Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Teaching the Holocaust Part of New NYS Curriculum

Dr. Alan Singer, professor of education, talked to Newsday about the introduction of a new school curriculum teaching New York State students about the Holocaust and other mass murders. “Teaching the Holocaust and Other Genocides” was unveiled at a meeting in Albany of the state Board of Regents, which oversees New York’s educational institutions. The new resources will be optional for educators. Dr. Singer said the goal of Holocaust education is not to guide students to a particular conclusion, but to “engage students in research, in discussion, examining data, trying to reach conclusions about the past and present.”

MSU researchers develop wood-based material that improves safety and life of lithium-ion batteries

For consumers worried about the risks associated with using lithium-ion batteries — which are used in everything from phones to laptops to electric vehicles — Michigan State University has discovered that a natural material found in wood can improve battery safety while also improving the battery’s life. Chengcheng Fang, assistant professor in the College of Engineering, and Mojgan Nejad, an associate professor in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, collaborated to engineer lignin, a natural ingredient of wood that provides support and rigidity, into a thin film separator that can be used inside lithium-ion batteries to prevent short circuits that can cause a fire. “We wanted to build a better battery,” said Fang. “But we also wanted it to be safe, efficient and sustainable.” Inside a battery, the positively charged cathode and negatively charged anode electrodes help the flow of electricity. To keep these electrodes apart, a commercial separator is typically made from polyethylene and polypropylene plastic materials, which can shrink at temperatures near 100 degrees Celsius. Without the protection of the separator, the cathode and anode sides of the battery have the potential to touch, causing an accidental short circuit and possible fire or explosion. In contrast, the lignin-based separators developed remained stable and didn’t become smaller in size up to temperatures of 300 degrees Celsius. Fang and her team tested varying thicknesses of lignin and found that films measuring 25 micrometers, which is thinner than one quarter of a human hair, were the most effective at keeping the inside of the battery stable and keeping the anode and cathode from connecting. Using the lignin film inside the battery had another benefit: the increased stability inside the battery also resulted in an improved cycle life, or how many times the battery can be charged and used. “We were surprised to see that the lignin film also improved the battery’s cycle life,” said Fang. “We increased the battery’s cycle life by 60%.” A third advantage of this research is an environmentally friendly one. The team was able to manufacture the lignin separators using a low-cost dry processing method. This meant that the team was able to produce large quantities of the lignin film, on demand, while avoiding the use of harmful solvents commonly used in traditional separator manufacturing, which can be harmful to the environment. In this case, the researchers were able to use lignin and other materials that provided a 100% raw material conversion to create a film without creating any waste or pollution. “Lignin, particularly lignosulfonate, is naturally abundant and it doesn’t need any further treatment to function in batteries,” said Fang. “This work demonstrates a new design pathway to improve both the safety and manufacturability of battery materials.” This research was published in Advanced Materials, and the technology is patent pending through the MSU Innovation Center.

#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.

Deaf children share insights on what researchers should study next in Aston University co-led project

Aston University’s Dr Amanda Hall co-led the study with Dr Anisa Visram from the University of Manchester Deaf children and those with experience of childhood deafness have identified their top 10 research priorities including education and family relationships The project was funded by the National Deaf Children’s Society Deaf children and people with experience of childhood deafness from across the UK have come together to highlight what matters most to children affected by deafness and hearing loss, as part of a project funded by the National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS). From 2023 to 2025, a team of parents, young people and health and education professionals set out to compile a list of the ‘Top 10’ most important questions that researchers should be trying to answer about childhood deafness and hearing loss. The project was co-led by Dr Amanda Hall, a senior lecturer in audiology at Aston University, and Dr Anisa Visram from the University of Manchester in conjunction with researchers at Lancaster University. The hope is that it will ultimately lead to more research into childhood deafness, in the specific areas it’s needed most. Children highlighted the potential impact of them missing out on things happening around them when interacting with their peers as their top priority, demonstrating the importance of social development for deaf children. Family relationships and educational needs ranked as high priorities for both adults and children, coming in the top 3 for both groups. Adults ranked educational needs as number 1, highlighting the importance of supporting deaf children in schools, particularly those with additional needs. Other important areas for research included understanding what support is needed for children with mild and unilateral (on one side) deafness, the impact of language deprivation on deaf children and how deaf children can be supported to understand their deafness and become empowered to advocate for themselves as they grow up into deaf adults. Several hundred respondents contributed to the project through a series of online surveys. Children were involved through activity-based focus groups. Respondents submitted over 1,200 ideas for research questions in the initial surveys. These were summarised into a list of 59 unique questions, and a second survey was used to prioritise the questions. The top 21 questions were then taken to two final full-day workshop where participants collaborated to choose their top 10 priorities. The research team used what’s known as a James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority-setting process to ensure the robustness of the project. Participants reported feeling valued as part of the project and satisfied that their feedback is reflected in the final lists. One of the children who took part in the workshop said: “I learnt that my voice matters and I can make a difference for me and other deaf children.” Dr Hall said: “It has been a real privilege to be part of this JLA partnership, working alongside deaf young people, families of deaf children and professionals to identify our two sets of top 10 research questions. We hope this is just the beginning of more research that reflects what matters most to deaf children, their families and professionals, and of more opportunities to work together.” Dr Visram said: “This has been an incredible project to work on with an amazing, committed, and diverse stakeholder group feeding into the process at all stages. We have formed important collaborations with deaf young people, parents of deaf children, and a whole range of professionals working with deaf children. The group plan to keep working together to promote the Top 10 lists and help develop research projects to start to answer these important questions.” Juliet Viney is a parent to a deaf child and has supported the project as a parent partner. She said: “It has been an absolute privilege working as a parent partner developing our Top 10 most important research questions for childhood deafness. This project has brought together and empowered deaf children and young people, parents and professionals from across the UK; using their valuable lived experiences to provide them with a strong voice to guide researchers towards addressing what is most needed to improve deaf children's educational, health, social and emotional outcomes. I am excited to see which questions will be pursued in further research and the positive impacts these will have on the lives of deaf children!” Dr Sian Lickess, Research and Analysis Lead at the National Deaf Children’s Society, said: “We are proud to have supported this important partnership, which has brought together the voices of deaf children, their families and professionals to shape future research priorities. The resulting Top 10 lists represent an important step toward ensuring research is aligned with real-world needs and is meaningful to those most affected. We look forward to the impact this work will have on improving outcomes for deaf children.” The full list of priorities identified can be found at: www.childdeafnessresearch.co.uk. As well as the National Deaf Children’s Society, several other partners have also contributed to the project. These include the Professor Kevin Munro’s National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator award, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, PF Charitable Trust, Research England’s QR Participatory Research Fund to Lancaster University, and UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship MR/X035999/1.

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.

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.

Ask an Expert: Augusta University's Gokila Dorai, PhD, talks Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence is dominating the news cycle. There's a lot to know, a lot to prepare for and also a lot of misinformation or assumptions that are making their way into the mainstream coverage. Recently, Augusta University's Gokila Dorai, PhD, took some time to answer some of the more important question's she's seeing being asked about Artificial Intelligence. Gokila Dorai, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Computer and Cyber Sciences at Augusta University. Dorai’s area of expertise is mobile/IoT forensics research. She is passionate about inventing digital tools to help victims and survivors of various digital crimes. View her profile here Q. What excites you most about your current research in digital forensics and AI? "I am most excited about using artificial intelligence to produce frameworks for practitioners make sense of complex digital evidence more quickly and fairly. My research combines machine learning with natural language processing incorporating a socio-technical framework, so that we don’t just get accurate results, but also understand how and why the system reached those results. This is especially important when dealing with sensitive investigations, where transparency builds trust." Q. How does your work help address today’s challenges around cybersecurity and data privacy? "Everyday life is increasingly digital, our phones, apps, and online accounts contain deeply personal information. My research looks at how we can responsibly analyze this data during investigations without compromising privacy. For example, I work on AI models that can focus only on what is legally relevant, while filtering out unrelated personal information. This balance between security and privacy is one of the biggest challenges today, and my work aims to provide practical solutions." Q. What role do you see artificial intelligence playing in shaping the future of digital investigations? "AI will be a critical partner in digital investigations. The volume of data investigators face is overwhelming, thousands of documents, chat messages, and app logs. AI can help organize and prioritize this information, spotting patterns that a human might miss. At the same time, I believe AI must be designed to be explainable and resilient against manipulation, so investigators and courts can trust its findings. The future isn’t about replacing human judgment, but about giving investigators smarter tools." Q. What is one misconception people often have about cybersecurity or digital forensics? "A common misconception is that digital forensics is like what you see on TV, instant results with a few keystrokes. In reality, it’s a painstaking process that requires both technical skill and ethical responsibility. Another misconception is that cybersecurity is only about protecting large organizations. In truth, individuals face just as many risks, from identity theft to app data leaks, and my research highlights how better tools can protect everyone." Are you a reporter covering Artificial intelligence and looking to know more?  If so, then let us help with your stories. Gokila Dorai, PhD, is available for interviews. Simply click on her icon now to arrange a time today.

VCU College of Engineering’s Michael McClure, Ph.D., named chair of Orthopaedic Research Society’s Skeletal Muscle Section

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.

How to respond when your teen rebels

Why do some rebellious teenagers shun parental warnings about their behavior while others take them to heart? University of Rochester psychologist Judith Smetana has devoted her career to unpacking that question. Her research reveals that parents who live out their values — and take the time to understand the perspective of their teenagers — have the most success at positively shaping adolescent behavior. Smetana’s latest study, published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, shows that when parents “walk the walk” and model their values consistently, teens perceive rules and warnings as supportive guidance rather than controlling commands. But that alone won’t stop all risky teenage behavior. What really works, Smetana’s research finds, is “perspective-taking”: when parents try to understand their child’s feelings and the reasons for them. Smetana is widely cited for her expertise on moral development, autonomy, and parent-teen conflict — and how these dynamics shape young people’s lives. Connect with her by clicking on her profile.

Swimming in the deep: MSU research reveals sea lamprey travel patterns in Great Lakes waterways

Why this matters: Invasive sea lampreys prey on most species of large Great Lakes fish such as lake trout, brown trout, lake sturgeon, lake whitefish, ciscoes, burbot, walleye and catfish. These species are crucial to Great Lakes ecosystems and to the region’s fishing industry. Understanding how sea lampreys migrate can inform management and conservation strategies, such as developing methods to catch the invasive fish that don’t involve dams, which reduce river connectivity, or lampricide, a pesticide that some communities and groups prefer not to use. The Great Lakes fishing industry is worth $7 billion and provides 75,000 jobs to the region. Reducing the amount of sea lamprey in waters is crucial for the industry’s well-being and the economic vitality of the Great Lakes. How do you catch an invasive fish that’s solitary, nocturnal and doesn't feed on bait? Researchers in the Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources are one step closer to figuring it out. In a study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology and funded by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Kandace Griffin, a fisheries and wildlife doctoral student, and Michael Wagner, professor in the MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, found that sea lampreys — a parasitic fish considered an invasive species in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. — follow a clear pattern of staying in the deepest parts of a river. These findings are important for informing sea lamprey management strategies, conservation of fish species native to the Great Lakes and protecting the region’s $7 billion fishing industry and the 75,000 jobs it provides. “We wanted to know how sea lampreys are making their movement decisions when migrating,” Griffin said. “Are they guided by certain environmental cues? Are they moving through areas that are safer? How can we potentially exploit those decisions or maybe manipulate them into going somewhere that they don’t want to go, like pushing them into a trap.” The primary methods used to control sea lamprey are dams that block them from entering waterways and lampricide, a species-specific pesticide that targets lamprey larvae. “Dams create a lot of challenges for conserving river ecosystems: They block all the other fish that are moving up and down in the system. Even though lampricide is proven to be safe and effective, there are communities that are uncomfortable with its use going into the future,” Wagner said. “Figuring out the right way to fish sea lamprey would decrease its population, lower reproduction rates and provide managers with the opportunity to match their control tactics to the community’s needs.” To track lamprey movements, Griffin and Wagner used a method called acoustic telemetry, which involved using sound emitted from a surgically implanted tag to track the movement of 56 sea lampreys in the White River near Whitehall, Michigan. Griffin likened acoustic telemetry to GPS. “There’s a tag that emits sound and has a unique transmission with a unique identification code, so I know exactly which fish is going where,” she said. “The receivers are listening for that sound and then calculating the time it reaches each receiver. We used this information to triangulate the position of the sea lamprey and analyzed it to find out how they’re using the river’s environmental traits to make decisions on where to swim.” Of the 56 lampreys studied, 26 of them (46%), consistently chose the deepest quarter of the river. “For nearly 20 years we have been discovering how sea lampreys migrate along coasts and through rivers. Now, thanks to Kandace’s work, we know where their movement paths come together near a riverbank — the perfect place to install a trap or other fishing device,” Wagner said. “That knowledge can be used to find similar sites across the Great Lakes basin.” Right now, a fishing device designed to catch bottom-swimming, solitary, nonfeeding, nocturnal sea lamprey doesn’t exist. However, Wagner notes there are places around the world — including Indigenous communities in the U.S. — where people have fished migratory lampreys of various species for hundreds of years and could help inform the creation of such a mechanism. “We have recently had a proposal funded to scour the Earth in search of knowledge, both scientific and traditional, about how to capture migrating lampreys and similar fishes,” Wagner said. “We want to talk with the communities of people who have histories fishing these animals and use this information, along with other data we’ve gathered, to conceive a device that could be used to fish sea lampreys.” Griffin views the new intel on lamprey migration patterns as a way to inform fishing practices to complement some of the existing control methods. “Hopefully, we can use this as a supplemental control method to the use of the barriers or dams,” she said. “We have societal pressure to remove barriers to enhance river connectivity, and some barriers are failing. Open water trapping is another way that we could try to still combat the invasive sea lamprey problem here but also promote river connectivity and other conservation goals for other species.” Wagner shares the same perspective. “When a community, or the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, or the governments of Canada and the U.S. come in and say, ‘We’d really rather be able to control this river with something other than lampricide,’ we want to be able to be able to provide 360-degree solutions that specify where to fish, when to fish and how to fish using fully prototyped and tested equipment,” he said. “We want our science to help solve real-world problems.”