Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Georgia Southern University’s Office of Student Wellness and Health Promotion, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health (JPHCOPH) Center for Addiction Recovery and Health Services have partnered to provide overdose prevention education to the campus community. The University will distribute naloxone, which is used to rapidly and temporarily reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, allowing time for first responders to arrive and initiate further intervention, to the campus community at no cost. Savannah nonprofit No More O.D.s donated a large quantity of naloxone to Georgia Southern for this purpose. “The health and safety of our campus and the many visitors it welcomes are of high priority,” said Shay Little, Ph.D., vice president for Student Affairs. “By increasing access to naloxone we are equipping our community with another life-saving tool.” Georgia Southern Public Health Administrator Sean Bear, DPH, agrees. “Naloxone is a life-saving medication,” he noted. “It is safe, fast-acting and easy to use.” Although many in the Georgia Southern community do not consume alcohol or other recreational substances, opioid overdoses can occur under a number of circumstances. Misuse of prescription opioids provided by a health care provider or the use of illegal opioids can result in negative health consequences, including overdoses. Some common prescription opioids include codeine, morphine, hydrocodone and oxycodone, among others. Counterfeit pills designed to look like prescription opioids often contain a synthetic opioid known as fentanyl, with many of these pills containing enough fentanyl in just one dose to cause an opioid overdose. “The primary aim of distributing naloxone and providing education on overdose prevention, recognition and response is to save lives,” said Robert Bohler, Ph.D., JPHCOPH assistant professor. Just as AED/CPR first aid boxes are placed strategically across campus, naloxone kits and utilization instructions will be placed in high-traffic, high-risk areas. Distribution locations include the Campus Food Pantries (all campuses), Center for Addiction and Recovery (Statesboro Campus), Health Centers (Statesboro and Armstrong campuses), Counseling Centers (Statesboro and Armstrong campuses), and Student Wellness and Health Promotion (Statesboro and Armstrong campuses). “All naloxone packages come with instructions, however, additional educational information, such as a video link on how to administer naloxone, where to find additional information and more will be available at each of these distribution locations,” said Gemma Skuraton, DPH, director of Student Wellness and Health Promotion. Universities play a vital role in promoting harm-reduction strategies. As such, Georgia Southern is committed to ensuring the availability, accessibility and education surrounding naloxone on each of its campuses. Educational initiatives will focus on overdose prevention, recognizing signs and symptoms of overdose, overdose response planning, naloxone administration, legal protections (Georgia’s 911 Medical Amnesty Law and Georgia Southern’s Amnesty Protocol), bystander intervention, and treatment and recovery service availability on campus and in the community. You can sign-up for an open workshop to learn more on the Student Wellness and Health Promotion webpage: Interested in learning more? If you want to connect with any of the experts from this story and want to book time to talk or interview, then let us help - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Fast-striking and unpredictable, tornadoes pose major challenges for emergency planners
At least 20 U.S. states have been hit with tornadoes – some of them deadly – over the past week. Experts from the University of Delaware's Disaster Research Center can speak to the difficulty of drawing up plans in advance of tornadoes, which can develop quickly and unexpectedly, as well as a variety of topics related to storm preparedness, evacuations and recovery. Those experts include: Jennifer Horney: Environmental impacts of disasters and potential public health impacts for chronic and infectious diseases. Horney, who co-authored a paper on the increase in tornado outbreaks, can talk about how impacts on the morbidity and mortality that result from tornadoes. Tricia Wachtendorf: Evacuation decision-making, disaster response and coordination, disaster relief (donations) and logistics, volunteer and emergent efforts, social vulnerability. James Kendra: Disaster response, nursing homes and hospitals, volunteers, response coordination. Jennifer Trivedi: Challenges for people with disabilities during disaster, cultural issues and long-term recovery. Sarah DeYoung: Pets in emergencies, infant feeding in disasters and decision-making in evacuation. A.R. Siders: Expert on sea level rise and managed retreat – the concept of planned community movement away from flood-prone areas. To reach these experts directly, visit their profile and click on the contact button.
Rural health documentary earns Peabody Award for Georgia Southern professor
Georgia Southern University Professor Matthew Hashiguchi has won a Peabody Award for his documentary, “The Only Doctor,” which focuses on rural health and the services provided by a single doctor in southwest Georgia. The Peabody Awards are prestigious accolades in storytelling across television, radio, streaming and other digital mediums. Categories for winning a Peabody include journalism, social video, interactive documentary, gaming and more. The nearly hour-long feature received the award in the Public Service category, which recognizes projects that address or respond to public health concerns, enhance public engagement or educate the public. For Hashiguchi, the award represents a personal and career accolade. “This award isn’t just a professional achievement, but also represents a moment in my life where I became a father,” said Hashiguchi. “I started filming right before my first daughter was born, and finished right after the second. While this award is an incredible acknowledgment of my work, it means even more to me as a priceless moment from their childhood.” The documentary focuses on Karen Kinsell, M.D., the sole physician serving 3,000 citizens in Clay County, Georgia, near the Georgia-Alabama border. The film spotlights the plight of a community in need of medical assistance and the dedicated doctor fighting to keep her clinic’s doors open. Hashiguchi delves into Kinsell’s sacrifices for her clinic’s operations, revealing her commitment to her patients. “Dr. Kinsell gets calls at home at all hours of the day and night,” Hashiguchi said. “She, at times, has had to pay the bills from her own bank account. But I’d say the biggest sacrifice is that she’s a doctor who does not have breaks.” The final cut of “The Only Doctor” is a bit different from the angle Hashiguchi took when he began work on it several years ago. He initially started the project to better understand the risks associated with maternal health care and childbirth when he and his wife were expecting their first child. Through his work, he learned of a more complex issue of health care access in rural communities. The documentary first premiered on the PBS program Reel South and is now available internationally on Al Jazeera’s documentary series “Witness.” Hashigchi’s work earned him a 2019 Gucci Tribeca Documentary Fund award and a 2021 American Stories Documentary Fund award from Points North Institute. The film’s world premiere took place at the 2023 Hot Docs International Documentary Film Festival in Toronto, Canada, and was awarded Best Documentary Feature at the 2024 South Georgia Film Festival, Best Feature at the 2023 Newburyport Documentary Film Festival and Award of Merit at the 2023 University Film and Video Association Conference. His rise to media prominence wasn’t on his radar early in his academic career. He described himself as a “C student,” and still sees himself as that young boy struggling with math and science courses. With one of the nation’s highest media honors, he can show his students new paths to success as well as the skills it takes to win a Peabody. “I want my students to know how I failed and know that I struggled,” he said. “I tell them that if they want to excel, they really have to put in hard work. That’s very much who I am now as I devote myself to these films.” If you're interested in learning more and want to book time to talk or interview with Matthew Hashiguchi then let us help - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
A Bumpy Ride Ahead for HigherEd
A confluence of political, economic, and social challenges is threatening the very fabric of US universities. In both red and blue states, the political and economic headwinds facing institutions are fierce, public skepticism is high, and social media has become a polarizing battleground of filter bubbles filled with mis/disinformation. Universities find themselves squeezed by funding cuts, scrutinized by lawmakers, and caught in cultural crossfire. This presents a unique challenge for communications professionals. In this era of declining trust and “alternative facts,” they need to be hyper-informed, adapt quickly, and boldly emphasize the critical value institutions have in society. Communications should function as a vital link, bridging this growing divide between town and gown. In red and blue states, the political and economic headwinds hitting higher education are fierce, public skepticism is high, and social media has become a polarizing battleground of filter bubbles filled with mis/disinformation. It's important to note that throughout history, universities often emerge stronger and more deeply connected to the public during times of turbulence. Universities played a key role in partnering with the government to implement Roosevelt's New Deal, helping with emergency relief and agricultural programs. They helped democratize education with the GI Bill after World War II. They responded to societal demands during the civil rights era. Most recently, they played a key role in public health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Campus communicators have a unique set of skills and a vital responsibility to steer their institutions through these tough times. But the road ahead will be hard. The New Reality for Campus Communicators Cuts to Research Funding The lifeblood of academic innovation—research dollars—is under threat. The new political regime in Washington is looking to cut billions in federal research funding. A sudden cap on NIH indirect costs (slashed to 15% from an average of 28%) will have a profound impact on programs. Many researchers report that major grants are frozen or are expected to shrink. This “budget axe” isn’t theoretical for research universities—it’s biting right now. Communicators must convey what’s at stake: essential contributions such as groundbreaking science, community health programs, and innovation pipelines that fuel the economy hang in the balance as money gets tighter. Increasing State Oversight & Regulation In state capitals, politicians are muscling into campus affairs like never before. Republican-controlled statehouses are overhauling higher education governance, introducing over 150 bills in 35 states aimed at tightening control over public institutions. Even tenure is threatened. In the past year, lawmakers in seven states moved to eliminate or curb tenure and impose stricter post-tenure reviews – an unprecedented encroachment on academic freedom. New laws and proposals are creating oversight committees, mandating changes to the curriculum, and even threatening funding for programs out of political favor. The message from some state capitols is clear: “We’re watching you.” This surge in oversight and regulatory meddling means university communicators must navigate an increasingly fine line, demonstrating transparency and accountability at every turn to appease regulators while fiercely defending their institution’s academic autonomy. Political Pressure and DEI Backlash Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are under open attack. What began as partisan rhetoric has evolved into concrete threats – and actions – against campus diversity efforts. Dozens of states have passed or proposed laws to defund DEI offices, ban diversity training, or restrict teaching about race and gender. The result? An “inconsistent and confusing landscape” for colleges as they respond to swelling political pressure. The campaign against campus DEI has dramatically accelerated in 2025, turbocharged by signals from the Trump administration pushing to eliminate DEI efforts across government and higher ed. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education 270 campuses in 38 states have already scaled back or dismantled some DEI programs under this pressure. For communications teams, the DEI backlash creates a messaging minefield. They must affirm institutional values of inclusion and support for marginalized groups, even as those very programs face hostile scrutiny from powerful critics. Threats to the Federal Department of Education In Washington, the unthinkable is suddenly on the table: the U.S. Department of Education itself is in the crosshairs. President Trump has made good on campaign promises by signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. While outright abolition requires Congress, the administration has already laid off nearly half of the department’s staff and moved to strip the agency to its bare bones. “We’re going to shut it down… it’s doing us no good,” Trump declared. This unprecedented move could upend federal support and guidelines for universities – from financial aid administration to civil rights enforcement – leaving states to fill the void. Communications professionals must reassure students, faculty, and the public that education won’t grind to a halt if federal oversight wanes. It’s a communications tightrope: acknowledging the potential for massive change while conveying stability in the university’s core mission. After all, even if Washington pulls back, universities still answer to accreditation bodies and the public trust. The Misinformation Deluge on Social Media The information ecosystem has never been more chaotic – or more dangerous. Universities are grappling with viral misinformation and disinformation that can ignite campus controversies overnight. In the age of TikTok rumors and politicized Twitter (or “X”) feeds, false narratives spread like wildfire before facts can catch up. Recent campus incidents have shown how quickly truth gets muddled: one university saw fake reports about a protest spread widely. At the same time, another dealt with a gross misinterpretation of a student gathering that went viral. Photos and videos are routinely ripped out of context or deliberately edited with misleading labels. The public, meanwhile, is “bombarded with misinformation” online and growing distrustful of experts. For higher ed communicators, countering misinformation means fighting a two-front war: rapidly correcting falsehoods about their institution and proactively pushing out accurate, compelling content to capture attention before the rumors do. Economic Uncertainty and Budget Turbulence. Even aside from targeted funding cuts, universities are feeling economic whiplash. Inflation, endowment fluctuations, and post-pandemic enrolment dips have collided to squeeze campus finances. Many institutions face structural deficits and tough choices about programs and staffing. In fact, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, two-thirds of colleges now show at least one sign of financial stress – a startling statistic that underscores how widespread the budget crunch has become. From flagship public universities to small private colleges, hiring freezes and spending cuts are the order of the day. Every dollar is scrutinized by trustees and legislators alike. Communications pros must now operate in a climate of fiscal anxiety, where messages about any new initiative or expense can trigger questions about priorities. The task at hand is to highlight the university’s economic stewardship and continued value to students and the community, even as belts tighten. It’s critical to communicate that the institution is navigating the storm responsibly—protecting its academic core and maximizing the impact of every precious dollar. Demands to Prove Real-world Impact “What is higher ed really doing for society?” In 2025, that question echoes from state capitols, donors’ boards, and kitchen tables across America. Universities are under intense pressure to demonstrate the real-world value of their research and teaching like never before. Lawmakers openly discuss ROI (return on investment) for degrees and research grants, seeking data on graduates’ earnings and innovations spawned per taxpayer dollar. Public confidence in higher education has been shaken – a recent Gallup survey found Americans’ confidence in colleges has plummeted to 36%, down from 57% in 2015. Many believe in personal value (a college degree for better jobs) but doubt that higher education delivers for the greater good. In short, the public is skeptical whether campus research and scholarship are worth the cost. University communicators must do more than publicize exciting discoveries – they must connect the dots for people. Every media release, story, or tweet should answer: Here’s how this university’s work benefits you, your community, and the world. Whether it’s a medical breakthrough, a tech startup from the lab, or a student project solving a local problem, the mandate is clear: show impact or risk losing support. In my next post, I'll provide a detailed blueprint to help communications professionals proactively plan and organize their teams for the road ahead. This actionable framework will help you better identify where you can add value for your institution where it needs it the most and confirm your critical role as a trusted resource. To your success! Upcoming Speaking Events April 23 PRSA Virtual Workshop "Cutting Through the Noise: What Thought Leadership Strategies are Working in Today’s Environment” Register Here June 8 IABC World Conference, Vancouver “The Thought Leadership Blueprint: Why & How to Build a High-Impact Program” Register Here Sept. 12-13 PRSA East Central Conference, Cleveland “The New Comms Leadership Skillset” Register Here About ExpertFile ExpertFile is revolutionizing how organizations connect their experts to journalists, podcasters, and conference organizers who need to find credible experts on tight deadlines…fast. Featuring experts on over 50,000 topics, our free Apple and Android mobile app is the go-to resource for journalists at media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, NPR Radio, Fox News, BBC, The Guardian, ABC News, CBC, AXIOS and Time Magazine. For over a decade, our award-winning software platform has been helping marketing departments better manage and promote their online thought leadership to reach a wider audience. Clients include Carnegie Mellon University, ChristianaCare Health, Villanova University, Aston University and Emory University. Learn more at: expertfile.com/getstarted
Slow traffic, fast food: The effects of highway congestion on fast-food consumption
Sitting in your car at 5:15 p.m. on a Tuesday, vehicles line the highway as far as the eye can see. The GPS estimates you still have 30 minutes left in traffic, and a vision of your empty fridge passes through your mind as your stomach grumbles. You are faced with a decision: stop at the grocery store to buy ingredients to make dinner or follow one of the many fast-food beacons illuminated beyond the exit sign. According to new research from Panka Bencsik, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Health, and Society, Vanderbilt University, on days when highways are more congested, particularly during weekday afternoon rush hour, people are more likely to choose the fast-food option. Bencsik worked in collaboration with researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign to analyze the causal effect of time lost on food choice in Los Angeles County. The team analyzed smartphone GPS data from 2017 to 2019 to track foot traffic to restaurants and grocery stores during periods of heavy traffic congestion. “These results are concerning from a public health standpoint,” Bencsik said. “Fast food tends to be higher in fat, sodium, and energy density, and lower in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and nutrients than food consumed at home. The time commuters spend in congested traffic has substantial implications for eating habits and potentially caloric intake.” Prior research estimates that people consume about 134 more calories per meal when they eat elsewhere versus eating at home. Bencsik said looking at that combined with the results of this study, which also suggests a decrease in visiting supermarkets, likely leads to unhealthier eating habits as a result of traffic congestion. Bencsik said the results of the study also do not suggest that people are swapping their planned “take out day” for the day with more traffic, but they are instead choosing to visit fast-food restaurants more in total. “Increased consumption of fast food due to traffic congestion during peak travel times potentially plays a role in the rise in obesity, heart failure, and diabetes among Americans, given that fast food is typically less healthy than other options,” Bencsik said. “Our results suggest that policies aimed at reducing time spent commuting by car could help battle unhealthy eating habits. For example, improving infrastructure to mitigate traffic congestion, or expanding and speeding up public transport, could reduce fast-food dependency. Increasing work-from-home opportunities and reducing the number of days workers go into work could also have a meaningful impact.” The full paper, "Slow traffic, fast food: The effects of time lost on food store choice," is published in the Journal of Urban Economics.
The research was carried out by the University of Birmingham’s Katie Edwards and Aston University’s Jackie Blissett and James Reynolds Both the availability of high-calorie options and their position on the menu affects teenagers’ choices Restaurants provide an important location for implementing low-cost and high-reach interventions to tackle obesity. New research from the University of Birmingham and Aston University has found that putting lower-calorie meal choices at the top of a restaurant menu, and reducing the availability of high-calorie options, makes teenagers more likely to order the healthier options. Childhood obesity rates have been increasing year on year, with government pledges and targets to reduce obesity unfulfilled or missed. Restaurants are a common food environment for adolescents, with one fifth of children consuming meals out at least once a week. The study has been published in the journal Appetite. Dr Katie Edwards, research fellow in psychology at the University of Birmingham and a visiting researcher at Aston University, who led the study, said: “Childhood obesity is a significant public health challenge. A key period for targeting dietary intervention is adolescence, when young people become more independent, making their own decisions about diet and socialising with friends more. Interventions have targeted healthy eating at home and at school, but we wanted to see how altering restaurant menus can impact the choices teenagers make.” The researchers asked 432 13 to 17-year-olds to take part in an online experiment. They presented the teenagers with three different menus, with five starters, ten main courses and five desserts in separate sections, as one would find on a standard restaurant menu. Each menu was slightly different; one which reduced the number of high-calorie options on offer, one with menu positioning of low- to high-calorie meals, one which combined the availability and position interventions, and then one ‘typical’ menu. The participants were asked to select a starter, main and dessert from each menu. The experiment showed that the availability and the position interventions resulted in significantly lower calorie meal choices, compared to the choices made from the menu with no intervention (the ‘typical’ menu). The average number of calories for a selected meal reduced from 2099.78 to 1992.13 when the items were ordered from least to highest calorie content. The availability intervention reduced it from 2134.26 kcal to 1956.18 kcal. The group who had the combined availability and positioning intervention menu saw their meals’ calorie value plummet from 2173.60 kcal to 1884.44 kcal. The study also found that the positioning intervention had the biggest impact on main course choices. The availability intervention and the combined interventions, on the other hand, did not have a big impact on the calorie value of main course choices. The availability intervention had the most impact on starter choices. None of the interventions had a significant impact on dessert choices. Dr Edwards said: “Main menu choices saw the biggest reduction in calories following the position intervention, going from 1104.17 kcal to 1045.16 kcal, while the availability intervention saw the biggest reduction in the starter option. While not all interventions saw statistically significant reductions for all courses, each intervention saw a significant reduction in the calorie content of the overall meals.” Dr James Reynolds, senior lecturer in psychology at Aston University, said: “People tend to consume higher calorie meals when they eat out, so restaurants provide an important location for implementing low-cost and high-reach interventions which can encourage healthier eating in teenagers. Many restaurants are already required to display calorie information on their menus, but our research has shown that tactics like altering the position or availability of high-calorie options on menus could also be a useful tool in trying to reduce obesity and help young people make healthier choices. The next step for this research would be to replicate the study in restaurant settings.” Read the full paper in the journal Appetite at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666324005749
Avian Flu: Understanding the Threat and Global Response
Avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu, is a highly contagious viral infection that affects birds but has the potential to spread to humans and other animals. With recent outbreaks raising concerns among health officials worldwide, understanding the origins, transmission, and potential risks of avian flu is critical for public health preparedness. The virus poses significant threats to global food supply chains, economic stability in agriculture, and pandemic prevention efforts. As governments and health agencies monitor the situation, the public must stay informed about the latest developments and protective measures. Key story angles include: Origins and Evolution of Avian Flu: How the virus emerges, mutates, and spreads among birds and humans. Public Health Risks and Prevention Measures: Assessing the likelihood of human transmission and the effectiveness of vaccines and treatments. Economic Impact on Poultry and Agriculture: How outbreaks affect food production, trade restrictions, and industry regulations. Global Response and Preparedness Efforts: What governments and health organizations are doing to contain outbreaks and prevent a pandemic. Wildlife and Environmental Factors: The role of migratory birds in spreading avian flu and the impact of climate change on disease patterns. Lessons from Past Outbreaks: Comparing the current situation to previous bird flu strains and what history teaches us about managing the threat. As concerns over avian flu grow, staying ahead of the science and policy responses will be key to safeguarding public health and economic stability worldwide. Connect with an expert about avian flu: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com
Annual Healthy Georgia Report looks at public health in the Peach State
The fourth edition of the “Healthy Georgia: Our State of Public Health” report has been released by the Institute of Public and Preventive Health in Augusta University’s School of Public Health. Within the 64 pages of the report is a snapshot of how healthy Georgians are compared to citizens across the 12 states that make up the Southeastern Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) and the entire United States. The 2025 edition addresses 31 health topics and has been expanded this year to include multimorbidity; long COVID-19; HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis infection rates; opioid and methamphetamine drug use; suicides; and vaping. Biplab Datta, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Health Management, Economics, and Policy in SPH, heads up the team of IPPH faculty and staff who create the report each year. Datta credits Jen Jaremski, research associate, and Kit Wooten, public health analyst, with handling much of the work of bringing the report to life. Together, Jaremski and Wooten collected and organized all of the needed assets and organized the 64-page document, preparing it for print and the web. “Every year we strive to present data in a way that policymakers may find helpful in making policy choices,” Datta said. “There are several new topics that were added to this year’s report and some of those are concerning for the state of Georgia, particularly the communicable diseases like HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. High prevalence rates of these conditions in Georgia, compared to the rest of the U.S. and the Southeastern Region, warrant attention of the public health community.” Georgia has the second-highest rate of HIV infections in the U.S., fourth-highest rates of gonorrhea, sixth-highest for chlamydia and 13th for syphilis. Something that is also new in this year’s report is a comparison of numbers from 2019, or before the COVID-19 pandemic began, compared to after the pandemic for certain conditions. Also coming out of the pandemic, the report looks at how long COVID has affected Georgians, with the state ranking 24th in the nation for rates of long COVID. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID is defined as a chronic condition that occurs after COVID-19 infection and is present for at least three months. On top of looking at comparisons between Georgia and the Southeast and the nation, Datta noted a clearer picture is starting to emerge concerning the difference in urban and rural areas within the state. “For several chronic conditions, like hypertension, diabetes and multimorbidity, we clearly see a striking difference between rural and urban residents of Georgia,” Datta said. Hypertension affects 44.1% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 35% in urban areas, while diabetes affects 17.5% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 12.3% of those in urban areas. Hypertension and diabetes are major risk factors for cardiovascular disease, which affects 12.2% of adults in rural areas compared to 8.3% of adults in urban areas of Georgia. “Hypertension and diabetes are the major risk factors for heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and worldwide, so these are some concerning numbers to see,” Datta said. Multimorbidity, which is when a person has multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, cancer, skin cancer and arthritis, affects 57.4% of adults in rural Georgia compared to 49% of adults in urban areas of the state. These rates are significantly lower than the rest of the Southeast but on par with the rest of the country. When comparing Georgia to the U.S. national average, adults in Georgia have lower rates of cancer and methamphetamine use but higher rates of childhood asthma and adult obesity. At the same time, rates of adult asthma and adult obesity among Georgians were comparable to the averages seen in the Southeast. Interestingly, while adult health insurance coverage was significantly lower than the U.S. national and Southeast Regional averages, the child health insurance coverage in Georgia was comparable to both national and regional averages. The Healthy Georgia Report is the only report of its kind in the state Looking to know more or connect with Biplab Datta, PhD? Then let us help. Dr. Datta is available to speak with media regarding this important topic. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Researchers looked at trust in scientists in 68 countries and found relatively high levels of trust everywhere The TISP Many Labs study of 71,922 people included those living in under-researched nations of the Global South The majority of survey participants believe that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. Public trust in scientists is still high, according to a survey carried out in 68 countries by an international team of 241 researchers, led by Dr Viktoria Cologna (Harvard University, ETH Zurich) and Dr Niels Mede (University of Zurich). The study found no evidence of the oft-repeated claim of a crisis of trust in science. The team, which included Aston University School of Psychology’s Dr James Reynolds and Dr Charlotte Pennington, also found that the majority of survey participants believed that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. This study is the result of the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study, a collaborative effort that allowed the authors to survey 71,922 people in 68 countries, including many under-researched countries in the ‘Global South’. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides global, representative survey data on the populations and regions of the world in which researchers are perceived to be most trustworthy, the extent to which they should engage with the public and whether science is prioritising important research issues. Dr Mede said: “The study is the most comprehensive post-pandemic snapshot of trust in scientists, societal expectations of their involvement in society and policymaking and public views on research priorities.” Across 68 countries, the study finds that the majority of the public has a relatively high level of trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale of 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust). The majority of respondents also perceive scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). However, the results also reveal some areas of concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to the views of others. Additionally, many people felt that the priorities of science are not always well-aligned with their own priorities. The researchers call upon scientists to take the results seriously and find ways to be more receptive to feedback and more open to dialogue. The findings confirm the results of previous studies that show significant differences between countries and population groups. In particular, people with right-wing political views in Western countries tend to have less trust in scientists than those with left-wing views. This suggests that attitudes toward science tend to polarise along political lines. In most countries, however, political orientation and trust in scientists were not related. A majority of respondents want science to play an active role in society and policymaking. Globally, 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate with the public about science, providing an impetus for increased science communication efforts. Only a minority (23%) believe that scientists should not actively advocate for specific policies. 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process. Participants gave high priority to research to improve public health, solve energy problems and reduce poverty. On the other hand, research to develop defence and military technology was given a lower priority. In fact, participants explicitly believe that science is prioritising the development of defence and military technology more than they would like, highlighting a potential misalignment between public and scientific priorities. Dr Cologna said: “Our results show that most people in most countries have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to play an active role in society and policymaking”. Dr Reynolds, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This research demonstrates that people from all around the globe still have high trust in science and want scientists involved in policymaking. When we face great challenges, such as threats to public health or energy crises, the public recognise the importance that scientists can play and want us involved. This is also true of the UK where levels of public trust in science is one of the highest globally.” Dr Pennington, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This project showcases the importance and power of big team science to answer fundamental questions about human behaviour. By pooling our expertise and resources, we were able to reach over 70,000 people and improve sample diversity and representation by recruiting from 68 countries. Overall, the study resulted in an optimistic finding – that people generally trust scientists and agree that they should engage more in society and policymaking. Such trust is important because it allows people to make research-informed decisions about their own lives.” Find out more about the research in Nature Human Behaviour by visiting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5.
Los Angeles wildfires: Experts address health concerns and evacuation strategies
Major wildfires are once again raging in California, this time in Los Angeles County. According to news reports, they have so far been responsible for two deaths, 1,000 damaged structures and the evacuation of more than 30,000 residents. Experts from the University of Delaware's Disaster Research Center can comment on health impacts, evacuation strategies and how to manage pets and animals during disasters. Below are three of the Disaster Research Center core faculty and the topics they can discuss related to the current wildfires: Jennifer Horney, founding director of UD’s epidemiology program: Health impacts of disasters (mental and physical) as well as evacuation. Additionally, exposure to wildfire smoke which increases risk of respiratory infections; the scale of these fires during a very high period for these infectious diseases (flu, RSV, COVID) may also put pressure on public health and health care systems. Tricia Wachtendorf, co-director of the Disaster Research Center and professor of sociology and criminal justice: Disaster donations, social vulnerability and evacuation. Sarah DeYoung, associate professor of sociology and criminal justice: Pets and animals during evacuations.