Download RSS feed: News Articles / In the Media / Audio
Writing for The Washington Post, Prof. Charles Stewart III examines the risks posed by voting by mail. “The greatest risks of voting by mail are voters’ own mistakes,” writes Stewart. “To minimize this problem, election officials can warn voters that a mistake on their absentee ballot means it won’t be counted — or they can design ballots and instructions using plain language.”
In an excerpt from his new book published by The Atlantic, Prof. Thomas Levenson explores how even famed scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton are not immune to making disastrous financial decisions. “When financial markets offer the temptation of ever-rising values, not even the smartest people can resist,” writes Levenson.
Wall Street Journal reporter Christopher Mims spotlights Prof. Daron Acemoglu’s research examining the impact of automation on employment and a new essay from Prof. David Autor and Dr. Elisabeth Reynolds that illustrates how the pandemic could exacerbate economic inequality.
Prof. Charles Stewart III speaks with Audie Cornish of NPR about the security of absentee and mail-in voting. Stewart notes that states that have offered mail-in voting for years, such as Oregon, Washington and Colorado, have not had issues with widespread voter fraud.
In a letter to the Financial Times, graduate student Daniel Aronoff underscores his view that central banks should proceed with caution when considering digital currencies. “The US Fed and other central banks are wise to embark on the research that will keep them at the forefront of knowledge and, possibly, enable them to develop implementations that are safe and beneficial to the citizens of their countries,” writes Aronoff.
Writing for Fortune, graduate student Nina McMurry examines how public health authorities can allay fears about contact tracing apps. “Public health authorities need to make sure that the public understands what the technology is doing,” McMurry and her co-authors write. “Even if an app is privacy-preserving, the public may not perceive it as such.”
In his new book “Money for Nothing,” Prof. Thomas Levenson “interweaves the story of the rise of mathematics and astronomy with the rise of bankers and actuaries and stock promoters,” writes James Grant in a review for the Wall Street Journal.
Newsweek reporter Meghan Roos writes that a study co-authored by Prof. Victor Chernozhukov finds a nationwide mask mandate in the U.S. could have reduced Covid-19 deaths by 40% among workers who regularly interact with the public. The researchers found “a national mask mandate for workers could have prevented between 17,000 and 55,000 deaths between the start of April and the start of June.”
Prof. Richard J. Samuels reviews “Unconditional: The Japanese Surrender in World War II” by Marc Gallicchio for The New York Times. “’Unconditional’ is a sharp reminder of the power, imperfection and politicization of historical narrative,” writes Samuels, “and of the way debates can continue long after history’s witnesses have left the stage.”
A new study by Prof. Charles Stewart III “predicts that the outcome of this year’s presidential election — and the problem known as the ‘lost vote,’ in which legitimate ballots go uncounted — could fuel postelection allegations of a rigged election,” reports The New York Times.
The Economist spotlights a recent essay by Prof. David Autor and Elisabeth Reynolds, executive director of the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future, about the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the state of work. “If remote working proves a lasting shift, then the café staff, taxi drivers and cleaners who depend on their custom could find themselves out of work,” writes The Economist.
Washington Post contributor Anna Leahy spotlights Prof. Sasha Costanza-Chock’s book, “Design Justice.” Leahy notes that in the book, Costanza-Chock, “encourages a bolder approach that calls for the world to be redesigned based on an expansive view of people’s bodies and cognitive abilities.”
Writing for The Washington Post, Prof. Robin Wolfe Scheffler underscores the importance of not only pursuing coronavirus vaccine development initiatives, but also “addressing the social and political factors that exacerbate disease and limit the access of many Americans to basic medical care.”
MIT researchers have found that the Paycheck Protection Program helped protect around 2.3 million jobs, reports Jonnelle Marte for Reuters. “The researchers compared hiring trends at companies that were eligible for the program to those that were too large to qualify,” writes Marte. “They found that hiring at eligible companies rose after the launch of PPP when compared to companies that did not qualify.”
Bloomberg reporter Maeve Sheehey writes that a new study co-authored by MIT researchers finds that the Paycheck Protection Program helped to boost employment by 2% to 4.5%. “The research suggests that providing money directly to companies helped curb job losses during the pandemic,” writes Sheehey.