Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
ChristianaCare Breaks Ground on New Middletown Health Center
ChristianaCare today broke ground on its new Health Center at Middletown, marking a major milestone in bringing expanded, affordable and exceptional care to families in southern New Castle County and northern Kent County. The center is expected to open in spring 2027. The $92.3 million project reflects a deep investment in the health and vitality of the region and is part of ChristianaCare’s larger plan, announced in July, to invest more than $865 million in Delaware over the next three years. The 87,000-square-foot Health Center will rise at 621 Middletown Odessa Road, next to ChristianaCare’s existing freestanding emergency department. Designed as a modern, multidisciplinary hub, the facility will expand access to comprehensive services and create more than 70 new full-time jobs, boosting both community health and the local economy. “Today we take an exciting step forward for Delaware, as part of ChristianaCare’s $865 million investment to expand access and strengthen health across our state,” said Janice E. Nevin, M.D., MPH, President and CEO of ChristianaCare. “This new health center is a promise to Delawareans: that they will have access to exceptional care close to home, delivered with love and excellence. More than a building, it represents our vision for healthier communities, our deep commitment to those we serve, and a future where every neighbor can thrive.” A Holistic, Patient-Centered Experience The ChristianaCare Health Center at Middletown will bring together a wide range of services in one convenient location, including: Primary and specialty care. Women’s health, behavioral health, oncology, cardiovascular care, pediatrics, neurology, imaging, diagnostics and lab testing. Hybrid exam rooms with interactive digital tools that allow family members to join virtually. Calming waiting areas with sensory-sensitive design features, plus friendly floor ambassadors to help patients navigate the building. Healing environments that include walking trails and abundant natural light. “We are designing care around people, not around appointments or buildings,” said Pauline Corso, president of Ambulatory Network Continuity and Growth at ChristianaCare. “From easy parking to advanced care coordination, every detail of this new center is aimed at making health care more welcoming, more connected and more human.” A Community Partnership ChristianaCare has been part of the Middletown community since 2009, when it first acquired the land that is now home to the freestanding emergency department. Last year, that facility provided care for more than 32,000 patient visits. “This groundbreaking is a proud moment for our town,” said Ken Branner, mayor of Middletown. “ChristianaCare has been a trusted partner for many years, and this new facility shows a lasting commitment to our residents. It will bring top-quality care closer to home and create good jobs right here in our community.”
The History of Government Shutdowns in America
Few events capture Washington gridlock more visibly than a government shutdown. While rare in the nation’s early history, shutdowns have become a recurring feature of modern politics—bringing uncertainty for federal workers, disruptions to public services, and ripple effects across the economy. How It Started The modern shutdown era began in the 1970s after a new law, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, established a formal budget process. Before then, funding disputes didn’t usually halt operations. But a key shift came in 1980, when the Carter administration’s Justice Department concluded that, without approved appropriations, agencies had no legal authority to spend money. That ruling set the stage for shutdowns as we know them today. Since then, the U.S. has endured more than 20 funding gaps, ranging from brief lapses over a weekend to the record-long 35-day shutdown of 2018–2019. Each one has highlighted the partisan battles over federal spending, immigration, healthcare, or other policy priorities. Why They Happen Shutdowns occur when Congress fails to pass, and the president fails to sign, appropriations bills or temporary funding measures known as continuing resolutions. In practice, they reflect deeper political standoffs: one branch of government using the threat of a shutdown to force concessions on controversial issues. They can be triggered by disputes over budget size, specific programs, or broader ideological fights. In many cases, the standoff ends when mounting political and economic costs make compromise unavoidable. What Gets Impacted The effects of a shutdown are immediate and wide-ranging: Federal Workforce: Hundreds of thousands of employees are furloughed without pay, while others deemed “essential” must work without immediate compensation. Public Services: National parks close, permits stall, museums shutter, and routine government operations—from food inspections to scientific research—are delayed. Economic Ripple Effects: Contractors lose revenue, local economies near federal facilities take a hit, and financial markets often react nervously. Extended shutdowns can even slow GDP growth. Citizens’ Daily Lives: From delayed tax refunds to halted small business loans, ordinary Americans feel the squeeze when government services pause. Why This Matters Government shutdowns are more than political theater—they expose the fragility of the budget process and the real consequences of partisan impasse. They highlight the dependence of millions of Americans on public services and raise questions about the cost of dysfunction in the world’s largest economy. Understanding why they happen and what’s impacted helps citizens gauge not just the politics of Washington, but also how governance—or the lack of it—touches everyday life. Connect with our experts about the history, causes, and consequences of government shutdowns in America. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com
ChristianaCare’s Virtual Primary Care practice at the Center for Virtual Health has earned full accreditation from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), placing it among the first health systems in the nation to achieve this distinction. ChristianaCare was one of only 18 organizations invited to participate in NCQA’s inaugural pilot program in 2023 to develop the Virtual Care Accreditation. The recognition affirms ChristianaCare’s leadership role in shaping the future of health care and its commitment to delivering accessible, equitable and patient-centered care through innovative digital platforms. “This accreditation is a powerful validation of our vision to reimagine health care,” said Sarah Schenck, M.D., FACP, executive director of ChristianaCare’s Center for Virtual Health. “We’ve built a model that meets people where they are—at home, at work or on the go—with care that is personal, proactive and powered by love and excellence.” What Accreditation Means for Patients NCQA accreditation underscores that ChristianaCare’s Center for Virtual Health meets rigorous standards for: Clinical quality and safety: clear care protocols, escalation pathways and outcome monitoring. Access and equity: technology, language and disability-inclusive design that extends care to more people. Data privacy and security: strong safeguards to protect personal health information. ChristianaCare’s participation in NCQA’s pilot helped shape the benchmarks now used nationwide. The center delivers comprehensive virtual primary care through a multidisciplinary team that includes physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, behavioral health specialists, pharmacists and patient digital ambassadors. Virtual Care by the Numbers In 2024, ChristianaCare’s Center for Virtual Health provided more than 7,500 patient visits, reflecting both rapid growth and strong demand for its virtual-first model. Services are offered at no copay to ChristianaCare caregivers and their dependents, while availability continues to expand across Delaware and the region “At ChristianaCare, we believe virtual care isn’t just a convenience, it’s a catalyst for better health outcomes,” said Brad Sandella, D.O., MBA, medical director, Ambulatory Care for the Center for Virtual Health. “This accreditation affirms our commitment to innovation and excellence. We’re proud to be among the pioneers defining what high-quality virtual care looks like in America.” Beginning in 2026, ChristianaCare will expand its Virtual Primary Care practice, giving a broader consumer audience convenient access to primary care. At that time, the service will be covered by most insurance carriers and continue to feature dedicated providers in areas such as behavioral health and neurology. ChristianaCare will also continue working with NCQA and other partners to advance best practices nationwide.
Simulations of Exoplanet Formation May Help Inform Search for Extraterrestrial Life
Florida Tech astrophysicist Howard Chen is offering new insights to help aid NASA’s search for life beyond Earth. His latest theoretical work investigates the TRAPPIST-1 planetary system, one of the most widely studied exoplanetary systems in the galaxy. It has captured scientists’ attention for its potential to host water, and thus possibly life, on its planets. Now, he’s offering an explanation for why telescopes have yet to find definitive signs of either. The paper “Born Dry or Born Wet? A Palette of Water Growth Histories in TRAPPIST-1 Analogs and Compact Planetary Systems” was authored by Chen, an assistant professor of space sciences, and researchers from NASA, Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University, was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters in September. It explores the likelihood that TRAPPIST-1’s three innermost exoplanets contained no water when they formed, despite existing in a zone where water is viable. TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf star located about 40 light-years away from us. (One light year is about 6 trillion miles.) It is thought to be about 7.6 billion years old, or 3 billion years older than our Sun. Astronomers are captivated by the TRAPPIST-1 system because its seven known planets are rocky and Earth-like. They also fall within the star’s habitable zone: the distance range from a star at which temperatures are not too hot or cold to support liquid water. Researchers are searching for any evidence of water on these planets, but have yet to detect anything. Some think a lack of gas in the atmosphere is disrupting the light needed to pick up detailed visuals. Others predict water could have escaped the planets’ atmospheres throughout their evolution. Chen and his team, however, decided to research a different theory: that there was no water to begin with because there was no gas to contain it. He would test it not from an observational perspective, but with mathematical modeling of the planets’ initial formation. “You have astronomers who are using telescopes to see what’s out there. I come from a different perspective,” Chen said. “I’m both trying to explain what we’re seeing while trying to make predictions about what we can’t.” The researchers created models that examined the composition and growth of these planets starting when they were as small as one kilometer wide. They simulated how material aggregated during collisions with other celestial objects until they reached their final planetary formations. There are several key factors in collision events that heavily influence a planet’s final composition. Chen’s models incorporated impact delivery, which is the transfer of materials like water and gases during a celestial collision; impact erosion, which refers to the removal of materials in a planet’s atmosphere due to impact; and mantle-atmosphere exchange, which is the transfer of water and gases between a planet’s atmosphere and mantle to maintain its conditions. The team ran hundreds of collision simulations, which returned thousands of different possibilities for how TRAPPIST-1’s planets might have formed. They varied several components, such as the amount of water available to the system, the profile of the initial planet formation environment, the planets’ density profiles and the initial system conditions. For the inner worlds, specifically the first three planets, most of the simulations came back dry. “Whatever we did, we couldn’t get much water in these inner planets,” Chen said. He believes that the main reason the planets couldn’t acquire water is due to the nature of the collision events. Compact planet collisions are higher velocity, so they are more aggressive and energetic, Chen said. This means that instead of acquiring material for a gaseous atmosphere, planets’ atmospheres were completely cleared out by the power of the collisions. With no gas in the atmosphere to contain water, it’s possible that any previously existing water escaped back into space during these collision events. Understanding a planet’s earliest characteristics, its water, air and carbon content, builds the foundation for how they evolve. That way, when researchers identify a planet that seems viable for life at the surface level, they can use Chen’s model to simulate what these distant worlds might be like on the inside, on the surface and in the air. Combining the theoretical context of a planet’s formation with the state in which it was discovered can help researchers – and NASA – make informed, efficient decisions on which planets are worth investigating and when it’s time to move on to the next. If you're interested in connecting with Howard Chen about the search for life beyond Earth, let us help. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Assistant Vice President for External Affairs at Florida Institute of Technology, at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.
#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.
America's literacy emergency continues; experts available with solutions
September is more than back-to-school season. It is also National Literacy Month. This return to the classroom and yearly recognition remind us of the urgent need to ensure every child has the literacy skills to thrive in school and beyond. One such example of this is Delaware. Despite recent gains in statewide test scores, Delaware leaders have warned: a literacy emergency persists. Too many children – especially those from marginalized communities – are still being left behind in reading proficiency. The University of Delaware’s College of Education and Human Development is helping to change that. CEHD’s literacy experts are advancing research, building partnerships, and equipping educators with evidence-based strategies that make an impact. Annastasia Purinton and Steve Amendum work with the WTG Foundation to strengthen school-community partnerships that bring literacy support directly to students who need it most. Stephanie Del Tufo, whose recent essay in The Conversation spotlighted the science of reading, studies how early learning and memory processes shape literacy development. Adrian Pasquarella focuses on multilingual learners, helping educators bridge language learning and literacy growth – an area of growing importance in Delaware’s diverse classrooms. Rebecca Joella and colleagues at the Delaware Institute for Excellence in Early Childhood are leading professional development efforts that equip early educators to foster strong literacy skills from the start. These experts bring research to life – translating what works in the classroom into scalable practices and policies. Their work underscores a powerful truth: literacy is not just an academic milestone, it is the foundation for opportunity, equity and lifelong success. As Delaware and the nation confront the literacy crisis, CEHD stands at the forefront with the evidence, expertise and partnerships to make a lasting difference. To speak to any of these experts, please email mediarelations@udel.edu.
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.
Georgia Southern biology professor named 2025-26 Fulbright U.S. Scholar to Vietnam
Stephen Greiman, Ph.D., associate professor of biology in Georgia Southern University’s College of Science and Mathematics, has been awarded a 2025-26 Fulbright U.S. Scholar award to Vietnam where he will lead a teaching and research project focused on parasite diversity in bats. “Dr. Greiman is further proof that Georgia Southern faculty are among the best in their fields,” said Avinandan (Avi) Mukherjee, Ph.D., provost and executive vice president for Academic Affairs. “We are incredibly proud of this achievement and all the hard work that goes into such a celebrated milestone paying off.” Greiman’s Fulbright work will build on more than a decade of collaboration with Vietnamese scientists. During graduate school, he began working with parasitologists in Vietnam and participated in field expeditions in 2013 and 2014. That early partnership has since blossomed into multiple co-authored publications and enduring collegial friendships. Vietnam, Greiman explained, is a natural fit for this project. “Its exceptional biodiversity and the significant burden of parasitic infections across humans, domestic animals and wildlife make it a particularly relevant and meaningful host country for my research,” he said. “Our shared goal is to advance awareness and understanding of parasite diversity among students and the public.” During his grant period, Greiman will teach a parasitology course at Hai Duong Medical Technical University. He will also conduct field and laboratory research in partnership with the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology’s Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources and the Department of Parasitology. His research will involve sampling and analyzing the parasites and microbiomes of Vietnamese bats—a project designed to engage both undergraduate and graduate students in hands-on scientific inquiry. “International collaborations often yield more impactful research than national projects alone,” Greiman noted. “This award not only strengthens our scientific goals but offers my family a chance to immerse ourselves in a new culture. It’s an experience we’re incredibly grateful for.” Beyond fieldwork, Greiman hopes the Fulbright project will open doors for new exchange programs between Georgia Southern and Vietnamese institutions. He envisions Georgia Southern students spending semesters abroad and returning with global perspectives that enrich their academic and personal growth. “The data and experiences I bring back will directly inform my courses, including parasitology and biology of microorganisms,” Greiman said. “I’ll also use our findings to support undergraduate and graduate research projects, pursue new grant opportunities and publish in high-impact journals.” He credits the Fulbright program with not only enabling his research abroad but also cultivating cultural exchange, particularly by allowing families to travel with awardees. His wife, who has a background in the arts, is excited to explore Vietnam’s artistic traditions, while their two young children will experience a culture far different from their own. “Vietnam is rich in natural and cultural history,” he said. “We’re looking forward to embracing it fully, both in the field and in everyday life.” Greiman’s selection is both a professional milestone and a personal journey—one shaped by long-standing collaborations, a deep commitment to global science, and the mentorship of Georgia Southern Vice President for Research and Economic Development David Weindorf, Ph.D. “Although I was initially hesitant to apply due to the program’s competitiveness, I was inspired by Dr. Weindorf’s own transformative experiences as a Fulbright Scholar and Specialist,” Greiman said. “His guidance and support helped me see the incredible potential of this opportunity—not just for my research, but for my family and our students.” That encouragement reflects a strong professional relationship rooted in mutual respect and a shared commitment to international collaboration. “I am so proud of Dr. Greiman’s selection as a Fulbright Scholar,” said Weindorf. “The benefits of the exchange will truly be lifelong, with new friends, colleagues and connections formed and cultivated. We look forward to celebrating the lives Dr. Greiman touches, both through his teaching and research, as a meritorious ambassador of Georgia Southern University.” For Greiman, the Fulbright award marks just the beginning of a broader vision. “This experience will generate foundational data for future National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health proposals and deepen our international partnerships,” he said. “Being selected as a Fulbright Scholar is an extraordinary honor and a chance to contribute meaningfully to a global legacy of scholarship, cultural exchange and scientific discovery.” He encourages fellow faculty members considering the program to apply. “Go for it,” he said. “Your chances are zero if you don’t try. The Fulbright is one of the few opportunities that blends extended research, cultural immersion and family inclusion. It’s life-changing—and absolutely worth it.” If you're interested in knowing more about Stephen Greiman's work or more about his Fullbright award - simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
The Sky’s the Limit: Researching surface impacts to improve the durability of aircraft
Associate professor Ibrahim Guven, Ph.D. from the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering is conducting a research project funded by the Department of Defense (DoD) that explores building aircraft for military purposes and civilian transportation that can travel more than five times the speed of sound. Guven’s role in this project is to consider the durability of aircraft surfaces against elements such as rain, ice, and debris. His research group is composed of Ph.D. students who assist with the study and has collaborated with other institutions, including the University of Minnesota, Stevens Institute of Technology and the University of Maryland. Why did you get involved with this research project? The intersection of need and our interests decides what we research. I’m interested in physics and have been working on methods to strengthen aircraft exteriors against the elements for 12 years. We started with looking at sand particle impact damage, and then we graduated from that to studying raindrop impact because that’s a more challenging problem. Sand impact is not as challenging in terms of physics. A liquid and a solid behave differently under impact conditions. The shape of the raindrop changes prior to the impact due to the shock layer ahead of the aircraft. Researching this impact requires simulating the raindrop-shock layer interaction that gives us the shape of the droplet at the time of contact with the aircraft surface. Unlike with sand, analyzing raindrop impact starts at that point, which requires accurate modeling of the pressure being applied. As the aerospace community achieves faster speeds, there’s a need to understand what will affect a flight’s safety and the aircraft’s structural integrity. That need is what I’m helping to fulfill. Were there any challenges you and your research group faced while working on this study? How did you overcome them? Finding data was hard. I’m a computational scientist, meaning I implement mathematical differential equations that govern physics to write computer code that predicts how something will behave. My experiments are virtual, so to ensure that my models work well, I need experimental data for validation. However, conducting experiments on this problem is extremely challenging. That’s the roadblock. Currently, we refer to data from the seventies and eighties. Beyond that, this kind of information is not available. We are working to generate data that my computational methods need for their validation. An example is the nylon bead impact experiment. Some researchers found that if you shoot a nylon bead at a target, it leads to damage similar to that from a raindrop of the same size. It is much easier and cheaper to shoot nylon beads compared to the experiments involving raindrops. However, this similarity vanishes as we go into higher velocities. How do you typically gather data for a project of this nature? We are working with a laboratory under the U.S. Navy. They can accelerate specimens to relevant speeds, meaning they can shoot them into the air at the desired velocity. A colleague at Stevens Institute of Technology also came up with a droplet levitator. He uses acoustic waves emitted by tiny speakers to play a certain sound at a certain frequency to create enough air pressure to suspend droplets midair. To an untrained eye, it looks like magic. They levitate droplets and use a railgun to shoot our samples at the droplets. Our samples hitting the droplets are stand-ins for the aircraft surface material. Once this is done successfully, they shoot a sample with high-speed cameras that can take ten million frames per second. As a result, we get a good, high-fidelity picture of this impact event. That is the type of data I’m seeking, and this is how I get it from my collaborators. What was your overall experience working with the students in your research group? I like to think it was positive. I try to be a nice advisor and give them space to explore, fail, and bring their own ideas. Even if I feel like we’re at a dead-end, I step back and let them figure it out. My role is to help them grow. Teach them, train them and help them along the way. That’s the experience. Did you notice any personal changes in your students during this project? Yeah, I have. When they’re just out of their undergraduate programs, confidence is lacking sometimes. You see them become more sure of themselves as they learn more and more. Often, regardless of whether English is their native language or not, writing is a big issue for every student. How one presents ideas in written form is a persistent problem in engineering. I see the most growth in that area. Again, an advisor has to be a guide and also have patience. Eventually, after working on multiple paper drafts, I can see tremendous improvement. You must allow them to see their shortcomings. It’s important to work with students to refine how they frame a problem, explain it to a wide audience in concise terms, and use neutral language without leading them to certain conclusions. Why do you think that this research is important? Somebody has to do it, right? I believe that I’m the right person because of my background. Personally, I think if this research makes for safer travel conditions, and if I have something to offer, then why not? If we can accurately simulate what happens in these conditions, we can use our methods to test out designs for damage mitigation. For example, we can perform simulations with different surface materials for the aircraft to see if using a different material or layered coating system leads to less damage. In a bigger picture, we’re working on a very narrow problem in our field, but we don’t know how useful that’s going to be in 10, 15 or 30 years from now. Whatever we study and put out there in terms of publications, it may help some other researcher in a different context many years later. This could be space research, modeling an atmosphere on a different planet, or something that is related to our bodies. There are parts of physics in this problem that do not necessarily only apply to high-speed flight. It could be many different things. One has to understand that what is studied may seem obscure today, but because the universe is more or less governed by the same physics, everything should be put in a theoretical framework, done right and shared with the community. People may learn things that could become relevant in the future. It’s not uncommon. What is another subject that you plan to study? The next natural step is coming up with strategies to mitigate damage in these scenarios. If avoiding a risk is not an option, can we actually come up with a solution? We have to determine how to modify an aircraft’s design to prevent a catastrophe. Another extension of my research would be to examine the landing of spacecraft on dusty planetary bodies. During landing on Earth, aircraft approach and reach the ground very smoothly. On the other hand, a spacecraft comes down slowly and needs a lot of reverse propulsion for a soft landing. As it does, it kicks up a large amount of dust, which blows back and hits the spacecraft. Taking into account the damage that occurs due to particle impact is a direct connection to my work. This again is an open area, and because we have ambitions to have a permanent presence on dusty places like the moon and Mars, we have to nail down the concept of landing safely. That is where my research could help.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. The oil-rich states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have a lot going for them: wealth, domestic stability and growing global influence. In recent months, these Gulf kingdoms also appear closer to something they have long sought: reliable U.S. support that has become stronger and more uncritical than ever, just as Iranian power in the region has significantly degraded. In Donald Trump, the nonelected Gulf Arab monarchs have an ally in Washington who has largely shed previous American concerns for democracy and human rights. That the American president made his first scheduled international trip of his second term to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE only underscores their international clout. Additionally, the popular overthrow of the Assad government in Syria and Israel’s war against Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Yemen have served to greatly weaken Tehran’s perceived threat to Gulf Arab interests. Yet, as an expert on Middle Eastern politics, I believe Gulf Arab countries must still navigate a regional political tightrope. And as the Israeli targeting of senior Hamas leaders in Qatar on Sept. 9, 2025, shows, events by other Middle Eastern actors have a nasty habit of derailing Gulf leaders’ plans. How these countries manage four particular uncertainties will have a significant effect on their hopes for stability and growth. 1. Managing a post-civil war Syria In Syria, years of civil war that had exacerbated splits among ethnic and religious groups finally ended in December 2024. Since then, Arab Gulf countries, which once opposed the Iranian-allied government of Bashar Assad, have been pivotal in supporting new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. They successfully lobbied the U.S. to drop sanctions. In addition to sharing mutual regional interests with Sharaa, the leaders of Gulf Arab states want a Syrian state that is free from internal war and can absorb the millions of refugees that fled the conflict to other countries in the Middle East. Gulf states can support postwar Syria diplomatically and financially. However, they can’t wish away the legacy of long war and sectarian strife. Israeli attacks on Syrian soil since Assad’s fall, as well as recent outbreaks of fighting in the Sweida region of southern Syria, underscore the ongoing fragility of the Syrian government and concerns over its ability to contain violence and migration outside of its borders. 2. The challenge of regional politics Syria illustrates a broader policy challenge for Gulf states. As their wealth, military strength and influence have grown, these countries have become dominant in the Arab world. As a result, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have invested billions of dollars in efforts to influence governments and groups across the world. This includes the mostly authoritarian governments in the Middle East and North Africa, such as Egypt’s. But here, Gulf states are torn politically. If democratic systems form elsewhere in the Arab world, this could encourage Gulf citizens to push for elected government at home. Yet overly coercive Arab governments outside of the Gulf can be prone to popular unrest and even civil war. Propping up unpopular regional governments risks backfiring on Gulf Arab leaders in one of two ways. First, it can entice Gulf states into protracted and damaging wars, such as was the case with Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s failed military intervention in Yemen against the Houthis. Second, it can drive a wedge between Gulf states, as is seen with the current conflict in Sudan, in which the Saudis and Emiratis are backing rival factions. 3. Watching which way Iran will turn Always looming behind complicated Middle Eastern politics is Iran, the historically powerful, populous, non-Arab country whose governing Shiite Islam ideology has been the chief antagonist to the Sunni-led Gulf Arab states since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Opposing Gulf Arab and American strategic interests, Iran has for years intervened aggressively in Middle Eastern politics by funding and encouraging militant Shiite groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. An assertive Iran has been especially a thorn in the side of Saudi Arabia, which strives to be the dominant Muslim majority power in the region. Dealing with Iran has required careful balancing from Qatar and the UAE, which are more directly exposed to Tehran geographically and have maintained relatively stronger relations. Given this, Gulf countries may silently welcome the decrease in Iran’s military power in the wake of Israel’s recent war against Iran and its allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, while also fearing further Iranian-Israeli conflict. At the same time, a less powerful Iran runs two types of new potential dangers for Gulf states. Should Iran become more unstable, the resulting turmoil could be felt across the region. In addition, should Iran’s military, policy and economic turmoil lead to a new political system, it could disturb Gulf countries. Neither a Muslim majority democratic government nor a more hard-line nationalist variant in Iran would sit well with nearby Gulf monarchs. Conversely, concerns that the Israeli and U.S. bombing of Iran may actually lead to increased Iranian determination to pursue a nuclear program also worry Gulf leaders. 4. Living with Israel’s military assertiveness Israel, the unquestioned military power and sole nuclear weapons state in the region, has long posed particularly deep political dilemmas to Gulf Arab states. The current challenge is how to balance the immense global unpopularity of the Israeli government’s war in Gaza – including among Gulf Arab citizens – with common strategic interests the Gulf states hold with Israel. Gulf Arab leaders face domestic and regional pressure to show solidarity for Palestinians and their aspirations for statehood. Yet Gulf rulers also share strategic goals with Israel. Along with opposition to Iranian influence, Gulf states maintain strong military links to the U.S, like Israel. They also appreciate the economic and other security value of Israel’s high-tech products, including software used for espionage and cybersecurity. This helps explain the UAE’s 2019 decision to join the short list of Arab states with full diplomatic relations with Israel. Hamas attacked Israel in 2023 in part to stop Saudi Arabia from following suit – something that might have further sidelined Palestinians’ bargaining power. Indeed, moves toward open Saudi diplomatic recognition of Israel were stopped by Hamas’ attack and the global backlash that followed Israel’s ongoing devastation of Gaza. Gulf leaders may still believe that normalized ties with Israel would be good for the long-term economic prospects of the region. And Bahrain and the UAE – the two Gulf Arab states with diplomatic relations with Israel – have not backed away from their official relationship. Yet expanding open relations with Israel further, and taking in other Gulf states, is unlikely without a real reversal in Israel’s policy toward Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank. All this is more true in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s attack in Qatar – the first time Israel has launched a direct strike within a Gulf Arab state. That action, even if ostensibly directed at Hamas, is likely to exacerbate tensions not only with Qatar but place increasing stress on the calculus allied Gulf Arab countries make in their dealings with Israel. Tricky way forward for Gulf Arab states These challenges underscore an inescapable truth for Gulf leaders: They are hostage to events beyond their control. Insulating them from that reality takes regional unity. The Gulf Cooperation Council, nearly 45 years old, was established precisely for this purpose. While it remains the most successful regional organization in the Middle East, the GCC has not always prevented major rifts, such as in 2017 when a coalition of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia cut ties with and blockaded Qatar. The conflict was resolved in 2021. Since then, the six members of the GCC have worked together more closely. No doubt, rivalries and disagreements still exist. Yet Arab Gulf leaders have learned that cooperation is useful in the face of major challenges. This can be seen in the recent collaborative diplomatic approaches toward Syria and the U.S. A second lesson comes from the broader Middle East. Key issues are often interdependent, particularly the status of Palestinians. Hamas’ attack on Israel, and the resulting destruction of much of Gaza, resurfaced the deep popularity across the region of addressing Palestinian needs and rights. The monarchs of the Arab Gulf would like to maintain their unchallenged domestic political status while expanding their influence in the Middle East and beyond. However, even when Gulf leaders wish to be done with the region’s challenges, those challenges are not always done with them. Isabella Ishanyan, a UMass Amherst undergraduate, provided research assistance for this article.
