MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XXVIII No. 1, September ...web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/281/fnl281.pdf · 07/28/ernest_moniz_obamas_mvp_on_iran _deal_127576.html). An important reason for

in this issue we offer commentary on the Iran nuclear negotiations and aQ&A about the New Horizons mission to Pluto (below); the From The Faculty Chairfeature by new Chair Krishna Rajagopal (p. 4); an Open Letter to President Reifconcerning divesting from fossil fuels (p. 10); and continuing commentary on MIT’sEast Campus construction plans (p.13).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXVIII No. 1September/October 2015

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 8

Iran and the P5+1 Pact

Pluto in View!O! The Joy!

continued on page 6

Noam Chomsky

ON E OF TH E MAJOR I SSU E S beforeCongress this fall is whether or not toapprove the agreement negotiated amongthe P5+1 nations (U.S., China, Russia,France, UK, and Germany) and Iran, withrespect to non-proliferation of nuclearweapons. Prof. Chomsky’s article makesthe case for supporting the negotiatedagreements.

MIT has a deep connection to theprocess with numerous colleagues andpast graduates playing critical roles in theIran negotiations, discussions in themedia, and working with Congress (seenews.mit.edu/2015/us-iran-nuclear-deal-0724).

Our colleague, Ernest J. Moniz, was thelead technical negotiator and has played amajor, constructive role in the P5+1negotiations with Iran with regard to itsnuclear facilities (see e.g. nyti.ms/1Mv87eK).

EditorialMIT’s Role in the IranNuclear Negotiations

continued on page 3

The following Q&A by the FacultyNewsletter (FNL) was held with MIT pro-fessor Richard Binzel (RB), a co-investiga-tor on NASA's New Horizons mission toPluto and the Kuiper belt.

A CAR E E R-LON G ODYS S EY in thestudy of Pluto, getting a mission to thelaunch pad, and a successful flyby after adecade of interplanetary flight.

FNL: According to news reports, you werepart of a group that began proposing aPluto mission 25 years ago, which was can-celled six times before finally launching in2006. What is it like to keep at this goal forso long and how did you maintain yourdetermination?

RB: Well, beyond the trademark persist-ence that permeates all of us here at MIT,

Pluto in True Color

TH ROUG HOUT TH E WOR LD TH E R E

is relief and optimism about the nucleardeal reached in Vienna between Iran andP5+1. There are, however, striking excep-tions: the United States and its closestregional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia –where fear of the “Iranian threat” some-times reaches virtual hysteria – a standshared by prominent sectors of Americanopinion. Even sober commentary in theUnited States, pretty much across thespectrum, declares Iran to be “the gravestthreat to world peace.” U.S. supporters ofthe agreement are wary, given the excep-tional gravity of the Iranian threat andconcerns about the terrible Iranian recordof violence and deceit.

It is perhaps of some interest that theworld sees the matter rather differently: itis the United States that is regarded as thegravest threat to world peace

2

Vol. XXVIII No. 1 September/October 2015

*Aron BernsteinPhysics

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Manduhai BuyandelgerAnthropology

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Christopher CumminsChemistry

Woodie FlowersMechanical Engineering

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

*Jonathan King (Chair) Biology

Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

Stephen J. Lippard (Treasurer)Chemistry

Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

*Ruth Perry (Vice Chair)Literature Section

Nasser RabbatArchitecture

Patrick Henry WinstonElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Subcommittee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 10-335Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458E-mail [email protected]

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$25/year off campus

01 Pluto in View! O! The Joy!

01 Iran and the P5+1 PactNoam Chomsky

Editorial 01 MIT’s Role in the Iran Nuclear Negotiations

From The 04 The Year Ahead Faculty Chair Krishna Rajagopal

05 Teaching this fall? You should know . . .

10 An Open Letter to President Reif and the Executive Committee on Divesting from Fossil Fuel Companies

13 MIT Construction Plans Continue to Undervalue Graduate Student NeedsFrederick P. Salvucci

14 A Frog in WaterPart I: The Forces That Move UsThomas W. Eagar

16 Why MIT Is Implementing Duo Two-Factor AuthenticationJohn Charles, Nickolai Zeldovich

17 Nominate a Colleague as a MacVicar Faculty Fellow

18 Professor John W. Belcher Receives Prestigious 2016 Oersted Medal

19 Enhanced MIT Mental Health Initiatives and MindHandHeart Announced

Numbers 20 Status of World Nuclear Forces 2015

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo credit: Pages 1, 9: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; Page 8: Richard Binzel;

Page 18: Paul Rivenberg

MIT Faculty NewsletterSeptember/October 2015

3

Prof. Moniz is currently the United StatesSecretary of Energy and the Cecil and IdaGreen Professor of Physics andEngineering Systems, Emeritus. He hasserved on the faculty since 1973 and hashad a long and distinguished career at theInstitute (see https://esd.mit.edu/Faculty_Pages/moniz/moniz.htm).

Prof. Moniz is also playing a key role inexplanations to Congress. Even membersof Congress who oppose the deal havepraise for his authoritative testimony.“Thus far, he’s by far been the best witness,the best person to talk to,” Sen. BobCorker, the Chairman of the ForeignRelations Committee, told reportersshortly after the deal had been announced(www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/28/ernest_moniz_obamas_mvp_on_iran_deal_127576.html).

An important reason for the success ofthe Iran negotiations was Moniz’s abilityto work well and connect personally withAli Akbar Salehi, a 1977 MIT PhD inNuclear Engineering and the head of theAtomic Energy Organization of Iran(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_Organization_of_Iran) since2013 (No. 2 Negotiators in Iran TalksArgue Physics Behind Politics, David E.Sanger, The New York Times, March 28,2015). Dr. Salehi served as Iran’s foreignminister from 2010 to 2013, and has beena professor and chancellor(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_

(education)) of the Sharif University ofTechnology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_University_of_Technology).

Dr. Jim Walsh is a Research Associate atMIT’s Security Studies Program (SSP)

and has been playing a major role in thecongressional and public discussion of theIran negotiations and agreement. Anexpert in international security, Dr. Walshis a major player in the Iran Project, anon-profit group dedicated to the under-standing and improvement of U.S.-Iranrelations (iranprojectfcsny.org). He is oneof a handful of Americans who has trav-eled to both Iran and North Korea fortalks with officials about nuclear issues.He has testified many times about the Irannegotiations in Congress and is a regularcommentator on NPR and many othernews organizations. (See web.mit.edu/ssp/people/walsh/faculty_walsh.html formore information.)

R. Scott Kemp is Assistant Professor ofNuclear Science and Engineering and hassignificantly contributed to the technicaland policy discussion about Iran. He waspreviously the Science Advisor forNonproliferation and Arms Control,

where he participated in early P5+1 talkand laid the basis internally for much ofthe current agreement with Iran. He hasalso been a regular participant in thetrack-II diplomacy effort that met several

times a year with Salehi, Foreign MinisterZarif, or P5+1 ambassadors to help sortout technical questions about how negoti-ations might play out. These discussionsproduced the solutions now adopted forthe Fordow centrifuges and for the pluto-nium program. His research combinesphysics with engineering to understandthe limits and policy options for achievinginternational security under technicalconstraints. He is an expert on nuclearcentrifuges and has pointed out that thischanges the international security frame-work in new and difficult ways (seeweb.mit.edu/nse/people/faculty/kemp.html).

As this issue goes to press, the outcomeof the Congressional vote remains uncer-tain. We continue to believe that diplo-macy is the preferred course in defusinginternational tensions.

Editorial Subcommittee

MIT’s Role in the Iran Nuclear Negotiationscontinued from page 1

An important reason for the success of the Irannegotiations was Moniz’s ability to work well andconnect personally with Ali Akbar Salehi, a 1977 MITPhD in Nuclear Engineering and the head of the AtomicEnergy Organization of Iran . . . .

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXVIII No. 1

4

Krishna RajagopalFrom The Faculty ChairThe Year Ahead

I AM G RATE FU L TO the editors of theFaculty Newsletter for offering the Chair ofthe Faculty the opportunity to write aregular column. Together with the newAssociate Chair of the Faculty, Prof. LeslieKolodziejski from Electrical Engineeringand Computer Science, and the newSecretary of the Faculty, Prof. ChrisCapozzola from History, I am lookingforward to the coming academic year withanticipation. I hope that your summershave been as invigorating as mine. Leslie,Chris, and I are honored to serve as yourFaculty Officers for the coming two years.

Looking ahead, this year – as in anyyear – MIT faces a variety of challengingquestions that, in different ways, go to thecore of who we are, what we value, andwhat we contribute to the world. I will lista few, no doubt missing as many as I list:

• How will MIT, and in particular the MITfaculty, rise to the challenges put to us bythe recent reports from the Task Force onthe Future of MIT Education and fromthe MIT Climate Change ConversationCommittee? What are the most effectiveways via which MIT can harness the ener-gies of its students, staff, and facultytoward finding solutions to the climatechallenge? How can we best catalyzetransformations in pedagogy and exten-sions to MIT’s educational impact,including those envisioned by the TaskForce?

• What new opportunities are there forMIT to lead in the development of resi-dential education experiences that areintensely rigorous, inclusive, healthy, andwelcoming? How should MIT bestemploy the many ways in which we, all ofus in different ways and at different times,

support students in our community? Howcan we strengthen the health and wellnessof all our students, and of all of us? Howcan we most effectively weave the strongfibres that thread through our commu-nity into a resilient safety net?

• How will MIT remain a beacon of dis-covery and innovation when federalsupport for basic research is under stress?How do we envision the MIT campusevolving over the coming decade or two,as student life and faculty life evolves?How will the changing campus landscape(dorms, maker spaces, classrooms, offices,research facilities . . .) improve our qualityof life and empower us to achieve ourambitions?

Together with my fellow FacultyOfficers, as the Chair of the Faculty I havethe challenge of articulating the perspec-tives of the faculty in many conversations,including at the highest levels of theadministration, as MIT finds its waytoward answering these and other centralquestions, in so doing shaping its future.But, what are the perspectives of thefaculty? Conversations among us, in manydifferent circles, about these kinds ofquestions are vital. I expect that in futurecolumns I will share thoughts about someof these questions, informed by my con-tinuing conversations and with the goal ofprompting them further.

Through the Faculty PolicyCommittee, on which all three of us serve,the Faculty Officers are also stewards ofMIT’s shared faculty governance. Thecoming academic year will see the faculty,first through its committees and then as awhole, considering an unusually largesuite of curricular innovations, likely

including a PhD program centered in ournew Institute for Data, Systems andSociety, new undergraduate majors, and anew Masters program developed by theSloan School, as well as several other newmajors and minors. In addition, manyfaculty and departments are building andtrying out new online tools to improvehow we teach on campus and to reach outto the world, and are exploring new formsof flexibility and modularity, amongmany pedagogical innovations.

How can we all benefit from our col-leagues’ experience as we develop our ownnext innovation? What are the implica-tions for student learning and the studentexperience, including the flexibility totailor unique learning experiences as wellas potential impacts on pace, pressure andstress, of our evolving mix of half-termand full-term subjects? Here the facultycommittees play a key role, ensuring thatnew programs, new proposals, new inno-vations are all strengthened via synthesiz-ing the insights and experience of facultyand departments across the Institute. Sotoo do the web of collegial ties via whicheach of us interacts with colleaguesoutside our own departments, labs, andcenters.

As I reread what I have written above,what jumps out in my own mind as I thinkabout how to serve effectively as your Chairin a year with such a variegated suite ofchallenges, is how critically important it isfor me to talk with as many of you as I pos-sibly can, and to hear from as many moreof you as I can at one degree of separationthrough Leslie, Chris, and the members ofthe Faculty Policy Committee. Please findme; please find us. How? I’ll close with twospecific suggestions, but please find me anyway that you like.


5

First, please come to MIT faculty meet-ings; to the meetings themselves, and tothe reception afterwards.

Second, I much look forward to seeingyou when you are one of the facultymembers invited to one of the randomfaculty dinners. For me, these dinners thatwere started by Jay Keyser about threedecades ago, have long been among myfavorite features of faculty life. The oppor-

tunity they provide to make and renewconnections with colleagues from acrossthe Institute over wine and dinner play avaluable role in knitting our communitytogether; certainly for me over the yearsthey have built cross-links that later cameto be of value in unpredictable ways. Forthe next two years, Leslie, Chris, and I willendeavor to be at all of them. One of thechallenges I look forward to is trying to

emulate Jay’s light but reassuring touch inguiding the open discussion that we haveover dessert and coffee at the conclusionof each dinner. There is never an agenda,but time is allotted for any of you to raisecurrent issues on your mind.

Teaching this fall? You should know . . .

the faculty regulates examinations and assignments for all subjects.

View the complete regulations at: web.mit.edu/ faculty/ teaching/ termregs.html. Select requirements are provided below for reference.

Contact Faculty Chair Krishna Rajagopal at x3-6202 or [email protected] for questions or exceptions.

No required classes, examinations, oral presentations, exercises, or assignments of any kind may be scheduled after thelast regularly scheduled class in a subject, except for final examinations scheduled through the Schedules Office.

Undergraduate SubjectsBy the end of the first week of classes, you must provide:

• a clear and complete description of the required work, including the number and kinds of assignments• the approximate schedule of tests and due dates for major projects• an indication of whether or not there will be a final examination, and• the grading criteria and procedures to be used

By the end of the third week, you must provide a precise schedule of tests and major assignments.

Tests, required reviews, and other academic exercises outside scheduled class times shall not be held on Mondayevenings. In addition, when held outside scheduled class times, tests must:

• not exceed two hours in length• begin no earlier than 7:30 PM when held in the evening, and• be scheduled through the Schedules Office

In all undergraduate subjects, there shall be no tests after Friday, December 4, 2015. Unit tests may be scheduled during the final examination period.

Graduate SubjectsBy the end of the third week, you must provide:

• a clear and complete description of the required work, including the number and kinds of assignments• the schedule of tests and due dates for major projects• an indication of whether or not there will be a final examination, and• the grading criteria and procedures to be used

For each graduate subject with a final examination, no other test may be given and no assignment may fall due after Friday,December 4, 2015. For each subject without a final examination, at most, either one in-class test may be given, or oneassignment, term paper, or oral presentation may fall due between December 5 and the end of the last regularly scheduledclass in the subject.

Collaboration Policy and Expectations for Academic ConductDue to varying faculty attitudes towards collaboration and diverse cultural values and priorities regarding academic honesty,students are often confused about expectations regarding permissible academic conduct. It is important to clarify, in writ-ing, expectations regarding collaboration and academic conduct at the beginning of each semester. This could include areference to the MIT Academic Integrity Handbook at: integrity.mit.edu.

Krishna Rajagopal is a Professor of Physics,a MacVicar Faculty Fellow, and Chair of theFaculty ([email protected]).


6

(WIN/Gallup). Far below in second placeis Pakistan, its ranking probably inflatedby the Indian vote. Iran is ranked wellbelow, along with Israel, North Korea, andAfghanistan.

Opponents of the nuclear deal chargethat it did not go far enough. With quitedifferent concerns, some supporters agree,holding that “If the Vienna deal is to meananything, the whole of the Middle Eastmust rid itself of weapons of massdestruction.” The author of these words,Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs JavadZarif, adds that “Iran, in its nationalcapacity and as current chairman of theNon-Aligned Movement, is prepared towork with the international communityto achieve these goals.” Iran has signed “ahistoric nuclear deal,” he continues, andnow it is the turn of Israel, “the holdout.”Israel, of course, is one of the three nuclearpowers, along with India and Pakistan,whose nuclear weapons programs havebeen abetted by the United States and thatrefuse to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.Minister Zarif was referring to the regularfive-year NPT review conference, whichended in failure in April when the U.S.once again blocked the efforts to movetowards a WMD-free zone in the MiddleEast (joined this time by Canada andBritain).

These efforts have been led by Egyptand other Arab states for 20 years. Two ofthe leading figures promoting them at theNPT and other UN agencies, and at thePugwash conferences, JayanthaDhanapala and Sergio Duarte, observethat “The successful adoption in 1995 ofthe resolution on the establishment of azone free of weapons of mass destruction(WMD) in the Middle East was the mainelement of a package that permitted theindefinite extension of the NPT.”Repeatedly, implementation of the resolu-tion has been blocked by the U.S., mostrecently by Obama in 2010 and again in2015. Dhanapala and Duarte commentthat the effort was again blocked “on

behalf of a state that is not a party to theNPT and is widely believed to be the onlyone in the region possessing nuclearweapons,” a polite and understated refer-ence to Israel. They “hope that this failure

will not be the coup de grâce to the twolongstanding NPT objectives of acceler-ated progress on nuclear disarmamentand on establishing a Middle EasternWMD-free zone.”

A nuclear weapons-free zone in theMiddle East is a straightforward way toaddress whatever threat Iran’s nuclearprograms allegedly poses. And as thesecomments make clear, a great deal more isat stake in Washington’s continuing sabo-tage of the effort – protecting its Israeliclient. This is not the only case whenopportunities to end the alleged Iranianthreat have been undermined byWashington, raising further questionsabout just what is actually at stake.

What in fact is the Iranian threat? Itcan hardly be military. U.S. intelligenceyears ago informed Congress that Iran haslow military expenditures by the stan-dards of the region and that its strategicdoctrines are defensive, designed to deteraggression. It also concludes that “Iran’snuclear program and its willingness tokeep open the possibility of developingnuclear weapons is a central part of itsdeterrent strategy.”

Details are provided in an April studyof the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies, which finds “a con-clusive case that the Arab Gulf states have. . . an overwhelming advantage [over]

Iran in both military spending and accessto modern arms.” Iran’s military spendingis a fraction of Saudi Arabia’s, and is farbelow even the spending of the UnitedArab Emirates. Altogether, the Gulf

Cooperation Council states – Bahrain,Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and theUAE – outspend Iran on arms by a factorof eight, an imbalance that goes backdecades. The CSIS observes further that“The Arab Gulf states have acquired andare acquiring some of the most advancedand effective weapons in the world [while]Iran has essentially been forced to live inthe past, often relying on systems origi-nally delivered at the time of the Shah,”which are virtually obsolete. The imbal-ance is of course even greater with Israel,which, along with the most advanced U.S.weaponry and its role as a virtual offshoremilitary base of the global superpower,has a huge stock of nuclear weapons.

No serious analyst believes that Iranwould ever use a nuclear weapon if it hadone, thus suffering instant destruction.There is, however, real concern that anuclear weapon might fall into jihadihands – not from Iran, where the threat isminuscule, but from U.S. ally Pakistan,where it is very real. Two leading Pakistaninuclear scientists, Pervez Hoodbhoy andZia Mian, write in International Affairsthat increasing fears of “militants seizingnuclear weapons or materials andunleashing nuclear terrorism [have led to]the creation of a dedicated force of over20,000 troops to guard nuclear facilities.”They warn that “There is no reason to

The Iran and the P5+1 PactChomsky, from page 1

Opponents of the nuclear deal charge that it did not gofar enough. With quite different concerns, somesupporters agree, holding that “If the Vienna deal is tomean anything, the whole of the Middle East must riditself of weapons of mass destruction.” The author ofthese words, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs JavadZarif, adds that “Iran, in its national capacity and ascurrent chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, isprepared to work with the international community toachieve these goals.”


7

assume, however, that this force would beimmune to the problems associated withthe units guarding regular military facili-ties,” which have frequently sufferedattacks with “insider help.” In brief, theproblem is real, and largely ignored, dis-placed by fevered fantasies concocted forother reasons.

It might also be useful to recall – surelyIranians do – that not a day has passedsince 1953 when the U.S. was not severelyharming Iranians. As soon as Iraniansoverthrew the hated U.S.-imposed regimeof the Shah in 1979, Washington at onceturned to supporting Saddam Hussein’smurderous attack on Iran. In recent yearsthe hostility has extended to sabotage,murder of nuclear scientists (presumablyby Israel), and cyberwar, openly pro-claimed with pride. The Pentagon regardscyberwar as an act of war, justifying a mil-itary response, with the accord of NATO,which affirmed in September 2014 thatcyber attacks may trigger the collectivedefense obligations of the NATO powers.

Do Iranian leaders intend to developnuclear weapons? We can decide howcredible their denials are, but that theyhad such intentions in the past is clear. Itwas asserted openly on the highestauthority, which informed foreign jour-nalists that Iran would develop nuclearweapons “certainly, and sooner than onethinks.” The father of Iran’s nuclear energyprogram and former head of Iran’sAtomic Energy Organization was confi-dent that the leadership’s plan “was tobuild a nuclear bomb.” A CIA report alsohad “no doubt” that Iran would developnuclear weapons if neighboring countriesdid (as they have).

All of this was under the Shah, thehighest authority just quoted. That is,during the period when high U.S. officials

– Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and others– were urging the Shah to proceed withnuclear programs, and pressuring univer-sities to accommodate these efforts. Aspart of these efforts, MIT made a deal toadmit Iranian students to the nuclearengineering program in return for grants

from the Shah, over the very strong objec-tions of the student body, but with com-parably strong faculty support, in ameeting that older faculty will doubtlessremember well.

What then is the real threat of Iran thatinspires such fear and fury? Recall theanalysis of U.S. intelligence that Iran’snuclear programs (with no effort toproduce bombs, as far as intelligence candetermine) are “a central part of its deter-rent strategy.”

Who would be concerned by anIranian deterrent? The answer is plain: therogue states that rampage in the region.Far in the lead in this regard are the U.S.and Israel, with Saudi Arabia joining theclub with its invasion of Bahrain tosupport the crushing of the reform move-ment and now its murderous assault onYemen, sharply accelerating the humani-tarian catastrophe there.

For the United States, the characteri-zation is familiar. Fifteen years ago,Samuel Huntington warned in ForeignAffairs that for much of the world the U.S.is “becoming the rogue superpower,” con-sidered “the single greatest external threat

to their societies.” His words were echoedshortly after by the president of theAmerican Political Science Association,Robert Jervis, who observed that “In theeyes of much of the world, in fact, theprime rogue state today is the UnitedStates.” As we have seen, global opinion

supports this judgment today by a sub-stantial margin.

Furthermore, the mantle is worn withpride. That is the clear meaning of theinsistence of the leadership and the politi-cal class, in media and commentary, thatthe U.S. reserves the right to resort to forceif it determines, unilaterally, that Iran isviolating some commitment. It is also along-standing official stand of liberalDemocrats, for example the ClintonDoctrine that the U.S. is entitled to resortto “unilateral use of military power” evenfor such purposes as to ensure “uninhib-ited access to key markets, energy suppliesand strategic resources,” let alone alleged“security” or “humanitarian” concerns.And adherence to the Doctrine is wellconfirmed in practice, as need hardly bediscussed.

These are among the critical mattersthat should be the focus of attention inanalyzing the nuclear deal at Vienna,whether it stands or is sabotaged byCongress, as it may well be.

No serious analyst believes that Iran would ever use anuclear weapon if it had one, thus suffering instantdestruction. There is, however, real concern that anuclear weapon might fall into jihadi hands – not fromIran, where the threat is minuscule, but from U.S. allyPakistan, where it is very real.

Noam Chomsky is a Professor in theDepartment of Linguistics and Philosophy([email protected]).


8

it is the raw spirit of exploration to “reachthe unreachable” that fueled my determi-nation. During one of the many down-turns you mention, I happened to pick upStephen Ambrose’s Undaunted Courage,the story of the Lewis and Clark expedi-tion. The parallel went right to my core:the determination and effort required toget across the continent 200 years ago wasexactly what we had to muster to reachthat next frontier across the solar system.In my office I put up a painting depictingthe Lewis and Clark journey and I readtheir journals day-by-day. In getting toPluto, every day became just one morestep in a journey of exploration.

FNL: How did you first get involved with aPluto mission?

RB: The success of Voyager 2 reachingNeptune in 1989 signaled that Pluto couldbe in reach of a spacecraft. At that time, Iwas one of only a handful of Pluto scien-tists worldwide. We happened to betogether at a conference in Baltimore inMay 1989. Over dinner our discussionsturned to the concept of a Pluto mission.Our conclusion: Why not now? Why notus? The die was cast, and most stronglywith Alan Stern who would become theNew Horizons Principal Investigator. Icannot give enough credit to Alan and theteam he assembled over the years to makethis mission a success. In the end, I am justa small member of the team.

FNL: If there were so few Pluto scientists,how is it that Pluto captured your scientificinterest to begin with?

RB: Like many things, it was happen-stance that goes back to 1978 when I wasan undergraduate. I was a summer“UROP” (which hadn’t been invented yet)working at the U.S. Naval Observatory inWashington, DC. Pluto’s large moon(Charon) was literally discovered in theoffice next door during the first week ofmy internship. On the very day of discov-

ery (June 22, 1978), I was there along sidethe professionals examining the fuzzy tel-escopic images of Pluto on glass photo-graphic plates. A persistent bump on thephotographs moved around Pluto that fitits known 6.4 days rotation period. Sofrom the very beginning of my career Iwas there helping to calculate the rota-tionally synchronous orbit of Pluto’smoon. Even that minor participation insuch a major discovery yielded a verypowerful lesson: Even what seemsunknowable can be unraveled.

FNL: Based on your own research, what didyou expect to see on Pluto and what sur-prised you the most?

RB: In graduate school I began my ownPluto observations that led to the detec-tion of “eclipses” between Pluto and itsmoon. Again this was a fortuitous once-per-century alignment, but the passing ofCharon across Pluto’s disk (like a scanner)allowed us to directly map the surface ofPluto long before the Hubble SpaceTelescope did it. Happily, as it turns out,those maps proved quite correct withintheir limits, revealing bright polar regionsand an overall darker equatorial band.Surprising us in situ was the starkness inthe contrast – having icy regions as brightas we see means they have to be geologi-cally recent deposits. Together with mygraduate student, we are trying to figureout exactly how seasons work on Pluto.The driving forces are its 248-year ellipti-cal orbit changing the global solar insola-tion it receives by a factor of two and thefact its spin vector is tilted over by about60 degrees with a precession period of afew million years.

FNL: What were some of the most dauntingtechnical challenges to reach Pluto?

RB: Space flight is hard and the great dis-tance makes everything even harder. Toreach the destination in a survivable life-time for both the team and the spacecraftrequires flight at high velocity (more than20 km/sec). But at that velocity, we can’tcarry enough fuel to slow down and orbit.

So everything had to be done as a flyby,and with a nine-hour communicationdelay (light-time travel 4.5 hours eachway), it all had to be completelyautonomous. The autonomous flybyrequirement dictated every aspect of theinstrument design down to the mostminute detail for choreographing ourdata acquisition and storage duringclosest approach. Solar panels are noteffective at that distance, meaning weneeded a radioisotope (plutonium, ofcourse) to generate power. Getting thatfueled and the approval process com-pleted in time for launch was a hugehurdle. Our data return rate from Pluto’sdistance (and only 40 watts of power) is1000 bits per second, reminiscent of adial-up modem with an acoustic coupler.So now, it is a patient process to get all ofthe data down to Earth.

FNL: How much did the New Horizonsmission cost? Did Pluto’s reclassification asa “Dwarf Planet” have any effect on themission?

RB: New Horizons is a NASA-funded$700 million mission, placing it in the“mid-range” of planetary missionbudgets. As for the label, this had no effectwhatsoever other than rekindling publicinterest in Pluto. (For what it’s worth, theSun is classified as a dwarf star.)

Pluto in View! O! The Joy!continued from page 1

Prof. Binzel on the Launchpad


9

Scientifically, we have always sought toexplore Pluto as its own unique world,regardless of its label. Pluto itself hasproved us right about being different! Oneenjoyable fallout of the “planet debate”was many engaging conversations with JayKeyser on the linguistics of why labels areso difficult to define across many fields.

FNL: What was the most satisfying part ofyour experience?

RB: The most satisfying part was thehuman element of seeing the joy on thefaces of one’s colleagues who have becomea family during this long journey fromconcept to destination. We did it! In thatjourney, some of MIT’s own students(trained by the late Professor James Elliot)rose to the top ranks of Deputy ProjectScientists – and there is no joy greaterthan seeing our students succeed. LeslieYoung (EAPS PhD ’94) [the daughter ofretired Aero Astro Professor Larry Young]and Cathy Olkin (EAPS PhD ’96) are highlevel faces for at least one-quarter of theteam who are women, which we think isthe highest proportion on any NASAmission. It is very satisfying to know thatNew Horizons is pushing this frontier aswell.

FNL: What advice do you give your studentsabout taking on these kinds of challenges?

RB: Start early! Even a journey of 3 billionmiles begins with a single step. Keep inyour heart that spirit of exploration to

steel yourself against how hard it is toreach unreachable frontiers.

FNL: What’s next?

RB: We have a healthy spacecraft continu-ing to fly through the Kuiper Belt, a newlyrecognized region beyond Neptune that islike an “asteroid belt” only even morepopulous. We have at least one knownobject (about 50 km across) in our sitesthat’s within our remaining fuel budget.We’ll soon be asking for NASA’s approvalfor an extended mission to go there.

FNL: Anything else you would like to add?

RB: Two things. First, we feel very privi-leged to be the capstone team for the gen-

eration completing the first reconnais-sance of all the planets in our solar system,many aspects of which we owe to MITcolleagues. Mariner 4 flew by Mars exactly50 years prior, and in those decades wehave explored every planet from Mercuryoutward, including the largest main-beltasteroids. Second, we hope New Horizonsbecomes “the Apollo moment” for a newgeneration of young scientists and engi-neers. I guess we’ll find out when we quizthe entering class of 2030 about how theygot interested in their careers.

Pluto Shown in Enhanced Colors to Distinguish Surface Details

Richard P. Binzel is a Professor of PlanetaryScience in the Department of Earth,Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. He holdsa joint appointment in the Department ofAeronautics and Astronautics and is a MacVicarFaculty Fellow ([email protected]).


10

An Open Letter to President Reif and theExecutive Committee on Divesting fromFossil Fuel Companies

To add your name to this open letter,please visit: www.MITFacultyDivest.org.[Electronic references supporting many ofthe points in the letter below are included inthe Web version.]

D EAR PR E S I D E NT R E I F AN D TH E

EXECUTIVE COM M ITTE E,

We, the undersigned faculty of MIT,write in support of divesting MIT’sendowment from fossil fuel companies.The unique position of the Institute pro-vides us with both the means and the obli-gation to take bold action against theharmful effects of climate change.

One of the clearest and most powerfulways to demonstrate our seriousnessabout tackling catastrophic climatechange is to divest from fossil fuels, as partof a multi-faceted climate action plan.

We support divestment – as one of theInstitute’s actions – for reasons includingthe following:

Divestment recognizes the scientificnecessity of drastically and rapidlyreducing greenhouse gas emissions toavoid global warming beyond the 2degree Celsius limit agreed to by virtu-ally every country on Earth. At leasttwo-thirds of all existing global fossilfuel reserves must never be burned, yetevery year the fossil fuel industryspends hundreds of billions of dollarslooking for more.

Our integrity is at stake. Many fossilfuel companies have a proven record,past and present, of actively working toobscure the scientific consensusaround climate change. By continuing

to invest in these companies, we know-ingly endorse efforts to undermineMIT’s commitment to scientific analy-sis and practical action for the better-ment of humankind.

Divestment is the moral course ofaction, and also the financially prudentone. Any solution to climate changewill require an unprecedented reduc-tion in the demand for fossil fuels.Many of the world’s foremost invest-ment experts are warning that fossilfuels are overvalued in light of theirdangers, risking trillions of dollars ofstranded assets.

Divestment is not only right, it is pow-erful. Over the decades, divestment hasproven effective at engendering thepolitical will needed for bold leader-ship and legislation. MIT recognizedthis when it divested in 2007 inresponse to the human tragedy inDarfur. The impact of universities’thought leadership on public percep-tion is tremendous.

By divesting from fossil fuels, MIT cancall out the contradictions betweenthe fossil fuel industry’s business prac-tices and the requirements for a safeand stable future. The social and polit-ical momentum created can help shiftthe efforts of both policymakers andindustry toward development of sus-tainable resources. And as a compo-nent of a larger strategy, divestmentinspires hope and galvanizes passionand action in both society and ourstudents.

We do not call for divestment lightly,and the bounds of divestment must ofcourse be carefully chosen. But in the end,we have a moral obligation to future gen-erations – our children, our students, andbeyond – to do everything we can to limitthe most devastating consequences ofhuman-driven climate change.

We stand alongside thousands of MITstudents, staff, and alumni in urging youto divest the Institute’s endowment fromfossil fuels as part of a comprehensiveclimate action plan.

Sincerely yours,

The undersigned faculty of MIT.

Scott AaronsonAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Electrical Engineering &Computer Science;Frank AckermanLecturerDepartment of Urban Studies & Planning;Takako AikawaSenior Lecturer in JapaneseGlobal Studies & Languages;Eric AlmAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Biological Engineering;Department of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering;Angelika AmonKathleen & Curtis Marble Professor ofCancer ResearchKoch Institute for Integrative CancerResearch; Howard Hughes Medical Institute;Deborah AnconaSeley Distinguished Professor ofManagementSloan School of Management;


11

Jolyon BloomfieldLecturerDepartment of Physics;Karen BoikoLecturer IIComparative Media Studies/Writing;Louis BucciarelliProfessor (Emeritus) of Engineering &Technology StudiesDepartment of Science, Technology &Society;John S. CarrollGordon Kaufman Professor ofManagementSloan School of Management;Noam ChomskyInstitute Professor (retired)Department of Linguistics & Philosophy;Ian CondryProfessor of Japanese Culture & MediaStudiesHead, Global Studies & Languages;Jane Abbott ConnorLecturer IIComparative Media Studies/Writing;Bruno Coppi, O.M.R.I.Professor of Physics (Emeritus)Department of Physics;Sasha Costanza-ChockAssociate ProfessorComparative Media Studies/Writing;Jennifer CraigLecturer IIComparative Media Studies/Writing;Daniel CziczoVictor P. Starr Professor of AtmosphericChemistryDepartment of Earth, Atmospheric &Planetary Sciences; Department of Civil &Environmental Engineering;Michel DegraffProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;Junot DíazRudge and Nancy Allen Professor ofWritingComparative Media Studies/Writing;Robert G. EcclesVisiting LecturerSloan School of Management;

Elfatih A. B. EltahirProfessorAssociate Department HeadDepartment of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering;Dara EntekhabiProfessorBacardi and Stockholm WaterFoundations ChairDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering;Roberto FernandezWilliam F. Pounds Professor in ManagementProfessor of Organization StudiesSloan School of Management;Danny FoxAnshen Chomsky Professor in Languageand ThoughtDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy; Robert M. FreundTheresa Seley Professor in ManagementScienceSloan School of Management;Eric GoldbergAssociate ProfessorDepartment of History;Renée Richardson GoslineZennon Zannetos (1955) CareerDevelopment ProfessorAssistant Professor of MarketingSloan School of Management;Margarita Ribas GroegerSenior Lecturer in SpanishGlobal Studies & Languages, SHASS;Marah GubarAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Literature;Timothy G. GutowskiProfessorDepartment of Mechanical Engineering;Aram HarrowAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Physics;Charles F. HarveySingapore Professor of EnvironmentalScienceDepartment of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering;Sally HaslangerFord ProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;Department of Women’s & GenderStudies;

Colette L. HealdAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering;Stefan HelmreichElting E. Morison Professor ofAnthropologyHead, Anthropology Program;Arne HessenbruchLecturerDepartment of Materials Science &Engineering;Erica Caple JamesAssociate ProfessorDirector, Global Health & MedicalHumanities InitiativeAnthropology Program;Pablo Jarillo-HerreroAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Physics;Jason JaySenior Lecturer Director of Sustainability InitiativeSloan School of Management;David KeithAssistant ProfessorSloan School of Management;Christine KellySenior LecturerSloan School of Management;Michael KenstowiczProfessorDepartment of Linguistics;Jonathan Alan KingProfessor of Molecular BiologyDepartment of Biology;Daniel KleppnerLester Wolfe Professor (Emeritus)Department of Physics;Judith A. LayzerProfessor of Environmental PolicyDepartment of Urban Studies & Planning;Sabine LevetSenior Lecturer in FrenchGlobal Studies & Languages;Ceasar McDowellProfessor of the Practice of CommunityDevelopmentDepartment of Urban Studies & Planning;David McGeeAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Earth, Atmospheric &Planetary Sciences;


12

Vann McGeeProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;Dennis McLaughlinH.M. King Bhumibol Professor of WaterResource ManagementDepartment of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering;Haynes MillerProfessorPhilip Solondz (1948)-MacVicar FellowDepartment of Mathematics;Nick MontfortAssociate Professor of Digital MediaComparative Media Studies/Writing;Robert NachtriebSenior Lecturer in System DynamicsSloan School of Management;Leslie NorfordGeorge Macomber (1948) Professor inConstruction ManagementDepartment of Architecture;James B. OrlinThe Edward Pennell Brooks Professor ofOperations ResearchSloan School of Management;Ozalp OzerVisiting Professor of OperationsManagementSloan School of Management;Heather PaxsonWilliam R. Kenan, Jr. Professor ofAnthropologyMacVicar Faculty FellowAnthropology Program;Lee David PerlmanSenior LecturerConcourse Program;David PesetskyFerrari P. Ward Professor of ModernLanguages & LinguisticsMargaret MacVicar Faculty FellowHead, Department of Linguistics &Philosophy;

Martin PolzProfessorDepartment of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering;Bjorn PoonenClaude Shannon Professor ofMathematicsDepartment of Mathematics; Jeffrey S. RavelProfessor of HistoryProfessor of Global Studies & LanguagesDepartment of History; Global Studies &Languages;Agustín RayoProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;Norvin RichardsProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;Susan RuffLecturer IIComparative Media Studies/Writing;Frederick P. SalvucciSenior LecturerDepartment of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering;Leona D. SamsonUncas and Helen Whitaker ProfessorAmerican Cancer Society ResearchProfessorDepartment of Biological Engineering;Department of Biology;Hilke SchlichtingAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Earth, Atmospheric, andPlanetary Sciences;Andreas SchrammVisiting ProfessorDepartment of Civil & EnvironmentalEngineering;Michael S. Scott MortonJay W. Forrester Professor of Management(Emeritus)Sloan School of Management;Kieran SetiyaProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;

Brad SkowAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;Robert StalnakerLaurance S. Rockefeller Professor ofPhilosophyDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;Donca SteriadeProfessor of LinguisticsDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;John StermanJay W. Forrester Professor of ManagementSloan School of Management;T. L. TaylorAssociate ProfessorComparative Media Studies/Writing;Judith Jarvis ThomsonProfessor (Emeritus)Department of Linguistics & Philosophy;John Van MaanenErwin Schell Professor of ManagementSloan School of Management;Jing Wang ��Professor of Chinese Media & CulturalStudiesS. C. Fang Professor of Chinese Language& CultureDirector, New Media Action LabExecutive Director, NGO2.0Global Studies and Languages;Roger WhiteAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;David Gordon WilsonProfessor of Mechanical Engineering(Emeritus)Department of Mechanical Engineering;Stephen YabloDavid S. Skinner Professor of Linguistics& PhilosophyDepartment of Linguistics & Philosophy;JoAnne YatesSloan Distinguished Professor ofManagementSloan School of Management

Open Letter to President Reifcontinued from preceding page


13

Frederick P. SalvucciMIT Construction Plans Continue toUndervalue Graduate Student Needs

D U R I N G AU G U S T, M I T I M C O (MITInvestment Management Company) con-vinced the Cambridge HistoricCommission to reduce the landmark pro-tection for the Eastgate Married StudentHousing building, which MITIMCo seeksto demolish and replace with a commer-cial laboratory building. This continues apattern of MIT losing sight of its core mis-sions of education and research, as it seeksto behave as a real estate developer.

The MITIMCo plan continues to payonly lip service to dealing with the seriouschallenge of providing affordable on- ornear-campus housing for graduate stu-dents facing an increasingly harsh, super-heated rental market in Cambridge andBoston, as it pursues commercial realestate development in Kendall Square.When MIT acquired the land nearKendall Square decades ago, it enteredinto contractual agreements with theCambridge Redevelopment Authorityand federal HUD to forgo commercial useof the land in order to focus on its coreeducation and research missions. Since1962, MIT had a policy of providing atleast 50 percent of graduate studentsaffordable on-campus housing, and thecurrent superheated rental marketrequires even more.

Kendall Square is a perfect location torenew and expand graduate studenthousing at and near Eastgate. ButMITIMCo today instead is prioritizingcommercial ventures at Kendall, with themost readily available and developablevacant sites being proposed for luxury

housing, commercial office space, com-mercial laboratory use, and very expensiveunderground parking. Proposals toincrease graduate student housing, withno clear funding or timetable, areincluded on sites encumbered with exist-ing historic buildings currently occupiedby important MIT uses. For example, theMIT Press building is occupied by manydifferent MIT organizations, andMITIMCo proposes to do radical rehabil-itation of the structure which will be veryexpensive and require all the existing usersto relocate, with no relocation plan andno explanation of how the current occu-pants will be able to afford to ever return.

Rather than renovating the EastgateMarried Student Housing building,MITIMCo proposes to demolish thebuilding and daycare facility to re-use theland for a commercial laboratory, and isnegotiating with the Cambridge HistoricCommission to avoid landmark status forthe building, which would make it moredifficult to destroy. MITIMCo has statedthat before the Eastgate housing isdestroyed, new units of housing will beavailable, but with no explanation ofwhen this will occur, nor a financial planto deliver the housing.

If the expansion of affordable near-campus graduate student housing wereprioritized by MIT, the luxury housingproposed on MIT land on Main Streetcould be used immediately for a combina-tion of Married Student Housing andaffordable units, and Eastgate tenantscould be relocated there while Eastgate is

rehabilitated and expanded as net new,affordable graduate student housing. Thelargely vacant Cambridge Trust site adja-cent to the MBTA entrance could beanother excellent site for graduate studenthousing. MIT should not be undertakinghyper-expensive underground parking,but could instead use the money foraffordable graduate student housing, aswell as incentivizing transit use byemployees.

The failure to provide affordable on-campus student housing damages the via-bility of the unique MIT model ofstudent-based high quality research, andsimultaneously imposes serious burdenson the neighboring community by com-peting for ever scarcer affordable neigh-borhood housing. Conversely, if MIT takesaggressive action to provide more on-campus student housing, it will serve boththe core education and research mission ofMIT, and relieve the housing pressure onthe neighboring communities.

Building significant amounts of on-campus housing sooner rather than laterrequires land, money, and priority. Insteadof using scarce MIT land for commercialventures and scarce dollars for under-ground parking, MIT should prioritizestudent housing that will reinforce its coremission and honor the commitments itmade when the land was acquired, leavingreal estate development to the privatesector.

Frederick P. Salvucci is a Senior Lecturer inthe Department of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering ([email protected]).


14

Thomas W. EagarA Frog in WaterPart I: The Forces That Move Us

TH E PARAB LE OF FR OG S in watersuggests that a frog immediately placed invery hot water will jump out and freeitself; while a frog placed in cool water willremain as the water is slowly heated untilthe frog expires. A rapid change of envi-ronment causes a rapid response, butgradual changes provoke no response andcan lead to death. So it is with our MITenvironment.

MIT is an intense environment andprobably always has been; or else wewould not have accomplished so muchover the past 150 years. Our intensity ispart of our strength; but from time totime we should reflect if the nature ofour intensity has changed. The nature ofwhat keeps me busy has changed overthe 40 years I have been a facultymember and it has not all been for thebetter.

As a new assistant professor in 1976, Iwas expected to pay 50 percent of my aca-demic year salary and teach one subjectper semester. At that time 25 percent of allNSF proposals were funded and you hadan even better success rate if you werefrom an elite research university such asMIT. Multiple federal research grants werenot frowned upon but were a sign of pro-posing significant scientific work. Peerreview generally involved true peers andthe process was not politicized.

Compliance with regulations, bothexternal and internal, was minimal. Mailwas slower and there was much less of it.While it took longer to communicate withothers, the quality of communication wasbetter. There were many fewer peopledemanding your attention or asking you

to complete purposeless surveys, theanswers to which were already known.

To understand how we have evolved, itis necessary to probe further back in time.Before World War II, MIT was primarilyan undergraduate educational institution,

located in the old complex of buildings.The pressure of the war and the need forthe best and brightest to help solve a mul-titude of new problems, from nuclearfission, to engineering of practical radar,to bomb sights and ordnance control, toproduction of new metals, measurementof stress and strain and the like, broughtresearch for national needs into focuswith new sources of funding. After thewar, the nation formed the Office of NavalResearch, the Atomic EnergyCommission, NACA (predecessor toNASA) and the NSF to expand on theproven successes of science during WWII.MIT added a School of Humanities andrequired that all undergraduates take 20percent (now 25 percent) of their course-work in Humanities. The Sloan School ofManagement was created from theDepartment of Business and IndustrialDevelopment in the School ofEngineering. Watson and Crick in

England discovered the structure of DNAand MIT became a leader in molecularbiology. The list goes on. New buildingswere added to the MIT campus but inter-estingly, relatively few new departmentswere created.

The big change after WWII was theSoviet deployment of Sputnik. TheUnited States, deep in an ideological warwith the USSR, and feeling technologi-cally superior to the rest of the world afterWWII, was shocked. Congress startedpouring money into science and engi-neering. My thesis advisor, Bob Rose, wholived through this as a young professor,often said the joke was “While you are up,get me a grant.” MIT grew from 600faculty to 1000 faculty within a decadeand the graduate student population greweven faster. National graduate fellowshipsmeant any qualified young person desir-ing a doctoral degree in science or engi-neering could be paid a stipend to attendgraduate school. Previously, doctoral can-didates often took instructorships, whichwere much more limited in number. Topermit the faculty to pursue moreresearch and to produce more doctoraldegrees, funding agencies agreed to pay 50

As a new assistant professor in 1976, I was expected topay 50 percent of my academic year salary and teachone subject per semester. At that time 25 percent of allNSF proposals were funded and you had an even bettersuccess rate if you were from an elite researchuniversity such as MIT.


15

percent or more of the faculty member’sacademic salary. In science and engineer-ing the expected teaching load droppedfrom four subjects per year to two. This,along with the additional tuition from thelarger number of graduate students,helped fund the rapid growth in numberof faculty.

To MIT’s credit, the administrationduring the second half of the twentiethcentury kept undergraduate education asthe driving force for departmentalbudgets. New laboratories could be estab-lished to take advantage of the govern-ment’s largesse, but these administratorshad grown up when MIT’s educationalmission was paramount, and they did notdepart from what they had been taught intheir youth. The 1950s through the 1970swere the heyday of the research universi-ties who had contributed so much duringWWII; and there were only 30 to 40 ofthese research-ready universities.

By the mid-1970s other universitiesattempted to copy the prosperous“research universities.” They hired ourgraduating doctoral students. The Stateuniversities asked for new facilities andstaff from their legislatures. Their suc-cesses at becoming elite research institu-tions were marginal. There is more tocreating the culture and intensity of anMIT or a CalTech than buildings andmoney as so many other universitiesaround the world have proven over thepast 50 years.

The culture of MIT resides in thepeople who make up the Institute. Somecomplain that MIT is too inbred; butsome inbreeding is necessary to preservethe culture to excel, to think creatively, tohave the humility to know one’s limita-tions, to be in an environment whereothers of similar qualities can help usovercome our individual weaknesses. Thebalance of accepting people from all worldcultures while preserving enoughinbreeding to perpetuate the culture thatstarted with William Barton Rogers andwas established over our first 100 years is

essential to our future success. We attractthe best and the brightest students and weshould not fear keeping some of them,especially those who understand thelegacy of MIT.

With their limited success in compet-ing with the research universities forfederal grants, the other 250 universitieschanged their tactics and made their casedirectly to Congress. Research grantsshould be distributed geographicallysince citizens from every state paid taxes,and many of these other universities hadeven better football teams than MIT. Whocould argue with such logic? Pork barrelfunding of research and geographicalquotas became new metrics for receivinga research grant. Although Congressexpanded the funding several fold, the10-fold increase in universities seekinggrants caused the success rate of grants tofall dramatically. The 25 percent rate atNSF fell to 5 percent, and if you werefrom one of those overfunded traditionalresearch universities, your prospects weredim. No more than one federal grant perinvestigator became a measure of equalopportunity.

Obvious excesses, such as Stanford’sfunding of its alumni party yacht, were inthe news. The old agreements that federalagencies would pay the full cost of researchwere unilaterally withdrawn by the newleaders in Washington. These new admin-istrators in the funding agencies werebabies when Congress lured the originalfew research universities with promises ofnew buildings, fellowships, grants, and thelike. MIT took some serious financial hitsin the late 1980s and early 1990s due tothese broken agreements by Washington.Seeing the handwriting on the wall, MITtook additional financial hits by hardeningfaculty salaries, although the rule of onesubject per semester for science and engi-neering faculty was not changed. Thefaculty numbers might not grow, butneither would they shrink. Through thestrong economy and the generosity ofalumni, the Institute survived the 1990s

academic financial crisis.With the 1990s financial crisis and new

government regulations (I also believe aswe passed the billion dollar per yearbudget mark) MIT added administrativestaff and new regulations both externaland internal. A faculty member now hasto respond to new paperwork, new inter-nal oversight with the attendant decreasein quality of life and time for academicscholarship.

With the new competition from ourformer students who are now faculty atcompeting universities, and the lowersuccess rate of proposals, we are forced tosteal time from our students, our research,and our teaching. As difficult as I thoughtmy own time was as a junior facultymember, I would not want to endure whatthe junior faculty today have to endure inseeking funding from Washington. I amnot sure I could adapt to the environmentthey face today. Surely we give them morestart-up resources, but they compete in alarger world. They must not only sell theintellectual merit of their ideas, they mustpackage the ideas for the approval of WallStreet and others. The junior faculty (andthe senior faculty) are no longer beingjudged by their scientific peers; everyonecriticizes their ideas. This is not the path tothe best science; scientific research is not apopulist enterprise.

Compared to 40 years ago, the facultyspend too much of their time writing pro-posals as opposed to doing the research;filling out paperwork rather than teach-ing; and sitting in meetings with well-paidadministrators who have never been onthe faculty and who do not understandhow to teach and mentor students.

The environment has changed; thefrog’s water is slowly getting hotter and wedo not seem to notice.

In Part II I will explore the broader andlonger-term consequences of thesechanges in our environment.

Thomas W. Eagar is a Professor of MaterialsEngineering and Engineering Management([email protected]).


16

John CharlesNickolai Zeldovich

Why MIT Is Implementing Duo Two-Factor Authentication

B EG I N N I NG OCTOB E R 1, 2015, MITfaculty, staff, and affiliates will need asecond authentication factor for access toMIT systems where sensitive data arestored. These include systems accessedthrough the Touchstone authenticationservice, systems managed by InformationSystems and Technology (IS&T), andsystems located within IS&T data centers,as well as systems accessed through theMIT Virtual Private Network (VPN). Duoauthentication will be required fromwherever you connect, whether via directconnection to MITnet, VPN, or from aremote address.

Why is two-factor authentication(2FA) important?When it comes to online authentication,passwords are now a weak link. This is astrue at MIT as anywhere. For example:

1. Some users choose weak (i.e., easy toguess) passwords. There are well-knowndatabases of common passwords that areused by adversaries to break intoaccounts.

2. Some users use the same passwordson different systems or Websites. Thismeans that an adversary who steals thepassword database from some not-very-important Website can look for @mit.eduaccounts, and try to log into that MITaccount using the same password.

3. Some users fall for phishing attacks –for example, responding to an email thatpretends to be from an administratorasking for your password, or accidentallymistyping a Website’s URL and typing

your password into a Web page controlledby a hacker. This, again, allows the badguys to gain access to an MIT account.

One common example of this hasinvolved the use of phishing email toobtain end-user credentials for attacksagainst direct deposit payroll systems.These attacks have been successful at anumber of MIT’s peer institutions,including BU and Duke University. MIThas seen these attacks as well, although theInstitute has not been targeted as aggres-sively as some other universities.

Increases in computing power, therapidly expanding inventory of virusesand other types of malicious code, andkeystroke loggers have also made it easierfor hackers to obtain passwords.

On top of these vulnerabilities, there’sanother major concern. Users may notknow for long periods of time that theirpasswords have been compromised. Ahacker logging in with a compromisedpassword merely shows up within securitylogs as a successful login.

How two-factor authentication helpsIn the face of these security threats fromcompromised passwords, IS&T has beenpiloting the Duo service. Two-factorauthentication is a mechanism used toprotect systems, services, and accounts for

which a password alone provides insuffi-cient security. It is based on the principleof something you know (your usernameand password) and something you have

(your smartphone, landline, or a hard-ware token). Users are first prompted toauthenticate with their username andpassword; they are then prompted for asecond authentication step using theirphone or a token.

For convenience, Duo allows users to“remember” their browsers for 30 days, sothat the second factor need not be enteredat every login. For most use cases theincreased risk associated with this conven-ience is small. Nevertheless, for the mostsecure computing experience, IS&T recom-mends not using the “remember” feature.

Two-factor authentication signifi-cantly raises the barrier and limits theeffectiveness for all of the above attackerscenarios. Even if hackers compromiseKerberos passwords via a phishing email,malware, or other attack, they still won’thave access to the second factor, i.e., theassociated smartphone, landline, or token.Two-factor authentication can also helpprevent abuse of MIT’s VPN. IS&T seesseveral dozen compromised Kerberosaccounts used to access the VPN eachmonth. Requiring Duo for VPN accesswill help prevent these attacks andincrease the effectiveness of security

Two-factor authentication significantly raises the barrierand limits the effectiveness for all of the above attackerscenarios. Even if hackers compromise Kerberospasswords via a phishing email, malware, or other attack,they still won’t have access to the second factor, i.e., theassociated smartphone, landline, or token.


17

implemented for systems and servicesintended to be available only to users fromwithin MIT’s network.

Duo has been in use on a pilot basissince 2013 for Kerberos and VPN access,and was recently extended to WindowsRemote Desktop, MIT’s critical infra-structure systems, and all IS&T-managedWindows servers.

SupportIf you’re not yet using Duo, severalresources are available to help get youstarted. To learn how to install and use

Duo at MIT, see the Duo Home Page inthe Knowledge Base at kb.mit.edu/conflu-ence/x/m9YwCQ. You may also want tocheck out Duo’s Guide to Two-FactorAuthentication at https://guide.duosecu-rity.com/.

If you have a smartphone, you shoulduse the Duo app – it’s the most convenientoption (there are no numbers to type),and you will not incur SMS charges whenyou use the Duo service.

If you have a flip phone, you may wantto use a hardware token (called aYubiKey). You can sign up for one using

the Duo Token Request Form atist.mit.edu/duo/token-request. Instruc-tions for registering your YubiKey areavailable in the Knowledge Base atkb.mit.edu/confluence/x/to8wCQ.

If you have questions about setting up orusing Duo, contact the IS&T Service Deskat [email protected] or 617.253.1101.

John Charles is Vice President for InformationSystems and Technology ([email protected]);Nickolai Zeldovich is an Associate Professorin the Department of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science ([email protected]).

P R OVO S T M A R T I N S C H M I DT I S

calling for nominations of faculty as 2016MacVicar Faculty Fellows.

The MacVicar Faculty Fellows Programrecognizes MIT faculty who have madeexemplary and sustained contributions tothe teaching and education of undergrad-uates at the Institute. Together the Fellowsform a small academy of scholars commit-ted to exceptional instruction and innova-tion in education.

MacVicar Faculty Fellows are selectedthrough a competitive nominationprocess, appointed for 10-year terms, andreceive $10,000 per year of discretionaryfunds for educational activities, research,travel, and other scholarly expenses.

The MacVicar Program honors the lifeand contributions of the late MargaretMacVicar, Professor of Physical Scienceand Dean for Undergraduate Education.

Nominations should include:

• a primary nomination letter detailingthe contributions of the nominee toundergraduate education,

• three-to-six supporting letters fromfaculty colleagues, including one from hisor her department head if the primaryletter is not from the department head,

• three-to-six supporting letters frompresent or former undergraduate stu-

dents, with specific comments about thenominee’s undergraduate teaching,

• the nominee’s curriculum vitae,

• a list of undergraduate subjects, includ-ing the number of students taught, and

• a summary of available student eval-uation results for the nominee.

For more information, visitweb.mit.edu/macvicar or contact theOffice of Faculty Support at x3-6776 [email protected].

Nominations are due on Thursday,November 19.

Nominate a Colleague as a MacVicar Faculty Fellow


18

Newsletter StaffProfessor John W. Belcher ReceivesPrestigious 2016 Oersted Medal

Highest teaching award from American physics community

J O H N W. B E LC H E R , Class of 1922Professor of Physics and MacVicarFaculty Fellow, has been awarded the 2016Hans Christian Oersted Medal of theAmerican Association of Physics Teachers(AAPT). The award was given in recogni-tion of Prof. Belcher’s “tireless work withTEAL (Technology Enabled ActiveLearning) and Massive Open OnlineCourses (MOOCs).” The Oersted Medal

recognizes those who have had an out-standing, broad and lasting impact on theteaching of physics. It is awarded annuallyby the American Association of PhysicsTeachers, a non-profit organizationfounded in 1930 to “enhance the under-standing and appreciation of physicsthrough teaching.”

TEAL is an active engagement formatfor teaching introductory physics that isused in 8.01 and 8.02, the mainstreamintroductory physics courses at MIT.TEAL was funded by the Alex and Britd’Arbeloff Fund for Excellence inEducation and by iCampus. The imple-mentation of this format at MIT, begin-ning on a large scale in spring 2003, wasnot without controversy. The often timesturbulent history of the TEAL programhas been recounted by Dr. Lori Breslow ofMIT in an article in Change: TheMagazine of Higher Learning, “Wrestlingwith Pedagogical Change: The TEALInitiative at MIT” (42(5), 23-29, 2010).

Professor Belcher’s current researchinterests concern the interaction of theheliosphere with the local interstellarmedium. He was the principal investiga-tor on the Voyager Plasma ScienceExperiment during the Voyager NeptuneEncounter – the end of the Grand Tour.Belcher is now a co-investigator on thePlasma Science Experiment on board theVoyager Interstellar Mission. The Voyagerspacecraft are still returning data, 37 yearsafter launch, with a predicted demise in2031.

Nine members of the MIT PhysicsDepartment have now won the OerstedMedal. Other MIT physics departmentrecipients of the Oersted Medal includeMildred S. Dresselhaus (2008), alumnusand Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman (2007),John G. King (2000), Daniel Kleppner(1997), Anthony French (1989), VictorWeisskopf (1976), Francis Friedman(1963), and Jerrold Zacharias (1961).


19

Enhanced MIT Mental Health Initiativesand MindHandHeart Announced

I N A L E T T E R TO the community onSeptember 2, 2015, Chancellor CynthiaBarnhart and MIT Medical DirectorWilliam Kettyle announced immediateand long-term actions to enhance mentalhealth and well-being at MIT.

Barnhart and Kettyle described listen-ing to students, faculty, and staff, andresponding to the main themes theyheard:

1. More counseling and support optionswill help students; and

2. The best way to build a healthier,stronger MIT is by leveraging the innova-tive problem-solving skills and knowledgeof our whole community.

New initiatives at MIT Medical andMental Health and Counseling Service(MH&C) include:

• Adding two new full-time psycholo-gists by the end of September (StudentSupport Services is also increasing theirstaffing levels);

• Opening a new MH&C location onmain campus for drop-in consultations:

Starting on September 22, an MH&Cclinician will be available in 8-316 tostudents for informal, confidential 20-minute consultations from 1-3 p.m.,Tuesdays through Fridays. Walk-inhours for more urgent concerns con-tinue to be available at MH&C (E23,3rd floor) weekdays from 2-4 p.m.

• Adding an online appointmentrequest form on MIT Medical’s Websitebeginning September 10;

• Monitoring and sharing with stu-dents the availability and specialties oflocal providers who are accepting newpatients;

• This summer, Student Outreach andSupport, in collaboration with MH&C,trained 32 new students to serve as “PeerEars.” This more than triples the numberof confidential peer-to-peer supportproviders available in MIT residence hallsto help students navigate academic andsocial life at MIT.

Barnhart and Kettyle also announcedthe MindHandHeart Initiative (mind-

handheart.mit.edu). The goal of theholistic, campus-wide effort sponsored byboth the Chancellor’s Office and MITMedical is two-fold: over time, we wantmembers of our community to feel morecomfortable asking for help when theyneed it, and we want to build a healthier,stronger community.

MindHandHeart is co-chaired byProfessor Rosalind Picard and consists ofa steering committee and working groupsof students, faculty, and student healthand wellness experts. The steering com-mittee and working groups are responsi-ble for working to align existing supportservices and developing and implement-ing new innovative efforts. Their workwill be guided in part by the recent resultsof the 2015 Healthy Minds Study, avail-able at chancellor.mit.edu/data.

To make progress, MindHandHeartrequires strong community engagement.Barnhart and Kettyle encouraged com-munity members to take part in severalways, including:

• Submitting proposals to theMindHandHeart Innovation Fund;

• Displaying the postcards and readingmaterials from the “Don’t struggle alone –it’s OK to ask for help” (together.mit.edu/askforhelp) public awareness campaign;

• Signing up to volunteer onMindHandHeart’s working groups orresearch and student councils.



NumbersStatus of World Nuclear Forces 2015: Military Stockpile*

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Russia

United Stat

es

France

China

United K

ingdom

Israe

l

Pakist

an

India

North K

orea

Russia UnitedStates France China United

Kingdom Israel Pakistan India North Korea

4500 4700 300 250 215 80 100-120 90-110 <10

*All numbers are approximate estimates and further described in the Nuclear Notebook (bos.sagepub.com/cgi/collection/nuclearnotebook) in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the nuclear appendix in the SIPRI Yearbook (www.sipri.org/con-tents/publications/yearbooks.html). See also status and 10-year projection (fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/TrimmingNuclearExcess.pdf) of U.S. and Russian forces. Additional reports are published on the FAS Strategic Security Blog(fas.org/blog/ssp/category/hans_kristensen). Current update: April 28, 2015.

Documents

MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XXVIII No. 1, September ...web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/281/fnl281.pdf · 07/28/ernest_moniz_obamas_mvp_on_iran _deal_127576.html). An important reason for