is exactly why ECE researchers use these extreme conditions to explore and develop new semiconductor technologies.

“Electronics are very temperature dependent,” Professor John Cressler said, whose lab houses some of these cryogenic test systems. “Whether you see it or not, every electronic you buy has a tested temperature spec associated with it.”

Current commercially sold devices, including most cell phones, are made to run between 32 F and 85 F. Researchers in ECE test across a far wider range, as they develop technology with extraterrestrial and quantum computing applications in mind.

Other ECE teams work in natural extremes, carrying instruments into polar regions where cold creates challenges that no lab can fully replicate.

Just as cold pushes athletes in different ways, it guides ECE research down its own distinct paths.

Read the full story on the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering's website.

News Contact

Zachary Winiecki

Feb. 16, 2026
A smiling graduate stands on a tree-lined campus walkway covered with fallen leaves. He is wearing a gold doctoral gown with blue velvet panels and sleeve bars, along with a matching blue tam and tassel. Campus buildings and autumn trees are visible in the background.
During a hooding ceremony indoors, a faculty member places a doctoral hood over the shoulders of a seated graduate wearing a gold gown and blue velvet doctoral regalia. Two additional faculty members in academic dress stand nearby, smiling. Rows of rolled diplomas are visible in the background.
Nine young adults pose together outside a building on a sunny day. Some stand while two kneel in front. They are dressed casually, smiling at the camera, with trees, a sidewalk, and a building entrance sign visible behind them.

Sam Lucas (back row, far left) during the iREU experience in Japan.

A group of nine people sit together around a long wooden table in a restaurant. Plates, drinks, and condiments are on the table. The group smiles toward the camera, with framed maps and warm lighting visible in the background.

Sam Lucas (far right) with members oif Kim Kurtis' research group during his summer 2018 REU.

When Sam Lucas arrived at Georgia Tech in the summer of 2018 for the NNCI Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU), he didn’t know that it would set the course for the next seven years of his academic and personal life.

At the time, he was an undergraduate at Mississippi State University (MSU) studying chemical engineering. He was fresh off a series of research opportunities, but was still unsure of what doing research full-time would look like or what he wanted to do post-undergraduate.

Now, Lucas has earned a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from Georgia Tech with a focus on nanomaterial drug delivery for cancer immunotherapy. And according to him, the path from undergraduate to Ph.D. can be traced directly back to his REU.

Previously, Lucas had worked in labs in high school and his early college career, but those roles were mostly task-based.

“I'd started working in a lab at the University of Southern Mississippi my senior year of high school,” he said. “I was doing polymer coatings for corrosion resistance. Then I did some miscellaneous stuff at MSU. But the REU was interesting because it was in some ways the most structured research experience that I'd had to that point.”

During that summer, Lucas worked with Kim Curtis’ group in the Georgia Tech School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He worked to understand how incorporating titanium oxide particles into cement can absorb pollutants when exposed to sunlight. It was his first hands-on, interdisciplinary research experience.

“That summer was significant both in starting to make sense what research could actually look like on a full-time day-to-day basis and also what being at Tech might be like.” 

Beyond the research, Lucas discovered that being on Georgia Tech’s campus was just as formative. Surrounded by peers who were similarly driven, and often similarly unsure about their paths, he began to see himself as a “real” researcher. Meetups with fellow REU students, sessions on research communication, and structured mentorship all gave him confidence.

The impact of Lucas’ REU experience didn’t end there. It helped him earn a spot in Cornell’s international research experience program (iREU) the following year. There, he worked on nanomaterials for cancer vaccine applications. The transition from cement technologies to vaccine applications became the bridge to his eventual Ph.D. focus. 

“The REU truly became a launchpad for Sam's career, as it has for others who have come through our program,” said Leslie O’Neill, education outreach manager. “Several of our former participants have returned to Georgia Tech for their Ph.D., and it’s because the experience gives them clarity about research and opens doors they didn’t even realize existed."

In 2020, Lucas arrived back on campus, where he enrolled in the  Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering’s Joint Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering program. As part of Susan Thomas’ lab, his research focused on nanomaterial drug delivery for cancer immunotherapy. He spent the next five and a half years working on immune system engineering and drug delivery systems. 

Although he had once imagined a career in oil and gas — a common trajectory for Mississippi State engineers — his REU experience pointed him in a new direction.

After defending his dissertation in 2025, Lucas is now continuing as a postdoctoral researcher in the Thomas Lab, contributing to nanomedicine projects while preparing for a future career in biotech or pharmaceuticals.

He credits the REU with giving him the clarity and confidence to pursue research at the highest level. His advice to undergraduates considering the program is simple: Go for it.

“If you apply for it and get an offer, just go ahead and do it,” said Lucas. “There’s not really a downside.” 

News Contact

Amelia Neumeister | Communications Program Manager

The Institute for Matter and Systems

Feb. 10, 2026
Portrait of Dave McDowell

Mechanical engineer David McDowell is among the newest members of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the organization announced Feb. 10.

McDowell is one 130 new members and 28 international members in the 2026 class. Election to the NAE is among the highest professional recognitions for engineers and an honor bestowed on just 2,900 professionals worldwide. New members are nominated and voted on by the Academy’s existing membership.

McDowell is Georgia Tech’s 50th NAE member. He is Regents’ Professor Emeritus in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Materials Science and Engineering.

Read the full story about McDowell on the College of Engineering website.

News Contact

Joshua Stewart
College of Engineering

Feb. 16, 2026
A crack in a building wall.

“Cracks are complex — they interact with the material, change shape, and respond dynamically," says Kolvin. "All of this affects the overall toughness, and that impacts safety.” (Adobe Stock)

Itamar Kolvin

Itamar Kolvin

Imagine a material cracking — now imagine what happens if there are small inclusions in the material. Do they create an obstacle course for the crack to navigate, slowing it down? Or do they act as weak points, helping the crack spread faster?

Historically, most engineers believed the former, using heterogeneities, or differences, in materials to make materials stronger and more resilient. However, research from Georgia Tech is showing that, in some cases, heterogeneities make materials weaker and can even accelerate cracks. 

Led by School of Physics Assistant Professor Itamar Kolvin, the study, “Dual Role for Heterogeneity in Dynamic Fracture,” was published in Physical Review Letters this fall. 

While Kolvin’s work is theoretical, the results of the research are widely applicable. “Predicting this type of toughening effect helps engineers decide how much reinforcement to add to a material, and the best way to do so,” he says. “Cracks are complex — they interact with the material, change shape, and respond dynamically. All of this affects the overall toughness, which impacts safety.”

Building Strong Materials

The study found that the key to crack behavior starts at the microscopic level where the material’s microscopic structure influences how it resists cracks running at different speeds.

“Cracks propagate by breaking bonds, and that costs energy,” he explains. “On top of this, materials experience extreme deformations close to where the crack runs, which costs additional energy. In some materials, the amount of this energy cost can depend on the crack’s speed because of microscopic friction between molecules.”

Other materials, like window glass, are mostly indifferent to the crack speed. These materials are made of simple molecules, allowing a crack to propagate slowly or quickly using the same amount of energy. The researchers found that including heterogeneities can help strengthen these materials.

Materials made of more complex molecules, like polymer plastics and gels, on the other hand, are velocity dependent: it takes more energy for a crack to propagate faster. In these materials, heterogeneities are less effective at toughening, and if the crack is fast enough, heterogeneities could help it advance. “That’s something we didn’t expect when we started,” Kolvin says.

Disorder Versus Design

After discovering which types of materials can benefit from heterogeneities, Kolvin wanted to investigate the best way to add them. “Natural materials like rocks are usually very messy and disordered,” he explains, “but in engineering, heterogenous materials tend to be patterned.” For example, imagine a manufactured material: heterogeneities may be added in a grid-like or other patterned way. Now, contrast that with the irregular freckles and inclusions you might see in a rock found in a streambed.

Kolvin’s question was simple: which material was stronger? The results, again, were surprising. The disordered case — similar to what is found in nature — created the toughest material. 

Among the patterned materials the team tested, only one was as tough as the disordered case — and every other pattern tested made the material weaker.

From Lab to Landscape

At Georgia Tech, Kolvin’s lab focuses on the mechanics of materials — both solid and fluid. “We are using our expertise in physics to explore questions across different fields,” he says. “A common concept is treating materials as continua — zooming out from molecular detail to look at how materials deform and flow at the large scale.”

This current research follows suit with applications ranging from investigating the smallest material microstructures to predicting earthquake fractures. “Earthquake faults are highly disordered, and simulating these ruptures is a major challenge, usually requiring supercomputers to solve crack propagation in three dimensions,” Kolvin says. “But with the tools our study has developed, we can simulate similar conditions and large systems using just a desktop computer.”

“This opens the doors for scientists, engineers, physicists, and geologists to explore problems right from their own computer, allowing more researchers access to more tools,” he adds. “And new tools often lead to new discoveries.”

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/j4vb-y1ng

News Contact

Written by Selena Langner
College of Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology

Feb. 03, 2026
Asif Khan holds a silicon wafer in a cleanroom.

Asif Khan holds a silicon wafer in Georgia Tech’s cleanroom facility. Khan is trying to build new kinds of computer memory using fundamentally different mechanisms to store data. (Photo: Candler Hobbs)

The power of modern computing is hard to overstate.

Your smartphone has more than 100,000 times the power of the computer that guided Apollo 11 to the moon. It’s about 5,000 times faster than 1980s supercomputers. And that’s just processing power.

Apple’s original iPod promised “1,000 songs in your pocket” in 2001. Today’s average smartphone has enough memory to store 25,000, along with thousands more photos, apps, and videos.

This exponential leap in capability traces a prediction made in 1965 by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore. He suggested the number of transistors — tiny electronic switches — on a computer chip would double roughly every two years. Moore’s Law, as it became known, has served as a benchmark and guiding principle for the tech industry, influencing the trajectory of innovation for nearly six decades.

But now miniaturizing transistors has slowed. Headlines regularly declare Moore’s Law dead.

Arijit Raychowdhury sees it differently.

He said Moore’s Law was never just about shrinking transistors. It was about making computing better.

“Moore’s Law is fundamentally economic,” said Raychowdhury, Steve W. Chaddick School Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE). “It’s not about the physics of making transistors smaller. It’s about the business imperative to deliver better performance, lower power consumption, smaller form factors, or reduced costs.”

Read the full story in Helluva Engineer magazine.

News Contact

Dan Watson
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Feb. 02, 2026
Could the Earth and everything on it – and even the whole universe – be a simulation running on a giant computer? OsakaWayne Studios/Moment via Getty Images

Could the Earth and everything on it – and even the whole universe – be a simulation running on a giant computer? OsakaWayne Studios/Moment via Getty Images

Is the whole universe just a simulation? – Moumita B., age 13, Dhaka, Bangladesh


How do you know anything is real? Some things you can see directly, like your fingers. Other things, like your chin, you need a mirror or a camera to see. Other things can’t be seen, but you believe in them because a parent or a teacher told you, or you read it in a book.

As a physicist, I use sensitive scientific instruments and complicated math to try to figure out what’s real and what’s not. But none of these sources of information is entirely reliable: Scientific measurements can be wrong, my calculations can have errors, even your eyes can deceive you, like the dress that broke the internet because nobody could agree on what colors it was.

Because every source of information – even your teachers – can trick you some of the time, some people have always wondered whether we can ever trust any information.

If you can’t trust anything, are you sure you’re awake? Thousands of years ago, Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly and realized that he might actually be a butterfly dreaming he was a human. Plato wondered whether all we see could just be shadows of true objects. Maybe the world we live in our whole lives inside isn’t the real one, maybe it’s more like a big video game, or the movie “The Matrix.”

screenshot of a landscape in a cartoonish video game

Are we living in a very sophisticated version of Minecraft? Tofli IV/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The Simulation Hypothesis

The simulation hypothesis is a modern attempt to use logic and observations about technology to finally answer these questions and prove that we’re probably living in something like a giant video game. Twenty years ago, a philosopher named Nick Bostrom made such an argument based on the fact that video games, virtual reality and artificial intelligence were improving rapidly. That trend has continued, so that today people can jump into immersive virtual reality or talk to seemingly conscious artificial beings.

Bostrom projected these technological trends into the future and imagined a world in which we’d be able to realistically simulate trillions of human beings. He also suggested that if someone could create a simulation of you that seemed just like you from the outside, it would feel just like you inside, with all of your thoughts and feelings.

Suppose that’s right. Suppose that sometime in, say, the 31st century, humanity will be able to simulate whatever they want. Some of them will probably be fans of the 21st century and will run many different simulations of our world so that they can learn about us, or just be amused.

Here’s Bostrom’s shocking logical argument: If the 21st century planet Earth only ever existed one time, but it will eventually get simulated trillions of times, and if the simulations are so good that the people in the simulation feel just like real people, then you’re probably living on one of the trillions of simulations of the Earth, not on the one original Earth.

This argument would be even more convincing if you actually could run powerful simulations today, but as long as you believe that people will run those simulations someday, then you logically should believe that you’re probably living in one today.

Scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the simulation hypothesis and why he thinks the odds are about 50-50 we’re part of a virtual reality.

Signs We’re Living in a Simulation …Or Not

If we are living in a simulation, does that explain anything? Maybe the simulation has glitches, and that’s why your phone wasn’t where you were sure you left it, or how you knew something was going to happen before it did, or why that dress on the internet looked so weird.

There are more fundamental ways in which our world resembles a simulation. There is a particular length, much smaller than an atom, beyond which physicists’ theories about the universe break down. And we can’t see anything more than about 50 billion light-years away because the light hasn’t had time to reach us since the Big Bang. That sounds suspiciously like a computer game where you can’t see anything smaller than a pixel or anything beyond the edge of the screen.

Of course, there are other explanations for all of that stuff. Let’s face it: You might have misremembered where you put your phone. But Bostrom’s argument doesn’t require any scientific proof. It’s logically true as long as you really believe that many powerful simulations will exist in the future. That’s why famous scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and tech titans like Elon Musk have been convinced of it, though Tyson now puts the odds at 50-50.

Others of us are more skeptical. The technology required to run such large and realistic simulations is so powerful that Bostrom describes such simulators as godlike, and he admits that humanity may never get that good at simulations. Even though it is far from being resolved, the simulation hypothesis is an impressive logical and philosophical argument that has challenged our fundamental notions of reality and captured the imaginations of millions.


Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.The Conversation

 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

News Contact

Author:

Zeb Rocklin, Associate Professor of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology

Media Contact:

Shelley Wunder-Smith
shelley.wunder-smith@research.gatech.edu

Jan. 29, 2026
A panel of five speakers sits on tall stools at the front of a classroom, participating in a moderated discussion. The moderator on the left holds papers while addressing the group. A large presentation slide behind the panel displays names and academic titles. Audience members are partially visible in the foreground, and tables, chairs, and a water bottle are arranged throughout the room.

Georgia Tech’s Institute for Matter and Systems (IMS) hosted its second Boundaries and Breakthroughs panel on Jan. 27, bringing together leading clinicians, engineers, and data experts to examine why promising medical technologies often fail to translate into clinical practice.

Moderated by IMS Executive Director Eric Vogel, the panel explored how innovation, regulation, economics and clinical realities intersect to shape the future of medical devices. 

The panel featured Jon Duke, physician and director of the Center for Health Analytics and Informatics at Georgia Tech Research Institute; Matthew Flavin, assistant professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering; HyunJoo Oh, assistant professor in the schools of Industrial Design and Interactive Computing; and Lokesh Guglani, pediatric pulmonologist and clinician-researcher at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. 

Vogel opened the event by highlighting the gap between technological novelty and real-world medical adoption. 

“About 75% of medical device start-ups never achieve commercial success or make it to market, and some industry estimates push this higher,” Vogel said. “Even those that reach the market often fail to gain meaningful adoption. This may be because technologists optimize for platforms five or 10 years out and are rewarded by novelty, whereas clinicians demand reliability, interpretability, and outcomes that hold up with real patients, real workflows, and real liability.”

Throughout the discussion, panelists examined the balance between rapid innovation and clinical safety, noting that the level of invasiveness often determines how bold developers can be.

“We must remember that in medicine—and especially when we're dealing with human lives—there's a significant asymmetry of the harm that could be done,” said Guglani. “Even a small change or an oversight at the design level of a medical device can have significant downstream repercussions for patients and create liability for institutions and providers.”

Flavin and Duke added that excessive conservatism, particularly around non-invasive wearable, can also slow potentially life-changing advancements. 

All panelists agreed that breakthrough technology alone is not enough to ensure clinical adoption. Usability, workflow fit, and time efficiency often determine whether clinicians adopt a device. Tools that require lengthy calibration or add to a clinician’s already tight schedule rarely succeed. Even when a technology integrates well, reimbursement barriers can prevent adoption. 

 “A lot of technologies come out, but then if the clinic is using them and is not being reimbursed for the time spent, that creates a bottleneck,” said Guglani.

Economic constraints also shape who benefits from innovation. Children with rare diseases, stroke survivors, and other small or heterogeneous patient groups often struggle to attract investors, even when their needs are urgent.

The panelists also discussed the dual role of regulatory and manufacturing standards. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements ensures consistent, safe production, but force teams to lock designs earlier than ideal, adding cost and slowing iteration. These requirements protect patients but also function as an economic filter for many early-stage technologies.

The conversation then turned to data, AI, and the education of future innovators. Despite massive amounts of health data, many clinically important areas remain data‑scarce. Wearable devices, such as smart watches, may help close these gaps, but AI models remain limited by the quality of input data. 

When asked about preparing the next generation of MedTech innovators, panelists emphasized the importance of “interface literacy” or the ability to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries and understand how design decisions cascade into real clinical environments.  

“You really do have to be able to be interdisciplinary,” said Duke. “Now of course what makes things go is not often the knowledge of the domain, but the person’s role or connectivity into the system.”

Vogel closed by emphasizing that successful medical technology development requires “ongoing, honest collaboration” across fields. The Boundaries and Breakthroughs series will continue that mission in February with a panel on the future of the electric grid.

News Contact

Amelia Neumeister | Communications Program Manager

The Institute for Matter and Systems

Subscribe to Matter and Systems