Apr. 07, 2026
 AI and machine learning provide new tools for scientists to think about drug discovery. gorodenkoff/iStock via Getty Images

AI and machine learning provide new tools for scientists to think about drug discovery. gorodenkoff/iStock via Getty Images

In December, The Conversation hosted a webinar on AI’s revolutionary role in drug discovery and development.

Science and technology editor Eric Smalley interviewed Jeffrey Skolnick, eminent scholar in computational systems biology at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Benjamin P. Brown, assistant professor of pharmacology at Vanderbilt University.

Skolnick has developed AI-based approaches to predict protein structure and function that may help with drug discovery and finding off-label uses of existing drugs. Brown’s lab works on creating new computer models that make drug discovery faster and more reliable. Below is a condensed and edited version of the interview.

Let’s start with the big picture. How is AI changing biomedical research and drug discovery, and what is the potential we are talking about?

Skolnick: The upside, potentially, is very large. One of the frustrating things about drug discovery is that, in spite of the fact that the people doing it are extraordinarily intelligent and have done an extraordinarily good job, the success rate is very low. About 1 in 5 drugs will have negative health effects that outweigh its benefits. Of the ones that pass, roughly half don’t work.

In drug development, there are several key issues: Can you predict which target is driving a particular disease? Once this target is identified, how can you guarantee the drug is going to work and isn’t simultaneously going to kill you?

These are outstanding problems in drug discovery in which AI can play an important, though not 100% guaranteed, role. Unlike us, AI can look at basically all available knowledge. On a good day it makes strong and true connections called “insights,” and on a bad day it does what is called “hallucinating” and sees things that are weak and probably false.

Eric Smalley interviews Jeffrey Skolnick and Benjamin P. Brown.

At the end of the day, many diseases do not have a cure. Most diseases are maintained, such as high cholesterol or autoimmune conditions. A treatment for cancer might buy you five years, and now you’re in Stage 4 and you’ve exhausted all the standard care drugs. AI can play a role to suggest alternatives where there are none.

Let’s give some basic definitions here. When we use the word drug, we’re talking about a wide range of therapies. Can you explain the range – we’ve got small molecule drugs, biologics, gene therapies, cell therapies.

Brown: We have fairly large molecules in our bodies called proteins. They are like machines that carry out specific functions and interact with one another. Oftentimes, when we’re trying to treat disease, we’re trying to alter functions of specific proteins. Many drugs, like aspirin and Tylenol, are small molecules that can fit into a protein and change its function. Fundamentally, drugs don’t have to just interact with proteins, but this is a major way in which our current repertoire of medications work.

There are also proteins that act like drugs, such as antibodies. When you receive a vaccine for a virus, your body is basically given instructions on how to develop antibodies. These antibodies will target some part of that virus. Your body is creating these big molecules, much bigger than aspirin, to go and interact with foreign proteins in a different way. Gene therapy is a larger step beyond that.

So these modalities – molecule, protein, antibody or gene – are very different types of molecules. They have different scales and rules, so the way you approach designing and discovering them various widely.

Can you briefly explain artificial neural networks, and what the “deep” in deep learning means?

Skolnick: AlphaFold, developed by DeepMind, involved understanding how neural networks worked. They built a network with a lot of inputs, which are stimuli, and outputs with different weights, similar to how your brain actually works. These simple connections, or neurons, have reinforcement learning.

They also created sophisticated neural networks, such as transformers, which do specific things like a special-purpose tool that can learn, and they added a mechanism called “attention,” which amplifies critical details. Super neural networks with transformers is what we call deep learning. These now have literally billions, if not trillions, of parameters.

Essentially, these machines can learn higher order correlations between events, meaning the patterns of conditional interactions that depend on the properties of multiple things simultaneously. In these higher order correlations, AI has the potential to see previously unknown things that are embedded in petabytes (a unit of data equivalent to half of the contents of all U.S. academic research libraries of biological data.

AlphaFold, which predicts three-dimensional, bioactive forms of a protein, has millions of sequences and a couple of hundred thousand structures. It can tell you, based on a particular pattern, what small molecule to design that sticks to a protein to induce some kind of structural shift.

How is this technology being used in biomedical research to understand molecular dynamics or, essentially, the biological processes involved in health and disease?

Brown: In 2013, there was a Nobel Prize for molecular dynamics simulations, computational tools that help you understand the motions of molecules as they move according to physics. There’s a huge body of scientific research built around those ideas.

AI and deep learning are large right now, but it’s worth mentioning that for the last decade and a half, people have been using much smaller machine learning algorithms to help design drugs. A lot of the ideas, such as [using machine learning for virtual screening], are not new and have been in practice for a while.

With AlphaFold’s technologies to help people design proteins and predict their structure, we’ve changed how we think about a lot of these problems. We have this new repertoire of approaches to build ideas around and to start thinking about drug discovery.

From 20 years ago to now, what has today’s AI technology done in terms of scale of change in this process?

Skolnick: A lot of diseases, like cancers, are caused by a collection of malfunctioning proteins. AI now allows us to start to think conceptually about how these diseases are organized and related to each other.

Diseases tend to co-occur. For example, if you have hyperthyroidism, you’re very likely to develop Alzheimer’s. Kind of weird, right? We can look at pieces, but AI can look at all the information, integrate the collective behavior and then identify common drivers. This allows you to construct disease interrelationships which offer the possibility of broad spectrum treatments that could treat whole collections of diseases rather than narrow-spectrum treatments.

Relatedly, AI also can help us understand disease trajectories. Diseases that tend to co-occur often present themselves consecutively. You have disease 1, it gives you disease 2, then gives you disease 3. This suggests that if you go back to the root with disease 1, you may be able to stop a whole bunch of stuff. You can’t analyze millions of trajectories and millions of data without a tool, so you couldn’t do this before.

This holds a lot of promise, but one also must be careful not to overpromise. It will help, it will accelerate, but it is not a substitute yet for real experiments, real clinical validation and trials.The Conversation

 

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

News Contact

News Contact
Authors:

Jeffrey Skolnick, Regents' Professor; Mary and Maisie Gibson Chair, and GRA Eminent Scholar in Computational Systems Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology  

Benjamin P. Brown, Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University

Media Contact:

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

Apr. 16, 2026
Default Image: Research at Georgia Tech

The Renewable Bioproducts Institute (RBI) has announced its newest cohort of 12 fellowship projects, an expansion that reflects both growing interest and a broader vision for bioproducts research at Georgia Tech.  

This year’s cohort is one of the largest in recent years, signaling renewed momentum in the research areas it supports.  

“This year’s projects reflect the strength of our core areas while also showing how the field is expanding,” said Carson Meredith, executive director of RBI. “We’re seeing faculty from more disciplines engage in bioproducts research in ways that open up new opportunities for collaboration and impact.” 

That expansion is reflected in where the fellowships are being awarded. For the first time, RBI has selected faculty from the School of Architecture (ARCH) in the College of Design and the School of Biological Sciences (BIOS) in the College of Science, continuing to broaden participation beyond its traditional base in chemistry and engineering. 

The projects themselves reflect that shift. This year’s projects work on topics ranging from microbial approaches to strengthening forest health to developing next-generation packaging materials, including high-performance barrier coatings and cellulose-derived materials. 

The projects also advance the use of AI and machine learning in bioproducts development, the physics of fiber networks, and converting biomass into pharmaceuticals and synthetic leather. 

Many of these efforts align closely with industry priorities, particularly in packaging, papermaking, and sustainable materials—areas where demand for scalable, sustainable solutions continues to grow. 

Together, the 2026 cohort points to a program that is expanding its reach across disciplines while staying focused on real-world applications of bioproduct research. 

The 2026 RBI Fellowship projects and associated faculty are listed below. 

Physics-Guided Learning of Mechanical Behavior in Forming-Stage Fiber Networks
Shuman Xia*, Ting Zhu*, John Xu (ME/RBI)

Upcycling Wood-Derived Cellulose Nanomaterials into Circular Barrier Coatings for Postharvest Preservation
Vida Jamali*, Amirali Aghazadeh*, Lily Cheung (ChBE/ECE)

Reimagining Southern Forests: Microbial Biotechnology for High Value Climate-Ready Biomass Feedstocks
Joel Kostka*, Ulrika Egertsdotter (BIOS/RBI)

Integrated Experimental-Computational-ML Framework for Accelerated Evaluation and Design of Biodegradable Barrier Coating for Paper-Based Packaging
Aditya Kumar*, YuHang Hu*, Danny Smyl* (CEE/ME)

Direct Method for Analysis of Fiber Orientation in Multiphase Forming
Suhas Jain*, Cyrus Aidun (ME)

Robust Packaging Insert via Phase-Separated Lignin Aerogel Particle-Supported Cellulose Hydrogel Composites
Shucong Li*, Julene Tong (MSE/ChBE)

Towards Continuous Processes from Biochar to Pharmaceuticals
Andy Bommarius, Anthony "Bo" Arduengo, Jesse McDaniel (ChBE/CHEM)

ALD Modification of Nanocellulosic Films for Ultra-High Barrier Performance
Mark Losego, Meisha Shofner (MSE)

Biomass-Derived Glycosyl Furans for the Development of Novel Value-Added Materials
Stefan France, Chris Jones (CHEM/ChBE)

Design and Scale-Up of Mechanochemical Reactors for Cellulose Biorefining
Fani Boukouvala, Carsten Sievers (ChBE)

Xylohyde™: The Sustainable Production of Synthetic Leather from Cellulose
Anthony "Bo" Arduengo, Chris Luettgen (CHEM/RBI/ChBE)

Tailorable PLA-Alginate High-Performance Bio-Nanocomposites via Chitosan Cationic Bridging of Sargassum-Derived Alginate and Polylactic Acid (PLA)
Karl Jacob, Ingebourg Rocker*, Kyriaki Kalaitzidou, Hamid Garmestani (ME, ARCH, MSE)

*Indicates first-time RBI fellowship recipients.  

News Contact

News Contact

Yanet Chernet
Communications Officer

Apr. 15, 2026
Example of draftmarks

How DraftMarks works

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed college writing. As paper drafts are increasingly co‑written with AI, professors are left wondering not whether students are using AI, but how.

A 2025 AI in Education trend report found that 90% of college students use AI in their coursework, with nearly half using it during the drafting process. As AI becomes embedded in everyday writing, traditional tools like Grammarly or Turnitin for evaluating student learning fall short. If AI is to be expected in most student writing, then merely detecting its presence isn’t enough. 

DraftMarks, a new open‑source tool developed by Georgia Tech and Stanford researchers, makes the writing process itself visible. Instead of trying to assess how much of a finished document was written by AI, DraftMarks shows where a student iterated with AI prompts, what is fully AI, and how a piece evolved — illuminating the often-invisible collaboration between human writers and AI.

Functioning as an augmented reading tool, DraftMarks layers visual cues directly onto a document to indicate different kinds of AI involvement. Eraser crumbs mark heavily revised passages. Smudges signal AI-generated changes in the strength of the argument rather than content changes. Masking tape highlights passages initially generated by AI. Glue residue shows where AI‑generated text was later removed. Ghost text indicates when a writer prompted AI but chose not to use the output. Different fonts distinguish between human‑written and AI‑generated passages.

Together, the marks don’t just reveal AI’s presence. They tell a story about the writer’s process.

“By making the invisible parts of the process tangible, it forces writers to confront whether they are truly engaging with AI or just passively accepting it,” said Momin Siddiqui, a master’s student in the College of Computing and lead author on the project. “Ultimately, it helps writers make more intentional judgment calls about how they want to collaborate with AI in the future.”

The researchers debuted DraftMarks at the Association for Computing Machinery’s Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems in Barcelona in April.

Designing for Educators

Rather than starting with detection algorithms, the researchers began with educators. In an initial 21-person study, they observed how instructors reviewed student writing and what cues they looked for when assessing learning, revision, and originality. Those insights informed the design of DraftMarks’ visual language, which deliberately mimics physical artifacts of writing — eraser debris, tape, smudges — to reflect processes instructors already recognize.

“These marks are meant to emulate the writing process in ways we’re already familiar with,” said Adam Coscia, a computing Ph.D. student. “They help students and teachers see the effort behind the writing, and whether students actually met the learning objective.”

Behind the scenes, DraftMarks tracks a document’s draft history and classifies different types of edits and AI interactions as they happen, allowing the visual cues to appear almost in real time. 

Reading DraftMarks

To evaluate how the tool functions beyond the lab, the team conducted a follow‑up study with 70 participants, including students, teachers, journalists, and general readers. Their reactions to reviewing a DraftMarks-annotated document varied in revealing ways.

Instructors were most interested in seeing the writing process unfold: how ideas developed, how heavily AI was used, and where students exercised judgment. General readers, meanwhile, used the marks to assess something less measurable but equally important — trust. For them, DraftMarks offered cues about authorial intent and authenticity, helping readers decide how much confidence to place in a piece of writing. 

A Shift From Detection to Reflection

Unlike AI detectors that merely offer a percentage, DraftMarks is designed to prompt reflection from writers and readers. 

“DraftMarks completely changed how I think about my own writing,” Coscia said. “I was surprised by how much I cared about authorial intent once I could actually see how AI affected my tone. It made me realize small AI choices can subtly reshape what I’m trying to say.”

As AI continues to reshape how writing happens, the research team hopes DraftMarks will help shift the conversation toward transparency. Tools like this could offer educators and students a clearer window into how learning happens when humans and AI write together.

 

This work is funded through the AI Research Institutes program by the National Science Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

CITATION: Momin N. Siddiqui, Nikki Nasseri, Adam J. Coscia, Roy Pea, and Hari Subramonyam. 2026. DraftMarks: Enhancing Transparency in Human-AI Co-Writing Through Interactive Skeuomorphic Process Traces. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 862, 1–22. 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791109

News Contact

News Contact

Tess Malone, Senior Research Writer/Editor

tess.malone@gatech.edu

Apr. 13, 2026
Attendees of the GEMs-4 symposium

Group photo of the attendees of the GEMs-4 symposium.

Day 2 of the symposium included a visit to a Georgia mining operation

Day 2 of the symposium included a visit to a Georgia mining operation.

Attendees at the GEMs-4 workshop

Attendees at the GEMs-4 workshop

Panelists discussing at the GEMs-4 symposium

Critical Mineral Significance and Resources Panel at the GEMs-4 symposium

Attendee asking a question to the panel at the GEMS-4 Symposium

Attendee asking a question to the panel at the GEMS-4 Symposium

In February, the Georgia Institute of Technology,  together with the University of Georgia, Georgia State University, the Georgia Mining Association, and the British Consulate‑General Atlanta, hosted the fourth Growing Partnerships for Essential Minerals (GEMs‑4) workshop in Atlanta. The workshop built on a growing transatlantic partnership dedicated to advancing innovation across the critical minerals value chain. 

The two‑day event took place Feb. 4 – 5, coinciding with the Critical Minerals Ministerial hosted by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 4, which brought together more than 50 nations to strengthen and diversify global critical mineral supply chains. During this ministerial, U.K. Minister Seema Malhotra and U.S. Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg signed a Critical Minerals Memorandum of Understanding, strengthening bilateral cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom on critical mineral supply chains. 

These broad efforts are supported by White House Executive Order 14363, which defines the Genesis Mission and aims to accelerate scientific discovery through AI. The order identifies critical minerals supply chain resilience as a national security imperative.

In Atlanta, these themes were brought to life in real time. The GEMs-4 workshop brought together researchers, policymakers, national labs, industry leaders, and workforce organizations from both the U.S. and the U.K. to address shared challenges in technology translation, permitting, investment, and talent development. 

The state of Georgia’s integrated ecosystem, linking research universities, legacy industries, technical colleges, national labs, and public‑private partnerships, served as a case study. Presenters highlighted how existing industrial assets in the Southeast are being incorporated into emerging clean energy and critical minerals supply chains, offering a model for other regions seeking to build capabilities around extraction, processing, and manufacturing.

A U.K. member of Parliament representing Cornwall, where the U.K. has lithium reserves and deep critical mineral expertise, joined the convening, as well as representatives from the U.K. Critical Mineral Association, Camborne School of Mines, and the University of Kent. Together, they explored opportunities and challenges, from a fundamental science to a commercialization perspective grounded in real-world experience. 

The alignment between the ministerial in Washington and the expertise present in Atlanta demonstrated the value of state-level engagement and how national agreements translate into practical collaboration on the ground. 

“The Southeast has the research depth, industrial footprint, and collaborative spirit needed to lead in critical minerals innovation,” said Yuanzhi Tang, Georgia Power Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, executive director of the Strategic Energy Institute, and founding director of the Center for Critical Mineral Solutions at Georgia Tech. “GEMs‑4 showed what’s possible when universities, industry, and government partners align around shared priorities.” 

Day one featured strategic dialogue on critical mineral resources, innovation pathways, and partnership models. A recurring theme was the co-production of critical minerals alongside major mineral commodities. “Many critical minerals are produced as byproducts of larger mining operations, making it essential to integrate recovery strategies into existing mineral industries rather than developing entirely new extraction systems,” noted Crawford Elliott, professor of geosciences at Georgia State University.

Day two transitioned to field‑based learning, led by Paul Schroeder, professor of geology at the University of Georgia. Participants visited active operations to better understand how regional industrial strengths can support national and international supply chain goals. Schroeder said, “Connecting people to the long-standing mineral extraction economy at the mining and plant sites, where the work gets done with an amazingly skilled workforce, underscores the unique role of Georgia’s place‑based capacity in advancing national and transatlantic supply chain goals.”

Organizers emphasized that resilient supply chains rely on regional capabilities built over time through university collaboration, industry partnerships, and community engagement. With three years of inter‑university coordination now underpinning the GEMS platform, the 2026 workshop demonstrated how the Southeast is contributing actionable models for U.S.-U.K. cooperation.

“Ecosystem-building at this scale requires participation from every part of the value chain, and we are encouraged by the model GEMs presents,” said Rachel Galloway, Consul General at British Consulate General Atlanta. “The collaboration across universities, industry, and government is exactly what enables long‑term impact on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Through focused dialogue and partnership-building, the symposium strengthened transatlantic collaboration, highlighted regional strengths, and accelerated innovation and translation across the critical minerals value chain, from resource characterization and processing to recycling, manufacturing, and deployment.

For more information about the GEMS initiative, visit: https://gems.research.gatech.edu/.

News Contact

News Contact

Priya Devarajan
Georgia Tech

Sydnie Hammond
British Consulate-Atlanta
 
Georgia State University
 
University of Georgia
 
Georgia Mining Association
Apr. 13, 2026
Karen Rommelfanger smiling in a warmly lit room. A window and brick wall are visible behind her.

Karen Rommelfanger recently joined Georgia Tech as a professor of the practice, where she will work with the Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society to embed neuroethics into Georgia Tech’s research and technology development ecosystem. Photo via the Dana Foundation.

Seated on the left, Karen Rommelfanger speaks on a panel at the 2026 Asilomar for the Brain and Mind conference. Panelists sit on stage in front of a large screen displaying the conference name, dates, and a brain-themed graphic, with an audience visible in the foreground.

Karen Rommelfanger (left) is a leading voice in neuroethics, with years of experience bridging neuroscience, technology development, ethics, and public policy to address the societal impacts of emerging brain technologies.

Artificial intelligence has been touted as the most transformative technology of our time. With only a few years of mainstream use, it’s changed how we work and communicate, generated billions of dollars in investments, and sparked global debate. But according to leading neuroethics expert Karen Rommelfanger, the race isn’t over yet. 

“Can you think of a more transformative technology than one that intervenes with the fundamental organ that drives your experience in the world?” 

That fundamental organ is the brain.  

Technologies interfacing directly with the brain have been reserved for treating severe injury or disease for decades. Now, neurotechnology is expanding into brain-responsive wearables meant to enhance, augment, and monitor everyday life. As these technologies accelerate and AI is incorporated, the question is no longer if neurotechnology will transform society, but how — and who will shape the boundaries. 

These are some of the questions on which Karen Rommelfanger has built her career. Trained as a biomedical researcher and neuroscientist, Rommelfanger went on to found the Institute for Neuroethics, the world’s first think and do tank devoted entirely to neuroethics, public engagement, and policy implementation.  

“The brain is special; it’s central to who we are,” says Rommelfanger, who was also an inaugural recipient of the Dana Foundation Neuroscience and Society Award. “And that means when you intervene with the brain, there are unique responsibilities. The field of neuroethics addresses things like: How do you ensure mental privacy? How do you protect free will? How do you ensure that people have the power to be narrators of their own lives and their cognitive experience?” 

Now, Rommelfanger is joining Georgia Tech’s Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society (INNS) as a professor of the practice, where she will work to further embed neuroethics into Georgia Tech’s research and technology development ecosystem. 

“Georgia Tech is producing the next generation of neurotechnologists, and Karen’s expertise will help ensure we’re preparing them to think about societal impact as deeply as they think about the technical and scientific aspects of their work,” says Christopher Rozell, executive director of INNS. “Her leadership strengthens the Institute in exactly the way this moment in neurotechnology demands.”  

“Georgia Tech has many, many ways that it leads in the technology ecosystem. But one of the powerful, unique ways it can lead is through neurotechnology,” says Rommelfanger. “I hope that the INNS, given its unique mandate for neuroscience, neurotechnology, and society, can be a lighthouse for these types of conversations.” 

Neuroethics by Design 

From institutional review boards to mandatory responsible research conduct training, ethics are a foundational part of scientific research. But designing neurotechnologies raises ethical challenges beyond the scope of typical training. What happens when discoveries leave the lab and enter people’s lives? 

That question sits at the core of Rommelfanger’s work. She argues it’s a neurotechnologist’s responsibility to recognize and proactively address the need for unique safeguards for privacy, autonomy, and long-term responsibility. Her solution is to move neuroethics upstream, embedding it directly into the research, design, and deployment of neurotechnology through an approach she calls “neuroethics by design.” 

“Neuroethics by design considers ethics as a core criterion where principles can drive innovation with more of a lens toward societal outcomes,” she says — an approach informed by years of advising national-level brain research initiatives and her experience at the intersection of clinical practice and ethics scholarship. 

Rather than treating ethics as a compliance checklist or a post hoc review, neuroethics by design integrates ethical thinking throughout the entire innovation lifecycle, from early ideation and research questions to product requirements, governance strategies, and long-term sustainability. She has used the approach for years as an embedded partner for neurotechnology startups in her neuroethics consultancy, Ningen Co-Lab

After decades as a traditional academic professor and then years advising companies and policymakers with this philosophy, Rommelfanger says Georgia Tech is the right place to scale this work. With its strength in neurotechnology and INNS’s rare focus on neuroscience and society, “I could not think of a better place to launch and pilot this neuroethics by design scaling effort.” 

She will work with INNS to help equip researchers, students, and industry partners with practical tools for ethical decision-making. Her vision is not to create neuroethicists as a standalone profession, but to cultivate ethically engaged neurotechnologists and engineers. 

Central to her plans at INNS are hands-on training programs that bring ethics out of the abstract and into practice. “I wanted to be a professor of the practice because, while the field does need more scholars, what it really needs most at this point are practitioners.”  

Rommelfanger is exploring modular content that can be embedded into existing courses across disciplines, as well as immersive training — such as neuroethics boot camps and problem-solving hackathons — that bring together students, faculty, and professionals to tackle real-world challenges collaboratively. 

“No one discipline can solve all the ethical challenges ahead,” says Rommelfanger. She is particularly interested in creating spaces where experts from across science and engineering, policy and law, design and the arts, and philosophy can work side by side with people with lived experience of neurological conditions. “The onus is not on scientists alone, but is a shared responsibility that benefits immensely from dialogue, accountability, and action across diverse communities.” 

By situating neuroethics within Georgia Tech’s broader research ecosystem, Rommelfanger hopes INNS can help shift how the field evolves globally.  

“It's really difficult to get your arms around something once it's out of the gate,” she says, citing the rapid adoption of AI without proper ethical or policy guidelines. “With neurotechnology, we still have a little bit of time, but not that much time. We are at that moment where we could change the course of global history.” 

News Contact

News Contact

Audra Davidson
Research Communications Program Manager
Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society (INNS)

Apr. 13, 2026
A man typing on a computer. There is a hovering screen hovering over his hands that says "Vibe Coding"

Vibe coding programmers are releasing batches of vulnerable code, according to researchers at the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy (SCP) at Georgia Tech, who have scanned over 43,000 security advisories across the web.

The programming style relies on using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to create software code using tools like Claude, Gemini, and GitHub Copilot. According to graduate research assistant Hanqing Zhao of the Systems Software & Security Lab (SSLab), no one had been tracking these common vulnerabilities and exposures before the launch of their Vibe Security Radar.

“The vulnerabilities we found lead to breaches,” he said. “Everyone is using these tools now. We need a feedback loop to identify which tools, which patterns, and which workflows create the most risk.”

The radar extensively scans public vulnerability databases, finds the error for each vulnerability, and then examines the code’s history to find who introduced the bug. If they discover an AI tool's signature, the radar flags it. 

Of the 74 confirmed cases uncovered so far by the tool, 14 are critical risks, and 25 are high. These vulnerabilities include command injection, authentication bypass, and server-side request forgery. Zhao explained that since AI models tend to repeat the same mistakes, an attacker would need to find these bugs just once. 

“Millions of developers using the same models means the same bugs showing up across different projects,” he said. “Find one pattern in one AI codebase, you can scan for it across thousands of repositories.”

Despite its success, the team has only scratched the surface of the problem. The radar can trace metadata like co-author tags, bot emails, and other known tool signatures, but it can't identify an issue if these markers have been removed. 

The next step is behavioral detection. AI-written code has patterns in how it names variables, structures functions, and handles errors. 

“We're building models that can identify AI code from the code itself, no metadata needed,” said Zhao. “That opens up a lot of cases we currently can't touch.”

The team is also improving its verification pipeline and expanding its sources to include more vulnerability databases. The goal is to get a more complete picture of AI-introduced vulnerabilities across open source, not just the ones that happen to leave signatures behind. 

As more programmers rely on vibe coding, Zhao warns that it still needs to be reviewed as thoroughly as any other project. 

“The whole point of vibe coding is not reading it afterward, I know,” he said. “But if you're shipping AI output to production, review it the way you'd review a junior developer's pull request. Especially anything around input handling and authentication.”

When prompting AI, SSLab also recommends providing more detailed instructions to get it closer to production-ready. There are also tools to check the code for vulnerabilities after  code it has been generated. Not double-checking could lead to a catastrophe. 

“The attack surface keeps growing,” said Zhao. “More people running AI agents locally means the attacker doesn't need to break into the company infrastructure. They just need one vulnerability in a model context protocol server that someone installed and never reviewed.”

One reason the attack surfaces are expanding rapidly is AI’s evolution. In the second half of 2025, the Vibe Security Radar found about 18 cases across seven months. Then, in the first three months of 2026, it identified 56. March 2026 alone had 35, more than all of 2025 combined. 

Many tools, like Claude, are now more autonomous, allowing developers to write entire features, create files, and even make architecture decisions. 

“When an agent builds something without authentication, that's not a typo,” said Zhao. “It's a design flaw baked in from the start. Claude Code and Copilot together account for most of what we detect, but that's partly because they leave the clearest signatures.”

News Contact

News Contact

John Popham

Communications Officer II at the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy

Mar. 25, 2026
Yuhang Hu and students in the lab

Most plastic and rubber materials remain in a fixed shape from the moment they leave the mold. Their size and function are the same until they wear out or break. But what if synthetic materials could behave more like living organisms, growing or repairing themselves when needed?

A research team led by Yuhang Hu, associate professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, has created a new material designed to do exactly that. In a new study published in Advanced Materials, Hu and her collaborators describe a groundbreaking class of “living” polymers that can grow, shrink, heal, and even regenerate long after fabrication.

Their work combines advances in chemistry, mechanics, and materials design into a polymer platform that could reshape how engineered products are built, maintained, and recycled.

Read the full story on the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering website.

News Contact

News Contact

Ashley Ritchie
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering

Apr. 09, 2026
Anna Erickson

Anna Erickson, Woodruff Professor of nuclear and radiological engineering in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, has been awarded the 2026 James Corones Award in Leadership, Community Building and Communication from the Krell Institute.

The award, named for the Iowa-based nonprofit’s founder, recognizes midcareer scientists and engineers for research impact, mentoring, scientific-community activities, and commitment to communicating science and technology. It will be formally presented to Erickson in May on the Georgia Tech campus.

Read the full story on the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering website.

News Contact

News Contact

Ashley Ritchie
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering

Apr. 01, 2026
Ankur Singh, the Carl Ring Family Professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, in his lab.

The United States continues to face deadly infectious disease outbreaks, from emerging viruses to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, underscoring the nation’s need for rapid, effective response systems. These threats extend beyond public health, disrupting daily life, straining health care systems, and impacting military readiness.

A team of researchers led by Ankur Singh, the Carl Ring Family Professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering and professor in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory University, has been awarded up to $6 million from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) of the U.S. Department of Defense to accelerate the development of medical countermeasures (MCMs) against deadly biological threats that endanger public health, national security, and warfighters.

DTRA’s mission is to provide solutions that enable the Department of Defense, the U.S. government, and international partners to deter strategic threats. A key priority is advancing new or improved MCMs that can be deployed before or after exposure to biological or chemical agents.

Singh’s multi-year project, Systematic Human Immune Engineering for Lethal Disease (SHIELD) Countermeasures, aims to create a threat-agnostic platform that transforms how respiratory pathogens and toxins are studied. The platform is designed to speed up the discovery, development, and production of immune-based countermeasures.

Read the full story on the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering website.

News Contact

News Contact

Ashley Ritchie
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering

Mar. 18, 2026
Andson Lab

When Mason Chilmonczyk, M.S. ME 2017, Ph.D. ME 2020, arrived at Georgia Tech to pursue graduate degrees in mechanical engineering, his goal was to become a professor. Instead, an unexpected turn in his research led him to entrepreneurship.

Today, he is the chief executive officer of Andson Biotech, a growing biotools startup he co-founded with Andrei Fedorov, associate chair for graduate studies and the Rae S. and Frank H. Neely Chair at the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering. The company is commercializing a breakthrough technology Chilmonczyk developed during his doctoral research that simplifies the development and production of cell and gene therapies.

Read the full story on the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering website.

News Contact

News Contact

Ashley Ritchie
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering

Subscribe to Research Horizons