Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
The Lost Girls of Autism is published on 3 April 2025, coinciding with Autism Awareness Month in April In the book, Professor Rippon explores the ‘male’ history of autism, and why autism in women has been misunderstood and ignored Professor Rippon will give a free public lecture on the book at Aston University on 6 May 2025. Gina Rippon, professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN), has written a new book, entitled The Lost Girls of Autism. The book will be released on 3 April 2025, coinciding with Autism Acceptance Month in April. It has the subtitle ‘How Science Failed Autistic Women and the New Research that’s Changing the Story’. Historically, doctors believed that autism was a male condition, and simply did not look for it in girls and women. This has meant that autistic girls visiting a doctor have been misdiagnosed with anxiety, depression or personality disorders, or are missed altogether. Many women only discover they have the condition when they are much older, missing decades of support. In more recent years, it has become apparent that girls and women with autism have different traits and behaviours to boys and men, and are more likely to hide autistic traits to fit in – known as camouflaging. In The Lost Girls of Autism, Professor Rippon explores the emerging science of female autism, and examines why it has been systematically ignored and misunderstood for so long. Professor Rippon will give a free public lecture about her book on Tuesday 6 May 2025 at 18:00 BST at Aston Business School. Visit https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-lost-girls-of-autism-an-audience-with-author-gina-rippon-tickets-1304020734119 for more information and tickets. Copies of the book will be on sale at the event. Professor Rippon said: “This book reveals how a ‘male spotlight’ problem has biased many aspects of the autism story, from what autism is, to how we recognise it, and even how brain imagers like me search for answers. It shows how and why autistic women have been unrecognised, overlooked and unsupported. It shines a new light on how the story is changing and how we are now beginning to recognise the full spectrum of the autistic experience. It is for anyone with an interest in autism in all its presentations.”
Protect yourself: Scammed by a QR Code? It didn’t have to happen
QR codes are used everywhere nowadays – to pay for metered parking, to read menus at restaurants, to win a free cup of coffee. Cybercriminals are using them, too – redirecting users to harmful websites that harvest their data. The practice is known as “quishing,” derived from QR code phishing, and it is a fast-growing cybercrime. But it doesn’t have to be. University of Rochester engineers Gaurav Sharma and Irving Barron have devised a new form of QR code – called a self-authenticating dual-modulated QR (SDMQR) – that protects smartphone users from quishing attacks by signaling when users are being directed to a safe link or a potential scam. Gaurav is a professor of electrical and computer engineering, computer science, and biostatistics and computational biology. Barron is an assistant professor of instruction in electrical computer engineering. Their creation involves allowing companies to register their websites and embed a cryptographic signature in a QR code. When the code is scanned, the user is notified that the code is from an official source and safe. Gaurav and Barron recently wrote about their technology in the journal IEEE Security and Privacy, and spoke about their work on the National Science Foundation's Discovery Files podcast. They can be reached by email at gaurav.sharma@rochester.edu and ibarron@ur.rochester.edu.
For autonomous machines to flourish, scalability is everything
The past decade has seen remarkable advancements in robotics and AI technologies, ushering in the era of autonomous machines. While the rise of these machines promises to revolutionize our economy, the reality has fallen short of expectations. That’s not for a lack of intensive investments in research in development, says Yuhao Zhu, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Rochester. The reason we’re not seeing more service robots, autonomous drones, and self-driving vehicles, Zhu says, is that autonomation development is currently scaling with the size of engineering teams rather than the amount of relevant data and computational resources. This limitation prevents the autonomy industry from fully leveraging economies of scale, Zhu says, particularly the exponentially decreasing cost of computing power and the explosion of available data. Zhu recently co-authored a report on the quest for economies of scale in autonomation in Communications of the ACM and is part of an international team of computer scientists focused on making autonomous machines more reliable and less costly. He can be reached by email at yzhu@rochester.edu.
A Bumpy Ride Ahead for HigherEd
A confluence of political, economic, and social challenges is threatening the very fabric of US universities. In both red and blue states, the political and economic headwinds facing institutions are fierce, public skepticism is high, and social media has become a polarizing battleground of filter bubbles filled with mis/disinformation. Universities find themselves squeezed by funding cuts, scrutinized by lawmakers, and caught in cultural crossfire. This presents a unique challenge for communications professionals. In this era of declining trust and “alternative facts,” they need to be hyper-informed, adapt quickly, and boldly emphasize the critical value institutions have in society. Communications should function as a vital link, bridging this growing divide between town and gown. In red and blue states, the political and economic headwinds hitting higher education are fierce, public skepticism is high, and social media has become a polarizing battleground of filter bubbles filled with mis/disinformation. It's important to note that throughout history, universities often emerge stronger and more deeply connected to the public during times of turbulence. Universities played a key role in partnering with the government to implement Roosevelt's New Deal, helping with emergency relief and agricultural programs. They helped democratize education with the GI Bill after World War II. They responded to societal demands during the civil rights era. Most recently, they played a key role in public health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Campus communicators have a unique set of skills and a vital responsibility to steer their institutions through these tough times. But the road ahead will be hard. The New Reality for Campus Communicators Cuts to Research Funding The lifeblood of academic innovation—research dollars—is under threat. The new political regime in Washington is looking to cut billions in federal research funding. A sudden cap on NIH indirect costs (slashed to 15% from an average of 28%) will have a profound impact on programs. Many researchers report that major grants are frozen or are expected to shrink. This “budget axe” isn’t theoretical for research universities—it’s biting right now. Communicators must convey what’s at stake: essential contributions such as groundbreaking science, community health programs, and innovation pipelines that fuel the economy hang in the balance as money gets tighter. Increasing State Oversight & Regulation In state capitals, politicians are muscling into campus affairs like never before. Republican-controlled statehouses are overhauling higher education governance, introducing over 150 bills in 35 states aimed at tightening control over public institutions. Even tenure is threatened. In the past year, lawmakers in seven states moved to eliminate or curb tenure and impose stricter post-tenure reviews – an unprecedented encroachment on academic freedom. New laws and proposals are creating oversight committees, mandating changes to the curriculum, and even threatening funding for programs out of political favor. The message from some state capitols is clear: “We’re watching you.” This surge in oversight and regulatory meddling means university communicators must navigate an increasingly fine line, demonstrating transparency and accountability at every turn to appease regulators while fiercely defending their institution’s academic autonomy. Political Pressure and DEI Backlash Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are under open attack. What began as partisan rhetoric has evolved into concrete threats – and actions – against campus diversity efforts. Dozens of states have passed or proposed laws to defund DEI offices, ban diversity training, or restrict teaching about race and gender. The result? An “inconsistent and confusing landscape” for colleges as they respond to swelling political pressure. The campaign against campus DEI has dramatically accelerated in 2025, turbocharged by signals from the Trump administration pushing to eliminate DEI efforts across government and higher ed. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education 270 campuses in 38 states have already scaled back or dismantled some DEI programs under this pressure. For communications teams, the DEI backlash creates a messaging minefield. They must affirm institutional values of inclusion and support for marginalized groups, even as those very programs face hostile scrutiny from powerful critics. Threats to the Federal Department of Education In Washington, the unthinkable is suddenly on the table: the U.S. Department of Education itself is in the crosshairs. President Trump has made good on campaign promises by signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. While outright abolition requires Congress, the administration has already laid off nearly half of the department’s staff and moved to strip the agency to its bare bones. “We’re going to shut it down… it’s doing us no good,” Trump declared. This unprecedented move could upend federal support and guidelines for universities – from financial aid administration to civil rights enforcement – leaving states to fill the void. Communications professionals must reassure students, faculty, and the public that education won’t grind to a halt if federal oversight wanes. It’s a communications tightrope: acknowledging the potential for massive change while conveying stability in the university’s core mission. After all, even if Washington pulls back, universities still answer to accreditation bodies and the public trust. The Misinformation Deluge on Social Media The information ecosystem has never been more chaotic – or more dangerous. Universities are grappling with viral misinformation and disinformation that can ignite campus controversies overnight. In the age of TikTok rumors and politicized Twitter (or “X”) feeds, false narratives spread like wildfire before facts can catch up. Recent campus incidents have shown how quickly truth gets muddled: one university saw fake reports about a protest spread widely. At the same time, another dealt with a gross misinterpretation of a student gathering that went viral. Photos and videos are routinely ripped out of context or deliberately edited with misleading labels. The public, meanwhile, is “bombarded with misinformation” online and growing distrustful of experts. For higher ed communicators, countering misinformation means fighting a two-front war: rapidly correcting falsehoods about their institution and proactively pushing out accurate, compelling content to capture attention before the rumors do. Economic Uncertainty and Budget Turbulence. Even aside from targeted funding cuts, universities are feeling economic whiplash. Inflation, endowment fluctuations, and post-pandemic enrolment dips have collided to squeeze campus finances. Many institutions face structural deficits and tough choices about programs and staffing. In fact, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, two-thirds of colleges now show at least one sign of financial stress – a startling statistic that underscores how widespread the budget crunch has become. From flagship public universities to small private colleges, hiring freezes and spending cuts are the order of the day. Every dollar is scrutinized by trustees and legislators alike. Communications pros must now operate in a climate of fiscal anxiety, where messages about any new initiative or expense can trigger questions about priorities. The task at hand is to highlight the university’s economic stewardship and continued value to students and the community, even as belts tighten. It’s critical to communicate that the institution is navigating the storm responsibly—protecting its academic core and maximizing the impact of every precious dollar. Demands to Prove Real-world Impact “What is higher ed really doing for society?” In 2025, that question echoes from state capitols, donors’ boards, and kitchen tables across America. Universities are under intense pressure to demonstrate the real-world value of their research and teaching like never before. Lawmakers openly discuss ROI (return on investment) for degrees and research grants, seeking data on graduates’ earnings and innovations spawned per taxpayer dollar. Public confidence in higher education has been shaken – a recent Gallup survey found Americans’ confidence in colleges has plummeted to 36%, down from 57% in 2015. Many believe in personal value (a college degree for better jobs) but doubt that higher education delivers for the greater good. In short, the public is skeptical whether campus research and scholarship are worth the cost. University communicators must do more than publicize exciting discoveries – they must connect the dots for people. Every media release, story, or tweet should answer: Here’s how this university’s work benefits you, your community, and the world. Whether it’s a medical breakthrough, a tech startup from the lab, or a student project solving a local problem, the mandate is clear: show impact or risk losing support. In my next post, I'll provide a detailed blueprint to help communications professionals proactively plan and organize their teams for the road ahead. This actionable framework will help you better identify where you can add value for your institution where it needs it the most and confirm your critical role as a trusted resource. To your success! Upcoming Speaking Events April 23 PRSA Virtual Workshop "Cutting Through the Noise: What Thought Leadership Strategies are Working in Today’s Environment” Register Here June 8 IABC World Conference, Vancouver “The Thought Leadership Blueprint: Why & How to Build a High-Impact Program” Register Here Sept. 12-13 PRSA East Central Conference, Cleveland “The New Comms Leadership Skillset” Register Here About ExpertFile ExpertFile is revolutionizing how organizations connect their experts to journalists, podcasters, and conference organizers who need to find credible experts on tight deadlines…fast. Featuring experts on over 50,000 topics, our free Apple and Android mobile app is the go-to resource for journalists at media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, NPR Radio, Fox News, BBC, The Guardian, ABC News, CBC, AXIOS and Time Magazine. For over a decade, our award-winning software platform has been helping marketing departments better manage and promote their online thought leadership to reach a wider audience. Clients include Carnegie Mellon University, ChristianaCare Health, Villanova University, Aston University and Emory University. Learn more at: expertfile.com/getstarted
President Trump Plans Call to Putin
Dr. Meena Bose talked to Fox News Radio stations around the country about President Donald Trump’s planned call with Russian President Vladimir Putin to help negotiate a ceasefire and an eventual end to the war in Ukraine. Dr. Bose spoke to: WRVA in Richmond, VA; WBAP in Dallas, TX; and WFRK in Florence, SC; WHO in Des Moines, IA; and KURV in McAllen, TX. Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
How authorship language helped catch a domestic terrorist – new podcast
In the latest episode of Writing Wrongs, hosts Professor Tim Grant and Dr Nicci MacLeod interview Dr Isobelle Clarke to unravel a case where forensic linguistics helped track down and convict a dangerous individual. Episode three, Imposters Tending to the Wild with Dr Isobelle Clarke, dives into the chilling case of Nikolaos Karvounakis, a self-proclaimed anarchist who planted a viable explosive device in Princes Street Gardens, Edinburgh, in 2018. Karvounakis, a Greek national, evaded capture for years, hiding behind online anonymity and extremist rhetoric. However, forensic linguists stepped in to analyse his anonymous blog posts, revealing patterns in his language that ultimately helped Police Scotland link him to the crime. The case not only demonstrates how linguistic evidence can be a powerful forensic tool but also raises crucial questions about the role of language analysis in modern terrorism investigations. On 11 January 2018, a suspicious cardboard box was discovered in a public seating area in Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens. After a controlled explosion, investigators determined the device could have caused serious harm had it detonated. With no immediate leads, the investigation stalled - until an anonymous blog post surfaced, claiming responsibility for the attack. The post, written in both English and Spanish, was linked to an eco-anarchist group called Individualists Tending to the Wild, a Mexican-based extremist organisation advocating violent action against technological progress. Crucially, the post included an image of the bomb’s interior, a detail only the perpetrator or law enforcement could have known. Police Scotland sought the expertise of Professor Tim Grant, who analysed the text, producing a linguistic profile that suggested the writer was neither a native English nor Spanish speaker - but rather someone influenced by another language entirely. Two years later, police identified Nikolaos Karvounakis as a suspect. Using comparative authorship analysis, Professor Tim Grant compared his online writings - including song lyrics from his rock band - to the manifesto. By dissecting word patterns, grammatical structures and stylistic quirks, he established that Karvounakis was the likely author. This evidence -alongside forensic meteorology, which linked photos of clouds in Karvounakis’ blog posts to the same weather conditions on the day of the crime - was used to secure a warrant and seize computers containing known writings by Karvounakis. To eliminate inevitable bias that would result from having worked the case for more than two years, Professor Grant invited Dr Isabelle Clarke onto the case as an independent forensic linguist. Using a version of the General Imposters Method, a technique similar to a police lineup but for language, Dr Clarke confirmed that the writing style in the blog post was the closest to Karvounakis’ known writings. Police Scotland put the evidence in the case, including the linguistic evidence, to Karvounakis, and secured a guilty plea. In February 2022, Nikolaos Karvounakis was sentenced to over eight years in prison under the UK’s Terrorism Act. Tim Grant, professor of forensic linguistics at Aston University, said: “The case highlights the growing importance of forensic linguistics in solving crimes, particularly in an age where digital anonymity combines with extremist ideologies. “It also highlights the how different types of language analysis can assist as a case moves through different stages of investigation.” Dr Nicci MacLeod, deputy director of the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, said: “This episode offers listeners a behind-the-scenes look at the forensic methods that expose deception, identify threats and ultimately bring criminals to justice.” Dr Isobelle Clarke, a lecturer in security and protection science at Lancaster University and one of the first graduates from the campus-based MA Forensic Linguistics programme at Aston University, said: “It was great to be back at Aston University talking about the Karvounakis case for the Writing Wrongs podcast. “It’s an interesting case to highlight, as it shows how different types of language analysis can help with police investigations.” Writing Wrongs is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and all major streaming platforms. Listeners are encouraged to subscribe, share and engage with the hosts by submitting their forensic linguistics questions. Whether it’s about this case or broader forensic linguistic techniques, Professor Grant and Dr MacLeod welcome inquiries from listeners.
Teaching the Dangers of Snow Squalls
Dr. Jase E. Bernhardt, associate professor of geology, environment, and sustainability and director of meteorology, was featured on WPSU/Pennsylvania Cable and on The Weather Channel’s Weather Geek podcast about his VR research that demonstrates the danger of driving in a snow squall and the science behind these dangerous bursts of weather.
Aston University study reveals the illusion of ‘dazzle’ paint on World War I battleships
The Zealandia in wartime dazzle paint. Image: Australian National Maritime Museum on The Commons Geometric ‘dazzle’ camouflage was used on ships in WWI to confuse enemy onlookers as to the direction and speed of the ship Timothy Meese and Samantha Strong reanalysed historic data from 1919 and found that the ‘horizon effect’ is more effective for confusion When viewing a ship at distance, it often appears to be travelling along the horizon, regardless of its actual direction of travel – this is the ‘horizon effect’. A new analysis of 105-year-old data on the effectiveness of ‘dazzle’ camouflage on battleships in World War I by Aston University researchers Professor Tim Meese and Dr Samantha Strong has found that while dazzle had some effect, the ‘horizon effect’ had far more influence when it came to confusing the enemy. During World War I, navies experimented with painting ships with ‘dazzle’ camouflage – geometric shapes and stripes – in an attempt to confuse U-boat captains as to the speed and direction of travel of the ships and make them harder to attack. The separate ‘horizon effect’ is when a person looks at a ship in the distance, and it appears to be travelling along the horizon, regardless of its actual direction of travel. Ships travelling at an angle of up to 25° relative to the horizon appear to be travelling directly along it. Even with those at a greater angle to the horizon, onlookers significantly underestimate the angle. Despite widespread use of dazzle camouflage, it was not until 1919 that a proper, quantitative study was carried out, by MIT naval architecture and marine engineering student Leo Blodgett for his degree thesis. He painted model ships in dazzle patterns and placed them in a mechanical test theatre with a periscope, like those used by U-boat captains, to measure how much onlookers’ estimations of the ships’ direction of travel deviated from their actual direction of travel. Professor Meese and Dr Strong realised that while the data collected by Blodgett was useful, his methods of experimental design fell short of modern standards. He’d found that dazzle camouflage worked, but the Aston University team suspected that dazzle alone was not responsible for the results seen, cleaned the data and designed new analysis to better understand what it really shows. Dr Strong, a senior lecturer at Aston University’s School of Optometry, said: “It's necessary to have a control condition to draw firm conclusions, and Blodgett's report of his own control was too vague to be useful. We ran our own version of the experiment using photographs from his thesis and compared the results across the original dazzle camouflage versions and versions with the camouflage edited out. Our experiment worked well. Both types of ships produced the horizon effect, but the dazzle imposed an additional twist.” If the errors made by the onlookers in the perceived direction of travel of the ship were entirely due to the ‘twist’ on perspective caused by dazzle paintwork, the bow, or front, of the ship, would always be seen to twist away from its true direction. However, Professor Meese and Dr Strong instead showed that when the true direction was pointing away from the observer, the bow was often perceived to twist towards the observer instead. Their detailed analysis showed a small effect of twist from the dazzle camouflage but a much larger one from the horizon effect. Sometimes these effects were in competition, sometimes in harmony. Professor Meese, a professor of vision science at the School of Optometry, said: “We knew already about the twist and horizon effects from contemporary computer-based work with colleagues at Abertay University. The remarkable finding here is that these same two effects, in similar proportions, are clearly evident in participants familiar with the art of camouflage deception, including a lieutenant in a European navy. This adds considerable credibility to our earlier conclusions by showing that the horizon effect – which has nothing to do with dazzle – was not overcome by those best placed to know better. “This is a clear case where visual perception is more powerful than knowledge. In fact, back in the dazzle days, the horizon effect was not identified at all, and Blodgett's measurements of perceptual bias were attributed entirely to the camouflage, deceiving the deceivers.” Professor Meese and Dr Strong say that more work is required to fully understand how dazzle might have increased perceptual uncertainty of direction and speed but also the geometry behind torpedo-aiming tactics that might have supported some countermeasures. Visit https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695241312316 to read the full paper in i-Perception.
Expert Opinion: Maneuvering friendships in the age of half-truths can be challenging
I recently shared an op-ed written by my colleague and friend, Ted Petersen, on a few social media sites. His thoughtful piece advocated for media literacy education. Later that day I received an alert that someone had commented on my post. The comment, made by a dear friend, alluded to disinformation about U.S.A.I.D.’s use of funds ― a false assertion that the federal agency supported the news outlet Politico for partisan gain. The comment was a perfect example of why media literacy education is important ― not just for school children. It gives people the tools to navigate a borderless media environment in which news and opinion, verified facts and unsubstantiated statements, and information and entertainment coexist. My dilemma after reading the comment was multi-faceted. What should I do? Do I respond? If so, how do I tell my friend that he is misinformed? If I don’t respond, am I shirking my responsibility as a friend, a citizen, an educator? How do I now live in a world in which my friends and family consume and trust media that actively promote disinformation? And, most importantly, how do I live in a world in which people I love are listening to a barrage of messages telling them that I am evil? That I cannot be trusted? That I should be hated? Because underlying his deceptively simple comment is the possibility that, like many, my friend trusts certain media and messages while castigating all those that don’t always align with their world view. These messages are coming through media channels that give voice to leaders and media personalities who gain traction with their audiences by demonizing those they deem their enemies. They use half-truths and outright lies to gain sway with their followers. Anyone who thinks, looks, believes differently cannot be trusted. As a media scholar I have studied media effects, persuasion, and audiences. I’ve analyzed the meaning audiences give messages and how different approaches affect audience perceptions. I’ve written about the importance of narrative and message framing. I have advocated for the ethical use of these powerful tools. As a human being, I’m saddened as I witness blatant disregard for ethical principles in those leaders and media personalities who wield communication like a weapon to undermine trust. The results are impenetrable walls separating us from those who should be our allies. After spending most of my life believing I was part of a community, able to agree or disagree, discuss and argue, to teach and to learn in conversation with others, I find myself the “other.” Dismissed. Demonized. Hated. Not by faceless strangers, but by those dear to me. I suspect I’m not alone in this feeling ― regardless of ideological preferences. Discord is painful. My heart hurts. Yet, I am stubbornly hopeful. When I see my students from different backgrounds, cultures, and generations, discussing ideas for solutions to social issues, I am hopeful. When I hear my pastor fearlessly speaking to the congregation about loving each other even in disagreement, I am hopeful. When I speak to community groups and listen to their concerns and insights, I am hopeful. When I have a long-overdue conversation with my friend instead of relying on mediated social platforms, I am hopeful. I recently spoke to a Rotary Club and borrowed their four-way test to suggest a healthier relationship with media and communication generally. Of the things we produce, consume, or share, we should ask ourselves: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? If the answer to any of those questions is no, we should change the channel, seek another source for context, delete the post, block the sender, or adjust our message so we can answer yes And if you are asking yourself why you should be fair, or build goodwill, or benefit anyone from “the other side” ―perhaps scroll through your photos or look at the pictures on your desk or mantel. We are not adversaries. We’re on the same side. It’s time to stop listening to those who tell us otherwise. Heidi Hatfield Edwards is associate dean in Florida Tech’s College of Psychology and Liberal Arts and head of the School of Arts and Communication where she is a professor of communication. She began her career as a media professional and worked nearly a decade gaining experience across multiple media platforms and in strategic communication. She teaches courses in mass communication, theory, and science communication. Heidi is available to speak with media. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.
Expert Insight: Keeping the power on!
With extreme weather becoming more commonplace than a phenomenon, America's reliance on power and electricity has been in the spotlight. Unfortunately, it's not for its resilience and reliability, but for the vulnerability of millions of Americans with each passing weather event. Florida Tech's Ken Cummins contributed to a recent study published in PLOS Climate that examined how various extreme weather events threaten the power grid in the United States. Multiple studies have shown that power outages alone can increase threats to human health—from spoiled food to failing medical equipment to a loss of heat in winter. These threats become more dire when paired with severe weather. This kind of information could be useful to utility companies, which must allocate finite resources for maintenance and repair and make plans for a range of scenarios, said Ken Cummins, a researcher at the Florida Institute of Technology with experience in grid reliability who wasn’t involved in the research. (Cummins is a former science adviser to Eos.) But he cautioned that the specific infrastructure used by local electric utilities, which can vary significantly, is also an important factor. “One thing that would be a problem in St. Louis might not be a problem in Denver or Omaha and would certainly be a different problem in New York City or Long Island,” he said. February 21 - EOS The same research got a lot of coverage across America and internationally. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: ZME Science: This is a vital topic given the weight climate change and extreme weather are now placing on America's energy sector. If you're a journalist looking to cover this topic, let us help. Dr. Ken Cummins is a part-time Research Professor in the Department of Aerospace, Physics, and Space Sciences at Florida Institute of Technology. He is formally trained in statistical signal processing, modeling, and instrumentation. Ken is available to speak with media. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.