Challenges

2024 Challenge Areas

Health Equity

Challenge Partner: AI Wong Lab at Duke & BOLD team

Challenge Judges: Dr. An-Kwok Ian Wong, Dr. Marie-Laurie Charpignon, João Matos, Lisa Abrams, Joanna Brownstein

The gold standard for measuring blood oxygen levels (SaO₂) involves arterial blood gas measurement, which requires taking a blood sample. On the other hand, pulse oximeters measure peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂) noninvasively and offer more convenient, comfortable, and real-time readings. readings. However, the reliability of pulse oximetry readings has been a point of concern for decades but it was not until the COVID-19 pandemic, when Sjoding et al.’s formative paper reported racial bias in pulse oximetry measurements, that reliability of pulse oximetry readings was realized as a health equity issue.

In general, oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2) is widely reported to overestimate the “true” arterial oxygen (SaO2), measured by arterial blood gas (ABG). However, this issue disproportionately impacts patients with darker skin pigmentation. A seemingly small discrepancy is associated with higher rates of “hidden hypoxemia” among Black and Hispanic patients, with associated inequities in oxygen therapies and increases in mortality and organ dysfunction, contributing to documented existing health disparities in the US. The 88–92% range is particularly critical for clinical decision making, as arterial oxygen saturation readings above or below this threshold will determine the need to intervene upon acutely ill patients, for example, with supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation, further underlying the need to address racial biases in pulse oximetry readings.

CLIMate

Challenge Partner: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and. Environmental Affairs (EEA) in partnership with the Office of Climate Science (OCS) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

Challenge Judges: Dr. David Goldston, Dr. Adam Schlosser, Dr. Nadia Madden

Massachusetts faces significant climate risks, including increased flooding, droughts, and water infrastructure challenges. These risks threaten critical housing and water infrastructure - such as water supply, wastewater, reservoirs, and dams - that are essential for public safety, economic stability, and the well-being of communities across the state. Vulnerable communities, particularly those facing housing and water affordability and access issues, are often the most impacted.

The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) has been building Massachusetts' climate resilience through initiatives such as the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program and the ResilientMass Plan, the Commonwealth’s integrated Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan. However, as climate risks escalate, there is an urgent need for more inclusive, community-centered approaches to climate adaptation and smart growth. Often development policies do not take the future risks of increased flooding and water scarcity into consideration, even though floodplain siting and water infrastructure limitations can place serious constraints on growth. And historically, infrastructure projects have often overlooked the needs and voices of vulnerable and marginalized communities, exacerbating existing inequalities. A critical question remains: How can smart growth be designed to not only mitigate flood and drought risks but also ensure equitable outcomes for all residents, particularly low-income and underserved communities who are disproportionately affected by climate change?

Water-smart growth refers to development strategies that use water resources efficiently, manage water systems sustainably, and ensure that communities are resilient to water-related risks - such as flooding, droughts, and poor water quality - while promoting smart urban planning and infrastructure. In Massachusetts, where coastal communities, rivers, and freshwater ecosystems are central to both the environment and economy, water-smart growth has the potential to directly shape how people experience their built and natural environments, particularly in vulnerable communities. The challenge is to address these complex environmental, social, and economic factors, while also working closely with communities to co-create solutions that reflect their needs and priorities. This is essential to ensure that resilience strategies do not inadvertently worsen inequalities but instead contribute to more equitable, inclusive outcomes.

SUSTAINABLE housing

Challenge Partner: Assembly OSM

Challenge Judges: Andrew Staniforth, Paige Roosa, Kellie Murphy, Emily Brown

Real estate is a $10.5 trillion industry that has depended on the same fundamental technological processes for over 100 years. Building construction and material usage is inefficient, macroeconomic volatility makes long term industrial planning difficult, and the sector has chronic issues with innovation, despite an array of promising advancements in material science and automation.

As the largest single expense for most households, increasing housing costs are one of the most prominent political and economic issues in the United States. The Biden-Harris administration has committed to a series of reforms to permitting and financing for buildings, including over $25 billion in grants for increasing housing supply not adequately provided by the market, such as by employing novel development techniques, such as modular, panelized, or manufactured housing. Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of global emissions. However, decarbonization policies and investment deeply under-prioritizes the real estate sector relative to its impact on overall carbon emission targets. Key materials such as cement and steel are recognized as among the hardest to decarbonize, while strict building codes that define permitted materials and methods undermine the ability to innovate and deploy promising new solutions. Building domestic supply chains involving green industrial jobs is a key political priority for the Biden-Harris administration. Recent significant legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act have provided substantial and flexible incentives for businesses that can employ American workers in the construction of technologies ranging from solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear energy to semiconductor chips and mining for critical minerals.

Innovation in rapid building assembly is a burgeoning industry with a long history in the United States, including at MIT. From 3D Printing, to Operation Breakthrough, to Tiny Home developments, the public, private, and non-profit sectors have all been invested in identifying more efficient housing construction methods. Robotic and autonomous construction innovation promises to dramatically accelerate these initiatives, if the enabling conditions can be achieved.

Identify the greatest barriers, whether they consist of technological or policy limitations, to scaling next generation housing construction technology given the information provided about a sample supply chain and real estate market for an emerging modular housing company in the Northeastern United States.

Criminal Justice

Challenge Partner: Redo.io supported by LexLab UC Law SF 2024 Justice Tech Accelerator

Challenge Judges: Aparna Komarla, Dr. Susan Champion, Dr. Liliya Lavitas

In 1997, Mr. Peter Heyberger was sentenced to 65 years-to-life under California's "Three Strikes" law for residential burglary. More than two decades of hard work and rehabilitation later, he returned home to his family under the 2018 Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing (PIR) law. Today, Peter is dedicated to his work as an electrician and maintenance worker for a construction company that prioritizes housing for unhoused communities, veterans, and low-income individuals.

California's "Three Strikes" law, established in 1994, mandated life sentences for individuals convicted of three serious or violent felonies. This law led to a surge in the prison population, including individuals serving life sentences for relatively minor third offenses. Over the past decade, California has enacted several initiatives to reform its criminal justice system:

Proposition 36 (2012)

Amended the "Three Strikes" law, allowing those with non-serious, non-violent offenses as their third "strike" to petition for reduced sentences. This initiative enabled a more nuanced approach to sentencing, particularly for non-violent offenders.

Proposition 47 (2014)

Reclassified certain non-violent, low-level crimes—such as simple drug possession and petty theft—from felonies to misdemeanors. This initiative sought to redirect resources from incarceration to mental health and addiction treatment programs. By reducing penalties for minor offenses, Prop 47 aimed to alleviate strain on California’s criminal justice system, promote rehabilitation, and address the underlying causes of criminal behavior rather than focusing solely on punishment.

Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing (AB 2942, 2018)

Allows district attorneys to review past cases and recommend resentencing for individuals whose sentences no longer align with current laws or justice standards. This discretion can address cases where the punishment may be disproportionate to the crime, acknowledging shifts in public opinion on rehabilitation and mitigating circumstances. This law is part of a broader movement towards greater prosecutorial discretion aimed at correcting sentencing injustices.

These initiatives reflect California's shift toward criminal justice reform, focusing on fairness, rehabilitation, and addressing past “tough-on-crime” approaches to sentencing.

New research methods will help identify unjust and unfair sentences currently being served in California prisons. How can data science help identify individuals harshly sentenced for low-level offenses? Who is incarcerated in our prisons and for what reasons? Who is eligible for “second-look” case reviews through reform laws? Does the data show any bias against certain demographics that should be taken in consideration when evaluating eligibility for justice reform measures?