Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Ask the Expert: Vaccine myths and scientific facts
Now that there are authorized and recommended COVID-19 vaccines, it is critical people receive accurate information. Peter Gulick, professor of medicine at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine and infectious disease expert, reviews some myths about the vaccine and counters these with scientific facts. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a rush, so their effectiveness and safety can’t be trusted. Fact: Studies found that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are both about 95% effective compared to the influenza vaccine, which ranges from being 50% to 60% effective each year. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is 85% effective at curbing serious or moderate illness. The most important statistic is that all three were 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations and death. As of March 9, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 93.7 million people have been vaccinated and all safety data collected from these doses show no red flags. There have been about 5 cases of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction, per 1 million but this is no different than allergic reactions from other vaccines. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly and here are a few: The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a messenger RNA technology that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic. China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly so scientists could start working on vaccines. The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were created using messenger RNA, or mRNA, which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made. Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the vaccinated study volunteers. Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred. They develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly also due to years of previous research on the SARS COV-1, a related virus. Myth: The messenger RNA technology used to make the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is brand new. Fact: The messenger RNA technology behind these two vaccines has been studied and in development for almost two decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials, making vaccine development faster. mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika and rabies. Myth: You only need one dose of J&J vaccine so it’s more effective. Fact: Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses a different strategy — a weakened cold virus that is reprogrammed to include the code for the spike protein. Once inside the body, the viral genes trigger a similar response against the virus. All three vaccines are considered overall effective and 100% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death. Myth: Vaccine efficacy and effectiveness mean the same thing. Fact: Efficacy and effectiveness do not mean the same thing. “Efficacy” refers to the results for how well a drug or vaccine works based on testing while “effectiveness” refers to how well these products work in the real world, in a much larger group of people. Most people, however, use them interchangeably even though they have different scientific meanings. Myth: The vaccines aren’t effective against new strains of the virus. Fact: Currently, we know both the U.K. strain as well as the South African variant have increased transmissibility of 30% to 50% over the natural strain. As far as an increase in causing more serious disease, it is not known yet. We have over 600 U.K. variants in Michigan and one case of the South African variant, and I just heard of 47 cases of the U.K. variant in Grand Ledge. We (Michigan) are second in the nation in variants, but that's likely because we test for them more. The most important information is that the vaccines, in general, are 100% effective in prevention of hospitalization and death. So, it is felt they all offer some protection against variants to prevent serious disease. As far as the Johnson & Johnson, it was used with variants and has efficacy overall of 72% in U.S., 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa (where the main strain is the South African variant). All companies are looking at modifying (their products) (the mRNA) to cover variants and either give a booster or a multivalent vaccine to cover all variants. Myth: There are severe side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccine can have side effects, but the vast majority go away quickly and aren’t serious. The vaccine developers report that some people experience pain where they were injected; body aches; headaches or fever, lasting for a day or two. This is good and are signs that the vaccine is working to stimulate your immune system. If symptoms persist beyond two days, you should call your doctor. Myth: Getting the COVID-19 vaccine gives you COVID-19. Fact: The vaccine for COVID-19 cannot and will not give you COVID-19. The two authorized mRNA vaccines instruct your cells to reproduce a protein that is part of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which helps your body recognize and fight the virus, if it comes along. The COVID-19 vaccine does not contain the SARS-Co-2 virus, so you cannot get COVID-19 from the vaccine. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was developed using adenovirus vector technology and also will not give you COVID-19. It shows your immune system a weakened, common cold virus “disguised” as the coronavirus instead. Adenovirus vaccines have been around for about two decades, the same as mRNA vaccines. Johnson & Johnson developed a vaccine for Ebola using this technology. Myth: The vaccines are ineffective against the virus variants. Fact: More time is needed to study the vaccines’ effectiveness against the variants. Studies are now being conducted to determine if a booster dose is needed to protect against the variants or if modifications to the vaccines are needed. Myth: I already had COVID-19 and I have recovered, so I don't need to get the vaccine. Fact: There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after getting COVID-19 someone is protected from getting it again. This is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. The CDC recommends getting the COVID-19 vaccine, even if you’ve had COVID-19 previously. However, those that had COVID-19 should delay getting the vaccination until about 90 days from diagnosis. People should not get vaccinated if in quarantine after exposure or if they have COVID-19 symptoms. Myth: I won't need to wear a mask after I get the vaccine. Fact: It may take time for everyone who wants a COVID-19 vaccination to get one. Also, while the vaccine may prevent you from getting sick, more research is needed, but early indications show that while the vaccine is effective in reducing transmission, it is possible for a vaccinated person to spread the virus. Until more is understood about how well the vaccine works, continuing with precautions such as mask-wearing and physical distancing will be important. Myth: COVID-19 vaccines will alter my DNA. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccines will not alter any human genome and cannot make any changes to your DNA. The vaccines contain all the instructions necessary to teach your cells to make SARS-CoV-2's signature spike protein, release it out into the body, and your immune system gets a practice round at fighting off COVID-19. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine can affect women’s fertility Fact: There is currently no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problems with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta. In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that fertility problems are a side effect of any vaccine. People who are trying to become pregnant now or who plan to try in the future may receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to them but it’s always prudent to consult with your doctor. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine was developed to control the general population either through microchip tracking or "nanotransducers" in our brains. Fact: There is no vaccine microchip, and the vaccine cannot track people or gather personal information into a database. Myth: The vaccines were developed and produced using fetal tissue. Fact: The vaccines do not contain fetal cells nor were fetal cells used in the production the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Johnson & Johnson used human cell lines or also known as cell cultures to grow the harmless adenovirus but did not use fetal tissue. These same cell lines have been used for other vaccines including hepatitis, chickenpox and rabies and have been around for years. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Covering Eating Disorders Week? Let our experts explain how COVID-19 can affect eating disorders
COVID-19 is presenting many different issues across all spectrums of society and life. The experts at Michigan State University took questions and provided answers in order to assist those looking to know more about how COVID-19 can affect eating disorders. Eating disorders can often stem from trauma or stress. Kelly L. Klump, professor in the Department of Psychology and fellow in the Academy for Eating Disorders, answers questions on eating disorders and how the pandemic may trigger or exacerbate this disorder. Q: Is there any evidence that the pandemic triggers eating disorder behaviors among teenagers? We have emerging data on risk for eating disorders during COVID-19. Although data are in the early stage, we are seeing increased weight-shape concerns, increased binge eating and, potentially, increased dietary restriction during COVID-19. These symptoms seem to be increasing in the general population, but results are more consistent in showing exacerbation of these symptoms in individuals with anorexia nervosa (increased restriction and potentially exercise) and bulimia nervosa (increased binge eating and purging). Reasons for these increases aren’t entirely clear, but theories focus on increased stress, increased isolation and, for individuals in recovery, decreased access to care during the pandemic. There are also fears of weight gain due to less activity overall that may fuel concerns about weight/shape and later, eating disorder symptoms. Limitations in access to food during the pandemic also seem to be related to these symptoms. Although, how they are related may vary across eating disorder symptoms. Q: What are some signs parents should be aware of that might indicate eating disorder behaviors or warning signs? These signs would be similar to those that we watch for during non-pandemic times. Decreased food intake, increased exercise and increased discussion of weight concerns are early signs. In addition, if food that was present (particularly high fat/high sugar foods) comes up missing frequently, this could be a sign of binge eating. Because eating disorders are highly comorbid with depression and anxiety, increased signs of these conditions (e.g., sad mood, withdrawal, increased anxiety about a range of concerns) could be early signs, particularly if in combination with the weight/shape/binge eating early signs mentioned above. Q: What should a parent who is concerned their child is exhibiting eating disorder behaviors do to address the issue? The first step is to talk with your teen and listen. Check in on how they are doing generally, but then also let them know about the signs you are seeing and your concerns. Empathic listening is key in these conversations and letting them know that you would like to do whatever is needed to help. They may not be willing to talk the first time they are approached. It might take multiple conversations for them to open up and/or admit that they need help. Q: What resources are available to parents looking to get help for their kids right now? There are some websites that can help parents identify eating disorder specialists in their area, including: • Academy for Eating Disorders. Find an Expert page • National Eating Disorders Association Q: Are families facing obstacles in getting preteens and teenagers help for eating disorder behaviors because of COVID-19 measures? A potential decrease in treatment resources appears to be present for eating disorders and other psychiatric illnesses. Treatment that is available may be in the form of telehealth, which some individuals may find very helpful, while others may feel is not enough. We are still collecting data on treatment availability during COVID-19, so we don’t have great data on availability. But early theories are that treatment access may be decreased. Q: What advice do you have for parents who feel like they are seeing their teenagers’ past eating disorders either reappear or become more severe in light of COVID-19? Seek help and do so early. Catching an increase or exacerbation of symptoms early in the process will increase the chances that you can catch the symptoms before they become more severe. Your teen may need “booster” sessions with treaters that can help them get back on track and help them cope with current stressors. If you are a journalist looking to know more or interview Dr. Klump, then let us help - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Study of auto recalls shows carmakers delay announcements until they can 'hide in the herd'
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. - Automotive recalls are occurring at record levels, but seem to be announced after inexplicable delays. A research study of 48 years of auto recalls announced in the United States finds carmakers frequently wait to make their announcements until after a competitor issues a recall - even if it is unrelated to similar defects. This suggests that recall announcements may not be triggered solely by individual firms' product quality defect awareness or concern for the public interest, but may also be influenced by competitor recalls, a phenomenon that no prior research had investigated. Researchers analyzed 3,117 auto recalls over a 48-year period -- from 1966 to 2013 -- using a model to investigate recall clustering and categorized recalls as leading or following within a cluster. They found that 73 percent of recalls occurred in clusters that lasted 34 days and had 7.6 following recalls on average. On average, a cluster formed after a 16-day gap in which no recalls were announced. They found 266 such clusters over the period studied. "The implication is that auto firms are either consciously or unconsciously delaying recall announcements until they are able to hide in the herd," said George Ball, assistant professor of operations and decision technologies and Weimer Faculty Fellow at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. "By doing this, they experience a significantly reduced stock penalty from their recall." Ball is co-author of the study, "Hiding in the Herd: The Product Recall Clustering Phenomenon," recently published online in Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, along with faculty at the University of Illinois, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Minnesota and Michigan State University. Researchers found as much as a 67 percent stock market penalty difference between leading recalls, which initiate the cluster, and following recalls, who follow recalls and hide in the herd to experience a lower stock penalty. This indicates a "meaningful financial incentive for auto firms to cluster following recalls behind a leading recall announcement," researchers said. "This stock market penalty difference dissipates over time within a cluster. Additionally, across clusters, the stock market penalty faced by the leading recall amplifies as the time since the last cluster increases." The authors also found that firms with the highest quality reputation, in particular Toyota, triggered the most recall followers. "Even though Toyota announces some of the fewest recalls, when they do announce a recall, 31 percent of their recalls trigger a cluster and leads to many other following recalls," Ball said. "This number is between 5 and 9 percent for all other firms. This means that firms are likely to hide in the herd when the leading recall is announced by a firm with a stellar quality reputation such as Toyota. "A key recommendation of the study is for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require auto firms to report the specific defect awareness date for each recall, and to make this defect awareness date a searchable and publicly available data field in the auto recall dataset NHTSA provides online," Ball added. "This defect awareness date is required and made available by other federal regulators that oversee recalls in the U.S., such as the Food and Drug Administration. Making this defect awareness date a transparent, searchable and publicly available data field may discourage firms from hiding in the herd and prompt them to make more timely and transparent recall decisions." Co-authors of the study were Ujjal Mukherjee, assistant professor of business administration at the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois who was the lead author; Kaitlin Wowak, assistant professor of IT, analytics, and operations at the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame; Karthik Natarajan, assistant professor of supply chain and operations at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota; and Jason Miller, associate professor of supply chain management at the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University.
The protests inspired by the tragic death of George Floyd have now touched every state in America. The protests have dominated the news and the world has been watching, sometimes in shock. Jennifer E. Cobbina is an associate professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. She has authored books on police protests and is highly regarded as an expert on these issues. Recently, she was interviewed about police tactics, policies and how they might be adding fuel to the fire as opposed to de-escalating the tensions among protestors. Jennifer Cobbina, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University, told Insider that protest policing in the 1960s and 1970s was "based on the philosophy of escalated force in which increasing violence on the part of protesters was met with increasing force from police. This approach was primarily aggressive and confrontational in nature." "We see protest police resorting to this strategy" in the ongoing George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests, she said, even though such tactics "exacerbate tension between police and protesters." Cobbina suggested police adopt the negotiated management approach that was favored from the mid-1970s until the 1990s. This response protects the right to free speech, tolerates some disruption, de-escalates tension, and avoids high levels of police force unless it's absolutely necessary. This would allow demonstrators and police departments to "decrease disruptiveness from protesters and limit the need for police violence," she said. June 02 Insider.com If you are a journalist covering the protests occurring across America and various responses by police and authorities when handling them – let our experts help with your story. Jennifer E. Cobbina is an associate professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. She is an expert in the areas of race, crime, policing, as well as protest movements. Professor Cobbina is available to speak with media – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.
According to some, the election is pretty much already over. There is no way Joe Biden can lose and there is absolutely no way Donald Trump can win. The thing is a lot of people said that four years ago about Hillary Clinton. There is a path to victory for Joe Biden, but unseating a sitting president is no easy task. It will take swinging several red states blue and not focusing on areas where President Trump may have fallen out of favor. What to watch Rust Belt's traditional battlegrounds: Trump’s chance of winning Michigan, which he carried by 11,000 votes in 2016, has been significantly reduced by the impact of COVID-19 in the state, which has suffered the fourth most deaths in the country. Pennsylvania has almost been as hard hit as Michigan (fifth most deaths). Of the three Rust Belt states, Trump is best positioned in Wisconsin, where his job approval has remained higher than the national average. West and South emerge as new Democratic base: Seven western states — California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington — are firmly in the Democratic column. Six states in the South and Southwest — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia — are in various stages of becoming blue states. Outside of Virginia, which has already become a blue state, Arizona is the state most likely to transition to a Democratic base state as early as November. May 17 – Axios But as much as the playbook seems obvious – there will be pitfalls, landmines and barriers along the way. It is expected that this upcoming election will be divisive, expensive, and close. And President Trump has proven to be an effective and relentless campaigner. If you are covering – then let our experts help with your questions and stories. Mark Caleb Smith is the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. Mark is available to speak with media regarding the DNC Primary, running mates and the upcoming election. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Scarcity reduces consumers' concerns about prices, research shows
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- During the current pandemic, panicked overbuying of products such as toilet paper, cleaning products and similar items often has led to limited options for consumers and empty store shelves. What's often left are generic or lower-priced branded products. According to new research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, it may not be because consumers during this crisis are viewing higher-priced products as having better quality. A paper published in the Journal of Consumer Research finds that scarcity actually decreases consumers' tendency to use price to judge a product's quality. "Scarcity is aversive and triggers the desire to compensate for the shortage, and to seek abundance," said paper co-author Ashok Lalwani, associate professor of marketing at Kelley. "People who face scarcity are less likely to view less vs. more expensive options as belonging to different categories, and thus are open to differences at either or both ends of the price continuum." This is the first paper to directly show the impact of scarcity on price-quality judgments. The findings are applicable amid times of economic crisis, natural disasters and social disturbances. "We suggest that people may not only differ in terms of how they categorize purchases, but also in terms of the extent to which they categorize, and scarcity reduces the tendency," Lalwani said. While consumers frequently judge the quality of a product based on its price, they change their thinking during times of scarcity and are less likely to categorize objects and less likely to use the price of a product to infer its quality, Lalwani and his co-authors found. The business implications for managers at high-end stores or those who want to increase sales of high-priced items are numerous. Lalwani suggested that one way such managers can activate the belief that higher prices indicate higher quality is by varying context or environmental factors. This could include encouraging consumers -- such as through contests or sweepstakes -- to categorize assorted items by price to facilitate the use of price-tiers as a basis for judging a product's quality. "The same objective could also be attained by reducing consumers' desire for abundance," Lalwani said. "For example, inside the store, managers could have portraits, displays or ads highlighting the harmful effects of gluttony or hoarding behavior. Doing so may increase customers' price-quality inferences and shift them from purchasing lower-priced to higher-priced goods. "Our findings also suggest that when stronger price-quality inferences are desired, retailers are advised to avoid utilizing scarcity messages, such as 'sale ends this week' or 'while supplies last,' especially for product categories in which the proportion of high-priced items is high, as priming scarcity among consumers may decrease their price-quality inferences." Other authors of the paper, "The Impact of Resource Scarcity on Price-Quality Judgments," were Hanyong Park, assistant professor of marketing at the Eli Brand College of Business at Michigan State, and David Silvera, retired associate professor of marketing at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
Op Ed: In coronavirus crisis, Don't prioritize economics over public health
The following is an excerpt from Op Ed that ran in the Detroit Free Press late last week. Th full piece is attached below for your reading pleasure. President Donald Trump said this week that he hopes to see economic activity ramped up and social distancing practices and other public health measures reduced by Easter, which is April 12. This is a recipe for disaster and it again vividly illustrates his dismissal of medical and scientific expertise for his own political goals. The rhetoric he uses suggests that the financial pain the nation will experience over the next year or longer is not worth the lives that will be lost as a result of dialing back public health restrictions. I am an ethicist. To me, Trump is forcing Sophie’s Choice decisions by people who have taken an oath to “first do no harm.” Trump and his advisers ignore the ethical pain that health professionals will have to endure who must decide who lives and who dies because we have too few ventilators or too few ICU beds to treat all the patients who need those beds for survival. Those harsh choices are very real right now. They would become even more tragic if public health measures now in place were loosened in order to improve economic activity. March 27 - Detroit Free Press There are many angles to explore and cover as the COVID-19 pandemic impacts just about every segment of American life. If you're a journalist covering the ethics involved and the leadership decisions taking place at each level of government, then let our experts help. Leonard M. Fleck is the Director of the Center for Ethics at Michigan State University. He is an expert in the areas of health care justice and served as a member of the Clinton Administration’s Health Care Reform Task Force in 1993 and as a state ethicist for Michigan regarding access to health care. Dr. Fleck is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
It’s here and it’s time America got serious about Covid-19, known as coronavirus. The CDC is working overtime, and leading government health officials are scrambling to ensure hospitals are equipped, front-line health providers are ready and the public is informed. But with any emergency, there comes the risk of misinformation and unnecessary worry. As the new coronavirus outbreak becomes an ever-looming threat in the United States, state infectious disease specialists say the first step to staying safe is this: Remain calm. Also, don’t worry about buying a mask. “You really have to make sure you get the accurate information and not … ‘Lock your doors, close the windows, buy a generator and hope for the best,’” said Dr. Peter Gulick, an infectious disease expert at the Michigan State University's College of Osteopathic Medicine and director of the MSU Internal Medicine Osteopathic Residency program. That’s not only alarmist and bad advice, he said, it’s a waste of energy. The best advice — like these tips from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — is tried-and-true, Gulick said: Wash hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. It’s especially important after using the bathroom, before eating, and after blowing your nose, coughing or sneezing. No soap and water? Use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol. Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands. Avoid close contact with people who are sick. If you’re sick, stay home. Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash. Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using a regular household cleaning spray or wipe. If you think you’ve come in contact with someone with the virus (there have been no confirmed cases yet in Michigan) contact your health provider immediately. February 26 – The Bridge Regrettably, that too can often lead to financial reactions that can ripple across the economy. Lately, the surging stock market has plunged with worries from investors and Wall Street about how America’s workforce will be impacted if the virus spreads. Friday ended the worst week the stock market has had since 2008. NBC News 6 sat down with the Dean of the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University, Sanjay Gupta, to talk more about the stocks and what to expect after this week. “The stock market is clearly spooked, and it has become nervous with whatever is going on in the business world,” said Gupta. What has ‘spooked’ the business world, is COVID-19. “The coronavirus is quarantined lots of factories, in fact the whole country,” said Gutpa. Gutpa says the halt in Chinese manufacturing also limits businesses and goods here in the United States. “In our day to day lives, either there will be some things that we count on that may not be available. It might be that the priciest of those things that we count on change, or go up dramatically because we are so dependent on a foreign source,” said Gutpa. February 29 – WLNS TV Covering an outbreak like Covid-19 isn’t easy, there are multiple angles to explore and it is vital that only the correct facts are shared by media to the millions of viewers, readers and listeners that are waiting for the latest information – and that’s where our experts can help. Sanjay Gupta is the Eli and Edythe L. Broad Dean of the Eli Broad College of Business. He is an expert in the areas of corporate and individual tax policy issues and finance. Peter Gulick is currently an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Both experts have already been sought out by the media for their expert insight on this issue – if you are interested in arranging an interview, simply click on either expert’s profile to arrange a time today.
Hacking billionaires and the link between Bezos, Iran and what’s next for America
It’s becoming the ultimate he said/she said between the ultra-rich and world elite. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is claiming Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hacked his phone via WhatsApp. The motive seems routed to the murdering of the Washington Post’s journalist Jamal Khashoggi. However, as the billionaires debate and deflect what actually happened, the event should be a warning sign of what could be on the horizon. America is still on guard and expecting retaliation in one form or another from the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, and online attacks and targeting cellphones could be the preferred method from America’s enemies abroad. “We should expect attacks from Iranian hackers or those sympathetic to their cause who appear to be civilians without nation state sponsorship will hit low level targets on the basis of ideological/national pride,” says Michigan State University’s Thomas J. Holt. “There will likely be nation-state sponsored attacks though it is unclear how quickly they will launch or how effective they may be.” This is an area that is familiar with American military and intelligence circles, Holt further explains. “Historically the U.S. has been involved in cyber-attacks that are able to severely affect Iranian capabilities, such as Stuxnet. Their counterattacks have been less public and seemingly less effective. However, they’ve already begun as with that web defacement against a US government website reported last week that appears to have Iranian ties or origination.” And as America waits and watches... What are the obvious and perhaps not so obvious approaches to breaching American cyber-security that we can expect? Will it be app based? Will the general public be a target or is it in the best interests to hit higher- and more visible properties? And if Jeff Bezos and all of his resources are vulnerable – is there any true way to ensure anyone is safe online? There is a lot to be explored as this story progresses and if you are a journalist covering this topic – then let our experts help. Thomas J. Holt is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University whose research focuses on computer hacking, malware, and the role of the Internet in facilitating all manner of crime and deviance. Professor Holt is available to speak with media about these issues – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
It’ll be early mornings and long nights for just about anyone involved in covering, watching or taking part in the impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump. With an impeachment trial, there is process, debate, strategy and rhetoric. The goal for Democrats will be a guilty verdict that will remove a sitting President from office. Some experts aren’t sure if this monumental event will have any troubling repercussions on Trump’s campaign for re-election this fall. “We did see some minor impacts of impeachment in the past,” says Matt Grossmann, professor of political science and director of MSU’s Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. “We’re talking pretty minor effects. It’s hard to see it making a big difference in what happens come November. I certainly don’t think you can either count him out or say that he’s going to cruise to victory. I think we’re going to see a competitive presidential election.” And when it comes to the details of removal from office and the difference between a criminal act and what an actual impeachable offence is according to the constitution - seems to be getting lost on most inside and outside of the Senate. “I wrote months ago that one side would argue that President Trump had to commit a crime to be removed from office while the other side would say the opposite,” says Brian Kalt, professor of law at Michigan State University. “This back-and-forth happens in every impeachment, and the parties switch sides depending on who’s on trial with little regard for what the Constitution really states. The Constitution and 200 years of precedent make it extremely clear that impeachment and removal do not require a crime to have been committed.” Are you a journalist covering the impeachment trials? Our experts can help explain every angle of this process, the potential outcomes and the consequences for both sides arguing for the removal of a sitting president and how it will impact the upcoming election in November. Brian Kalt is a professor of law and the Harold Norris Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University. He is an expert in constitutional law of the presidency, presidential pardons, impeachment, succession and the 25th Amendment. Matt Grossmann is an associate professor of political science and the director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. His expertise includes American politics, political parties and campaigns and he has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post and other media outlets commenting on these issues. Both Brian and Matt are available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on either expert’s icon to arrange an interview.