It says something that one of the most well known and highly-praised media lab projects is basically a sham. What does that say about the other 99% of projects that aren’t even worth mentioning?
I don't know about the other projects. To me, it says that the funding model has eaten the reason for the Lab existing.
Feeding the hype machine that generates donations is considered more important than the work (not to mention the truth-seeking function of academia) the donations are supposed to fund.
There needs to be some serious house-cleaning if they want to be considered an actual research lab of any repute. Ito was a problem, but he quite clearly was not the only one.
Academic donation seeking is a much easier thing to disconnect from real world ROI than most businesses can get raising capital. And 99.9% of businesses are not the 5 unicorns you read about in the media.
I think to a certain extent that's actually fine. An academy should not be run as a corporation; I think that notion is part of what is causing problems.
What academia should not be divorced from is knowledge and truth seeking. I don't mean that in some wooly, idealistic sense: if that isn't the focus, you're hucksters and frauds, not academics.
They have been a major proponent of various overhyped blockchain projects. I don't claim to know everything they do but my image of MIT have already been tarnished long before the Epstein connection came to light.
I would like to point out that the Media lab isn't all of MIT. We do some really incredible research (LIGO, Black hole imaging, poverty research, to just name a few recent achievements). Incidentally, the media lab has a reputation within MIT as a place for often impractical ideas that never pass the demo stage. That said, the way in which a number of members of the MIT community (including outside the media lab) were associated with Epstein is troubling to say the least.
[ETA: a large number of media lab projects are still really good, as the other commenter mentioned]
Absolutely. My apologies if the comment above came across as disparaging to the whole institution. I come from academia myself and the MIT name still carries unparalleled prestige with it. But this only makes it more heartbreaking to see the brand diluted by a small yet highly visible section ran by a former nightclub owner.
> What does that say about the other 99% of projects that aren’t even worth mentioning?
At least one other major project, the OLPC from media lab and the infamous Negroponte gang was a total failure. Negroponte was back in the news recently due to the whole Joi Ito-Jeffrey Epstein pedo funding debacle.
I don't think this was one of the most well-known or highly-praised projects before this scandal. Certainly I can think of at least 10-20 other projects from the same time that were more well-known to me.
