Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Breaking: Justin Timberlake Reveals He Has Lyme Disease
When a major celebrity opens up about a personal health struggle, public attention often follows. That’s certainly the case after Justin Timberlake recently revealed that he is battling Lyme disease—a condition that affects nearly half a million Americans each year but remains widely misunderstood. Timberlake’s announcement is bringing renewed focus to the causes, risks, and complexities of Lyme disease, including how it spreads, where it’s most prevalent, and what individuals can do to protect themselves. With tick season still active in many regions, this moment offers an opportunity to better inform the public—and we’ve identified a group of leading experts who can help do just that. From microbiologists and epidemiologists to entomologists and disease ecologists, the following researchers bring a wide range of expertise on Lyme disease, tick biology, and environmental risk factors. Whether you're a journalist looking for credible sources, a public health communicator, or simply someone trying to make sense of this rising threat, these experts are available to provide clarity and context in the wake of this headline-making health disclosure. Featured Experts A highly media‑quoted microbiologist specializing in Lyme and other tick‑borne diseases. He runs TickReport, a service that tests ticks and interprets exposure risks. Insights on... How celebrities like Timberlake amplifying Lyme awareness may shift public perception and testing demand. The relevance of tick season timing and geographic risk zones. How tick testing works and what patients should know post‑exposure. Over two decades studying Borrelia burgdorferi and blacklegged ticks, with strong expertise in disease ecology and conservation medicine. Insights on... The biology of transmission and the tick’s life cycle—what leads to infection risk. How habitat and ecological shifts may affect Lyme exposure risks. Wildlife‑human disease interface in increasingly peri‑urban settings. Focuses on landscape ecology and patterns of vector‑borne disease emergence including Lyme disease. Insights on... How environmental changes (e.g. urban sprawl, climate trends) are altering Lyme disease risk maps. Predictive models: where Lyme is emerging next. Implications for public health messaging given high-profile cases like Timberlake’s. Specializes in tick taxonomy and vector species genetics—ideal for deeper background on tick diversity and distribution. Insights on... Which tick species carry Lyme and how misidentification can confuse diagnosis. Emerging tick species or genetic strains and what they mean for prevention. Geographic spread and species shift over time. His research examines geographic patterns of Lyme disease, including why incidence varies regionally in the U.S. Insights on... Why Lyme is more prevalent in certain states—even those outside Timberlake’s or his fans’ travel zones. Human behavioral and habitat factors (e.g. suburban greenspace vs. deep woods). What seasonal changes in tick behavior tell us about infection risk. Story Angles to Explore Celebrity spotlight on Lyme disease: How high‑profile cases can impact media attention, funding, public awareness, and testing demand. Diagnosis and prevention: From exposure to testing (e.g., TickReport), early symptoms, treatment windows, and what experts recommend post‑bite. Ecology and environment: Why Lyme is expanding geographically, and how climate and land‑use change influence risk. Tick evolution and identification: Educating the public on which ticks transmit Lyme, emerging strains, and challenges in correct tick identification. Regional variation in risk: Breakdowns of why some states or regions are Lyme hotspots and how that aligns with the celebrity’s likely exposure zones or fan geography. Looking for more Experts? Visit www.expertfile.com or download ExpertFile for your phone.
What Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle ad reveals about beauty standards and cultural expectations
Sydney Sweeney’s latest American Eagle campaign is doing more than selling denim – it’s stirring up a heated cultural conversation. Jaehee Jung, professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware, can discuss the ways in which this reaction says a lot about where we are as a society. A leading expert on fashion, body image and consumer behavior, Jung studies how the fashion industry shapes – and is shaped by – our expectations of beauty, identity and representation. The ad in question features Sweeney in relaxed, casual pieces aligned with American Eagle’s classic aesthetic. But online reaction has been anything but chill. While many fans praised the actress’s style and confidence, others criticized the campaign for promoting unrealistic beauty standards and lacking diverse representation. Some even called it “pro-eugenics” – an extreme accusation that points to just how charged the conversation has become. With a background in both psychological and cultural aspects of fashion, Jung is available to discuss why this campaign struck such a nerve — and what it means for the future of women’s fashion and branding. To speak with Professor Jung, visit her ExpertFile profile or contact mediarelations@udel.edu.
Taming “The Bear”: Villanova Professor Examines Workplace Toxicity in FX’s Acclaimed Series
In the latest season of FX’s award-winning series “The Bear,” lead character and chef Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto finds himself at a crossroads. A culinary genius, Carmy has successfully overseen the reinvention of his family’s Italian beef shop as a high-end restaurant—shepherding a dedicated, if unpolished, crew of sandwich makers into a world of haute cuisine, fine wine and elevated service. However, over the course of this transition, his exacting standards have contributed to a culture of anxiety, dysfunction and resentment in the workplace. Despite staff members’ professional and personal growth, tempers still flare like burners on a range, with Carmy’s obsessive attention to detail and single-minded pursuit of perfection spurring conflict. By season’s end, grappling with the fallout from a mixed review seemingly influenced by the back-of-house “chaos,” the chef is forced to confront a complicated and thorny question: Am I getting in the way of my own restaurant’s success? Carmy’s dilemma, while fictional, reflects the very real challenges many modern businesses face when excellence is prioritized at the expense of psychological safety and workplace harmony. Per Manuela Priesemuth, PhD, who researches toxic work climates, aggression on the job and organizational fairness, the warning signs are all too frequently overlooked in high-pressure environments like restaurants. “Some high-stakes industries have a characteristic of having toxic behavior more accepted,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “When it’s more accepted or normed, it’s a real problem.” As she explains, workers in the food service industry, much like medical professionals in an operating room or military personnel in a combat zone, have a tendency to view measured communication and thoughtful interaction as a luxury or even, in some cases, a hindrance. Essentially, there’s a common misconception that working with an edge—yelling orders, avoiding dialogue and berating “underperformers”—gets the job done. “In all of these high-stakes environments where it’s thought there’s leeway to talk negatively or disparagingly, people are mistaken in the productivity result,” Dr. Priesemuth says. “It actually changes for the better in positive climates, because people who are treated with dignity and respect are better performers than those who are mistreated.” To Dr. Priesemuth’s point, research increasingly shows that workplace culture, not just talent or technical ability, is an essential driver of organizational success. In an environment like Carmy’s kitchen, where pride and passion often give way to personal attacks and shouting matches, the on-the-job dynamic can effectively undermine productivity. What may begin as an intended push for excellence can instead result in burnout, high turnover and weakened trust—outcomes that are especially problematic in collaborative, fast-paced industries like hospitality. “There’s even evidence that abusive behavior in restaurant settings can lead to food loss,” shares Dr. Priesemuth. “So, there is a sort of retaliation from the employees who are going through this experience, whether it’s measured [in profit margins] or impact on the customer.” In order to prevent these less-than-ideal outcomes, businesses should take steps proactively, says Dr. Priesemuth. More specifically, they should clearly articulate their values and expectations, considerately engage with their staff’s opinions and concerns and consistently invest in their employees’ growth and development. In the world of “The Bear,” a few of Carmy’s managerial decisions in the second season could be seen as moves in the right direction. At that juncture, he was leveraging his industry connections to provide his restaurant’s staff with the tools and training necessary to thrive in Chicago’s fine dining scene, building skills, confidence and goodwill. “If you give people voice—such as input on the menu, for example, or more autonomy in completing a certain task—it boosts morale,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “It helps people feel that they have input and that they are valued members of the team; it’s this sort of collaborative, positive relationship that increases commitment and performance.” Establishing this type of work culture, grounded in open communication, mutual respect and a shared sense of mission, takes concerted effort and constant maintenance. In situations in which toxicity has already become an issue, as it has in Carmy’s kitchen, the task becomes decidedly more difficult. Typically, it demands a long-term commitment to organizational change at the business’ highest levels. “Adjusting the tone at the top really matters,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “So, if the owner were to treat their chefs and waiters with the dignity and respect that they deserve as workers, that also trickles down to, for example, the customer.” A leader’s influence on workplace morale, she contends, is nuanced and far-reaching. When those in charge model a lack of empathy or emotional distance, for instance, a sort of toxicity can take root. Likewise, when they repeatedly show anger, animosity or frustration, those same feelings and attitudes can have an ingrained effect—regardless of a staff’s talent or ability. Given the outsized role owners, supervisors and managers play in shaping organizational culture, Dr. Priesemuth further notes, “Leaders must also feel that they’re being supported. You can’t have someone who’s exhausted, works 80 hours a week and has relationship and money issues and expect them to say, ‘What are your problems? What do you need?’” In many ways, her insights speak directly to the struggles Carmy faces and prompts throughout “The Bear’s” run. At every turn, he’s dogged by family and relationship troubles, mounting financial pressures and unresolved trauma from a past role. Ultimately, as would happen in real life, his difficulty in healthily processing and addressing these issues doesn’t just harm him; it affects his staff, manifesting itself as a need for control and a crusade for perfection. “There are spillover effects from your own personal life into your job role. In the management field, that has become increasingly clear,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “Whatever you’re going through, whether it’s from an old job or something personal, it will automatically spill over into your current work life and your interactions. And, vice versa, what’s happening to you at work will [impact you off the clock].” In dramatic fashion, the fourth season of “The Bear” concludes with Carmy acknowledging as much. Determining that there are other aspects of his life desperately in need of attention, he surrenders the reins of his business to chef de cuisine Sydney “Syd” Adamu and maître d’hôtel Richard “Richie” Jerimovich, appointing them part-owners. While the soundness of this decision remains a subject for the show’s next season, Carmy justifies the move with a blunt admission: “It’s the best thing for the restaurant. We have to put the restaurant first… I don’t have anything to pull from.” In the end, in both “The Bear” and management studies, there’s an understanding that building healthy and productive work environments requires active engagement and positive reinforcement on the part of leadership. In a sense, creating a strong work culture is shown to be a lot like preparing a phenomenal meal; it’s a matter of attentiveness, patience and care. Without those ingredients, the result could very well be a recipe for disaster.
Neutrons by the trillions: Using computational physics to understand nuclear reactors
Zeyun Wu, Ph.D., associate professor in the mechanical and nuclear engineering department at VCU Engineering, is reshaping the future of nuclear power. Nuclear reactors are among the most complex engineered systems on earth, with different physical processes interacting simultaneously across various scales. Even the world's most powerful computers cannot simulate every detail of an operating reactor at once. With a background in computational reactor physics, Wu’s research develops modeling and simulation techniques crucial to understanding next-generation nuclear reactors. By creating these advanced tools, his research eliminates the need for costly physical experimentation while ensuring the safety, efficiency and environmental sustainability of future nuclear power plants. Wu's research focuses on understanding reactor behavior through two aspects: multi-physics and multi-scale modeling. The multi-physics approach integrates various physical phenomena, such as nuclear physics reactions, fluid dynamics, heat transfer and structural mechanics, into a unified simulation framework. The multi-scale modeling technique addresses the vast range of physical scales involved, from subatomic neutron interactions to meter-sized reactor components. Wu’s research can simulate the complex phenomena within reactors at different scales. These models, developed using advanced numerical methods, help predict reactor behavior under various conditions. One of the models Wu uses tracks neutron behavior, a fundamental aspect to understand nuclear reactions. His simulations track trillions of neutrons as they move through various reactor materials, cause fission events and generate power. "What drives power is actually the neutron," explained Wu. "Once an atom splits, along with the nuclear energy release, lots of neutrons come out. We're talking about 1012 to 1013 neutrons per second. Our code tracks each neutron to understand where it comes from and where it goes." By understanding neutron distribution across space, time and energy domains, Wu's team can predict power distribution throughout the reactor core. This helps identify potential hotspots – areas of heightened thermal activity that could pose safety challenges. Beyond neutron behavior, Wu's research also explores how cooling fluids interact with neutrons and carry away thermal energy, a field known as thermal hydraulics, because how the reactor components are cooled significantly affects the neutron behavior as well. This also explains why the multi-physics modeling becomes essential for nuclear reactor simulations. Wu founded the Computational Applied Reactor Physics Laboratory (CARPL) to continue his research in nuclear reactor modeling and simulation. Undergraduate and master’s students learn to use established nuclear simulation codes to analyze reactor problems – skills highly valued in the industry and national labs. Ph.D. students build on theoretical foundations to deepen their understanding, enhance existing models, and develop new ones. “My area of research has been continually evolving for the past 60 years or so,” said Wu. “Most of the codes we use have been developed by national labs, like Oak Ridge National Lab, but these codes aren’t perfect. National labs hire Ph.D. level students with this niche to identify deficits in the code, correct errors and even add new functions and improve them.” Looking forward, Wu hopes his research will have a real-world impact on the upcoming shift in nuclear power in America. Over the next 20 to 30 years, the nation's approximately 90 light-water-cooled nuclear reactors reach the end of their operational lifetimes. Light water refers to ordinary water (H₂O), used in most existing reactors to both cool the system and slow down neutrons to sustain the nuclear reaction. To replace them, experts are looking toward advanced, non-light-water-cooled reactors, such as the Molten Uranium Breeder Reactor (MUBR) shown in the figure. Computational methods and tools like Wu’s research lab developed will be essential to their development and implementation. Non-light-water cooled reactors offer significant advantages over the older designs. Some can operate at higher temperatures while others produce substantially less nuclear waste, addressing one of the industry's persistent challenges. "Unlike traditional water reactors, where we have decades of operational experience and established analysis tools, these new designs present unique challenges," explained Wu. "Companies like Dominion employ large teams of analysts who use well-tested computational tools to maintain their existing reactors, but those same tools aren't calibrated for these next-generation reactors. Our research is developing the computational methods and simulations these advanced reactors will need. When these new reactors come online, the methodologies we're creating now can be quickly converted into production-level nuclear codes, providing immediate practical value to industry.”
Expert Perspective: The Hidden Costs of Cultural Appropriation
In our interconnected world, cultural borrowing is everywhere. But why do some instances earn applause while others provoke outrage? This question is becoming increasingly crucial for business leaders who must carefully navigate cultural boundaries. Take the backlash the Kardashian-Jenner family faced for adopting styles from minority cultures or the controversy over non-Indigenous designers using Native American patterns in fashion. These examples highlight the issue of cultural appropriation, where borrowing elements from another culture without genuine understanding or respect can lead to accusations of exploitation. Abraham Oshotse, an assistant professor of organization and management at Goizueta Business School, along with Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Hebrew University Yael Berda and Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business Amir Goldberg, explores this in their research on “cultural tariffing.” They shed light on why high-status individuals, such as celebrities or industry leaders, often come under fire when crossing cultural boundaries. The Concept of Cultural Tariffing Oshotse and coauthors define cultural tariffing as “the act of imposing a social cost on cultural boundary crossing. It is levied on high-status actors crossing into low-status culture, in order to mitigate the reproduction of the status inequality.” This notion suggests that the acceptance or rejection of cultural boundary-crossing is influenced by the perceived costs and benefits. Cultural appropriation involves taking elements from a culture that one does not belong to, without permission or authority. For example, when Elvis Presley brought African-American music into the mainstream, it was initially seen as elevating the genre. However, in today’s context, such acts might be criticized as appropriation rather than celebration. This research seeks to analyze people’s modern reactions to different examples of cultural boundary-crossing and which conditions induce cultural tariffing. The Hypotheses The researchers make four hypotheses about participants’ reactions to cultural appropriation: People will disapprove of cultural borrowing if there’s a clear power imbalance, with the borrowing group having more status or privilege than the group they are borrowing from. Cultural borrowing is more likely to be criticized if the person doing it has a higher socioeconomic status within their social group. Cultural borrowing is more likely to be criticized if the person doing it has only a shallow connection to the culture they’re borrowing from. Cultural borrowing is more likely to be criticized if the person doing it benefits more from it than the people from the culture they are borrowing from. Put to the Test Oshotse et al exposed respondents to four scenarios per hypothesis (16 total) with a permissible and a transgressive condition. In the permissible condition, subjects exhibit lower status or socioeconomic standing or a stronger connection to the target culture. Subjects in the transgressive condition exhibit a higher status or socioeconomic standing and less of an authentic connection to the target culture. Insights from the Study Oshotse’s study offers four key insights: Status Matters: Cultural boundary-crossing is more likely to generate disapproval if there’s a clear status difference favoring the adopter. Superficial Connections: The less authentic the adopter’s connection to the target culture, the more likely they are to face backlash. Socioeconomic Influence: Higher socioeconomic status within the adopter’s social group increases the likelihood of disapproval. Value Extraction: The more value the adopter gains relative to the culture they’re borrowing from, the higher the disapproval. These insights are crucial for leaders who want to navigate cultural boundaries successfully, ensuring their actions are seen as respectful and inclusive rather than exploitative. Real-World Implications for Business Leaders Why does this matter for business leaders? Understanding cultural tariffing is crucial when expanding into new markets, launching multicultural campaigns, or even managing diverse teams. The research suggests that crossing cultural boundaries without deep understanding or respect can backfire. That’s especially true when the adopter holds a higher socioeconomic status. Consider the example of a luxury brand adopting traditional African patterns without engaging with the communities behind them. In this case, it risks being seen as exploitative rather than innovative. The consequences aren’t just reputational; they can also impact the brand’s bottom line. This research isn’t just about isolated incidents; it mirrors sweeping societal shifts. Over the past 50 years, Western views have evolved to embrace ethnic diversity and multicultural exchange. But with this newfound appreciation comes a fresh set of challenges. Today’s leaders must navigate cultural interactions with greater care, fully aware of the historical and social contexts that shape perceptions of appropriation. In today’s global and interconnected business landscape, mastering the subtleties of cultural appropriation and tariffing is crucial. Leaders who tread thoughtfully can boost their reputation and success, while those who falter may face serious backlash. By understanding the hidden costs of crossing cultural boundaries, business leaders can cultivate authentic exchanges and steer clear of the pitfalls of appropriation. Abraham Oshotse is an assistant professor of organization & management. He is available speak to media regarding this important topic - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Most companies around the world have a leader, whether that title is a President, CEO, or Founder. There’s almost always someone at the very top of a corporate food chain, and from that position down, the company is structured hierarchically, with multiple levels of leadership supervising other employees. It’s a structure with which most people in the working world are familiar, and it dates back as long as one can remember. The word itself—leader—dates back to as far as the 12th Century and is derived from the Old English word “laedere,” or one who leads. But in 2001, a group of software engineers developed the Agile Workflow Methodology, a project development process that puts a priority on egalitarian teamwork and individual independence in searching for solutions. A number of businesses are trying to embrace a flatter internal structure, like the agile workflow. But is it necessarily the best way to develop business processes? That’s the question posed by researchers, including Goizueta Business School’s Özgecan Koçak, associate professor of organization and management, and fellow researchers Daniel A. Levinthal and Phanish Puranam in their recently published paper on organizational hierarchies. “Realistically, we don’t see a lot of non-hierarchical organizations,” says Koçak. “But there is actually a big push to have less hierarchy in organizations.” Part of it is due to the demotivating effects of working in authoritarian workplaces. People don’t necessarily like to have a boss. We place value in being more egalitarian, more participatory. Özgecan Koçak, Associate Professor of Organization & Management “So there is some push to try and design organizations with flatter hierarchies. That is specifically so in the context of knowledge-based work, and especially in the context of discovery and search.” Decoding Organizational Dynamics While the idea of an egalitarian workplace is attractive to many people, Koçak and her colleagues wanted to know if, or when, hierarchies were actually beneficial to the health of organizations. They developed a computational agent-based model, or simulation, to explore the relationships between structures of influence and organizational adaptation. The groups in the simulation mimicked real business team structures and consisted of two types of teams. In the first type, one agent had influence over the beliefs of rest of the team. For the second type, no one individual had any influence over the beliefs of the team. The hierarchical team vs. the flat structured team. “When you do simulations, you want to make sure that your findings are robust to those kinds of things like the scale of the group, or the how fast the agents are learning and so forth,” says Koçak. What’s innovative about this particular simulation is that all the agents are learning from their environment. They are learning through trial and error. They are trying out different alternatives and finding out their value. Özgecan Koçak Koçak is very clear that the hierarchies in the simulation are not exactly like hierarchies in a business organization. Every agent was purposefully made to be the same without any difference in wisdom or knowledge. “It’s really nothing like the kinds of hierarchies you would see in organizations where there is somebody who has a corner office, or somebody who is has a management title, or somebody’s making more than the others. In the simulation, it’s nothing to do with those distributional aspects or control, and nobody has the ability to control what others do in (the simulation). All control comes through influence of beliefs.” Speed vs. Optimal Solutions What they found in the simulation was that while both teams solved the same problems presented to them, they achieved different results at different speeds. We find that hierarchical teams don’t necessarily find the best solution, but they find the good enough solution in the shorter term. So if you are looking at the really long term, crowds do better. The crowds where individuals are all learning separately, they find the best solution in the long run, even though they are not learning from each other. Özgecan Koçak Özgecan Koçak (pronounced as ohz-gay-john ko-chuck) is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She holds a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. For example, teams of scientists looking for cures or innovative treatments for diseases work best with a flat structure. Each individual works on their own timeline, with their own search methodologies. The team only comes together for status updates or to discuss their projects without necessarily getting influence or direction from colleagues. The long-term success of the result is more important in some cases than the speed at which they arrive to their conclusion. That won’t work for an organization that answers to a board of directors or shareholders. Such parties want to see rapid results that will quickly impact the bottom line of the company. This is why the agile methodology is not beneficial to large-scale corporations. Koçak says, “When you try to think about an entire organization, not just teams, it gets more complicated. If you have many people in an organization, you can’t have everybody just be on the same team. And then you have to worry about how to coordinate the efforts of multiple teams. That’s the big question for scaling up agile. We know that the agile methodology works pretty well at the team level. However, when firms try to scale it up applied to the entire organization, then you have more coordination problems. Özgecan Koçak “You need some way to coordinate the efforts with multiple teams.” The Catch: Compensation Makes a Difference The simulation did not take into account one of the biggest parts of a corporate hierarchical structure—incentives and reward. The teams in the simulation received no monetary compensation for their leadership or influence. That is not something that happens in real life. Koçak says, “If you built up an organization with just influence, you just say we’re not going to have any authority, and we’re not going to give anybody the right to control anybody else’s actions. If we’re not going to be rewarding anyone more than the other, there’s not going to be any marks of status, etc. We’re just going to have some people influence others more. I would guess that would automatically lead to a prestige hierarchy right away. The person with more influence, you would start respecting more.” It’s almost like we’re incapable of working in a flat society, because somebody always wants to be or naturally becomes a leader and an influencer whether they planned on it or not. Özgecan Koçak The paper concludes that both methodologies, with either hierarchical and flat organization of teams, reach their goals. They just arrive at different times with different end results. If an organization has the luxury of time and money, a flat, agile methodology organization might be the right structure for that company. However, even agile workflow needs some coordination, according to Koçak. “There are also some search tasks that require coordination. You can’t always be searching on your own independently of others. There are some situations in which search needs to be done in a coordinated fashion by more than one person in teams. That’s because many of the knowledge-based settings where we do discovery require some division of labor, some specialization by expertise.” Communication is Key The key to any successful workflow, whether it be agile or hierarchical, is coordination and communication. Looking back to the example of scientific researchers, Koçak said, “You have scientific teams working independently of one another without a common boss dictating what they do research on or how they do it. Instead, they explore and experiment on their own. They write up their results, share their results, and learn from each other, because they are in the long-term game. The goal is to find the truth, however long it takes. “But when you look closely at a scientific team where everybody’s exploring, there is still some need for coordination. A lot of that happens through communication, and a lot of times projects will have a lead. Not necessarily somebody who knows better than the others, but somebody who’s going to help with coordination.” The leaner, flatter organizational structures in businesses might be gaining popularity. This simulation done by Koçak and colleagues, however, shows that it isn’t a perfect fit for every company, Further, some form of hierarchical workflow is necessary to maintain communication and coordination. Hierarchical structures don’t always find the best solution to a problem, but it’s almost always a good solution in a timelier fashion. Looking to know more? Özgecan Koçak is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She is available to speak with media about this topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Hormone Supplementation in Rhesus Monkeys Points to Potential Autism Treatment
For years, Florida Tech’s Catherine Talbot, assistant professor of psychology, has worked to understand the sociality of male rhesus monkeys and how low-social monkeys can serve as a model for humans with autism. Her most recent findings show that replenishing a deficient hormone, vasopressin, helped the monkeys become more social without increasing their aggression – a discovery that could change autism treatment. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that one in 36 children in the United States is affected by autism spectrum disorder (ASD). That’s an increase from one in 44 children reported in 2018. Two FDA-approved treatments currently exist, Talbot said, but they only address associated symptoms, not the root of ASD. The boost in both prevalence and awareness of the disorder prompts the following question: What is the cause? Some rhesus monkeys are naturally low-social, meaning they demonstrate poor social cognitive skills, while others are highly social. Their individual variation in sociality is comparable to how human sociality varies, ranging from people we consider social butterflies to those who are not interested in social interactions, similar to some people diagnosed with ASD, Talbot said. Her goal has been to understand how variations in biology and behavior influence social cognition. In the recent research paper published in the journal PNAS, “Nebulized vasopressin penetrates CSF [cerebral spinal fluid] and improves social cognition without inducing aggression in a rhesus monkey model of autism,” Talbot and researchers with Stanford, the University of California, Davis and the California National Primate Research Center explored vasopressin, a hormone that is known to contribute to mammalian social behavior, as a potential therapeutic treatment that may ultimately help people with autism better function in society. Previous work from this research group found that vasopressin levels are lower in their low-social rhesus monkey model, as well as in a select group of people with ASD. Previous studies testing vasopressin in rodents found that increased hormone levels caused more aggression. As a result, researchers warned against administering vasopressin as treatment, Talbot said. However, she argued that in those studies, vasopressin induced aggression in contexts where aggression is the socially appropriate response, such as guarding mates in their home territory, so the hormone may promote species-typical behavior. She also noted that the previous studies tested vasopressin in “neurotypical” rodents, as opposed to animals with low-social tendencies. “It may be that individuals with the lowest levels of vasopressin may benefit the most from it – that is the step forward toward precision medicine that we now need to study,” Talbot said. In her latest paper, Talbot and her co-authors tested how low-social monkeys, with low vasopressin levels and high autistic-like trait burden, responded to vasopressin supplementation to make up for their natural deficiency. They administered the hormone through a nebulizer, which the monkeys could opt into. For a few minutes each week, the monkeys voluntarily held their face up to a nebulizer to receive their dose while sipping white grape juice – a favorite among the monkeys, Talbot said. After administering the hormone and verifying that it increased vasopressin levels in the central nervous system, the researchers wanted to see how the monkeys responded to both affiliative and aggressive stimuli by showing them videos depicting these behaviors. They also compared their ability to recognize and remember new objects and faces, which is another important social skill. They found that normally low-social monkeys do not respond to social communication and were better at recognizing and remembering objects compared to faces, similar to some humans diagnosed with ASD. When the monkeys were given vasopressin, they began reciprocating affiliative, pro-social behaviors, but not aggression. It also improved their facial recognition memory, making it equivalent to their recognition memory of objects. In other words, vasopressin “rescued” low-social monkeys’ ability to respond prosocially to others and to remember new faces. The treatment was successful – vasopressin selectively improved the social cognition of these low-social monkeys. “It was really exciting to see this come to fruition after pouring so much work into this project and overcoming so many challenges,” Talbot said of her findings. One of Talbot’s co-authors has already begun translating this work to cohorts of autism patients. She expects more clinical trials to follow. In the immediate future, Talbot is examining how other, more complex social cognitive abilities like theory of mind – the ability to take the perspective of another – may differ in low-social monkeys compared to more social monkeys and how this relates to their underlying biology. Beyond that, Talbot hopes that they can target young monkeys who are “at-risk” of developing social deficits related to autism for vasopressin treatment to see if early intervention might help change their developmental trajectory and eventually translate this therapy to targeted human trials. Catherine F. Talbot is an Assistant Professor in the School of Psychology at Florida Tech and co-director of the Animal Cognitive Research Center at Brevard Zoo. Dr. Talbot joined Florida Tech from the Neuroscience and Behavior Unit at the California National Primate Research Center at the University of California, Davis, where she worked as a postdoc on a collaborative bio-behavioral project examining naturally occurring low-sociability in rhesus monkeys as a model for the core social deficits seen in people with autism spectrum disorder, specifically targeting the underlying mechanisms of social functioning. If you're interested in connecting with Catherine Talbot - simply contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.
With Rise in US Autism Rates, Florida Tech Expert Clarifies What We Know About the Disorder
A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that an estimated 1 in 31 U.S. children has autism; that's about a 15% increase from a 2020 report, which estimated 1 in 36. The latest numbers come from the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, which tracked diagnoses in 2022 among 8-year-old children. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurological disorder that refers to a broad range of conditions affecting social interaction. People with autism may experience challenges with social skills, repetitive behaviors, speech and nonverbal communication. The news has experts like Florida Tech's Kimberly Sloman, Ph.D, weighing in on the matter. She noted that the definition of autism was expanded to include mild cases, which could explain the increase. “Research shows that increased rates are largely due to increased awareness and changes to diagnostic criteria. Much of the increase reflects individuals who have fewer support needs, women and girls and others who may have been misdiagnosed previously," said Sloman. Her insight follows federal health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent declaration, vowing to conduct further studies to identify environmental factors that could cause the disorder. In his remarks, he also miscategorized autism as a "preventable disease," prompting scrutiny from experts and media attention. “Autism destroys families,” Kennedy said. “More importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which is our children. These are children who should not be suffering like this.” Kennedy described autism as a “preventable disease,” although researchers and scientists have identified genetic factors that are associated with it. Autism is not considered a disease, but a complex disorder that affects the brain. Cases range widely in severity, with symptoms that can include delays in language, learning, and social or emotional skills. Some autistic traits can go unnoticed well into adulthood. Those who have spent decades researching autism have found no single cause. Besides genetics, scientists have identified various possible factors, including the age of a child’s father, the mother’s weight, and whether she had diabetes or was exposed to certain chemicals. Kennedy said his wide-ranging plan to determine the cause of autism will look at all of those environmental factors, and others. He had previously set a September deadline for determining what causes autism, but said Wednesday that by then, his department will determine at least “some” of the answers. The effort will involve issuing grants to universities and researchers, Kennedy said. He said the researchers will be encouraged to “follow the science, no matter what it says.” April 17 - Associated Press Sloman emphasized that experts are confident that autism has a strong genetic component, meaning there's an element of the disorder that may not be preventable. However, scientists are still working to understand the full scope of the disorder, and much is still unknown. “We know that there’s a strong genetic component for autism, but environmental factors may interact with genetic susceptibility," Sloman said. "This is still not well understood.” Kimberly Sloman’s research interests include best practices for treating individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). She studies the assessment and treatment of problem behavior with methods such as stereotypy, individualized skill assessments and generalization of treatment effects. Are you covering this story or looking to know more about autism and the research behind the disorder? Let us help. Kimberly is available to speak with media about this subject. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Chemical and Life Science Engineering Professor Michael “Pete” Peters, Ph.D., is investigating more efficient ways to manufacture biologic pharmaceuticals using a radial flow bioreactor he developed. With applications in vaccines and other personalized therapeutic treatments, biologics are versatile. Their genetic base can be manipulated to create a variety of effects from fighting infections by stimulating an immune response to weight loss by producing a specific hormone in the body. Ozempic, Wegovy and Victoza are some of the brand names for Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists used to treat diabetes. These drugs mimic the GLP-1 peptide, a hormone naturally produced in the body that regulates appetite, hunger and blood sugar. “I have a lot of experience with helical peptides like GLP-1 from my work with COVID therapeutics,” says Peters. “When it was discovered that these biologic pharmaceuticals can help with weight loss, demand spiked. These drug types were designed for people with type-2 diabetes and those diabetic patients couldn’t get their GLP-1 treatments. We wanted to find a way for manufacturers to scale up production to meet demand, especially now that further study of GLP-1 has revealed other applications for the drug, like smoking cessation.” Continuous Manufacturing of Biologic Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals come in two basic forms: small-molecule and biologic. Small-molecule medicines are synthetically produced via chemical reactions while biologics are produced from microorganisms. Both types of medications are traditionally produced in a batch process, where base materials are fed into a staged system that produces “batches” of the small-molecule or biologic medication. This process is similar to a chef baking a single cake. Once these materials are exhausted, the batch is complete and the entire system needs to be reset before the next batch begins. “ The batch process can be cumbersome,” says Peters. “Shutting the whole process down and starting it up costs time and money. And if you want a second batch, you have to go through the entire process again after sterilization. Scaling the manufacturing process up is another problem because doubling the system size doesn’t equate to doubling the product. In engineering, that’s called nonlinear phenomena.” Continuous manufacturing improves efficiency and scalability by creating a system where production is ongoing over time rather than staged. These manufacturing techniques can lead to “end-to-end” continuous manufacturing, which is ideal for producing high-demand biologic pharmaceuticals like Ozempic, Wegovy and Victoza. Virginia Commonwealth University’s Medicines for All Institute is also focused on these production innovations. Peters’ continuous manufacturing system for biologics is called a radial flow bioreactor. A disk containing the microorganisms used for production sits on a fixture with a tube coming up through the center of the disk. As the transport fluid comes up the tube, the laminar flow created by its exiting the tube spreads it evenly and continuously over the disk. The interaction between the transport medium coming up the tube and the microorganisms on the disk creates the biological pharmaceutical, which is then taken away by the flow of the transport medium for continuous collection. Flowing the transport medium liquid over a disc coated with biologic-producing microorganisms allows the radial flow bioreactor to continuously produce biologic pharmaceuticals. “There are many advantages to a radial flow bioreactor,” says Peters. “It takes minutes to switch out the disk with the biologic-producing microorganisms. While continuously producing your biologic pharmaceutical, a manufacturer could have another disk in an incubator. Once the microorganisms in the incubator have grown to completely cover the disk, flow of the transport medium liquid to the radial flow bioreactor is shut off. The disk is replaced and then the transport medium flow resumes. That’s minutes for a production changeover instead of the many hours it takes to reset a system in the batch flow process.” The Building Blocks of Biologic Pharmaceuticals Biologic pharmaceuticals are natural molecules created by genetically manipulating microorganisms, like bacteria or mammalian cells. The technology involves designing and inserting a DNA plasmid that carries genetic instructions to the cells. This genetic code is a nucleotide sequence used by the cell to create proteins capable of performing a diverse range of functions within the body. Like musical notes, each nucleotide represents specific genetic information. The arrangement of these sequences, like notes in a song, changes what the cell is instructed to do. In the same way notes can be arranged to create different musical compositions, nucleotide sequences can completely alter a cell’s behavior. Microorganisms transcribe the inserted DNA into a much smaller, mRNA coded molecule. Then the mRNA molecule has its nucleotide code translated into a chain of amino acids, forming a polypeptide that eventually folds into a protein that can act within the body. “One of the disadvantages of biologic design is the wide range of molecular conformations biological molecules can adopt,” says Peters. “Small-molecule medications, on the other hand, are typically more rigid, but difficult to design via first-principle engineering methods. A lot of my focus has been on helical peptides, like GLP-1, that are a programmable biologic pharmaceutical designed from first principles and have the stability of a small-molecule.” The stability Peters describes comes from the helical peptide’s structure, an alpha helix where the amino acid chain coils into a spiral that twists clockwise. Hydrogen bonds that occur between the peptide’s backbone creates a repeating pattern that pulls the helix tightly together to resist conformational changes. “It’s why we used it in our COVID therapeutic and makes it an excellent candidate for GLP-1 continuous production because of its relative stability,” says Peters. Programming The Cell Chemical and Life Science Engineering Assistant Professor Leah Spangler, Ph.D., is an expert at instructing cells to make specific things. Her material science background employs proteins to build or manipulate products not found in nature, like purifying rare-earth elements for use in electronics. “My lab’s function is to make proteins every day,” says Spangler. “The kind of proteins we make depends entirely on the project they are for. More specifically I use proteins to make things that don’t occur in nature. The reason proteins don’t build things like solar cells or the quantum dots used in LCD TVs is because nature is not going to evolve a solar cell or a display surface. Nature doesn’t know what either of those things are. However, proteins can be instructed to build these items, if we code them to.” Spangler is collaborating with Peters in the development of his radial flow bioreactor, specifically to engineer a microorganismal bacteria cell capable of continuously producing biologic pharmaceuticals. “We build proteins by leveraging bacteria to make them for us,” says Spangler. “It’s a well known technology. For this project, we’re hypothesizing that Escherichia coli (E. coli) can be modified to make GLP-1. Personally, I like working with E. coli because it’s a simple bacteria that has been thoroughly studied, so there’s lots of tools available for working with it compared to other cell types.” Development of the process and technique to use E. coli with the radial flow bioreactor is ongoing. “Working with Dr. Spangler has been a game changer for me,” says Peters. “She came to the College of Engineering with a background in protein engineering and an expertise with bacteria. Most of my work was in mammalian cells, so it’s been a great collaboration. We’ve been able to work together and develop this bioreactor to produce GLP-1.” Other Radial Flow Bioreactor Applications Similar to how the GLP-1 peptide has found applications beyond diabetes treatment, the radial flow bioreactor can also be used in different roles. Peters is currently exploring the reactor’s viability for harnessing solar energy. “One of the things we’ve done with the internal disc is to use it as a solar panel,” says Peters. “The disk can be a black body that absorbs light and gets warm. If you run water through the system, water also absorbs the radiation’s energy. The radial flow pattern automatically optimizes energy driving forces with fluid residence time. That makes for a very effective solar heating system. This heating system is a simple proof of concept. Our next step is to determine a method that harnesses solar radiation to create electricity in a continuous manner.” The radial flow bioreactor can also be implemented for environmental cleanup. With a disk tailored for water filtration, desalination or bioremediation, untreated water can be pushed through the system until it reaches a satisfactory level of purification. “The continuous bioreactor design is based on first principles of engineering that our students are learning through their undergraduate education,” says Peters. “The nonlinear scaling laws and performance predictions are fundamentally based. In this day of continued emphasis on empirical AI algorithms, the diminishing understanding of fundamental physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics that underlie engineering principles is a challenge. It’s important we not let first-principles and fundamental understanding be degraded from our educational mission, and projects like the radial flow bioreactor help students see these important fundamentals in action.”
Digital Dementia: Does Technology Use by ‘Digital Pioneers’ Correlate to Cognitive Decline?
As the first generation that interacted with digital technology reaches an age where dementia risks emerge, scientists have asked the question: Is there a correlation between digital technology use and an increased risk of dementia? With the phrases “brain rot” and “brain drain” circulating on social media, it would appear that most people would assume the answer is yes. However, a new study in Nature Human Behavior by neuroscientists at Baylor University and the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School reveals the opposite – digital technologies are actually associated with reduced cognitive decline. The study – A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging – was sparked by the ongoing concern about the passive activity of digital technologies and their relation to accelerating risks of dementia. Study co-authors are Jared F. Benge, Ph.D., clinical neuropsychologist and associate professor of neurology at Dell Medical School and UT Health Austin’s Comprehensive Memory Center within the Mulva Clinic for the Neurosciences, and Michael K. Scullin, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor. “You can flip on the news on just about any day and you’ll see people talking about how technologies are harming us,” Scullin said. “People often use the terms ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain rot,’ and now digital dementia is an emerging phrase. As researchers, we wanted to know if this was true.” The “digital dementia” hypothesis predicts that a lifetime of exposure to digital technology will worsen cognitive abilities. On the contrary, the study’s findings challenge this hypothesis, indicating instead that engagement with digital technology fosters cognitive resilience in these adults. Reviewing more than 136 studies with data that encompassed over 400,000 adults, and longitudinal studies with an average of 6 years of follow-up data, Scullin and Benge found compelling evidence that digital technology use is associated with better cognitive aging outcomes, rather than harm. The researchers’ study supported the “technological reserve” hypothesis, finding that digital technologies can promote behaviors that preserve cognition. In fact, their study revealed that digital technology use correlates with a 58% lower risk of cognitive impairment. This pattern of cognitive protection persisted when the researchers controlled for socioeconomic status, education, age, gender, baseline cognitive ability, social support, overall health, and engagement with mental activities like reading that might have explained the findings. Increase in problem-solving skills Scullin said that for some, these findings are surprising as technology use is often associated with being sedentary both physically and mentally. However, for the current generation of older adults who were introduced to the first technological advancements – computers, the Internet and smartphones – past their childhood, using technology is cognitively challenging because it is everchanging. “One of the first things that middle-age and older adults were saying is that ‘I’m so frustrated by this computer. This is hard to learn.’ That's actually a reflection of the cognitive challenge, which may be beneficial for the brain even if it doesn’t feel great in the moment.” Scullin said. Technology requires constant adaption, he said, such as understanding new software updates, troubleshooting Internet loss or filtering out website ads. “If you’re doing that for years and you’re really engaging with it, even though you might experience frustration, that may be a sign of you exercising your brain,” he said. Social connection Technology also enables communication and engagement like never before, which can expand opportunities for connectivity. Video calls, emails and messaging apps help maintain social networks, especially for people who would not otherwise regularly see their family members. “Now you can connect with families across generations,” Scullin said. “You not only can talk to them, you can see them. You can share pictures. You can exchange emails and it's all within a second or less. So that means there's a greater opportunity for decreasing loneliness.” Better social connectedness is a well-documented correlate of cognitive functioning in older adults, providing a link between decreased isolation from digital technologies and reduced risks of dementia. Impact of “digital scaffolding” A dementia diagnosis is indicated in part when cognitive changes lead to a loss of independence with daily tasks. Tools such as digital reminders, GPS navigation and online banking allow older adults to remain independent despite cognitive difficulties through digital scaffolding. According to the research article, this digital scaffold “facilitates better functional outcomes in older adults while general cognitive functioning declines.” Technologies can serve as a compensatory support system to maintain general independence and reduce the risk of a dementia diagnosis even with the presence of some cognitive decline. “As clinical practice continues to move toward an individualized, precision-medicine approach, it will be necessary for the field to identify for whom and for how long, such digital scaffolding is effective,” the researchers said. Promoting healthy technology use While Scullin recognizes the negative effects of technology, such as distracted driving or using technology over consistent face-to-face interaction, he also emphasizes how promoting a healthy use of digital tools in older adults is beneficial for their cognitive health. “If you have a parent or grandparent who’s just staying away from technology, maybe revisit that. Could they learn to use photo, messaging, or calendar apps on a smartphone or tablet? Start simple and be very patient while they learn,” he said. Social media use is another highly debated topic in terms of cognitive effects. While he says it’s hard to predict the cognitive effects of endlessly scrolling on TikTok, Scullin does argue that generating videos through creative cognition could be beneficial. In addition, he said that interacting with communities online can provide benefits by forming social connections. “We could spend a long time talking about all the specific ways in which technology use can be bad. However, the net effect since the 1990s has been positive for overall cognition in older adults,” he said. FUNDING The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01AG082783; M.K.S., J.F.B.). Michael Scullin was named Baylor’s inaugural Newsmaker of the Year in 2018, after his “to-do list” research was widely covered by media outlets, including ABC’s Good Morning America, TODAY.com, USA TODAY, Discover, LiveScience, HealthDay, BBC Radio and many more, reaching an international circulation and viewership of nearly 1 billion people. Looking to interview or chat with Michael Scullin? Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
