OpenAI says over 400 million people use ChatGPT every week. But how does interacting with it affect us? Does it make us more or less lonely? These are some of the questions OpenAI set out to investigate, in partnership with the MIT Media Lab, in a pair of new studies.
They found that only a small subset of users engage emotionally with ChatGPT. This isn’t surprising given that ChatGPT isn’t marketed as an AI companion app like Replika or Character.AI, says Kate Devlin, a professor of AI and society at King’s College London, who did not work on the project. “ChatGPT has been set up as a productivity tool,” she says. “But we know that people are using it like a companion app anyway.” In fact, the people who do use it that way are likely to interact with it for extended periods of time, some of them averaging about half an hour a day.
“The authors are very clear about what the limitations of these studies are, but it’s exciting to see they’ve done this,” Devlin says. “To have access to this level of data is incredible.”
The researchers found some intriguing differences between how men and women respond to using ChatGPT. After using the chatbot for four weeks, female study participants were slightly less likely to socialize with people than their male counterparts who did the same. Meanwhile, participants who interacted with ChatGPT’s voice mode in a gender that was not their own for their interactions reported significantly higher levels of loneliness and more emotional dependency on the chatbot at the end of the experiment. OpenAI plans to submit both studies to peer-reviewed journals.
Chatbots powered by large language models are still a nascent technology, and it’s difficult to study how they affect us emotionally. A lot of existing research in the area—including some of the new work by OpenAI and MIT—relies upon self-reported data, which may not always be accurate or reliable. That said, this latest research does chime with what scientists so far have discovered about how emotionally compelling chatbot conversations can be. For example, in 2023 MIT Media Lab researchers found that chatbots tend to mirror the emotional sentiment of a user’s messages, suggesting a kind of feedback loop where the happier you act, the happier the AI seems, or on the flipside, if you act sadder, so does the AI.
OpenAI and the MIT Media Lab used a two-pronged method. First they collected and analyzed real-world data from close to 40 million interactions with ChatGPT. Then they asked the 4,076 users who’d had those interactions how they made them feel. Next, the Media Lab recruited almost 1,000 people to take part in a four-week trial. This was more in-depth, examining how participants interacted with ChatGPT for a minimum of five minutes each day. At the end of the experiment, participants completed a questionnaire to measure their perceptions of the chatbot, their subjective feelings of loneliness, their levels of social engagement, their emotional dependence on the bot, and their sense of whether their use of the bot was problematic. They found that participants who trusted and “bonded” with ChatGPT more were likelier than others to be lonely, and to rely on it more.
This work is an important first step toward greater insight into ChatGPT’s impact on us, which could help AI platforms enable safer and healthier interactions, says Jason Phang, an OpenAI safety researcher who worked on the project.
“A lot of what we’re doing here is preliminary, but we’re trying to start the conversation with the field about the kinds of things that we can start to measure, and to start thinking about what the long-term impact on users is,” he says.
Although the research is welcome, it’s still difficult to identify when a human is—and isn’t—engaging with technology on an emotional level, says Devlin. She says the study participants may have been experiencing emotions that weren’t recorded by the researchers.
“In terms of what the teams set out to measure, people might not necessarily have been using ChatGPT in an emotional way, but you can’t divorce being a human from your interactions [with technology],” she says. “We use these emotion classifiers that we have created to look for certain things—but what that actually means to someone’s life is really hard to extrapolate.”
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated that study participants set the gender of ChatGPT’s voice, and that OpenAI did not plan to publish either study. Study participants were assigned the voice mode gender, and OpenAI plans to submit both studies to peer-reviewed journals. The article has since been updated.
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
Inside a new quest to save the “doomsday glacier”
The Thwaites glacier is a fortress larger than Florida, a wall of ice that reaches nearly 4,000 feet above the bedrock of West Antarctica, guarding the low-lying ice sheet behind it.
But a strong, warm ocean current is weakening its foundations and accelerating its slide into the sea. Scientists fear the waters could topple the walls in the coming decades, kick-starting a runaway process that would crack up the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, marking the start of a global climate disaster. As a result, they are eager to understand just how likely such a collapse is, when it could happen, and if we have the power to stop it.
Scientists at MIT and Dartmouth College founded Arête Glacier Initiative last year in the hope of providing clearer answers to these questions. The nonprofit research organization will officially unveil itself, launch its website, and post requests for research proposals today, timed to coincide with the UN’s inaugural World Day for Glaciers, MIT Technology Review can report exclusively. Read the full story.
—James Temple
Europe is finally getting serious about commercial rockets
Europe is on the cusp of a new dawn in commercial space technology. As global political tensions intensify and relationships with the US become increasingly strained, several European companies are now planning to conduct their own launches in an attempt to reduce the continent’s reliance on American rockets.
In the coming days, Isar Aerospace, a company based in Munich, will try to launch its Spectrum rocket from a site in the frozen reaches of Andøya island in Norway. A spaceport has been built there to support small commercial rockets, and Spectrum is the first to make an attempt.
Regardless of whether it succeeds or fails, the launch attempt heralds an important moment as Europe tries to kick-start its own private rocket industry. It and other launches scheduled for later this year could give Europe multiple ways to reach space without having to rely on US rockets. Read the full story.
—Jonathan O’Callaghan
Autopsies can reveal intimate health details. Should they be kept private?
—Jessica Hamzelou
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been following news of the deaths of actor Gene Hackman and his wife, pianist Betsy Arakawa. It was heartbreaking to hear how Arakawa appeared to have died from a rare infection days before her husband, who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may have struggled to understand what had happened.
But as I watched the medical examiner reveal details of the couple’s health, I couldn’t help feeling a little uncomfortable. Media reports claim that the couple liked their privacy and had been out of the spotlight for decades. But here I was, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, being told what pills Arakawa had in her medicine cabinet, and that Hackman had undergone multiple surgeries.
Should autopsy reports be kept private? A person’s cause of death is public information. But what about other intimate health details that might be revealed in a postmortem examination? Read the full story.
This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, sign up here.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 Elon Musk will be briefed on the US’s top-secret plans for war with China
Despite Tesla’s reliance on China, and SpaceX’s role as a US defense contractor. (WSJ $)
+ Other private companies could only dream of having access to sensitive military data. (NYT $)
2 Take a look inside the library of pirated books that Meta trains its AI on
It considered paying for the books, but decided to use LibGen instead. (The Atlantic $)
+ “Copyright traps” could tell writers if an AI has scraped their work. (MIT Technology Review)
3 A judge has blocked DOGE from accessing social security systems
She accused DOGE of failing to explain why it needed to see the private data of millions of Americans. (TechCrunch)
+ Federal workers grilled a Trump appointee during an all-hands meeting. (Wired $)
+ Can AI help DOGE slash government budgets? It’s complex. (MIT Technology Review)
4 The Trump administration is poised to shut down an anti-censorship fund
The project, which helps internet users living under oppressive regimes, is under threat. (WP $)
+ Tens of millions will lose access to secure and trusted VPNs. (Bloomberg $)
+ Activists are reckoning with a US retreat from promoting digital rights. (MIT Technology Review)
5 Tesla is recalling tens of thousands of Cybertrucks
After it used the wrong glue to attach its steel panels. (Fast Company $)
+It’s the largest Cybertruck recall to date. (BBC)
6 This crypto billionaire has his sights set on the stars
Jed McCaleb is the sole backer of an ambitious space station project. (Bloomberg $)
+ Is DOGE going to come for NASA? (New Yorker $)
7 The irresistible allure of Spotify
Maybe algorithms aren’t all bad, after all. (Vox)
+ By delivering what people seem to want, has Spotify killed the joy of music discovery? (MIT Technology Review)
8 Dating apps and AI? It’s complicated
While some are buzzing at the prospect of romantic AI agents, others aren’t so sure. (Insider $)
9 Crypto bars are becoming a thing
And Washington is the first casualty. (The Verge)
10 The ways we use emojis is evolving
Are you up to date? (FT $)
Quote of the day
“It’s an assault, and a particularly cruel one to use my work to train the monster that threatens the ruination of original literature.”
—Author AJ West, whose books were included in the library of pirated material Meta used to train its AI model, calls for the company to compensate writers in a post on Bluesky.
The big story
Are we alone in the universe?

November 2023
The quest to determine if anyone or anything is out there has gained a greater scientific footing over the past 50 years. Back then, astronomers had yet to spot a single planet outside our solar system. Now we know the galaxy is teeming with a diversity of worlds.
We’re now getting closer than ever before to learning how common living worlds like ours actually are. New tools, including artificial intelligence, could help scientists look past their preconceived notions of what constitutes life.
Future instruments will sniff the atmospheres of distant planets and scan samples from our local solar system to see if they contain telltale chemicals in the right proportions for organisms to prosper. But determining whether these planets actually contain organisms is no easy task. Read the full story.
—Adam Mann
We can still have nice things
A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)
+ Get your weekend off to a good start with these beautiful nebulas.
+ Justice for Mariah: a judge has ruled that she didn’t steal All I Want For Christmas Is You from other writers.
+ We’re no longer extremely online any more apparently—so what are we?
+ The fascinating tale of White Mana, one of America’s oldest burger joints.
The Thwaites glacier is a fortress larger than Florida, a wall of ice that reaches nearly 4,000 feet above the bedrock of West Antarctica, guarding the low-lying ice sheet behind it.
But a strong, warm ocean current is weakening its foundations and accelerating its slide into the Amundsen Sea. Scientists fear the waters could topple the walls in the coming decades, kick-starting a runaway process that would crack up the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
That would mark the start of a global climate disaster. The glacier itself holds enough ice to raise ocean levels by more than two feet, which could flood coastlines and force tens of millions of people living in low-lying areas to abandon their homes.
The loss of the entire ice sheet—which could still take centuries to unfold—would push up sea levels by 11 feet and redraw the contours of the continents.
This is why Thwaites is known as the doomsday glacier—and why scientists are eager to understand just how likely such a collapse is, when it could happen, and if we have the power to stop it.
Scientists at MIT and Dartmouth College founded Arête Glacier Initiative last year in the hope of providing clearer answers to these questions. The nonprofit research organization will officially unveil itself, launch its website, and post requests for research proposals today, March 21, timed to coincide with the UN’s inaugural World Day for Glaciers, MIT Technology Review can report exclusively.
Arête will also announce it is issuing its first grants, each for around $200,000 over two years, to a pair of glacier researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
One of the organization’s main goals is to study the possibility of preventing the loss of giant glaciers, Thwaites in particular, by refreezing them to the bedrock. It would represent a radical intervention into the natural world, requiring a massive, expensive engineering project in a remote, treacherous environment.
But the hope is that such a mega-adaptation project could minimize the mass relocation of climate refugees, prevent much of the suffering and violence that would almost certainly accompany it, and help nations preserve trillions of dollars invested in high-rises, roads, homes, ports, and airports around the globe.
“About a million people are displaced per centimeter of sea-level rise,” says Brent Minchew, an associate professor of geophysics at MIT, who cofounded Arête Glacier Initiative and will serve as its chief scientist. “If we’re able to bring that down, even by a few centimeters, then we would safeguard the homes of millions.”
But some scientists believe the idea is an implausible, wildly expensive distraction, drawing money, expertise, time, and resources away from more essential polar research efforts.
“Sometimes we can get a little over-optimistic about what engineering can do,” says Twila Moon, deputy lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.
“Two possible futures”
Minchew, who earned his PhD in geophysics at Caltech, says he was drawn to studying glaciers because they are rapidly transforming as the world warms, increasing the dangers of sea-level rise.
“But over the years, I became less content with simply telling a more dramatic story about how things were going and more open to asking the question of what can we do about it,” says Minchew, who will return to Caltech as a professor this summer.
Last March, he cofounded Arête Glacier Initiative with Colin Meyer, an assistant professor of engineering at Dartmouth, in the hope of funding and directing research to improve scientific understanding of two big questions: How big a risk does sea-level rise pose in the coming decades, and can we minimize that risk?

“Philanthropic funding is needed to address both of these challenges, because there’s no private-sector funding for this kind of research and government funding is minuscule,” says Mike Schroepfer, the former Meta chief technology officer turned climate philanthropist, who provided funding to Arête through his new organization, Outlier Projects.
The nonprofit has now raised about $5 million from Outlier and other donors, including the Navigation Fund, the Kissick Family Foundation, the Sky Foundation, the Wedner Family Foundation, and the Grantham Foundation.
Minchew says they named the organization Arête, mainly because it’s the sharp mountain ridge between two valleys, generally left behind when a glacier carves out the cirques on either side. It directs the movement of the glacier and is shaped by it.
It’s meant to symbolize “two possible futures,” he says. “One where we do something; one where we do nothing.”
Improving forecasts
The somewhat reassuring news is that, even with rising global temperatures, it may still take thousands of years for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to completely melt.
In addition, sea-level rise forecasts for this century generally range from as little as 0.28 meters (11 inches) to 1.10 meters (about three and a half feet), according to the latest UN climate panel report. The latter only occurs under a scenario with very high greenhouse gas emissions (SSP5-8.5), which significantly exceeds the pathway the world is now on.
But there’s still a “low-likelihood” that ocean levels could surge nearly two meters (about six and a half feet) by 2100 that “cannot be excluded,” given “deep uncertainty linked to ice-sheet processes,” the report adds.
Two meters of sea-level rise could force nearly 190 million people to migrate away from the coasts, unless regions build dikes or other shoreline protections, according to some models. Many more people, mainly in the tropics, would face heightened flooding dangers.
Much of the uncertainty over what will happen this century comes down to scientists’ limited understanding of how Antarctic ice sheets will respond to growing climate pressures.
The initial goal of Arête Glacier Initiative is to help narrow the forecast ranges by improving our grasp of how Thwaites and other glaciers move, melt, and break apart.
Gravity is the driving force nudging glaciers along the bedrock and reshaping them as they flow. But many of the variables that determine how fast they slide lie at the base. That includes the type of sediment the river of ice slides along; the size of the boulders and outcroppings it contorts around; and the warmth and strength of the ocean waters that lap at its face.
In addition, heat rising from deep in the earth warms the ice closest to the ground, creating a lubricating layer of water that hastens the glacier’s slide. That acceleration, in turn, generates more frictional heat that melts still more of the ice, creating a self-reinforcing feedback effect.
Minchew and Meyer are confident that the glaciology field is at a point where it could speed up progress in sea-level rise forecasting, thanks largely to improving observational tools that are producing more and better data.
That includes a new generation of satellites orbiting the planet that can track the shifting shape of ice at the poles at far higher resolutions than in the recent past. Computer simulations of ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice are improving as well, thanks to growing computational resources and advancing machine learning techniques.
On March 21, Arête will issue a request for proposals from research teams to contribute to an effort to collect, organize, and openly publish existing observational glacier data. Much of that expensively gathered information is currently inaccessible to researchers around the world, Minchew says.

By funding teams working across these areas, Arête’s founders hope to help produce more refined ice-sheet models and narrower projections of sea-level rise.
This improved understanding would help cities plan where to build new bridges, buildings, and homes, and to determine whether they’ll need to erect higher seawalls or raise their roads, Meyer says. It could also provide communities with more advance notice of the coming dangers, allowing them to relocate people and infrastructure to safer places through an organized process known as managed retreat.
A radical intervention
But the improved forecasts might also tell us that Thwaites is closer to tumbling into the ocean than we think, underscoring the importance of considering more drastic measures.
One idea is to build berms or artificial islands to prop up fragile parts of glaciers, and to block the warm waters that rise from the deep ocean and melt them from below. Some researchers have also considered erecting giant, flexible curtains anchored to the seabed to achieve the latter effect.
Others have looked at scattering highly reflective beads or other materials across ice sheets, or pumping ocean water onto them in the hopes it would freeze during the winter and reinforce the headwalls of the glaciers.
But the concept of refreezing glaciers in place, know as a basal intervention, is gaining traction in scientific circles, in part because there’s a natural analogue for it.
The glacier that stalled
About 200 years ago, the Kamb Ice Stream, another glacier in West Antarctica that had been sliding about 350 meters (1,150 feet) per year, suddenly stalled.
Glaciologists believe an adjacent ice stream intersected with the catchment area under the glacier, providing a path for the water running below it to flow out along the edge instead. That loss of fluid likely slowed down the Kamb Ice Stream, reduced the heat produced through friction, and allowed water at the surface to refreeze.
The deceleration of the glacier sparked the idea that humans might be able to bring about that same phenomenon deliberately, perhaps by drilling a series of boreholes down to the bedrock and pumping up water from the bottom.
Minchew himself has focused on a variation he believes could avoid much of the power use and heavy operating machinery hassles of that approach: slipping long tubular devices, known as thermosyphons, down nearly to the bottom of the boreholes.
These passive heat exchangers, which are powered only by the temperature differential between two areas, are commonly used to keep permafrost cold around homes, buildings and pipelines in Arctic regions. The hope is that we could deploy extremely long ones, stretching up to two kilometers and encased in steel pipe, to draw warm temperatures away from the bottom of the glacier, allowing the water below to freeze.
Minchew says he’s in the process of producing refined calculations, but estimates that halting Thwaites could require drilling as many as 10,000 boreholes over a 100-square-kilometer area.
He readily acknowledges that would be a huge undertaking, but provides two points of comparison to put such a project into context: Melting the necessary ice to create those holes would require roughly the amount of energy all US domestic flights consume from jet fuel in about two and a half hours. Or, it would produce about the same level of greenhouse gas emissions as constructing 10 kilometers of seawalls, a small fraction of the length the world would need to build if it can’t slow down the collapse of the ice sheets, he says.
“Kick the system”
One of Arête’s initial grantees is Marianne Haseloff, an assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She studies the physical processes that govern the behavior of glaciers and is striving to more faithfully represent them in ice sheet models.
Haseloff says she will use those funds to develop mathematical methods that could more accurately determine what’s known as basal shear stress, or the resistance of the bed to sliding glaciers, based on satellite observations. That could help refine forecasts of how rapidly glaciers will slide into the ocean, in varying settings and climate conditions.
Arête’s other initial grant will go to Lucas Zoet, an associate professor in the same department as Haseloff and the principal investigator with the Surface Processes group.
He intends to use the funds to build the lab’s second “ring shear” device, the technical term for a simulated glacier.
The existing device, which is the only one operating in the world, stands about eight feet tall and fills the better part of a walk-in freezer on campus. The core of the machine is a transparent drum filled with a ring of ice, sitting under pressure and atop a layer of sediment. It slowly spins for weeks at a time as sensors and cameras capture how the ice and earth move and deform.

The research team can select the sediment, topography, water pressure, temperature, and other conditions to match the environment of a real-world glacier of interest, be it Thwaites today—or Thwaites in 2100, under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario.
Zoet says these experiments promise to improve our understanding of how glaciers move over different types of beds, and to refine an equation known as the slip law, which represents these glacier dynamics mathematically in computer models.
The second machine will enable them to run more experiments and to conduct a specific kind that the current device can’t: a scaled-down, controlled version of the basal intervention.
Zoet says the team will be able to drill tiny holes through the ice, then pump out water or transfer heat away from the bed. They can then observe whether the simulated glacier freezes to the base at those points and experiment with how many interventions, across how much space, are required to slow down its movement.
It offers a way to test out different varieties of the basal intervention that is far easier and cheaper than using water drills to bore to the bottom of an actual glacier in Antarctica, Zoet says. The funding will allow the lab to explore a wide range of experiments, enabling them to “kick the system in a way we wouldn’t have before,” he adds.
“Virtually impossible”
The concept of glacier interventions is in its infancy. There are still considerable unknowns and uncertainties, including how much it would cost, how arduous the undertaking would be, and which approach would be most likely to work, or if any of them are feasible.
“This is mostly a theoretical idea at this point,” says Katharine Ricke, an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego, who researches the international relations implications of geoengineering, among other topics.
Conducting extensive field trials or moving forward with full-scale interventions may also require surmounting complex legal questions, she says. Antarctica isn’t owned by any nation, but it’s the subject of competing territorial claims among a number of countries and governed under a decades-old treaty to which dozens are a party.
The basal intervention—refreezing the glacier to its bed—faces numerous technical hurdles that would make it “virtually impossible to execute,” Moon and dozens of other researchers argued in a recent preprint paper, “Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering.”
Among other critiques, they stress that subglacial water systems are complex, dynamic, and interconnected, making it highly difficult to precisely identify and drill down to all the points that would be necessary to draw away enough water or heat to substantially slow down a massive glacier.
Further, they argue that the interventions could harm polar ecosystems by adding contaminants, producing greenhouse gases, or altering the structure of the ice in ways that may even increase sea-level rise.
“Overwhelmingly, glacial and polar geoengineering ideas do not make sense to pursue, in terms of the finances, the governance challenges, the impacts,” and the possibility of making matters worse, Moon says.
“No easy path forward”
But Douglas MacAyeal, professor emeritus of glaciology at the University of Chicago, says the basal intervention would have the lightest environmental impact among the competing ideas. He adds that nature has already provided an example of it working, and that much of the needed drilling and pumping technology is already in use in the oil industry.
“I would say it’s the strongest approach at the starting gate,” he says, “but we don’t really know anything about it yet. The research still has to be done. It’s very cutting-edge.”

Minchew readily acknowledges that there are big challenges and significant unknowns—and that some of these ideas may not work.
But he says it’s well worth the effort to study the possibilities, in part because much of the research will also improve our understanding of glacier dynamics and the risks of sea-level rise—and in part because it’s only a question of when, not if, Thwaites will collapse.
Even if the world somehow halted all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the forces melting that fortress of ice will continue to do so.
So one way or another, the world will eventually need to make big, expensive, difficult interventions to protect people and infrastructure. The cost and effort of doing one project in Antarctica, he says, would be dwarfed by the global effort required to erect thousands of miles of seawalls, ratchet up homes, buildings, and roads, and relocate hundreds of millions of people.
“One thing is challenging—and the other is even more challenging,” Minchew says. “There’s no easy path forward.”
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been following news of the deaths of actor Gene Hackman and his wife, pianist Betsy Arakawa. It was heartbreaking to hear how Arakawa appeared to have died from a rare infection days before her husband, who had advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may have struggled to understand what had happened.
But as I watched the medical examiner reveal details of the couple’s health, I couldn’t help feeling a little uncomfortable. Media reports claim that the couple liked their privacy and had been out of the spotlight for decades. But here I was, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, being told what pills Arakawa had in her medicine cabinet, and that Hackman had undergone multiple surgeries.
It made me wonder: Should autopsy reports be kept private? A person’s cause of death is public information. But what about other intimate health details that might be revealed in a postmortem examination?
The processes and regulations surrounding autopsies vary by country, so we’ll focus on the US, where Hackman and Arakawa died. Here, a “medico-legal” autopsy may be organized by law enforcement agencies and handled through courts, while a “clinical” autopsy may be carried out at the request of family members.
And there are different levels of autopsy—some might involve examining specific organs or tissues, while more thorough examinations would involve looking at every organ and studying tissues in the lab.
The goal of an autopsy is to discover the cause of a person’s death. Autopsy reports, especially those resulting from detailed investigations, often reveal health conditions—conditions that might have been kept private while the person was alive. There are multiple federal and state laws designed to protect individuals’ health information. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects “individually identifiable health information” up to 50 years after a person’s death. But some things change when a person dies.
For a start, the cause of death will end up on the death certificate. That is public information. The public nature of causes of death is taken for granted these days, says Lauren Solberg, a bioethicist at the University of Florida College of Medicine. It has become a public health statistic. She and her student Brooke Ortiz, who have been researching this topic, are more concerned about other aspects of autopsy results.
The thing is, autopsies can sometimes reveal more than what a person died from. They can also pick up what are known as incidental findings. An examiner might find that a person who died following a covid-19 infection also had another condition. Perhaps that condition was undiagnosed. Maybe it was asymptomatic. That finding wouldn’t appear on a death certificate. So who should have access to it?
The laws over who should have access to a person’s autopsy report vary by state, and even between counties within a state. Clinical autopsy results will always be made available to family members, but local laws dictate which family members have access, says Ortiz.
Genetic testing further complicates things. Sometimes the people performing autopsies will run genetic tests to help confirm the cause of death. These tests might reveal what the person died from. But they might also flag genetic factors unrelated to the cause of death that might increase the risk of other diseases.
In those cases, the person’s family members might stand to benefit from accessing that information. “My health information is my health information—until it comes to my genetic health information,” says Solberg. Genes are shared by relatives. Should they have the opportunity to learn about potential risks to their own health?
This is where things get really complicated. Ethically speaking, we should consider the wishes of the deceased. Would that person have wanted to share this information with relatives?
It’s also worth bearing in mind that a genetic risk factor is often just that; there’s often no way to know whether a person will develop a disease, or how severe the symptoms would be. And if the genetic risk is for a disease that has no treatment or cure, will telling the person’s relatives just cause them a lot of stress?
One 27-year-old experienced this when a 23&Me genetic test told her she had “a 28% chance of developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease by age 75 and a 60% chance by age 85.”
“I’m suddenly overwhelmed by this information,” she posted on a dementia forum. “I can’t help feeling this overwhelming sense of dread and sadness that I’ll never be able to un-know this information.”
In their research, Solberg and Ortiz came across cases in which individuals who had died in motor vehicle accidents underwent autopsies that revealed other, asymptomatic conditions. One man in his 40s who died in such an accident was found to have a genetic kidney disease. A 23-year-old was found to have had kidney cancer.
Ideally, both medical teams and family members should know ahead of time what a person would have wanted—whether that’s an autopsy, genetic testing, or health privacy. Advance directives allow people to clarify their wishes for end-of-life care. But only around a third of people in the US have completed one. And they tend to focus on care before death, not after.
Solberg and Ortiz think they should be expanded. An advance directive could specify how people want to share their health information after they’ve died. “Talking about death is difficult,” says Solberg. “For physicians, for patients, for families—it can be uncomfortable.” But it is important.
On March 17, a New Mexico judge granted a request from a representative of Hackman’s estate to seal police photos and bodycam footage as well as the medical records of Hackman and Arakawa. The medical investigator is “temporarily restrained from disclosing … the Autopsy Reports and/or Death Investigation Reports for Mr. and Mrs. Hackman,” according to Deadline.
This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
NASDAQ-listed biopharmaceutical firm Atai Life Sciences says cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin could be key to survival for biotech startups as they wade through years of regulatory approvals.
Atai, which is developing mental health treatments using psychedelics like DMT and MDMA, has become the latest public company to announce plans to buy Bitcoin.
It plans to buy $5 million of Bitcoin (BTC), its founder and chair Christian Angermayer wrote in a March 20 Substack post.
“Drug development is a cash-hungry, long-term venture,” he said. “The necessary steps to achieve regulatory approval can easily take more than a decade.”
TechCrunch reported in January that, according to multiple data sets, the number of startups shutting down rose in 2024 compared to 2023 as firms failed to receive more funding to keep running.
Angermayer said the approval process is essential for drug development, but it exposes firms to financial risks while sticky inflation and high interest rates have caused the current “biotech winter.”
Source: Christian Angermayer
He added that the current industry approach is to put cash reserves in near-zero-yield accounts, as “preserving capital was more important than earning a return on their cash balance.”
“This context sets the stage for considering unconventional treasury moves — like adding Bitcoin to the treasury — to address the twin threats of inflation and low-yielding reserves, and in general to optimize and maximize shareholder value.”
Atai will join at least five other public medical companies that have bought Bitcoin in recent months with the aim of boosting shareholder returns.
Biotech firm Quantum BioPharma said on March 20 that it had now spent $3.5 million in total to buy BTC and other cryptocurrencies after an initial $1 million investment in December.
Medical device maker Semler Scientific said last month that since it started in May, it had spent a total of $280.4 million buying 3,192 BTC.
Hoth Therapeutics, Acurx Pharmaceuticals and Enlivex Therapeutics said in separate statements on Nov. 20 that each of them would buy $1 million in Bitcoin.
Related: Michael Saylor’s Strategy plans to offer 5M shares to buy more Bitcoin
Atai’s Angermayer said his firm’s Bitcoin buy would primarily be as a long-term inflation hedge but also a short-term diversification play. He added that Bitcoin is likely to have short-term price fluctuations, so the Berlin-based firm is holding mostly US dollars, short-term securities, and stocks for its desired run rate into 2027.
Atai’s $5 million put would mean it is able to buy just over 59 BTC at its current price of around $84,300 and make it the world’s 52nd largest holder among public firms, according to Bitbo data.
Bitcoin has struggled to keep afloat amid a wider market rout due to US President Donald Trump’s tariff threats and fears of a US recession, which Trump hasn’t ruled out.
Atai’s share price rose early in March 20 trading to a peak of $1.47 but tapered off to close the day down 1.44% at $1.37, according to Google Finance. Its stock has sunk nearly 93% from its mid-2021 public debut peak but is up 3% so far this year.
Magazine: Crypto fans are obsessed with longevity and biohacking — Here’s why
The serial entrepreneur who founded the Mt. Gox crypto exchange and co-founded Ripple has shared new details about his ambitious space station company Vast, which he hopes will help expand the human race into a multi-planetary species.
In a March 20 interview with Bloomberg, Jed McCaleb confirmed that Vast is on track to launch Haven-1 — a commercial space station still under construction — into orbit by May 2026.
If McCaleb’s startup succeeds, it will be better positioned to win a lucrative contract from the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration to replace the International Space Station. Contracts are expected to be handed out in mid-2026.
If Vast fails or loses the NASA contract to a competitor, McCaleb could see $1 billion wiped from his net worth and the commercial future of his space station firm would be in doubt, according to the report.
“There are not that many folks who are willing to dedicate the amount of resources and time and risk tolerance that I am,” McCaleb told Bloomberg.
Vast’s founder, board chair and tech fellow Jed McCaleb. Source: Vast
McCaleb is known to be a “deliberate risk-taker” with hyperrational tendencies, according to long-time friend and former business partner Sam Yagan, who added:
“He’s maybe slightly eccentric in his willingness to take what you and I would see as a lot of risks.”
McCaleb’s aspiration to put humans on other planets draws similarities to multibillionaire and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.
“It’s super important that people take this leap from where we are today to this potential world where there’s a lot of people living off the Earth,” said McCaleb, who founded Vast in 2021.
Vast is building its spacecraft with components developed by SpaceX, such as a docking adapter to connect SpaceX’s Dragon capsule to Vast’s station and an in-space internet system that will provide WiFi on the station via Starlink.
Key specifications Vast’s Haven-1 model. Source: Vast
McCaleb’s firm has also booked SpaceX flights to send its hardware into orbit and deliver crew to its station, and SpaceX has agreed to carry astronauts for Vast as long as NASA gives its go-ahead.
Vast’s close ties to SpaceX stem partly from it hiring key personnel who previously worked there, including Max Haot, who now serves as Vast’s CEO and president.
Vast is competing with the likes of Axiom Space, Voyager Space Holdings, Lockheed Martin and the Jeff Bezos-founded Blue Origin to win the next major NASA contract.
McCaleb also wants to create ‘artificial gravity’
Part of Vast’s long-term plans is to create artificial gravity replicating Earth-like conditions by accelerating or rotating the spacecraft, as many ISS workers who have spent lengthy periods in space have reported organ damage.
The ISS also uses a technology that recycles wastewater into potable water and carbon dioxide into breathable oxygen. Haven-1 won’t feature this due to its short-term crew visits, but Vast plans to incorporate it into its future model, Haven-2, by 2028, which will be designed for longer-term stays.
Both McCaleb and Haot say they’re willing to board flights themselves.
Related: SETI, NASA scientists think AI could teach aliens about Earth
McCaleb has followed an unconventional pathway into the space industry.
After McCaleb’s first success with the internet file-sharing service eDonkey in the 2000s, his next notable achievement was founding Mt. Gox in 2010.
His time at Mt. Gox was short-lived, with McCaleb selling a majority stake in 2011. Mt. Gox went on to become the world’s largest Bitcoin (BTC) exchange until 2014 when a $400 million hack sent the company into bankruptcy.
Several months later, McCaleb began his next venture — creating the XRP (XRP) crypto token on the Ripple protocol in 2012.
McCaleb owned 9% of the XRP tokens from the onset but sold the majority of them after 2013 when he left Ripple following disagreements with the company’s other founders.
He has netted billions of dollars from those XRP sales and Ripple equity between 2014 and 2022.
McCaleb also founded the Stellar network in 2014 — a fork of the Ripple protocol — along with the Stellar (XLM) crypto token, which now boasts an $8.7 billion market cap, CoinGecko data shows.
Magazine: Big Questions: Did the NSA create Bitcoin?