Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
ChristianaCare Becomes First in Delaware to Offer CAR-T Therapy for Advanced Multiple Myeloma
ChristianaCare’s Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute is the first in Delaware to offer a powerful new tool in the fight against multiple myeloma—a type of blood cancer that affects plasma cells in the bone marrow. That tool is a new chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, called CARVYKTI, which can improve treatment for adults with multiple myeloma that has returned or stopped responding to other treatments. “CAR-T cell therapy represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of multiple myeloma,” said Thomas Schwaab, M.D., Ph.D., Bank of America Endowed Medical Director of the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute." We are expanding access to this life-extending therapy right here in Delaware — close to home, close to hope. This is part of our ongoing commitment at the Graham Cancer Center to ensure our community has access to the most advanced cancer therapies.” Multiple myeloma is a relatively rare cancer, but it still affects a significant number of people each year. In the United States, it is estimated that around 36,110 new cases will be diagnosed in 2025, according to the American Cancer Society What is CAR-T Therapy? CAR-T cell therapy uses a patient’s own immune cells to fight cancer. Doctors first collect the patient’s T cells, which are a type of white blood cell that helps the body fight infections. In the lab, these T cells are reprogrammed by adding a special receptor called a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR). This receptor allows the T cells to recognize specific proteins on cancer cells, acting like a navigation system to help the T cells find and attack the cancer. After this genetic modification, the reprogrammed T cells are expanded in the lab to create a larger army of cancer-fighting cells. Then, they are infused back into the patient’s body, where they go on to find and destroy the cancer cells. This therapy is approved for adults who have already tried several standard treatments, like proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators and anti-CD38 antibodies, without success. When those treatments stop working, CARVYKTI can offer a powerful new option. CAR T-cell therapy has given new hope to patients with multiple myeloma whose cancer has returned or stopped responding to other treatments. Many people see their cancer shrink or even disappear for a period of time, which can help them live longer and feel better. While the treatment can have short-term side effects, many patients report feeling stronger and having fewer symptoms once they recover. It’s not a cure, but for some, it can mean more time with loved ones and a better quality of life. “This therapy gives our patients a chance when other treatments have failed,” said Zhifu Xiang, M.D., medical oncologist at ChristianaCare Oncology Hematology. “It’s a deeply personalized approach that uses the patient’s own immune system to fight the cancer in a powerful new way. Being able to offer this locally means our patients don’t have to travel far for world-class care.” A Leader in Cell Therapy The Graham Cancer Center’s dedicated team of specialists have been offering CAR-T cell therapy for other cancer types, such as lymphoma and leukemia, since 2018. The center is also recognized by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT) for meeting the highest standards in safety, quality and patient care. To learn more about CAR-T cell therapy or other cancer treatments at ChristianaCare, visit christianacare.org/cancer or call the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute at 302-733-HOPE (4673).
Best Places for Families in the U.S.
Dr. Martine Hackett, associate professor and chair of Hofstra’s Department of Population Health was interviewed by WalletHub about the best places in the United States to raise a family and factors to consider when deciding where to plant roots. According to the report, the five top places in the country for families are: Fremont, CA; Overland Park, KS; Plano, TX; Irvine, CA; and South Burlington, VT.
ExpertSpotlight: American Steel Tariffs – A Brief History
The history of steel trade and tariffs in the United States is deeply intertwined with the nation’s industrial rise, global economic strategy, and political maneuvering. From the late 19th century through the 21st, steel has symbolized both national strength and international tension. Trade protections—such as tariffs—have been used to shield American steel producers from foreign competition, often sparking international disputes and shaping the direction of U.S. economic policy. This topic matters to the public because it affects manufacturing jobs, infrastructure costs, international relations, and the price of goods in everyday life. Understanding steel tariffs offers a lens into larger debates about globalization, economic nationalism, and trade fairness. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: The origins of U.S. steel tariffs: Tracing the first protective tariffs in the late 1800s and their role in America’s industrial expansion. The role of steel in national security and economic independence: Investigating why steel has been labeled a “strategic industry” across administrations. Tariff flashpoints: Highlighting major tariff battles—such as the 2002 and 2018 steel tariffs—and their economic and diplomatic consequences. Impact on American manufacturing and jobs: Examining whether tariffs have protected or hindered employment in steel-producing regions. Global trade tensions: Exploring how tariffs have affected relationships with allies such as Canada, the EU, and China. Future of steel trade policy: Discussing evolving views on protectionism, globalization, and climate-linked trade strategies. Connect with our experts about the history of tariffs and steel in America: Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
Masoud Davari, Ph.D., associate professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering in the Allen E. Paulson College of Engineering & Computing, was recognized for his achievements in the field of power electronics control and testing with the IEEE Region 3 Outstanding Engineer Award. He was also granted membership into Eta Kappa Nu (HKN), IEEE’s international honor society. IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is the world’s largest professional organization for electrical engineers, with its membership numbering over 486,000 in more than 190 countries. Davari has been a member of IEEE since 2008 and a senior member of IEEE’s Region 3 since 2019. The organization’s Region 3 encompasses the southeastern United States and has over 24,000 members. The Outstanding Engineer Award, given annually to one member per region, recognizes those who have advanced knowledge and improved humanity through any of the technical subjects covered by the IEEE societies, councils, and affinity groups. Davari was praised for “outstanding, technical, and professional contributions to synthesizing reinforcement learning optimal controls for power electronic converters, creating robust integration of power electronics considering the impact of cyberattacks on modern grids, and advancing IEEE standards for hardware-in-the-loop testing and education through impactful research and service.” This impactful research and service includes eight years of teaching at Georgia Southern. He currently teaches introductory courses on circuit analysis and power systems fundamentals. He has also served as a chapter lead of the IEEE Working Group (WG) P2004 for testing based on hardware-in-the-loop simulations in the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA) and that of the IEEE Power and Energy Society Task Force on innovative teaching methods for modern power and energy systems (TR 120). In addition to being an engaged educator, Davari is also a prolific researcher. He was selected as the finalist for the 2024 Curtis W. McGraw Research Award by the Awards Committee of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE); has also been awarded a research fellowship by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation in 2024; was included in Stanford/Elsevier’s Top 2% Scientist Rankings list; and has received $1.17 million in grants from the National Science Foundation Davari’s work ethic and commitment to bridging the gap between industry and research led Rami Haddad, Ph.D., interim dean of the College of Engineering & Computing, to nominate him. “Dr. Davari’s recognition as the IEEE Region 3 Outstanding Engineer and his induction into IEEE-Eta Kappa Nu (HKN) are truly remarkable honors that reflect his outstanding contributions to electrical and computer engineering,” Haddad said. “Being recognized among more than 24,000 IEEE members across the Southeast is a testament to the impact and excellence of his work. We are proud to have Dr. Davari as a valued member of our college, and we celebrate his achievements as a shining example of the innovation and leadership that define our faculty.” This award marks the first time a Georgia Southern faculty member has received it in its 55-year history. It is a career milestone for Davari, who has published research on advanced technology integration into modern power and energy systems in high-impact-factor IEEE Transactions/Journal venues and has extensively researched the era of grid-edge technologies. “I’m deeply honored by this prestigious award,” Davari said. “Not only does it reaffirm my dedication to my research field, but it also fuels my passion for creating a technologically advanced future. Receiving this IEEE award on behalf of my outstanding team is a privilege. Their relentless commitment and hard work since 2015 have truly made this achievement possible.” Davari’s induction into HKN places him among the best in his field. The membership, which is received through invitation only from HKN’s Board of Governors and is based on the candidate’s record of contributions to the field, demonstrated leadership, and community service. “With a legacy that stretches over a century, IEEE-HKN represents the pinnacle of prestige and tradition in our profession, indicating academic achievements and dedication to research, potential leadership, exemplary character, and a positive attitude. Notably, many of our industry’s most influential leaders initiated their journeys through induction into IEEE-HKN as professional members, so receiving this honor is a privilege.” Davari received his award and was inducted into Eta Kappa Nu (HKN) in March at IEEE Region 3’s SoutheastCon 2025 in Charlotte, North Carolina. If you're interested in learning more and want to book time to talk or interview with Masoud Davari then let us help - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Why Simultaneous Voting Makes for Good Decisions
How can organizations make robust decisions when time is short, and the stakes are high? It’s a conundrum not unfamiliar to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Back in 2021, the FDA found itself under tremendous pressure to decide on the approval of the experimental drug aducanumab, designed to slow the progress of Alzheimer’s disease—a debilitating and incurable condition that ranks among the top 10 causes of death in the United States. Welcomed by the market as a game-changer on its release, aducanumab quickly ran into serious problems. A lack of data on clinical efficacy along with a slew of dangerous side effects meant physicians in their droves were unwilling to prescribe it. Within months of its approval, three FDA advisors resigned in protest, one calling aducanumab, “the worst approval decision that the FDA has made that I can remember.” By the start of 2024, the drug had been pulled by its manufacturers. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and data from the public’s use of aducanumab, it is easy for us to tell that FDA made the wrong decision then. But is there a better process that would have given FDA the foresight to make the right decision, under limited information? The FDA routinely has to evaluate novel drugs and treatments; medical and pharmaceutical products that can impact the wellbeing of millions of Americans. With stakes this high, the FDA is known to tread carefully: assembling different advisory, review, and funding committees providing diverse knowledge and expertise to assess the evidence and decide whether to approve a new drug, or not. As a federal agency, the FDA is also required to maintain scrupulous records that cover its decisions, and how those decisions are made. The Impact of Voting Mechanisms on Decision Quality Some of this data has been analyzed by Goizueta’s Tian Heong Chan, associate professor of information systems and operation management. Together with Panos Markou of the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, Chan scrutinized 17 years’ worth of information, including detailed transcripts from more than 500 FDA advisory committee meetings, to understand the mechanisms and protocols used in FDA decision-making: whether committee members vote to approve products sequentially, with everyone in the room having a say one after another; or if voting happens simultaneously via the push of a button, say, or a show of hands. Chan and Markou also looked at the impact of sequential versus simultaneous voting to see if there were differences in the quality of the decisions each mechanism produced. Their findings are singular. It turns out that when stakeholders vote simultaneously, they make better decisions. Drugs or products approved this way are far less likely to be issued post-market boxed warnings (warnings issued by FDA that call attention to potentially serious health risks associated with the product, that must be displayed on the prescription box itself), and more than two times less likely to be recalled. The FDA changed its voting protocols in 2007, when they switched from sequentially voting around the room, one person after another, to simultaneous voting procedures. And the results are stunning. Tian Heong Chan, Associate Professor of Information Systems & Operation Management “Decisions made by simultaneous voting are more than twice as effective,” says Chan. “After 2007, you see that just 3.4% of all drugs and products approved this way end up being discontinued or recalled. This compares with an 8.6% failure rate for drugs approved by the FDA using more sequential processes—the round robin where individuals had been voting one by one around the room.” Imagine you are told beforehand that you are going to vote on something important by simply raising your hand or pressing a button. In this scenario, you are probably going to want to expend more time and effort in debating all the issues and informing yourself before you decide. Tian Heong Chan “On the other hand, if you know the vote will go around the room, and you will have a chance to hear how others’ speak and explain their decisions, you’re going to be less motivated to exchange and defend your point of view beforehand,” says Chan. In other words, simultaneous decision-making is two times less likely to generate a wrong decision as the sequential approach. Why is this? Chan and Markou believe that these voting mechanisms impact the quality of discussion and debate that undergird decision-making; that the quality of decisions is significantly impacted by how those decisions are made. Quality Discussion Leads to Quality Decisions Parsing the FDA transcripts for content, language, and tonality in both settings, Chan and Markou find evidence to support this. Simultaneous voting or decision-making drives discussions that are characterized by language that is more positive, more authentic, and more even in terms of expressions of authority and hierarchy, says Chan. What’s more, these deliberations and exchanges are deeper and more far-ranging in quality. We find marked differences in the tone of speech and the topics discussed when stakeholders know they will be voting simultaneously. There is less hierarchy in these exchanges, and individuals exhibit greater confidence in sharing their points of view more freely. Tian Heong Chan “We also see more questions being asked, and a broader range of topics and ideas discussed,” says Chan. In this context, decision-makers are also less likely to reach unanimous agreement. Instead, debate is more vigorous and differences of opinion remain more robust. Conversely, sequential voting around the room is typically preceded by shorter discussion in which stakeholders share fewer opinions and ask fewer questions. And this demonstrably impacts the quality of the decisions made, says Chan. Sharing a different perspective to a group requires effort and courage. With sequential voting or decision-making, there seems to be less interest in surfacing diverse perspectives or hidden aspects to complex problems. Tian Heong Chan “So it’s not that individuals are being influenced by what other people say when it comes to voting on the issue—which would be tempting to infer—rather, it’s that sequential voting mechanisms seem to take a bit more effort out of the process.” When decision-makers are told that they will have a chance to vote and to explain their vote, one after another, their incentives to make a prior effort to interrogate each other vigorously, and to work that little bit harder to surface any shortcomings in their own understanding or point of view, or in the data, are relatively weaker, say Chan and Markou. The Takeaway for Organizations Making High-Stakes Decisions Decision-making in different contexts has long been the subject of scholarly scrutiny. Chan and Markou’s research sheds new light on the important role that different mechanisms have in shaping the outcomes of decision-making—and the quality of the decisions that are jointly taken. And this should be on the radar of organizations and institutions charged with making choices that impact swathes of the community, they say. “The FDA has a solid tradition of inviting diversity into its decision-making. But the data shows that harnessing the benefits of diversity is contingent on using the right mechanisms to surface the different expertise you need to be able to see all the dimensions of the issue, and make better informed decisions about it,” says Chan. A good place to start? By a concurrent show of hands. Tian Heong Chan is an associate professor of information systems and operation management. he is available to speak about this topic - click on his con now to arrange an interview today.
Hiring More Nurses Generates Revenue for Hospitals
Underfunding is driving an acute shortage of trained nurses in hospitals and care facilities in the United States. It is the worst such shortage in more than four decades. One estimate from the American Hospital Association puts the deficit north of one million. Meanwhile, a recent survey by recruitment specialist AMN Healthcare suggests that 900,000 more nurses will drop out of the workforce by 2027. American nurses are quitting in droves, thanks to low pay and burnout as understaffing increases individual workload. This is bad news for patient outcomes. Nurses are estimated to have eight times more routine contact with patients than physicians. They shoulder the bulk of all responsibility in terms of diagnostic data collection, treatment plans, and clinical reporting. As a result, understaffing is linked to a slew of serious problems, among them increased wait times for patients in care, post-operative infections, readmission rates, and patient mortality—all of which are on the rise across the U.S. Tackling this crisis is challenging because of how nursing services are reimbursed. Most hospitals operate a payment system where services are paid for separately. Physician services are billed as separate line items, making them a revenue generator for the hospitals that employ them. But under Medicare, nursing services are charged as part of a fixed room and board fee, meaning that hospitals charge the same fee regardless of how many nurses are employed in the patient’s care. In this model, nurses end up on the other side of hospitals’ balance sheets: a labor expense rather than a source of income. For beleaguered administrators looking to sustain quality of care while minimizing costs (and maximizing profits), hiring and retaining nursing staff has arguably become something of a zero-sum game in the U.S. The Hidden Costs of Nurse Understaffing But might the balance sheet in fact be skewed in some way? Could there be potential financial losses attached to nurse understaffing that administrators should factor into their hiring and remuneration decisions? Research by Goizueta Professors Diwas KC and Donald Lee, as well as recent Goizueta PhD graduates Hao Ding 24PhD (Auburn University) and Sokol Tushe 23PhD (Muma College of Business), would suggest there are. Their new peer-reviewed publication* finds that increasing a single nurse’s workload by just one patient creates a 17% service slowdown for all other patients under that nurse’s care. Looking at the data another way, having one additional nurse on duty during the busiest shift (typically between 7am and 7pm) speeds up emergency department work and frees up capacity to treat more patients such that hospitals could be looking at a major increase in revenue. The researchers calculate that this productivity gain could equate to a net increase of $470,000 per 10,000 patient visits—and savings to the tune of $160,000 in lost earnings for the same number of patients as wait times are reduced. “A lot of the debate around nursing in the U.S. has focused on the loss of quality in care, which is hugely important,” says Diwas KC. But looking at the crisis through a productivity lens means we’re also able to understand the very real economic value that nurses bring too: the revenue increases that come with capacity gains. Diwas KC, Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management “Our findings challenge the predominant thinking around nursing as a cost,” adds Lee. “What we see is that investing in nursing staff more than pays for itself in downstream financial benefits for hospitals. It is effectively a win-win-win for patients, nurses, and healthcare providers.” Nurse Load: the Biggest Impact on Productivity To get to these findings, the researchers analyzed a high-resolution dataset on patient flow through a large U.S. teaching hospital. They looked at the real-time workloads of physicians and nurses working in the emergency department between April 2018 and March 2019, factoring in variables such as patient demographics and severity of complaint or illness. Tracking patients from admission to triage and on to treatment, the researchers were able to tease out the impact that the number of nurses and physicians on duty had on patient throughput. Using a novel machine learning technique developed at Goizueta by Lee, they were able to identify the effect of increasing or reducing the workforce. The contrast between physicians and nursing staff is stark, says Tushe. “When you have fewer nurses on duty, capacity and patient throughput drops by an order of magnitude—far, far more than when reducing the number of doctors. Our results show that for every additional patient the nurse is responsible for, service speed falls by 17%. That compares to just 1.4% if you add one patient to the workload of an attending physician. In other words, nurses’ impact on productivity in the emergency department is more than eight times greater.” Boosting Revenue Through Reduced Wait Times Adding an additional nurse to the workforce, on the other hand, increases capacity appreciably. And as more patients are treated faster, hospitals can expect a concomitant uptick in revenue, says KC. “It’s well documented that cutting down wait time equates to more patients treated and more income. Previous research shows that reducing service time by 15 minutes per 30,000 patient visits translates to $1.4 million in extra revenue for a hospital.” In our study, we calculate that staffing one additional nurse in the 7am to 7pm emergency department shift reduces wait time by 23 minutes, so hospitals could be looking at an increase of $2.33 million per year. Diwas KC This far eclipses the costs associated with hiring one additional nurse, says Lee. “According to 2022 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average nursing salary in the U.S. is $83,000. Fringe benefits account for an additional 50% of the base salary. The total cost of adding one nurse during the 7am to 7pm shift is $310,000 (for 2.5 full-time employees). When you do the math, it is clear. The net hospital gain is $2 million for the hospital in our study. Or $470,000 per 10,000 patient visits.” Incontrovertible Benefits to Hiring More Nurses These findings should provide compelling food for thought both to healthcare administrators and U.S. policymakers. For too long, the latter have fixated on the upstream costs, without exploring the downstream benefits of nursing services, say the researchers. Their study, the first to quantify the economic value of nurses in the U.S., asks “better questions,” argues Tushe; exploiting newly available data and analytics to reveal incontrovertible financial benefits that attach to hiring—and compensating—more nurses in American hospitals. We know that a lot of nurses are leaving the profession not just because of cuts and burnout, but also because of lower pay. We would say to administrators struggling to hire talented nurses to review current wage offers, because our analysis suggests that the economic surplus from hiring more nurses could be readily applied to retention pay rises also. Sokol Tushe 23PhD, Muma College of Business The Case for Mandated Ratios For state-level decision makers, Lee has additional words of advice. “In 2004, California mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals. Since then, six more states have added some form of minimum ratio requirement. The evidence is that this has been beneficial to patient outcomes and nurse job satisfaction. Our research now adds an economic dimension to the list of benefits as well. Ipso facto, policymakers ought to consider wider adoption of minimum nurse-to-patient ratios.” However, decision makers go about tackling the shortage of nurses in the U.S., they should go about it fast and soon, says KC. “This is a healthcare crisis that is only set to become more acute in the near future. As our demographics shift and our population starts again out, demand for quality will increase. So too must the supply of care capacity. But what we are seeing is the nursing staffing situation in the U.S. moving in the opposite direction. All of this is manifesting in the emergency department. That’s where wait times are getting longer, mistakes are being made, and overworked nurses are quitting. It is creating a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.” Diwas Diwas KC is a professor of information systems & operations management and Donald Lee is an associate professor of information systems & operations management. Both experts are available to speak about this important topic - simply click on either icon now to arrange an interview today.
Why Did NATO Assembly Select Dayton, Ohio?
Why was Dayton, Ohio selected to host the 2025 Spring NATO Parliamentary Assembly? Ohio's Gem City will host 282 NATO members and nearly 100 partner legislators for gathering. This is the first time in 20 years that a U.S. city held this meeting. The NATO civilians are gathering at The NATO Village, a secure location in downtown Dayton, to discuss critical issues in relation to NATO's defense and security agenda. They will also be examining the war in Ukraine. Two logistical reasons for why Dayton was selected is its proximity to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, a base that focuses on national security, and Dayton is the location where the Dayton Peace Accords were signed 30 years ago. The Accords aided in the ending of the Bosnian War. Congressman Mike Turner (OH-10), head of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, has been the driving force behind getting the Parliamentary Assembly to Dayton. During this five-day event NATO leaders will examine membership, defense funding, increasing fiscal contributions, strategic deterrence and transatlantic security bond. It is expected that at least two new plans will be proposed to assist in the aforementioned goals. The leaders wish to ensure Ukraine of their support in their fight for freedom and will be considering ways to enforce their support. Dr. Glen Duerr, professor of international studies at Cedarville University and a citizen of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, is a nationally known expert on this subject and is available to speak to media regarding the NATO Spring Parliamentary Assembly and the implications is has for the U.S. and Dayton, Ohio. To schedule an interview, email Mark D. Weinstein, executive director of public relations at Cedarville University at mweinstein@cedarville.edu or click on his icon.
Could China Beat America in the Race to Get Boots Back on the Moon?
Call it a matter of pride, national security or a desire for astronomical dominance; there's a sense of urgency within the U.S. government to return to the moon, sparked by China's team of taikonauts, who could land there before American astronauts get back to the lunar surface. The latest space race is a topic that is making national news. Florida Tech's experts are lending their opinions and insights about the likelihood of a lunar return, and what it might mean. NASA, with the urging of many politicians, has been racing to get astronauts back to the moon — before the Chinese land taikonauts on the lunar surface. But what’s the rush to return to a place the United States has already been and left 53 years ago? Especially when Mars looms as an enticing option for interplanetary travel. Space experts say there’s plenty of reasons for the urgency: national pride and national security. But also returning to the moon and building habitats would mean long term dominance in space and ensure access to resources that NASA didn’t know where there when the Apollo missions flew. Now with the Chinese making significant progress in human space exploration, the clock is ticking. “The Chinese in the last 20 years have made amazing strides in all aspects of space. They’re sending robots to the moon on a very regular basis. Now they’re doing some pretty amazing activities even on the far side of the moon, and they have a Chinese space station now in Earth orbit,” said Don Platt, associate professor of space systems at Florida Tech. Can China beat NASA to the moon? “The Chinese have really caught up,” said Platt. “I do believe that the Chinese are definitely advancing their efforts on the moon, and are identifying it as a critical aspect of their strategic future in space." When asked about the prospect of Chinese astronauts making it to the moon before NASA's planned Artemis III mission, Platt said he believes it’s a possibility and he cited the efforts China is making to highlight the importance of the nation's space efforts to its own populace. “They have some amazing videos. They’re really engaging the Chinese public, and really using it to do what what we’ve always done in space, and that is to inspire the next generation and to show the world the technical abilities of the Chinese,” said Platt. May 21 - USA Today The race is on, and it's getting a lot of attention. If you're a journalist following this ongoing story, let us help with your coverage. Dr. Don Platt's work has involved developing, testing and flying different types of avionics, communications and rocket propulsion systems. He also studies astrobiology and biotechnology systems and human deep space exploration tools. Don is available to speak with media anytime. Simply click on the icon below to arrange an interview today.
Expert Perspective: Mitigating Bias in AI: Sharing the Burden of Bias When it Counts Most
Whether getting directions from Google Maps, personalized job recommendations from LinkedIn, or nudges from a bank for new products based on our data-rich profiles, we have grown accustomed to having artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our lives. But are AI systems fair? The answer to this question, in short—not completely. Further complicating the matter is the fact that today’s AI systems are far from transparent. Think about it: The uncomfortable truth is that generative AI tools like ChatGPT—based on sophisticated architectures such as deep learning or large language models—are fed vast amounts of training data which then interact in unpredictable ways. And while the principles of how these methods operate are well-understood (at least by those who created them), ChatGPT’s decisions are likened to an airplane’s black box: They are not easy to penetrate. So, how can we determine if “black box AI” is fair? Some dedicated data scientists are working around the clock to tackle this big issue. One of those data scientists is Gareth James, who also serves as the Dean of Goizueta Business School as his day job. In a recent paper titled “A Burden Shared is a Burden Halved: A Fairness-Adjusted Approach to Classification” Dean James—along with coauthors Bradley Rava, Wenguang Sun, and Xin Tong—have proposed a new framework to help ensure AI decision-making is as fair as possible in high-stakes decisions where certain individuals—for example, racial minority groups and other protected groups—may be more prone to AI bias, even without our realizing it. In other words, their new approach to fairness makes adjustments that work out better when some are getting the short shrift of AI. Gareth James became the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School in July 2022. Renowned for his visionary leadership, statistical mastery, and commitment to the future of business education, James brings vast and versatile experience to the role. His collaborative nature and data-driven scholarship offer fresh energy and focus aimed at furthering Goizueta’s mission: to prepare principled leaders to have a positive influence on business and society. Unpacking Bias in High-Stakes Scenarios Dean James and his coauthors set their sights on high-stakes decisions in their work. What counts as high stakes? Examples include hospitals’ medical diagnoses, banks’ credit-worthiness assessments, and state justice systems’ bail and sentencing decisions. On the one hand, these areas are ripe for AI-interventions, with ample data available. On the other hand, biased decision-making here has the potential to negatively impact a person’s life in a significant way. In the case of justice systems, in the United States, there’s a data-driven, decision-support tool known as COMPAS (which stands for Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) in active use. The idea behind COMPAS is to crunch available data (including age, sex, and criminal history) to help determine a criminal-court defendant’s likelihood of committing a crime as they await trial. Supporters of COMPAS note that statistical predictions are helping courts make better decisions about bail than humans did on their own. At the same time, detractors have argued that COMPAS is better at predicting recidivism for some racial groups than for others. And since we can’t control which group we belong to, that bias needs to be corrected. It’s high time for guardrails. A Step Toward Fairer AI Decisions Enter Dean James and colleagues’ algorithm. Designed to make the outputs of AI decisions fairer, even without having to know the AI model’s inner workings, they call it “fairness-adjusted selective inference” (FASI). It works to flag specific decisions that would be better handled by a human being in order to avoid systemic bias. That is to say, if the AI cannot yield an acceptably clear (1/0 or binary) answer, a human review is recommended. To test the results for their “fairness-adjusted selective inference,” the researchers turn to both simulated and real data. For the real data, the COMPAS dataset enabled a look at predicted and actual recidivism rates for two minority groups, as seen in the chart below. In the figures above, the researchers set an “acceptable level of mistakes” – seen as the dotted line – at 0.25 (25%). They then compared “minority group 1” and “minority group 2” results before and after applying their FASI framework. Especially if you were born into “minority group 2,” which graph seems fairer to you? Professional ethicists will note there is a slight dip to overall accuracy, as seen in the green “all groups” category. And yet the treatment between the two groups is fairer. That is why the researchers titled their paper “a burden shared is a burdened halved.” Practical Applications for the Greater Social Good “To be honest, I was surprised by how well our framework worked without sacrificing much overall accuracy,” Dean James notes. By selecting cases where human beings should review a criminal history – or credit history or medical charts – AI discrimination that would have significant quality-of-life consequences can be reduced. Reducing protected groups’ burden of bias is also a matter of following the laws. For example, in the financial industry, the United States’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes it “illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance,” as the Federal Trade Commission explains on its website. If AI-powered programs fail to correct for AI bias, the company utilizing it can run into trouble with the law. In these cases, human reviews are well worth the extra effort for all stakeholders. The paper grew from Dean James’ ongoing work as a data scientist when time allows. “Many of us data scientists are worried about bias in AI and we’re trying to improve the output,” he notes. And as new versions of ChatGPT continue to roll out, “new guardrails are being added – some better than others.” “I’m optimistic about AI,” Dean James says. “And one thing that makes me optimistic is the fact that AI will learn and learn – there’s no going back. In education, we think a lot about formal training and lifelong learning. But then that learning journey has to end,” Dean James notes. “With AI, it never ends.” Gareth James is the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School. If you're looking to connect with him - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Do We Need to Worry About Safety at the United States' Busiest Airports?
For the second time in two weeks, air traffic controllers directing planes into the Newark, New Jersey, airport briefly lost their radar. The outages have sparked travel chaos, with hundreds of flight delays and cancellations after the FAA slowed air traffic to ensure safety. The country's aging air traffic control system is in the spotlight. Media, politicians and the public are demanding both solutions for the system and answers on how safe traveling is at the moment. To provide insight, Florida Tech's Margaret Wallace is lending her expert opinion and perspective on the issue. Margaret Wallace is Assistant Professor of Aviation Management at Florida Institute of Technology, where she teaches Air Traffic Control and Airport Management courses. She spent over 15 years in the industry prior to teaching as an Airport Manager (4 years) at Ramstein Air Base in Germany and an Air Traffic Controller (10+ years) in the U.S. Air Force. “The recent communication failure at Newark Liberty International Airport has raised serious concerns about the safety and dependability of air traffic control systems in the United States. On April 28, 2025, the Newark air traffic facilities lost all radio communication with approximately 20 airplanes for up to 90 seconds due to an equipment breakdown. During the outage, pilots and controllers were unable to communicate. Controllers were unable to maintain aircraft separation during crucial flight phases, and pilots were unable to receive air traffic clearances and instructions. Situations like this, as well as aircraft incidents, bring stress and trauma to the controller's mental state. Most people cannot fathom how much mental stress the controller experiences in everyday job settings. Situations with defective equipment, combined with lengthy work hours due to a scarcity of controllers, appear to have taken their toll based on the fact that several controllers have taken leave for mental stress. This situation posed a safety risk to all planes and passengers. Fortunately, there were no incidents, and everyone remained safe. However, this demonstrated some of the flaws in the outdated air traffic system equipment. Sean Duffy, the new Transportation Secretary, has acknowledged the critical need to improve our current technology. While air travel is generally safe, our current administration must continue to prioritize the upgrade of air traffic systems and increasing the staffing in air traffic facilities. To ensure safety, I believe we should consider having airlines restrict the number of flights available and the Air Route Traffic Command Center to introduce delays to avoid overloading the system.” Margaret Wallace If you're interested in connecting with Margaret Wallace about the ongoing issues at airports across the country, let us help. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology, at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.