AI will add to the e-waste problem. Here’s what we can do about it.

Generative AI could account for up to 5 million metric tons of e-waste by 2030, according to a new study.

That’s a relatively small fraction of the current global total of over 60 million metric tons of e-waste each year. However, it’s still a significant part of a growing problem, experts warn. 

E-waste is the term to describe things like air conditioners, televisions, and personal electronic devices such as cell phones and laptops when they are thrown away. These devices often contain hazardous or toxic materials that can harm human health or the environment if they’re not disposed of properly. Besides those potential harms, when appliances like washing machines and high-performance computers wind up in the trash, the valuable metals inside the devices are also wasted—taken out of the supply chain instead of being recycled.

Depending on the adoption rate of generative AI, the technology could add 1.2 million to 5 million metric tons of e-waste in total by 2030, according to the study, published today in Nature Computational Science

“This increase would exacerbate the existing e-waste problem,” says Asaf Tzachor, a researcher at Reichman University in Israel and a co-author of the study, via email.

The study is novel in its attempts to quantify the effects of AI on e-waste, says Kees Baldé, a senior scientific specialist at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research and an author of the latest Global E-Waste Monitor, an annual report.

The primary contributor to e-waste from generative AI is high-performance computing hardware that’s used in data centers and server farms, including servers, GPUs, CPUs, memory modules, and storage devices. That equipment, like other e-waste, contains valuable metals like copper, gold, silver, aluminum, and rare earth elements, as well as hazardous materials such as lead, mercury, and chromium, Tzachor says.

One reason that AI companies generate so much waste is how quickly hardware technology is advancing. Computing devices typically have lifespans of two to five years, and they’re replaced frequently with the most up-to-date versions. 

While the e-waste problem goes far beyond AI, the rapidly growing technology represents an opportunity to take stock of how we deal with e-waste and lay the groundwork to address it. The good news is that there are strategies that can help reduce expected waste.

Expanding the lifespan of technologies by using equipment for longer is one of the most significant ways to cut down on e-waste, Tzachor says. Refurbishing and reusing components can also play a significant role, as can designing hardware in ways that makes it easier to recycle and upgrade. Implementing these strategies could reduce e-waste generation by up to 86% in a best-case scenario, the study projected. 

Only about 22% of e-waste is being formally collected and recycled today, according to the 2024 Global E-Waste Monitor. Much more is collected and recovered through informal systems, including in low- and lower-middle-income countries that don’t have established e-waste management infrastructure in place. Those informal systems can recover valuable metals but often don’t include safe disposal of hazardous materials, Baldé says.

Another major barrier to reducing AI-related e-waste is concerns about data security. Destroying equipment ensures information doesn’t leak out, while reusing or recycling equipment will require using other means to secure data. Ensuring that sensitive information is erased from hardware before recycling is critical, especially for companies handling confidential data, Tzachor says.

More policies will likely be needed to ensure that e-waste, including from AI, is recycled or disposed of properly. Recovering valuable metals (including iron, gold, and silver) can help make the economic case. However, e-waste recycling will likely still come with a price, since it’s costly to safely handle the hazardous materials often found inside the devices, Baldé says. 

“For companies and manufacturers, taking responsibility for the environmental and social impacts of their products is crucial,” Tzachor says. “This way, we can make sure that the technology we rely on doesn’t come at the expense of human and planetary health.”

Kids are learning how to make their own little language models

“This new AI technology—it’s very interesting to learn how it works and understand it more,” says 10-year-old Luca, a young AI model maker.

Luca is one of the first kids to try Little Language Models, a new application from Manuj and Shruti Dhariwal, two PhD researchers at MIT’s Media Lab, that helps children understand how AI models work—by getting to build small-scale versions themselves. 

The program is a way to introduce the complex concepts that make modern AI models work without droning on about them in a theoretical lecture. Instead, kids can see and build a visualization of the concepts in practice, which helps them get to grips with them.

“What does it mean to have children see themselves as being builders of AI technologies and not just users?” says Shruti.

The program starts out by using a pair of dice to demonstrate probabilistic thinking, a system of decision-making that accounts for uncertainty. Probabilistic thinking underlies the LLMs of today, which predict the most likely next word in a sentence. By teaching a concept like it, the program can help to demystify the workings of LLMs for kids and assist them in understanding that sometimes the model’s choices are not perfect but the result of a series of probabilities. 

Students can modify each side of the dice to whatever variable they want. And then they can change how likely each side is to come up when you roll them. Luca thinks it would be “really cool” to incorporate this feature into the design of a Pokémon-like game he is working on. But it can also demonstrate some crucial realities about AI.

Let’s say a teacher wanted to educate students about how bias comes up in AI models. The kids could be told to create a pair of dice and then set each side to a hand of a different skin color. At first, they could set the probability of a white hand at 100%, reflecting a hypothetical situation where there are only images of white people in the data set. When the AI is asked to generate a visual, it produces only white hands.

Then the teacher can have the kids increase the percentage of other skin colors, simulating a more diverse data set. The AI model now produces hands of varying skin colors.

“It was interesting using Little Language Models, because it makes AI into something small [where the students] can grasp what’s going on,” says Helen Mastico, a middle school librarian in Quincy, Massachusetts, who taught a group of eighth graders to use the program.

“You start to see, ‘Oh, this is how bias creeps in,’” says Shruti. “It provides a rich context for educators to start talking about and for kids to imagine, basically, how these things scale to really big levels.”

They plan for the tool to be used around the world. Students will be able to upload their own data, monitored by their teacher. “[Students] can also add their own sounds, images, and backdrops that represent their culture,” says Manuj. 

The Dhariwals have also implemented a tool where kids can play around with more advanced concepts like Markov chains, where a preceding variable influences what comes after it. For example, a child could build an AI that creates random houses made from Lego bricks. The child can dictate that if the AI uses a red brick first, the percentage of yellow brick coming next is set much higher.

“The best way to support young people as creative learners is through helping them work on projects based on their passions,” says the Dhariwals’ PhD advisor Mitch Resnick, co-creator of Scratch, the most famous program in the world for teaching kids to code. “And that’s what Little Language Models does. It lets children take these new ideas and put them to use in creative ways.”

Little Language Models may fill a hole in the current educational landscape. “There is a real lack of playful resources and tools that teach children about data literacy and about AI concepts creatively,” says Emma Callow, a learning experience designer who works with educators and schools on implementing new ways to teach kids about technology. “Schools are more worried about safety, rather than the potential to use AI. But it is progressing in schools, and people are starting to kind of use it,” she says. “There is a space for education to change.”

Little Language Models is rolling out on the Dhariwals’ online education platform, coco.build, in mid-November, and they’re trialing the program at various schools over the next month. 

Luca’s mom, Diana, hopes the chance to experiment with it will serve him well. “It’s experiences like this that will teach him about AI from a very young age and help him use it in a wiser way,” she says.

GMOs could reboot chestnut trees

Under a slice-of-heaven sky, 150 acres of rolling green hills stretch off into the distance. About a dozen people—tree enthusiasts, conservationists, research biologists, biotech entrepreneurs, and a venture capitalist in long socks and a floppy hat—have driven to this rural spot in New York state on a perfect late-July day. 

We are here to see more than 2,500 transgenic chestnut seedlings at a seed farm belonging to American Castanea, a new biotech startup. The sprouts, no higher than our knees, are samples of likely the first genetically modified trees to be considered for federal regulatory approval as a tool for ecological restoration. American Castanea’s founders, and all the others here today, hope that the American chestnut (Castanea dentata) will be the first tree species ever brought back from functional extinction—but, ideally, not the last.

Living as long as a thousand years, the American chestnut tree once dominated parts of the Eastern forest canopy, with many Native American nations relying on them for food. But by 1950, the tree had largely succumbed to a fungal blight probably introduced by Japanese chestnuts. “Now after hard work, great ideas, and decades of innovation, we have a tree and a science platform designed to make restoration possible,” American Castanea cofounder Michael Bloom told the people squinting in the sun.

As recently as last year, it seemed the 35-year effort to revive the American chestnut might grind to a halt. Now, federal regulatory approval is expected soon. And there’s millions of dollars in new funding coming in from private investors and the federal government. One conservation nonprofit is in discussions with American Castanea to plant up to a million of its chestnuts per year as soon as they’re ready and approved. 

Nothing like this has ever been tried before. But the self-­proclaimed “nutheads” believe the reintroduction of a GMO, blight-resistant American chestnut at scale could also become a model for how environmentalists can redeploy trees in general: restoring forests and shifting food production, all to combat climate change and biodiversity loss. 

“It’s a hard time to be a tree,” says Leigh Greenwood, director of the forest pest and pathogen program at the Nature Conservancy, which has been supportive of the GMO chestnut’s regulatory application. “But there’s some really interesting promise and hope.”  

Four billion trees dead 

“Charismatic megafauna” is the scientific term for species, like pandas and blue whales, that draw a disproportionate amount of love and, thus, resources. The nearly vanished American chestnut may be the most charismatic tree east of the Rockies. Because of its historical importance, fast growth, and abundant productivity of both nuts and timber, it’s drawn an exceptional amount of interest among biologists, conservationists, and a new crop of farmers. 

Trees that die back from blight occasionally resprout. Volunteer groups like the American Chestnut Cooperators’ Foundation have been working for decades to gather and crossbreed wild trees in the hopes of nudging along natural resistance to the blight. Meanwhile, the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF), with the support of a different group, the American Chestnut Foundation (TACF), has been pursuing genetic engineering in its labs and on its 44 wooded acres outside Syracuse. 

When ESF biologist Bill Powell and his colleagues began working with chestnut embryonic cells in 1989, it took them a decade just to optimize the growing process to make research practical. After that, researchers in the small lab inserted a wheat gene in embryos that inactivated oxalic acid, the toxin produced by the blight fungus. Gathering results on these transgenic trees takes time, because each generation has to grow for a few years before it produces the most useful data. But they eventually created a promising line, named Darling-58 after Herb Darling, a New York construction magnate who funded this research through TACF. Darling-58 was not perfect, and results varied from tree to tree and site to site. But eventually, the data showed slower infections and smaller cankers, the bulbous growths produced by the blight. 

In 2020, Darling-58 became, in all likelihood, the first genetically modified forest tree to be submitted for federal regulatory approval to the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the EPA, and the FDA to determine the safety of introducing it in the wild. 

“It’s a hard time to be a tree. But there’s some really interesting promise and hope.”

It is this genetically engineered strain of chestnut that American Castanea, too, is now planting and propagating in New York state, under a nonexclusive commercial license from ESF. They want to sell these trees, pending approval. And then they want to keep going, engineering ever-better chestnuts, and selling them first to enthusiasts, then to farmers, and finally to conservationists for timber, reforestation, maybe even carbon capture. 

To aid the effort, the company is looking for extraordinary wild specimens. In early 2024, it purchased an orchard that had been lovingly cultivated for three decades by a conservationist. The windy hilltop spot houses hundreds of trees, collected like stray kittens from a dozen states throughout the chestnut’s natural range. 

Most of the trees are homely and sickly with blight. They have bulging cankers, “flagging” branches sporting yellow and brown leaves, or green shoots that burst each season from their large root systems only to flop over and die back. “They make me a little sad,” admits Andrew Serazin, cofounder of American Castanea. But a few have shot up as tall as 40 feet, with only a few cankers. All these specimens have been sampled and are being analyzed. They will become the basis of a chestnut gene database that’s as complete as American Castanea can make it. 

From there, the plan is: Apply bioinformatics and AI techniques to correlate genetic signatures with specific traits. Borrow techniques developed in the cannabis industry for seedling production, cloning, and growth acceleration in high-intensity light chambers—none of which have yet been yet applied at this scale to forest trees. Develop several diverse, improved new strains of chestnut that are blight-resistant and optimized for different uses like forest restoration, nut production, and timber. Then produce seedlings at a scale previously unknown. The hope is to accelerate restoration, cutting down the time it would take resistant strains of the tree to propagate in the wild. “Tree growth takes a long time. We need to bend the curve of something that’s like a 30-year problem,” says Serazin.

The breadtree revival

The chestnut has not disappeared from the US: In fact, Americans eat some 33 million pounds of the nuts a year. These are European and Asian varieties, mostly imported. But some companies are looking to expand the cultivation of the nuts domestically. 

Among those leading the quest is a company called Breadtree Farms in upstate New York, named for a traditional nickname for the chestnut. In March, it won a $2 million grant from the USDA to build the largest organic chestnut processing facility in the US. It will be up to eight times larger than needed for its own 250 acres of trees. The company is dedicated to scaling the regional industry. “We have a list of over 100 growers that are, and will be, planting chestnut trees,” says Russell Wallack, Breadtree’s young cofounder.

Chestnuts have a nutritional profile similar to brown rice; they’re high in carbohydrates and lower in fat than other nuts. And unlike other nut trees, the chestnut “masts”—produces a large crop—every year, making it far more prolific.

That makes it a good candidate for an alternative form of agriculture dubbed agroforestry, which incorporates more trees into food cultivation. Food, agriculture, and land use together account for about one-quarter of greenhouse-gas emissions. Adding trees, whether as windbreaks between fields or as crops, could lower the sector’s carbon footprint.

Many different trees can be used this way. But Joe Fargione, science director for the Nature Conservancy’s North America region, says the chestnut is a standout candidate. “It’s great from a climate perspective, and there’s a lot of farmers that are excited about it,” he says. “Chestnuts end up being big trees that store a lot of CO2 and have a product that can be very prolific. They have the potential to pay for themselves. We want not just environmental sustainability but economic sustainability.”

The passion for chestnut revival connects the foresters and the farmers. Farmers aren’t waiting for the GMO trees to get federal approval. They are planting existing Chinese varieties, and hybrids between American and Chinese chestnuts, which thrive in the East. Still, Fargione says that if nut cultivation is going to scale up, farmers will need reliable seed stock of genetically improved trees. 

A Tennessee family poses at the base of a chestnut tree, circa 1920. A deadly fungus nearly drove the once mighty species extinct by 1940.
NEGATIVES OF GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

On the other hand, those foreign orchard varieties would be considered invasives if planted in the wild. And they wouldn’t feed wildlife in the same way, says Sara Fern Fitzsimmons, chief conservation officer of the American Chestnut Foundation. “Wild turkeys prefer American chestnuts,” she says. “And the blue jay—since the American chestnut is smaller, he can fit more in his crop,” a food storage area inside a bird’s throat. For forest restoration you need American chestnuts or something as close to them as possible. That’s where the genetic engineering and crossbreeding projects will be crucial. But that path has been full of pitfalls.

Switched at birth

In late 2023, a biologist at the University of New England discovered evidence that Darling-58 was not what people thought it was. For nearly 10 years, all the data that ESF had painstakingly gathered on the strain actually pertained to a different line, Darling-54, which has its wheat gene in a different place on the genome. The promising results were all still there. The trees had simply been mislabeled that entire time. 

 A few weeks later, in December 2023, the American Chestnut Foundation suddenly announced it was withdrawing its support of ESF’s Darling tree research, citing the 54-58 mix-up, as well as what it called “disappointing performance results” for 54. 

But Andy Newhouse, director of the American Chestnut Project at SUNY ESF, says the mislabeling is not a deal-breaker. The research doesn’t “need to start from scratch,” he says. “This is correcting the record, making sure we have the appropriate label on it, and moving forward.” Newhouse says the regulatory application is ongoing (the USDA and FDA declined to comment on a pending regulatory application; the EPA did not respond to requests for comment). 

Newhouse defends the documented blight response of the trees that, we now know, are actually Darling-54.

And besides, he says, they’ve got a potentially better strain coming: the DarWin. The “Win” stands for “wound-inducible.” In these trees, the anti-blight action turns on—is induced—only when the tree’s bark is wounded, working something like an animal’s immune response. This could be more efficient than continuously expressing the anti-blight gene, the way Darling-54 does. So DarWin trees might reserve more of their energy to grow and produce nuts. 

The DarWin trees are about three years old, meaning data is still being collected. And if the Darling trees are approved for safety, it should smooth the path for a much faster approval of the DarWin trees, Newhouse says.

There was another reason, though, that TACF dropped its support of the Darling regulatory petition. In a FAQ on its website, the foundation said it was “surprised and concerned” that ESF had made a licensing deal for the Darling and DarWin trees—potentially worth millions—with a for-profit company: American Castanea.

TACF said it had been supporting the project under the assumption that the results would be available, for free, to anyone, in the “public commons.” Commercialization, it says, could make the trees more expensive for anyone who might want to plant them. Fitzsimmons wouldn’t comment further. 

The biotech boys

American Castanea’s Andrew Serazin is a Rhodes scholar whose scientific background is in tropical disease research. He rose in the ranks in global philanthropy, running million-­dollar grant competitions for the Gates Foundation, funding projects like vitamin-­enhanced “golden rice” and HIV vaccines. 

He was president of the Templeton World Charity Foundation in 2020 when it gave a “transformational” $3.2 million grant to SUNY ESF’s chestnut project. Serazin became convinced that the chestnut could be the seed of something much, much bigger. It didn’t hurt that he had a sentimental chestnut connection through his wife’s family farm in West Virginia, which dates back to the time of George Washington. 

With pests and pathogens threatening so many different species, “there’s a huge potential for there to be precision management of forests using all of the same capabilities we’ve used in human medicine,” he says. 

For that, Serazin was convinced, they needed money. Real money. Venture capital money. “I mean, really, there’s only one system that we know about that works the best for this kind of innovation, and that’s using incentives for companies to bring together these resources,” he says. 

Serazin teamed up with his friend Michael Bloom, an entrepreneur who’s sold two previous companies. They incorporated American Castanea for certification as a public benefit corporation in Delaware, pledging to balance profit with purpose and adhere to a high degree of transparency on social and environmental impact. They went to “impact investors” to sell the vision. That was part of what was going on at the seed farm on that July day; the company has $4 million in seed financing and wants to raise $7 million to $10 million more next year. 

What he’s offering investors, Serazin says, isn’t quick returns but a chance to “participate in the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring back a tree species from functional extinction, and participate in this great American story.” 

What they’re proposing, over the next several decades or more, is no less than replanting the entire Eastern forest with a variety of genetically superior breeds, on the scale of millions of trees. 

It sounds, at first blush, like a sci-fi terraforming scenario. On the other hand, Leigh Greenwood, at the Nature Conservancy, says every species group of tree in the woods is threatened by climate change. Pathogens are emerging in new territories, trees are stressed by extreme weather, and the coldest winter temperatures, which used to reliably kill off all manner of forest insects and diseases at the edges of their habitats, are getting milder.

Besides chestnut blight, there’s Dutch elm disease, the emerald ash borer, butternut canker, oak wilt, and white pine blister rust. The southern pine beetle now ranges as far north as Massachusetts because of milder winters. The spongy (formerly gypsy) moth is a champion defoliator, munching enough leaves “to make an entire forest look naked in June,” says Greenwood. A new nematode that attacks leaves and buds, previously unknown to science, has emerged near the Great Lakes in the last decade. Sick and dying trees stop sequestering carbon and storing water, are prone to wildfire, and can take entire ecosystems down with them. 

“Invasive species are moving faster than biological time,” Greenwood says. “What we have to do is speed up the host trees, their natural selection. And that is an enormous task that only in very recent times have we really developed the tools in order to figure out how the heck we’re going to do that.” 

By “recent tools,” Greenwood means, more or less, what American Castanea is trying: genetic analysis and advanced horticultural techniques that allow resistant trees to be propagated and introduced into the wild more quickly. 

Greenwood is quick to say that the Nature Conservancy also supports the American Chestnut Cooperators’ Foundation, which crossbreeds wild American chestnuts for blight resistance. They are a small, all-volunteer organization with no university affiliation. They mail their crossbred chestnuts out to hobbyist landowners all over the country, and president Ed Greenwell tells me they don’t really know exactly how many are growing out there—maybe 5,000, maybe more. He has seen some that are big and healthy, he says. “We have many trees of 40-plus years of age.” 

What they don’t have is a sense of urgency. “We’re self-funded, so we could do our breeding as we choose,” says Greenwell. “Our method is tried and true, and we have no pressure to take shortcuts, like genetic modification, which theoretically could have shortened the time to get trees back in the woods.” 

The whole idea of a GMO forest tests our concept of what “nature” is. And that may just be a marker of where we are at this point in the Anthropocene.

Greenwell is not the only one to object to GMO chestnuts. In 2023, Joey Owle, then the secretary of agriculture and natural resources for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, told Grist magazine that while the group was open to introducing transgenic trees on its land if necessary, it was the “last option that we would like to pursue.”

Greenwood led the writing of an expert letter, something like an amicus brief, in support of SUNY ESF’s regulatory petition for the Darling tree. She takes such objections seriously. “If we do not address the human dimensions of change, no matter how good the biological, chemical designs are,” she says, “those changes will fail.” 

That July day out at the seed farm, sitting under a tent with plates of pork barbecue, the scientists, conservationists, and businesspeople started debating how deep these GMO objections really run. Serazin said he believes that what people really hate is corporate monopoly, not the technology per se. “It’s really about the exertion of power and capital,” he said. He’s hoping that by incorporating as a public benefit corporation and making the trees widely available to conservation groups and responsible forest product and nut producers, he can convince people that American Castanea’s heart is in the right place. 

Still, others pointed out, the whole idea of a GMO forest tests our concept of what “nature” is. And that may just be a marker of where we are at this point in the Anthropocene—it’s hard to envision a future where any living creature in the ecological web can remain untouched by humans. 

That responsibility may connect us more to the past than we realize. For centuries, Native people like the Haudenosaunee Nation practiced intentional land management to improve habitat for the chestnut. When the Europeans began clearing land for farming and timber, the fast-growing tree was able to claim proportionately even more space for itself. It turns out the forest those colonists embraced—the forest dominated by chestnut trees—was no true accident of nature. It was a product of a relationship between people and chestnuts. One that continues to evolve today. 

Anya Kamenetz is a freelance reporter who writes the Substack newsletter The Golden Hour.

Introducing: The AI Hype Index

There’s no denying that the AI industry moves fast. Each week brings a bold new announcement, product release, or lofty claim that pushes the bounds of what we previously thought was possible. Separating AI fact from hyped-up fiction isn’t always easy. That’s why we’ve created the AI Hype Index—a simple, at-a-glance summary of everything you need to know about the state of the industry.

Our first index is a white-knuckle ride that ranges from the outright depressing—rising numbers of sexually explicit deepfakes; the complete lack of rules governing Elon Musk’s Grok AI model—to the bizarre, including AI-powered dating wingmen and startup Friend’s dorky intelligent-jewelry line. 

But it’s not all a horror show—at least not entirely. AI is being used for more wholesome endeavors, too, like simulating the classic video game Doom without a traditional gaming engine. Elsewhere, AI models have gotten so good at table tennis they can now beat beginner-level human opponents. They’re also giving us essential insight into the secret names monkeys use to communicate with one another. Because while AI may be a lot of things, it’s never boring. 

Why agriculture is a tough climate problem to solve

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

As a climate reporter, I’m all too aware of the greenhouse-gas emissions that come from food production. And yet, I’m not a vegan, and I do enjoy a good cheeseburger (at least on occasion). 

It’s a real problem, from a climate perspective at least, that burgers taste good, and so do chicken sandwiches and cheese and just about anything that has butter in it. It can be hard to persuade people to change their eating habits, especially since food is tied up in our social lives and our cultures. 

We could all stand to make some choices that could reduce the emissions associated with the food on our plates. But the longer I write about agriculture and climate, the more I think we’re also going to need to innovate around people’s love for burgers—and fix our food system not just in the kitchen, but on the farm. 

If we lump in everything it takes to get food grown, processed, and transported to us, agriculture accounts for between 20% and 35% of annual global greenhouse-gas emissions. (The range is huge because estimates can vary in what they include and how they account for things like land use, the impact of which is tricky to measure.) 

So when it came time to put together our list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch, which we released earlier this month, we knew we wanted to represent the massive challenge that is our food system. 

We ended up choosing two companies in agriculture for this year’s list, Pivot Bio and Rumin8. My colleague James Temple and I spoke with leaders from both these businesses at our recent Roundtables online event, and it was fascinating to hear from them about the problems they’re trying to solve and how they’re doing it. 

Pivot Bio is using microbes to help disrupt the fertilizer industry. Today, applying nitrogen-based fertilizers to fields is basically like putting gas into a leaky gas tank, as Pivot cofounder Karsten Temme put it at the event. 

Plants rely on nitrogen to grow, but they fail to take up a lot of the nitrogen in fertilizers applied in the field. Since fertilizer requires a ton of energy to produce and can wind up emitting powerful greenhouse gases if plants don’t use it, that’s a real problem.

Pivot Bio uses microbes to help get nitrogen from the air into plants, and the company’s current generation of products can help farmers cut fertilizer use by 25%. 

Rumin8 has its sights set on cattle, making supplements that help them emit less methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Cows have a complicated digestive system that involves multiple stomachs and a whole lot of microbes that help them digest food. Those microbes produce methane that the cows then burp up. “It’s really rude of them,” quipped Matt Callahan, Rumin8’s cofounder and counsel, at the event. 

In part because of the powerful warming effects of methane, beef is among the worst foods for the climate. Beef can account for up to 10 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than poultry, for example. 

Rumin8 makes an additive that can go into the food or water supply of dairy and beef cattle that can help reduce the methane they burp up. The chemical basically helps the cows use that gas as energy instead, so it can boost their growth—a big benefit to farmers. The company has seen methane reductions as high as 90%, depending on how the cow is getting the supplement (effects aren’t as strong for beef cattle, which often don’t have as close contact with farmers and may not get as strong a dose of the supplement over time as dairy cattle do). 

My big takeaway from our discussion, and from researching and picking the companies on our list this year, is that there’s a huge range of work being done to cut emissions from agriculture on the product side. That’s crucial, because I’m personally skeptical that a significant chunk of the world is going to quickly and voluntarily give up all the tasty but emissions-intensive foods that they’re used to. 

That’s not to say individual choices can’t make a difference. I love beans and lentils as much as the next girl, and we could all stand to make choices that cut down our individual climate impact. And it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Anyone can choose to eat a little bit less beef specifically, and fewer meat and animal products in general (which tend to be more emissions-intensive than plant-based options). Another great strategy is to focus on cutting down your food waste, which not only reduces emissions but also saves you money. 

But with appetites and budgets for beef and other emissions-intensive foods continuing to grow worldwide, I think we’re also going to need to see a whole lot of innovation that helps lower the emissions of existing food products that we all know and love, including beef. 

There’s no one magic solution that’s going to solve our climate problem in agriculture. The key is going to be both shifting diets through individual and community action and adopting new, lower-emissions options that companies bring to the table. 


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

If you missed our Rountables event “Producing Climate-Friendly Food,” you can check out the recording here. And for more details on the businesses we mentioned, read our profiles on Pivot Bio and Rumin8 from our 2024 list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch. 

There are also some fascinating climate stories from the new, food-focused issue of our print magazine: 

grid of batteries, part of an electric car driving down the road, a flame and an inset of PyroThin aerogels

STEPHANIE ARNETT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | ASPEN AEROGEL (PYROTHIN,) AUDI (EV)

Another thing

As more EVs hit the roads, there’s a growing concern about battery fires, which are a relatively rare but dangerous occurrence. 

Aspen Aerogels is making super-light materials that can help suppress battery fires, and the company just got a huge boost from the US Department of Energy. Read more about the $670.6 million loan and the details of the technology in my latest story

Keeping up with climate  

Hurricane Milton disrupted the supply of fresh drinking water, so a Florida hospital deployed a machine to harvest it out of the air. (Wired

There may be a huge supply of lithium in an underground brine reservoir in Arkansas. Using this source of the crucial battery metal will require companies to scale up new ways of extracting it. (New York Times)

There’s been a flurry of new deals between Big Tech and the nuclear industry, but Amazon is going one step further with its latest announcement. The company is supporting development of a new project rather than just agreeing to step in once electricity is ready. (Heatmap)
→ Here’s why Microsoft is getting involved in a plan to revive a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island. (MIT Technology Review)

Japan’s most popular rice is in danger because of rising temperatures. Koshihikari rice has a low tolerance for heat, and scientists are racing to breed new varieties that can handle a changing climate. (New York Times)

There are some pretty straightforward solutions that could slash methane emissions from landfills, including requiring more sites to install gas-capture systems. Landfills are the third-largest source of the powerful greenhouse gas. (Canary Media)

Heat pump sales have slowed in the US and stalled in Europe. The technology is struggling in part because of high interest rates, increasing costs, and misinformation about the appliances. (Washington Post)
→ Here’s everything you need to know about how heat pumps work. (MIT Technology Review)

How Wayve’s driverless cars will meet one of their biggest challenges yet

The UK driverless-car startup Wayve is headed west. The firm’s cars learned to drive on the streets of London. But Wayve has announced that it will begin testing its tech in and around San Francisco as well. And that brings a new challenge: Its AI will need to switch from driving on the left to driving on the right.

As visitors to or from the UK will know, making that switch is harder than it sounds. Your view of the road, how the vehicle turns—it’s all different, says Wayve’s vice president of software, Silvius Rus. Rus himself learned to drive on the left for the first time last year after years in the US. “Even for a human who has driven a long time, it’s not trivial,” he says.

Wayve’s US fleet of Ford Mustang Mach-E’s.
WAYVE

The move to the US will be a test of Wayve’s technology, which the company claims is more general-purpose than what many of its rivals are offering. Wayve’s approach has attracted massive investment—including a $1 billion funding round that broke UK records this May—and partnerships with Uber and online grocery firms such as Asda and Ocado. But it will now go head to head with the heavyweights of the growing autonomous-car industry, including Cruise, Waymo, and Tesla.  

Back in 2022, when I first visited the company’s offices in north London, there were two or three vehicles parked in the building’s auto shop. But on a sunny day this fall, both the shop and the forecourt are full of cars. A billion dollars buys a lot of hardware.

I’ve come for a ride-along. In London, autonomous vehicles can still turn heads. But what strikes me as I sit in the passenger seat of one of Wayve’s Jaguar I-PACE cars isn’t how weird it feels to be driven around by a computer program, but how normal—how comfortable, how safe. This car drives better than I do.

Regulators have not yet cleared autonomous vehicles to drive on London’s streets without a human in the loop. A test driver sits next to me, his hands hovering a centimeter above the wheel as it turns back and forth beneath them. Rus gives a running commentary from the back.

The midday traffic is light, but that makes things harder, says Rus: “When it’s crowded, you tend to follow the car in front.” We steer around roadworks, cyclists, and other vehicles stopped in the middle of the street. It starts to rain. At one point I think we’re on the wrong side of the road. But it’s a one-way street: The car has spotted a sign that I didn’t. We approach every intersection with what feels like deliberate confidence.

At one point a blue car (with a human at the wheel) sticks its nose into the stream of traffic just ahead of us. Urban drivers know this can go two ways: Hesitate and it’s a cue for the other car to pull out; push ahead and you’re telling it to wait its turn. Wayve’s car pushes ahead.

The interaction lasts maybe a second. But it’s the most impressive moment of my ride. Wayve says its model has picked up lots of defensive driving habits like this. “It was our right of way, and the safest approach was to assert that,” says Rus. “It learned to do that; it’s not programmed.”

Learning to drive

Everything that Wayve’s cars do is learned rather than programmed. The company uses different technology from what’s in most other driverless cars. Instead of separate, specialized models trained to handle individual tasks like spotting obstacles or finding a route around them—models that must then be wired up to work together—Wayve uses an approach called end-to-end learning.

This means that Wayve’s cars are controlled by a single large model that learns all the individual tasks needed to drive at once, using camera footage, feedback from test drivers (many of whom are former driving instructors), and a lot of reruns in simulation.

Wayve has argued that this approach makes its driving models more general-purpose. The firm has shown that it can take a model trained on the streets of London and then use that same model to drive cars in multiple UK cities—something that others have struggled to do.

But a move to the US is more than a simple relocation. It rewrites one of the most basic rules of driving—which side of the road to drive on. With Wayve’s single large model, there’s no left-hand-drive module to swap out. “We did not program it to drive on the left,” says Rus. “It’s just seen it enough to think that’s how it needs to drive. Even if there’s no marking on the road, it will still keep to the left.”  

“So how will the model learn to drive on the right? This will be an interesting question for the US.”

Answering that question involves figuring out whether the side of the road it drives on is a deep feature of Wayve’s model—intrinsic to its behavior—or a more superficial one that can be overridden with a little retraining.

Given the adaptability seen in the model so far, Rus believes it will switch to US streets just fine. He cites the way the cars have shown they can adapt to new UK cities, for example. “That gives us confidence in its capability to learn and to drive in new situations,” he says.

Under the hood

But Wayve needs to be certain. As well as testing its cars in San Francisco, Rus and his colleagues are poking around inside their model to find out what makes it tick. “It’s like you’re doing a brain scan and you can see there’s some activity in a certain part of the brain,” he says.

The team presents the model with many different scenarios and watches what parts of it get activated at specific times. One example is an unprotected turn—a turn that crosses traffic going in the opposite direction, without a traffic signal. “Unprotected turns are to the right here and to the left in the US,” says Rus. “So will it see them as similar? Or will it just see right turns as right turns?”

Figuring out why the model behaves as it does tells Wayve what kinds of scenarios require extra help. Using a hyper-detailed simulation tool called PRISM-1 that can reconstruct 3D street scenes from video footage, the company can generate bespoke scenarios and run the model through them over and over until it learns how to handle them. How much retraining might the model need? “I cannot tell you the amount. This is part of our secret sauce,” says Rus. “But it’s a small amount.”

Wayve’s simulation tool, PRISM-1, can reconstruct virtual street scenes from real video footage. Wayve uses the tool to help train its driving model.
WAYVE

The autonomous-vehicle industry is known for hype and overpromising. Within the past year, Cruise laid off hundreds after its cars caused chaos and injury on the streets of San Francisco. Tesla is facing federal investigation after its driver-assistance technology was blamed for multiple crashes, including a fatal collision with a pedestrian. 

But the industry keeps forging ahead. Waymo has said it is now giving 100,000 robotaxi rides a week in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. In China, Baidu claims it is giving some 287,000 rides in a handful of cities, including Beijing and Wuhan. Undaunted by the allegations that Tesla’s driver-assistance technology is unsafe, Elon Musk announced his Cybercab last week with a timeline that would put these driverless concept cars on the road by 2025. 

What should we make of it all? “The competition between robotaxi operators is heating up,” says Crijn Bouman, CEO and cofounder of Rocsys, a startup that makes charging stations for autonomous electric vehicles. “I believe we are close to their ChatGPT moment.”

“The technology, the business model, and the consumer appetite are all there,” Bouman says. “The question is which operator will seize the opportunity and come out on top.”

Others are more skeptical. We need to be very clear what we’re talking about when we talk about autonomous vehicles, says Saber Fallah, director of the Connected Autonomous Vehicle Research Lab at the University of Surrey, UK. Some of Baidu’s robotaxis still require a safety driver behind the wheel, for example. Cruise and Waymo have shown that a fully autonomous service is viable in certain locations. But it took years to train their vehicles to drive specific streets, and extending routes—safely—beyond existing neighborhoods will take time. “We won’t have robotaxis that can drive anywhere anytime soon,” says Fallah.

Fallah takes the extreme view that this won’t happen until all human drivers hand in their licenses. For robotaxis to be safe, they need to be the only vehicles on the road, he says. He thinks today’s driving models are still not good enough to interact with the complex and subtle behaviors of humans. There are just too many edge cases, he says.

Wayve is betting its approach will win out. In the US, it will begin by testing what it calls an advanced driver assistance system, a technology similar to Tesla’s. But unlike Tesla, Wayve plans to sell that technology to a wide range of existing car manufacturers. The idea is to build on this foundation to achieve full autonomy in the next few years. “We’ll get access to scenarios that are encountered by many cars,” says Rus. “The path to full self-driving is easier if you go level by level.”

But cars are just the start, says Rus. What Wayve is in fact building, he says, is an embodied model that could one day control many different types of machines, whether they have wheels, wings, or legs. 

“We’re an AI shop,” he says. “Driving is a milestone, but it’s a stepping stone as well.”

What do jumping spiders find sexy? How DIY tech is offering insights into the animal mind.

In his quest to understand the hermit crab housing market, biologist Mark Laidre of Dartmouth College had to get creative. Crabs are always looking to move into a bigger, better shell, but having really nice digs also comes with risks. Sometimes crabs gang up to pull an inhabitant out of an especially desirable shell. If they succeed, the shell is quickly claimed by the largest gang member, leaving another open shell for a slightly smaller crab to grab, and on down the chain until everyone has upgraded. 

To better gauge the trade-offs between shell size and defensibility, Laidre collaborated with an engineer to create the hermit crab eviction machine, a device that holds onto an occupied shell and measures how much force it takes a scientist to pull the crab out (crabs are not harmed or left homeless). It’s essentially a portable load cell that can survive the sun, sand, and humidity of the field. 

The force required to evict a hermit crab is an important measurement, because hanging on to their homes is a matter of life and death for crabs. “If you are evicted, there’s a real strong probability that what is left at the end of one of those chains is something that’s too small for you to even enter,” Laidre says. In his field area on a beach in Costa Rica, a homeless crab can quickly succumb to predators or heat: “You’re really dead meat in a sense.”

Studying the minds of other animals comes with a challenge that human psychologists don’t usually face: Your subjects can’t tell you what they’re thinking. To get answers from animals, scientists need to come up with creative experiments to learn why they behave the way they do. Sometimes this requires designing and building experimental equipment from scratch.

The DIY contraptions that animal behavior scientists create range from ingeniously simple to incredibly complex. All of them are tailored to help answer questions about the lives and minds of specific species, from insects to elephants. Do honeybees need a good night’s sleep? What do jumping spiders find sexy? Do falcons like puzzles? For queries like these, off-the-shelf gear simply won’t do.

The eviction machine was inspired by Laidre’s curiosity about crabs. But sometimes new questions about animals are inspired by an intriguing device or technology, as was the case with another of Laidre’s inventions: the hermit crab escape room (more on that below). The key, Laidre says, is to be sure the question you’re asking is relevant to the animals’ lives.

Here are five more contraptions custom-built by scientists to help them understand the lives and minds of the animals they study. 

OLY DEMPSTER

The falcon innovation box

The brainy birds in the parrot and crow families are the stars of scientific studies on avian intelligence. Now these smarties have a surprising new rival: a falcon. Raptors are not known for creative problem-solving, but behavioral ecologist Katie Harrington of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna suspected the striated caracara falcons she had observed on a remote Falkland Island were different. “They’re really interested in investigating things,” she says. “They’re very intelligent birds in general.”

diagram of the falcon experiment

HARRINGTON, ET AL.

To test their smarts, Harrington took inspiration from an “innovation arena” (left), designed for Goffin’s cockatoos, which are members of the parrot family known for their problem-solving abilities. It’s a semicircular array of 20 clear plastic boxes containing puzzles requiring different solutions to release rewards like cashews or corn kernels. Hauling the seven-foot-wide arena to the Falklands was not an option. So Harrington designed a 16-inch-wide “innovation box” attached to a wooden board, with eight compartments and puzzles adapted from the cockatoo studies. 

The birds loved it. “We were having caracaras run full speed to participate,” Harrington says. The challenge was keeping other birds away while one worked the box. The birds were able to solve the puzzles, which involved things like rattling a plank to knock down a bit of mutton or pulling a twig out from under a platform with mutton on it. They were even able to solve a tricky one that required them to punch a hole in a piece of tissue that obscured the treata task that eluded some cockatoos. 

In fact, 10 of 15 falcons solved all the puzzles, most of them within two sessions with the box. So Harrington designed eight new, harder tasks, but soon learned that some required unnatural movements for caracaras. She plans to keep trying to find tasks that reveal what they’re physically and mentally capable of. “They’re totally willing to show us,” she says, “as long as we can design things that are good enough to allow them to show us.”

The raccoon smart box

Why are raccoons so good at city living? One theory is that it’s because they’re flexible thinkers. To test this idea, UC Berkeley cognitive ecologist Lauren Stanton adapted a classic laboratory experiment, called the reversal learning task. For this test, an animal is rewarded for learning to consistently choose one of two options, but then the correct answer is reversed so that the other option brings the reward. Flexible thinkers are better at reacting to the reversals. “They’re going to be more able to switch their choices, and over time, they should be faster,” Stanton says.

To test the learning skills of wild urban raccoons in Laramie, Wyoming, Stanton and her team built a set of “smart boxes” to deploy on the outskirts of the city, each with an antenna to identify raccoons that had previously been captured and microchipped. Inside the box, raccoons found two large buttonssourced from an arcade supplierthat they could push, one of which delivered a reward. Hidden in a separate compartment, an inexpensive Raspberry Pi computer board, powered by a motorcycle battery, recorded which buttons the raccoons pushed and switched the reward button as soon as they made nine out of 10 correct choices. A motor turned a disc with holes in it below a funnel to dispense the reward of dog kibble. 

Many raccoonsand some skunkswere surprisingly eager to participate, which made getting clean data a challenge. “We had multiple raccoons just shove inside the device at the same time, like, three, four animals all trying to compete to get into it,” Stanton says. She also had to employ stronger adhesive to hold the buttons on after a few particularly enthusiastic raccoons ripped them off. (She had placed some kibble inside the transparent buttons to encourage the animals to push them.) 

Surprisingly, the smart boxes revealed that the shyer, more docile raccoons were the best learners. 

The jumping spider eye tracker

The thing about jumping spiders that intrigues behavioral ecologist Elizabeth Jakob is their demeanor. “They look so curious all the time,” she says. Unlike other arachnids, which spend most of their time motionless in their web, jumping spiders are out and about, hunting prey and courting mates. Jakob is interested in what goes on inside their sesame-seed-size brains. What matters to these tiny spiders? 

BARRETT KLEIN

For clues, Jakob watches their eyes, particularly their two principal ones, which have high-acuity color vision at the center of their boomerang-­shaped retinas. She uses a tool evolved from an ophthalmoscope that was specially modified to study the eyes of jumping spiders more than a half-century ago. Generations of scientists, including Jakob and her students at UMass Amherst, have built on this design, slowly morphing it into a mini movie theater that tracks the retinal tubes moving and twisting behind the spiders’ principal eyes as they watch. 

A spider is tethered in front of the tracker while a video of, say, a cricket silhouette is projected through the tracker’s lenses into the spider’s eyes. A beam of infrared light is simultaneously reflected off the spider’s retinas, back through the lenses, and recorded by a camera. The recording of those reflections is then superimposed on the video, showing exactly what the spider was looking at. Jakob found that just about the only thing more interesting to a jumping spider than a potential cricket dinner is a black spot that is growing larger. Could it be an approaching predator? The spider’s lower-resolution secondary eyes catch a glimpse of the looming spot in the corner of the video screen and prompt the primary eyes to shift away from the cricket to get a better look. 

Jakob’s eye tracker has also inspired other scientists’ creative experiments. Visual ecologist Nate Morehouse of the University of Cincinnati used the tracker to reveal that females of one jumping spider species aren’t all that interested in male suitors’ flashy red masks and brilliant green legsit’s the males’ orange knees that they focus on during courtship displays. “To get this insight into what they actually care about is really cool,” Jakob says.

The hermit crab escape room

Hermit crabs won’t just settle for the best empty snail shell they can findthey also remodel their homes. Hermit crab shells get better with time as each subsequent inhabitant makes home improvements, like widening the entranceway or carving out a more open, spacious interior. 

Dartmouth’s Mark Laidre has been studying crabs and their shell preferences for more than a decade. So when he realized he could use a micro-CT x-ray machine to create a three-­dimensional digital scan of a shell, he immediately began envisioning the experimental possibilities. To better understand the choices crabs make, he scanned shells that crabs clearly favored and then made alterations before 3D-printing them in plastic. “We could add little elements onto those that changed the external or the internal architecture,” Laidre says.

Next, he presented crabs with a dilemma. They were placed alone inside a box with a small exit (as shown below) and given a choice between two shells: a really nice, spacious model but with spikes added to the outside so that the crabs would not fit through the exit, and a shell that they would fit through but with uncomfortable spiny protrusions added to the inside. Could they figure out how to get out? “It’s effectively an escape room,” Laidre says.

When not trapped, crabs preferred the comfy shell with protrusions on the outside, claws down. But hermit crabs are social animals that prefer to be with other crabs, giving them motivation to escape solitary confinement. By the end of the day, more than a third of the trapped crabs had sized up their situation, moved from the crummy shell, and escaped. 

Solving a completely novel problem takes a certain amount of mental wherewithal that crabs don’t often get credit for. And Laidre suspects that cognitive capability may be what separated the successful escapees from the crabs that didn’t make it out of the escape room. 

The bee insominator

Sleepy people tend to be poor communicators. Entomologist Barrett Klein of the University of Wisconsin–La Crosse wanted to know if the same was true for drowsy honeybees. These social insects have a sophisticated communication system, known as the waggle dance, to convey to other bees where to find nectar. Are tired bees worse wagglers? To find out, Klein needed a way to keep bees up all night.

A metal disc attached to the back of a bee, seen on the right side of the photo, is painted yellow to hide whether it is made of steel that will be jostled by the magnets to keep her awake, or copper that won’t react to the magnets.
BARRETT KLEIN

He thought of shaking the hive, but this would just send all the bees angrily flying out. He wanted to keep some bees from sleeping while the rest slumbered peacefully, so that their dances could be compared the next day. Klein considered putting individual bees in vials that would be periodically shaken, but he couldn’t be sure if changes in their dance were due to sleepiness or isolation. He also thought of poking bees, aiming streams of air at individual bees, or even shining focused infrared beams at their faces. “Try to do that on all these bees facing all different directions,” Klein said. “It would be insane.” 

Eventually he landed on using neodymium rare earth magnets to jostle bees that had metal wafers glued between their wings with pine resin. “I had to make a hive that was narrow, with only two-millimeter-thick glass on either side, and have the magnets very close but not touching or scraping the glass,” Klein says. The biggest catch with this contraptiondubbed the Insominatorwas that Klein had to stay up all night rolling the banks of magnets back and forth alongside the hive three times a minute, depriving himself of sleep along with the bees.

But it paid off: He found that sleepy bees are indeed sloppy dancers. They did shorter dances that were less accurate with directiona miscommunication that could send hivemates on a flowerless search. In a follow-up study, Klein showed that other bees were not impressed with the drowsy displays and would promptly leave to find better wagglers. 

Happily, he has since upgraded the Insominator to automatically roll the magnets.

Betsy Mason is a freelance science journalist and editor based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Google DeepMind is making its AI text watermark open source

Google DeepMind has developed a tool for identifying AI-generated text and is making it available open source. 

The tool, called SynthID, is part of a larger family of watermarking tools for generative AI outputs. The company unveiled a watermark for images last year, and it has since rolled out one for AI-generated video. In May, Google announced it was applying SynthID in its Gemini app and online chatbots and made it freely available on Hugging Face, an open repository of AI data sets and models. Watermarks have emerged as an important tool to help people determine when something is AI generated, which could help counter harms such as misinformation. 

“Now, other [generative] AI developers will be able to use this technology to help them detect whether text outputs have come from their own [large language models], making it easier for more developers to build AI responsibly,” says Pushmeet Kohli, the vice president of research at Google DeepMind. 

SynthID works by adding an invisible watermark directly into the text when it is generated by an AI model. 

Large language models work by breaking down language into “tokens” and then predicting which token is most likely to follow the other. Tokens can be a single character, word, or part of a phrase, and each one gets a percentage score for how likely it is to be the appropriate next word in a sentence. The higher the percentage, the more likely the model is going to use it. 

SynthID introduces additional information at the point of generation by changing the probability that tokens will be generated, explains Kohli. 

To detect the watermark and determine whether text has been generated by an AI tool, SynthID compares the expected probability scores for words in watermarked and unwatermarked text. 

Google DeepMind found that using the SynthID watermark did not compromise the quality, accuracy, creativity, or speed of generated text. That conclusion was drawn from a massive live experiment of SynthID’s performance after the watermark was deployed in its Gemini products and used by millions of people. Gemini allows users to rank the quality of the AI model’s responses with a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. 

Kohli and his team analyzed the scores for around 20 million watermarked and unwatermarked chatbot responses. They found that users did not notice a difference in quality and usefulness between the two. The results of this experiment are detailed in a paper published in Nature today. Currently SynthID for text only works on content generated by Google’s models, but the hope is that open-sourcing it will expand the range of tools it’s compatible with. 

SynthID does have other limitations. The watermark was resistant to some tampering, such as cropping text and light editing or rewriting, but it was less reliable when AI-generated text had been rewritten or translated from one language into another. It is also less reliable in responses to prompts asking for factual information, such as the capital city of France. This is because there are fewer opportunities to adjust the likelihood of the next possible word in a sentence without changing facts. 

“Achieving reliable and imperceptible watermarking of AI-generated text is fundamentally challenging, especially in scenarios where LLM outputs are near deterministic, such as factual questions or code generation tasks,” says Soheil Feizi, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, who has studied the vulnerabilities of AI watermarking.  

Feizi says Google DeepMind’s decision to open-source its watermarking method is a positive step for the AI community. “It allows the community to test these detectors and evaluate their robustness in different settings, helping to better understand the limitations of these techniques,” he adds. 

There is another benefit too, says João Gante, a machine-learning engineer at Hugging Face. Open-sourcing the tool means anyone can grab the code and incorporate watermarking into their model with no strings attached, Gante says. This will improve the watermark’s privacy, as only the owner will know its cryptographic secrets. 

“With better accessibility and the ability to confirm its capabilities, I want to believe that watermarking will become the standard, which should help us detect malicious use of language models,” Gante says. 

But watermarks are not an all-purpose solution, says Irene Solaiman, Hugging Face’s head of global policy. 

“Watermarking is one aspect of safer models in an ecosystem that needs many complementing safeguards. As a parallel, even for human-generated content, fact-checking has varying effectiveness,” she says. 

These companies are creating food out of thin air

Dried cells—it’s what’s for dinner. At least that’s what a new crop of biotech startups, armed with carbon-guzzling bacteria and plenty of capital, are hoping to convince us. Their claims sound too good to be true: They say they can make food out of thin air.

But that’s exactly how certain soil-dwelling bacteria work. In nature, these “autotrophic” microbes survive on a meager diet of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor drawn directly from the atmosphere. In the lab, they do the same, eating up waste carbon and reproducing so enthusiastically that their populations swell to fill massive fermentation tanks. Siphoned off and dehydrated, that bacterial biomass becomes a protein-rich powder that’s chock-full of nutrients and essentially infinitely renewable. 

Lisa Dyson is the founder of one of these startups, Air Protein. When she talks about the inspiration for her company, she often cites NASA research from the 1960s. Back then the agency, hoping to keep astronauts satiated on long-haul space journeys, explored the idea of growing bacterial cuisine on board before concluding, ultimately, that astronauts might not find it psychologically palatable. “Earth is actually like a spaceship,” Dyson explained in a 2016 TED Talk. “We have limited space and limited resources, and on Earth, we really do need to figure out how to recycle our carbon better.” Could these bacteria be the answer?

For now, the answer is a definite maybe. Some 25 companies worldwide have already taken up the challenge, hoping to turn abundant carbon dioxide into nutritious “air protein.” The ultimate goal of the people who work at these companies is to engineer a food source far lower in emissions than conventional farming—perhaps even one that could disrupt agriculture altogether. To do that, they’ll need to overcome some very real challenges. They’ll need to scale up production of their protein to compete commercially, and do it in a way that doesn’t create more emissions or other environmental issues. Even trickier: They’ll need to surmount the ick people may experience when contemplating a bacteria-based meal. 

Some of these companies are focused on industrial animal feed, fish meal, and pet food—products with slimmer profit margins but less exacting consumers and fewer regulatory hurdles. Human food, however, is where the real money—and impact—is. That’s why several companies, like Dyson’s Air Protein, are focused on it. In 2023 Air Protein opened its first “air farm” in San Leandro, California, a hub for the commercial food production industry, and announced a strategic development agreement with one of the largest agricultural commodity traders in the world, ADM, to collaborate on research and development and build an even larger, commercial-­scale plant. The company’s “Air Chicken” (which, to be clear, is not actual chicken) is slowly making its way toward grocery store shelves and dinner tables. But that’s only the beginning. Other companies are making progress at harnessing bacteria to spin air into protein, too—and someday soon, these microbial protein patties could be as common as veggie burgers. 

An alternative to alternative proteins

The environmental case for microbial protein is clear enough; it’s a simple calculus of arable land, energy, and mouths to feed. The global demand for protein is already at an all-time high, and with the population expected to grow to 9.7 billion by 2050, traditional agriculture will have a hard time keeping up, especially as it battles climate change, soil degradation, and disease. A growing global middle class is expected to raise levels of meat consumption, but factory-farmed meat is one of the leading drivers of greenhouse-­gas emissions. Although protein-rich alternatives like soy are far more sustainable, most of the soy grown in the world is destined for use as animal feed—not for human consumption. 

In contrast, bacterial “crops” convert carbon dioxide directly into protein, in a process that uses much less land and water. Microbial protein “farms” could operate year-round anywhere renewable electricity is cheap—even in places like Chile’s Atacama Desert, where farming is nearly impossible. That would take the strain off agricultural land—and potentially even give us the chance to return it to the wild. 

 “We are liberating food production from the constraints of agriculture,” Juha-Pekka Pitkänen, cofounder and CTO of the Finnish startup Solar Foods, explained in a recent company video. In April 2024 Solar Foods opened a demonstration factory in Vantaa, a short train ride from the Helsinki airport. It’s here, at Factory 01, that the company hopes to produce enough of its goldenrod-yellow protein powder, Solein, to prove itself viable—some 160 metric tons a year. 

Like Air Protein, Solar Foods begins its production process with naturally occurring hydrogen-­oxidizing bacteria that metabolize carbon dioxide, the way plants do. In sterile bioreactors similar to the fermentation vats used in the brewing industry, the bacteria flourish in water on a steady diet of CO2, hydrogen, and a few additional nutrients, like nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and potassium. As they multiply, the bacteria thicken the water into a slurry, which is continuously siphoned off and dehydrated, creating a protein-rich powder that can be used as an ingredient in alternative meats, dairy products, and snacks.

“We are liberating food production from the constraints of agriculture.”

Juha-Pekka Pitkänen, Solar Foods

As Pitkänen explains, his research team at Finland’s state-owned VTT Technical Research Centre knew these microorganisms existed in the wild. To find a viable candidate, they narrowed down the natural conditions where one might be found, and then—as is the Finnish way—put on some hiking boots and got out there. “In Finland, you don’t have to go very far to find nature,” he says, shrugging. “You can find something useful in a ditch.”

Still, not just any old ditch bacteria would do. Their target needed to both consume carbon dioxide and continue to thrive even after it was isolated from the microbial community it coexisted with, or competed against, in nature. “We were looking for a pacifist microorganism,” Pitkänen says. “It’s quite rare.” In a wet soil-dwelling bacterium of the genus Xanthobacter,they found their match: a nontoxic, lab-friendly microbe palatable enoughto slip into myriad food preparations.

At Solar Foods’ annual summer company party this year, their in-house chef served a bright-yellow lasagna made with Solein. The powder, Pitkänen says, makes an excellent flour for fresh pasta dough and works surprisingly well as a cream replacement in ice cream. It’s rich in carotenoids, so it can taste “carroty,” and it’s full of B12 and bioavailable iron, which makes it great for vegetarians. But the product isn’t a plug-and-play replacement for milk, eggs, or even meat. Rather, it’s an ingredient like any other, competing on nutritional value, cost, and texture. The company’s main competition, Pitkänen told me, isn’t other novel proteins—it’s soy meal. 

“In the last 10 years, the whole alternative-protein landscape has changed dramatically,” says Hannah Lester, an EU-based regulatory consultant to the novel-food industry. Soy patties and bean burgers are now ubiquitous to the point of being passé; today’s cutting-edge alternative proteins are cultivated from animal cells and coaxed from specially designed microorganisms using techniques originally developed to produce vaccines and other pharmaceuticals. “Molecular farmers” tend fields of bright-pink soybeans whose genetic makeup has been doctored so that they contain proteins identical to ones pigs make. “It’s really coming to the point where companies are utilizing the most incredible technology to produce food,” she says.

A fermentation process by any other name

The space Air Protein and Solar Foods occupy is so new that language hasn’t quite coalesced around it. Some in the alternative-protein industry evocatively call it “cellular agriculture,” but it’s also referred to as “gas fermentation,” emphasizing the process, and “biomass fermentation,” emphasizing the end product. These terms are distinct from “precision fermentation,” which refers to another buzzy bioprocess that employs genetically modified yeasts, other fungi, and bacteria to produce proteins indistinguishable from their animal-­derived counterparts. Precision fermentation isn’t a new technique: The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use to produce insulin in 1982, and 80% of the rennet used in cheese is now made this way, avoiding the need to harvest the enzymes from the stomach lining of calves. 

Rather than coaxing microorganisms to produce the animal-­derived proteins we’re already familiar with, companies like Air Protein and Solar Foods are proposing that we skip the intermediary and simply eat the microbes themselves, dried into a powder. Microbial biomass made with these new fermentation technologies is fibrous, vitamin-rich, and versatile. More important, these bacteria eat carbon, require very little land and water, and need no fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers. According to a life-cycle analysis produced by the University of Helsinki and the Natural Resources Institute Finland, microbial protein is between 53% and 100% more efficient to produce than animal protein.

Of course, that’s a wide range. Finland’s electricity mix favors renewables like hydropower and wind; in a country more reliant on fossil fuels, the environmental impact of making Solein, or any microbial protein, could be much higher. Growing microbes in bulk means creating the perfect conditions for them to thrive—and, as with any industrial production process, that requires factories, equipment, and power to run the entire system. It also requires a generous supply of elements like carbon dioxide and hydrogen. 

white cloud hovering over a sugar cone on blue sky background

ERIC MONGEON/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

Nearly all the world’s human-made hydrogen, a key element in the bacterial diet, comes from fossil-fuel production, and “green” hydrogen, which Solar Foods uses in its demonstration factory, comes from using renewable-powered electrolysis to split water, still an uncommon process. According to David Tze, CEO of the microbial-protein company NovoNutrients, which is currently working to branch out from industrial fish meal to human food, the segment of the microbial-protein industry powered by hydrogen is likely to set up shop wherever hydrogen is cheapest.

Carbon sources for this technology are likewise varied. If a company wants to use captured waste carbon, it will need to broker relationships with industries to connect its protein factories with those sources. Another alternative, sourcing carbon drawn from the atmosphere using direct air capture, or DAC, is still new, energy intensive, and expensive. For the time being, Air Protein uses the same commercially available carbon dioxide used in sparkling water, and while Solar Foods uses DAC for about 15% of the carbon it needs at its demonstration factory, the rest is sourced commercially. Both companies hope to adjust their carbon sources as they scale, and as DAC becomes more commercially available. 

Even if the bacteria were fed a diet of entirely captured carbon, they wouldn’t be permanently removing it from the atmosphere, since we release carbon when we digest food. Still, Tze says, “we’re giving a second life to CO2, and allowing it to add so much more positive value to the economy.” More important, the bacteria-based products drastically reduce the emissions footprint of protein. According to a 2016 study by the World Resources Institute, producing a single ton of beef creates around 2,400 metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions. For plant-based sources of protein, like pulses, the number is much less than 300—but for microbial proteins it may ultimately be in the single digits. “If someone can eat a bite of our product instead of a bite of anything else,” Tze says, “it could be one or three orders of magnitude difference.”

Of course, none of this works if microbial protein remains a niche industry, or if the product is too expensive for the average consumer. Even running at capacity, Solar Foods’ demonstration factory can only produce enough protein to provide the entire population of Finland with one meal a year. From a business standpoint, Pitkänen says, that’s good news: There’s plenty of room to grow. But if they hope to make a dent in the long-term sustainability of our food systems, companies like Solar Foods and Air Protein will need to scale up by orders of magnitude too. It remains to be seen if they will be able to meet that challenge—and if consumers will be ready. 

Even though both the process (fermentation) and the material (living microorganisms) are as natural as the world and as old as time, the idea of whipping air and microbes together to make dinner will strike many people as unthinkably weird. Food is cultural, after all—and especially in the US, protein is political. In interviews, Dyson takes pains to call the bacteria behind Air Protein’s process “cultures,” emphasizing the connection to traditional fermented foods like yogurt, beer, or miso. On the Solar Foods website, chic people drink yellow Solein smoothies at tasteful Nordic tables. No bacteria are pictured.

Solar Foods is still awaiting final regulatory approval in the EU and the US, but Solein is already for sale in Singapore, where it’s been whipped into chocolate gelato and hazelnut-­strawberry snack bars. If Singaporeans took issue with eating powdered bacteria, they made little show of it. When it comes to food biotechnology, the most progressive countries in the world are those with the least arable land. Singapore, which imports nearly everything, hopes to meet 30% of its own nutritional needs by 2030. Israel, a semi-arid country with limited landmass, has invested heavily in biomanufacturing, as has the Netherlands, where farmland has been heavily depleted by chemical fertilizers. But even in less constrained countries, “agriculture is on its knees because of climate change,” says Lester, the regulatory expert. “At some point, sadly, we’re just not going to be able to produce food in the traditional way. We do need alternatives. We need government support. We need fundamental policy change in how we fund food.”

This sentiment seems to be resonating in the United States. In September 2022, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to advance biomanufacturing by expanding training, streamlining regulation, and bolstering federal investment in biotechnology R&D, specifically citing “boost[ing] sustainable biomass production” as a key objective. In 2021, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency launched the Cornucopia program, asking four research teams—one of which includes Dyson’s company, Air Protein—to create a complete nutrition system, small enough to fit on a Humvee, that can harvest nitrogen and carbon from the air and use it to produce microbial rations in the form of shakes, bars, gels, and jerky. Microbial protein may never be deployed on long-haul space trips as NASA dreams, but it seems that the government is betting it could keep us alive on Spaceship Earth—that is, if the crew doesn’t reject it outright.

Claire L. Evans is a writer and musician exploring ecology, technology, and culture.

The quest to figure out farming on Mars

Once upon a time, water flowed across the surface of Mars. Waves lapped against shorelines, strong winds gusted and howled, and driving rain fell from thick, cloudy skies. It wasn’t really so different from our own planet 4 billion years ago, except for one crucial detail—its size. Mars is about half the diameter of Earth, and that’s where things went wrong.

The Martian core cooled quickly, soon leaving the planet without a magnetic field. This, in turn, left it vulnerable to the solar wind, which swept away much of its atmosphere. Without a critical shield from the sun’s ultraviolet rays, Mars could not retain its heat. Some of the oceans evaporated, and the subsurface absorbed the rest, with only a bit of water left behind and frozen at its poles. Unrelenting radiation, along with electrostatic discharge from planet-wide dust storms, drove chemical reactions in the arid Martian dirt, ultimately leaving it rich in pesky toxic salts called perchlorates. If ever a blade of grass grew on Mars, those days are over. 

But could they begin again? What would it take to grow plants to feed future astronauts on Mars? In science fiction, it isn’t much of a problem. Matt Damon’s character in the 2015 movie The Martian simply had to build a greenhouse, spread out human excrement, add water, and wait. The film got a lot of things right—bacteria in the human biome will be useful—but it didn’t account for the perchlorates. The potato plants that sustained him would never have grown, but even if they had, two years of eating contaminated, carcinogenic potatoes would have nuked his thyroid, boxed his kidneys, and damaged his cells—though he might not have realized it, because perchlorates are also neurotoxic. It would have been Matt Damon’s finest death scene.

At the time Andy Weir was writing the book on which the film was based, no one really knew just how plentiful and ubiquitous the chemicals were. Though they were first discovered by NASA’s Phoenix lander in 2008, it took subsequent rovers, and compilation of historic data, to confirm that not only are perchlorates everywhere on Mars, but they are, in fact, abundant. Overall, Mars’s surface has perchlorate concentrations of about 0.5% by weight. On Earth, the concentration is often a millionth that amount.

For NASA, that’s a devastating issue. The ultimate goal of the agency’s Artemis program is to land astronauts on Mars. And for the last decade, the agency has pursued a long-term plan of establishing an “Earth independent” human presence on the Red Planet. More ambitiously, if less plausibly, Elon Musk, the chief executive officer of SpaceX, has stated that he expects a million people to live on Mars in the next 20 years.

Any notion of an independent Mars means the perchlorate problem must be solved, because humans have to eat. Resupply missions are, by definition, Earth dependent, and hydroponics are inadequate for feeding people in large numbers.

“We can sustain crews of 10, maybe 20, very comfortably with hydroponics, but it doesn’t scale much larger than that,” says Rafael Loureiro, an associate professor at Winston-Salem State University who specializes in plant stress physiology. Hydroponics systems must be built on Earth, and they require energy-inefficient pumps and constant monitoring for bacterial and fungal infections. “Once the system is infected, you lose your entire crop, because it’s a closed-loop system,” he says. “You have to discard everything and reset.”

The only real path forward, says Loureiro, is farming the land: “The perchlorate problem is something that we will inevitably have to deal with.” 

There is no soil on Mars. Just dusty, poisonous regolith—the mixture of loose rock, sand, and dust that makes up the planetary surface. On Earth, the regolith is replete with billions of years’ worth of broken-­down organic biomass—soil—that just doesn’t exist on Mars. To grow food there, we can’t just drop seeds in the ground and add water. We will need to create a layer of soil that can support life. And to do that, we first have to get rid of those toxic salts.   

There’s more than one way to remove perchlorates. You can burn them out; the compounds break down around 750 °F, but for that, you’ll likely need power sources like nuclear reactors, and a lot of ancillary equipment. You can literally wash the perchlorates from the regolith, but, Loureiro explains, “the amount of water that you need to do that is ungodly, and water is a limited resource as far as we know.” That process would likewise take a significant amount of energy. “That’s something that’s not feasible long term,” he tells me. The ideal solution is not something dependent on heavy machinery. Rather, it would rely on something small—microscopic, in fact. 

NASA and the National Science Foundation are funding research into how future astronauts on Mars might use microbial life not only to remove perchlorates from the planet’s dirt, but also to shape and enrich the regolith into arable soil. The work builds on years of effort to do the same thing in different places on Earth, and if successful, it will improve farming on two planets for the price of one.

“If we are able to grow plants in Martian regolith, we can do it anywhere on Earth.”

Rafael Loureiro, associate professor, Winston-Salem State University

It’s easy to dismiss the idea of Martian agriculture as a distant issue for a fictional future, but scientists must solve these sorts of problems before the rockets launch, not after humans are on their way. And as with much of NASA’s research, solving problems “up there” applies directly to life “down here.” Simply put, what we learn from Mars could find use here on Earth to turn infertile wastelands into rich agricultural zones. On Earth, natural perchlorate levels are highest in desert regions.  In other areas, high levels are usually due to industrial waste. The toxins harm Earthen plants as much as they would prospective Martian ones. Which means it’s not just NASA that is interested in remediation—even the US Department of Agriculture is paying for such research. 

“If I’m able to grow plants in a completely alien environment, the technology that I create to do that is one hundred [percent] transferrable to places here on Earth that are food insecure. To places that are extremely arid and unfit for agriculture. To places that have been affected by mining companies that have polluted the soil,” says Loureiro.

“If we are able to grow plants in Martian regolith, we can do it anywhere on Earth.”

Thinking small

The science laboratory at Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute looks like a large version of every biology classroom in America: long black tables, myriad microscopes, racks of vials. When you look closer, though, you realize that the microscopes are a little fancier, and there are high-tech instruments like gas chromatographs and organic carbon analyzers in the mix.

Anca Delgado, a microbiologist, meets me at the entrance, where we don white lab coats and goggles. “We don’t plan to splatter you with anything today, but we want to be safe,” she says. 

Earth’s soil is wet and wiggly, teeming with life, and its mineral composition is highly diverse, thanks in part to tectonic action, microbial activity, and the rock cycle. But you can just look at Mars and tell something is way off: The core of the diminutive planet cooled before much of its iron had a chance to sink to its center. As a result, Martian regolith is packed with iron-rich minerals, which over time have oxidized. The planet’s exterior is literally rusted. Without water, it changes primarily via mechanical weathering, driven by wind and temperature; and without life, it is entirely inorganic.

Despite all this, Delgado, her graduate students, and colleagues across the country have found a possible path to solving the perchlorate problem and making Martian regolith arable. 

Perchlorates are salts made out of a negatively charged ion of chlorine and oxygen, bonded with a positive ion such as sodium. (There is also perchloric acid, which contains that same negatively charged ion.)Where perchlorates are abundant on Earth, it is often because we put them there. Everything from military manufacturing to the fireworks spectacular at Disneyland has contributed. They weren’t the only chlorinated compounds the US went wild about around the time of World War II. The United States for decades made heavy use of organic chlorinated solvents in everything from dry cleaning and metal degreasing to clothing dyes and medicine. 

MEREDITH MIOTKE | PHOTO: NASA/JPL-CALTECH/MSSS

Industry overall had a laissez-­faire attitude toward the management of waste products, leading to contamination of the nation’s groundwater. “After the Clean Water Act and later legislation in the 1970s prevented or banned the use of some of these chemicals, that’s when we discovered the extent of this contamination,” Delgado tells me. Some water pollution was obvious. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio routinely caught on fire. But other contamination remained hidden. Residents of Love Canal, a neighborhood in the city of Niagara Falls, New York, reported abnormally high rates of leukemia markers and birth defects before anyone recognized that the 20,000 tons of chemicals dumped into a canal in the 1940s might be responsible. 

It wasn’t enough to stop dumping toxic chemicals in waterways and landfills, however. Scientists had to find alternatives—Disney developed a fireworks launcher in 2004 that eliminated its perchlorate emissions, for example—and they also had to find ways to clean up the pollution that was already there. In the case of perchlorates, they can do so chemically. Rain and artificial irrigation can wash the compounds away, though this only transfers the problem to groundwater. Another strategy is to grow woody plants like willow and cottonwood in contaminated lands. These draw perchlorates from the ground and can then be harvested, removing them from the contamination cycle.

Another biological approach is to go small, using microorganisms to turn toxic chemicals into harmless ones. The poster child for this concept is a bacterium called Dehalococcoides mccartyi, which specifically feeds on organic chlorinated solvents and spits out dechlorinated ethene (a simple, nontoxic hydrocarbon) and harmless chloride ions, which are found naturally in the environment. Delgado studied D. mccartyi during her doctoral program. Her interests were strictly terrestrial. But the process, while highly effective, was not perfect. It took an incredibly long time to work in nature.

“We were looking at treatment times of months to decades,” Delgado tells me. Her research sought to culture D. mccartyi at much higher densities, which would translate to improved rates of action and faster treatment times for abandoned American waste sites. Her work has since been applied at multiple field sites in Arizona, New Jersey, and California.

Delgado walks me through the lab, which is arranged in an open plan. From the Biodesign Institute’s inception in 2004, she says, the idea was to bring researchers who would not normally interact into the same physical space. That means microbiologists working with wastewater samples, sludges, and soils are next door to scientists who do DNA origami. 

The leap from cleaning up Earth’s toxic waste dumps to making the Martian surface arable began in 2017, a month before Delgado started her new job at the university. She had read an article about Mars and idly looked into the chemical elements that had been detected so far on that planet. “I like microbes, and I wanted to see if Mars could fulfill their nutritional requirements,” she says. “I’m sort of a sci-fi geek.”

While attending a university retreat designed to get researchers talking about their work, she decided to “put it out there” that “I would be interested at some point to look at whether microorganisms would be able to grow in Martian conditions.” 

A paper she read in the journal Nature finally spurred her into action. Soil organic matter, which is necessary for growing plants, is itself made of decomposing plant and animal material. That would seem to preclude Martian agriculture from ever being achieved. But researchers had demonstrated for the first time that you can actually form soil organic matter with microorganisms alone—no decaying plants needed. The microbes themselves, and their tissues and excretions, could synthesize soil.  

Delgado realized that perchlorates could be the initial catalyst, the thing that microbes could thrive on and break down. Eventually the process could make the Martian regolith ready for planting. 

She applied for an Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation grant from the National Science Foundation to explore the idea. NASA recognized her proposal’s implications and co-funded the grant; the project received $1.9 million total in 2022. It was intended as a multiyear, multi-institution effort, with Delgado as principal investigator. The plan was that ASU, the lead institution, would explore using microbes to lower the concentration of perchlorates in Mars-like dirt. The University of Arizona in Tucson would investigate the soil organic matter formed by those microbes during their breakdown of the perchlorates, and the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida, would figure out how to grow the plants.

Testing the dirt

One problem with studying Martian regolith is that we simply don’t have any of it here on Earth. NASA’s entire campaign of Mars exploration for 50 years has been in service of characterizing the Red Planet as a possible site for life. The agency has long sought to get a pristine sample of regolith from Mars into a clean room on Earth for analysis. But so far it has failed to develop a credible mission to do so. In April, Bill Nelson, the administrator of NASA, essentially admitted defeat, asking outside research institutions and the private sector for proposals on how an affordable Mars sample return might be achieved.

In the meantime, scientists have to make do with simulated Martian dirt to study ways to diminish levels of perchlorates, including heat, radiation, and microbial methods.

Delgado’s lab at ASU includes an incubator and a confocal microscope inside a custom-built anaerobic chamber, for analyzing microorganisms that are sensitive to oxygen. At a research station lined with sealed glassware of various sizes, plus syringes, pipettes, and other equipment, she introduces me to two of her doctoral students: Alba Medina, who is studying environmental engineering, and Briana Paiz, who studies biological design. Both are lead researchers on the project.

In sealed bottles on the table are solutions of various colors ranging from tan to black. In the more transparent solutions, a red material sits at the bottom that looks suspiciously similar in color to the dirt on Mars. “These are called microcosm bottles,” Delgado says. “To maintain the integrity of the chemicals and composition, anything that needs to be put in or taken out of the bottles has to be done by syringe and needle.”

The bottles contain nutrients, water (a requirement for life), and artificial Mars dirt. With no Martian regolith available, Delgado uses an “analogue” called MGS-1—Mars Global Simulant—with chemical and mineral composition, proportions, and physical properties engineered to match up with the specs measured by the Mars rover Curiosity. The simulant is made by a company called Space Resource Technologies and is publicly available. You can buy it online.

“It’s the most expensive dirt you’ll ever buy,” Delgado says with a laugh. After handing me a latex glove so I don’t get my hands dirty, she offers me a bag. It feels like the sort of sand you’d expect to find at beaches too expensive to visit. It is very fine; it looks and feels like cocoa powder.

All researchers have to add to the microcosm bottles are perchlorates, which come as a white powder. With that, they have Mars in a jar. 

“Then,” says Paiz, “we add the microbes.” She shows me around the various experiments. “Those microcosm bottles have Dechloromonas, and the ones in the back are actually pure cultures of Haloferax denitrificans”—a bacterium that thrives in salty environments. The team is also experimenting with myriad microbes in mixed communities, each interacting with different elements and compounds, yielding different chemical compositions in their respective microcosms. It’s why some bottles are the color of chocolate and others are the color of peanut butter.

“They all started off the same color,” says Medina. “The black color of this one is like a visual signature confirmation of activity by sulfate-reducing microorganisms, for example.” 

Bacteria eat the things they like and ignore the things they don’t. Delgado’s group is looking for the ideal combinations not only to eliminate perchlorates, but to do so efficiently. Perchlorates present opportunities as well. When Delgado’s microbes break those compounds down, they form chloride and oxygen. 

Astronauts could potentially use them to produce a “major source of oxygen on Mars,” says Delgado. “Maybe the biggest source. One of the things we have been thinking about is how we could capture it.”

Microbial cultures and strains need not be brought to Mars in giant vats. Microorganisms grow exponentially fast. With less than a gram of material—not even the weight of a paper clip—a scientist on Mars could propagate it infinitely. A few drops in a test tube could theoretically yield entire orchards.

But the ideal microbial transport systems are astronauts themselves. Our bodies already contain perchlorate-eating microbes in our gut biomes. Delgado’s group does its perchlorate research using microbial communities from sludge acquired from wastewater plants. So Matt Damon’s character in The Martian was, to an extent, on the right track. 

But even if the proper microbes for breaking down perchlorates are present, that does not mean they will be able to do their job. “Those communities already have perchlorate reducers, but they also come in with friends and enemies,” says Delgado. The thousands of strains of bacteria in our microbiomes compete for nutrients, making them inefficient. The trick is to find ways to help microbes that eat the bad stuff and reduce the population of microbes that get in the way. 

For now, regolith in very small batches is prepped at her lab. Successful perchlorate reduction brings the concentration from about five grams per kilogram (the original 0.5%) to five to 20 micrograms per kilogram—or less. Existing literature suggests that this concentration range does not inhibit seed germination. For comparison, soils in the Arizona desert have a background concentration of perchlorate ranging from 0.3 to five micrograms per kilogram. In the Atacama Desert, that figure can be up to 2,500 micrograms per kilogram. 

But removing perchlorates is not enough for Martian plants to thrive. “Once you get perchlorates out, you’re still left with the issue of how to convert Mars regolith to soil,” says Andrew Palmer, an associate professor of biology at the Florida Institute of Technology and a co-­investigator on Delgado’s project. 

MEREDITH MIOTKE | PHOTO: NASA/JPL-CALTECH/MSSS

Palmer explains that regolith, with or without perchlorates, is an inert substrate. Soil, strictly speaking, is a substrate that has been acted on by biology and acts on it in turn. But in the regolith simulant—and one day, perhaps, in actual Martian regolith—the microbial activity responsible for eliminating perchlorates might also be able to transform minerals and release other useful plant nutrients like potassium and phosphorus. Finding the best way to do this is one of the Delgado team’s goals in studying different microbial strains and sludge.

“The biological process for removing perchlorates should not only get rid of them, but should also help us put other nutrients into the soil,” Palmer tells me. “We are trying to put an ecological cycle into the regolith.”

Early signs are promising, but it is a years-long endeavor. Researchers have reduced perchlorates in regolith samples. They have increased concentrations of organics in samples. They have changed the structure of regolith. They have grown plants in it. Their goal is to do all those things at once. “The whole grant, the whole process with everybody involved, is turning regolith with perchlorates into soil that is amenable to plant growth,” says Palmer, “and that’s very powerful.” 

If all goes well, the regolith simulant should have a total organic carbon concentration two to five times higher than it did at the outset, thanks to the organic residues formed by microbes. Ultimately, it should also have better water-­holding capacity as the organic carbons change the physical properties of the otherwise clay-like regolith, making it less dense and more beneficial for plants and their root systems.

Once the regolith is ready and the scientists satisfied, the simulated Mars material heads to Palmer’s laboratory in Florida to see what might grow.

Tomatoes and quinoa

Palmer admits he wasn’t particularly interested in the problem of growing plants on Mars when representatives from NASA first approached him seven years ago. The work seemed boring to him: “Plants grow in dirt—film at 11,” he joked.

The more they talked, however, and the more NASA scientists explained the challenges of working with Mars simulants and issues such as the perchlorate problem, the more his curiosity was piqued. How were we going to provide a sufficient food supply there, anyway? He and his researchers at Florida Tech’s Palmer Lab of Chemical Ecology and Astrobiology began growing plants, fungi, and bacteria in lunar and Martian regolith simulants, exploring how to remodel regolith into soil that is amenable to plant growth. 

“Mars is six to nine months away. If you lose a food source, you may not be able to survive the wait for a resupply mission.”

Andrew Palmer, associate professor of biology, the Florida Institute of Technology

In addition to incubators, they use a room they’ve dubbed “the red house,” which is a semi-controlled environment.

“It’s a giant room, all artificial lighting and artificial environmental controls, and the plants we grow in there have never seen the light of day, which is what we think the situation would be like off Earth,” he says. Anything grown on Mars, which lacks a meaningful atmosphere and is colder than Antarctica, would likewise be grown in enclosed, controlled environments with artificial lighting.

Plants are grown and regrown in Mars simulants so that Palmer and his team can get a sense for how the regolith evolves simply from the growth process over time. Currently the researchers are growing romaine lettuce, bell peppers, tomatoes, and clover “pretty regularly” in commercially available Mars simulants. This semester, he says, they’ve also begun experimenting with peanuts and quinoa.

Because the project is still in its early stages, they do not have results to share related to the preliminary material they received from Arizona. On that, they are presently conducting germination assays. 

“We are still trying to understand how the simulant behaves physically, because when you add water, it can cake up—become really solid and dense—and that can stifle roots. It’s a really challenging problem,” he says.

One of the things they have found is that over time, growing plants in Mars simulant makes its texture “fluffier.” Palmer plans to use electron microscopy to study samples from Delgado’s lab. “Regolith grains are actually pretty jagged,” he tells me. This applies to both Martian and lunar regolith. “After things grow in it for a little while, usually bacteria will kind of make those particles more rounded.” This is because microorganism growth in regolith often results in the deposition of biofilms and other organic compounds, as well as etching or corrosion of grain surfaces. All this is beneficial for plant growth.

Palmer considers food security to be paramount for a mission to Mars, and the project’s research so far leaves him optimistic.

“Mars is six to nine months away. If you lose a food source, you may not be able to survive the wait for a resupply mission,” he says. The solution is diversity. There should be frozen food rations. Some things should be grown hydroponically. Some things should be grown in regolith. If one system fails, you still have the others to help you restart. It’s just good safety practice, he says, but more than that, if we are serious about making Mars a home, we must use the skills that make us special. Agriculture must surely be at the top of that list.

“There is something about cultivating a land that I think speaks to being a human,” Palmer says. “It means you have mastered that place. You only have control over a place when you have control over the soil.”

David W. Brown is a writer based in New Orleans. His next book, The Outside Cats, is about a team of polar explorers and his expeditions with them to Antarctica. It will be published in 2026 by Mariner Books.