Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Op-Ed: Stablecoin 'rewards' are a risk to financial stability
Congress has long recognized that stablecoins should not function as unregulated bank deposits. The intent of the recently enacted GENIUS Act is clear: to prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders, maintaining a distinction between payment instruments and bank deposits which are not only used for payment purposes but also as a store value. Yet loopholes have already emerged. Some crypto exchanges and affiliated platforms now offer “rewards” to stablecoin holders that work much like interest, potentially undermining the stability of the traditional banking system and constraining credit in local communities. Terminology matters. Credit card rewards are funded by interchange fees and paid to encourage spending — you earn points for using your card. Stablecoin “rewards” are different. They’re funded by investing the reserves backing stablecoins, typically in Treasury bills or money market funds, and passing that interest income to holders. You earn returns for holding the stablecoin, not for using it. Economically, this is indistinguishable from a bank deposit paying interest. When a platform advertises “5% rewards” on stablecoin holdings, it’s generally backing those tokens with Treasuries yielding about 4.5%, then passing that yield to users. Whether labeled rewards, yield or dividends, the function is the same: interest on deposits. Banks perform a similar activity — taking deposits, investing in loans and paying depositors a return — but face far higher costs, including FDIC insurance, capital requirements and compliance obligations that stablecoin issuers largely avoid. This dynamic has a precedent. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Regulation Q capped bank deposit rates at 5.25% while inflation and Treasury yields soared above 15%. Money market funds filled the gap, offering market rates directly to consumers. Deposits fled smaller banks, which lost their funding base, while large money-center institutions gained reserves. The result was widespread disintermediation, the collapse of the savings and loan industry and the farm-credit crisis of the 1980s. Stablecoin “rewards” risk repeating that history. Just as money market funds exploited the gap between regulated deposit rates and market rates, stablecoin platforms exploit the difference between what banks can profitably pay and what lightly regulated issuers can offer by passing through Treasury yields with minimal overhead. Some ask why banks can’t just raise deposit rates. The answer lies in structure. Banks operate under a fundamentally different business model and cost framework. They pay FDIC premiums, maintain capital reserves and comply with extensive supervision — costs most stablecoin issuers don’t bear. Banks also use deposits to make loans, which requires holding capital against potential losses. Stablecoin issuers simply hold reserves in ultra-safe assets, allowing them to pass through nearly all the yield they earn. To match 5% “rewards,” banks would need to earn 6% to 7% on their loan portfolios — an unrealistic target in today’s environment, especially for smaller community banks. The consequence is not fair competition, but a structural disadvantage for regulated depository institutions. The Consumer Bankers Association warns this loophole could trigger a massive shift of deposits from community banks to global custodians. Citing Treasury Department estimates, the Association notes that as much as $6.6 trillion in deposits could migrate into stablecoins if yield programs remain permissible. Because the GENIUS Act’s prohibition applies narrowly to issuers, exchanges and intermediaries may still offer financial returns under alternate terminology. This opens the door to affiliate arrangements that replicate the essence of interest payments without legal accountability. Those reserves don’t stay in local economies. The largest stablecoin issuers hold funds at global custodians such as Bank of New York Mellon, in money market funds managed by firms like BlackRock or — if permitted — directly with the Federal Reserve. When a community-bank depositor moves $100,000 into stablecoins, that capital exits the local bank and concentrates at systemically important institutions. The community bank loses lending capacity; the megabank or the Fed gains reserves. The result is disintermediation with a concentrated risk profile reminiscent of the money-market fund crisis. The Progressive Policy Institute estimates that community banks — responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide — could be among the most affected. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially relevant. If deposits migrate to unregulated digital assets, community-bank lending could tighten, particularly in rural parishes and underserved communities. Research from the Brookings Institution reinforces the need for regulatory parity. The label “rewards” doesn’t change the fact that these payments are economically interest. Allowing intermediaries to generate yield without deposit insurance or prudential oversight could recreate vulnerabilities similar to those seen during the 2008 money market fund crisis. To preserve financial stability, policymakers should move to close the stablecoin-interest loophole. Clarifying that the prohibition on interest applies to all entities— not just issuers — would uphold Congress’ intent. Regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodities Futures Trading Commission and federal banking agencies could also treat “reward” programs as equivalent to deposit interest for supervisory purposes. Stablecoins offer genuine efficiencies in payments, but unchecked yield features risk turning them into unregulated banks. History shows what happens when regulatory arbitrage allows competitors to offer deposit-like products without oversight: deposit flight, institutional instability and capital flowing away from community lenders. Acting now could help sustain stability, protect depositors and preserve the credit channels that support community lending — especially in states like Louisiana, where community banks remain the backbone of Main Street.
From classrooms to communities: Rethinking civic engagement in K–12 education
When national headlines focus on school board battles and political polarization, James Bridgeforth, assistant professor of educational leadership at the University of Delaware, is focused on what’s possible instead: building a more inclusive, participatory model of democracy through public education. His research in UD's College of Education and Human Development explores how community voice, equity and local leadership intersect to shape education policy – and how school boards can serve as vital engines for rebuilding public trust in government. "Despite the often sensationalized stories of chaotic school board meetings and the influence of more national "culture war" issues, I still believe that it's possible for people from different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view to come together to figure out how to best serve the needs of all of our children." – Bridgeforth Bridgeforth’s work centers on education governance, policy and leadership, with particular attention to how racism and anti-Blackness manifest in schools and policymaking spaces. His scholarship highlights the importance of inclusive decision-making, arguing that effective education policy must be representative of the diverse communities it serves. He recently published the report "Navigating Democracy in Divided Times" with co-authors on this topic. As part of his work with the Getting Down to Facts III project at Stanford University, Bridgeforth collaborates with researchers studying how to improve California’s TK–12 system and inform the next governor’s education policy agenda. His work documents the complex realities faced by local school board members – often minimally paid community leaders navigating contentious public discourse, social media pressure and limited resources. He notes that this research can be applied to school boards around the country. The next frontier: Youth civic engagement Over the next several years, Bridgeforth aims to deepen understanding of how schools can nurture young people’s civic skills and leadership capacity through participation in governance. One proposed project – "Strengthening Opportunities for Youth Civic Engagement and Student Voice in Educational Governance" – uses participatory action research to explore how student board member policies and engagement practices foster civic agency and democratic mindsets. This collaborative work brings together youth-led community organizations and education researchers to study how these experiences shape long-term civic behavior – from voting to public service. Why it matters Bridgeforth’s research arrives at a pivotal time for American democracy. As trust in public institutions erodes, local school boards remain one of the spaces where citizens can directly shape policy. His work points to a hopeful truth: democracy’s renewal may begin in classrooms, communities and the local school board meetings shaping them. For journalists covering education, race or civic engagement, Bridgeforth offers data-driven insight, lived experience and policy expertise – helping make sense of one of the most pressing questions of our time: How can we build systems that truly serve all students and communities? This work collectively demonstrates a number of promising opportunities to foster more inclusive, community-connected forms of governance, particularly in a time of eroding trust in government institutions." – Bridgeforth ABOUT JAMES BRIDGEFORTH Assistant Professor, College of Education and Human Development James Bridgeforth is an educator, researcher and policy advocate whose work focuses on community voice in education policy and the politics of educational leadership. His scholarship has appeared in top journals including Journal of School Leadership, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis and Educational Administration Quarterly, and he has contributed to Education Week and The Washington Post. A recipient of the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation Dissertation Fellowship, Bridgeforth holds a Ph.D. in Urban Education Policy from the University of Southern California, an M.Ed. in Educational Administration and Policy from the University of Georgia, and a B.A. in Political Science and Sociology from Georgia College & State University. Expert available for: Interviews on K–12 school governance, education policy and democracy Commentary on community voice and equity in education decision-making Analysis of youth civic engagement and participatory leadership To contact Bridgeforth, email mediarelations@udel.edu.
How LSU is Helping Keep Louisiana at the Center of the Nation’s Seafood Map
1. Strengthening the Seafood Workforce Through outreach programs like Louisiana Fisheries Forward, a partnership between Louisiana Sea Grant and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, LSU helps fishers and processors modernize their operations. These voluntary programs teach best practices in handling, traceability, and sustainability — directly improving product quality and market reputation. LSU’s extension agents also provide hands-on disaster recovery assistance after hurricanes and market disruptions, helping ensure Louisiana’s seafood workforce remains resilient and ready for the next season. 2. Building Seafood Resilience The total economic value for oysters in 2018 was more than $180 million. Resilience defines LSU’s seafood science. Researchers at the LSU AgCenter and Louisiana Sea Grant are leading selective breeding programs and developing genetic tools to combat disease, temperature changes, and salinity stress. With a powerful combination of hatchery capacity, genetics expertise, and industry collaboration, LSU is helping Louisiana’s seafood industry adapt faster and smarter — protecting both the food supply and the economic backbone of coastal communities. 3. Powering Economic Growth Every part of LSU’s seafood research and outreach ties directly to Louisiana’s economy. AgCenter economists analyze market data and advise state and federal partners on strategies to grow the seafood sector. Meanwhile, Sea Grant specialists help entrepreneurs develop value-added seafood products, from branded lines to ready-to-eat options, that increase profit margins and create new jobs in coastal towns. By helping Louisiana seafood businesses stay competitive, LSU keeps more of the industry’s economic benefits right here at home. 4. Supporting Communities Louisiana’s seafood industry faces constant challenges. LSU’s coastal extension agents and Sea Grant programs provide on-the-ground support to help communities recover and rebuild after disasters. Whether assisting with dock repairs, connecting fishers to relief programs, or helping restart operations, LSU’s commitment ensures that Louisiana’s coastal workforce can weather any storm. 5. Preparing the Next Generation LSU’s work extends from the lab to the dock — and into the classroom. New research and education programs are training future scientists, producers, and entrepreneurs to continue Louisiana’s seafood legacy. For new LSU students interested in the coast, Bayou Adventure, a trip created by the College of the Coast & Environment (CC&E), was designed specifically to educate incoming freshmen about some of the challenges and marvels of the Louisiana coastline. The trip stops at sites that showcase "not just the significance of these areas to the state and nation, but the important work that is being done to sustain and preserve them," said Clint Willson, dean of CC&E. Through workforce development, hands-on learning, and applied research, LSU is shaping the next wave of innovators who will protect Louisiana’s coast and ensure its seafood remains world-renowned. Looking Ahead As the seafood industry faces new challenges and opportunities, LSU’s mission remains clear: to protect Louisiana’s coast, empower its seafood workforce, and ensure the state remains synonymous with the best seafood in America.
Government Shutdown: With Senate in the spotlight, expert Gerald Gamm offers insight
The Senate returned to Capitol Hill on the first day of a government shutdown to vote on two funding bills aimed at getting the government up and running amid an ongoing blame game among congressional leaders. University of Rochester political scientist Gerald Gamm is watching the deliberations and political maneuverings closely and is in a unique position to lend insight on the negotiations and gamesmanship. Gamm is a co-author of Steering the Senate (Cambridge University Press, June 2025). The book has received high praise from a multitude of sources, and has been called "essential reading for all who care — or worry — about the past and future of institutional leadership and capacity on Capitol Hill," "the best book we have about the organizational development of the Senate," and "a masterpiece . . . that unearths new information on the emergence of leadership institutions and the role of parties and showing their relevance for the Senate of today." Gamm is available for interviews and can be contacted by clicking on his profile.
University Communications Needs a Bigger Role in the Research Conversation
While attending the Expert Finder Systems International Forum (EFS), several notable themes emerged for me over the 2-day event. It's clear that many universities are working hard to improve their reputation by demonstrating the real-world impact of their research to the public and to funders, but it's proving to be a challenging task - even for the largest R1 universities. Many of these challenges stem from how institutions have traditionally organized their research functions, management systems, and performance metrics. Engaging faculty researchers in this process remains a significant challenge, despite the need for rapid transformation. While this EFS conference was very well-organized and the speakers delivered a great deal of useful information, I appeared to be one of the few marketing and communications professionals in a room full of research leaders, administrative staff, librarians, and IT professionals. There's a certain irony to this, as I observe the same phenomenon at HigherEd marketing conferences, which often lack representation from research staff. My point is this. We can't build better platforms, policies, and processes that amplify the profile of research without breaking down silos. We need University Communications to be much more involved in this process. As Baruch Fischhoff, a renowned scholar at Carnegie Mellon University, notes: Bridging the gap between scientists and the public “requires an unnatural act: collaboration among experts from different communities” – but when done right, it benefits everyone. But first, let's dive in a little more into RIM's and Expert Finder Systems for context. What are Research Information Systems (RIMs) Research Information Management systems (aka Expert Finder Systems) are the digital backbone that tracks everything researchers do. Publications, grants, collaborations, patents, speaking engagements. Think of them as massive databases that universities use to catalog their intellectual output and demonstrate their research capacity. These systems matter. They inform faculty promotion decisions, support strategic planning and grant applications, and increasingly, they're what institutions point to when asked to justify their existence to funders, accreditors, and the public. But here's the problem: most RIM systems were designed by researchers, for researchers, during an era when academic reputation was the primary currency. The game has fundamentally changed, and our systems haven't caught up. Let's explore this further. Academic Research Impact: The New Pressure Cooker Research departments across the country are under intense pressure to demonstrate impact—fast. State legislators want to see economic benefits from university research. Federal agencies are demanding clearer public engagement metrics. Donors want stories, not statistics. And the general public? They're questioning whether their tax dollars are actually improving their lives. Yet some academics are still asking, “Why should I simplify my research? Doesn’t the public already trust that this is important?” In a word, no – at least, not like they used to. Communicators must navigate a landscape where public trust in science and academia is not a given. The data shows that there's a lot of work to be done. Trust in science has declined and it's also polarized:. According to a Nov. 2024 Pew Research study, 88% of Democrats vs. 66% of Republicans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists; overall views have not returned to pre-pandemic highs and many Americans are wary of scientists’ role in policymaking. While Public trust in higher education has declined, Americans see universities having a central role in innovation. While overall confidence in higher education has been falling over the past decade, a recent report by Gallup Research shows innovation scores highest as an area where higher education helps generate positive outcomes. Communication is seen as an area of relative weakness for scientists. Overall, 45% of U.S. adults describe research scientists as good communicators, according to a November 2024 Pew Research Study. Another critique many Americans hold is the sense that research scientists feel superior to others; 47% say this phrase describes them well. The traditional media ecosystem has faltered:. While many of these issues are largely due to research being caught in a tide of political polarization fueled by a significant rise in misinformation and disinformation on social media, traditional media have faced serious challenges. Newsrooms have shrunk, and specialized science journalists are a rare breed outside major outlets. Local newspapers – once a reliable venue for highlighting state university breakthroughs or healthcare innovations – have been severely impacted. The U.S. has lost over 3,300 newspapers since 2005, with closures continuing and more than 7,000 newspaper jobs vanished between 2022 and 2023 according to a Northwestern University Medill Report on Local News. Competition for coverage is fierce, and your story really needs to shine to grab a journalist's attention – or you need to find alternative ways to reach audiences directly. The Big Message These Trends are Sending We can’t just assume goodwill – universities have to earn trust through clear, relatable communication. Less money means more competition and more scrutiny on outcomes. That's why communications teams play a pivotal role here: by conveying the impact of research to the public and decision-makers, they help build the case for why cuts to science are harmful. Remember, despite partisan divides, a strong majority – 78% of Americans – still agree government investment in scientific research is worthwhile. We need to keep it that way. But there's still a lot of work to do. The Audience Mismatch Problem The public doesn't care about your Altmetrics score. The policymakers I meet don't get excited about journal impact factors. Donors want to fund solutions to problems they understand, not citations in journals they'll never read. Yet our expert systems are still designed around these traditional academic metrics because that's what the people building them understand. It's not their fault—but it's created a blind spot. "Impact isn't just journal articles anymore," one EFS conference panelist explained. "It's podcasts, blogs, media mentions, datasets, even the community partnerships we build." But walk into most research offices, and those broader impacts are either invisible in the system or buried under layers of academic jargon that external audiences can't penetrate. Expert systems have traditionally been primarily focused on academic audiences. They're brilliant at tracking h-Index scores, citation counts, and journal impact factors. But try to use them to show a state legislator how your agriculture research is helping local farmers, or explain to a donor how your engineering faculty is solving real-world problems? There's still work to do here. As one frustrated speaker put it: "These systems have become compliance-driven, inward-looking tools. They help administrators, but they don't help the public understand why research matters. The Science Translation Crisis Perhaps the most sobering observation came from another EFS Conference speaker who said it very plainly. "If we can't explain our work in plain language, we lose taxpayers. We lose the community. They don't see themselves in what we do." However, this feels more like a communication problem masquerading as a technology issue. We've built systems that speak fluent academic, but the audiences we need to reach speak human. When research descriptions are buried in jargon, when impact metrics are incomprehensible to lay audiences, when success stories require a PhD to understand—we're actively pushing away the very people we need to engage. The AI Disruption Very Few Saw Coming Yes, AI, like everywhere else, is fast making its mark on how research gets discovered. One impassioned speaker representing a university system described this new reality: "We are entering an age where no one needs to click on content. AI systems will summarize and cite without ever sending the traffic back." Think about what this means for a lot of faculty research. If it's not structured for both AI discovery and human interaction, your world-class faculty might as well be invisible. Increasingly, you will see that search traffic isn't coming back to your beautifully designed university pages—instead, it's being "synthesized" and served up in AI-generated summaries. I've provided a more detailed overview of how AI-generated summaries work in a previous post here. Keep in mind, this isn't a technical problem that IT can solve alone. It's a fundamental communications challenge about how we structure, present, and distribute information about our expertise. Faculty Fatigue is Real Meanwhile, many faculty are experiencing serious challenges managing busy schedules and mounting responsibilities. As another EFS panelist commented on the challenges of engaging faculty in reporting and communicating their research, saying, "Many faculty see this work as duplicative. It's another burden on top of what they already have. Without clear incentives, adoption will always lag." Faculty researchers are busy people. They will engage with these internal systems when they see direct benefits. Media inquiries, speaking opportunities, consulting gigs, policy advisory roles—the kind of external visibility that advances careers and amplifies research impact. And they require more support than many institutions can provide. Yet, many universities have just one or two people trying to manage thousands of profiles, with no clear strategy for demonstrating how tasks such as profile updates and helping approve media releases and stories translate into tangible opportunities. In short, we're asking faculty to feed a system that feels like it doesn't feed them back. Breaking Down the Silos Which brings me to my main takeaway: we need more marketing and communications professionals in these conversations. The expert systems community is focused on addressing many of the technical challenges—data integration, workflow optimization, and new metadata standards — as AI transforms how we conduct research. But they're wrestling with fundamental communication challenges about audience, messaging, and impact storytelling. That's the uncomfortable truth. The systems are evolving whether we participate or not. The public pressure for accountability isn't going away. Comms professionals can either help shape these systems to serve critical communications goals or watch our expertise get lost in translation. ⸻ Key Takeaways Get Closer to Your Research: This involves having a deeper understanding of the management systems you use across the campus. How is your content appearing to external audiences? —not just research administrators, but the journalists, policymakers, donors, and community members we're trying to reach. Don't Forget The Importance of Stories: Push for plain-language research descriptions without unnecessarily "dumbing down" the research. Show how the work your faculty is doing can create real-world benefits at a local community level. Also, demonstrate how it has the potential to address global issues, further enhancing your authority. And always be on the lookout for story angles that connect the research to relevant news, adding value for journalists. Structure Expert Content for AI Discoverability: Audit your content to see how it's showing up on key platforms such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT. Show faculty how keeping their information fresh and relevant translates to career opportunities they actually care about. Show Up at These Research Events: Perhaps most importantly, communications pros need to be part of these conversations. Next year's International Forum on Expert Finder Systems needs more communications professionals, marketing strategists, and storytelling experts in the room. The research leaders, administrators and IT professionals you will meet have a lot of challenges on their plate and want to do the right thing. They will appreciate your input. These systems are being rapidly redesigned - Whether you're part of the conversation or not. The question is: do we want to influence how they serve our institutions' communications goals, or do we want to inherit systems that work brilliantly for academic audiences but get a failing grade for helping us serve the public?
#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point
When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant. This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment. From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences. This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t. When Obedience Becomes a Liability In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design. This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked. The Challenge of AI Accountability What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making. In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation. The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks. There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies. Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand. There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply? Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems. The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.
LSU, FUEL, Syngenta Partner to Develop Low-cost Digital Twins for Chemical Processing Facilities
Derick Ostrenko and Jason Jamerson, faculty in the LSU College of Art & Design, along with engineering advisor David Ben Spry, are pioneering a new approach to industrial innovation using digital twins. The effort is supported by a $217,403 use-inspired research and development (UIRD) award from Future Use of Energy in Louisiana (FUEL). Digital twins are highly detailed, virtual replicas of physical assets. The technology is used in engineering to enhance efficiency, safety, and training; however, their creation often requires costly specialized hardware, proprietary software, and engineering-intensive workflows. “This initiative not only advances digital twin technology but also highlights the interdisciplinary power of design and engineering,” FUEL UIRD Director Ashwith Chilvery said. “By applying creative tools in an industrial setting, we’re demonstrating new ways to lower costs and expand access to advanced digital infrastructure.” The collaborative effort between LSU, FUEL, and Syngenta aims to reduce costs by applying techniques more commonly used in the entertainment industry, leveraging free and open-source software and consumer-grade hardware, such as gaming PCs and digital cameras. Most of the work will be conducted by digital art students skilled in 3D modeling and video game production, offering a cost-effective alternative to traditional engineering services. “3D artists and game developers bring both technical expertise and creative vision that can add significant value when paired with traditional engineering approaches,” Spry said. “We’re eager to demonstrate how this talent pool can help accelerate digital transformation in industry.” “Working with an innovative company like Syngenta to advance digital twins for chemical manufacturing is an outstanding opportunity for our researchers and students, and we’re proud of the techniques and talent we’ve developed at LSU. FUEL’s support of digital twin development for the energy and chemical sectors helps build this technology and unique artistry in Louisiana, for our industries, and for the rest of the nation.” - Greg Trahan, LSU Assistant Vice President of Strategic Research Partnerships In addition to producing a high-fidelity digital twin of a process unit within an active chemical manufacturing facility, the project will deliver a virtual reality application that allows immersive interaction with the 3D model. Future extensions may include augmented reality overlays of physical equipment or integration of live process data for real-time monitoring and troubleshooting. The ultimate outcome of the project is a validated workflow that reduces the cost of producing digital twins by a factor of at least five compared to conventional engineering methods. This breakthrough has the potential to redefine digital infrastructure for the chemical processing industry, making it more accessible, scalable, and adaptable to future needs. Learn more about LSU's digital twin work with Syngenta as well as NASA: About FUEL Future Use of Energy in Louisiana (FUEL) positions the state as a global energy innovation leader through high-impact technology development and innovation that supports the energy industry in lowering carbon emissions. FUEL brings together a growing team of universities, community and technical colleges, state agencies and industry and capital partners led by LSU. With the potential to receive up to $160 million in funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation through the NSF Regional Innovation Engines program and an additional $67.5 million from Louisiana Economic Development, FUEL will advance our nation’s capacity for energy innovation through use-inspired research and development, workforce development, and technology commercialization. For more information, visit fuelouisiana.org. About Syngenta Syngenta Crop Protection is a global leader in agricultural innovation. It is focused on empowering farmers to make the transformation required to feed the world’s population while protecting our planet. Its bold scientific discoveries deliver better benefits for farmers and society on a bigger scale than ever before. Syngenta CP offers a leading portfolio of crop protection technologies and solutions that support farmers to grow healthier plants with higher yields. Its 17,700 employees are helping to transform agriculture in more than 90 countries. Syngenta Crop Protection is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, and is part of the Syngenta Group. Read our stories and follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram & X.
#Expert Research: Incentives Speed Up Operating Room Turnover Procedures
The operating room (OR) is the economic hub of most healthcare systems in the United States today, generating up to 70% of hospital revenue. Ensuring these financial powerhouses run efficiently is a major priority for healthcare providers. But there’s a challenge. Turnovers—cleaning, preparing, and setting up the OR between surgeries—are necessary and unavoidable processes. OR turnovers can incur significant costs in staff time and resources, but at the same time, do not generate revenue. For surgeons, the lag between wheels out and wheels in is idle time. For incoming patients, who may have spent hours fasting in preparation for a procedure, it is also a potential source of frustration and anxiety. Reducing OR turnover time is a priority for many US healthcare providers, but it’s far from simple. For one thing, cutting corners in pursuit of efficiency risks patient safety. Then there’s the makeup of OR teams themselves. As a rule, well-established or stable teams work fastest and best, their efficiency fueled by familiarity and well-oiled interpersonal dynamics. But in hospital settings, staff work in shifts and according to different schedules, which creates a certain fluidity in the way turnover teams amalgamate. These team members may not know each other or have any prior experience working together. For hospital administrators this represents a quandary. How do you cut OR turnover time without compromising patient care or hiring in more staff to build more stable teams? To put that another way: how do you motivate OR workers to maintain standards and drive efficiency—irrespective of the team they work with at any given time? One novel approach instituted by Georgia’s Phoebe Putney Health System is the focus of new research by Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole PhD. Under the stewardship of perioperative medical director and anesthesiologist, Jason Williams MD 02MR 20MBA, and with support from Sedatole and co-authors, Ewelina Forker 23PhD of the University of Wisconsin and Harvard Business School’s Susanna Gallini PhD, staff at Phoebe ran a field experiment incentivizing individual OR workers to ramp up their own performance in turnover processes. What they have found is a simple and cost-effective intervention that reduces the lag between procedures by an average of 6.4 percent. Homing in on the Individual Williams and his team at Phoebe kicked off efforts to reduce OR turnover times by first establishing a benchmark to calculate how long it should take to prepare for different types of procedure or surgery. This can vary significantly, says Williams: while a gallbladder removal should take less than 30 minutes, open-heart surgery might take an hour or longer to prepare. “There’s a lot of variation in predicting how long it should take to get things set up for different procedures. We got there by analyzing three years of data to create a baseline, and from there, having really homed in on that data, we were able to create a set of predictions and then compare those with what we were seeing in our operating rooms—and track discrepancies, over-, and underachievement.” Williams, a Goizueta MBA graduate who also completed his anesthesiology residency at Emory University’s School of Medicine, then enlisted the support of Sedatole and her colleagues to put together a data analysis system that would capture the impact of two distinct mechanisms, both designed to incentivize individual staff members to work faster during turnovers. The first was a set of electronic dashboards programmed to record and display the average OR turnover performance for teams on a weekly basis, and segment these into averages unique to individuals working in each of the core roles within any given OR turnover team. The dashboard displayed weekly scores and ranked them from best to worst on large TV monitors with interactive capabilities—users could filter the data for types of surgery and other dimensions. Broadcasting metrics this way afforded Williams and his team a means of identifying and then publicly recognizing top-performing staff, but that’s not all. The dashboards also provided a mechanism with which to filter out team dynamics, and home in on individual efforts. “If you are put in a room with one team, and they are slower than others, then you are going to be penalized. Your efforts will not shine. Now, say you are put in with a bigger or faster team, your day’s numbers are going to be much higher. So, we had to find a way to accommodate and allow for the team effect, to observe individual effort. The dashboards meant we could do this. Over the period of a week or a month, the effect of other people in the team is washed out. You begin to see the key individuals pop up again and again over time, and you can see those who are far above their peers versus those who, for whatever reason, are not so efficient.” Sharing “relative performance” information has been shown to be highly motivating in many settings. The hope was that it would here, too. Three core roles: Who’s who in the Operating Room turnover team? OR turnover teams consist of three roles: circulating nurse, scrub tech, and anesthetist. While other surgery staff might be present during a turnover, depending on the needs of consecutive procedures, these are the three core roles in the team, and they are not interchangeable in any way: each individual assumes the same responsibilities in every team they join. Typically, turnover tasks will include removing instruments and equipment from the previous surgery and setting up for the next: restocking supplies and restoring the sterile environment. Turnover tasks and activities will vary according to the type of procedure coming next, but these tasks are always performed by the same three roles: nurse, scrub tech, and anesthetist, working within their own area of expertise and specialty. OR turnover teams are assembled based on staff schedules and availability, making them highly fluid. Different nurses will work with different scrub techs and different anesthetists depending on who is free and available at any given time. With dashboards on display across the hospital’s surgery department, Williams decided to trial a second motivational mechanism; this time something more tangible. “We decided to offer a simple $40 Dollar Store gift card to each week’s top performing anesthetist, nurse, or scrub technician to see if it would incentivize people even more. And to keep things interesting, and sustain motivation, we made sure that anyone who’d won the contest two weeks in a row would be ineligible to win the gift card the following week,” says Williams. “It was a bit of a shot in the dark, and we didn’t know if it would work.” Altogether, the dashboards remained in situ over a period of about 33 months while the gift card promotion ran for 73 weeks. It was important to stress the foundational importance of safety and then allow individuals to come up with their own ways to tighten procedures. This was a bottom-up, grassroots experience where the people doing the work came up with their own ways to make their times better, without cutting corners, without cutting quality, and without cutting any safety measures. Jason Williams MD 02MR 20MBA Incentives: Make it Something Special and Unique Crunching all of this data, Sedatole and her colleagues could isolate the effect of each mechanism on performance and turnover times at Phoebe. While the dashboards had “negligible” effect on productivity, the addition of the store gift cards had immediate, significant, and sustained impact on individuals’ efforts. Differences in the effectiveness of the two incentives—the relative performance dashboard and the gift cards—are attributable to team fluidity, says Sedatole. “It’s all down to familiarity. Dashboards are effective if you care about your reputation and your standing with peers. And in fluid team settings, where people don’t really know each other, reputation seems to matter less because these individuals may never work together again. They simply care less about rankings because they are effectively strangers.” Tangible rewards, on the other hand, have what Sedatole calls a “hedonic” value: they can feel more special and unique to the recipient, even if they carry relatively little monetary value. Something like a $40 gift card to Target can be more motivating to individuals even than the same amount in cash. There’s something hedonic about a prize that differentiates it from cash—after all, you will just end up spending that $40 on the electricity bill. Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole “A tangible reward is something special because of its hedonic nature and the way that human beings do mental accounting,” says Sedatole. “It occupies a different place in the brain, so we treat it differently.” In fact, analyzing the results, Sedatole and her colleagues find that the introduction of gift cards at Phoebe equates to an average incremental improvement of 6.4% in OR turnover performance; a finding that does not vary over the 73-week timeframe, she adds. To get the same result by employing more staff to build more stable teams, Sedatole calculates that the hospital would have to increase peer familiarity to the 98th percentile: a very significant financial outlay and a lot of excess capacity if those additional team members are not working 100% of the time. These are key findings for healthcare systems and for administrators and decision-makers in any setting or sector where fluid teams are the norm, says Sedatole: from consultancy to software development to airline ground crews. Wherever diverse professionals come together briefly or sporadically to perform tasks and then disperse, individual motivation can be optimized by simple mechanisms—cost-effective tangible rewards—that give team members a fresh opportunity to earn the incentive in different settings on different occasions—a recurring chance to succeed that keeps the incentive systems engaging and effective over time. For healthcare in particular, this is a win-win-win, says Williams. “In the United States we are faced with lower reimbursements and higher costs, so we have to look for areas where we can gain efficiencies and minimize costs. In the healthcare value model, time and costs are denominators, and quality and service are numerators. Any way we can save on costs and improve efficiencies allows us to take care of more patients, and to be able to do that effectively. “We made some incredible improvements here. We went from just average to best in class, right to the frontier of operative efficiency. And there is so much more opportunity out there to pull more levers and reach new levels, which is truly encouraging.” Looking to know more or connect with Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Accounting, Karen Sedatole? Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.
This strategic move aligns with LSU’s Scholarship First Agenda, where energy is one of five core focus areas for research critical to the future of Louisiana and the nation. It also builds on the successes of LSU’s Institute for Energy Innovation, Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana Geological Survey, and the LSU-led FUEL team while assuming a leadership role in how the university engages with its partners—industry, communities, donors, and state and federal agencies—through collaboration and service. “As Louisiana’s flagship research university, LSU is committed to organizing our efforts in ways that maximize impact and reflect institutional priorities,” said Robert Twilley, LSU vice president of research and economic development. “The LSU Energy Institute will provide a platform for faculty across multiple colleges and disciplines to collaborate on solutions to Louisiana’s most pressing energy and environmental challenges.” The LSU Energy Institute will unify and expand several longstanding programs, chiefly the Center for Energy Studies, the Louisiana Geological Survey, and a range of externally funded initiatives, including cutting-edge energy research catalyzed by the LSU Institute for Energy Innovation through a dedicated $25 million investment from Shell. This results-focused realignment reflects a broader effort across LSU to improve coordination between strategic research projects and teams with increased support from research centers, institutes, and core facilities. As LSU’s flagship unit in the energy domain, the Energy Institute will enhance the university’s ability to align interdisciplinary research and policy with Louisiana’s energy economy and environmental stewardship goals. “The reorganization of LSU energy efforts into this institute reflects both a long-standing legacy of service and a renewed vision for the future of energy research in Louisiana. It’s about building on 40 years of trusted work while expanding our capacity to innovate, support decisionmakers, and serve the people of our state, said Greg Upton, interim director of the LSU Energy Institute and executive director of the LSU Center for Energy Studies. The LSU Energy Institute will serve as a central hub for faculty, students, industry, and public agencies working at the intersection of energy technology, resource economics, environmental protection, and policy. The integration of the Louisiana Geological Survey will further reinforce the university’s role in providing critical data and analysis to support state planning and hazard assessment. The institute will also continue to seed competitive, high-quality research focused on energy systems resilience, carbon management, and economic opportunity. These investments reflect LSU’s broader vision to translate research into impact and fuel new jobs and technologies to power Louisiana’s future. Original article posted here.
Record-breaking heatwaves are plaguing the U.S. this summer, making it difficult to stay cool. However, the scorching temperatures aren't just affecting us at the ground level — they're disrupting air travel, too, with increasing flight delays and aircraft weight restrictions. Visiting assistant professor of aeronautics Shem Malmquist, a recognized expert in aviation safety and operations, spoke with FOX 35 Orlando about how extreme temperatures can directly impact aircraft performance, particularly at high-traffic airports during the summer. "Temperatures are probably not something people think about," said Shem Malmquist, a graduate lecturer in aviation at Florida Tech. "But the delays just compound on each other. If you start getting delayed because people need more time to take breaks to stay cool, now that flight’s late, and that has a snowball effect." These limitations can affect passenger loads, cargo capacity and overall flight scheduling. As temperatures continue to climb, Malmquist warned that these disruptions could become the new normal — not just a seasonal inconvenience, but a growing challenge for the aviation industry in the face of climate change. A seasoned Boeing 777 captain and accident investigator, Malmquist has spent decades researching aircraft operations and emergency scenarios. He’s also contributed to global conversations on aviation safety policy and climate-related infrastructure resilience. If you’re covering this topic or looking to speak with an expert on the intersection of climate and air travel, Malmquist is available for interviews. Click the icon below to connect with him.
