Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
In an age of fast-moving misinformation, our expert teaches students how to spot what’s credible
As the new academic year begins, and at a time when misinformation often travels faster than facts, University of Rochester’s Kevin Meuwissen offers educators and young learners clarity and practical strategies for identifying credible sources. As an associate professor and chair of teaching and curriculum at the Warner School of Education and Human Development, Meuwissen focuses on how children and teens learn about politics and history — and how they can be taught to critically evaluate what they consume. “Young people pay close attention to who’s been consistently accurate,” he says. “They’re more likely to trust someone over time if their information holds up.” To empower students in our complex information environment, Meuwissen champions the so-called SIFT method — an easy-to-remember acronym and evidence-based toolkit that breaks down like this: • Stop! Pause before reacting or sharing • Investigate the source • Find better coverage • Trace claims back to their origin He also warns about how emotional framing, AI-generated visuals, deep fakes, and repeated exposure can distort judgment through the illusory truth effect — making misinformation feel believable even when it isn’t. His "Ever Wonder: How Can You Tell If A Source Is Credible?" video is a handy teaching tool. Meuwissen and his colleagues encourage teachers grappling with resistance over topics like climate science to consider not just evidence depth, but also students’ identities — political, cultural, and otherwise — when designing lessons. His approach emphasizes building trust, modeling thoughtful verification, and nurturing classroom norms rooted in accuracy — traits essential for forming discerning digital citizens. Kevin Meuwissen is available for interviews about identifying misinformation. He can be contacted through Warner School of Education Director of Communications Theresa Danylak at tdanylak@warner.rochester.edu.
Are GCSEs delivering for students and society?
Ahead of the GCSEs results being released on Thursday 21 August Aston University work psychologist, Dr Paul Jones, discusses whether the exams are fit for purpose. He believes that our exam system narrows thinking, and GCSEs emphasise “right answers” and rote recall, creating risk-averse learners who are afraid to fail or think differently. Exams are harming wellbeing GCSEs were designed in the 1980s, when many left education at 16. Today, almost all young people continue to 18, yet they still face a stressful halfway checkpoint that often does more harm than good. Research shows GCSEs are linked to anxiety, sleeplessness and even self-harm. This isn’t about students being “less resilient”, t’s about a system that has prioritised bureaucracy, league tables, and exam statistics over wellbeing. GCSEs don’t prepare students for life Exams reward the ability to memorise and recall under pressure, but the world beyond school demands much more. Employers and universities want young people who can think critically, manage their own learning, collaborate, and adapt. By the time many reach university, students are burnt out from years of high-stakes testing. They often struggle with independence, risk-taking, and curiosity, the very qualities they need to succeed. Over-assessment stifles innovation Our exam system narrows thinking. GCSEs emphasise “right answers” and rote recall, creating risk-averse learners who are afraid to fail or think differently. Innovation, however, requires psychological safety: the freedom to explore, experiment, and make mistakes. In a world where AI can already handle routine tasks like recall and pattern analysis, the human edge lies in breaking moulds, challenging assumptions, and combining knowledge in new ways. Our current system suppresses exactly those skills. Moving GCSEs into the future We need fewer, smarter assessments and a curriculum that builds creativity, resilience, and innovation. Other countries use project-based learning, portfolios, and sampling tests to capture what young people can really do. Wales is already embedding wellbeing and digital skills into its new curriculum. England risks being left behind if it continues to cling to an exam-heavy model designed for a different era. The bottom line Our young people deserve an education that prepares them for life, not just for exams. We should be measuring what really matters: wellbeing, creativity, and the ability to thrive in a fast-changing, AI-driven world. To speak to Dr Jones or for any media inquiries in relation to this please contact Nicola Jones, Press and Communications Manager, Aston University on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk
Intangible assets now make up more than 90% of S&P 500 market value — yet many organizations still lack a dedicated executive role to manage them strategically. This is where the Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) comes in. In this expert-backed piece, J.S. Held's Chief Intellectual Property Officer James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP, and his colleague David Ngo unpack the economic forces shaping this role, the skills CIPOs bring to the table, and why forward-thinking companies are making IP leadership a boardroom priority. What you’ll learn: • The economic forces driving the rise of CIPO leadership • How CIPOs bridge legal, technical, and commercial priorities to unlock value • The growing relevance of CIPOs in consulting, insurance, and AI-driven industries • Practical strategies for integrating IP leadership into portfolio and risk management • Why the next decade will define the CIPO’s role in corporate success With deep expertise in IP strategy, valuation, and litigation, Malackowski and Ngo offer a clear, compelling case for elevating IP leadership to the C-suite. Looking to connect with the experts? Click on their profiles to arrange an interview or gain deeper insights into intellectual property strategy, risk, and valuation. James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP Chief Intellectual Property Officer, J.S. Held | Co-founder and Senior Managing Director, Ocean Tomo Global leader in intellectual property valuation, strategic advisory, and expert testimony. Recognized among IAM’s “World’s Leading IP Strategists” and a pioneer in IP exchange models. David Ngo Senior Analyst, Intellectual Property Disputes Financial Expert Testimony, Ocean Tomo, a part of J.S. Held Specialist in quantifying economic damages in IP disputes and valuing intangible assets, with expertise in applying economic and financial analysis to complex litigation. For any other media inquiries, contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com.
How AI will transform the economy: Predicting the next breakthroughs
AI is already revolutionizing the world around us. University of Delaware experts are at the forefront of this innovation, researching and inventing new ways to use AI in everyday life. Below are a number of UD experts who can discuss these topics and the breakthroughs being made. AI meets the edge – Weisong Shi, Alumni Distinguished Professor and Chair of Computer and Information Sciences, explains how AI and edge computing will transform everything from self-driving cars to real-time healthcare. AI’s energy appetite – Steven Hegedus, Professor, dives into the massive energy demands of AI, with expertise in photonics and chip-level signal processing. Building AI from the hardware – Sunita Chandrasekaran, Associate Professor and leader of the First State AI Institute, focuses on AI hardware innovations shaping the future of computing. Email mediarelations@udel.edu to speak to any of these experts.
First AI-powered Smart Care Home system to improve quality of residential care
Partnership between Lee Mount Healthcare and Aston University will develop and integrate a bespoke AI system into a care home setting to elevate the quality of care for residents By automating administrative tasks and monitoring health metrics in real time, the smart system will support decision making and empower care workers to focus more on people The project will position Lee Mount Healthcare as a pioneer of AI in the care sector and opening the door for more care homes to embrace technology. Aston University is partnering with dementia care provider Lee Mount Healthcare to create the first ‘Smart Care Home’ system incorporating artificial intelligence. The project will use machine learning to develop an intelligent system that can automate routine tasks and compliance reporting. It will also draw on multiple sources of resident data – including health metrics, care needs and personal preferences – to inform high-quality care decisions, create individualised care plans and provide easy access to updates for residents’ next of kin. There are nearly 17,000 care homes in the UK looking after just under half a million residents, and these numbers are expected to rise in the next two decades. Over half of social care providers still retain manual and paper-based approaches to care management, offering significant opportunity to harness the benefits of AI to enhance efficiency and care quality. The Smart Care Home system will allow for better care to be provided at lower cost, freeing up staff from administrative tasks so they can spend more time with residents. Manjinder Boo Dhiman, director of Lee Mount Healthcare, said: “As a company, we’ve always focused on innovation and breaking barriers, and this KTP builds on many years of progress towards digitisation. We hope by taking the next step into AI, we’ll also help to improve the image of the care sector and overcome stereotypes, to show that we are forward thinking and can attract the best talent.” Dr Roberto Alamino, lecturer in Applied AI & Robotics with the School of Computer Science and Digital Technologies at Aston University said: “The challenges of this KTP are both technical and human in nature. For practical applications of machine learning, it’s important to establish a common language between us as researchers and the users of the technology we are developing. We need to fully understand the problems they face so we can find feasible, practical solutions. For specialist AI expertise to develop the smart system, LMH is partnering with the Aston Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Application (ACAIRA) at Aston University, of which Dr Alamino is a member. ACAIRA is recognised internationally for high-quality research and teaching in computer science and artificial intelligence (AI) and is part of the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences. The Centre’s aim is to develop AI-based solutions to address critical social, health, and environmental challenges, delivering transformational change with industry partners at regional, national and international levels. The project is a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. (KTP). Funded by Innovate UK, KTPs are collaborations between a business, a university and a highly qualified research associate. The UK-wide programme helps businesses to improve their competitiveness and productivity through the better use of knowledge, technology and skills. Aston University is a sector leading KTP provider, ranked first for project quality, and joint first for the volume of active projects. For more information on the KTP visit the webpage.
Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. In the run-up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on President Donald Trump’s spending and tax bill, Republicans scrambled to revise the bill to win support of wavering GOP senators. A provision included in the original bill was a 10-year moratorium on any state law that sought to regulate artificial intelligence. The provision denied access to US$500 million in federal funding for broadband internet and AI infrastructure projects for any state that passed any such law. The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium was widely viewed as a win for AI firms that had expressed fears that states passing regulations on AI would hamper the development of the technology. However, many federal and state officials from both parties, including state attorneys general, state legislators and 17 Republican governors, publicly opposed the measure. In the last hours before the passage of the bill, the Senate struck down the provision by a resounding 99-1 vote. In an era defined by partisan divides on issues such as immigration, health care, social welfare, gender equality, race relations and gun control, why are so many Republican and Democratic political leaders on the same page on the issue of AI regulation? Whatever motivated lawmakers to permit AI regulation, our recent poll shows that they are aligned with the majority of Americans who view AI with trepidation, skepticism and fear, and who want the emerging technology regulated. Bipartisan sentiments We are political scientists who use polls to study partisan polarization in the United States, as well as the areas of agreement that bridge the divide that has come to define U.S. politics. In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative poll that sought to capture what Americans think about AI, including what they think AI will mean for the economy and society going forward. The public is generally pessimistic. We found that 65% of Americans said they believe AI will increase the spread of false information. Fifty-six percent of Americans worry AI will threaten the future of humanity. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans told us AI will make them more productive (29%), make people less lonely (21%) or improve the economy (22%). While Americans tend to be deeply divided along partisan lines on most issues, the apprehension regarding AI’s impact on the future appears to be relatively consistent across Republicans and Democrats. For example, only 19% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats said they believe that artificial intelligence will make people less lonely. Respondents across the parties are in lockstep when it comes to their views on whether AI will make them personally more productive, with only 29% − both Republicans and Democrats − agreeing. And 60% of Democrats and 53% Republicans said they believe AI will threaten the future of humanity. On the question of whether artificial intelligence should be strictly regulated by the government, we found that close to 6 in 10 Americans (58%) agree with this sentiment. Given the partisan differences in support for governmental regulation of business, we expected to find evidence of a partisan divide on this question. However, our data finds that Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on AI regulation, with majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (54%) supporting strict AI regulation. When we take into account demographic and political characteristics such as race, educational attainment, gender identity, income, ideology and age, we again find that partisan identity has no significant impact on opinion regarding the regulation of AI. State of anxiety In the years ahead, the debate over AI and the government’s role in regulating it is likely to intensify, on both the state and federal levels. As each day seems to bring new advances in AI’s capability and reach, the future is shaping up to be one in which human beings coexist – and hopefully flourish – alongside AI. This new reality has made the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, justifiably nervous, and our polling captures this widespread trepidation. Lawmakers and technology leaders alike could address this anxiety by better communicating the pitfalls and potential of AI, and take seriously the concerns of the public. After all, the public is not alone in its trepidation. Many experts in the field also have substantial worries about the future of AI. One of the fundamental political questions moving forward, then, will be to what degree regulators put guardrails on this emerging and transformative technology in order to protect Americans from AI’s negative consequences. Adam Eichen is a doctoral candidate in political science at UMass Amherst. Alexander Theodoridis is associate professor of political science and co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst. Sara M. Kirshbaum is a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer of political science at UMass Amherst. Tatishe Nteta is provost professor of political science and director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst.
Power Shift: How CMU Is Leading America’s Energy Evolution
Carnegie Mellon University, long known for its prowess in computer science and engineering, is now emerging as a key innovator within America’s energy landscape. As AI models grow more powerful, so too does their appetite for energy, straining an aging and outdated grid and prompting urgent questions about infrastructure, security and access. From reimagining AI data centers to modernizing and securing the electric grid, CMU researchers are working on practical solutions to pressing challenges in how the U.S. produces, moves and secures energy. Learn what CMU experts have to say about their Work That Matters.
CMU Experts at the Intersection of Energy and Innovation
Carnegie Mellon University experts are developing practical solutions for a fast-changing energy system. Their work modernizes infrastructure, accelerates innovation and harnesses AI for a more efficient and resilient future at a moment when the stakes for national competitiveness and public well-being have never been higher. Learn what CMU experts have to say about their Work That Matters.
Artificial Intelligence Makes Energy Demand More Complex — And More Achievable
In a 2024 paper, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and machine learning development corporation Hugging Face found that generative AI systems could use as much as 33 times more energy to complete a task than task-specific software would. “The climate and sustainability challenge can be overwhelming in the amount of new clean technology that we have to deploy and develop, and the ways that the energy system has to evolve,” said Costa Samaras, head of the university-wide Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation. “The scale of the challenge alone can be overwhelming to folks.” However, Carnegie Mellon University’s standing commitment to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals and its position as a nationally recognized leader in technologies like artificial intelligence mean that it is uniquely positioned to address growing concerns around energy demand, climate resilience and social good.
The Canadian Housing Market is a Mess
The Social Contract is Broken—And We Forgot to Tell Our Kids There was a time in Canada when the rules seemed straightforward: work hard, stick to the plan, and your kids would have an even better future than you did. That was the unspoken social contract—not legally binding, but deeply believed. A handshake between generations, sealed with maple syrup and mutual optimism. You purchased a modest home, stayed with one employer for 30 years, and retired with a gold watch, a pension, and a house you owned outright. Life wasn’t flashy, but it was fair. And your kids? They would climb even higher. Well… about that! The Housing Market: From Stepping Stone to Stumbling Block Homeownership used to be a rite of passage. Now it feels more like winning The Amazing Race: Toronto Edition. According to Statistics Canada housing data, in 1990, the average Canadian home sold for approximately $215,000. Fast-forward to late 2023–early 2024, and that number has ballooned to around $670,000–$700,000 on average —a more than 200–225% increase in just over three decades. Meanwhile, wages didn’t get the memo. Since 1990, they’ve only doubled. So, while home prices soared, incomes shifted to the kitchen for more instant noodles. It's not just a gap—it’s a canyon. Sure, there was a housing correction in the early ’90s. But if you’re under 40, you’ve never seen a price drop—only stable prices (on a good day). Meanwhile, boomers and older Gen Xers bought homes when down payments didn’t require a GoFundMe page. Boomers Rode the Rocket—Then Pulled Up the Ladder Let’s be honest: we did quite well. If you purchased property in the ’70s, ’80s, or ’90s, you benefited from a wave of equity that transformed retirement into a cruise ship brochure. For many, the house became the largest—and only—source of real wealth. We got used to it. Then we got protective. Then... well, a bit smug. • NIMBYism? Guilty. • Zoning restrictions? Voted yes. • Capital gains reform? Over my arthritic body. • Preferred Pronouns – Me, Myself and I We feared anything that could lower our property values. A 25% correction? Not in my golden years! But that might be what it takes to give our kids a fair shot. We told them to "work hard," then quietly reinforced a game they couldn’t win. We Told Them to Hustle—Then Rigged the Game Today’s young Canadians aren’t lazy; they’re exhausted. They’ve done everything we asked—degrees, careers, even side hustles—and still can’t afford a 500-square-foot shoebox in Toronto without cashing in their RRSPs or moving back into our basements. By the way, they’re doing this—not because they missed us, but because rent is eating up half their paycheque and still asking for dessert. Even worse? Many are looking abroad, not for a gap year, but for an economy in which they can participate—one where they might be able to afford a home and groceries in the same month. If the best and brightest are quietly packing their bags, it’s not wanderlust; it’s a policy failure. There’s now a whole ecosystem catalyzed by everything from consultants to cloud-based software and payment platforms that has aided a global movement of “creative-class” digital nomads. For those who want a more affordable cost of living and have the skills necessary to work remotely, this generation has options to move. In "Intelligent Money," author Chris Skinner envisions a future where AI-powered financial systems won’t just advise against homeownership—they’ll actively discourage it. Why commit to mortgage debt when you can rent flexibly, invest digitally, and maintain liquidity in your life? Not a dream, but a necessity. We told them to pull up their socks. They’re wondering if we sold their shoes. What Happened to Profit Sharing? Remember when companies used to share their success? Microsoft, Google, and yes, still Costco, offered profit-sharing or stock options that turned employees into unexpected millionaires. It wasn’t charity; it was a fair deal. Then gig work emerged, HR departments disappeared, and the only thing we shared was burnout. We need to restore fairness—perhaps even incentivize companies that value loyalty. Renter Equity Accounts: A Radical Concept—Equity You're not building wealth if rent is more than 30% of your income. You’re funding someone else’s retirement. So, here’s a thought: when rent exceeds 30%, why don’t we match the excess—25% to 50%—and deposit it into a locked “Renter Equity Account”? It grows tax-free and can be used for: • A down payment • Retirement savings • Student debt relief • Emergency funds Employers could contribute to REA plans. Governments could provide incentives, and renters could finally receive more than just a rent receipt and a pat on the back. It's Time for Bold, Practical Ideas We can’t rewind to 1990. (Although the fashion world is trying.) But we can fix what’s broken: Let Canadians earn their first $250,000 tax-free, provided it is used for a down payment or to eliminate student loans. That’s helping reduce overall debt. Ensure zoning reform is effective by linking federal infrastructure funding to genuine housing development. Establish public wealth tools - TFSA-style accounts for low-wealth, high-effort Canadians. Forgive student loans for public service, specifically for individuals filling positions such as nurses, teachers, early childhood educators, and tradespeople, with added incentives for those relocating to underserved areas. Invest in them, and they will reinvest in us. What Families Can Do—Right Now No, you can’t rewrite national policy from the kitchen table. (Unless you’re Chrystia Freeland.) But here’s what you can do: Start a down payment fund—consider using a TFSA or an investment account to help your kids build capital. Create an ADU—laneway homes, granny suites, legal basement rentals. Housing and support combined. Access your home equity—HELOCs or reverse mortgages can be lifelines, not luxury options. Create a rent-to-own family plan—turn monthly rent into future equity. Discuss finances—share your successes, warn against mistakes, and share the financial knowledge you’ve gained from hard lessons. An Apology—from the Heart To our kids and to the next generation, we should say we’re sorry. We didn’t plan for this outcome. We assumed the paths we walked would still be open for you, that the same rules would still apply, and that equity would be available to all. We forgot that a contract—even an unspoken one—still needs to be honoured. But it’s not too late. We can speak out. We can share our thoughts. We can change the policies, shift the mindsets, and reopen the doors that have been closed, because the future of this country shouldn’t be something you have to leave to find. Let’s fix this. So, you can stay. And thrive. And lead. Let’s rebuild the contract together. Deal? Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue
