Skip to Content
Uncategorized

2011 TR35 Judges

August 23, 2011

Ed Boyden*
Leader, Synthetic Neurobiology Group, MIT

Yet-Ming Chiang
Professor of ceramics, MIT

George Church
Professor of genetics, Harvard Medical School

James J. Collins*
Professor of biomedical engineering, Boston University

Stephen H. Friend
CEO, Sage Bionetworks

Javier García-Martínez*
Professor of inorganic chemistry, University of Alicante

Eric Horvitz
Principal researcher, Microsoft Research

Alex Huang*
Director, FREEDM Systems Center, North Carolina State University

Ed Lazowska
Professor of computer science, University of Washington

Johnny Chung Lee*
Rapid evaluator, Google

Nick McKeown
Professor of electrical engineering and computer science, Stanford University

Christopher B. Murray*
Professor of chemistry, materials science, and engineering, University of Pennsylvania

Dipankar Raychaudhuri
Professor of communications, Rutgers University

Chris R. Somerville
Director, Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley

Nimmi Ramanujam*
Associate professor of biomedical engineering, Duke University

John Rogers*
Professor of engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Phillip Sharp
Institute professor, MIT

Bjarne Stroustrup
Professor of computer science, Texas A&M University

Jennifer West*
Professor of bioengineering, Rice University

Jackie Ying*
Director, Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology

Ben Y. Zhao*
Associate professor of computer science, University of California, Santa Barbara

*Past TR100/TR35 honoree

Keep Reading

Most Popular

The inside story of how ChatGPT was built from the people who made it

Exclusive conversations that take us behind the scenes of a cultural phenomenon.

How Rust went from a side project to the world’s most-loved programming language

For decades, coders wrote critical systems in C and C++. Now they turn to Rust.

ChatGPT is about to revolutionize the economy. We need to decide what that looks like.

New large language models will transform many jobs. Whether they will lead to widespread prosperity or not is up to us.

Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?

An approach that promised to democratize design may have done the opposite.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.