Artificial intelligence and religion may appear disparate, even contradictory, pursuits. After all, AI hubs like San Francisco and Seattle are Yet AI and religions share a central line of inquiry: What does it mean to be human?

In 2019, this question was top of mind for . They’d finished a seminary degree and were then a Ģ����Ƶ doctoral student in the Information School. So they developed the question into a special topics class on AI, robots and religion, which they’ve taught ever since and for which they received this year. In the class, King, now an assistant teaching professor, has students do things like analyze whether — a movement to use technology to transcend human limits — is a religion.��

This year, news events have brought King’s question back to the forefront, intertwining AI and religion. In May, Pope Leo XIV issued . Anthropic has met , and people . News stories began to explore whether AI companies are .��

To help make sense of this moment, Ģ����Ƶ News spoke with King about their class, the pope’s view of AI and finding hope.��

Lately, there’s been a lot of characterization of companies like Anthropic as either cults or techno-religions. Do you find it accurate?��

WEK: I don’t think these characterizations are far off. In the 1950s, Edward Fredkin was one of the early AI developers who said AI technologies are our only hope for salvation and for transcending our human limitations and our insanity. So this idea that we’re going to destroy ourselves was in the context of the Cold War. We were fearing annihilation, and that’s not gone just because we’re not in that era anymore. There are still wars and violence and destruction that permeate various aspects of our society. And there are still elements of doomsday cults in some parts of AI.��

I also agree that these are like techno-religions. Ideologies — such as transhumanism, or — motivate so many of these development communities. I met someone recently who’s a chief disciple of a religious community that’s organized around these technologies. These religious formations around them are emerging; it’s happening. But even small things — like these hashtags, “blessed by the algorithm” — really surface what we as a culture believe about our creations.��

How does that culture affect the technologies they’re making and how they’re presenting them to the world?

WEK: There’s something powerful about thinking that you might be developing something godlike, that might help us know things that we couldn’t otherwise know. That kind of faith in techno-power could lead to some really harmful effects — like treating AI as infallible and outsourcing our messiest moral dilemmas rather than confronting our complicity in systems of oppression and environmental crises. I’m concerned about these possibilities, and that’s one of the reasons I’m really interested in sticking with this research. How do we imagine a different future than the ones that these techno-powers are imagining for us?

What have you learned from teaching your class on AI, robots and religion?

WEK: There’s a common trope that religion and technology have nothing to do with each other, but these things are deeply connected. It feels like there’s currently a firehose of information about these connections and a firestorm of questions. With Enlightenment thinking, we’ve wanted to disconnect from our religious thought. We want to say that no, we can’t be superstitious, because religions are often categorized as this mystery. But through science and technology, we can prove things. And now we’re coming to find that maybe we can’t prove so many things, including solving the hard problem of measuring — and understanding — consciousness.

Is there an assignment that’s really stood out to you?��

WEK: I have students write a creation narrative. We read ancient Near East creation narratives — the , the Abrahamic tradition archived in Genesis — alongside narratives from Daoism and Buddhism. Then I ask them to “write a brief creation narrative an AI or community of AIs might write about their origins if AI were to achieve consciousness in the future.” The students’ responses are fascinating. One of my favorites, early on, was like, “Well, Siri and — IBM’s AI assistant —�� gave rise to this baby…” and I thought, oh my gosh, the Adam and Eve narrative and the idea that heterosexuality is the default have clearly influenced students’ thinking. I see less of that now, which is really interesting, to see them turning away from some of these dominant narratives and imagining totally different things.

Leading AI labs are working to transcend human limitations with their AI models. This seems to clash with many religions’ values and beliefs. For instance, Pope Leo XIV wrote in his encyclical on AI that “humanity — in all its grandeur and woundedness — must never be replaced or surpassed.” How are you thinking about such contradictions?

WEK: In “,” David Noble shows that even the idea of transcending our human limitations is motivated by Christian theology. There’s a lot in the Christian tradition saying that we need to progress and become something different. Some people think about this as a holy-human hybrid, that the spirit of God animates us and allows us to become something different. So, with the influence of the Enlightenment, or the turn away from religion, those ideas were projected onto our technologies. This idea of transcending is also very much located in a Protestant worldview that humans are deeply flawed, born in sin, and so we have to transcend our imperfection through the use of technology.��

One of my biggest concerns with the Pope’s view that technology should not surpass humans is that it continues to center humans. I don’t know if we should think of humans as insurpassable, because that feels like a very dominating position, and the means of domination that we’ve experienced and continue to experience in our world harms so many non-dominant communities and our planet. And that’s only one interpretation of these religious texts, of the Abrahamic tradition. Feminist and queer theologians have interpreted these things differently, thinking about stewardship and symbiotic relationships, that the Earth as a whole is way more important than centering and focusing on humans as the most important thing.��

We shouldn’t be developing these technologies only for human flourishing. We should develop them for flourishing — period.

What did you think of the Pope’s encyclical overall?

WEK: I think he got a lot of things right. I like his analysis of problems with labor, problems with power — and he doesn’t outright critique capitalism, but I think there’s an embedded critique of capitalism and neoliberalism. I also think there are quite a few things he got wrong. One is centering humanity. Another is the view of what it means to be human within Catholic thought. It basically classifies queer and trans people as less than human, and if we base our morals and our ethics on a worldview that continues to assert dominance over a particular way of imagining what it means to be human — that our biology determines our existence — we’re going to continue to have problems with marginalization and domination and exclusion and exploitation.��

What do you want the public to know about the intersection of AI and religion?��

WEK: I think it’s important for us to recognize the connections between dominant religions and the development of technologies. Seeking moral guidance from dominant religious traditions — which helped shape the very inequities tech now replicates — is a dead end. Today’s tech practices reflect core beliefs in the power of capitalism and neoliberalism: that markets dictate morality, individualism outweighs collectivism, and the ultimate goal is expansion into a never-ending frontier that someone must dominate. It’s good Anthropic is meeting with religious leaders, but if tech leaders aren’t willing to acknowledge their existing beliefs and disrupt their own business models, no moral or religious tradition will save them or the AI models they are training.��

We need to pivot. The Pope ended the encyclical with some great thinking about privileging the marginalized, the oppressed, those who are being exploited, to imagine a different future.�� Voices within traditions and cultures that have been silenced — women, queer folks, Indigenous leaders, mystics,�� the Global South — offer hope. As a queer person who has often felt less than human, who is oppressed and harmed by dominant religious traditions, I find hope in imagining a future where I can flourish along with all of the beautiful diversity of creation on this planet. I think those are the kinds of hopes and the kinds of people we need to be thinking with — those at the margins, not those who are already dominating our thinking and our worldviews.

For more information, contact King at mxwe@uw.edu.

Source

Since 2020, the Ģ����Ƶ’s Center for an Informed Public has published “rapid research” during elections that aims to cut through the noise and confusion of online rumors that can undermine trust in election processes and voting procedures. These rumors are now so pervasive that CIP researchers have designed an interactive game where you can learn more about common election integrity tropes.��

This year the CIP’s work is focused on:��

• Ensuring people have timely and accurate information about when, where and how to vote safely
• Surfacing and diagnosing rumors that could delegitimize election results
• Exposing the tactics and strategies behind production and amplification of election rumors

Below are the CIP’s rapid research pieces this season. Ģ����Ƶ News will update this post as the CIP publishes research related to the 2026 election. You can also visit the , follow the its on Substack or join its for other CIP updates.��

For more information, contact Michael Grass, the CIP’s assistant director for communications, at megrass@uw.edu.��

Source

UPDATE October 28, 2026: This story has been updated to correct when Marie Gluesenkamp Perez flipped District 3.

Ballots have been mailed to Washington residents, and the will take place on Nov. 3.��

Between critical contests across the country, prominent gubernatorial races and divisive ballot initiatives, there will be plenty to watch on Election Day. All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats are up for a vote. Democrats need a net gain of four seats in the House and four seats in the Senate to overturn the Republican majorities in both.

Ģ����Ƶ News spoke with and , professors of political science at the Ģ����Ƶ, about midterm election trends, what they’re watching statewide and nationally, and more.

What will you be watching most closely in Washington state and/or nationally?

James Long: On the state level, is very competitive. Incumbent Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat, won the district by about 4 points in 2024, having flipped it from Republican to Democrat control in 2022. This year, she is running against a Republican candidate, state senator John Braun. While all congressional races have a certain degree of localism and variation in candidate quality with respect to what matters in close races, should Gluesenkamp Perez hold onto the seat — and by a healthy margin — that could be a bellwether for how Democrats expect to perform in close House races nationwide. Similarly, if Braun flips the district back to Republican control, it could suggest that Republican losses across the country may not be as bad as many expect.

There are in Washington, all of which are controversial and speak to some current “culture war” divisions between the left and the right. I don’t have a sense of which of these initiatives will succeed or fail — polling on them is notoriously difficult. Voters may change their minds due to exposure to a variety of ads. They may also decide by reverting to how they view national conversations around parents’ involvement in educational curriculum, trans athletes in K-12 schools, and greater taxation of the wealthy in terms of whether and how they vote on these measures.

Mark Smith: In Washington, I’m particularly interested in the three ballot initiatives, especially . The state legislature is counting on the revenue from this tax in 2028. If the tax is repealed, the legislature will need to make major changes in their projected budget, with downstream effects for the Ģ����Ƶ.��

Nationally, I’m closely watching the competitive , partly because that’s where I’m from, but also because Ohio tells the tale of the changing geography of American politics. Ohio used to be considered a bellwether state, and it was the tipping-point state as recently as 2004. If John Kerry won Ohio, which he lost by only 2.1%, he would have been elected president. Since then, Ohio has trended strongly red. If Democrats win the Senate and governor’s races there, and polls have them favored in both, that would be a noteworthy result. If Democrats can win Senate seats in other red states such as Kansas, Iowa, Alaska and Texas, that would also grab my attention.��

What are the factors likely to impact voter behavior in these midterms?

JL: For Congressional races nationwide, this election really seems to be a referendum on Donald Trump and Republican control of Congress. It’s been a period of single party control across the executive and legislative branches, so it’s not unusual for the incumbent president and party to be the main focal point in a midterm election. Moreover, Trump’s and the Republicans’ policies are deeply unpopular with the American people, including the war with Iran, tariffs and the inability to tackle affordability.

MS: At the risk of sounding pedantic, it’s highly variable from person to person. Who people vote for, and whether they vote at all, is driven by a complicated combination of factors. Still, we can parse out some systematic effects that apply more generally. One of them is the dropoff in voter turnout of about 20% between presidential and midterm years. Twenty years ago, the kinds of people who always vote in midterm years were disproportionately voting Republican. Now they are disproportionately voting Democratic. Another way of saying that — based on the off-year elections in 2025 and the polling we have this year — is there will be more people who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 and don’t vote in 2026. That’s opposed to people who voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 and will stay home in 2026.

What patterns tend to emerge historically in midterm elections, and do you predict those patterns will hold this year?

MS: Since the time of World War II, the president’s party has lost an average of about 26 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate. But now regional polarization and gerrymandering have reduced the number of competitive House races, so it’s unlikely that Democrats will reach that average of 26 seats. But they only need to gain four to take the majority of the House. In the Senate, curiously, they need the same net gain of four seats to reach a majority. Current polling and prediction markets indicate that Democrats are likely to get there for both the House and Senate — though it’s somewhat less likely with the Senate. The fact that Republican PACs and committees are redirecting money toward states and districts they would normally win handily suggests that they fear a blue wave.

JL: It’s not just about whether there is a “blue wave” in Congress, which many observers are predicting. The margin of that seat gain and the margins of victory within districts also helps measure the depth of pro-Democratic Party support, or anti-Republican sentiment, which I believe will inform candidates from both parties who are thinking of running in the 2028 presidential cycle.

What issues currently appear to be most important to voters?

JL: Affordability, affordability, affordability. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats were unpopular in 2024 because inflation had not declined enough according to voters. Two years later, inflation is now growing at a higher rate than it was when Trump took office. A host of other policies, such as oil prices resulting from the U.S. attack on Iran and Trump’s tariffs, have hit the pocketbooks of every American, including those in rural areas who supported Trump and Republicans in 2024.��

It’s not so much that the Democrats have provided an alternative set of policies that voters find popular as it is that Trump and the Republicans are the focal point and it’s a brand whose stock has been declining of late.��

Moreover, candidates like Jon Ossoff — who is running for Senate reelection in Georgia and is a 2028 presidential candidate contender — have gained popularity by tying the affordability crisis to Trump and those in his orbit. While everyday Americans have seen wages flatten and costs rise, Trump, his family and his allies have grown enormously wealthy at the same time.

MS: One good source of data is the Gallup organization, which regularly asks Americans, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” , the answers in order were the government/poor leadership (30%), high cost of living/inflation (13%), economy in general (11%), immigration (10%) and war in the Middle East (7%). The first three of those and the fifth clearly favor Democrats, with the fourth — immigration — hard to discern without more information. You don’t want to be the party in power when the government is perceived to be performing poorly and high prices are making even the essentials unaffordable for many people.

There have been as President Donald Trump has expressed his desire to exert more control. How serious are these potential threats?

MS: He on his biggest chance to exert more control, through restricting voting by mail. Some version of that proposal could come back, because the Supreme Court did not foreclose it entirely, but not in 2026. Anyone who lived through Jan. 6, however, would be foolish to say, “It can’t happen here.”��

There has been speculation about President Trump sending federal law enforcement agents to polling places, or asserting widespread fraud and confiscating ballots or polling equipment after the election is held. Such an outcome becomes more likely if the election overall, or in certain important places, is very close. However, I would not rule it out even for a wave election. He could also take other, harder-to-predict actions to affect the results.

JL: I think explicit threats, and Trump has historically and in this cycle made them, should always be taken seriously. Whether or not they are successful is another matter. Trump and some Republican allies have attempted measures to restrict voting, suppress turnout, control mail-in ballots, and more, but have mostly been stopped so far by the courts, and the strategies don’t seem to be working. It mostly seems half-baked, but so did the “fake elector” scheme in 2020 that led to the riot, so protecting electoral integrity always requires eternal vigilance.

No doubt should Trump and the Republicans receive a “” — as President Barack Obama famously admitted when the Democrats suffered heavy losses in Congress in 2010 — he will call the result “rigged” and likely spread misinformation about the election’s integrity. He appears ready to contest results, as . He has learned this is a costless way to avoid admitting defeat and it remains popular among his MAGA base. That said, evidence of any vote tampering should be investigated and, if it comes to it, adjudicated by the relevant judicial authority.

For more information, contact Lauren Kirschman at lkirsc@uw.edu.

Source

Coral reefs provide shelter and protection , including crabs, moray eels, octopus and fish. But these cozy homes are currently under threat for many reasons, such as rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification.

Researchers are trying to understand how groups of fish communicate with each other within a coral reef, and how the health of the reef affects that communication.

This fall , a Ģ����Ƶ doctoral student in the biology department, and Ģ����Ƶ research scientist are traveling to the on Magoodhoo, Maldives, to gather live footage of interactions. This fish is a common schooling species on Maldivian reefs. Ģ����Ƶ News asked Milan a few questions about the trip for the occasional series “In the Field,” which highlights Ģ����Ƶ field research efforts.��

Tell us about your project.

Jj Milan: I’m studying how fish in schools can accurately communicate the difference between a real threat and a harmless false alarm. And then, once a threat is gone, I want to understand how they coordinate the return to normal behavior.

What will you be doing on this trip?

JM: I’ll be using synchronized cameras and automated tracking to record how threat responses spread through a school. We will be scuba diving to place GoPro cameras and tablets around specific coral heads. We won’t be diving very deep because we need sufficient natural lighting for our video recordings. Our local contacts at the MaRHE Center have confirmed that the surrounding reef is shallow with abundant marine life.

I’m also hoping to collaborate with locals to get more insights into typical fish behavior and predator activity in this area.

What do you hope to learn?

JM: I hope to be able to reconstruct how threat responses move through a school of fish in real time, from the first fish that reacts to how the group settles back into normal behavior. I’ll also reconstruct the three-dimensional structure of the coral to understand if the complexity of the structure changes how quick and how coordinated that response is.

What’s something you really enjoy about doing this field work — especially something that might not occur to most people?

JM: I enjoy how this work brings together my love of ocean life, my diving hobby and my passion for research all in one. I have been diving since 2019 and I am excited because this will be my first time diving in warm water conditions.

More generally, is there anything you find surprising or enlightening about doing field work?

JM: I’m surprised at how many possibilities and opportunities for collaboration arise just during the planning process through connecting with other researchers and resources. I hope to build on these connections in the future.��

For more information, contact Milan at jdmilan@uw.edu.

Source

Ģ����Ƶ researchers are leading and collaborating on four research projects as part of Phase 1 in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) , a national initiative to build an AI-for-science ecosystem which accelerates breakthroughs in energy, discovery science and national security.��

The DOE awarded a total of 278 Genesis Mission awards for projects that involve more than 300 participating institutions, including DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration national laboratories, universities and companies. As part of the Genesis Mission, awardees will have access to the Genesis Mission Platform, which includes AI frameworks, advanced AI models from industry partners, and high-performance computing resources across DOE’s National Laboratories and partner facilities.��

“The Genesis Mission represents the kind of bold, collaborative approach needed to accelerate the complex scientific and technological breakthroughs required in our rapidly changing world,” said Ģ����Ƶ Vice Provost for Research . “Its emphasis on bringing together diverse expertise and cutting-edge technology with strategic partnerships highlights the important role universities play in driving innovation for the nation.”��

The Ģ����Ƶ-supported Genesis projects span disciplines including advanced sensing technologies, protein design for microelectronic applications, and astronomy data infrastructure, demonstrating the broad potential of AI to accelerate scientific discovery.��

, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering, received a Genesis award to develop neuromorphic terahertz imaging technology for next-generation augmented reality systems. ��

“Neuromorphic terahertz imagers, or brain-inspired imaging in the terahertz band, give us superhuman vision to see through optically obscured media in real time by combining sensing and computation in a single piece of hardware. The Genesis Mission award supports our research in developing the hardware for the neuromorphic terahertz imager, as well as creating a digital twin of the entire system to train imaging models before implementing them on the actual hardware. This is an important step for future terahertz imaging systems on augmented reality hardware,” Naghavi said. ��

Building on research conducted in Ģ����Ƶ’s , the project brings together collaborators at Texas A&M University, the University of Utah, ChipNexus and NVIDIA to integrate sensing and computation directly within imaging hardware. By reducing the amount of data that must be transferred between sensors and processors, the technology could enable lightweight, low-cost augmented reality headsets capable of seeing through visually obscured materials in real time while operating with far lower power consumption than conventional systems.����

, director of the , and his colleagues are contributing to two Phase I Genesis Mission projects that apply advances in protein design and artificial intelligence to challenges beyond traditional biomedical applications.��

One project, BIND (Biophysics-Informed Learning of Coordination for Metalloprotein Design), led by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, seeks to develop an AI framework for designing selective metal-binding proteins. The project leverages quantum chemistry, structural biology, machine learning and high-throughput experimentation to advance the computational design strategies of next-generation rare earth element binders. ��These advancements will catalyze change in critical mineral recovery, radionuclide management and environmental monitoring, while advancing DOE priorities in predictive biosystems design. ��

The second project, led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, will develop an AI-guided loop for the design, fabrication and evaluation of microelectronic devices. The team will leverage proteins designed to assemble on van der Waals substrates to modulate their properties and organize charge carriers within the synthesized hybrid materials, integrating deep-learning protein models with AI-guided material synthesis and characterization, device fabrication and measurements, and circuit-level performance evaluation to create an iterative design process that improves molecules, materials, and device design. ��

Both IPD projects demonstrate how Ģ����Ƶ-developed protein design technologies are expanding into new areas of chemistry, materials science, and advanced manufacturing. “The Genesis Mission award provides necessary support to develop data that will vastly improve our models, an essential next step in delivering advances for key global challenges,” Baker said.����

, director of the and founding director of the and , a researcher at DiRAC, are partnering with researchers at Carnegie Mellon University to help develop infrastructure that will make it easier for astronomers to combine and analyze data from a wide range of observatories and scientific instruments. ��

Their project will expand data formats and analysis platforms to support images, spectra, data cubes and other forms of astronomical data while enabling seamless access to information distributed across cloud and high-performance computing systems. The goal is to remove technical barriers that often slow scientific discovery and make large, multimodal datasets more accessible for AI research. ��

“We want the plumbing to be boring so the astronomy can be spectacular,” Caplar said.��

Source

The University engaged an outside entity, the firm ,��to support the review because��of��its��extensive experience working with colleges and universities around the country, including reviewing student conduct codes.

Over the last nine months, University leaders, staff and Husch Blackwell have engaged and consulted with faculty, staff and students. Their feedback, along with national peer best practices and the Ģ����Ƶ’s legal requirements under state and federal laws, was used to develop the proposed changes to the Code that were to be considered by the Board of Regents at their September meeting.

“I believe this additional period of review and consultation will help us move forward with a Code that reflects both our legal obligations and our shared commitment to fairness, transparency, accountability, and the educational mission of the University,” President Jones wrote.

President Jones asked the Faculty Senate to provide its feedback no later than Dec. 10, 2026, the date of the final Senate meeting of the autumn quarter. Additional staff and student perspectives will also be incorporated during this time, including seeking further input from student governments on the Ģ����Ƶ’s three campuses.

This feedback, along with feedback already provided during the public comment period, will be used to shape revisions to the Student Conduct Code and related changes to the General Conduct Code that will eventually be presented to the Regents.

Based on��the stakeholder engagement process and the feedback received during that process, the proposed revisions make many improvements to the��Code, including:

• Bringing the code into compliance with current Title IX regulations governing sexual assault and misconduct, and aligning its terminology with the��, which prohibits discrimination, harassment and sexual misconduct
• Adding amnesty language for students who admit to unlawful possession or use of alcohol or drugs when seeking medical assistance for another student
• Adding doxxing as��prohibited conduct
• Updating the appeals process to��enable��the��opportunity for��inclusion of��specialized expertise in non-academic misconduct cases, particularly on sexual assault and misconduct matters,��since��there have been cases where the need for more expertise on the difficult subject of sexual assault and consent created delays that did not serve students well
• Establishing that��if��an individual has been found responsible for prohibited conduct, concealing one’s identity for the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while engaged in��that��prohibited conduct may be considered in determining sanctions;��students are already required to show identification to a��University official when requested,��so��the proposal adds transparency to existing sanctioning criteria
• Clarifying that alleged conduct violations by Registered Student Organizations are adjudicated through the existing brief adjudication��process and not a full hearing process
• Updating several definitions for clarity and/or to align current practices and legal standards, including definitions for academic misconduct; creating a nuisance in neighboring communities; hazing;��abuse of others and threats; disruption, hindering, impeding, or obstruction; failure to comply; and unauthorized access, presence, or use of property

On this final item, it is important to recognize that the definitions around violations such as disruption, failure to comply and unauthorized access apply only to actions that qualify as misconduct. The Student Conduct Code does not prohibit speech or other expressive activities that are protected by the First Amendment, and these definitions will be applied consistently regardless of what views – if any – were being expressed when the misconduct took place.

In addition to these changes that deal with non-academic misconduct, during the coming academic year the University’s faculty is expected to undertake a review of the academic elements of the Student Conduct Code with the University’s administration, which is a particularly timely topic in light of advances in artificial intelligence and other technologies.

Source

Frequent news headlines and rising gas prices are constant reminders of the fuel shortage linked to the war in Iran. But energy crises are about more than oil and geopolitics, say and , who co-teach “Communication, Design and the Environment” in the Ģ����Ƶ’s Communication Leadership program.

Muren, a teaching professor of design, and Russell, a professor of communication, examine environmental problems from a perspective beyond the hard sciences. They are currently working on a book that explores how the systems we design and the stories we tell shape the relationship between society and the living world.

Ģ����Ƶ News spoke to Muren and Russell about what today’s energy crises reveal about contemporary societies’ dependence on fossil fuels and how we can create a “solar-powered system.”��

The war in Iran has put energy back at the center of public debate. What stands out to you about the conversation we’re having?

Adrienne Russell: To me, it’s impressive how quickly the conversation — in the news media mostly — narrowed to . Where will the oil come from? How quickly can markets stabilize? What will happen to prices? Those are important questions, but they’re also very familiar. Every energy crisis seems to produce the same script. We talk about rather than asking why our societies are organized in ways that make them so vulnerable to disruptions in the first place.

Dominic Muren: Exactly. We tend to treat these moments as temporary interruptions to an otherwise normal system. But they’re also reminders that the system itself depends on finite resources and exceptional geopolitical stability. The crisis isn’t just exposing a shortage of oil; it’s exposing assumptions about how much energy we expect to have available and how our economies are built around that expectation.

What assumptions are built into this way of thinking?

DM: The biggest assumption is that energy should always be available in whatever quantity society demands. When supply falls short, we assume the problem is getting more energy, not reconsidering the expectations that created that demand. That assumption feels natural today, but of the fossil-fuel era.

AR: Those assumptions become embedded in everyday life. We stop noticing that overnight shipping, long commutes, streaming entertainment or all depend on enormous amounts of energy. They begin to feel like ordinary features of modern life instead of choices made possible by a particular energy system.

What are the material consequences of thinking about energy this way?

DM: We respond to crises by reinforcing the very system that created them. The was widely expected to trigger a dramatic spike in global oil prices. Instead, the shock was muted, in part because China rapidly shifted away from imported oil and relied more heavily on domestically produced coal. Economically, that reduced dependence on imported oil. Environmentally, however, it came at a significant cost: than oil per unit of energy, so avoiding one crisis just increased another.��

Even China’s massive electric vehicle fleet — normally a climate advantage — became more carbon-intensive because the electricity charging those vehicles increasingly came from coal rather than lower-carbon sources. From a climate perspective, that represents a significant step backward.

AR: We’re seeing similar patterns elsewhere. In the United States, the war in Iran has been in California and in the name of energy security. Each crisis becomes a justification for extracting more rather than asking why our societies remain so dependent on these fuels in the first place.��

In other words, the immediate response is often to stabilize today’s energy system, even if doing so locks in higher emissions tomorrow. We end up reversing much of the progress we’ve made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions because we’re treating the symptoms instead of addressing the underlying design of the system.

How have fossil fuels shaped contemporary society and our expectations?

DM: Fossil fuels gave us access to enormous stores of concentrated energy accumulated over millions of years. That allowed societies to expand production, transportation and consumption at unprecedented scales. Over time, we built our cities, economies and institutions around the expectation that this on-demand abundance could continue indefinitely. But this ��

AR: Fossil fuels and their infrastructures are one of the most powerful sense-making systems ever built. They have trained societies to expect continuous expansion. Because that expectation feels natural, it rarely appears as a choice; it appears as reality. That’s why energy shocks are so often misread. When supply is disrupted, the instinct is to restore the flow and return to “normal.” But that normal isn’t neutral. It’s a high-energy system organized around the assumption that growth has no meaningful limits. Energy crises aren’t interruptions to that system — they’re the moments when those assumptions collide with physical reality.��

DM: And because those systems become invisible, so do the assumptions they create. Continuous access to energy begins to feel like a law of nature rather than the outcome of a vast physical and political system. So when disruptions occur, we focus on repairing the flow instead of questioning the system that made uninterrupted flow seem inevitable.��

We could counter this tendency by recognizing that the only long-term source of energy available to life on Earth is the continuous flow of . Every fossil fuel we burn is nothing more than stored sunlight from the distant past. And like any finite reserve, it will eventually run out. What is guaranteed is the steady income of energy from the sun we receive each day, nearly unchanged from one sunrise to the next. Long before humans, life on Earth already adapted to this reality. Plants learned to capture sunlight directly, while animals survived by consuming those that did. Growth has always depended on access to this continuous energy flow. The point is not that we need more solar panels. It is that we need to think like a solar-powered system.

What does it mean to think like a solar-powered system? What would have to change, politically and culturally?

DM: A solar-powered system is one that aligns its activity with incoming energy rather than assuming limitless withdrawals from stored capital. Instead of designing around unlimited energy and perpetual expansion, we’d design around timing, sufficiency, resilience and adaptation. It’s not simply a technological shift; it’s a different way of imagining how society should function with whatever technologies — past, current�� or yet-to-be-invented — make that possible.

The transition isn’t simply replacing fossil fuels with renewable technologies. It’s replacing the mindset fossil fuels made possible. If we continue expecting unlimited growth while changing only the energy source, we’ll recreate many of the same problems in a different form. supports this.�� A durable transition means learning to organize society around the energy that is actually available, rather than around the illusion of limitless reserves.��

AR: We would have to rethink many of the assumptions we’ve inherited about progress and abundance. Much of contemporary culture treats continual expansion as both natural and desirable. Changing energy systems requires changing those stories as well.

For more information, contact Russell at adruss@uw.edu and Muren at dmuren@uw.edu.

Source

Today’s wireless technologies harness chunks of the for myriad uses — radio waves broadcast TV and radio; microwaves transmit cellphone signals and cook our food; X-rays image our bodies; gamma rays kill cancerous cells.

, however, is interested in more neglected slices of the spectrum. Naghavi, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the Ģ����Ƶ, studies the “terahertz band,” a region of the spectrum . Terahertz frequencies are notoriously difficult to work with, but they hold enormous potential in the fields of sensing, imaging and communications — future sensors, for example, could help firefighters “see” through smoke during rescue operations.

Naghavi recently joined a cohort of researchers from across the country who were awarded grants by the U.S. Department of Energy’s , an initiative to apply artificial intelligence across a wide range of research areas; other Ģ����Ƶ researchers are part of a Genesis-funded project to advance AI-driven cosmology. With the grant, Naghavi plans to develop compact, efficient sensors that could enable wearable gadgets to image their environment in new ways.

Ģ����Ƶ News caught up with Naghavi to learn about his new project and how it extends his work on terahertz frequencies.

What is the terahertz band and why are you studying it?

Hossen Naghavi: The terahertz band is a segment of the electromagnetic spectrum that lies between 100 gigahertz and 10 terahertz — the microwave band sits below it, and the optical band sits above it. That position gives terahertz waves a unique combination of microwave and optical properties. Microwaves can see through opaque materials like clothing, smoke or fire, but their long wavelengths limit the resolution of microwave imaging. Optical waves have the opposite problem. Their wavelengths are short, so they produce high-resolution images, but most materials block visible light completely, which makes it impossible to see inside or behind an object.

Terahertz waves are a sort of “happy medium.” Their wavelengths are short enough to give useful resolution but long enough to see through many materials. That combination allows us to build new sensors and cameras that can detect concealed objects or image scenes through smoke, dust and other conditions that defeat conventional optics.

What are some applications you envision for terahertz frequencies?

HN: is expected to become a defining mode of human-computer interaction, but realizing its full potential requires machines that can perceive and understand their surroundings far beyond what the human eye can see. Consider a high-stakes setting such as firefighting, where an augmented reality headset powered by terahertz waves could help firefighters locate victims or identify hazardous materials through smoke, fog and debris.��

Beyond firefighting and emergency response, terahertz technologies could also aid in autonomous navigation, security screening, industrial inspection, biomedical sensing, molecular spectroscopy, agricultural applications, and 5G and 6G communication networks.��

Sounds exciting! What’s the catch?

HN: Sensors that use terahertz waves, like the ones in our firefighting headset example, have been demonstrated in the lab. However, low-cost, low-power electronics that would be practical in a wearable device have not yet been developed.

Terahertz sensors produce high-resolution image streams, and processing them conventionally means moving enormous amounts of data to a central processor for analysis by an artificial intelligence system. That consumes too much power and adds too much delay to be practical in a lightweight device meant to be worn all day.

Tell us about your new project. How will it address some of the hurdles facing terahertz technologies?

HN: The usual way to build a terahertz imager is to split the job in two. The radar sensor collects raw signals, and a separate processor turns the signals into a picture. That division sounds sensible, but it is the source of most of the trouble. The raw signals arriving at each of the sensor’s antennas are slightly out of step with one another, and the processor has to line them all up before an image can form. That alignment requires a lot of continuous computation, which drains batteries quickly and introduces lag.

The natural comparison is the human eye. Your retina does not ship every photon to your brain for interpretation. It processes what it sees on the spot and passes along something much more compact, which is part of why vision costs your body so little energy. We are trying to give a terahertz sensor the same quality, which is why we describe the design as “neuromorphic,” meaning “brain-inspired.”

Who are you working with on this technology, and what’s next?

HN: My group at the Ģ����Ƶ and ‘s group at Texas A&M University are designing and building the sensor hardware. at the University of Utah and at ChipNexus are developing and implementing the AI system. This is a highly collaborative project.

Our next big milestone is to demonstrate a terahertz neuromorphic imager as a proof of concept in Phase I of our Genesis Mission project. Moving forward, we hope to expand the project into Phase II to add even more capabilities and make this technology accessible for public usage as early as possible.

For more information, contact Naghavi at naghavi@uw.edu.

Source

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), an independent research organization at the Ģ����Ƶ, has received a landmark 10-year grant from the Gates Foundation to strengthen freely available, scientifically rigorous health evidence used by governments, researchers, and leaders to improve the health and well-being of people in Washington, the United States, and around the world.

IHME is part of the Ģ����Ƶ School of Medicine, and the $540.2 million investment will provide long-term support for expanding the Global Burden of Disease study to provide health data for thousands of new areas. GBD is the most comprehensive assessment of health trends and conditions across countries. Under the grant, GBD will expand from roughly 925 locations today to nearly 5,000 — a major expansion in the geographic detail available to the people making decisions. The grant will also support IHME’s health forecasting and future-scenarios work, and its tracking of health spending worldwide.

Together, these resources help decision-makers, researchers, and health professionals understand the health challenges people face today, anticipate what is coming next, and determine how limited resources can be used most effectively to improve health.

“Reliable and independent evidence can mean the difference between reacting to a health crisis after it has taken hold and acting early enough to change its course,” said Dr. Christopher J.L. Murray, IHME director and professor of health metrics sciences. “This investment will allow us to provide high-quality evidence at a much more local level and help leaders understand not only where health is improving or worsening, but which decisions can make the greatest difference for people.”

Murray, the grant’s principal investigator, started the Global Burden of Disease study in the early 1990s and has led its development since, in collaboration with a global research network now spanning more than 150 countries and territories.

The Gates Foundation, along with the state of Washington, provided the founding investment that established IHME at the Ģ����Ƶ in 2007, creating an independent institute dedicated to measuring the world’s most pressing health challenges and evaluating whether policies and programs are improving people’s lives. Its sustained support has helped build the field of health metrics itself. IHME has developed many of the methods and standards the field now relies on and has helped collaborators contribute to the field as well. The new grant builds on that longstanding partnership and provides a base for IHME’s next phase of growth.

“Every government and funder faces difficult decisions about where to invest limited resources for greatest impact, and those decisions depend on trusted evidence,” said Mark Suzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Gates Foundation. “For nearly two decades, IHME has been one of the foundation’s most important global partners, helping us, governments, researchers, and global health partners around the world understand where health is improving, where progress is stalling, and where action is needed most. Our long-term commitment recognizes the value of this work to strengthen a shared evidence base that will continue to inform decisions to improve—and save—millions of lives.”

The Global Burden of Disease network has grown to more than 20,000 collaborators in over 150 countries and territories: researchers, clinicians, government analysts, and policymakers who contribute to the study’s data and methods and carry health measurement into their own institutions and ministries. This next phase of IHME’s work is an opportunity to consolidate that foundation and extend it considerably further.

The grant comes as countries confront overlapping health threats and growing pressure on public and global health budgets. By producing more detailed, timely, and forward-looking evidence, IHME aims to help leaders identify urgent needs, prepare health systems, and invest in policies and programs most likely to prevent illness, disability, and premature death.

The award is the largest charitable grant ever given to the Ģ����Ƶ.

“The Gates Foundation has been a steadfast partner of the Ģ����Ƶ for decades, and we are grateful for its generous support. The Ģ����Ƶ is committed to improving the health of people in Washington and around the world, and this investment will expand IHME’s already significant impact, which will mean longer, healthier lives for countless people,” said Ģ����Ƶ President Robert J. Jones.

IHME’s research and findings are freely available to countries, researchers, and communities regardless of their income or access to commercial data systems.

“We are deeply grateful to the Gates Foundation for this extraordinary investment in IHME and the Ģ����Ƶ School of Medicine,” said Dr. Timothy Dellit, CEO of Ģ����Ƶ Medicine and dean of the Ģ����Ƶ School of Medicine. “Their longstanding partnership has helped make it possible for IHME to deliver trusted health evidence around the world. This new grant will extend that impact by giving leaders data that are comprehensive and comparable to guide decisions that help improve the health of communities and save lives.”

Read . For interview requests, data inquiries or general questions, please contact IHME at ihmemedia@uw.edu.

Source

Going forward, procedures will be updated to ensure the standards we have for University-hosted events like the Speaker Series are met, particularly so that we can help elevate the level of dialogue on divisive topics during a polarized time in our country.

Update – August 19, 2026

In the process of reviewing the 2026-27 Speaker Series, it was determined that a total of seven of the 16 announced events did not go through the committee-based process for selecting featured speakers. These events will also not be held.

Procedures will be updated to ensure there are clear standards, transparent criteria and robust processes for selecting future Speaker Series participants in a manner consistent with the Ģ����Ƶ’s mission as a public research university.

Source