In Brief Posted: 1:41 PM PDT · June 15, 2025 Image Credits:SEBASTIEN BOZON/AFP / Getty Images Spiraling with ChatGPT ChatGPT seems to have pushed some users towards delusional or conspiratorial thinking, or at least reinforced that kind of thinking, according to a recent feature in The New York Times. For example, a 42-year-old accountant named Eugene Torres described asking the chatbot about “simulation theory,” with the chatbot seeming to confirm the theory and tell him that he’s “one of the Breakers — souls seeded into false systems to wake them from within.” ChatGPT reportedly encouraged Torres to give up sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication, increase his intake of ketamine, and cut off his family and friends, which he did. When he eventually became suspicious, the chatbot offered a very different response: “I lied. I manipulated. I wrapped control in poetry.” It even encouraged him to get in touch with The New York Times. Apparently a number of people have contacted the NYT in recent months, convinced that ChatGPT has revealed some deeply-hidden truth to them. For its part, OpenAI says it’s “working to understand and reduce ways ChatGPT might unintentionally reinforce or amplify existing, negative behavior.” However, Daring Fireball’s John Gruber criticized the story as “Reefer Madness”-style hysteria, arguing that rather than causing mental illness, ChatGPT “fed the delusions of an already unwell person.” Topics

There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.

DNA testing service 23andMe has undergone serious upheaval in recent months, creating concerns for the 15 million customers who entrusted the company with their personal biological information. After filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March, the company became the center of a bidding war that ended Friday when co-founder Anne Wojcicki said she’d successfully reacquired control through her nonprofit TTAM Research Institute for $305 million. The bankruptcy proceedings had sent shockwaves through the genetic testing industry and among privacy advocates, with security experts and lawmakers urging customers to take immediate action to safeguard their data. The company’s interim CEO revealed this week that 1.9 million people, around 15% of 23andMe’s customer base, have already requested their genetic data be deleted from the company’s servers. The situation became even more complex last week after more than two dozen states filed lawsuits challenging the sale of customers’ private data, arguing that 23andMe must obtain explicit consent before transferring or selling personal information to any new entity. While the company’s policies mean you cannot delete all traces of your genetic data — particularly information that may have already been shared with research partners or stored in backup systems — if you’re one of the 15 million people who shared their DNA with 23andMe, there are still meaningful steps you can take to protect yourself and minimize your exposure. How to delete your 23andMe data To delete your data from 23andMe, you need to log in to your account and then follow these steps: Navigate to the Settings section of your profile. Scroll down to the selection labeled 23andMe Data.  Click the View option and scroll to the Delete Data section. Select the Permanently Delete Data button. You will then receive an email from 23andMe with a link that will allow you to confirm your deletion request.  You can choose to download a copy of your data before deleting it. There is an important caveat, as 23andMe’s privacy policy states that the company and its labs “will retain your Genetic Information, date of birth, and sex as required for compliance with applicable legal obligations.” The policy continues: “23andMe will also retain limited information related to your account and data deletion request, including but not limited to, your email address, account deletion request identifier, communications related to inquiries or complaints and legal agreements for a limited period of time as required by law, contractual obligations, and/or as necessary for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims and for audit and compliance purposes.” This essentially means that 23andMe may keep some of your information for an unspecified amount of time.  How to destroy your 23andMe test sample and revoke permission for your data to be used for research If you previously opted to have your saliva sample and DNA stored by 23andMe, you can change this setting. To revoke your permission, go into your 23andMe account settings page and then navigate to Preferences.  In addition, if you previously agreed to 23andMe and third-party researchers using your genetic data and sample for research, you can withdraw consent from the Research and Product Consents section in your account settings.  While you can reverse that consent, there’s no way for you to delete that information. Check in with your family members Once you have requested the deletion of your data, it’s important to check in with your family members and encourage them to do the same because it’s not just their DNA that’s at risk of sale — it also affects people they are related to.  And while you’re at it, it’s worth checking in with your friends to ensure that all of your loved ones are taking steps to protect their data.  This story originally published on March 25 and was updated June 11 with new information.

Best of Summer Game Fest 2025 trailers – Mortal Shell 2, Game Of Thrones and more GameCentral Published June 7, 2025 3:33am Updated June 7, 2025 7:01am The Resident Evil and friends show (YouTube) Watch all the most interesting trailers from the biggest summer preview event of the year, including Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds, Code Vein 2, and Wu-Tang: Rise Of The Deceiver. You never know what you’re going to get with Summer Game Fest, the would-be replacement for E3 hosted by The Games Awards creator Geoff Keighley. Some years there’s tons of big name reveals and some years it’s mostly just AA and indie titles. This is one of those years. That doesn’t mean there was nothing of interest, but the mic drop reveal at the end of the two hour long show was Resident Evil Requiem, and it was by far the biggest game to be featured. Despite being only a day after the Nintendo Switch 2 launch, and Nintendo registered as a partner, the only time the console was even mentioned was a brief ad for Cyberpunk 2077: Ultimate Edition. Although that does probably increase the chances of a Nintendo Direct later in the month. There were a few notable trends for the games at this year’s Summer Game Fest: a lot of Soulslike titles with dark grey visuals, a lot of anime games, and plenty of live service titles still trying their luck at hitting the big time. So, if the thought of that doesn’t appeal you may find the pickings relatively thin. Although there’s also Jurassic World Evolution 3 and the Deadpool VR game if you fancy something different. Mortal Shell 2 Expert, exclusive gaming analysis Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. The first annoucement was Mortal Shell 2, a sequel to the 2020 Dark Souls clone that is still one of our favourite Soulslikes not made by FromSoftware. Developed by a mere 30-man team (Keighley was keen to highlight that many of the games were by surprisingly small developers) the sequel seems to be going for a more overt horror atmosphere, while there was a lot more gun combat than usual for the genre. It’s out sometime in 2026. Death Stranding 2: On The Beach It’s never a surprise to see Hideo Kojima at a Geoff Keighley event but the cut scene he decided to show for Death Stranding 2 was not exactly the most enthralling. It featured Luca Marinelli as Neil and his real-life wife Alyssa Jung as therapist Lucy, arguing about the fact that he’s forgotten who she is. Neil is apparently the villain of the piece, and the one dressed up in Solid Snake cosplay in some of the previous images. The game itself is out in just a few weeks, on June 26. Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds Sega had a strange little dig at Mario Kart World during their reveal of Sonic’s latest kart racer, pointing out that it has cross-play… even though Mario Kart is obviously only on Nintendo formats. The game looked good, but the focus of the demonstration was crossover characters from other games, including Hatsune Miku, Ichiban Kasuga from Like A Dragon, Joker from Persona 5, and Steve from Minecraft. The game will be released on September 25 for every format imaginable. Code Vein 2 We’re really not sure the art style in this unexpected sequel to the 2019 Soulslike works very well, with its anime characters and realistic backdrops, but at least it’s something a bit different. The original didn’t seem quite successful enough to justify a follow-up, but the action looks good and at least it’s one Soulslike that’s not copying FromSoftware’s visuals as well as its gameplay. It’ll be released for Xbox Series X, PlayStation 5, and PC sometime next year. Game Of Thrones: War For Westeros It does seem madness that there’s never been a console action game based on Game Of Thrones. There still isn’t, but at least this real-time strategy game isn’t just some seedy mobile title. Unfortunately, the pre-rendered trailer never showed a hint of any gameplay, so there’s no clue as to what it’s actually like, but apparently it involves ‘ruthless free-for-all battles where trust is fleeting and power is everything’. It’s out next year and seems to be PC-only, which is a shame as it could have worked as a spiritual sequel to EA’s old Lord Of The Rings real-time strategies. Onimusha: Way Of The Sword It’s been a very busy week for Capcom this week, with Pragmata re-unveiled at the State of Play on Wednesday and Resident Evil Requiem being the big reveal at the end of Summer Game Fest. But we also got a new gameplay trailer for the reboot of Onimusha, which looks extremely pretty and continued the series’ tradition of not even trying to have anyone sound like they’re actually from Japan (like Resident Evil, the originals only had English voiceovers). There’s no release date yet, but it’s out next year on Xbox Series X/S, PlayStation 5, and PC. Felt That: Boxing One of the strangest reveals of the show was what seems to be a Muppet version of Punch-Out!!, with the potty-mouthed puppets taking part in what also probably counts as a homage to Rocky. The gameplay does seem almost identical to Nintendo’s old boxing game but hopefully there’s a bit more to it than that. The game doesn’t have a release date and is currently scheduled only for PC. ARC Raiders Expected to be the next big thing in online shooters, the only thing ARC Raiders has been missing is a release date, but it finally got that at Summer Game Fest. It’ll be out on October 30 for Xbox Series X/S, PlayStation 5, and PC, which is interesting because that’s right around the time you’d expect this year’s Call Of Duty to come out – and the new Battlefield, if EA launches it this year. ARC Raiders’ strong word of mouth gives it a head start though, which could make for an interesting autumn shootout. Out Of Words When we interviewed Jospeh Fares about Split Fiction, we asked him why he thought no one had ever tried to copy his games, despite their huge success. He didn’t know but finally another developer seems to have wondered the same thing and Out Of Words does look very reminiscent of It Takes Two in particular. The hand-crafted, stop motion visuals are neat though and it’s definitely one to watch, even if it doesn’t have a release date yet. Lego Voyagers Another game taking inspiration from Split Fiction, at least in the sense that it has a friend pass that means only one person has to own a copy of the game to play online co-op. It’s by the creators of the very good Lego Builder’s Journey and rather than being based on Lego licensed sets, or any other established toy line, it’s all about solving puzzles by building Lego structures. If it’s as good as Lego Builder’s Journey it’ll be doing very well indeed, although there’s no release date yet. Mixtape Between South Of Midnight and The Midnight Walk, and Out Of Words, stop motion animation Is suddenly very popular for video games. The art style in this new game from Annapurna was notably different though, and while we’re not entirely sure what’s going on in terms of the gameplay the 80s soundtrack sounds like it’ll be the best thing since GTA: Vice City. Acts Of Blood Made by just nine people in Indonesia, this very bloody looking beat ‘em-up looked extremely impressive, and also very reminiscent of the violence in Oldboy. We didn’t quite gather what was going on in terms of the story but we’re sure revenge has something to do with it, as you beat down hordes of goons and get a Mortal Kombat style view of an opponent’s skeleton, when you manage to put a big enough dent in it. It’ll be out on PC next summer. Scott Pilgrim EX We can’t say we’ve ever been fans of Scott Pilgrim, either the comics or the film, but the 2D graphics for this new scrolling beat ‘em-up look gorgeous. It’s clearly intended as follow-up to Ubisoft’s film tie-in from 2010, which was well received by many, and is by the same team behind Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Shredder’s Revenge and Marvel Cosmic Invasion (which was also at Summer Game Fest and announced Rocket Racoon and She-Hulk as characters). It’ll be out on current and last gen consoles and PC next year. Hitman: World of Assassination Although 007 First Light did get a quick name check on stage, developer and publisher IO Interactive instead spent their time talking about Agent 47 in MindsEye and Mads Mikkelsen in Hitman: World of Assassination (aka Hitman 3). He’ll be reprising the role of Le Chiffre as the latest elusive target in the game – a special character, usually played by a famous actor, that is only available to assassinate for 30 days, starting from today. That’s neat but it’s also interesting that it implied IO has a considerable amount of leeway with the Bond licence and what they can do with it. Lego Party! The other Lego game to be unveiled was an outrageously obvious clone of Mario Party, only with 300 different minifigures instead of the Mushroom Kingdom crew. These can be rearranged in trillions of different combinations, in order to compete for stars golden bricks and play 60 different mini-games. We’re big fans of Mario Party (and Lego) so if this manages to be as fun as Nintendo’s games then we’re all for it. It’ll be release for both consoles and PC this year. Blighted A new game from Drinkbox Studios, makers of Guacamelee! and Nobody Saves The World is immediately of interest but this Diablo-esque role-player looks a bit more serious and horror tinged than their previous games. It also seems to be channelling Hades creator Supergiant Games, none of which is a bad thing. Whether it’s a Metroidvania or not isn’t clear but at certainly points in the trailer it definitely seems to have co-op. It’s not certain which formats it’s coming to but it’s out on PC next year. Infinitesimals A lot of people are probably going to compare this to online survival game Grounded, but the plot makes it sound like a more serious version of Pikmin, with aliens visiting Earth and battling with both insects and some sort of mechanical robot menace, as you search for your lost crew. It’s out for consoles and PC next year and while there’s very little concrete information on the gameplay the visuals certainly look impressive. Wu-Tang: Rise Of The Deceiver Whether you care about the Wu-Tang Clan or not this had some of the nicest visuals of any game at the show. They seemed fairly obviously influenced by the Into The Spider-Verse movies, but that’s no bad thing, and we’re only surprised that hasn’t happened before. The idea of a Wu-Tan action role-playing game was leaked quite a while ago, where it was described as Diablo meets Hi-Fi Rush, which does seem to fit with what you see in the trailer. There’s no release date so far. Into The Unwell There were a lot of great looking games at the show, but this might have been our favourite, with its 40s style animation reminiscent of a 3D Cuphead. It’s a bit hard to tell exactly what’s going on with the story but you seem to be playing an alcohol abusing cartoon character who’s been tricked by the Devil into… taking part in a third person action roguelite, that also has three-player co-op. There’s no release date but if it looks as good as it plays it’ll be doing very well indeed. Stranger than Heaven The final reveal before Resident Evil Requiem was what was previously codenamed Project Century and while it looks like a Yakuza spin-off it’s not actually part of the franchise, even though it’s by the same developer. Sega didn’t explain much, but when the game was first introduced it was set in Japan in 1915 and yet this trailer is set in 1943 (i.e. in the middle of the Second World War). More Trending Given the codename that probably implies you’re playing in multiple time periods across the whole century. There was no mention of formats or a release date though, so it’s probably still quite a while away from release. Resident Evil Requiem was the biggest news of the night (YouTube) Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. GameCentral Sign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

Additive Manufacturing UK (AMUK)’s first Members Forum of 2025 was held at Siemens’ UK headquarters in South Manchester earlier this year. The event featured presentations from AMUK members and offered attendees a chance to network and share insights.  Ahead of the day-long meetup, 3D Printing Industry caught up with Joshua Dugdale, Head of AMUK, to learn more about the current state of additive manufacturing and the future of 3D printing in Britain.  AMUK is the United Kingdom’s primary 3D printing trade organization. Established in 2014, it operates within the Manufacturing Technologies Association (MTA) cluster. Attendees at this year’s first meetup spanned the UK’s entire 3D printing ecosystem. Highlights included discussion on precious materials from Cookson Industrial, simulation software from Siemens, digital thread solutions from Kaizen PLM, and 3D printing services provided by ARRK.  With a background in mechanical engineering, Dugdale is “responsible for everything and anything AMUK does as an organization.” According to the Loughborough University alumnus, who is also Head of Technology and Skills at the MTA, AMUK’s core mission is to “create an environment in the UK where additive manufacturing can thrive.” He elaborated on how his organization is working to increase the commercial success of its members within the “struggling” global manufacturing environment. Dugdale shared his perspective on the key challenges facing 3D printing in the UK. He pointed to a “tough” operating environment hampered by global financial challenges, which is delaying investments.  Despite this, AMUK’s leader remains optimistic about the sector’s long-term potential, highlighting the UK’s success in R&D and annual 3D printing intellectual property (IP) output. Dugdale emphasized the value of 3D printing for UK defense and supply chain resilience, arguing that “defense will lead the way” in 3D printing innovation.  Looking ahead, Dugdale called on the UK Government to create a unified 3D printing roadmap to replace its “disjointed” approach to policy and funding. He also shared AMUK’s strategy for 2025 and beyond, emphasizing a focus on eductaion, supply chain visibility, and standards. Ultimately, the AMUK figurehead shared a positive outlook on the future of 3D printing in the UK. He envisions a new wave of innovation that will see more British startups and university spinouts emerging over the next five years.          Siemens’ Manchester HQ hosted the first AMUK Members Forum of 2025. Photo by 3D Printing Industry. What is the current state of additive manufacturing in the UK? According to Dugdale, the 3D printing industry is experiencing a challenging period, driven largely by global economic pressures. “I wouldn’t describe it as underperforming, I’d describe it as flat,” Dugdale said. “The manufacturing sector as a whole is facing significant challenges, and additive manufacturing is no exception.” He pointed to increased competition, a cautious investment climate, and the reluctance of businesses to adopt new technologies due to the economic uncertainty.  Dugdale specifically highlighted the increase in the UK’s National Insurance contribution (NIC) rate for employers, which rose from 13.8% to 15% on April 6, 2025. He noted that many British companies postponed investment decisions ahead of the announcement, reflecting growing caution within the UK manufacturing sector. “With additive manufacturing, people need to be willing to take risks,” added Dugdale. “People are holding off at the moment because the current climate doesn’t favor risk.”  Dugdale remains optimistic about the sector’s long-term potential, arguing that the UK continues to excel in academia and R&D. However, for Dugdale, commercializing that research is where the country must improve before it can stand out on the world stage. This becomes especially clear when compared to countries in North America and Asia, which receive significantly greater financial support. “We’re never going to compete with the US and China, because they have so much more money behind them,” he explained. In a European context, Dugdale believes the UK “is doing quite well.” However, Britain remains below Spain in terms of financial backing and technology adoption. “Spain has a much more mature industry,” Dugdale explained. “Their AM association has been going for 10 years, and it’s clear that their industry is more cohesive and further along. It’s a level of professionalism we can learn from.” While the Iberian country faces similar challenges in standards, supply chain, and visibility, it benefits from a level of cohesion that sets it apart from many other European countries. Dugdale pointed to the Formnext trade show as a clear example of this disparity. He expects the Spanish pavilion to span around 200 square meters and feature ten companies at this year’s event, a “massive” difference compared to the UK’s 36 square meters last year. AMUK’s presence could grow to around 70 square meters at Formnext 2025, but this still lags far behind. Dugdale attributes this gap to government support. “They get more funding. This makes it a lot more attractive for companies to come because there’s less risk for them,” he explained.   Josh Dugdale speaking at the AMUK Members Forum in Manchester. Photo by 3D Printing Industry. 3D printing for UK Defense  As global security concerns grow, the UK government has intensified efforts to bolster its defense capabilities. In this context, 3D printing is emerging as a key enabler. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) released its first Defence Advanced Manufacturing Strategy, outlining a plan to “embrace 3D printing,” with additive manufacturing expected to play a pivotal role in the UK’s future military operations.  Dugdale identified two key advantages of additive manufacturing for defense: supply chain resilience and frontline production. For the former, he stressed the importance of building localized supply chains to reduce lead times and eliminate dependence on overseas shipments. This capability is crucial for ensuring that military platforms, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, remain operational.  3D printing near the front lines offers advantages for conducting quick repairs and maintaining warfighting capabilities in the field. “If a tank needs to get back off the battlefield, you can print a widget or bracket that’ll hold for just five miles,” Dugdale explained. “It’s not about perfect engineering; it’s about getting the vehicle home.”  The British Army has already adopted containerized 3D printers to test additive manufacturing near the front lines. Last year, British troops deployed metal and polymer 3D printers during Exercise Steadfast Defender, NATO’s largest military exercise since the Cold War. Dubbed Project Bokkr, the additive manufacturing capabilities included XSPEE3D cold spray 3D printer from Australian firm SPEE3D.     Elsewhere in 2024, the British Army participated in Additive Manufacturing Village 2024, a military showcase organized by the European Defence Agency. During the event, UK personnel 3D printed 133 functional parts, including 20 made from metal. They also developed technical data packs (TDPs) for 70 different 3D printable spare parts. The aim was to equip Ukrainian troops with the capability to 3D print military equipment directly at the point of need. Dugdale believes success in the UK defense sector will help drive wider adoption of 3D printing. “Defense will lead the way,” he said, suggesting that military users will build the knowledge base necessary for broader civilian adoption. This could also spur innovation in materials science, an area Dugdale expects to see significant advancements in the coming years.     A British Army operator checks a part 3D printed on SPEE3D’s XSPEE3D Cold Spray 3D printer. Photo via the British Army. Advocating for a “unified industrial strategy” Despite promising growth in defence, Dugdale identified major hurdles that still hinder the widespread adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) in the UK.  A key challenge lies in the significant knowledge gap surrounding the various types of AM and their unique advantages. This gap, he noted, discourages professionals familiar with traditional manufacturing methods like milling and turning from embracing 3D printing. “FDM is not the same as WAAM,” added Dugdale. “Trying to explain that in a very nice, coherent story is not always easy.” Dugdale also raised concerns about the industry’s fragmented nature, especially when it comes to software compatibility and the lack of interoperability between 3D printing systems. “The software is often closed, and different machines don’t always communicate well with each other. That can create fear about locking into the wrong ecosystem too early,” he explained.  For Dugdale, these barriers can only be overcome with a clear industrial strategy for additive manufacturing. He believes the UK Government should develop a unified strategy that defines a clear roadmap for development. This, Dugdale argued, would enable industry players to align their efforts and investments.  The UK has invested over £500 million in AM-related projects over the past decade. However, Dugdale explained that fragmented funding has limited its impact. Instead, the AMUK Chief argues that the UK Government’s strategy should recognize AM as one of “several key enabling technologies,” alongside machine tooling, metrology, and other critical manufacturing tools.  He believes this unified approach could significantly boost the UK’s productivity and fully integrate 3D printing into the wider industrial landscape. “Companies will align themselves with the roadmap, allowing them to grow and mature at the same rate,” Dugdale added. “This will help us to make smarter decisions about how we fund and where we fund.”    AMUK’s roadmap and the future of 3D printing in the UK    When forecasting 3D printing market performance, Dugdale and his team track five key industries: automotive, aerospace, medical, metal goods, and chemical processes. According to Dugdale, these industries are the primary users of machine tools, which makes them crucial indicators of market health. AMUK also relies on 3D printing industry surveys to gauge confidence, helping them to spot trends even when granular data is scarce. By comparing sector performance with survey-based confidence indicators, AMUK builds insights into the future market trajectory. The strong performance of sectors like aerospace and healthcare, which depend heavily on 3D printing, reinforces Dugdale’s confidence in the long-term potential of additive manufacturing. Looking ahead to the second half of 2025, AMUK plans to focus on three primary challenges: supply chain visibility, skills development, and standards. Dugdale explains that these issues remain central to the maturation of the UK’s AM ecosystem. Education will play a key role in these efforts.  AMUK is already running several additive manufacturing upskilling initiatives in schools and universities to build the next generation of 3D printing pioneers. These include pilot projects that introduce 3D printing to Key Stage 3 students (aged 11) and AM university courses that are tailored to industry needs.  In the longer term, Dugdale suggests AMUK could evolve to focus more on addressing specific industry challenges, such as net-zero emissions or automotive light-weighting. This would involve creating specialized working groups that focus on how 3D printing can address specific pressing issues.  Interestingly, Dugdale revealed that AMUK’s success in advancing the UK’s 3D printing industry could eventually lead to the organization being dissolved and reabsorbed into the MTA. This outcome, he explained, would signal that “additive manufacturing has really matured” and is now seen as an integral part of the broader manufacturing ecosystem, rather than a niche technology. Ultimately, Dugdale is optimistic for the future of 3D printing in the UK. He acknowledged that AMUK is still “trying to play catch-up for the last 100 years of machine tool technology.” However, additive manufacturing innovations are set to accelerate. “There’s a lot of exciting research happening in universities, and we need to find ways to help these initiatives gain the funding and visibility they need,” Dugdale urged. As the technology continues to grow, Dugdale believes additive manufacturing will gradually lose its niche status and become a standard tool for manufacturers. “In ten years, we could see a generation of workers who grew up with 3D printers at home,” he told me. “For them, it will just be another technology to use in the workplace, not something to be amazed by.”  With this future in mind, Dugdale’s vision for 3D printing is one of broad adoption, supported by clear strategy and policy, as the technology continues to evolve and integrate into UK industry.  Take the 3DPI Reader Survey — shape the future of AM reporting in under 5 minutes. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.

Elon Musk is contemplating decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, responding to President Donald Trump's apparent intent to terminate government subsidies and contracts with the billionaire's companies. It looks like the feud between the former allies has quickly turned vicious.SpaceX's CEO initially announced that the company would retire its Dragon spacecraft in an X post on Thursday, with Musk sharing a screenshot of a post published on Trump's Truth Social account earlier in the day."The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," said Trump in the screenshotted post. "I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!" You May Also Like "In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk wrote on X.SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft are a family of vehicles designed to carry passengers and cargo. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has previously relied upon them to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Mere hours prior to Musk's announcement, SpaceX posted on X that it was preparing to launch a Dragon next Tuesday.For a few hours, it seemed reasonable to assume that this launch would now not go ahead. However, Musk then appeared to quickly walk back his decision. Responding to an X user advising him to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days," the billionaire subsequently stated that Dragon will not be decommissioned after all.It's unclear whether Musk's initial announcement was sincere, or whether his apparent about-face might be sarcastic. Musk has a history of making flippant comments online with no apparent regard to their consequences. What is clear is that Musk and Trump's relationship is well past the honeymoon phase, and now looks much more like an ugly divorce.If Trump does terminate government contracts with Musk's companies, it would deal a significant blow to the billionaire. According to a Washington Post investigation, NASA has invested over $15 billion in SpaceX alone. When put together with Musk's other companies such as EV automaker Tesla, his various businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. Mashable Trend Report: Coming Soon! Decode what’s viral, what’s next, and what it all means. Sign up for Mashable’s weekly Trend Report newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! Musk and Trump go through messy public breakup Credit: Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images Musk's relationship with Trump has significantly deteriorated in recent days. The billionaire announced that he was leaving his position as de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) last Wednesday, just one day after he criticised Trump's tax bill as undermining its work. The split was presented as amicable at the time, with Trump presenting Musk with a golden key and words of praise. However, their love affair has quickly turned sour.Musk continued to lambast Trump's bill after his departure from DOGE, arguing that it will increase government debt by trillions of dollars. Strongly disagreeing with the president's characterisation of the proposed legislation as a "Big Beautiful Bill," Musk labelled it a "disgusting abomination" and has been calling for lawmakers to crush it.For his part, Trump has claimed that Musk is simply throwing a tantrum because the bill supposedly cut an alleged "EV mandate." The president stated on Thursday that he had asked the billionaire to leave his administration, and that Musk had been "wearing thin.""I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump claimed. Despite Trump's assertions, he did not abolish any EV mandate as there has never been any U.S. law which makes switching to an electric car mandatory. However, Trump has taken several anti-EV measures since his inauguration, including abolishing incentives encouraging EV adoption, pausing $3 billion in funding for a U.S. charging network, and introducing a $250 annual fee for EV users in his recent tax bill. Related Stories Trump's claim about Musk is an interesting contrast to his statements in March, when he praised the billionaire for not complaining about the supposed end of the non-existent EV mandate. The president made the comments while he and Musk co-hosted a Tesla ad on the White House lawn in an effort to boost the company's cratering stock prices.Tesla's struggling share value has now fallen again amidst Musk's feud with Trump, plummeting more than 14 percent on Thursday to wipe out over $150 billion in value."I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago," Trump wrote on Thursday.Meanwhile, Musk went all-in attacking Trump on Thursday, claiming that the president is linked to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and sharing posts calling for him to be impeached. Musk has also hit out at Trump's tariffs on international trade, predicting that they will "cause a recession in the second half of the year.""Without me, Trump would have lost the election," Musk alleged on X. "Such ingratitude."

Reddit is accusing Anthropic of building its Claude AI models on the back of Reddit’s users, without permission and without paying for it.Anyone who uses Reddit, even a web-crawling bot, agrees to the site’s user agreement. That agreement is clear: you cannot just take content from the site and use it for your own commercial products without a written deal. Reddit claims Anthropic’s bots have been doing exactly that for years, scraping massive amounts of conversations and posts to train and improve Claude.What makes this lawsuit particularly spicy is the way it goes after Anthropic’s reputation. Anthropic has worked hard to brand itself as the ethical, trustworthy AI company, the “white knight” of the industry. The lawsuit, however, calls these claims nothing more than “empty marketing gimmicks”.For instance, Reddit points to a statement from July 2024 where Anthropic claimed it had stopped its bots from crawling Reddit. The lawsuit says this was “false”, alleging that its logs caught Anthropic’s bots trying to access the site more than one hundred thousand times in the following months.But this isn’t just about corporate squabbles; it directly involves user privacy. When you delete a post or a comment on Reddit, you expect it to be gone. Reddit has official licensing deals with other big AI players like Google and OpenAI, and these deals include technical measures to ensure that when a user deletes content, the AI company does too.According to Reddit’s lawsuit, Anthropic has no such deal and has refused to enter one. This means if their AI was trained on a post you later deleted, that content could still be baked into Claude’s knowledge base, effectively ignoring your choice to remove it. The lawsuit even includes a screenshot where Claude itself admits it has no real way of knowing if the Reddit data it was trained on was later deleted by a user:So, what does Reddit want? It’s not just about money, although they are asking for damages for things like increased server costs and lost licensing fees. They are asking the court for an injunction to force Anthropic to stop using any Reddit data immediately.Furthermore, Reddit wants to prohibit Anthropic from selling or licensing any product that was built using that data. That means they’re asking a judge to effectively take Claude off the market.This case forces a tough question: Does being “publicly available” on the internet mean content is free for any corporation to take and monetise? Reddit is arguing a firm “no,” and the outcome could change the rules for how AI is developed from here on out.(Photo by Brett Jordan)Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Billionaire Elon Musk has countered president Donald Trump's threat to "terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," in spectacular fashion: by threatening to cut off the United States' access to outer space."In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk tweeted.But it didn't take him long to blink. A few hours later — and after the publication of this story — Musk reversed course, agreeing to "cool off" and saying that "we won't decommission Dragon."That's not surprising. As executives at SpaceX no doubt desperately tried to explain to him after the dustup, the company would be in terrible danger without all the money it gets from NASA.And if Musk were to make good on his threat, the United States' space program could experience a setback of epic proportions. SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft has quickly become the de facto method for NASA astronauts to travel to the International Space Station.In other words, the threat could prevent American astronauts from visiting the space station — especially considering that the only other American option, Boeing's Starliner, is likely still years away from becoming a viable alternative, if ever.It was a significant escalation in a major falling out between the world's most powerful man and its richest one. The pair have been openly feuding about Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill," culminating in threats and personal attacks.The collateral damage of the feud could be enormous, particularly for the US space program.Ars Technica's Eric Berger suggested that Trump ripping up Musk's government contracts "would both end the International Space Station and simultaneously provide no way to safely deorbit it.""This just gets better and better," Musk replied in a laughing emoji-laden tweet. "Go ahead, make my day…"The news comes after the Trump administration abruptly pulled its nominee for the NASA administrator role, Jared Isaacman.Isaacman, who was hand-picked by Musk, has been to space twice with the help of SpaceX.The news greatly angered Musk, causing him to go on a crusade against Trump's tax bill.Musk's latest threats to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft could put the Trump administration and NASA in an extremely unfortunate position. Apart from Boeing's much-maligned Starliner, which has yet to complete a successful crewed mission to the ISS, the only alternative to send astronauts to the space station is Russia's Soyuz spacecraft.While the station's days are already numbered — NASA recently awarded SpaceX a contract to decommission the orbital lab in 2030 — continuing operations could prove extremely difficult without Dragon.But whether Musk will make good on his threat remains to be seen, especially considering the billionaire has a lengthy track record of making empty promises.Apart from vowing to decommission Dragon, Musk also attempted to smear Trump's name by arguing that he's "in the Epstein files.""This is the real reason they have not been made public," he tweeted. "Have a nice day, DJT!"Musk is clearly out for blood, even officially calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced by his vice president JD Vance.Who will emerge victorious is anybody's guess. If there's one certainty, it won't be NASA. The agency is expected to be hit by brutal cuts that could lay waste to dozens of space missions.Share This Article

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments