Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Villanova Experts Reflect on the 2010s

The iPad. Hurricane Sandy. Affordable Care Act. #MeToo. Brexit. Streaming services. Since 2010, there have been so many memorable and historic events that have shifted culture and society into unfamiliar territory around the world. Two Villanova experts have put together thoughts on a few of the decade's top stories that will continue to be relevant for the next ten years—and beyond. Stephen Strader, assistant professor of geography and the environment Over the last decade we have seen the issue of anthropogenic or human-induced climate change shift from something discussed between select, interested scientists to the front page of the news on a daily basis. This dramatic change in the importance and coverage of climate change makes complete sense given six of the last ten years globally have been in the top ten warmest on record. Actually, it's very likely, if not certain, that the last five years will be the hottest globally on record. The odds of that happening naturally are very close to zero. Nowhere have the effects of a changing climate been realized more so than in the western United States, where wildfires have wreaked havoc year after year in the 2010s. States such as California, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Washington all experienced record-breaking wildfires over the last decade. Specifically, the Camp Fire in 2018 became the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history, destroying 18,000-plus homes and killing 85 people in the town of Paradise.   Additionally: Hurricanes Dorian, Irma, Harvey, Maria, etc. damaged entire countries (Puerto Rico and Bahamas) so much that there is question whether they will ever recover from the effects. The deadliest tornado season on record occurred in 2011, including the devastating April 27, 2011, tornado outbreak and the deadliest U.S. tornado in modern history, which struck Joplin, Missouri (158 fatalities). Between 2011 and 2017, drought and water shortages impacted the western U.S., with California seeing its worst drought in history (or worst in 1,200 years). The drought killed 100-plus million trees and resulted in water shortages that affected crops and caused municipalities to limit water use. Record-setting rainfall and floods occurred in locations such as Colorado, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, etc., resulting in hundreds dead and millions of dollars in crop losses.  If the last 10 years have taught scientists, climatologists, policy makers and the general public anything, it's that we have our work cut out for us if we are to reverse this trend of increasing disasters around the world. The atmosphere continues to warm, and all model projections point to a progressively warmer future Earth if action is not taken. And this action can't be tomorrow or by 2025, 2050 or some other arbitrary year; it has to happen now if we want to reduce future economic and societal losses. Yes, it's easy to be afraid and fearful of the future when all we see as scientists and citizens are rising temperatures, deadlier disasters and a lack of drastic climate action. However, we can't let this fear result in crippling inaction; we have to let it motivate us to fight, not for just our futures but our children's, grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's futures. Let's give them a chance to see the world the way we used to: beautiful.  Jerusha Conner, associate professor of education and counseling The latter half of this decade witnessed a resurgence of student activism, sparked by Black Lives Matter protests and the dramatic events at the University of Missouri in the fall of 2015. Highlighting 2015 as a pivotal year for student activism, the authors of the American Freshman National Norms survey deemed the 2015 freshman class "the most ambitious" group in 49 years of the survey's administration in terms of their expectations for participating in protests, connecting to their communities and influencing the political structure; and the numbers of freshmen who report having participated in demonstrations as high school seniors has ticked up every year since. In my own research with college student activists in 2016, I found three striking trends: Nearly half came to college already seeing themselves as activists; only 10% consider themselves single-issue activists (with more than half identifying seven or more issues their activism addressed); and a significant share were not protesting their own institution's policies or practices, but instead concerning themselves with broader social and political issues. They are what I call "outward-facing activists," who use their campuses to stage and mobilize campaigns, rather than as the targets of their change efforts. In the last couple of years, we have seen activism among high school students take off, as students have staged walkouts and school strikes to protest inaction on climate change and gun violence. Although these movements may appear narrowly focused on a single issue, the students involved have intentionally advanced an intersectional perspective, which draws attention to the racialized, economic and gendered dimensions of the multifaceted problems they are seeking to address. Digital natives, these young people have deployed the affordances of social media not only to mobilize their peers in large-scale collective action, but also to attract and sustain the attention of the media, pressure business leaders and politicians and shape public understanding of the issues. One interesting shift with this generation of student activists is that, rather than turning their backs on the system or seeking to upend it, they are focused on enhancing voter registration and turnout, especially among young people. And their efforts appear to be working. Youth turnout in the 2018 midterms was double that of 2014, and record numbers of youth are continuing to register to vote. As the decade comes to a close and the 2020 campaign season revs up, the engagement of student activists in electoral politics will be important to continue to track.

In this Era of Fake News and Alternate FactsExperts are King

There’s nothing new about fake news. Satirical media outlets such as The Onion have been around for a decade giving us a good laugh. But somewhere in the past 12 months, something changed for the worse. The wool that was being pulled over people’s eyes wasn’t so obvious anymore. Satire and bad humour were replaced by visceral accusations, conspiracies, and smear campaigns. How did we get to this point, and what can be done to stem the tide? A sure sign that we had a problem was a development that was apparent in the last presidential election. New voices were on the national scene branding our traditional media outlets as biased, and elitist. We saw the phrase “mainstream media” become a bigger part of the conversation. Now we have to contend with “fake news.” Unlike traditional journalism fake news outlets deliberately spew wrong information. In an effort to get a story out, mistakes will happen. But in the world of fake news there is no retraction or correction of these mistakes — even when they are exposed as blatantly untrue. Further damage ensues when social media then acts as an enabler as fake news articles get amplified to millions of people, who are clicking away, feeding advertising revenues to these publishers. No matter what your political stripe or where you stood regarding the recent US election, fake news was rampant on both sides spreading false information, invoking anger, and deceiving the public. More recently, a fresher version of fake news has emerged as “Alternate Facts.” A term made famous by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway as she defended the statements made by Press Secretary Sean Spicer who lectured and insisted that the crowd present for President Trump’s swearing-in was “the largest audience ever to It seems that the whole nature of the game has changed almost overnight. Even the White House press gallery isn’t immune to these developments. This week’s Saturday Night Live sketch brilliantly sums up the aversive relationship that we’re seeing develop between the media and the new administration. (Note: For the record, the photo at the bottom is NOT a C-SPAN broadcast. It’s a comedy sketch. It did not really happen. This is NOT Sean Spicer in the photo below — it’s an actor portrayal). Perhaps most ironic for me is how believable fake news can appear to be. A friend of mine, a former investigative journalist commented that “given the outright absurdity of the actual “real” news cycle,” it’s getting hard for people to sort fact from fiction.” Perhaps this says as much about society as it does about media. So Where Does All This Leave Us? Some say the solution is as simple as removing the bias from our news media. The problem is, I know quite a few (real) journalists and they are serious about reporting facts. They work in newsrooms and report the news, they tell stories, but gathering and checking facts are what define them. As they work to a set of professional standards and deliver real information. However, we’re witnessing a massive change in the way that ideas are shaped and communicated to the public. Sadly, the traditional avenues of information flow and the mutual respect that even democratic nation states have had with the media appears to be eroding. There is also a disturbing undercurrent of thought that traditional news organizations are biased, and every outlet is always serving a hidden agenda. Recent events have prompted the need for news organizations to brief their journalists on how to govern themselves in these very “interesting times.” John Daniszewski, Vice President for Standards for Associated Press in a recent blog post called for clarity regarding the definition of the so-called “alt-right.” “We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them,” writes Daniszewski. Other news organizations are looking at recent events and taking the opportunity to internally brief their journalists. In a recent message to staff, Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler wrote about covering President Trump the Reuters way: “The first 12 days of the Trump presidency (yes, that’s all it’s been!) have been memorable for all — and especially challenging for us in the news business. It’s not every day that a U.S. president calls journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth” or that his chief strategist dubs the media “the opposition party.” It’s hardly surprising that the air is thick with questions and theories about how to cover the new Administration. So what is the Reuters answer? To oppose the administration? To appease it? To boycott its briefings? To use our platform to rally support for the media? All these ideas are out there, and they may be right for some news operations, but they don’t make sense for Reuters. We already know what to do because we do it every day, and we do it all over the world. To state the obvious, Reuters is a global news organization that reports independently and fairly in more than 100 countries, including many in which the media is unwelcome and frequently under attack. We don’t know yet how sharp the Trump administration’s attacks will be over time or to what extent those attacks will be accompanied by legal restrictions on our news-gathering. But we do know that we must follow the same rules that govern our work anywhere.” Adler goes on to provide a set of rules for the Reuters team that I think are very wise, especially given the current environment. Do’s: Cover what matters in people’s lives and provide them the facts they need to make better decisions. Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one. Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources. Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us. Keep the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles close at hand, remembering that “the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved.” Don’ts: Never be intimidated, but: Don’t pick unnecessary fights or make the story about us. We may care about the inside baseball but the public generally doesn’t and might not be on our side even if it did. Don’t vent publicly about what might be understandable day-to-day frustration. In countless other countries, we keep our own counsel so we can do our reporting without being suspected of personal animus. We need to do that in the U.S., too. Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world and to lead by example — and therefore to provide the freshest, most useful, and most illuminating information and insight of any news organization anywhere. Winning back the public trust — Why Experts Matter Perhaps a way to help reverse this trend is to ask more of our experts within our organizations, and get them to contribute more to these important conversations. It’s about getting our academics, physicians, professionals, and leaders in their respective fields to contribute more to help the media present a more balanced set of perspectives in ways that engage the public. In this new era, it appears that many experts are invisible to the media on a range of big issues such as climate change, economic data, security, crime and healthcare policy. Opinions — not always informed opinions — are taken as fact. People without qualifications are being asked to speak on topics that require years of study, research, and experience. This is why, now more than ever, we need to see a return of intelligence and knowledge to present true facts. Credible Experts Matter Credible sources are vital in helping ensure the proper degree of research has been done. Published work, peer-reviewed studies, as well as policy that has been developed and practised all play key roles in determining an actual expert. Proven credibility cuts through rhetoric. It promotes the delivery and flow of facts as opposed to feeding only one side of a debate. Being Approachable Matters We have to agree that the current sentiment that many have toward traditional institutions and their experts is that they are not providing enough practical information of benefit to the public. The term “ivory tower” comes up frequently to describe environments such as universities and think tanks. While we need these environments of intellectual pursuit they cannot be seen as disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. Transparency Matters Do you know where your information is actually coming from? The flow of money into the development of fake news and so-called “experts” who are pushing agendas is tremendous. We’ve seen it recently with the sugar industry — much like the tobacco industry who literally wrote the book on manipulating and re-wrapping expertise and research in the middle of the last century — setting ideas on nutrition back decades. The market is crying out for a more consistent way to discover and evaluate the credibility of experts. We need a quick and trusted way to review their education, background, publications as well as their affiliations. We need to be able to conduct a front-line background check before we give them the platform to share their perspectives on television, radio, or in print. We need to vet the expert before they reach an audience that relies on the information being communicated to form opinions and make critical decisions that affect their lives. Local News Matters Local media is shrinking. Newsrooms are currently being threatened by constant shifts in both consumption and business models. If we are to promote accurate information and win the war on actual facts, we must make it easier for local journalists to do their jobs. Mainstream media still carries a lot of weight, especially online and television where the nightly news reaches a massive audience. Though the ratings are large, the subject matter doesn’t always resonate with viewers at home. We need to do a much better job helping local media get better access to the experts in our organisations so they can localise issues and tell stories, and do it in ways that everyone can understand. For example, a story on national unemployment numbers has a different context in San Francisco than it does in Flint, Michigan. Climate change is impacting Miami a lot differently than it is in the Great Lake states. In the end, all news is local. Speed Matters News is increasingly a speed game. With social media, a 24-hour news cycle, and the race to be first, time is of the essence. But in this game, haste may not only make waste, the truth may be a casualty as well. Most recently Fox News reported on a violent shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Six people were killed by a lone gunman. Fox News reported that the suspect was of Moroccan origin — that was false. The shooter was in fact of Canadian origin. It wasn’t until the Canadian Prime Minister’s office requested a retraction that Fox walked the story back…but it took almost two full days. In true Canadian fashion, Kate Purchase, Communications Director for Prime Minister Trudeau thanked Fox News. In the meantime, wrong information was shared across multiple platforms and seen by millions of people. This is when having your experts prepared, media-trained, and trusted internally to speak with media is key. In times of emergency and chaos, it may be the words, advice and perspective of a high-level expert that can calm a nervous public, or at the very least, clearly explain a situation and its outcomes with accuracy and trust. So Why Should This Matter to You? If you are focused on building your market visibility and brand reputation, making your organization’s experts more discoverable and responsive to media is as much a function of good public relations as it is a public service. In these days of fake news, alternate facts, and unclear agendas, an unbiased and objective point of view presented by a credible expert may be one of the few remaining pillars of integrity we have left. Experts bring credibility, reliability, and an elevated level of perspective and advice that the public can trust. It’s up to all of us to ensure our thought leaders rise above the fray and help rebuild the trust that is essential to building a civil society. How is your organization working with its experts to respond to these challenges? I’m particularly interested in speaking with communications and media relations professionals in higher education, healthcare and professional services as our team conducts more research in this area. Let us know what you think by sharing below. I read every comment. 

Confronting the Fake News Phenomenon with Credibility

Fake news is suddenly big news. A quick browse this morning and the topic is featured in articles and stories in The Guardian, CNN, Forbes, Reuters, iPolitics and The New York Times. Explaining fake news, finding its source, its effectiveness and how to counter it are all top of mind priorities for journalists, politicians and even technology leaders. Fake news is eroding the trust the public has in its leaders and media and something must be done soon. We need to see a return of intelligence and knowledge to present true facts. In this new era, issues such as climate change, economic data, security, crime and healthcare policy -people without qualifications are being asked to speak on topics that require years of study, research, and experience. Opinions — not always informed opinions — are taken as fact. To reverse this trend, institutions need to work with the media to present a more balanced set of perspectives. We need to see academics, physicians, professionals, and leaders in their respective fields contribute more to these big conversations. It won’t be easy, but it is possible. ExpertFile is the world's first marketing platform and search engine for expert content. The company specializes in providing media access to thought leaders and thousands of experts who are objective, credible and whose opinions are sought and respected worldwide. Now more than ever – the public needs trustworthy sources of accurate and unbiased information. Peter Evans is the CEO and Co-founder of ExpertFile. His experience and expertise has made him a leader in the realms of innovation, marketing and digital software. He is a respected speaker and a sought-out panelist for technology, marketing and innovation events throughout the world. Peter is available to speak to media regarding fake news and how technology companies are fighting back. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview. Source:

West Bank settlements

This month, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a shift in U.S. policy toward settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Pompeo announced that the Trump administration does not view the settlements as inconsistent international law, and rescinded a 1978 state department legal opinion that held that view. The move now leaves the issue of individual settlements up to Israeli courts.  Assistant Professor Sandy Marshall has spent time as a volunteer instructor in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and returned to the region this past summer to advance his research into the experiences of Palestinian refugee children. A human geographer, he has conducted extensive research into the impact of conflict, division and displacement on children and youth in the Middle East.  Asked for a brief comment on the shift in U.S. policy, here’s what Marshall had to say: “Coming on the heels of the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the change in policy on West Bank settlements is another nail in the coffin of a negotiated peace-settlement based on the two-state solution, represent U.S. rejection of broad international legal consensus . This move undermines any remaining legitimacy the U.S. has in the region as a peace-broker and threatens further destabilization of the region.” If you're interested in talking with Professor Marshall as you continue to cover this important topic, please reach out to Owen Covington, director of the Elon University News Bureau, at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Professor Marshall is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.

Climate Change: A Direct Threat to Older Adults

Climate change will impact the health of all populations, but older adults are uniquely vulnerable because of the physiological changes of aging. More than half of older adults in the United States live in areas that disproportionately experience the effects of heat waves, forest fires, hurricanes and coastal flooding. Pennsylvania, New York, California, Florida and Texas account for the top five states where older adults are concentrated. Older adults who live in urban areas are vulnerable to heat island effect—the concentration and retention of heat in urban areas compared to rural areas—which places older residents in cities at increased risk of heat related illnesses and death. “Gerontological nurses need to be prepared to address the specific issues of older adults,” says Ruth McDermott-Levy, PhD, director of the Center for Global Health at Villanova University’s M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing. “We want to help nurses understand climate change and the need for specific interventions to support climate adaptation for the older adult population.” Climate change impacts require modifications in health plans for older adults. Prolonged heat will require greater needs for hydration, but the patient’s other conditions need to be considered as well. Elders with heart disease and renal failure will require astute nursing assessments to monitor the balance of hydration and electrolytes while not leading to fluid overload or electrolyte imbalances in the presence of extreme heat. With their research, practice and influence over policy, gerontological nurses are in an important position to be changemakers by measuring and documenting the harm and impact of climate change on older adults. They can advocate for measures that support older adults in disasters or extreme weather events. Nurse researchers can collaborate with climate scientists and policy makers to develop initiatives and programs that rely on climate and health evidence to support climate mitigation and adaptation for the older adult. “It is everyone’s responsibility to learn about climate change and to participate in slowing the trajectory of climate change,” Dr. McDermott-Levy says.

Why are the wolves of Wall Street so worried about Elizabeth Warren?

Elizabeth Warren started her campaign for the presidency far from being the front-runner. She trailed the likes of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders dramatically, often in third place or worse and usually in single digits.   But her resolve stood, she provided plans and policy planks. And … she found a target and took aim at the wealthy. All of her ideas that include costly policies about health care and education come with billion- and even trillion-dollar price tags. Usually these concepts are laughed off the debate stage – but Warren carefully and strategically costed them out. And those covering the costs of her ideas are the banks along with the rich and wealthy. Her ideas caught fire with supporters and now Warren is seen as a legitimate contender for the White House. It has some nervous and many taking notice. It’s a role that Ms. Warren unabashedly embraces, as an increasing number of voters, as well as a few veterans of the finance industry, see her as the policymaker who can address the growing wealth gap in the United States and take on the corruption and excess in the business world. Ms. Warren has made battling corporate greed and corruption a central theme of her fiercely populist campaign, mixing anti-elitist oratory with policy plans calling for sweeping new regulations. On Friday morning she released an ambitious proposal to pay for her “Medicare for all” program, with provisions directly affecting Wall Street: aggressive new taxes on billionaires, an additional tax on financial transactions like stock trades and annual investment gains taxes for the wealthiest households. Just hours later she told an audience in Iowa: “Our democracy has been hijacked by the rich and the powerful.” Interviews with more than two dozen hedge-fund managers, private-equity and bank officials, analysts and lobbyists made clear that Ms. Warren has stirred more alarm than any other Democratic candidate. (Senator Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as a socialist, is also feared, but is considered less likely to capture the nomination.)  November 04 – New York Times   Are you a journalist covering the race for the Whitehouse? Then let our experts help. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington. A published author and a media ‘go-to’ on U.S. politics, he is available to speak with media regarding this topic. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.

U.S. economy continues to expand, but at a slower pace, reaching about 2 percent growth in 2020

INDIANAPOLIS -- The U.S. economy will continue to expand for a 12th consecutive year in 2020, but by only about 2 percent and struggling to remain at that level by year's end. Indiana's economic output will be more anemic, growing at a rate of about 1.25 percent, according to a forecast released today by the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. Over the past year, political dysfunction and international trade friction have disrupted supply chains and eroded both consumer and business confidence. U.S. employment has grown during 2019 but will decelerate throughout 2020, well short of 150,000 jobs per month and possibly to about 100,000 by year's end. A tight labor market will continue to be an issue for many companies.   "The total number of job openings in the economy peaked in late 2018," said Bill Witte, associate professor emeritus of economics at IU. "Average hours worked have been flat over the past year, and auto sales have been flat for nearly two years. Given the reliance of the U.S. economy on consumer spending, these are disturbing signs. But they are vague signs, and not enough to convince us that the end of the expansion is in sight.   "We expect that growth will be weaker than in the past two years, and this outlook is likely a best-case outcome," he added. "There is massive uncertainty in the current situation."   The Kelley School presented its forecast this morning to Indianapolis community and business leaders at IUPUI. The Business Outlook Tour panel also will present national, state and local economic forecasts in seven other cities across the state through Nov. 20.   Indiana's more meager economic growth expected in 2020 can largely be attributed to the outsized presence of manufacturing and particularly tight labor markets, said Ryan Brewer, associate professor of finance at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus and author of the panel's Indiana forecast. Manufacturing contracts more rapidly versus other areas of the economy, and tight labor markets limit employers' capacity to grow, he said.  Expectations about business investment have fallen short, and corporations have been buying back stock instead of making capital investments. The trade war with China and slowing global expansion have also affected state manufacturers.  The world is about to record its slowest economic growth since the financial crisis of 2009. Next year, global growth is projected at 3.4 percent, with downside risks continuing to build. China and the European Union each face structural issues amid tariffs imposed by the United States. Brexit remains unresolved.   Recent data from the Institute for Supply Management showed that manufacturing activity has slowed to its lowest rate since the beginning of the Great Recession. Indiana has sought to diversify its economy in recent decades, but manufacturing output represents nearly 28 percent of gross state product. Indiana continues to lead the nation in manufacturing employment, with more than 17 percent of its jobs in that sector.   "Constrained by a historically tight labor market, Indiana is expected to experience slow growth in jobs and gross output, along with the possibility for continued rising wages," Brewer said. "With fewer and fewer available people to hire, tightness of the Indiana labor markets will serve as a drag to output and employment growth."   The outlook for the Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson metropolitan statistical area is slightly better, with expected growth between 1.5 and 2 percent.   "Indianapolis continues to draw in talent and investment that should help it exceed the overall state level of growth," said Kyle Anderson, clinical assistant professor of business economics. "However, there is risk that weakness in the broader economy, and especially weakness in manufacturing, could make this forecast too optimistic."   Other highlights from the forecast:   The national and state unemployment rates will hold steady. The nation's rate could be below 4 percent by year's end, and the state will stay at or below full employment through 2020.  Inflation will rise and end 2020 close to the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target. The stock market will struggle to get average returns with headwinds from trade, supply chain disruption and policy uncertainty. Earnings continue to exceed expectations, yet lack of definitive trade consensus continues to drive headwinds. Interest rates will remain low. The 10-year Treasury rate should stay below 2 percent and mortgages below 4 percent. Speculative grade bond yields have been rising, indicating increased risk of insolvency for marginal firms. Entry-level wage growth could cause costs to rise, earnings to fall and growth to stagnate for firms heading into 2020. Energy prices will be relatively stable, with average prices similar to those in 2019. Business investment will remain weak, although a little improved from this year. Housing will achieve a meager increase, ending two years of negative growth. Government spending will grow, but much more slowly than the past year, as the impact of the 2018 budget deal ends. The starting point for the forecast is an econometric model of the United States, developed by IU's Center for Econometric Model Research, which analyzes numerous statistics to develop a national forecast for the coming year. A similar econometric model of Indiana provides a corresponding forecast for the state economy based on the national forecast plus data specific to Indiana. A select panel of Kelley faculty members, led by Indiana Business Research Center co-director Timothy Slaper, then adjusts the forecast to reflect additional insights it has on the economic situation.   A detailed report on the outlook for 2020 will be published in the winter issue of the Indiana Business Review, available online in December. In addition to predictions about the nation, state and Indianapolis, it also will include forecasts for other Indiana cities and key economic sectors. Presenting the forecast at the Indianapolis Business Outlook Tour event were Phil T. Powell, associate dean of Kelley academic programs at Indianapolis and clinical associate professor of business economics and public policy; Cathy Bonser-Neal, associate professor of finance; and Anderson.

The Future of the Internet

Fifty years ago, the first computer-to-computer connection was made through ARPANET, the precursor to the modern internet. What will the internet look like 50 years from now? That's the topic of a new report by Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center and Pew Research. The report, "The Next 50 Years of Digital Life," is part of a series on the future of the internet and features insights from 530 technology pioneers, innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers and activists. They were asked to respond to a series of questions about how individuals' lives might be affected by the evolution of the internet during the next 50 years.   “In just 50 years the internet grew from a handful of interlinked computers to a worldwide network connecting billions of active users across all corners of the globe,” said Kathleen Stansberry of Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center, the lead author of the report. “This vast experiment in human collaboration has not been without cost, but these experts believe that by enacting thoughtful reform today the vision of the internet as a tool of equality and enlightenment can still be realized.” Overall, 72 percent of these respondents said they hope and expect that the next 50 years might bring significant change for the better; 25 percent say they fear there could be significant change for the worse and 3 percent said they expect there will be no significant change. You can find a list of key themes from the report here, and the full report, including scores of comments from experts, here. If you're interested in talking with Professor Stansberry about the report, please reach out to Owen Covington, director of the Elon University News Bureau, at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Professor Stansberry is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.

Experts available to discuss vaping and new tobacco products

A host of new tobacco products, including e-cigarettes like JUULs, have entered the market in recent years, bringing new public health concerns with them. Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are studying the health and societal impacts of emerging tobacco products. UNC-Chapel Hill experts are available to discuss topics including e-cigarettes’ health impacts, their failure as smoking cessation tools, the differences in how smoking and vaping affect the body, and e-cigarette explosions and the resulting chemical burn injuries. If you’d like to speak with an expert, call (919) 445-8555 or email mediarelations@unc.edu. Dr. M. Bradley Drummond is an associate professor of medicine at UNC School of Medicine and the director of the Obstructive Lung Diseases Clinical and Translational Research Center. He can discuss the health consequences of these new tobacco products and how they vary from traditional cigarettes. He can also discuss how these products exacerbate other conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and other chronic lung diseases. Dr. Adam Goldstein is a professor in the UNC department of family medicine, the director of tobacco intervention programs at UNC School of Medicine, and a member of UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. He can discuss the potential drawbacks versus any potential benefit of using these products as smoking cessation tools and can share evidence-based strategies to stop smoking. He can also speak to trends in teen tobacco use.   Dr. Ilona Jaspers is a professor of pediatrics and microbiology & immunology, director of the Curriculum in Toxicology, and deputy director of the Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma and Lung Biology all at the UNC School of Medicine, and professor of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. She can discuss the current scientific understanding of the health effects of vaping or juuling, a subject on which she has published widely. Kurt Ribisl is a professor and chair of the department of health behavior at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health and the program leader for Cancer Prevention and Control at UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. Ribisl specializes in tobacco policy and regulation and can speak to taxation, advertising and marketing of new tobacco products and recommendations for preventing youth access.  Robert Tarran is a professor of cell biology and physiology at UNC School of Medicine, a member of UNC Marsico Lung Institute, and a member of UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. He can discuss the science of vaping, including how e-cigarettes impact a person’s lungs, including their genes and what happens to the lung’s immune system. He can also speak to the varying toxic effects of different e-cigarette flavors. Rebecca Williams is a research associate at UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. She is a leading expert on internet tobacco sales, age verification, technology and emerging tobacco products, including the wide variety of vaping devices available today. Her research has shown that online e-cigarette vendors routinely sold to minors, a finding that underscores the need for regulations requiring and enforcing age verification for the online sale of e-cigarettes. She can discuss the sales and marketing practices of websites that sell emerging tobacco products, and underage access to these online products. 

How are Governments Using Artficial Intelligence? How are They Misusing AI?

There has been a lot of talk about artificial intelligence – who is using it, how it works, and what it will lead to. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute professor James Hendler – who was recently named to the newly formed Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Technology Policy Council – penned a piece for The Conversation outlining the danger A.I. could pose to American society if there is not enough oversight. Here are some excerpts: “Artificial intelligence systems can – if properly used – help make government more effective and responsive, improving the lives of citizens. Improperly used, however, the dystopian visions of George Orwell’s “1984” become more realistic. On their own and urged by a new presidential executive order, governments across the U.S., including state and federal agencies, are exploring ways to use AI technologies. As an AI researcher for more than 40 years, who has been a consultant or participant in many government projects, I believe it’s worth noting that sometimes they’ve done it well – and other times not quite so well. The potential harms and benefits are significant...” “...Other government uses of AI are being questioned, too – such as attempts at 'predictive policing,' setting bail amounts and criminal sentences and hiring government workers. All of these have been shown to be susceptible to technical issues and data limitations that can bias their decisions based on race, gender or cultural background. Other AI technologies such as facial recognition, automated surveillance and mass data collection are raising real concerns about security, privacy, fairness and accuracy in a democratic society....” “...As the use of AI technologies grows, whether originally well-meant or deliberately authoritarian, the potential for abuse increases as well. With no currently existing government-wide oversight in place in the U.S., the best way to avoid these abuses is teaching the public about the appropriate uses of AI by way of conversation between scientists, concerned citizens and public administrators to help determine when and where it is inappropriate to deploy these powerful new tools.” Are you a reporter covering AI? Then let us help with your stories and ongoing coverage. Professor James Hendler is the Director of the Institute for Data Exploration and Applications at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.