Next week, we’ll publish our 2025 list of Innovators Under 35, highlighting smart and talented people who are working in many areas of emerging technology. This new class features 35 accomplished founders, hardware engineers, roboticists, materials scientists, and others who are already tackling tough problems and making big moves in their careers. All are under the age of 35.
One is developing a technology to reduce emissions from shipping, while two others are improving fertility treatments and creating new forms of contraception. Another is making it harder for people to maliciously share intimate images online. And quite a few are applying artificial intelligence to their respective fields in novel ways.
We’ll also soon reveal our 2025 Innovator of the Year, whose technical prowess is helping physicians diagnose and treat critically ill patients more quickly. What’s more (here’s your final hint), our winner even set a world record as a result of this work.
MIT Technology Review first published a list of Innovators Under 35 in 1999. It’s a grand tradition for us, and we often follow the work of various featured innovators for years, even decades, after they appear on the list. So before the big announcement, I want to take a moment to explain how we select the people we recognize each year.
Step 1: Call for nominations
Our process begins with a call for nominations, which typically goes out in the final months of the previous year and is open to anyone, anywhere in the world. We encourage people to nominate themselves, which takes just a few minutes. This method helps us discover people doing important work that we might not otherwise encounter.
This year we had 420 nominations. Two-thirds of our candidates were put forward by someone else and one-third nominated themselves. We received nominations for people located in about 40 countries. Nearly 70% were based in the United States, with the UK, Switzerland, China, and the United Arab Emirates, respectively, having the next-highest concentrations.
After nominations close, a few editors then spend several weeks reviewing the nominees and selecting semifinalists. During this phase, we look for people who have developed practical solutions to societal issues or made important scientific advances that could translate into new technologies. Their work should have the potential for broad impact—it can’t be niche or incremental. And what’s unique about their approach must be clear.
Step 2: Semifinalist applications
This year, we winnowed our initial list of hundreds of nominees to 108 semifinalists. Then we asked those entrants for more information to help us get to know them better and evaluate their work.
We request three letters of reference and a résumé from each semifinalist, and we ask all of them to answer a few short questions about their work. We also give them the option to share a video or pass along relevant journal articles or other links to help us learn more about what they do.
Step 3: Expert judges weigh in
Next, we bring in dozens of experts to vet the semifinalists. This year, 38 judges evaluated and scored the applications. We match the contenders with judges who work in similar fields whenever possible. At least two judges review each entrant, though most are seen by three.
All these judges volunteer their time, and some return to help year after year. A few of our longtime judges include materials scientists Yet-Ming Chiang (MIT) and Julia Greer (Caltech), MIT neuroscientist Ed Boyden, and computer scientist Ben Zhao of the University of Chicago.
John Rogers, a materials scientist and biomedical engineer at Northwestern University, has been a judge for more than a decade (and was featured on our very first Innovators list, in 1999). Here’s what he had to say about why he stays involved: “This award is compelling because it recognizes young people with scientific achievements that are not only of fundamental interest but also of practical significance, at the highest levels.”
Step 4: Editors make the final calls
In a final layer of vetting, editors who specialize in covering biotechnology, climate and energy, and artificial intelligence review the semifinalists whom judges scored highly in their respective areas. Staff editors and reporters can also nominate people they’ve come across in their coverage, and we add them to the mix for consideration.
Last, a small team of senior editors reviews all the semifinalists and the judges’ scores, as well as our own staff’s recommendations, and selects 35 honorees. We aim for a good combination of people from a variety of disciplines working in different regions of the world. And we take a staff vote to pick an Innovator of the Year—someone whose work we particularly admire.
In the end, it’s impossible to include every deserving individual on our list. But by incorporating both external nominations and outside expertise from our judges, we aim to make the evaluation process as rigorous and open as possible.
So who made the cut this year? Come back on September 8 to find out.
Read More
Amy Nordrum