Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Are GCSEs delivering for students and society?
Ahead of the GCSEs results being released on Thursday 21 August Aston University work psychologist, Dr Paul Jones, discusses whether the exams are fit for purpose. He believes that our exam system narrows thinking, and GCSEs emphasise “right answers” and rote recall, creating risk-averse learners who are afraid to fail or think differently. Exams are harming wellbeing GCSEs were designed in the 1980s, when many left education at 16. Today, almost all young people continue to 18, yet they still face a stressful halfway checkpoint that often does more harm than good. Research shows GCSEs are linked to anxiety, sleeplessness and even self-harm. This isn’t about students being “less resilient”, t’s about a system that has prioritised bureaucracy, league tables, and exam statistics over wellbeing. GCSEs don’t prepare students for life Exams reward the ability to memorise and recall under pressure, but the world beyond school demands much more. Employers and universities want young people who can think critically, manage their own learning, collaborate, and adapt. By the time many reach university, students are burnt out from years of high-stakes testing. They often struggle with independence, risk-taking, and curiosity, the very qualities they need to succeed. Over-assessment stifles innovation Our exam system narrows thinking. GCSEs emphasise “right answers” and rote recall, creating risk-averse learners who are afraid to fail or think differently. Innovation, however, requires psychological safety: the freedom to explore, experiment, and make mistakes. In a world where AI can already handle routine tasks like recall and pattern analysis, the human edge lies in breaking moulds, challenging assumptions, and combining knowledge in new ways. Our current system suppresses exactly those skills. Moving GCSEs into the future We need fewer, smarter assessments and a curriculum that builds creativity, resilience, and innovation. Other countries use project-based learning, portfolios, and sampling tests to capture what young people can really do. Wales is already embedding wellbeing and digital skills into its new curriculum. England risks being left behind if it continues to cling to an exam-heavy model designed for a different era. The bottom line Our young people deserve an education that prepares them for life, not just for exams. We should be measuring what really matters: wellbeing, creativity, and the ability to thrive in a fast-changing, AI-driven world. To speak to Dr Jones or for any media inquiries in relation to this please contact Nicola Jones, Press and Communications Manager, Aston University on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk
4 out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. Compelled to disobey U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.” When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.” Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.” One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.” Soldiers, not lawyers But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S. “Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.” Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.” Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. Drawing the line As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.” Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.
MSU team develops scalable climate solutions for agricultural carbon markets
Why this matters: Builds trust in carbon markets. This science-based baseline system dramatically improves accuracy, helping ensure carbon credits are credible and truly reflect climate benefits. Enables real climate impact by accounting for both soil carbon and nitrous oxide emissions, the approach delivers a full, net climate assessment. Scales across millions of acres. Tested on 46 million hectares in 12 Midwest states, this approach is ready for large-scale adoption, helping farmers transition to regenerative practices with confidence and clarity. New research from Michigan State University, led by agricultural systems scientist Bruno Basso, addresses a major problem in agricultural carbon markets: how to set an accurate starting point, or “baseline,” for measuring climate benefits. Most current systems use fixed baselines that don’t account for the soil carbon changes and emissions that would occur if business-as-usual practices were maintained on fields. Such inaccuracies can distort carbon credit calculations and undermine market trust. “The choice of baseline can dramatically influence carbon credit generation; if the model is inaccurate, too many or too few credits may be issued, calling market legitimacy into question,” said Basso, a John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences and the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station at MSU. “Our dynamic baseline approach provides flexible scenarios that capture the comparative climate impacts of soil organic carbon, or SOC, sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions from business-as-usual practices and the new regenerative system.” The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, covers 46 million hectares of cropland across the U.S. Midwest, provides carbon market stakeholders with a scalable, scientifically robust crediting framework. It offers both the investment-grade credibility and operational simplicity needed to expand regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture and carbon markets Regenerative agriculture includes practices like cover cropping, reduced or no tillage, diversified rotations, adaptive grazing and agroforestry. These methods restore soil health, enhance biodiversity, increase system resilience and help mitigate climate change by building SOC and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon markets offer a promising financial mechanism to accelerate regenerative transitions. By compensating farmers for verified climate benefits, they can act as either offset markets (for external buyers) or inset markets (within agricultural supply chains). However, the integrity of these markets hinges on reliable, science-based measurement, reporting and verification systems that integrate modeling, field data and remote sensing. A breakthrough multi-model ensemble approach To overcome limitations in traditional modeling, the MSU scientists and colleagues from different institutions in the U.S. and Europe deployed a multi-model ensemble, or MME, framework, using eight validated crop and biogeochemical models across 40,000 locations in 934 counties spanning 12 Midwestern states. The MME avoids model selection bias, lowering uncertainty in soil carbon predictions from 99% (with single models) to just 36% (with the MME). “This is a game changer for carbon markets,” said Basso. “It delivers a level of accuracy and scalability — from individual fields to entire regions — that current systems lack.” The MME platform also enables the creation of precalculated, practice-based dynamic baselines, reducing the burden of data collection and easing participation for producers. Improved mitigation assessments Unlike many approaches that consider only SOC, the MSU lead team’s study evaluates both SOC sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions to determine net climate impact. “This comprehensive assessment ensures that carbon credits represent true climate mitigation,” said Tommaso Tadiello, postdoctoral fellow in MSU’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and co-author of the study. “A practice that increases soil carbon may improve soil health,” added Basso, “but it may not deliver actual climate benefits if it simultaneously increases nitrous oxide emissions. Our method provides a full accounting of the net climate effect.” The research team found that the combination of no-till and cover cropping delivered an average net mitigation of 1.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare annually, potentially abating 16.4 teragrams of carbon dioxide-equivalent across the study area. This research was supported by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, U.S. Department of Energy’s Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research, Builders Initiative, The Soil Inventory Project, Generation IM Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Morgan Stanley Sustainable Solutions Collaborative and MSU AgBioResearch.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. The last few weeks of summer, heading into Labor Day weekend, can sometimes mean vacations and driving more miles on the road for all people, including teens. Traffic crashes are the No. 1 cause of death for teens, and the crash rate for teen drivers is disproportionately higher than the share of licensed teen drivers. In addition to this grim statistic, summer is the riskiest time for teen drivers. The 100 deadliest days represent the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day when the number of fatal crashes involving teen drivers dramatically increases. A third of each year’s teen driver crashes occur during the summer. We are scholars who research transportation safety and teen driver behavior. Our expertise helps us understand that these 100 days are not just a statistical fluke – they reflect a dangerous intersection of factors such as inexperience and a propensity to take risks. What makes summer different? Regardless of the season, some teen drivers engage in risky behaviors that increase their likelihood of a fatal crash, such as getting distracted, driving with friends in the vehicle, driving under the influence, not wearing seat belts and a lack of hazard awareness. Teens also have more free time in the summer, since most aren’t in school. Combined with the longer days and better weather, teens drive more over the summer. More time on the road means more risk, especially for inexperienced drivers. Teens may also be more likely to drive after dark during the summer, in comparison to more experienced drivers. But nighttime driving is also when visibility is reduced and crash risks are higher, particularly for teens who haven’t fully developed the skills necessary for night driving. This increased exposure, in addition to teens’ general risky driving tendencies, contributes to the 100 deadliest days for teen drivers. The increased crash risk for teens over the summer isn’t equally distributed either. Crashes with teen drivers that lead to serious injuries are more likely to occur with male drivers, in rural areas, for those of lower socioeconomic status and for those with disorders, such as attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Teaching young drivers Driver’s education programs are the formal method to teach teen drivers the rules of the road. In driver’s education programs, teens receive information about driver and road safety though classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction in preparation for the licensing exam. Some states require teens to complete a driver’s education course if they want to receive a license under the age of 18. Of teens who have a license, nearly 80% of them have gone through some form of driver’s education. Though driver’s education programs can be helpful, their effects are not equally felt. In some states, teens and their guardians must pay out of pocket for driver’s education courses to obtain a license. This makes driver’s education and, as a consequence, obtaining a driver’s license inequitable. There are also driving school deserts – areas where the poverty rate is 20% or above and there are no behind-the-wheel driver education courses within a 10- to 15-minute drive. This makes driver education courses inaccessible. Many of these driving school deserts happen to be in areas with high populations of minorities. Over 20 years ago, graduated driver licensing was introduced to reduce teen crash rates. This is a phased licensing system wherein teen drivers are restricted in terms of when, where and with whom they can drive until they turn 18. Such a system allows teens to gradually learn and gain experience with driving over time. Graduated driver licensing has been implemented in all 50 states, and it has been shown to reduce teen driver crash rates. However, its effectiveness is limited to those who participate in the system. A large number of teens are unlicensed and are of low socioeconomic status. Many of these unlicensed teens forgo the entire process and remain unlicensed but still drive, well into their 20s when the graduated driver licensing restrictions are lifted. Making summer safer There are two things people can do to turn the 100 deadliest days into the 100 safest days. First, it is important that communities offer free supplementary training programs for teen drivers, because becoming a safe and responsible teen driver shouldn’t be limited to those with resources. As one example, in collaboration with industry partners, we have developed a program called Risk-ATTEND. It is a free, online, evidence-based program that teaches teen drivers how to anticipate risks while driving. Our research has shown that programs such as these can improve teen driving skills and may be especially effective for teen drivers in high-poverty areas. Second, our research has shown that parents and guardians still play an important role in influencing teen driver behavior. Studies show that teens mirror the behaviors they observe: If they see adults text and drive, they’re more likely to do the same. Once teenagers become old enough to drive, it is also important to establish rules and guidelines about expectations to establish clarity and accountability. Written agreements or checklists can address high-risk conditions such as nighttime driving, driving with other young passengers, phone use and adherence to speed limits. Systems to help monitor and enforce rules have been shown to be effective in improving teen driver behavior. One such program is Checkpoints, which is a Connecticut-based program in which families agree to limit teen driving during high-risk conditions. Teens face consequences for violating these limits, such as a temporary loss of driving privileges. However, the limits are gradually lifted as they gain driving experience. More than rules matter Ultimately, preventing crashes in the summer and beyond extends beyond mere adherence to regulations. Avoiding them fundamentally hinges on cultivating a robust safety culture that emphasizes a collective commitment to risk reduction and continuous improvement in driving practices. For teens, the summer months present unique challenges and opportunities. Drawing on best practices, such as training programs, teens can build essential skills in varied conditions before gaining full, unsupervised privileges.
Aston University researcher investigates safety risks of secondhand cosmetics sold online
As second-hand beauty products grow in popularity, so do questions about their safety. At Aston University, Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical science, is leading an academic investigation into the microbiological risks associated with pre-owned cosmetics being sold through online platforms like Vinted and Facebook Marketplace. The project, which has received ethical approval from the University’s Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, will assess the types of bacteria and potential contaminants found in used cosmetics – such as makeup and skincare – when they are resold and reused by new owners. “Second-hand beauty is trending for sustainability and affordability,” said Dr Bashir. “But very little research has explored what’s actually living in those products — and what kind of risk that might pose to everyday users.” Why this matters Pre-owned beauty items are often marketed as sustainable and cost-effective, but without careful handling they can harbour microorganisms – from bacteria to mould – that may cause infections, allergic reactions, or worse. Without knowing when a product was first opened or its expiry date, buyers could be unknowingly using unsafe cosmetics. Dr Bashir’s study will be among the first in the UK to analyse not just contamination, but also expiry timelines, and how low consumer awareness of these dates adds to the risk. The study will explore: • Types of microbiological contamination found in used products • Risks posed by product type (e.g., mascaras vs. powders) • Storage conditions and packaging integrity • Expiry dates and consumer awareness, for example: - Cosmetics have expiry timelines printed as either a date or a small jar symbol with a number (e.g., 6M, 12M, 24M, 36M), indicating months after opening. - Products can be contaminated long before the expiry date if not stored properly. - Dr Bashir’s previous research found that many makeup users didn’t know where to find the expiry date on the packaging and often kept products for years past their safe-use period. Potential to shape consumer safety and regulation With second-hand beauty sales on the rise, the findings could help shape public health messaging, consumer awareness campaigns, and online marketplace guidelines. Results could also support industry discussions on product labelling, returns, and hygiene standards. The project bridges the gap between digital consumer behaviour and health science, with implications for how individuals make purchasing decisions and how regulations adapt to a fast-changing beauty market. ⸻ Want to learn more or collaborate? Updates will be shared through academic publications and public-facing channels once data collection and sample testing are complete. Click on the icon below to connect with: Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical sciences Areas of expertise: Clinical microbiology, antimicrobial resistance, bacteria found in food, makeup products, food and water microbiology
Dr. Sameer Hinduja is one of the world’s foremost experts on cyberbullying, adolescent mental health, and digital safety. A Professor at Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Co-Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, he has advised the White House, testified before federal agencies, and worked with schools and tech companies worldwide to protect young people online. View Full Profile→ Amid the U.S. youth mental health crisis, his latest peer-reviewed study, published through FAU Newsdesk, reveals that hope not only boosts well-being and academic achievement but also acts as a powerful shield against bullying and cyberbullying in adolescents. Results, published in the journal Frontiers in Sociology, show that students with less hope were 56% more likely to cyberbully others than their peers over their lifetime, and 57% more likely over the last 30 days. Those with more hope were 36% less likely to cyberbully others over their lifetime and over the last 30 days when compared to their peers with lower levels of hope. The key takeaway? Hope matters. It buffers against the urge to aggress against others online and off. “Hope acts as a powerful protective factor against both school bullying and cyberbullying among youth,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., lead author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “When young people believe in their ability to set meaningful goals and stay motivated to reach them, they are far less likely to lash out or harm others. Hope gives them a sense of direction – and that can make all the difference.” Hinduja's previous research has been featured in The Washington Post, where he emphasized that cyberbullying is not just emotionally distressing—it can cause trauma responses in teens that mirror clinical Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “As our research clearly shows, cyberbullying in any form — whether it’s exclusion from a group chat or direct threats — can lead to significant trauma in youth,” Sameer Hinduja, a professor in Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the paper’s lead author, said in a news release. “We were surprised to find that no single type of cyberbullying caused more harm than others; all carried a similar risk of traumatic outcomes. This means we can’t afford to dismiss or trivialize certain behaviors as ‘less serious’ — being left out or targeted by rumors can be just as detrimental as more overt attacks.” Why This Matters Now As students return to school this fall, Hinduja’s research offers a clear reminder: digital harm is real harm. Emotional safety in online environments deserves the same urgency as physical safety in school buildings. His work calls for: • Preventive education over punitive responses • Trauma-informed approaches in schools • Support systems that validate and protect victims • Tech accountability and policy reform ⸻ Dr. Hinduja is available for media interviews on topics such as: Adolescent Mental Health • Cyberbullying • PTSD • Digital Safety • School Culture Click on the icon below to connect.
Dr. Brian LaPointe, Research Professor at Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, is one of the nation’s most recognized experts on marine ecosystems. His work spans algal physiology, biochemistry, biodiversity, and coastal conservation — with more than a decade of dedicated research focused on the rise and impact of sargassum blooms across the Atlantic. LaPointe confirmed that sargassum levels in the North Atlantic have hit a new biomass record — and much of it is now washing ashore across South Florida’s coastlines. The scale of this bloom, he says, could have lasting consequences for marine ecosystems, tourism, and public health. LaPointe recently spoke to CNN about why this record bloom is raising alarm bells: “Sargassum goes from being a very beneficial resource of the North Atlantic to becoming what we refer to as… a harmful algal bloom when it comes ashore in excessive biomass.” Ammonia is another problem emitted by the decaying seaweed, LaPointe noted. The chemical compound “strips the oxygen out of the waters along our coastal ecosystems like mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds,” he said. The scale of the bloom is staggering. According to University of South Florida estimates cited by LaPointe, over 31 million tons of sargassum have been detected this year — a 40% increase over the previous record. Dr. Brian LaPointe is available to speak with the media on this topic. For interviews, click below to view his full profile and click the connect button.
New research reveals how religious tattoos reflect a cultural – and generational – shift in how faith is expressed through permanent body art. Dr. Kevin D. Dougherty, professor of sociology at Baylor University, brings a unique lens to this evolving phenomenon. An award-winning educator and active researcher, Dougherty teaches both undergraduates and graduate students in areas of sociology, including courses on religion, teaching and organizational life. His research explores religious affiliation, participation, racial diversity in congregations and the ways faith intersects with politics, work and community. In a recent study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Dougherty and his co-authors – Texas Tech sociology professors Jerome R. Koch, Ph.D. and Paticia Maloney, Ph.D. – examine how tattoos—once seen as rebellious—are now being embraced as spiritual markers, particularly among younger generations. The study used national data from the 2021 Baylor Religion Survey, administered by Gallup to a random sample of 1,248 U.S. adults. The findings reveal that nearly 10% of American adults have tattoos with religious or spiritual significance – suggesting a major cultural shift in how lived religion is publicly and permanently expressed. “What we’re seeing is that tattoos are becoming modern-day sacred objects,” said Koch. “They’re permanent, deeply personal and often worn as both a proclamation of faith and a private reminder of belief.” The research challenges longstanding stereotypes that religious individuals avoid tattoos. While highly religious adults remain slightly less likely overall to be tattooed, younger people with strong religious commitment were the most likely to mark their faith visibly and permanently on their bodies. The study also points to a broader evolution in faith practices. Tattoos are now joining other forms of spiritual expression like jewelry and clothing—but with one major distinction: permanence. “A religious tattoo doesn’t come off. It travels with you,” said Dougherty. “It encourages continuity, a lasting connection to what you believe.” Dougherty’s interest in the topic was sparked during a classroom assignment, where students were asked to document tattoos on campus. He was struck by how many were linked to religious themes. “Tattoos that once marked the fringes of respectable society are now being redeemed as testimonies of belief,” he said. “They’re a reminder that faith—like culture—is always adapting, always finding new ways to speak.” For media inquiries and to connect with Kevin, click the icon below.
Jennifer Oldham of ChristianaCare Champions Life-Saving CPR Care
“Whether you’re a brother or whether you’re a mother/ You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive.” Nearly 50 years since this song’s debut, the faint symphony of the Bees Gees’ “Stayin’ Alive” can be still heard around the world, though not only through an ordinary radio or Bluetooth speaker. Some people, like Jennifer Oldham, MSN, RN, CEN, AACC, play the tune in their thoughts when giving and demonstrating rhythmic CPR compressions. The song’s tempo serves as guidance to match the timing of CPR chest compressions. Oldham, a cardiovascular quality and innovation nurse program manager at ChristianaCare’s Center for Heart & Vascular Health, has dedicated the last three decades to teaching others about harnessing the power of CPR to save patients and loved ones. She knows firsthand the miracles CPR can produce. Knowledge is power Community members, health care professionals and students have the ability to save a life thanks to Oldham. She’s conducted dozens of classes and lectures to give nurses and bystanders the tools and confidence to perform CPR in an emergency. Her profound work recently earned her an honor at the American Heart Association’s Delaware Heart Ball. The Heart Association recognized four individuals representing four key tenets or “chambers” — “discovery, advocacy, equity, and knowledge.” Oldham was chosen as the honoree for the Knowledge Chamber for her dedication to empowering others with life-saving education and tools. “Jen Oldham’s work is the heartbeat of our Knowledge Chamber. Her dedication to CPR education reflects the very mission of the American Heart Association – to ensure more lives are saved through awareness and action,” said Ellen Vild, director of the Delaware Heart Ball. “Jen’s story reminds us that knowledge is power, but more importantly, it’s compassion in action. We are honored to recognize her as someone who lives that mission every single day.” Oldham’s colleague Neil Wimmer, M.D., MS, interventional cardiologist and medical director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, was delighted to see her recognized. “Jen is an amazing colleague and friend who is driven by compassion and empathy. She makes everyone in our state safer, whether they know it or not,” Wimmer said. The gift of life To Oldham, teaching others about CPR is rewarding. She makes a meaningful impact on patients’ lives every day through care, education, emotional support and community connection. CPR is more than just a technique, she said: It’s a lifechanging bond. “In my opinion, performing CPR is one of the most kind and loving acts one person can do for another. It is incredibly intimate … laying hands on someone’s chest and pushing, circulating their blood to save their life,” Oldham said. “What a beautiful gift to give someone — the gift of life, the gift of more time with their loved one.” Walking to save lives The ChristianaCare team and Oldham support heart health as part of the annual Wilmington Heart Walk. Last year they raised over $42,000 for the American Heart Association to fund research and education to help Americans live longer, healthier lives. Oldham has been a co-chair of the event since 2017 and is a strong advocate of the AHA’s mission. Valerie Dechant, M.D., MBA, FACP, chief medical officer of Christiana Hospital, knows the value of Oldham’s efforts in the community. “Jen’s passion for educating the public about acute cardiac emergencies is unmatched,” she said. “With decades of experience and a remarkable ability to translate clinical expertise into clear actionable knowledge, she empowers others to learn to feel confident and prepared in a crisis.”
Tariffs fuel global sourcing shakeup for fashion in the U.S.
Be prepared to see more Made in Vietnam or Made in Bangladesh labels on clothing in the coming years. That’s because U.S. fashion companies are rethinking their global sourcing strategies and operations in response to the Trump administration’s trade policies and tariffs, according to new research by the University of Delaware's Sheng Lu. Lu, professor and graduate director in the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies, partners with the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), on an annual survey of executives at the top 25 U.S. fashion brands, retailers, importers and wholesalers doing business globally. Members include well-known names like Levi’s, Macy’s, Ralph Lauren and Under Armour, among others. The report covers business challenges and outlook, sourcing practices and views on trade policy. “We wear more than just clothes; we wear the global economy, the supply chain and the public policies that jointly make fashion and affordable clothing available to American families,” Lu said. “We want to know where these companies source their products and what factors matter to them the most. It’s a classic question and it evolves each year.” This year’s report, released on July 31, shows tariffs and protectionist policies are the top business challenge for companies, with nearly half reporting declining sales and more than 20% saying they have had to lay off employees. This was followed closely by uncertainty around inflation and the economy, increasing sourcing and production costs, and changes in trade policies from other countries. In response, more than 80% of companies said they will diversify the countries from which they source their products, focusing on vendors in Asian countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Indonesia. Despite the push for “Made in USA” garments, only 17% of respondents plan to increase sourcing from the U.S. Lu shared his findings in the following Q&A: What surprised you about the survey results? Two things surprised me. First, contrary to common perception, the results do not indicate that the tariff policy so far has effectively supported or encouraged more textile and apparel production in the U.S. This actually makes sense. U.S. mills are as uncertain about the tariff rates as our trading partners are. A U.S. company may manufacture the clothes here, but use yarns, fabrics and zippers from other countries. When tariffs drive up the cost of these raw materials, it reduces the price competitiveness of apparel “Made in the USA.” Many domestic factories are in a “wait and see” mode, holding back on making critical investments to expand production due to the lack of a clear policy signal. Second, I was struck by the wide-ranging impact of the tariffs, which has gone far beyond what I originally imagined. Tariffs have not only increased U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing costs but have also affected their product development, shipping and overall supply chain management. Nearly 70% of the survey respondents said they have delayed or canceled some sourcing orders due to tariff hikes. Should consumers be prepared for less variety in clothing or shortages? Later this year, we may see fewer clothing items from our favorite brands on store shelves — especially during the holiday shopping season — and many of those items may come with a higher price tag. That said, fashion companies are doing what they can to avoid passing on tariff costs across the board, as they recognize that consumers are price sensitive. Many surveyed U.S. fashion companies say they intend to strengthen relationships with key vendors as a strategic move, and there is a growing public call for U.S. companies to provide more support and resources to their suppliers in developing countries. Sustainability is a huge issue in the fashion industry, as millions of tons of textiles end up in landfills every year. Companies say they are spending less on sustainability efforts. What would you tell companies about their sustainability efforts? Our survey suggests that sustainability can open up new business opportunities for U.S. fashion companies. Respondents said that when sourcing clothing made from sustainable fibers — like recycled, organic, biodegradable and regenerative materials — they are more likely to rely on a U.S. sourcing base or suppliers in the Western Hemisphere. In other words, even if apparel “Made in the USA” or nearby cannot always compete on price with lower-cost Asian suppliers, there is a better chance to compete on sustainability. Based on what I’ve learned from our Gen Z students — who expect better quality and more sustainable products if they have to pay more, and are critical consumers for many brands and retailers — it is unwise to hold back on investments in sustainability. What do you see as the biggest takeaway from the survey? One key takeaway is that the $4 trillion fashion and apparel business today is truly “made anywhere in the world and sold anywhere in the world.” In such a highly global and interconnected industry, everyone is a stakeholder — meaning there are no real winners in a tariff war. The study is also a powerful reminder that fashion is far more than just creating stylish clothing. Today’s fashion industry is deeply intertwined with sustainability, international relations, trade policy and technology. I hope the findings will be timely, informative and useful to fashion companies, policymakers, suppliers and fellow researchers. I plan to incorporate the insights, as well as the valuable industry connections developed through my long term partnership with USFIA, in my classroom, giving UD students fresh, real-world perspectives on the often “unfashionable” but essential side of the industry. Reporters interested in speaking with Lu can contact him directly by visiting his profile and clicking on the contact button. UD's media relations team can be reached via email.
