Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Cesar Dominguez, a fourth-year chemistry and physics double major at the University of Florida, may be on track to finding alternatives to plastic that could benefit the planet. His impactful work has helped him earn the title of Michelin Science Scholar, and he is now one of a select group of undergraduates connecting scientific research to real-world challenges at Michelin – a global leader in materials science and sustainability. “There’s always this misconception that academic research is completely separate from industry research,” Dominguez said. “Michelin has shown me it’s all one science. You can push discovery forward in both spaces.” Dominguez embarked this fall on a two-semester program of faculty-mentored research, with a $2,000 student stipend and $500 in support funding for his faculty mentor, UF chemistry professor Austin Evans, Ph.D. The program also invites students to present their findings at a spring symposium and tour a Michelin facility in South Carolina. Austin Evans' research aims to control macromolecular structure at all length scales concurrently and deploy materials in the real world. View his profile here Dominguez is furthering his study of how to process ultra-high molecular weight polymers – materials he compares to the scale of “an entire city” rather than a football stadium, through powerful electric fields. By adjusting electrospinning techniques, Dominguez and his team examine how polymers form fibers with different thermal and mechanical properties. These findings could lead to stronger, more sustainable materials, including alternatives to plastics like the major pollutant polyethylene. “All my life, I’ve been told chemistry and physics are separate fields,” Dominguez said. “But I’ve learned they come together in really elegant ways. Being able to unite concepts from both gives me a deeper understanding of how things work.” Dominguez attributes much of his development as a researcher to his work with Evans, who he describes as incredibly supportive, always accessible, and consistently encouraging him to focus on precision and detail. Dominguez also sees UF’s resources as pivotal to his journey. “I feel like what makes the research I'm doing really exciting is the fact that this can only be done at the University of Florida, because we're working with materials that have been developed by scientists here, using equipment that we're very fortunate to have access to here,” Dominguez said. As he prepares to apply to graduate school in analytical chemistry, Dominguez said the Michelin program has expanded his view of what is possible after his degree. “I used to think research only happened in academia,” he said. “Now I know industry is just as vital. It’s opened my mind to different paths for my future.” For now, he offers one piece of advice to other students considering the program: “Do it for the love of the game. If you put passion into your work, everything else will follow.” For more information on the Michelin Science Scholars Program, click here: To learn more about the research happening at UF and to connect with Austin Evans - simply click his icon now to arrange an interview today.
LSU Launches Louisiana’s Most Advanced Microscope at Research Core Facility
LSU’s Advanced Microscopy and Analytical Core (AMAC) facility gives Louisiana researchers access to 16 state-of-the-art instruments, including a new Spectra 300 Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope (S/TEM) for atomic-scale imaging and analysis. The new microscope—the most advanced in Louisiana—was installed with $10 million in support from the U.S. Army. Standing almost 13 feet tall on a platform isolated from vibration, the S/TEM required major renovations, including a raised ceiling, acoustic wall panels, and a magnetic field cancellation system to ensure the instrument’s stability and performance. The microscope offers magnification up to 10 million times, powerful enough to enlarge a single grain of Mississippi River silt to the size of Tiger Stadium. “This is a transformational moment for LSU and for the future of research in Louisiana,” Interim LSU President Matt Lee said. “With the installation of the most advanced microscope in the state, LSU is once again demonstrating how we’re delivering on our promises—leading in research, innovation, and service to the state and nation.” The launch of the AMAC and S/TEM demonstrates LSU’s increased investment in providing its faculty and partners with the best possible equipment for research and discovery, including for national defense, energy, and health. “Winning in research is no different than winning in athletics—the best facilities attract the best talent, and you need the best of both to win,” LSU Vice President of Research and Economic Development Robert Twilley said. “Today’s launch is about a state-of-the-art microscope but also the launch of the AMAC as our first research core facility at LSU—the first of more to come to attract, train, and supply the best research talent for Louisiana and build research teams that win.” Using a finely focused electron beam and techniques such as energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS), the S/TEM can reveal both structure and chemistry at atomic resolution. These capabilities drive advances in materials science—improving semiconductors, solar cells, batteries, catalysts, coatings, and alloys—while supporting biomedical research by mapping drug delivery, uncovering the structures of viruses and bacteria, and improving medical implant design. LSU’s AMAC research core facility was recently rebranded, changing its name from the Shared Instruments Facility (SIF). Learn more about how AMAC instruments help unlock millions in federal research funding to Louisiana and deliver solutions.
Nursing researcher receives over $500K in prestigious grants
For the first time in nearly 15 years, a faculty member from Augusta University’s College of Nursing has been awarded a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Blake McGee, PhD, has secured an R03 award of $176,331 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to study Medicaid’s expanded role in late postpartum maternal health. But he hasn’t stopped there as McGee is also part of the fifth cohort of Betty Irene Moore Fellows, a prestigious program for nurse leaders and innovators that has awarded CON half a million dollars to support his research project and leadership development. McGee, the prelicensure department chair and an associate professor, is collaborating with colleagues from other Georgia universities on both studies, which are occurring simultaneously. “I began my career as an ER nurse and have always wanted to ask bigger questions about the challenges facing patients and how we might best address them as a society,” said McGee, who was recently selected for publication in Blood Advances, the American Society of Hematology’s journal. “As nursing scientists, we are uniquely poised to ask questions about healthcare policy, specifically from the vantage point of the impact that policy choices have on patients and their health outcomes.” This century, the United States has seen rising maternal mortality rates with alarming racial disparities. Over half of these deaths occur in the postpartum period, with 23% occurring more than six weeks after delivery. Medicaid expansion covers pregnant women in households below 138% of the Federal poverty level through postpartum day 60, which has been associated with decreased mortality and reduced racial disparity in maternal death. At the time of grant submission, pregnancy Medicaid eligibility traditionally lapsed 60 days after delivery, leaving postpartum people vulnerable to disruptions in care. McGee’s work aims to identify changes in maternal health care use and health outcomes 60 days to 1 year after delivery that were associated with state Medicaid expansions (2007–19). The team will examine whether the effects of expansion vary by maternal race or ethnicity and will explore whether patient-reported health care access and quality mediate the relationships between expansion and outcomes. “My hope is that after the study we’ll have a better understanding of how health and health care use change for women in this crucial late postpartum period and how they may differ for people of different backgrounds,” said McGee. “Due to the sample design, findings will reliably inform optimal policy for postpartum coverage duration.” He expects this study to provide preliminary data for a future R01-funded study that directly examines the impact of extending the duration of postpartum Medicaid under the American Rescue Plan. As part of the Betty Irene Moore Fellowship, McGee is one of 15 fellows across the nation in a curriculum co-delivered by the UC Davis School of Nursing and Graduate School of Management. A project coordinator from AU’s School of Public Health will also assist with the fellowship project. McGee hopes to involve graduate research assistants or recent alumni as research associates on the team. Specifically, McGee will be studying the Georgia Pathways to Coverage Program, making him one of the only academic researchers in the nation funded to do so. “As a researcher, it is always a privilege to engage in topics that directly impact the current state of health care, and I’m honored to tackle projects that are so relevant to today’s health policy headlines,” he said. Georgia stands out among other states that are exploring an extension of Medicaid to low-income, working-age adults who demonstrate a monthly commitment of 80 hours to an employment-related activity. By studying the effects of this program, McGee predicts the findings will be highly relevant to anticipating the impact of recent Medicaid changes at the federal level and may indicate differences between Pathways participants and those who might qualify but remain uninsured. This focus could provide data that helps the state target enrollment efforts. The state’s own logic model predicts that the program will reduce hospitalizations, and McGee is eager to determine the program’s success. “Our findings should be helpful to the state to better understand those enrolling, what their experience with increased access to care has been and how their health has improved after receiving coverage,” McGee said.
Taking discoveries to the real world for the benefit of human health
It takes about a decade and a lot of money to bring a new drug to market—between $1 billion to $2 billion, in fact. University of Delaware inventor Jason Gleghorn wants to change that. At UD, Gleghorn is developing leading-edge microfluidic tissue models. The devices are about the size of two postage stamps, and they offer a faster, less-expensive way to study disease and to develop pharmaceutical targets. These aren’t tools he wants to keep just for himself. No, Gleghorn wants to put the patented technology he’s developing in the hands of other experts, to advance clinical solutions in women’s health, maternal-fetal health and pre-term birth. His work also has the potential to improve understanding of drug transport in the female reproductive tract, placenta, lung and lymph nodes. Gleghorn, an associate professor of biomedical engineering, was named to the first cohort of Innovation Ambassadors at UD, as part of the University’s effort to foster and support an innovation culture on campus. Below, he shares some of what he’s learned about translating research to society. Q: What is the problem that you are trying to address? Gleghorn: A lot of disease has to do with disorganization in the body’s normal tissue structure. My lab makes microfluidic tissue models, called organ-on-a-chip models, that have super-tiny channels about the thickness of a human hair, where we can introduce very small amounts of liquid, including cells, to represent an organ in the human body. This can help us study and understand the mechanism of how things work in the body (the biology) or help us do things like drug screening to test therapeutic compounds for treating disease. And while these little microfluidic devices can do promising things, the infrastructure required to make the system work often restricts their use to high-end labs. We want to democratize the techniques and technology so that nonexperts can use it. To achieve this, we changed the way we make these devices, so that they are compatible with standard manufacturing, which means we can scale them and create them much easier. Gleghorn: One of the problems with drug screening, in general, is that animal model studies don’t always represent human biology. So, when we’re using animal models to test new drugs — which have been the best tool we have available — the results are not always apples to apples. Fundamentally, our microfluidic devices can model what happens in humans … we can plug in the relevant human components to understand how the mechanism is working and then ask questions about what drives those processes and identify targets for therapies to prevent the dysfunction. Q: What is innovative about this device? Gleghorn: The innovation part is this modularity — no one makes these devices this way. The science happens on the tiny tissue model insert, which is sandwiched between two pieces of clear acrylic. This allows us to watch what’s happening on the tissue model insert in real time. Meanwhile, the outer shell’s clamshell design provides flexibility: if we’re studying lung tissue and we want to study the female reproductive tract, all we do is unscrew the outer shell and insert the proper tissue model that mimics the female reproductive tract and we’re off. We’ve done a lot of the engineering to make it very simple to operate and use, and adaptable to common lab tools that everyone has, to eliminate the need for financial investment in things like specialized clean rooms, incubators and pumps, etc., so the technology can be useful in regular labs or easily deployable to far-flung locations or countries. With a laser cutter and $500 worth of equipment, you could conceivably mass manufacture these things for maternal medicine in Africa, for example. Democratizing the technology so it is compatible and useful for even an inexperienced user aligns with the mission of my lab, which focuses on scaling the science and the innovation faster, instead of only a few specialized labs being a bottleneck to uncovering new mechanisms of disease and the development of therapies. We patented this modularity, the way to build these tiny microfluidic devices and the simplicity of how it's used as a tool set, through UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships (OEIP). Q: How have you translated this work so far? Gleghorn: To date, we've taken this microfluidic system to nine different research labs across seven countries and four continents — including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Belgium and South Africa. These labs are using our technology to study problems in women’s health and collecting data with it. We’re developing boot camps where researchers can come for two or three days to the University of Delaware, where we teach them how to use this device and they take some back with them. From a basic science perspective, there is high enthusiasm for the power of what it can tell you and its ease of use. As engineers, we think it's pretty cool that many other people are using our innovations for new discoveries. Q: What support and guidance have you received from the UD innovation ecosystem? Gleghorn: To do any of this work, you need partners that have various expertise and backgrounds. UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships has built a strong team of professionals with expertise in different areas, such as how do you license or take something to patent, how do you make connections with the business community? OEIP is home to Delaware’s Small Business Development Center, which can help you think about business visibility in terms of startups. Horn Entrepreneurship has built out impressive programs for teaching students and faculty to think entrepreneurially and build mentor networks, while programs like the Institute for Engineering Driven Health and the NSF Accelerating Research Translation at UD provide gap funding to be able to do product development and to take the work from basic prototype to something that is more marketable. More broadly in Delaware is the Small Business Administration, the Delaware Innovation Space and regional grant programs and small accelerators to help Delaware innovators. Q: How have students in your lab benefited from engaging in innovation? Gleghorn: Undergraduate students in my lab have made hundreds of these devices at scale. We basically built a little manufacturing facility, so we have ways to sterilize them, track batches, etc. We call it “the foundry.” In other work, graduate students are engineering different components or working on specific system designs for various studies. The students see collaborators use these devices to discover new science and new discoveries. That's very rewarding as an engineer. Additionally, my lab focuses on building solutions that are useful in the clinic and commercially viable. As a result, we've had two grad students spin out companies related to the work we've been doing in the lab. Q: How has research translation positively impacted your work? Gleghorn: I started down this road maybe five years ago, seriously trying to think about how to translate our research findings. Being an entrepreneur, translating technology — it's a very different way to think about your work. And so that framework has really permeated most of the research that I do now and changed the way I think about problems. It has opened new opportunities for collaboration and for alternate sources of funding with companies. This has value in terms of taking the research that you're doing fundamentally and creating a measurable impact in the community, but it also diversifies your funding streams to work on important problems. And different viewpoints help you look at the work you do in new ways, challenging you to define the value proposition, the impact of your work.
University Communications Needs a Bigger Role in the Research Conversation
While attending the Expert Finder Systems International Forum (EFS), several notable themes emerged for me over the 2-day event. It's clear that many universities are working hard to improve their reputation by demonstrating the real-world impact of their research to the public and to funders, but it's proving to be a challenging task - even for the largest R1 universities. Many of these challenges stem from how institutions have traditionally organized their research functions, management systems, and performance metrics. Engaging faculty researchers in this process remains a significant challenge, despite the need for rapid transformation. While this EFS conference was very well-organized and the speakers delivered a great deal of useful information, I appeared to be one of the few marketing and communications professionals in a room full of research leaders, administrative staff, librarians, and IT professionals. There's a certain irony to this, as I observe the same phenomenon at HigherEd marketing conferences, which often lack representation from research staff. My point is this. We can't build better platforms, policies, and processes that amplify the profile of research without breaking down silos. We need University Communications to be much more involved in this process. As Baruch Fischhoff, a renowned scholar at Carnegie Mellon University, notes: Bridging the gap between scientists and the public “requires an unnatural act: collaboration among experts from different communities” – but when done right, it benefits everyone. But first, let's dive in a little more into RIM's and Expert Finder Systems for context. What are Research Information Systems (RIMs) Research Information Management systems (aka Expert Finder Systems) are the digital backbone that tracks everything researchers do. Publications, grants, collaborations, patents, speaking engagements. Think of them as massive databases that universities use to catalog their intellectual output and demonstrate their research capacity. These systems matter. They inform faculty promotion decisions, support strategic planning and grant applications, and increasingly, they're what institutions point to when asked to justify their existence to funders, accreditors, and the public. But here's the problem: most RIM systems were designed by researchers, for researchers, during an era when academic reputation was the primary currency. The game has fundamentally changed, and our systems haven't caught up. Let's explore this further. Academic Research Impact: The New Pressure Cooker Research departments across the country are under intense pressure to demonstrate impact—fast. State legislators want to see economic benefits from university research. Federal agencies are demanding clearer public engagement metrics. Donors want stories, not statistics. And the general public? They're questioning whether their tax dollars are actually improving their lives. Yet some academics are still asking, “Why should I simplify my research? Doesn’t the public already trust that this is important?” In a word, no – at least, not like they used to. Communicators must navigate a landscape where public trust in science and academia is not a given. The data shows that there's a lot of work to be done. Trust in science has declined and it's also polarized:. According to a Nov. 2024 Pew Research study, 88% of Democrats vs. 66% of Republicans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists; overall views have not returned to pre-pandemic highs and many Americans are wary of scientists’ role in policymaking. While Public trust in higher education has declined, Americans see universities having a central role in innovation. While overall confidence in higher education has been falling over the past decade, a recent report by Gallup Research shows innovation scores highest as an area where higher education helps generate positive outcomes. Communication is seen as an area of relative weakness for scientists. Overall, 45% of U.S. adults describe research scientists as good communicators, according to a November 2024 Pew Research Study. Another critique many Americans hold is the sense that research scientists feel superior to others; 47% say this phrase describes them well. The traditional media ecosystem has faltered:. While many of these issues are largely due to research being caught in a tide of political polarization fueled by a significant rise in misinformation and disinformation on social media, traditional media have faced serious challenges. Newsrooms have shrunk, and specialized science journalists are a rare breed outside major outlets. Local newspapers – once a reliable venue for highlighting state university breakthroughs or healthcare innovations – have been severely impacted. The U.S. has lost over 3,300 newspapers since 2005, with closures continuing and more than 7,000 newspaper jobs vanished between 2022 and 2023 according to a Northwestern University Medill Report on Local News. Competition for coverage is fierce, and your story really needs to shine to grab a journalist's attention – or you need to find alternative ways to reach audiences directly. The Big Message These Trends are Sending We can’t just assume goodwill – universities have to earn trust through clear, relatable communication. Less money means more competition and more scrutiny on outcomes. That's why communications teams play a pivotal role here: by conveying the impact of research to the public and decision-makers, they help build the case for why cuts to science are harmful. Remember, despite partisan divides, a strong majority – 78% of Americans – still agree government investment in scientific research is worthwhile. We need to keep it that way. But there's still a lot of work to do. The Audience Mismatch Problem The public doesn't care about your Altmetrics score. The policymakers I meet don't get excited about journal impact factors. Donors want to fund solutions to problems they understand, not citations in journals they'll never read. Yet our expert systems are still designed around these traditional academic metrics because that's what the people building them understand. It's not their fault—but it's created a blind spot. "Impact isn't just journal articles anymore," one EFS conference panelist explained. "It's podcasts, blogs, media mentions, datasets, even the community partnerships we build." But walk into most research offices, and those broader impacts are either invisible in the system or buried under layers of academic jargon that external audiences can't penetrate. Expert systems have traditionally been primarily focused on academic audiences. They're brilliant at tracking h-Index scores, citation counts, and journal impact factors. But try to use them to show a state legislator how your agriculture research is helping local farmers, or explain to a donor how your engineering faculty is solving real-world problems? There's still work to do here. As one frustrated speaker put it: "These systems have become compliance-driven, inward-looking tools. They help administrators, but they don't help the public understand why research matters. The Science Translation Crisis Perhaps the most sobering observation came from another EFS Conference speaker who said it very plainly. "If we can't explain our work in plain language, we lose taxpayers. We lose the community. They don't see themselves in what we do." However, this feels more like a communication problem masquerading as a technology issue. We've built systems that speak fluent academic, but the audiences we need to reach speak human. When research descriptions are buried in jargon, when impact metrics are incomprehensible to lay audiences, when success stories require a PhD to understand—we're actively pushing away the very people we need to engage. The AI Disruption Very Few Saw Coming Yes, AI, like everywhere else, is fast making its mark on how research gets discovered. One impassioned speaker representing a university system described this new reality: "We are entering an age where no one needs to click on content. AI systems will summarize and cite without ever sending the traffic back." Think about what this means for a lot of faculty research. If it's not structured for both AI discovery and human interaction, your world-class faculty might as well be invisible. Increasingly, you will see that search traffic isn't coming back to your beautifully designed university pages—instead, it's being "synthesized" and served up in AI-generated summaries. I've provided a more detailed overview of how AI-generated summaries work in a previous post here. Keep in mind, this isn't a technical problem that IT can solve alone. It's a fundamental communications challenge about how we structure, present, and distribute information about our expertise. Faculty Fatigue is Real Meanwhile, many faculty are experiencing serious challenges managing busy schedules and mounting responsibilities. As another EFS panelist commented on the challenges of engaging faculty in reporting and communicating their research, saying, "Many faculty see this work as duplicative. It's another burden on top of what they already have. Without clear incentives, adoption will always lag." Faculty researchers are busy people. They will engage with these internal systems when they see direct benefits. Media inquiries, speaking opportunities, consulting gigs, policy advisory roles—the kind of external visibility that advances careers and amplifies research impact. And they require more support than many institutions can provide. Yet, many universities have just one or two people trying to manage thousands of profiles, with no clear strategy for demonstrating how tasks such as profile updates and helping approve media releases and stories translate into tangible opportunities. In short, we're asking faculty to feed a system that feels like it doesn't feed them back. Breaking Down the Silos Which brings me to my main takeaway: we need more marketing and communications professionals in these conversations. The expert systems community is focused on addressing many of the technical challenges—data integration, workflow optimization, and new metadata standards — as AI transforms how we conduct research. But they're wrestling with fundamental communication challenges about audience, messaging, and impact storytelling. That's the uncomfortable truth. The systems are evolving whether we participate or not. The public pressure for accountability isn't going away. Comms professionals can either help shape these systems to serve critical communications goals or watch our expertise get lost in translation. ⸻ Key Takeaways Get Closer to Your Research: This involves having a deeper understanding of the management systems you use across the campus. How is your content appearing to external audiences? —not just research administrators, but the journalists, policymakers, donors, and community members we're trying to reach. Don't Forget The Importance of Stories: Push for plain-language research descriptions without unnecessarily "dumbing down" the research. Show how the work your faculty is doing can create real-world benefits at a local community level. Also, demonstrate how it has the potential to address global issues, further enhancing your authority. And always be on the lookout for story angles that connect the research to relevant news, adding value for journalists. Structure Expert Content for AI Discoverability: Audit your content to see how it's showing up on key platforms such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT. Show faculty how keeping their information fresh and relevant translates to career opportunities they actually care about. Show Up at These Research Events: Perhaps most importantly, communications pros need to be part of these conversations. Next year's International Forum on Expert Finder Systems needs more communications professionals, marketing strategists, and storytelling experts in the room. The research leaders, administrators and IT professionals you will meet have a lot of challenges on their plate and want to do the right thing. They will appreciate your input. These systems are being rapidly redesigned - Whether you're part of the conversation or not. The question is: do we want to influence how they serve our institutions' communications goals, or do we want to inherit systems that work brilliantly for academic audiences but get a failing grade for helping us serve the public?
#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point
When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant. This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment. From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences. This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t. When Obedience Becomes a Liability In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design. This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked. The Challenge of AI Accountability What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making. In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation. The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks. There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies. Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand. There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply? Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems. The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.
The Fed Just Cut interest Rates - What's Mean for Americans and What Does it Say about the Economy?
For the first time since December interest rates are being cut and all indicators point to even more signaled more cuts coming this year. The reactions so far have been mixed. The markets held steady but made no bold moves. And the opinions on how this will impact housing and home sales was also mixed with President Trump raving that housing will "soar" and others concerned about volatility. The announcement is getting a lot of media attention with reporters looking for angles, answers and what to expect for the future. And to get those answers - they need experts who understand every aspect of the economy. Dr. Jared Pincin's primary research interests explore the intersection of public choice economics with foreign aid as well as issues in sports economics. Pincin has published in popular publications such as The Hill, Real Clear Markets, Foxnews.com, and USA Today and scholarly journals such as Oxford Development Studies, Applied Economic Letters, and the Journal of Sport and Social Issues. View his profile here Dr. Haymond joined the faculty at Cedarville University in 2010 after a 29-year career in the United States Air Force. He taught at the United States Air Force Academy and was an Air Force Fellow at The Brookings Institution. His research has been published in scholarly journals such as the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Public Choice, the Journal of Public Choice and Public Finance, and Journal of Faith and Economics. His current research interests include economics and religion, as well as monetary theory. View his profile here Looking to know more? We can help. Jared Pincin and Jeff Haymond are both available to speak with media - simply click on either expert's icon to arrange an interview today.
Michael McClure, Ph.D., associate professor from the Department of Biomedical Engineering and affiliate faculty in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and in the Institute for Engineering and Medicine, has been named chair of the Orthopaedic Research Society’s (ORS) newly launched Skeletal Muscle Section. The section began in August 2025, building on research interest groups and symposia to create a dedicated home for skeletal muscle studies within ORS. Its mission is to advance collaboration, innovation, education and translation in this field. Skeletal muscle disorders cause disability, chronic pain and high health care costs. Severe injuries and degenerative diseases, such as muscular dystrophies, remain difficult to treat. The section will strengthen research in muscle development, aging, trauma, disuse and disease. This work will expand the basic understanding of and identify therapeutic targets to restore function. In its first year, the section will measure success through increased skeletal muscle abstracts at the 2027 ORS Annual Meeting, growth in ORS membership and active participation in section programs. “We are thrilled to launch the Skeletal Muscle Section,” McClure said. “This home for translational muscle research will build on ORS progress over the past 10 years, help recruit new members and foster an environment that connects multiple areas of orthopaedic science.” McClure’s commitment to this work is shaped by his family’s experience with neuromuscular diseases, witnessing the impact of war-related injuries on patients’ quality of life from the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the momentum of translational discovery. Learn more about the ORS Skeletal Muscle Section.
First scientific paper on 3I/ATLAS interstellar object
When the news started to spread on July 1, 2025, about a new object that was spotted from outside our solar system, only the third of its kind ever known, astronomers at Michigan State University — along with a team of international researchers — turned their telescopes to capture data on the new celestial sighting. The team rushed to write a scientific paper on what they know so far about the object, now called 3I/ATLAS, after NASA’s Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System, or ATLAS. ATLAS consists of four telescopes — two in Hawaii, one in Chile and one in South Africa — which automatically scans the whole sky several times every night looking for moving objects. MSU’s Darryl Seligman, a member of the scientific team and an assistant professor in the College of Natural Science, took the lead on writing the paper. “I heard something about the object before I went to bed, but we didn’t have a lot of information yet,” Seligman said. “By the time I woke up around 1 a.m., my colleagues, Marco Micheli from the European Space Agency and Davide Farnocchia from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, were emailing me that this was likely for real. I started sending messages telling everyone to turn their telescopes to look at this object and started writing the paper to document what we know to date. We have data coming in from across the globe about this object.” The discovery Larry Denneau, a member of the ATLAS team reviewed and submitted the observations from the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile shortly after it was observed on the night of July 1. Denneau said that he was cautiously excited. “We have had false alarms in the past about interesting objects, so we know not to get too excited on the first day. But the incoming observations were all consistent, and late that night it looked like we had the real thing. “It is especially gratifying that we found it in the Milky Way in the direction of the galactic center, which is a very challenging place to survey for asteroids because of all the stars in the background,” Denneau said. “Most other surveys don't look there.” John Tonry, another member of ATLAS and professor at the University of Hawaii, was instrumental in design and construction of ATLAS, the survey that discovered 3I. Tonry said, “It's really gratifying every time our hard work surveying the sky discovers something new, and this comet that has been traveling for millions of years from another star system is particularly interesting.” Once 3I/ATLAS was confirmed, Seligman and Karen Meech, faculty chair for the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, both managed the communications flow and worked on getting the data pulled together for submitting the paper. “Once 3I/ATLAS was identified as likely interstellar, we mobilized rapidly,” Meech said. “We activated observing time on major facilities like the Southern Astrophysical Research Telescope and the Gemini Observatory to capture early, high-quality data and build a foundation for detailed follow-up studies.” After confirmation of the interstellar object, institutions from around the world began sharing information about 3I/ATLAS with Seligman. What scientists know about 3I/ATLAS so far Though data is pouring in about the discovery, it’s still so far away from Earth, which leaves many unanswered questions. Here’s what the scientific team knows at this point: It is only the third interstellar (meaning from outside our solar system) object to be detected passing through our solar system. It’s potentially giving off gas like other comets do, but that needs to be confirmed. It’s moving really fast at 60 kilometers per second, or 134,000 miles per hour, relative to the sun. It’s on an orbital path that is shaped like a boomerang or hyperbola. It’s very bright. It’s on a path that will leave our solar system and not return, but scientists will be able to study it for several months before it leaves. The James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope are expected to reveal more information about its size, composition, spin and how it reacts to being heated over the next few months. “We have these images of 3I/ATLAS where it’s not entirely clear and it looks fuzzier than the other stars in the same image,” said James Wray, a professor at Georgia Tech. “But the object is pretty far away and, so, we just don’t know.” Seligman and his team are specifically interested in 3I/ATLAS’s brightness because it informs us about the evolution of the coma, a cloud of dust and gas. They’ve been tracking it to see if it has been changing over time as the object moves and turns in space. They also want to monitor for sudden outburst events in which the object gets much brighter. “3I/ATLAS likely contains ices, especially below the surface, and those ices may start to activate as it nears the sun,” Seligman said. “But until we detect specific gas emissions, like H₂O, CO or CO₂, we can’t say for sure what kinds of ice or how much are there.” The discovery of 3I/ATLAS is just the beginning. For Tessa Frincke, who came to MSU in late June to begin her career as a doctoral student with Seligman, having the opportunity to analyze data from 3I/ATLAS to predict its future path could lead to her publishing a scientific paper of her own. “I’ve had to learn a lot quickly, and I was shocked at how many people were involved,” said Frincke. “Discoveries like this have a domino effect that inspires novel engineering and mission planning.” For Atsuhiro Yaginuma, a fourth-year undergraduate student on Seligman’s team, this discovery has inspired him to apply his current research to see if it is possible to launch a spacecraft from Earth to get it within hundreds of miles or kilometers to 3I/ATLAS to capture some images and learn more about the object. “The closest approach to Earth will be in December,” said Yaginuma. “It would require a lot of fuel and a lot of rapid mobilization from people here on Earth. But getting close to an interstellar object could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” “We can’t continue to do this research and experiment with new ideas from Frincke and Yaginuma without federal funding,” said Seligman, who also is a postdoctoral fellow of the National Science Foundation. Seligman and Aster Taylor, who is a former student of Seligman’s and now a doctoral candidate in astronomy and astrophysics and a 2023 Fannie and John Hertz Foundation Fellow, wrote the following: “At a critical moment, given the current congressional discussions on science funding, 3I/ATLAS also reminds us of the broader impact of astronomical research. An example like 3I is particularly important to astronomy — as a science, we are supported almost entirely by government and philanthropic funding. The fact that this science is not funded by commercial enterprise indicates that our field does not provide a financial return on investment, but instead responds to the public’s curiosity about the deep questions of the universe: Where did we come from? Are we alone? What else is out there? The curiosity of the public, as expressed by the will of the U.S. Congress and made manifest in the federal budget, is the reason that astronomy exists.” In addition to MSU, contributors to this research and paper include European Space Agency Near-Earth Objects Coordination Centre (Italy), NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech (USA), University of Hawaii (USA), Auburn University (USA), Universidad de Alicante (Spain), Universitat de Barcelona (Spain), European Southern Observatory (Germany), Villanova University (USA), Lowell Observatory (USA), University of Maryland (USA), Las Cumbres Observatory (USA), University of Belgrade (Serbia), Politecnico di Milano (Italy), University of Michigan (USA), University of Western Ontario (Canada), Georgia Institute of Technology (USA), Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago (Chile) and Boston University (USA).
LSU, FUEL, Syngenta Partner to Develop Low-cost Digital Twins for Chemical Processing Facilities
Derick Ostrenko and Jason Jamerson, faculty in the LSU College of Art & Design, along with engineering advisor David Ben Spry, are pioneering a new approach to industrial innovation using digital twins. The effort is supported by a $217,403 use-inspired research and development (UIRD) award from Future Use of Energy in Louisiana (FUEL). Digital twins are highly detailed, virtual replicas of physical assets. The technology is used in engineering to enhance efficiency, safety, and training; however, their creation often requires costly specialized hardware, proprietary software, and engineering-intensive workflows. “This initiative not only advances digital twin technology but also highlights the interdisciplinary power of design and engineering,” FUEL UIRD Director Ashwith Chilvery said. “By applying creative tools in an industrial setting, we’re demonstrating new ways to lower costs and expand access to advanced digital infrastructure.” The collaborative effort between LSU, FUEL, and Syngenta aims to reduce costs by applying techniques more commonly used in the entertainment industry, leveraging free and open-source software and consumer-grade hardware, such as gaming PCs and digital cameras. Most of the work will be conducted by digital art students skilled in 3D modeling and video game production, offering a cost-effective alternative to traditional engineering services. “3D artists and game developers bring both technical expertise and creative vision that can add significant value when paired with traditional engineering approaches,” Spry said. “We’re eager to demonstrate how this talent pool can help accelerate digital transformation in industry.” “Working with an innovative company like Syngenta to advance digital twins for chemical manufacturing is an outstanding opportunity for our researchers and students, and we’re proud of the techniques and talent we’ve developed at LSU. FUEL’s support of digital twin development for the energy and chemical sectors helps build this technology and unique artistry in Louisiana, for our industries, and for the rest of the nation.” - Greg Trahan, LSU Assistant Vice President of Strategic Research Partnerships In addition to producing a high-fidelity digital twin of a process unit within an active chemical manufacturing facility, the project will deliver a virtual reality application that allows immersive interaction with the 3D model. Future extensions may include augmented reality overlays of physical equipment or integration of live process data for real-time monitoring and troubleshooting. The ultimate outcome of the project is a validated workflow that reduces the cost of producing digital twins by a factor of at least five compared to conventional engineering methods. This breakthrough has the potential to redefine digital infrastructure for the chemical processing industry, making it more accessible, scalable, and adaptable to future needs. Learn more about LSU's digital twin work with Syngenta as well as NASA: About FUEL Future Use of Energy in Louisiana (FUEL) positions the state as a global energy innovation leader through high-impact technology development and innovation that supports the energy industry in lowering carbon emissions. FUEL brings together a growing team of universities, community and technical colleges, state agencies and industry and capital partners led by LSU. With the potential to receive up to $160 million in funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation through the NSF Regional Innovation Engines program and an additional $67.5 million from Louisiana Economic Development, FUEL will advance our nation’s capacity for energy innovation through use-inspired research and development, workforce development, and technology commercialization. For more information, visit fuelouisiana.org. About Syngenta Syngenta Crop Protection is a global leader in agricultural innovation. It is focused on empowering farmers to make the transformation required to feed the world’s population while protecting our planet. Its bold scientific discoveries deliver better benefits for farmers and society on a bigger scale than ever before. Syngenta CP offers a leading portfolio of crop protection technologies and solutions that support farmers to grow healthier plants with higher yields. Its 17,700 employees are helping to transform agriculture in more than 90 countries. Syngenta Crop Protection is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, and is part of the Syngenta Group. Read our stories and follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram & X.
