Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
ChristianaCare Launches Organoid Core to Personalize Cancer Treatment
ChristianaCare’s Cawley Center for Translational Cancer Research has unveiled a first-of-its-kind organoid core in a community cancer center program. The new laboratory facility within the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute grows and tests living, patient-derived tumor models, giving doctors and researchers a faster, more precise way to identify the therapies most likely to work for each patient. This innovation could change how cancer is treated in Delaware and serve as a model for community centers nationwide. There are only a handful of organoid core centers, or “tumor-on-a-chip” programs, in the United States, and ChristianaCare’s is the first within a community cancer center setting. What the Organoid Core Does Tumor organoids are tiny, three-dimensional cultures grown from a patient’s tumor tissue. They preserve the genetic and molecular traits of the original tumor, making them far more accurate than traditional cell lines. “These mini-tumors enable researchers to screen drugs faster, identify new biomarkers and discover which treatments are most likely to work for each patient,” said Thomas Schwaab, M.D., Ph.D., Bank of America Endowed Medical Director of ChristianaCare’s Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute. “This core is a bridge between the lab and the clinic. By growing living tumor models from cells of individual patients, we can test real-world drug responses and tailor treatments for them in ways that were not possible before.” How It Advances Patient Care The organoid core strengthens the Cawley Center's research capabilities by enabling drug screening and biomarker discovery. It will bank organoids representing the wide variety of tumors seen in the community, giving scientists a realistic system for testing therapies. ChristianaCare treats more than 70 percent of cancer patients in Delaware, giving researchers unique access to treatment-naïve samples. These are tumor tissues that have not yet been exposed to chemotherapy or other therapies. Studying them provides a more accurate picture of how cancer behaves naturally and how it might respond to new treatments. Bringing a new cancer drug to patients is expensive and risky. Estimates show it can cost $1.3 to $2.8 billion, with up to a third spent on preclinical development, and only about one in 10 compounds ever reach human trials. Traditional mouse models often fail to fully mimic human tumors, making early testing less reliable. By using organoid screening, the Cawley Center can test therapies more accurately, reduce costs and failure rates and move promising treatments into clinical trials faster. Combined with existing tissue collection programs, clinical trial infrastructure and community partnerships, these resources create a direct pathway to bring lab discoveries to patients faster. Turning Point in Translational Research “Our goal is to shorten the distance between discovery and treatment,” said Nicholas J. Petrelli, M.D., director of the Cawley Center. “Too many promising drugs fail because early models do not capture the complexity of real tumors. The organoid core helps solve that problem. We can now test therapies in models that reflect the patients we actually serve.” “This is a turning point for translational research in community health,” said Jennifer Sims Mourtada, Ph.D., associate director at the Cawley Center. “Organoid technology lets us study cancer in a way that feels personal. We are not just looking at data points. We are studying living models of a patient’s tumor, which can reveal how that person’s cancer might behave or respond to treatment. This approach brings science closer to the people it is meant to help.” Looking Ahead In the coming months, the organoid core will focus on building a diverse biobank of tumors common in Delaware. Plans include collaborations with academic institutions, shared access for external researchers, and development of immune-tumor co-culture models. By combining advanced technology, strong community partnerships and direct patient access, ChristianaCare and the Cawley Center are showing how translational cancer research can thrive in a community setting, making breakthroughs not only in the lab but also in patients’ lives.
12 Days of Holiday Experts - Goizueta Business School Sources for the Season
It's that time of the year again! And as Americans get ready for another journey into the festive season, there are always opportunities for stories to be told about shopping, travelling, buying, returning, and making sure you don't get ripped off or scammed during all the hustle and bustle, Here's a stocking full of topics and expert sources who are here to help with your coverage this holiday! Gifts, Giving, and all the Costs That Come With It Economics of the Holiday Season A successful Q4 makes the difference between annual profitability and loss for many businesses. Professor Tom Smith is available to discuss seasonal hiring, retail expectations, the impact of tariffs, and the importance of the holiday season to retailers. View his profile here Black Friday & Using AI to find the Perfect Gift Professor Doug Bowman expects to see more Shoppers (esp. Gen Z) experimenting with GenAI for personalization, inspiration, product discovery, summarizing reviews, generating lists, and finding deals. Results may be mixed, depending on the data the AI was trained on. He also expects more purposeful and complex shopping, with fewer impulse purchases and more searching (both online and in brick-and-mortar stores), due to lower inventory levels/assortments at some retailers. View his profile here Food and Travel Pricing Professor Saloni Firasta Vastani can discuss the cost of this year’s holiday dinners. What’s gone up and what’s gone down? She can also discuss the cost of travel this holiday season and offer tips on how consumers can secure a better deal. View her profile here Avoiding Holiday Overspend Professor Usha Rackliffe can discuss how holiday shopping can expose consumers to credit products, such as store credit cards, that offer various incentives and often result in overspending. She can discuss the pros and cons of the buy now, pay later offers and how interest rates will play into this year’s holiday shopping and spending. View her profile here Gift Giving Professor Ira Bedzow says there are three ways gift-giving can promote both personal growth and professional development. View his profile here Gifts Express Relationship, Not Reciprocity. Contracts and transactions are about keeping score—I give, you give back. Gifts are about connection. A thoughtful gift doesn’t close a deal; it opens a door. Personally, it reframes love and friendship as ongoing commitments rather than conditional exchanges. Professionally, treating interactions as opportunities to build trust creates loyalty, sparks creativity, and builds a culture no contract can guarantee. The Art of Perspective-Taking in Choosing Gifts: The best gifts come from stepping outside yourself and asking: What would this person really want? This act of empathy is a skill worth practicing. Personally, it pulls us beyond ego; professionally, it sharpens our ability to anticipate needs, see through others’ eyes, and make decisions aligned with their values—a foundation for real leadership. Gifts as Lessons in Friendship and Human Connection: True friendship isn’t built on ideology, convenience, or self-interest. It’s rooted in caring for someone simply for who they are. Gift-giving is a rehearsal for that kind of connection. Personally, it reminds us that what we truly want typically comes through relationships, not rivalry. Professionally, it shows that lasting success rests less on shared advantage and more on genuine respect and human connection. Shopping for Sustainability Consumers are increasingly seeking eco-friendly products, and brands that emphasize sustainability are likely to see higher sales. Nearly 69% of shoppers prefer to buy from companies committed to ethical practices, such as those that use carbon-neutral shipping and offer recyclable packaging. Professor Dionne Nickerson focuses on how companies can integrate sustainability in their products and why it matters to consumers. View her profile here Pressure Purchasing As the days inch closer to the holidays, shoppers feel the pressure to find a gift. Professor Max Gaerth can discuss how stress, scarcity, and time pressure shape purchasing decisions. View his profile here Online Shopping and Influencing AI Changing How We Shop Professor David Schweidel examines how new AI tools are transforming the shopping experience and the ways brands utilize AI to engage with prospective customers and personalize product recommendations. He can also discuss OpenAI’s Atlas and how it puts ChatGPT directly into your browser. View his profile here Influencers Influencing Our Purchases How are creators impacting the economy, and are influencers impacting our purchasing decisions? Professor Marina Cooley looks at the creator economy and how TikTok and Instagram are impacting our holiday wish lists, and what it takes for a product to go from unknown to trending. She can also discuss TikTok Shop (something Instagram has struggled to execute). View her profile here How to Attract Customers to the Store this Holiday: Shopping looks different, and it is up to retailers to stand out not just in the brick-and-mortar world but also online. The success of a business can balance on the customer experience. Professor Reshma Shah can discuss the policies that brick-and-mortar retailers need to have in place to successfully merge online shopping and the in-person shopping experience. View her profile here Holiday Scams Tis The Season for Scams Bad actors are using AI to scam consumers. From phone calls to emails, Professor Tucker Balch can tell us how to spot a scam and what we can do to protect ourselves. View his profile here Holiday Returns Product Returns Professor Doug Bowman can discuss the retail strategy and the impact of holiday gift returns, comparing online returns to those in brick-and-mortar stores. View his profile here He can also weigh in on: Why are returns so expensive for retailers? Online returns vs. brick and mortar returns Predicting online returns - helping retailers understand how likely it is that a product will be returned. As well: Are retailers still offering free returns? What’s this costing them? Is this likely to continue? What will they do differently? If you’re a journalist covering the holiday season, our experts can help shape your story. Use the “Connect” button on any expert’s profile to send an inquiry — all inquiries are monitored by our media team to ensure a quick, timely response.
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.
Why College Students Are Storming Fields More Often
In his most recent Forbes article, Dr. Marshall Shepherd takes a scientific look at why college students and fans storm football fields, blending insights from psychology, meteorology, and social dynamics. He explains that field-storming is not simply a burst of emotion—it’s a predictable outcome of collective excitement and shared identity. After an unexpected win or a high-stakes rivalry game, thousands of people simultaneously experience what psychologists call “emotional contagion,” amplifying feelings of unity and celebration. This shared surge, combined with environmental cues like stadium acoustics and crowd density, transforms the act into what Shepherd calls a form of “social weather event.” “Storming the field isn’t chaos—it’s choreography fueled by emotion and crowd physics.” Shepherd also examines the logistical and safety implications. He notes that while universities often celebrate these spontaneous displays of school pride, they carry risks ranging from crowd injuries to property damage. Yet, institutions are reluctant to ban them outright because these moments reinforce fan loyalty and media attention. Shepherd suggests that the solution lies in better understanding crowd behavior: designing stadiums with safe egress routes, training security teams to manage surges, and anticipating emotional tipping points rather than reacting afterward. “Understanding the science behind fan behavior lets us manage energy, not suppress it.” Ultimately, Shepherd’s piece reframes field-storming as a fascinating mix of culture and physics—where joy, identity, and momentum collide. He urges universities to see these moments not as mere rule-breaking but as opportunities to study human behavior in motion, and to design environments that celebrate passion without compromising safety. Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is a leading international weather-climate expert and is the Georgia Athletic Association Distinguished Professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Georgia. Dr. Shepherd was the 2013 President of American Meteorological Society (AMS), the nation’s largest and oldest professional/science society in the atmospheric and related sciences. View his profile here Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is available to speak with the media about this interesting topic - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
On Sunday, October 19, at 9:34 a.m., four masked individuals surged into the Louvre’s Galerie d’Apollon from a severed, second-floor window. Hurriedly, they smashed open two display cases, seized eight pieces of jewelry, then shimmied down a ladder and sped off on motorbikes toward Lyons. In seven minutes’ time, in broad daylight, they absconded with an estimated $102 million in valuables from the world’s most famous museum. This past Saturday, October 25, French authorities announced the first arrests in connection with the daring heist. However, despite the police’s progress, the country continues to litigate the matter—embroiled in discussions of heritage, history and national identity. Recently, Roderick Cooke, PhD, director of French and Francophone Studies at Villanova University, shared his perspective on the situation as well as the artifacts lost. Q: The Louvre heist has been described as “brazen,” “shocking” and a “terrible failure” on security’s part. Is there any sort of precedent for this event in the museum’s history? Dr. Cooke: Nothing on this scale has ever happened to the Louvre since its founding as a museum during the Revolution. The closest equivalent is the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa by a former employee who claimed it should be returned to Italy. However, that was one painting, the heist was not committed by organized crime, and the Mona Lisa did not have the renown it enjoys today. The impact of the theft was thus lower, although it did cause major outrage and a sweeping law-enforcement response at the time. Ironically, that theft is often credited with making da Vinci’s painting the global icon it continues to be. Q: What has the reaction to this event been among the French people? DC: It’s harder to get a sense of reactions across French society, because so much of the aftermath has focused on the intellectual milieux’s opinions. And in those realms, it has immediately become a political football. Individuals positioning themselves as anti-elite or anti-status quo, such as Jordan Bardella of the National Rally party, have called the theft a “humiliation,” immediately tying it to French national prestige. Former President François Hollande has conversely and vainly called for the event to be de-polemicized, citing national solidarity. This is happening because the Louvre is one of the most visible manifestations of French soft power—the most-visited museum anywhere on Earth. As such, anything attacking its integrity becomes an attack on the nation, and how individual French citizens feel about the theft is closely tied to their broader view of the nation. Q: Several of the items stolen from the Louvre once belonged to Empress Eugénie. Could you share a bit of information on her story? DC: Eugénie de Montijo was a Spanish aristocrat who married the Emperor of the French, who ruled as Napoleon III between 1852 and 1870. It was a time of authoritarian repression and sham democracy—Napoleon III installed the Empire through a coup. Its clearest legacy is that Paris looks the way it does today largely because of the thorough modernizations overseen by Napoleon III’s appointee Baron Haussmann. So, Eugénie and her now-lost jewels represent a complex point in French history, when culture and the economy developed quickly, but did so in a climate of fear for any French person who opposed the regime too loudly (like Victor Hugo, who went into exile on the Channel Islands and wrote poems savaging Napoleon III and his deeds). Some accused the Empress of being responsible for the more hardline and conservative stances taken by her husband’s government. On a different note, she was a diligent patron of the arts and arguably the most significant figure in the contemporary fashion world, famous for setting trends such as the bustle that radiated across Europe. This explains the mix of anger and admiration that followed her depending on the sphere she was operating in. A new English-language biography argues that far from being a traditionalist, she was a pioneering feminist by the standards of the time. It looks like her historical importance will continue to be debated. Q: Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez described the stolen items as “of immeasurable heritage value.” How significant of a cultural loss do you consider this theft? DC: These jewels are referred to in French as “les Joyaux de la Couronne” (the Crown Jewels), but of course that phrase lands very differently in republican France than it does across the water in the United Kingdom. The items actually represent several different dynasties of French rulers, some of whom came to power through direct conflict with others. The now-ransacked display at the Louvre smoothed over these historical divisions, for which many French people died over the centuries. President Macron referred to the stolen items as embodying “our history,” which is emblematic of the French state’s work to create a conceptual present-day unity out of the clashes of the past. At a time when France is arguably more divided than at any point since World War II, any unitary symbol of identity takes on greater significance. Q: Do you have any closing thoughts on the artifacts taken and what they represent? DC: I’d reemphasize the previous point about the smoothing effect of the museum display on the violent history that made it possible. Much of the reporting on the stolen jewels lists off the different queens and empresses who owned them, without giving readers a sense of the complicated succession of regime changes and ideologies that put those women in power in the first place. The relative stability of the last 60-odd years is an anomaly in modern French history. This set of jewels and the names of their original owners may seem far removed from the concerns of an ordinary French citizen today, but just beneath their surface is a legacy of changing governments and tensions between social classes that survives in new forms in 2025.
The Thrill of Fear: The History and Cultural Significance of Horror Movies
From flickering silent films to today’s big-budget blockbusters, horror movies have always tapped into humanity’s oldest emotion: fear. Across decades, they’ve reflected social anxieties, moral questions, and shifting definitions of what scares us. Yet behind every scream lies a story about culture, creativity, and the psychology of thrill. The Origins of On-Screen Fear Horror cinema began in the early 1900s with short silent films inspired by literature and folklore. One of the earliest, Le Manoir du Diable (1896), often considered the first horror film, introduced audiences to bats, ghosts, and the Devil himself. By the 1920s, German Expressionist films like Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari used shadow and distortion to create unease, shaping the language of horror still used today. Hollywood’s Golden Age of Horror in the 1930s brought monsters to life — Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Mummy — giving audiences both fright and fascination during a time of global economic depression. These films helped people confront real-world fears symbolically, offering escape through imagination. Fear Evolves with the Times Each generation has reinvented horror to reflect its cultural moment. The 1950s’ atomic-age fears spawned giant monsters and alien invasions. The 1960s and ’70s shifted toward psychological and supernatural horror with classics like Psycho, The Exorcist, and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre — films that exposed anxieties about social change, faith, and violence. The 1980s and ’90s introduced slasher icons such as Halloween’s Michael Myers and A Nightmare on Elm Street’s Freddy Krueger, mixing terror with pop-culture spectacle. By the 2000s, horror had splintered into subgenres — from found-footage realism (The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity) to elevated art-house films like Get Out and Hereditary, which use fear to explore race, grief, and identity. Why We Like to Be Scared Psychologists suggest people enjoy horror because it offers safe danger — a way to experience fear, adrenaline, and relief without real threat. Watching horror triggers the body’s fight-or-flight response, followed by catharsis once the tension resolves. Culturally, it provides a mirror to our collective psyche: what we fear, we face, and what we face, we sometimes conquer. Horror also brings people together — in theaters, at home, or online — to share an intense emotional experience. Whether screaming, laughing, or peeking through fingers, audiences participate in a ritual as old as storytelling itself. The Icons of the Genre Among the most popular and influential horror films of all time: Psycho (1960) The Exorcist (1973) Halloween (1978) A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) The Silence of the Lambs (1991) The Ring (2002) Get Out (2017) Hereditary (2018) Each left a lasting mark on both cinema and culture — showing that horror, far from being niche, remains one of the most expressive and enduring genres in film history. Connect with our experts about the history and popularity of scary movies and horror flicks: Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
Lighting the Night: The History and Meaning of the Jack-o’-Lantern
No Halloween is complete without the warm flicker of a Jack-o’-Lantern glowing from porches and windowsills. But long before it became a symbol of trick-or-treating and fall décor, the carved pumpkin had deep roots in folklore, superstition, and the immigrant experience that shaped North American culture. From Folklore to Flame The story begins in Ireland, where early Jack-o’-Lanterns were not pumpkins at all, but turnips and beets. The tradition sprang from an old Irish folktale about “Stingy Jack,” a clever but dishonest man who tricked the Devil and was doomed to wander the Earth with only a burning coal inside a hollowed-out turnip to light his way. People began carving their own “Jack’s lanterns” to ward off wandering spirits and evil forces during Samhain, the Celtic festival marking the end of the harvest and the beginning of winter. When Irish and Scottish immigrants brought this tradition to North America in the 19th century, they discovered that the native pumpkin—larger, softer, and easier to carve—was the perfect replacement. The transformation from turnip to pumpkin turned a small superstition into a dazzling new folk art. The American Reinvention By the mid-1800s, Jack-o’-Lanterns had become a staple of Halloween celebrations in the United States. Newspapers of the era described “pumpkin lanterns” lighting up autumn gatherings, and by the early 20th century, the smiling (and sometimes sinister) carved pumpkin was the defining symbol of the holiday. Over time, the tradition evolved from scaring away spirits to creating community and creativity. Towns began holding carving contests, families passed down patterns and designs, and pumpkin patches and Halloween festivals turned the once-humble lantern into an essential piece of American seasonal culture. A Symbol Beyond Scares Today, Jack-o’-Lanterns carry layered meanings: they celebrate harvest, creativity, and folklore while keeping a touch of the supernatural alive. In many ways, they embody the blend of ancient myth and modern celebration that defines Halloween itself—where fear meets fun, and the flicker of a candle becomes both decoration and tradition. Whether whimsical or eerie, the glowing face of a Jack-o’-Lantern continues to connect generations to an age-old story about light overcoming darkness—a reminder that even the spookiest traditions began with a spark of human imagination. Connect with our experts about the folklore, cultural history, and enduring legacy of the Jack-o’-Lantern. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
Have you ever wondered why we just can't get enough of the creatures hiding beneath our beds and lurking in the shadows? Whether it's watching a spine-tingling horror movie or telling ghost stories around the campfire, Americans have a long-standing love affair with all things spooky and scary. But what's driving this fascination? Persephone Braham is a Professor of Spanish & Latin American Studies at the University of Delaware and has those answers. She can talk about monsters in a variety of ways including the following: Monsters are therapeutic. They act out our fears – and our fantasies. We love to hate monsters. They channel our anxieties and expose our desires. Monsters sneak into our dreams, stalk us in the dark and make us scream. Why do we love them? Have you hugged a monster today? Why do we need monsters? They keep us from crossing the line. Who believes in monsters? Anyone who considers themselves human. What are monsters, and why do we need them? From ghosts to vampires, every culture has its favorite monsters. Halloween scream: Why we like to play vampires. Who decides what a monster is? You do! Why do zombies want your brains? Monsters and eerie tales serve as representations of our internal anxieties and societal fears. They act as metaphors for the complex emotions and situations we encounter. Braham can give this context and more. She can be contacted by emailing mediarelations@udel.edu.
From field to festival: How pumpkins grew into an autumn symbol
Type “Halloween” into your phone’s emoji search bar, and you’ll get three icons: a skull, a ghost, and a jack-o'-lantern. The skull and ghost make sense — but how did the pumpkin carve out such a starring role in our fall celebrations? Cindy Ott, associate professor of history and material culture at the University of Delaware, has the answer. She literally wrote the book on pumpkins, exploring how this humble orange gourd grew from a survival crop to a powerful symbol of American identity and nostalgia. Today, pumpkins dominate the fall season — from pumpkin pies and soups to the ever-popular pumpkin spice latte. Ott’s research uncovers how the pumpkin’s transformation from practical produce to cultural icon reflects broader shifts in American history, values, and traditions. To schedule an interview with Professor Ott, contact MediaRelations@udel.edu.
Taking discoveries to the real world for the benefit of human health
It takes about a decade and a lot of money to bring a new drug to market—between $1 billion to $2 billion, in fact. University of Delaware inventor Jason Gleghorn wants to change that. At UD, Gleghorn is developing leading-edge microfluidic tissue models. The devices are about the size of two postage stamps, and they offer a faster, less-expensive way to study disease and to develop pharmaceutical targets. These aren’t tools he wants to keep just for himself. No, Gleghorn wants to put the patented technology he’s developing in the hands of other experts, to advance clinical solutions in women’s health, maternal-fetal health and pre-term birth. His work also has the potential to improve understanding of drug transport in the female reproductive tract, placenta, lung and lymph nodes. Gleghorn, an associate professor of biomedical engineering, was named to the first cohort of Innovation Ambassadors at UD, as part of the University’s effort to foster and support an innovation culture on campus. Below, he shares some of what he’s learned about translating research to society. Q: What is the problem that you are trying to address? Gleghorn: A lot of disease has to do with disorganization in the body’s normal tissue structure. My lab makes microfluidic tissue models, called organ-on-a-chip models, that have super-tiny channels about the thickness of a human hair, where we can introduce very small amounts of liquid, including cells, to represent an organ in the human body. This can help us study and understand the mechanism of how things work in the body (the biology) or help us do things like drug screening to test therapeutic compounds for treating disease. And while these little microfluidic devices can do promising things, the infrastructure required to make the system work often restricts their use to high-end labs. We want to democratize the techniques and technology so that nonexperts can use it. To achieve this, we changed the way we make these devices, so that they are compatible with standard manufacturing, which means we can scale them and create them much easier. Gleghorn: One of the problems with drug screening, in general, is that animal model studies don’t always represent human biology. So, when we’re using animal models to test new drugs — which have been the best tool we have available — the results are not always apples to apples. Fundamentally, our microfluidic devices can model what happens in humans … we can plug in the relevant human components to understand how the mechanism is working and then ask questions about what drives those processes and identify targets for therapies to prevent the dysfunction. Q: What is innovative about this device? Gleghorn: The innovation part is this modularity — no one makes these devices this way. The science happens on the tiny tissue model insert, which is sandwiched between two pieces of clear acrylic. This allows us to watch what’s happening on the tissue model insert in real time. Meanwhile, the outer shell’s clamshell design provides flexibility: if we’re studying lung tissue and we want to study the female reproductive tract, all we do is unscrew the outer shell and insert the proper tissue model that mimics the female reproductive tract and we’re off. We’ve done a lot of the engineering to make it very simple to operate and use, and adaptable to common lab tools that everyone has, to eliminate the need for financial investment in things like specialized clean rooms, incubators and pumps, etc., so the technology can be useful in regular labs or easily deployable to far-flung locations or countries. With a laser cutter and $500 worth of equipment, you could conceivably mass manufacture these things for maternal medicine in Africa, for example. Democratizing the technology so it is compatible and useful for even an inexperienced user aligns with the mission of my lab, which focuses on scaling the science and the innovation faster, instead of only a few specialized labs being a bottleneck to uncovering new mechanisms of disease and the development of therapies. We patented this modularity, the way to build these tiny microfluidic devices and the simplicity of how it's used as a tool set, through UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships (OEIP). Q: How have you translated this work so far? Gleghorn: To date, we've taken this microfluidic system to nine different research labs across seven countries and four continents — including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Belgium and South Africa. These labs are using our technology to study problems in women’s health and collecting data with it. We’re developing boot camps where researchers can come for two or three days to the University of Delaware, where we teach them how to use this device and they take some back with them. From a basic science perspective, there is high enthusiasm for the power of what it can tell you and its ease of use. As engineers, we think it's pretty cool that many other people are using our innovations for new discoveries. Q: What support and guidance have you received from the UD innovation ecosystem? Gleghorn: To do any of this work, you need partners that have various expertise and backgrounds. UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships has built a strong team of professionals with expertise in different areas, such as how do you license or take something to patent, how do you make connections with the business community? OEIP is home to Delaware’s Small Business Development Center, which can help you think about business visibility in terms of startups. Horn Entrepreneurship has built out impressive programs for teaching students and faculty to think entrepreneurially and build mentor networks, while programs like the Institute for Engineering Driven Health and the NSF Accelerating Research Translation at UD provide gap funding to be able to do product development and to take the work from basic prototype to something that is more marketable. More broadly in Delaware is the Small Business Administration, the Delaware Innovation Space and regional grant programs and small accelerators to help Delaware innovators. Q: How have students in your lab benefited from engaging in innovation? Gleghorn: Undergraduate students in my lab have made hundreds of these devices at scale. We basically built a little manufacturing facility, so we have ways to sterilize them, track batches, etc. We call it “the foundry.” In other work, graduate students are engineering different components or working on specific system designs for various studies. The students see collaborators use these devices to discover new science and new discoveries. That's very rewarding as an engineer. Additionally, my lab focuses on building solutions that are useful in the clinic and commercially viable. As a result, we've had two grad students spin out companies related to the work we've been doing in the lab. Q: How has research translation positively impacted your work? Gleghorn: I started down this road maybe five years ago, seriously trying to think about how to translate our research findings. Being an entrepreneur, translating technology — it's a very different way to think about your work. And so that framework has really permeated most of the research that I do now and changed the way I think about problems. It has opened new opportunities for collaboration and for alternate sources of funding with companies. This has value in terms of taking the research that you're doing fundamentally and creating a measurable impact in the community, but it also diversifies your funding streams to work on important problems. And different viewpoints help you look at the work you do in new ways, challenging you to define the value proposition, the impact of your work.