Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
New report proves earning potential of EVs equipped with vehicle-to-grid technology
The University of Delaware, Exelon Corporation/Delmarva Power and collaborators have released a new report showing that electric vehicles equipped with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology can be profitable for private owners and businesses alike, with data from real electricity markets to back up the claims. The report is the outcome of a pilot program announced in 2024 by UD, and completed at the offices of Delmarva Power, which is part of Exelon Corporation, to confirm the value of V2G services to the grid. Among the key findings: the collaborators report that a V2G-enabled passenger electric vehicle (EV) could earn as much as $3,359 per year, based on 2021-2025 market prices, for storing and supplying energy to the electric grid during times of need, otherwise known as providing grid services. Heavier vehicles, such as fleet vehicles, delivery trucks or school buses, could earn over $9,000 per year, per vehicle. That’s a powerful income generator, given that privately owned vehicles are parked 96% of the time, on average, in the United States. Company fleet vehicles — even those operating 40 hours per week — remain stationary 75% of the average work week. The pilot, which included collaborators Ford Motor Company, the region’s electric grid operator PJM Interconnection, and aggregator Nuvve Corp., was tested using a small fleet of Delmarva Power EVs retrofitted with the bidirectional charging technology and a new advanced communications standard. The term “bidirectional charging” means that the V2G technology enables electric vehicle batteries to store extra energy from the electric grid when there is a surplus and to discharge that energy back to the grid when it is needed. In this way, V2G-enabled EVs can help the grid stay balanced, strengthening grid resilience and reliability, especially during peak demand and extreme weather events. New PJM rules allow properly certified EVs to provide this balancing and be paid for it — and the pilot proved they can meet these requirements and be paid for the service. For UD Professor Willett Kempton, who invented the V2G technology with colleagues at the University nearly 30 years ago, it’s a pivotal moment. “Whether it could scale cost-effectively was an open question, and we’ve proven that it can — with the right combination of policies, standards and technology,” said Kempton, professor of marine science and policy. For businesses such as Exelon, the report makes clear that V2G technology can help offset the cost of fleet electric vehicles while supporting the electric grid. This is because when the batteries in the parked fleet vehicles are aggregated together, they can function as a virtual power plant. The result is energy storage and supply that is available to the electric grid significantly faster than other conventional power resources, with virtually no wait times needed to power up or down. Unlocking a parked vehicle’s earning power Since Kempton and colleagues pioneered the innovative V2G technology, UD researchers have kept the charge going, accelerating progress on everything from V2G technology development to new automotive communication standards (called LIN-CP) for electric cars. They have advanced policy innovations at the state and federal level to overcome barriers in widespread adoption by enabling V2G technology to compete in electric markets, too. The recent pilot with Exelon/Delmarva Power and others also revealed that the EV batteries used for V2G remained fully functional after a full year of market operation — with no measured reduction in battery health — all while providing pollution-free power. “Something that might not be obvious to everyone is that these payments are not a subsidy; these EVs are earning money by competing with legacy generators, which is novel in a lot of ways,” said Kempton. “And when you’re participating in the market instead of a fuel-burning generator, you’re also reducing pollution.” This makes the technology both economically smart and functionally sound in a world where the electric grid is expected to include more renewables in the coming years. Kempton explained that most U.S. planned future electricity generation is scheduled to come from wind and solar. This will create greater fluctuation in the electric grid, which means more storage for energy surpluses will be needed. That’s where V2G can help, Kempton said. According to Brian Derr, senior analyst, Exelon Technology and R&D, insights from the pilot will inform future deployments and support the company’s broader strategy to enable the clean energy transition while maintaining reliable service for the communities it serves. “By leveraging existing assets in new ways, Exelon is positioning itself to build a more flexible, resilient and customer-focused energy system,” said Derr. Accelerating progress toward a V2G industry Next steps to expand the V2G industry to support the grid will require mass manufacturing to scale up the number of individual cars or fleets that are participating and earning money, Kempton said. Until now, changes to V2G-enabled vehicles have been done by retrofitting existing EVs to accommodate the V2G technology. Now with lower-cost standards and realistic market revenue values that can be expected, Kempton is looking at how this becomes adopted in many cars and many charging stations. “We’ll need at least a few car companies and charging station companies to mass produce this V2G equipment, and to deploy the technology into vehicles in the factory,” Kempton said. “If it is designed in, and mass produced, it’s incredibly cheap, especially when you compare it to the potential yearly revenue.” At UD, faculty and students continue to play a large role in the work aimed at bringing a fully functioning V2G industry to fruition. Kempton, Rodney McGee and recent graduates John Metz and Catherine Gilman, for example, are focused on policy changes and standards to allow V2G-enabled electric vehicles to provide grid services in more states. Such policies currently exist in Delaware and Maryland. Kempton would like to see this number grow. Meanwhile, UD postdoctoral researcher Garrett Ejzak and alumnus Go Charan Kilaru are focused on other aspects of the work. Ejzak is developing and testing these new EV technologies, and Kilaru is designing cryptography measures to ensure security protocols for V2G communications. Concurrently, UD students Colden Rother, Jude Borden, Lucia Paye-Layleh and Emmie Rossi are examining ways UD could electrify some of its campus fleets, under the advisement of UD’s Kimberly Oremus, associate professor of marine science and policy, economics, and public policy and administration. To arrange an interview with Kempton, visit his profile page below and click on the "contact" button. For interviews with officials from Exelon/Delmarva Power, contact Matt Ford, in Delmarva Power Communications, at 302-429-3060.
When the Cheque Stops Coming: Canada Post, Seniors, and the Quiet Cost of Modernization
There’s an old line that has saved more awkward conversations than most of us care to admit: “The cheque is in the mail.” It has been used to buy time, soften bad news, and occasionally stretch the definition of truth. But it worked because, deep down, everyone believed the premise. The mail would come. Eventually. Reliably. Without negotiation. That quiet assumption carried a surprising amount of weight — especially for the 79-year-old navigating an icy driveway. Now, it seems, even that assumption is up for review. I understand the economic argument. Big Losses: The official Canada Post 2024 Annual Report shows they have racked up $3.8 billion in losses since 2018. Lower Letter Volumes: The shift to email has hit Canada Post hard. Letter volumes have dropped dramatically. Less in the mailbag equals far less revenue to offset costs. Increasing Costs Factors: The number of Canadian addresses continues to grow. The math is not subtle, and change is clearly required. But this deserves more attention. Modernization is not the problem. Thoughtless modernization is. Cuts to Canada Post Service May Not Land Equally Not all Canadians experience change the same way, and this particular shift will land unevenly if proper consultation isn't done. We're getting older: According to Statistics Canada, nearly one in five Canadians is now over the age of 65, and that proportion continues to rise. A meaningful share of those older Canadians also live outside major urban centers. We're spread out geographically: Depending on how you measure it, we're also far apart compared to most other countries. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada & the Vanier Institute of the Family, roughly one-quarter to one-third of seniors live in rural or small communities, where services are more dispersed, and distances are longer. Rural Canada is also aging faster than urban Canada. In other words, the places most likely to lose convenient access are often the places with the highest concentration of people who rely on it. This is not a niche issue. It is a structural one. The Real Issue Isn’t the Mailbox. It’s the Journey. Policy discussions tend to reduce this to a simple question of location. Move the mailbox, problem solved. But the issue is not where the mailbox is. The issue is whether someone can get to it safely, consistently, and without turning a routine task into a risk calculation. I am thinking of a client. She is 79, sharp, organized, and fully in charge of her life. Her bills are paid on time, her paperwork is immaculate, and she has no interest in becoming dependent on anyone. In the summer, she walks daily without a second thought. In the winter, she studies the ground before every step. Ice changes everything. A short walk becomes a decision. A slightly longer one becomes a concern. For her, a community mailbox is not a mild inconvenience. It is a variable she now has to manage. That is the difference between designing for the ideal user and designing for the real one. Mail Still Matters More Than We Pretend There is a quiet assumption that everything important has already moved online. That assumption works well for people who are comfortable navigating digital systems. It does not work for everyone. For many seniors, mail remains the backbone of how they manage their lives. Pension statements, government notices, insurance documents, tax slips, prescription information, and replacement banking cards still arrive in envelopes, not inboxes. And yes, occasionally, an actual cheque. The phrase “the cheque is in the mail” may be fading, but the need behind it has not disappeared. For some Canadians, that envelope still represents income, security, and peace of mind. Digital systems are efficient when they work. When they do not, they can be frustrating and, at times, risky. One expired password or one convincing phishing email can turn a simple task into an afternoon of confusion. It is easy to underestimate the value of paper systems when you no longer rely on them. It is harder to replace them when you still do. Efficiency Has a Way of Moving Downward There is a pattern in modern service design worth naming. Call it effort laundering: the practice of shifting work from institutions to individuals in the name of efficiency. We see it in banking, where branches quietly disappear. We see it in healthcare systems that assume patients are comfortable online. We see it in customer service models built around apps and automated menus. And now we may see it in mail delivery. Where the service moves from your front door to a location you must reach yourself. For many Canadians, this is manageable. For others, it is not. When the burden of efficiency lands on those least able to absorb it, the system may be efficient on paper but inequitable in practice. If Change Is Necessary, It Should Be Smarter I understand that change is necessary. The cost differences between door-to-door delivery and centralized delivery are real, and the financial pressures on Canada Post are not going away. But the choice is not between doing nothing and eliminating access. There is a middle path, and other countries have already explored it. In Norway, proposed postal reforms included reducing delivery frequency to once per week. Following public consultation, the government stepped back earlier this year from that plan and maintained more frequent delivery, recognizing the impact on certain populations (Norwegian Ministry of Transport, 2026). In the United Kingdom, the regulator Ofcom has examined reducing delivery to 5 or even 3 days per week as a way to manage costs while preserving universal service (Ofcom, 2025). Research from Sweden and New Zealand shows that older adults rely more heavily on traditional mail systems than the general population, particularly for official and financial communication (Crew & Kleindorfer, 2012; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2021). These examples point to a practical conclusion. Reducing frequency can achieve savings without removing access. Eliminating access altogether is a different decision with different consequences. Canada Is Not Denmark Denmark has gone further than most, effectively ending traditional letter delivery after a dramatic decline in mail volumes of roughly 90 percent since 2000. The move is often cited as a model of modernization. It should be considered with caution. Denmark operates within a context of high digital adoption, a compact geography, and milder weather conditions. Notably, Canada’s digital divide among seniors is more pronounced than Denmark’s, meaning the proportion of older Canadians who cannot easily go online is higher to begin with. Even so, a significant number of Danish residents have been classified as "digitally exempt" and continue to rely on alternative arrangements to receive essential communications (PostNord, 2025). Canada is not Denmark. Our geography is larger, our winters are harsher, and our population is more dispersed. Also, we play better hockey. If Home Delivery Changes, People Will Adapt Canadians are remarkably adaptable, and seniors are often the most resourceful of all. If home delivery is reduced, practical solutions will emerge. Neighbours will organize. Families will build mail pickup into regular visits, turning a logistical task into a reason to connect. Some seniors will finally set up paperless billing, one account at a time. These are workable adjustments. But they should be supported by thoughtful policy, not forced by avoidable design choices. The Problem With Accommodation Accommodation programs will likely exist, but their effectiveness depends on how easy they are to access. Systems that require people to search, apply, document their needs, and follow up repeatedly tend to favour those with the time and persistence to navigate them. The seniors who most need support are often the least inclined to engage in that process. The real test is not whether accommodation exists. It is whether it is simple, visible, and available before a problem becomes a crisis. This Is About More Than Mail At its core, this debate is not really about mail. It is about independence. It is about whether people can continue to manage their own lives without unnecessary friction. It is about whether public systems are designed for real users rather than ideal ones. The ideal user is mobile, tech-savvy, and well-supported. The real user may be older, living alone, and quietly determined to remain independent. That determination deserves to be supported, not complicated. Modernization, With a Memory Home delivery is not just a legacy feature. For many seniors, it remains a small but meaningful part of how life stays organized and manageable. When that support disappears, the burden does not disappear with it. It shifts to individuals, to families, and to systems that will eventually feel the impact. If the greatest disruption falls on those least able to absorb it, the design needs a second look. And About That Cheque... We may be moving toward a world where fewer things arrive by mail. That is probably inevitable. But before we retire the idea entirely, it is worth remembering why that old line worked in the first place. “The cheque is in the mail” was believable because the system behind it was dependable. It showed up. It connected people. It did its job quietly and consistently. Modernization should aim for the same thing. Not nostalgia. Not resistance to change. Just reliability that works for everyone. Because if the day comes when the cheque is no longer in the mail, we should at least be able to say that whatever replaces it works just as well for the people who need it most. Ideally, without requiring ice cleats, a flashlight, and a willingness to sign a waiver. Sue Don’t Retire…ReWire! My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one. It's available September 8, 2026 - You can now order on the ECW Press site here. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you.
UF develops breakthrough magnet that could transform metal production
Imagine if producing steel parts for agricultural equipment or even aluminum soda cans required only a fraction of the energy it does today. A University of Florida-led innovation may soon make this a reality. In a groundbreaking collaboration backed by a nearly $11 million federal grant, UF researchers have developed a first-of-its kind superconducting magnet that could advance metal production and position the United States as a global leader in alloy production. “This revolutionary technology has the potential to substantially reduce the cost and energy use of heat treatments in the steel industry, and we are excited to help pave the way for its adoption in industry.” —Michael Tonks, Ph.D., UF’s interim chair of Materials Science and Engineering Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Office, the project uses Induction-Coupled Thermomagnetic Processing, or ITMP, an advanced manufacturing method that integrates magnetic fields with high-temperature thermal processing. The national consortium of industry, academic and national laboratory partners is now led by Michael Tonks, Ph.D., UF’s interim chair of Materials Science and Engineering, who succeeded Michele Manuel, Ph.D., the project’s long-time leader. “This revolutionary technology has the potential to substantially reduce the cost and energy use of heat treatments in the steel industry, and we are excited to help pave the way for its adoption in industry,” said Tonks. It’s not just any piece of equipment; it’s a custom-built superconducting magnet with a unique ability to combine magnetic fields with high-temperature thermal processing. In partnership with the UF physics department, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or ORNL, and six companies interested in the technology, the magnet and cylinder induction furnace now sit atop a 6-foot-high platform. The prototype, which costs more than $6 million to purchase and install, is capable of processing steel samples up to 5 inches in diameter making it a rare asset for academic research. Yang Yang, Ph.D., UF materials science research faculty member, estimated ITMP could reduce steel processing time by as much as 80 percent, cutting energy use and operational costs. “Thermomagnetic processing changes a material’s phase stability and kinetic properties, accelerating carbon diffusion in steel, said Yang. “Traditional furnaces cannot achieve these advanced material properties.” The system works by modifying the driving forces for important steel phase changes, which shortens heat treatment. “What normally takes eight hours can be done in just a few minutes.” Yang explained. “The magnetic field acts as an external driving force to make atoms diffuse faster.” Unlike conventional energy sources like electricity or natural gas, the ITMP process uses volumetric induction heating along with high-static magnetic fields to lower energy consumption. The project is still in a pilot phase and requires additional research and testing. At ORNL, researchers emphasized the rarity of UF’s prototype, citing its unprecedented combination of magnetic field strength and ability to process large samples and components. “This could significantly advance U.S. manufacturing and process efficiency for heat treatment of materials such as metal alloys of steel or aluminum,” said Michael Kesler, Ph.D., ORNL research scientist and lead collaborator. Kesler noted successful implementation of this technology could contribute to a reliable energy grid and more efficient industrial electrification. UF researchers contend it could also reduce carbon emissions, supporting cleaner, more sustainable manufacturing processes. The tall, two-level magnet now resides in the Powell Family Structures and Materials Laboratory on UF's East Campus. MSE plans to officially unveil it in December, inviting representatives from national labs, industry and academia. While Engineering students will have future opportunities to use it for research and experiential learning, UF researchers are optimistic about potential industry adoption for industrial manufacturing in the next five to 10 years. The award is part of a $187 million DOE initiative to strengthen competitiveness in U.S. manufacturing. If successful, the innovation could redefine how the world shapes the materials of tomorrow.
Rethinking AI in the classroom: A literacy-first approach to generative technology
As schools nationwide navigate the rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence, educators are searching for guidance that goes beyond fear, hype or quick fixes. Rachel Karchmer-Klein, associate professor of literacy education at the University of Delaware, is helping lead that conversation. Her latest book, Putting AI to Work in Disciplinary Literacy: Shifting Mindsets and Guiding Classroom Instruction, offers research-based strategies for integrating AI into secondary classrooms without sacrificing critical thinking or deep learning. Here is how she is approaching the complex topic. Q: Your new book focuses on AI in disciplinary literacy. What is the central message? Karchmer-Klein: Rather than positioning AI as a shortcut or replacement for student thinking, the book emphasizes a literacy-first approach that helps students critically evaluate, interrogate, and apply AI-generated information. This is important because schools and universities are grappling with rapid AI adoption, often without clear guidance grounded in learning theory, literacy research, or classroom practice. Q: What inspired this research? Karchmer-Klein: The book grew directly out of my work with preservice teachers, practicing educators, and school leaders who were asking practical but complex questions about AI: How do we use it responsibly? How do we prevent over-reliance? How do we teach students to question what AI produces? I also saw a gap between public conversations about AI which often focused on fear or efficiency and what teachers actually need: research-informed strategies that support deep learning. My long-standing research in digital literacies provided a natural foundation for addressing these questions. Q: What are some of the key findings from your work? Karchmer-Klein: AI is most effective when it is embedded within strong instructional design and disciplinary literacy practices, not treated as a stand-alone tool. The research and classroom examples illustrate that AI can support student learning when it is used to prompt reasoning, reveal misconceptions, provide feedback for revision, and encourage multiple perspectives. Another important development is the emphasis on teaching students to evaluate AI outputs critically by recognizing bias, inaccuracies, and limitations, rather than assuming correctness. Q: How could this work impact schools, teacher education programs and the broader public? Karchmer-Klein: For educators, this work provides concrete, evidence-based literacy strategies coupled with AI in ways that strengthen, not dilute, student thinking. For teacher education programs and school districts, it offers a research-based framework for professional development and policy conversations around AI use. More broadly, the work speaks to a public concern about how emerging technologies are shaping learning, helping to reframe AI as something that requires human judgment, ethical consideration, and strong literacy skills to use well. ABOUT RACHEL KARCHMER-KLEIN Rachel Karchmer-Klein is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Delaware where she teaches courses in literacy and educational technology at the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels. She is a former elementary classroom teacher and reading specialist. Her research investigates relationships among literacy skills, digital tools, and teacher preparation, with particular emphasis on technology-infused instructional design. To speak with Karchmer-Klein further about AI in literacy education, critical evaluation of AI-generated content and teacher preparation in the era of generative AI, reach out to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
Op-Ed: Crypto innovation needs stability, not shortcuts
After months of bipartisan negotiations, Congress continues to debate crypto market structure legislation, though questions remain whether common sense investor protections will be included in a new federal framework for digital assets. These proposals address fundamental questions aimed at providing needed clarity for digital asset markets, including around agency jurisdiction, and trust and confidence for mainstream adoption of modern markets. At times, the negotiations fractured over stablecoin yields, while provisions addressing decentralized finance and developer liability and the importance of investor safeguards have proven similarly divisive. The GENIUS Act prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest, recognizing such payments transform digital tokens into bank deposits requiring regulatory oversight. Platforms opposing restrictions on stablecoin yields prioritize business models generating revenue by offering deposit-like products without deposit-like regulation – an unfair regulatory arbitrage that disadvantages prudentially supervised banks, drains funding from local lending and introduces systemic risk without corresponding accountability. While these complex issues require careful calibration, there is no substitute for keeping investor-first reforms at the center of market structure legislation and prioritizing clear rules and robust investor safeguards that ensure digital assets benefit everyday investors and that America strengthens its economic competitiveness and leads the next era of financial innovation. Such impasses reflect a pattern where narrow interests prevail over broader economic considerations. Platforms opposing restrictions on stablecoin yields prioritize business models generating revenue by offering deposit-like products without deposit-like regulation. Banking institutions recognize that unregulated competition operating under lower-cost structures will drain funding from local lending. Both positions are economically rational for the parties involved. Neither serves the public interest in financial stability. Likewise, opponents argue that regulation stifles innovation, especially in decentralized finance. But this conflates innovation with regulatory arbitrage. Genuine technological progress creates value by improving efficiency or reducing costs. Regulatory arbitrage extracts value by exploiting gaps between economically equivalent activities subject to different rules. The alternative claim – that existing securities laws suffice – ignores that those frameworks were designed for different market structures. Securities laws assume centralized issuers. Commodity regulations assume physical delivery. Digital assets often fit neither category cleanly, creating uncertainty that inhibits legitimate activity while failing to prevent abuse. The choice is not between perfect legislation and the status quo but between establishing clear rules now or waiting for the next crisis. Financial regulation written in crisis tends toward overcorrection that stifles markets for years. Regulation developed deliberately better balances stability with innovation. Both House and Senate committee versions share core elements providing needed clarity on agency jurisdiction, registration requirements and disclosure standards. International considerations reinforce urgency. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation provides comprehensive frameworks for issuers and service providers. Continued U.S. regulatory ambiguity cedes leadership to jurisdictions that may not share American economic interests. More immediately, delay allows risks to accumulate as digital assets become interconnected with traditional finance through retirement plans and institutional portfolios. Recent market failures demonstrate why regulatory clarity and investor safeguards matter. The 2022 collapse of crypto exchange FTX revealed an $8 billion dollar deficit in customer accounts, spreading losses to pension funds and individual retirement accounts. Investigators identified conflicts of interest and leverage that standard regulation would have prevented. When Silicon Valley Bank failed, one major stablecoin had 8% of reserves tied to that institution. The crisis resolved only because uninsured depositors received public support. These episodes reveal a pattern where institutions operating outside prudential supervision accumulate risks requiring public intervention. Markets function best when rules are clear, consistently enforced and apply equally to all participants. This principle applies whether the market involves energy commodities, agricultural credit or digital assets. Louisiana's economy depends on community banks that understand local conditions and maintain lending relationships through economic cycles. When regulatory gaps allow deposit flight to lightly supervised alternatives, these institutions lose capacity to serve small businesses and agricultural operations. Congress has made meaningful progress on consensus-driven legislation. Completing that work would provide clarity allowing legitimate innovation while preventing regulatory arbitrage that creates systemic risk. The alternative is waiting for the next crisis to demonstrate why such frameworks were necessary.
With OpenAI’s latest release, GPT-5.2, AI has crossed an important threshold in performance on professional knowledge-work benchmarks. Peter Evans, Co-Founder & CEO of ExpertFile, outlines how these technologies will fundamentally improve research communications and shares tips and prompts for PR pros. OpenAI has just launched GPT-5.2, describing it as its most capable AI model yet for professional knowledge work — with significantly improved accuracy on tasks like creating spreadsheets, building presentations, interpreting images, and handling complex multistep workflows. And based on our internal testing, we're really impressed. For communications professionals in higher education, non-profits, and R&D-focused industries, this isn’t just another tech upgrade — it’s a meaningful step forward in addressing the “research translation gap” that can slow storytelling and media outreach. According to OpenAI, GPT-5.2 represents measurable gains on benchmarks designed to mirror real work tasks. In many evaluations, it matches or exceeds the performance of human professionals. Also, before you hit reply with “Actually, the best model is…” — yes, we know. ChatGPT-5.2 isn’t the only game in town, and it’s definitely not the only tool we use. Our ExpertFile platform uses AI throughout, and I personally bounce between Claude 4.5, Gemini, Perplexity, NotebookLM, and more specialized models depending on the job to be done. LLM performance right now is a full-contact horserace — today’s winner can be tomorrow’s “remember when,” so we’re not trying to boil the ocean with endless comparisons. We’re spotlighting GPT-5.2 because it marks a meaningful step forward in the exact areas research comms teams care about: reliability, long-document work, multi-step tasks, and interpreting visuals and data. Most importantly, we want this info in your hands because a surprising number of comms pros we meet still carry real fear about AI — and long term, that’s not a good thing. Used responsibly, these tools can help you translate research faster, find stronger story angles, and ship more high-quality work without burning out. When "Too Much" AI Power Might Be Exactly What You Need AI expert Allie K. Miller's candid but positive review of an early testing version of ChatGPT 5.2 highlights what she sees as drawbacks for casual users: "outputs that are too long, too structured, and too exhaustive." She goes on to say that in her tests, she observed that ChatGPT-5,2 "stays with a line of thought longer and pushes into edge cases instead of skating on the surface." Fair enough. All good points that Allie Miller makes (see above). However, for communications professionals, these so-called "downsides" for casual users are precisely the capabilities we need. When you're assessing complex research and developing strategic messaging for a variety of important audiences, you want an AI that fits Miller's observation that GPT-5.2 feels like "AI as a serious analyst" rather than "a friendly companion." That's not a critique of our world—it's a job description for comms pros working in sectors like higher education and healthcare. Deep research tools that refuse to take shortcuts are exactly what research communicators need. So let's talk more specifically about how comms pros can think about these new capabilities: 1. AI is Your New Speed-Reading Superpower for Research That means you can upload an entire NIH grant, a full clinical trial protocol, or a complex environmental impact study and ask the model to highlight where key insights — like an unexpected finding — are discussed. It can do this in a fraction of the time it would take a human reader. This isn’t about being lazy. It’s about using AI to assemble a lot of tedious information you need to craft compelling stories while teams still parse dense text manually. 2. The Chart Whisperer You’ve Been Waiting For We’ve all been there — squinting at a graph of scientific data that looks like abstract art, waiting for the lead researcher to clarify what those error bars actually mean. Recent improvements in how GPT-5.2 handles scientific figures and charts show stronger performance on multimodal reasoning tasks, indicating better ability to interpret and describe visual information like graphs and diagrams. With these capabilities, you can unlock the data behind visuals and turn them into narrative elements that resonate with audiences. 3. A Connection Machine That Finds Stories Where Others See Statistics Great science communication isn’t about dumbing things down — it’s about building bridges between technical ideas and the broader public. GPT-5.2 shows notable improvements in abstract reasoning compared with earlier versions, based on internal evaluations on academic reasoning benchmarks. For example, teams working on novel materials science or emerging health technologies can use this reasoning capability to highlight connections between technical results and real-world impact — something that previously required hours of interpretive work. These gains help the AI spot patterns and relationships that can form the basis of compelling storytelling. 4. Accuracy That Gives You More Peace of Mind...When Coupled With Human Oversight Let’s address the elephant in the room: AI hallucinations. You’ve probably heard the horror stories — press releases that cited a study that didn’t exist, or a “quote” that was never said by an expert. GPT-5.2 has meaningfully reduced error rates compared with its predecessor, by a substantial margin, according to OpenAI Even with all these improvements, human review with your experts and careful editing remain essential, especially for anything that will be published or shared externally. 5. The Speed Factor: When “Urgent” Actually Means Urgent With the speed of media today, being second often means being irrelevant. GPT-5.2’s performance on workflow-oriented evaluations suggests it can synthesize information far more quickly than manual review, freeing up a lot more time for strategic work. While deeper reasoning and longer contexts — the kinds of tasks that matter most in research translation — require more processing time and costs continue to improve. Savvy communications teams will adopt a tiered approach: using faster models of AI for simple tasks such as social posts and routine responses, and using reasoning-optimized settings for deep research. Your Action Plan: The GPT-5.2 Playbook for Comms Pros Here’s a tactical checklist to help your team capitalize on these advances. #1 Select the Right AI Model for the Job: Lowers time and costs • Use fast, general configurations for routine content • Use reasoning-optimized configurations for complex synthesis and deep document understanding • Use higher-accuracy configurations for high-stakes projects #2 Find Hidden Ideas Beyond the Abstract: Deeper Reasoning Models do the Heavy Work • Upload complete PDFs — not just the 2-page summary you were given • Use deeper reasoning configurations to let the model work through the material Try these prompts in ChatGPT5.2 “What exactly did the researchers say about this unexpected discovery that would be of interest to my <target audience>? Provide quotes and page references where possible.” “Identify and explain the research methodology used in this study, with references to specific sections.” “Identify where the authors discuss limitations of the study.” “Explain how this research may lead to further studies or real-world benefits, in terms relatable to a general audience.” #3 Unlock Your Story Leverage improvements in pattern recognition and reasoning. Try these prompts: “Using abstract reasoning, find three unexpected analogies that explain this complex concept to a general audience.” “What questions could the researchers answer in an interview that would help us develop richer story angles?” #4 Change the Way You Write Captions Take advantage of the way ChatGPT-5.2 translates processes and reasons about images, charts, diagrams, and other visuals far more effectively. Try these prompts: Clinical Trial Graphs: “Analyze this uploaded trial results graph upload image. Identify key trends, and comparisons to controls, then draft a 150-word donor summary with plain-language explanations and suggested captions suitable for donor communications.” Medical Diagrams: “Interpret these uploaded images. Extract diagnostic insights, highlight innovations, and generate a patient-friendly explainer: bullet points plus one visual caption.” A Word of Caution: Keep Experts in the Loop to Verify Information Even with improved reliability, outputs should be treated as drafts. If your team does not yet have formal AI use policies, it's time to get started, because governance will be critical as AI use scales in 2026 and beyond. A trust-but-verify policy with experts treats AI as a co-pilot — helpful for heavy lifting — while humans remain accountable for approval and publication. The Importance of Humans (aka The Good News) Remember: the future of research communication isn’t about AI taking over — it’s about AI empowering us to do the strategic, human work that machines cannot. That includes: • Building relationships across your institution • Engaging researchers in storytelling • Discovering narrative opportunities • Turning discoveries into compelling narratives that influence audiences With improvements in speed, reasoning, and reliability, the question isn’t whether AI can help — it’s what research stories you’ll uncover next to shape public understanding and impact. FAQ How is AI changing expectations for accuracy in research and institutional communications? AI is shifting expectations from “fast output” to defensible accuracy. Better reasoning means fewer errors in research summaries, policy briefs, and expert content—especially when you’re working from long PDFs, complex methods, or dense results. The new baseline is: clear claims, traceable sources, and human review before publishing. ⸻ Why does deeper AI reasoning matter for communications teams working with experts and research content? Comms teams translate multi-disciplinary research into messaging that must withstand scrutiny. Deeper reasoning helps AI connect findings to real-world relevance, flag uncertainty, and maintain nuance instead of flattening meaning. The result is work that’s easier to defend with media, leadership, donors, and the public—when paired with expert verification. ⸻ When should communications professionals use advanced AI instead of lightweight AI tools? Use lightweight tools for brainstorming, social drafts, headlines, and quick rewrites. Use advanced, reasoning-optimized AI for high-stakes deliverables: executive briefings, research positioning, policy-sensitive messaging, media statements, and anything where a mistake could create reputational, compliance, or scientific credibility risk. Treat advanced AI as your “analyst,” not your autopilot. ⸻ How can media relations teams use AI to find stronger story angles beyond the abstract? AI can scan full papers, grants, protocols, and appendices to surface where the real story lives: unexpected findings, practical implications, limitations, and unanswered questions that prompt great interviews. Ask it to map angles by audience (public, policy, donors, clinicians) and to point to the exact sections that support each angle. ⸻ How should higher-ed comms teams use AI without breaking embargoes or media timing? AI can speed prep work—backgrounders, Q&A, lay summaries, caption drafts—before embargo lifts. The rule is simple: treat embargoed material like any sensitive document. Use approved tools, restrict sharing, and avoid pasting embargoed text into unapproved systems. Use AI to build assets early, then finalize post-approval at release time. ⸻ What’s the best way to keep faculty “in the loop” while still moving fast with AI? Use AI to produce review-friendly drafts that reduce load on researchers: short summaries, suggested quotes clearly marked as drafts, and a checklist of claims needing verification (numbers, methods, limitations). Then route to the expert with specific questions, not a wall of text. This keeps approvals faster while protecting scientific accuracy and trust. ⸻ How should teams handle charts, figures, and visual data in research communications? AI can turn “chart confusion” into narrative—if you prompt for precision. Ask it to identify trends, group comparisons, and what the figure does not show (limitations, missing context). Then verify with the researcher, especially anything involving significance, controls, effect size, or causality. Use the output to write captions that are accurate and accessible. ⸻ Do we need an AI Use policy in comms and media relations—and what should it include? Yes—because adoption scales faster than risk awareness. A practical policy should define: approved tools, what data is restricted, required human review steps, standards for citing sources/page references, rules for drafting quotes, and escalation paths for sensitive topics (health, legal, crisis). Clear guardrails reduce fear and prevent preventable reputational mistakes. If you’re using AI to move faster on research translation, the next bottleneck is usually the same one for many PR and Comm Pros: making your experts more discoverable in Generative Search, your website, and other media. ExpertFile helps media relations and digital teams organize their expert content by topics, keep detailed profiles current, and respond faster to source requests—so you can boost your AI citations and land more coverage with less work. For more information visit us at www.expertfile.com
The missing AI revolution: Smarter leadership, not smarter machines, says workforce expert
Artificial intelligence has transformed industries, but its most overlooked potential lies in helping leaders themselves think more clearly and decide more effectively, according to Saleem Mistry, Associate Professor of Management at the University of Delaware’s Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics. Mistry focuses on enabling leaders to be more productive, think clearly and make better decisions. Focusing on the leader, not just the organization Mistry’s work examines how leaders at every level can use AI to enhance productivity and decision-making. While most organizational conversations about AI focus on operational efficiency or customer service, he argues that the true frontier is leadership productivity. “Leadership productivity directly shapes organizational performance. AI can be transformative when it helps leaders think faster, decide better and regain the time they’ve lost to administration.” – Mistry As a professor of management and leadership, Mistry is often asked how AI will change the workplace. Those conversations usually revolve around automating workflows, not empowering leaders. Yet, as he notes, an MIT report found that 95 percent of generative AI pilots are failing — largely due to the absence of clear business use cases. That insight shaped his direction: leadership itself may be the missing use case. Having spent much of his earlier career in high technology, Mistry saw firsthand that innovation succeeds or fails based on how effectively leaders model new tools. Demonstrating practical applications Mistry recently analyzed the 2024-2025 U.S. Office of Inspector General reports on leadership challenges based. He analyzed each leadership challenge using three guiding questions: 1) Do the problems stem from leaders struggling with time, decisions or task management? 2) How might AI help? 3) Where could AI have the greatest impact? The results included: Executive Example (Amtrak): AI could power a real-time RACI dashboard to clarify accountability, track decisions and eliminate bottlenecks. Mid-Level Example (EPA): “Agentic AI” could cross-check allegations against verified data before termination decisions, preventing ethical and legal missteps. Supervisor Example (CISA): AI could scan incentive data for waste and anomalies, saving hours of manual review. Why it matters By automating repetitive, data-heavy tasks, AI gives leaders something they desperately need: time. Time to think strategically, coach teams and make better decisions. Mistry’s findings link AI adoption directly to mental well-being, arguing that improved decision productivity leads to improved organizational health. “Decision productivity is business productivity. Organizations that make faster, fairer and more informed decisions outperform those that don’t.” – Mistry Next steps: Building the framework for responsible AI leadership Mistry’s next milestone is to develop a set of leadership use cases that can be used by business leaders at all levels where AI can deliver the greatest impact. He is also developing frameworks for responsible AI adoption that help leaders determine when and how to deploy these tools ethically — across decision-making, communication, planning and task management. “AI won’t replace leaders,” Mistry concludes, “but leaders who learn to use AI effectively will outperform those who don’t.” ABOUT SALEEM MISTRY Associate Professor of Management Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics Mistry’s research focuses on the future of work, with a particular emphasis on how individuals navigate workplace transitions. His research explores how people adjust to both minor and major changes in their careers, such as shifts in jobs, responsibilities, teams or entire organizations. A growing area of his expertise is the strategic use of artificial intelligence to enhance productivity for leaders, teams and human resource professionals. His research connects academic insights with practical applications, helping to shape how people and organizations adapt to an evolving professional landscape. Reporters who would like to speak to Mistry can click on his profile.
Treat AI as a Teammate—or Risk Falling Behind
AI is shifting from back-office tool to frontline collaborator, "We are witnessing a key inflection point in how organizations work," says LSU professor Andrew Schwarz. He argues the business case is now clear: AI boosts the quality of ideas and expands who gets to contribute, acting less like software and more like a creative partner. He adds that organizations that embed AI "as a teammate will lead," while those that treat it "as simply a cost-saver risk falling behind." That shift, he says, reaches deep into org charts and workflows. Schwarz notes that AI can flatten expertise silos, help less-experienced employees operate closer to expert levels, and spark cross-functional thinking that blends technical and commercial insight. Leaders, he said, must "rethink structures, roles and workflows — placing AI at the heart of how teams collaborate, not simply at the edge." Technology deployment alone won't deliver those gains, "it requires cultural and capability investment," Schwarz said. The priority, in his view, is to "build collaborative ecosystems where human talent and AI capabilities co-create value," invest early to make the "human-plus-AI" model the default, and tap into academic partnerships: "those companies that partner with universities, such as LSU, will have an even greater advantage." Schwarz also urges guardrails as adoption accelerates. He points to the need for transparency, accountability, fairness, and continuous skill development so the transition "enhances human agency, fosters inclusion, and delivers sustainable value for all stakeholders." His bottom line is urgent and straightforward: "When AI joins the team, better ideas truly surface. Let's prepare our organizations to make that transition, and lead from the front."
Aston University: From Metformin to modern obesity therapies
Early beginnings: from herbal medicine to modern drug The origins of a modern diabetes therapy can be traced back to Galega officinalis (goat’s rue), a herb used in European folk medicine for centuries to treat excessive thirst and urination. Its active chemical, guanidine, was found to lower blood sugar in animals in 1918, inspiring the synthesis of a family of drugs known as biguanides. Among these new drugs was metformin, created in 1922 and introduced as a treatment for diabetes in Europe in the late 1950s. However, by the 1970s, metformin was largely disregarded because other biguanide medicines were being withdrawn due to their side-effect of lactic acidosis. Revival in the 1990s: Aston’s role in rediscovery In the early 1990s, research at Aston University provided a decisive turning point. Professor Cliff Bailey and his colleagues revealed that metformin’s primary action occurred in the intestine, where it promoted glucose metabolism and reduced blood sugar without causing weight gain. Their studies clarified that concerns about lactic acid were largely due to misuse, not inherent toxicity. These findings reignited global interest in metformin. Professor Bailey presented his work as an expert witness to the US Food and Drug Administration in 1994, a critical step in securing approval of the drug in the US. He also assisted the European Medicines Agency during periodic reassessments. “My research has always focused on understanding how type 2 diabetes develops and how best to treat it.” Professor Clifford Bailey, Aston University. Establishing global first-line therapy Momentum built through the late 1990s. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (1998) demonstrated that metformin not only improved blood sugar but also reduced cardiovascular risk, strengthening the case for its wider adoption. By 2012, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommended metformin as the preferred first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes. “We discovered that metformin worked somewhat differently from what was previously thought. By showing how it could be used safely and effectively, we helped pave the way for its wider acceptance.” Today, metformin is the most prescribed diabetes drug worldwide. It is included in the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List and has been taken by hundreds of millions of patients, profoundly reshaping global diabetes care. New directions: dapagliflozin and the SGLT-2 inhibitors After the success of metformin, Aston played a central role in the next wave of diabetes medicines. In the 2000s, Professor Bailey was principal investigator in clinical trials for dapagliflozin, the first of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. Unlike older therapies, SGLT inhibitors lower blood sugar by blocking reabsorption of glucose in the kidneys, causing excess glucose to be excreted in urine. Large international trials demonstrated additional benefits, including weight reduction, lower blood pressure, and improved outcomes for patients with kidney and heart disease. Since its launch in 2012, dapagliflozin has become the most widely prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitor, with more than five million patients treated. It is now embedded in global treatment guidelines, expanding therapeutic options to improve the control of blood glucose and body weight. Foundations for modern obesity therapies The influence of Aston University’s research extends beyond metformin and dapagliflozin. The University’s diabetes research team also studied gut hormones such as GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide), which play a central role in regulating insulin secretion and fat metabolism. These early discoveries helped lay the groundwork for today’s incretin-based therapies, including combined GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists such as tirzepatide. Now widely known as 'anti-obesity injections', these medicines emerged as diabetes treatments and are now transforming care for overweight people with and without type 2 diabetes. Key findings from the research at Aston University Metformin is now being investigated for its anti-ageing and fertility benefits Dapagliflozin shows promise against heart and kidney diseases and gout Gut hormones such as GIP may hold the key to entirely new treatment strategies Why does this matter? The work by Professor Bailey and his colleagues at Aston University has contributed to metformin’s recognition as the primary treatment worldwide for type 2 diabetes. Today, at least half of all patients in Western countries are prescribed metformin — an incredibly cost-effective medicine that continues to save lives. “We identified early on that gut hormones such as GIP were central players in the control of blood glucose and body weight — long before they became the basis for today’s new generation of anti-obesity medicines.” This original research helped lay the scientific foundation for breakthrough treatments like tirzepatide, widely hailed as a game-changer in obesity and diabetes care. Aston University also contributed to the development of dapagliflozin, the first in a new class of drugs that lower blood sugar while also protecting the heart and kidneys. “Millions of people worldwide are living longer and healthier lives because of therapies that have been underpinned by research at Aston University.” Looking ahead Type 2 diabetes remains one of the world’s most pressing health challenges, affecting more than 500 million people globally. Its progressive nature demands a continual search for safer, more effective treatments. From helping rescue a nearly forgotten drug in the 1990s to shaping the next generation of therapies, Aston University’s research has left an enduring mark on clinical practice, regulation, and patient outcomes. The legacy of this work is clear: millions of people worldwide are living longer, healthier lives because of medicines that Aston helped bring to the forefront of modern diabetes and obesity care. About Cliff Bailey is Emeritus Professor of Clinical Science and Anniversary Professor at Aston University in Birmingham, England. He has served on medical and scientific committees of Diabetes UK (formerly the British Diabetic Association), Society for Endocrinology, and European Association for the Study of Diabetes. He has served as a diabetes expert for the approval of new medicines by regulatory agencies including the European Medicines Agency and NICE. His research is mainly directed towards the pathogenesis and treatment of diabetes, especially the development of new agents to improve insulin action and reduce obesity, and the therapeutic application of surrogate beta-cells. Dr Bailey has published over 400 research papers and reviews, and four books, and he is particularly known for research on metformin. References to Case Studies and Key Sources Bailey CJ et al. Metformin: Changing the Treatment Algorithm for Type 2 Diabetes. Aston University REF Impact Case Study, 2014. Bailey CJ. Metformin: Historical Overview. Diabetologia, 2017. Bailey CJ & Day C. Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Future Approaches. British Medical Bulletin, 2018.
Expert Spotlight: Advancing Child & Youth Behavioral Health with MBC
Children and youth today face increasingly complex mental health challenges, requiring care that is personalized, evidence-based, and responsive to evolving needs. Measurement-Based Care (MBC), also referred to as Measurement-Informed Care (MIC), is a proven framework that leverages client-reported data to guide treatment decisions, enhance engagement, and improve clinical outcomes. With CARF’s updated accreditation standards now requiring MBC in youth services, organizations globally are prioritizing its adoption. On September 30, Greenspace Health brought together a panel of experts including Theresa Lindberg, MSC, LPC, Managing Director for Child and Youth Services, CARF International, who shared real-world examples, lessons learned from successful implementations, and actionable strategies for embedding MBC in youth-serving organizations. The webinar was recorded and is available below for viewing. This is an important topic, and if you are interested in learning more - then let us help. Theresa Lindberg is Managing Director of Child and Youth Services at CARF International. If you are looking to connect with Theresa , view her profile below to arrange an interview today.
