Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Canada’s Retirement Problem Is Not “Boomer Luxury Communism”
A recent Washington Post column by Pulitzer Prize-winner George F. Will caught my attention. A prominent American conservative warns about a demographic apocalypse. Normal Monday. His argument: an aging population and a politically powerful senior cohort are driving unsustainable government spending, leaving younger generations to foot the bill. He even has a name for it: “Boomer Luxury Communism.” (Does George Will need a Snickers bar?) It made me wonder: are the same forces reshaping retirement here in Canada? I’ve heard the generational accusations. Boomers took the good pensions. Boomers drove up housing. Boomers left the mess. Boomers won’t move and sell me their house. But here’s the thing. Boomers don’t have a case of “Pierre don’t care.” Most of them are quietly terrified. After 25 years in financial services and a decade sitting across kitchen tables from Canadians over 55, I think the story is a lot more complicated than that. According to Statistics Canada data, nearly one in five Canadians (19.5%) is now aged 65 or older, representing more than eight million people nationwide, signalling significant growth in the demographic. Retirement itself has also changed dramatically. Fewer Canadians have access to defined benefit pensions. Costs are rising, from groceries to housing to healthcare. And most people want to remain in their homes as they age. The result is straightforward: retirement is lasting longer, costing more, and relying more heavily on individuals than ever before. That much we share with the United States. But the Canadian reality is more complicated. Canada’s Seniors Are Not Living the Way Many People Assume Where the comparison begins to break down is in how we interpret what’s happening. The idea that Canadian seniors are broadly living comfortably at the expense of younger generations simply doesn’t match what I see in practice. In fact, many older Canadians are experiencing something quite different: Financial uncertainty. Despite having significant assets. On paper, many retirees look secure. They may own their home outright. They may have some savings and receive income from programs like CPP and OAS. But much of that wealth is tied up in housing. Families led by someone aged 65 or older now have a median net worth exceeding $1.1 million, the highest of any age group. (Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Financial Security) Yet the same data also reveals something important: The value of the principal residence for many seniors far exceeds their retirement savings. Many Canadians are increasingly finding themselves asset-rich on paper but cash-flow constrained in practice. The Rise of FORO: Fear of Running Out When you look more closely at the financial picture for many retirees, income streams are often modest and heavily exposed to inflationary pressures. Longevity adds another layer of uncertainty: A Canadian reaching age 65 today can expect to live another 20 years on average. Longevity is, of course, a triumph of modern society, although financially speaking, it has a way of extending the spreadsheet. Which leads to a question I hear repeatedly around the kitchen table: “Will I have enough money to retire?” This concern is so common that I’ve written extensively about it as FORO: "Fear of Running Out." It shows up in everyday decisions. Let’s call balls and strikes: FORO is real, and left unchecked, FORO thinking gets calcified into a permanent crouch. It’s cautious, it’s understandable — and it can quietly cost you your retirement. Worse than an ill-timed "reply all" to a company-wide email. • People delay travel • They hesitate to help their family. • They postpone home repairs • They underspend, even when they may not need to. I’ve met people who won’t replace a 20-year-old furnace because they’re saving money for an emergency. The furnace failing IS the emergency. This is not reckless consumption. It’s cautious financial restraint. A recent Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan Retirement survey found that nearly half of Canadians approaching retirement worry about outliving their savings. Other research from Fidelity Canada shows that many retirees spend less than they comfortably could because they fear future financial shocks or healthcare costs. This anxiety matters because retirement is not just a math problem. It is also a confidence problem. This Isn’t Boomer Excess. It’s a System That Shifted What’s happening in Canada is not primarily a story of overconsumption by retirees. It is the result of a long-term structural shift. Canadians are living longer than ever. In fact, the number of Canadians over age 85 - already one of the country’s fastest-growing demographic groups, is projected to nearly triple over the next 25 years. (Source: National Institute on Aging) Over the past several decades, pensions have disappeared. Employers steadily moved away from guaranteed pensions while individuals assumed far greater responsibility for funding their own retirement years. Defined benefit pension coverage has declined significantly in the private sector, particularly among younger workers, leaving more Canadians to manage retirement risk on their own. The CD Howe Institute has written extensively on this topic, calling for pension reform. At the same time, housing became the country’s dominant store of wealth. For many Canadians, rising home values created the impression of growing financial security. But the current housing environment is far more complicated. Now, real estate markets have become less liquid. Some regions are now seeing much softer housing prices after years of extraordinary growth. Cue the song, "Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end." The result is a retirement system increasingly dependent on housing wealth, whether policymakers openly acknowledge it or not. Government is beginning to feel the financial pinch as well. A recent report from the C.D. Howe Institute estimated that demographic aging alone could create more than $2 trillion in long-term fiscal pressure for provincial governments, driven largely by healthcare and age-related spending. In the mid-1970s, there were nearly seven working-age Canadians for every retiree (Source: Statistics Canada). Today, that ratio has fallen to closer to three-to-one. It's a profound demographic shift that is placing growing pressure on labour markets, healthcare systems, and public finances. As retirements accelerate, fewer younger workers are available to replace them, reshaping the country’s economic and fiscal balance. Even high levels of immigration are unlikely to fully offset Canada’s aging challenge over the long term. These pressures are real. But the Canadian story is still more complicated than the increasingly combative generational narratives emerging in the United States. Retirement Became a DIY Project Over time, we slowly moved away from a system that delivered predictable retirement income. Now we ask individuals to assemble their own retirement strategy from scratch. Choose your own adventure: except the stakes are your retirement, and there’s no going back to page one. That shift created flexibility but also risk. And today, that risk is showing up as uncertainty. And while it's tempting to frame this as a generational issue, the more meaningful divide in Canada increasingly looks like this: • homeowners versus non-homeowners • those with pensions versus those without • those with access to advice versus those navigating alone Looking at the issue through this lens helps us better understand how we arrived at this point, and why it should serve as a wake-up call for consumers, policymakers, and the financial industry. Still not convinced? Look at this data from the Statistics Canada Net Worth Report: Near-retirement households with both a workplace pension and homeownership had a median net worth exceeding $1.4 million. Remove those two structural advantages, however, and the financial picture changes dramatically: renters without pensions had a median wealth of less than $12,000. Let me stop and let this one land. Pause, breathe, and read on. The wealth gap, when you look at homeownership and pensions, is staggering. It reveals how profoundly retirement security in Canada is shaped not only by age but also by structural access to housing and pension systems. Two Canadians of the same age can now face entirely different retirement realities depending on just a few foundational variables. That’s not a generational conflict. It’s a serious design problem — a bug, not a feature. The Accumulation Paradox Here is another gap that rarely gets discussed. Canada has done a reasonably good job of helping people accumulate assets. BUT We have done a much poorer job helping them convert those assets into sustainable income. This is especially true when it comes to housing. Research from the National Institute on Ageing and CMHC consistently shows that the overwhelming majority of older Canadians want to age in place rather than downsize or move into institutional care. But Canada’s retirement system increasingly depends on housing wealth, even as many retirees remain reluctant to use it strategically. For many Canadians, home equity is their single largest financial resource. Yet, culturally and psychologically, it is often treated as something to preserve rather than deploy. The result is what I call the Asset Accumulation Paradox: People can be asset-rich and cash-flow constrained at the same time, a perfect example of 2 things being true at the same time. That disconnect sits at the heart of much of the retirement anxiety we see today. Where Canada Stands Compared to the United States In some important ways, Canada is better positioned than the United States. The Canada Pension Plan is actuarially reviewed and designed to remain sustainable over the long term. (Source: Office of the Chief Actuary). And according to International Monetary Fund data, Canada’s public debt burden also remains materially lower than that of the United States as a share of GDP. But that does not mean we can afford complacency. Because beneath the surface, there is a growing gap between what Canadians have and what they feel confident using. If we want to improve retirement outcomes, we need to focus less on assigning blame and more on improving design. That means better tools, better guidance, and more open conversations, especially about how to turn assets into income. The warnings coming out of the United States are worth paying attention to. But Canada’s challenge is different. The risk is not that seniors are taking too much.It’s that too many Canadians are living with uncertainty despite having more options than they realize. The challenge now is not simply helping Canadians accumulate wealth. It is helping them use that wealth with greater confidence, flexibility, and security. So, let’s call this what it is. George Will is not entirely wrong. The numbers are real, the fiscal pressure is real, and yes, someone is going to have to deal with it. But the story he’s telling is a blunt instrument in a situation that requires a scalpel. Canada’s retirement challenge isn’t Boomer Luxury Communism. It’s more like Boomer Luxury Paralysis: sitting on a million-dollar asset, terrified to touch it, underspending in the present to guard against a future that may never arrive. FORO doesn’t discriminate by generation. It just quietly rearranges your life until you’re postponing the trip, skipping the furnace repair, and waiting for permission to enjoy the retirement you actually saved for. The good news? The options are better than most people think. The conversation isn’t about giving anything up. It’s about using what you already have. Sue Don't Retire...ReWire!
Expert Insight: The Hidden Costs of Staying Neutral
Considering the number of hot-button issues and divisiveness in American culture, choosing a middle-of-the-road attitude might be seen as the best way to navigate an often volatile environment. But what about those individuals who choose neutrality as a means of staying below the radar and, thereby, avoiding the need to take any action? This is the question that Laura Wallace, assistant professor of organization and management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, and coauthors ask in their new paper, The Preference for Attitude Neutrality. Published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, the researchers explore individuals with a preference for neutrality and how their uncompromising commitment to neutral opinions, not only discourages rigorous debate but could have a deleterious impact on society. Emory Business recently caught up with Wallace to discuss her research. Emory Business: What sparked your interest in the preference for neutrality? Wallace: When we think about the problems in the world, often people point to too many extreme opinions as the source of much social ill, and, of course, they can be. But, when I thought about a lot of the issues that I cared about, like addressing climate change or gun violence, I felt that sometimes the issue was too much neutrality in the face of issues that were themselves pretty extreme. When I talk about this work, people can often picture someone who seems like a “Pref Neutral,” as we have affectionately nick-named them, that is someone who in the face of information suggesting that there is an extreme problem is not moved to address the issue. I could think of people in my life who had these reactions, and I was interested in understanding more about them. Emory Business: How did you identify these individuals? Wallace: We developed a scale to assess the extent to which people view neutrality as truer, more socially desirable, and more moral. For example, we ask people how much they agree with items like, “If you have all the facts about a topic, your opinion will generally end up somewhere neutral” and “There is something noble about remaining in the middle about controversial topics.” The more someone agrees with these items, the more we would say they have a preference for neutrality. Emory Business: How does this study fit in with your larger body of work? Wallace: I generally think of my program of research as studying the “psychology of social change.” Within that broad category, I study 1) how to change minds and build trust and 2) how to address societal disadvantage. I view this work as fitting in the first bucket about how we change people’s minds. What interests me about people who are high in the preference for neutrality is the fact that they seem to NOT change their minds in the face of extreme information suggesting that they should. These individuals represent a significant barrier to our ability to address pressing issues, so I view this work as very much tied into the overarching goal of my research program to understand social change (or the lack thereof). Laura Wallace is an assistant professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Wallace studies how to build trust with implications for addressing societal disadvantage, changing minds, and fostering growth. View her profile Emory Business: Would you describe a preference for neutrality to be a mindset, strategy, or attitude/value? Wallace: I think of the preference for neutrality like an ideology or value system that guides people’s reactions across many issues and situations. Emory Business: Talk about the study design. It’s quite detailed and multilayered, with eight hypotheses and six different measures to account for potential bias that were then randomized to create different questionnaires given to a large pool of individuals. How did the coauthors agree on the structure? Wallace: First, I should take the opportunity to shout out Thomas Vaughan-Johnston, who led this work. He is a faculty member at Cardiff University and is just a very thoughtful, interesting researcher, and he’s great to work with. Second, there are a number of studies in the paper. For each, our research team worked together to design and interpret the studies. The paper paints a relatively negative view of Pref Neutrals. We did take measures to resist bias in our design. For instance, we didn’t just ask people how much they dislike extremists (which would have been biased towards making those with a preference for neutrality look bad), but also asked about attitudes towards neutrals (where those with a preference for neutrality may seem like “the nice people”). We are now starting research on contexts where a preference for neutrality can offer some advantages, hopefully without artificially striking a false balance. For instance, we are considering whether they can help reduce group polarization effects, especially where groups drift towards radicalism in conversation. Also, we have some preliminary data where they seem to be a bit more accurate when detecting neutral emotions and attitudes in others, which is a remarkable plus side. Basically, we think the preference for neutrality is a social concern, but we are trying to be fair-minded when considering why they think this about neutrality and when this trait is useful for the world. Emory Business: In the study, you note that preference for neutrality can be a sign of arrogance and that Pref Neutrals are uninterested in learning more or changing their stance. How is this arrogance exhibited? Wallace: I would say that they are more close-minded than arrogant and that they don’t seem to be particularly thoughtful. One way we have assessed this is by measuring their “intellectual humility,” which essentially captures how much people recognize the limits of their own perspectives and are open to changing their minds. Pref Neutrals tend to score low on intellectual humility. They also score a little low on the “need for cognition,” which captures how much people like to think. Emory Business: In one section it reads: “preference for neutrality (preference for extremity) should relate to seeing other people as moral, competent, and likeable, when those individuals have generally neutral (extreme) opinions.” Does this mean that they align with people who have their same opinion structure? Wallace: We find that people who score high on the preference for neutrality scale tend to have more favorable impressions of others who are more neutral and tend to be more persuaded by others who are labeled as holding neutral attitude positions. Emory Business: How would one identify this trait in a person, particularly, when the research shows they tend to self-censor? Wallace: In general, they are really hesitant to take stances on issues or they tend to avoid taking sides or expressing strong positions. And yes, they tend to self-censor, meaning they often avoid sharing their opinion at all. Emory Business: How does this preference for neutrality play out in a political sense? Specifically, if they are averse to extremes would they vote based on their values? Wallace: We have a lot of evidence that Pref Neutrals tend to be political centrists. We don’t have evidence for this, but I suspect that they sit out a lot of elections, and to the extent that they do vote, they favor more moderate candidates. They probably would not vote for a position or individual with an extreme view unless it was framed as neutral. This may sound like a silly, cerebral point, but I actually think it’s critical to the point we are making, as what is viewed as “extreme” in a given time is often socially determined. For example, now it would be viewed as an extreme stance to support slavery. However, in the early 1800s in the U.S., it would have been viewed as an extreme stance to oppose slavery. I imagine at the time, many Pref Neutrals were supportive of slavery as a means of being politically moderate. Emory Business: What was the most interesting result in this study for you? Wallace: We find that if you give Pref Neutrals the exact same information but label it as extreme or neutral, they are more persuaded by the exact same information when it is labeled as neutral. This results in a kind of ironic effect where they actually end up with a more extreme opinion when information has been labeled as neutral. Emory Business: Research wise, what’s next for you? Wallace: There are a few ways that we are following up on our work that I am excited about: First, we’re trying to understand more about how Pref Neutrals maintain neutral opinions in the face of extreme information. So, we are giving Pref Neutrals true, extreme facts, and then examining their thoughts to determine how they resist taking the extreme positions information would suggest that they should. Second, we thought that Pref Neutrals would be particularly likely to trivialize social issues, to say they are unimportant. We are actually finding that they rate all social issues as extremely important, which we are trying to understand more about. We suspect they might do this as a strategy to avoid taking action on social issues. If stubbed toes and human trafficking are both “extremely” important, then there are just too many issues to take action on, and so they are able to justify a lack of action. Third, we are interested in understanding what it is like to make decisions in a group with a Pref Neutral. There is a lot of evidence that groups tend to make bad decisions because people want to agree with each other. This might actually be an area where Pref Neutrals would shine – the fact that they don’t want to take a stance may force groups they are a part of to really think things through and make better decisions. This is all super preliminary, but it reflects the exciting work ahead and that there is much more to understand about these folks!
University of Delaware biomedical engineer helps develop first immune-capable cervix-on-a-chip
A major breakthrough in biomedical engineering is changing how scientists study sexually transmitted infections (STIs) – and a researcher from the University of Delaware is at the forefront. Published in Science Advances, the study introduces the first immune-capable “cervix-on-a-chip,” a cutting-edge microphysiological system that replicates the human cervical environment. The platform allows researchers to observe how infections, the immune system and the vaginal microbiome interact in real time – something not previously possible with traditional lab models. Co-lead author Jason Gleghorn, associate professor in the College of Engineering, led the development of the model. His work highlights how engineering-driven approaches are advancing critical research in women’s health. By integrating engineering with biology, we can now simulate complex human systems more accurately and make these tools accessible to a wider range of researchers, Gleghorn said. The model recreates key features of the cervix using human cells, immune components and naturally occurring microbiomes within a dynamic system that mimics physiological conditions. When tested with infections such as chlamydia and gonorrhea, the platform revealed how protective bacteria can reduce infection risk – while imbalanced microbiomes can worsen outcomes. These findings could help accelerate the development of new therapies, including probiotics and other preventative strategies aimed at strengthening the body’s natural defenses. The research underscores the growing impact of the College of Engineering, where interdisciplinary collaboration is driving innovation across biomedical engineering and beyond. By combining expertise in engineering, microbiology and immunology, the team has created a powerful new tool that could reshape how STIs – and other complex diseases – are studied. To speak with Gleghorn further about this advancement, email mediarelations@udel.edu.
The Impacts of Stronger El Niño Conditions on LI
Jase Bernhardt, Hofstra University associate professor of geology, environment, and sustainability and director of meteorology, spoke to Newsday to explain how strong El Niño weather conditions could impact the region. “It often leads to the earth’s atmosphere warming,” said Dr. Bernhardt. “It could be expected that this year could be the warmest on record, if El Niño pans out.” He added that El Niño also “plants the seeds for more coastal storms in the late fall and winter.”
Using AI tools empowers and burdens users in online Q&A communities
Whether you’ve searched for cooking tips on Reddit, troubleshooted tech problems on community forums or asked questions on platforms like Quora, you’ve benefited from online help communities. These digital spaces rely on people across the world to contribute their knowledge for free, and have become an essential tool for solving problems and learning new skills. New research reveals that generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT are creating a double-edge effect on users in these communities, simultaneously making them more helpful while potentially overwhelming them to the point of decreasing their responses. “On the positive side, AI helps users learn to write more organized and readable answers, leading to a noticeable increase in the number of responses,” explained Liangfei Qiu, Ph.D., study coauthor and PricewaterhouseCoopers Professor at the University of Florida Warrington College of Business. “However, when users rely too heavily on AI, the mental effort required to process and refine AI outputs can actually reduce participation. In other words, AI both empowers and burdens contributors: it enables more engagement and better readability, but too much reliance can slow people down.” The study examined Stack Overflow, one of the world’s largest question-and-answer coding platforms for computer programmers, to investigate the impact of generative AI on both the quality and quantity of user contributions. Qiu and his coauthor Guohou Shan of Northeastern University’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business measured the impact of AI on users’ number of answers generated per day, answer length and readability. Specifically, they found that users who used AI tools to generate their responses contributed almost 17% more answers per day compared to those who didn’t use AI. The answers generated with AI were both shorter by about 23% and easier to read. However, when people relied too heavily on AI tools, their participation decreased. Qiu and Shan noted that the additional cognitive burden associated with heavier AI usage negatively affected the impact on a user’s answer quality. For online help communities grappling with AI policies, this research provides valuable insight into how these policies can be updated in the current AI environment. While some communities, like Stack Overflow, have banned AI tools, this research suggests that a more nuanced approach could be a better solution. Instead of banning AI entirely, the researchers suggest striking a balance between allowing AI usage while promoting responsible and moderated use. This approach, they argue, would enable users to benefit from efficiency and learning opportunities, while not compromising quality content and user cognition. “For platform leaders, the takeaway is clear: AI can boost participation if thoughtfully integrated, but its cognitive demands must be managed to sustain long-term user contributions,” Qiu said.
Robotics help solve deep Sea Mysteries
UD's College of Earth, Ocean and Environment uses robotics currently operated by the National Deep Submergence Facility (NDSF) to study the depths of the ocean. These expeditions ranged from the East Pacific Rise to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The vehicles include the Human Occupied Vehicle (HOV) Alvin, the Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Jason and the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Sentry. What it is: A CTD (Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) instrument is a key oceanography tool that collects deep-water samples using remotely triggered Niskin bottles at specific depths. How it helps: These measurements help scientists understand ocean processes, including carbon cycling and life systems, which are essential to understanding Earth’s overall functioning. To find out more or to speak with speak associate professor Andrew Wozniak about this deep-sea technology, reach out to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
Rip Current Simulations Save Lives
Jase Bernhardt, Hofstra University associate professor of geology, environment, and sustainability and director of meteorology, was referenced in a USA Today article about simulations that teach the public about rip current safety. For years, Dr. Bernhardt has been leading research that offers a virtual reality simulation of being caught in a rip current and teaches ways swimmers can navigate to safety. The development of this technology is supported in part by New York Sea Grant (NYSG).
Finding joy in learning: How lighthearted moments transform English as a Foreign Language classrooms
In classrooms, not every meaningful learning moment can be planned. At the University of Delaware, educator and researcher Chad Davidson is exploring how spontaneous, lighthearted interactions between teachers and students can open the door to deeper understanding in real time. His recent paper in Language Teaching and Educational Research, "Exploring Spontaneous Acts of Lightheartedness in EFL Classrooms: A Reflective Duoethnography", examines how these unscripted moments – rooted in trust, positivity and a willingness to embrace the unexpected – help create environments where students feel comfortable taking the risks essential to learning. In this Q&A, Davidson discusses the inspiration behind his research, what he’s discovered about these classroom dynamics and how they could shape teaching practices moving forward. Q: What is the focus of this research, and why is it important? Davidson: Spontaneous acts of lightheartedness promote real-time learning because it's being open to the unknown in positive ways since the true dynamic of every classroom brings continuous unknowns: A teacher never knows 100% how the students will react (these students, in these moods, on this day, etc.), how quickly they will learn or pick up on something or not. A teacher, hence, spontaneously responds in real-time to the until-then-unknown student reactions in order for those particular students best to then grasp the concept or skill that is the present goal (or “learning objective”) that those students grasp. The hope is that the teacher's spontaneous response (as it often is with many teachers) is positive and lighthearted in order to foster students to also be open to such unpredictability in the classroom and to foster students' comfortability with the vulnerability to be open to taking spontaneous risks that are necessary for that transformation that we call learning – transforming from lack of knowledge to knowledge, from lack of understanding to understanding, from lack of mastery to further mastery. Q: What are some key findings or developments? Davidson: Realizing the essential features that make up spontaneous lighthearted classroom acts; for example, these acts must include trust of the student(s) and from the student(s), and the acts must have good-intentions of creating or maintaining a relaxed environment conducive to safely taking risks for potential learning. Q: How could this work potentially impact the field or the wider public? Davidson: This could foster this act type in classrooms. That is, hopefully more teacher-practitioners will allow themselves and their students to freely enact these in their daily in-class teaching/learning-attempts. Q: What are the next steps or upcoming milestones in your research? Davidson: We incorporated some valuable insights of Mexican philosopher Jorge Portilla. While there is a glut of usage of German, French, British and American philosophers, there is almost no usage of Hispanic or Latin American philosophers in education literature. It would be great to do more work that makes use of the profound thought in the works of Latin/Hispanic philosophers. For me, this would be continuing to go more deeply in applying Jorge Portilla's thought to philosophy of education, such as to classroom management. ABOUT CHAD DAVIDSON Instructor Chad C. Davidson has a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction with an emphasis in philosophy of language education. He has 17 years of language teaching experience, primarily in teaching and curriculum creation for English for Academic Purposes at various colleges and universities across America (University of Delaware, Kansas State University, Georgia Tech, North Orange County Community College, Johnson County Community College), in Russia (Udmurt State University), and in Turkey (Mus Alparslan University). Moreover, he has studied languages at the following universities abroad: Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara in Mexico, Universidade do Porto in Portugal, and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. To speak with Davidson about his work and the importance of spontaneous acts of lightheartedness, reach out to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
One year after his pioneering flight aboard Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket, University of Florida space biologist Rob Ferl, Ph.D., is still processing what it meant — not just for his career, but for science itself. “What stands out the most is just the overwhelming gratitude,” Ferl said. “It was such an amazing opportunity for a scientist to go to space and actually do science.” Ferl, a professor in UF’s Horticultural Sciences Department, Director of the Astraeus Space Institute, and Assistant Vice President of Research, became one of the first space biologists to fly alongside his own experiment — a moment that marked a new era in researcher-led missions. His suborbital journey provided a rare opportunity to study how terrestrial biology responds to the very first moments of spaceflight. “For decades, space biology has relied on professional astronauts to carry out experiments designed by scientists on Earth,” Ferl explained. “But to truly understand how biology works in space, I believe you - as the scientist - have to be there. You have to feel the environment.” This September, Ferl and longtime collaborator Anna-Lisa Paul, Ph.D., will be back at Blue Origin’s West Texas launch site, continuing their work with a new series of plant experiments. Ferl and Paul, who directs UF’s Interdisciplinary Center for Biotechnology Research and is a professor in Horticultural Sciences, are tracking fluorescently tagged genes in Arabidopsis plants to study how gene expression changes during the rapid shift from Earth’s gravity to the microgravity of spaceflight and back again. It’s a full-circle moment for Ferl, who remains deeply engaged in the same questions that sent him to space a year ago. Unpacking the Transition from Earth to Space Ferl’s experiment focused on the early metabolic responses of plants during the critical transition from Earth’s gravity to the weightlessness of space. “The scientific community has accumulated plenty of data comparing biology in orbit with that on Earth,” he said. “But we’ve known almost nothing about what happens in those first few minutes as organisms enter space and are exposed to microgravity.” Initial results from the flight reveal intense metabolic changes in the early moments of spaceflight. These changes are distinct from, but connected to, the long-term adaptations seen in orbit. Early Findings, Future Impact While the data from Ferl’s experiment are still on the way to being published, the findings are already shaping the direction of ongoing research. The work contributes to a growing understanding of how terrestrial life, from plants to humans, shares fundamental pathways in responding to the space environment. “This has real implications for the future of space missions,” Ferl noted. “As we send more people and more biology into space in support of exploration, we need a comprehensive understanding of how living systems adapt — right from the start.” Ferl and his team will return to Blue Origin’s launch site in Texas in September to continue their research, sending an uncrewed payload of plants into suborbital space. The flight carries no humans—but it does carry an automated experiment designed to advance their understanding of plant biology in space. It’s part of a broader effort to refine what Ferl calls “researcher-tended missions.” A New Course for UF Space Science The mission has not only shaped the trajectory of Ferl’s research, it has also energized Astraeus and the university’s space biology efforts. “This is about building a new kind of science culture,” Ferl said. “One where the scientists are embedded in every part of the mission, from experiment design to the moment of launch.” As the one-year anniversary of his flight approaches, Ferl remains focused on pushing the boundaries of what science in space can be. But he hasn’t forgotten the magnitude of the moment. “Even a year later,” he said, “the most powerful thing I feel is just: thank you. Thank you for the chance to go, to see it for myself, and to bring that knowledge back to Earth.”
Workplace jargon hurts employee morale, collaboration, study finds
You’ve probably heard it before in a meeting: “Let’s touch base offline to align our bandwidth on this workflow.” Corporate jargon like this is easy to laugh at — but its negative impact in the office can be serious. According to a new study, using too much jargon in the workplace can hurt employees’ ability to process messages, leading them to experience negative feelings and making them feel less confident. In turn, they’re less likely to reach out and ask for or share information with their colleagues. “You need people to be willing to collaborate, share ideas and look for more information if they don't understand something at work,” said Olivia Bullock, Ph.D., an assistant professor of advertising at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. “And jargon might actually be impeding that information flow across teams.” Age made a difference, though. Older workers had a harder time processing jargon, but were more likely to intend to ask for more information to clarify the message. Younger employees were less likely to seek and share information when confused by jargon. “It gives credence to the idea that younger people are more vulnerable to these workplace dynamics,” Bullock said. “If you're onboarding younger employees, explain everything clearly.” Bullock and her co-author, Tiffany Bisbey, Ph.D., an assistant professor at George Washington University, published their findings Aug. 25 in the International Journal of Business Communication. An expert in communication research, Bullock has long studied jargon’s negative effects for talking about health and science. Then, faced with jargon in her own work, she started to ask how these arcane, technical words might get in the way of a smooth workplace. To find out, Bullock surveyed nearly 2,000 people who were told to imagine they had just started a new job and received an email with important directions. Half had to navigate a jargon-filled message about “intranets” and “EFT” payments. The other half had that jargon translated back into plainer language. The message packed with jargon, not surprisingly, made it harder for people to process the information, which can throw off an entire workday. “It doesn't just make them feel bad about the information they've been given. It makes them feel bad about themselves,” Bullock said. The study then asked people how they would respond to the jargon. The impenetrable language made them feel insecure and less likely to ask for help right when they needed it the most. “They weren’t as willing to collaborate,” Bullock said. “If you can’t ask for more information or share that information downstream, you’re creating silos, and that’s disrupting your workflow and environment.” Having studied jargon for so long, Bullock has one piece of advice for employers and employees alike. “Always reduce jargon,” she said. “The benefit of using jargon doesn’t outweigh the cost.”
