Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
The race for the White House is on - and Georgia Southern experts are here to help
The upcoming election has been dominating headlines for months. With the recent change at the top of the Democratic ticket from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris has reenergized the campaign and put several states like Georgia and North Carolina back 'in-play' for the Democrats. Georgia has been identified as a key battle ground state for any candidate looking to win in November and it's why both Democrats and Republicans are frequent fliers to the Peach State with rallies and visits already. Those visits are also getting a lot of media attention and Georgia Southern University's experts are front and center assisting with the coverage. Joshua Kennedy, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Political Science and International Studies Areas of Expertise : Political Institutions, Congress, Presidential Power, Federal Bureaucracy, American Politics, American Presidency, Inter-Branch Relations, State Politics. The principal area of study and teaching for Joshua Kennedy, Ph.D., is in American politics, with a more particular focus on the presidency and the federal bureaucracy. Kennedy has presented his work at numerous conferences, including the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association and the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. His research has appeared in such outlets as American Politics Research, Research and Politics and Presidential Studies Quarterly. View profile and connect here Recent media: Joshua Kennedy has recently been interviewed by media such as WTOC 11, ABC News and Fox 28 in Savannah, Georgia, as well as various other local and regional media outlets when covering politics in Georgia. *** Kimberly Martin Tecklenberg, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Political Science and International Studies Areas of Expertise: American Politics, Research Methods, Leadership, Public Policy, Education Policy, State Politics, LGBTQ+ Policy. Kimberly Martin Tecklenberg, Ph.D., teaches courses in American politics, research methods, leadership and public policy. Before pursuing her graduate degree, she worked as the Special Assistant for Secretary of Education Belle Wheelan and former Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia. While at the University of Florida, she worked with former Senator and Gov. Bob Graham to establish the Bob Graham Center for Public Service. After graduation, she moved to Tennessee where she served as Assistant Director of Research at the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. Her past experiences have influenced her current research interests, which focus on education policy, political leadership, state politics and LGBTQ+ policy. View profile and connect here Recent media: Kimberly Martin Tecklenberg has recently been interviewed by media such as NBC, FOX, Al- Jazeera and Courthouse News Service, in addition to various other local, regional and national outlets when covering politics in Georgia. If you're covering the election - our experts are here to help all the way to Nov. 5 and beyond. Visit our Expert Center for a full directory of Georgia Southern experts. Simply click on any expert's icon now to arrange an interview today.
University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication unveils new vision, goals and leadership
The University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication (CPC) is excited to announce a transformative new chapter with the unveiling of its updated vision, goals and leadership for 2024 and beyond. Since its founding in 2010, the CPC has been at the forefront of innovative public opinion research on politics and media, always with an eye towards protecting and improving American democracy. With this new chapter, the CPC is actively integrating political psychology (the study of how and why people make political judgments and form political beliefs) into the study of public opinion and media effects. “Our vision is responsible democracy-centered journalism informed by our rigorous research on Americans’ thoughts, feelings, knowledge and behaviors,” says Dr. Dannagal Young, incoming Director of the Center for Political Communication. “In a few weeks, will be releasing new data on Americans’ knowledge and beliefs about abortion – an issue on which there are widespread misperceptions. Later this fall we are also launching an interdisciplinary initiative to understand the relationship between Americans’ personal wellbeing and their support for democratic institutions and norms.” By producing high-quality research at the intersection of media, politics and psychology, the CPC strives to elevate public conversations and inform news coverage to improve democratic health. Additionally, the Center seeks to serve as a vital resource for journalists, offering expert commentary and empirical data to encourage democratically responsible journalism. With this new direction comes new leadership, bringing together a team of esteemed scholars from Political Science, Communication and Journalism: Director Dr. Dannagal Young, Professor in the Departments of Communication and Political Science and International Relations, TED speaker, and author of Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive our Appetite for Misinformation (Johns Hopkins, 2023) and Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laugher in the U.S. (Oxford, 2020). Areas of Expertise: Misinformation, Political Satire, American Politics, the Psychology of Media Effects. Associate Director Dr. Erin Cassese, Professor in the Departments of Political Science and International Relations, Communication, and Women and Gender Studies, co-author of Abortion Attitudes and Polarization in the American Electorate (Cambridge, 2024). Areas of Expertise: Gender, Abortion, Public Opinion, Campaigns and Elections. Director of Research Dr. Phil Jones, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations, current Editor-in-Chief at Public Opinion Quarterly. Areas of Expertise: Electoral Politics and Public Opinion. Director of Engagement Dr. Lindsay Hoffman, Associate Professor in the Departments of Communication and Political Science and International Relations, and research leader for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni two-year Braver Angels project funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Areas of Expertise: Communication across Difference, Media Technologies, and Political Participation. Delaware Politics Director Dr. Paul Brewer, Professor in the Departments of Communication and Political Science and International Relations, co-author of Science in the Media: Popular Images and Public Perceptions (Routledge, 2021), former editor of the International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Areas of Expertise: Delaware Politics, Media effects, Political and Science Communication, Public Opinion, and Perceptions of Science. Delaware Debate Director: Nancy Karibjanian, Director of the University of Delaware’s Journalism program, faculty member in the Department of Communication, and former Director of the CPC with 30 years of broadcast experience. Areas of Expertise: Broadcast Journalism, and Delaware Debates. The CPC’s goals reflect its commitment to a vibrant and collaborative research environment that engages scholars and students at all levels. The CPC will continue to spearhead interdisciplinary research across the domains of communication, political psychology, public opinion, media effects, and public policy. The Center offers applied research opportunities for both graduate and undergraduate students in communication and political science, as well as an undergraduate minor in political communication, thus mentoring the next generation of scholars and practitioners. The CPC is proud to put its academic research to work in service of American democratic health.
National Institutes of Health award $1.827 million for research on collective cell migration
Priscilla Hwang, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Virginia Commonwealth University, has received a National Institutes of Health grant for $1.827 million over five years. The award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences will support Hwang’s innovative research project “Dissecting mechanisms of collective migration” and provide mentorship for student researchers from the high school to graduate level. Collective migration, where groups of cells move together in a coordinated manner, is critical for the successful development of tissues and plays a vital role in wound healing, metastasis, and other biological processes. Dysregulation in collective migration is often linked to developmental abnormalities and disease progression. Despite its importance, the mechanics and mechanisms driving collective migration remain poorly understood. The project is organized around three primary goals: Investigate the effect of biomechanical cues to activate leader cells and directional collective migration: Understand how biomechanical signals activate leader cells to guide the migration of cell groups. Elucidate which and how leader cell mechanics are responsible for leader cell development: Identify the specific mechanical properties and behaviors that enable leader cells to emerge and lead the collective migration process. Examine the role of cell junctional forces in collective migration: Explore how the forces at cell contacts contribute to the overall migration and coordination among cells. Hwang will leverage her expertise in 3D microphysiological systems to study collective migration in dynamic, physiologically relevant environments. Her work aims to uncover the mechanisms by which leader cells sense and respond to mechanical forces in their environment, driving the collective migration of cells. “Our understanding of collective migration, especially the mechanics and mechanisms driving this phenomenon, is very limited,” Hwang said. “Our proposal will significantly accelerate our progress toward a comprehensive understanding of collective migration and lay the foundation for advancing treatment for developmental abnormalities or diseases.” The NIH grant will also expand student research and mentoring opportunities. “This Maximizing Investigators Research Award (MIRA) only goes to the most highly talented and promising investigators, and Dr. Hwang is most deserving,” said Rebecca L. Heise, Ph.D., Inez A. Caudill, Jr. Distinguished Professor and chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering . “The award will provide support for undergraduate and predoctoral research opportunities in this important area of fundamental research that has an impact on neonatal development, cancer, and fibrotic disease.” To ensure diverse perspectives are considered throughout the project, Hwang said students from diverse populations will be recruited, including underrepresented minorities, women, and first-generation college students. “Further, we will continue to share our passion for science with the community through developing hands-on outreach activities based on our research findings,” she added.
Election 2024: Providing insight during a pivotal campaign season
Voter behavior and emotion, civil discourse, the spread of misinformation, the role of gender and race in politics and conspiracy theories are among the many topics University of Delaware experts can comment on during this final stretch of the 2024 campaign. David Redlawsk Professor of Political Science and International Relations Expertise: Political psychologist who studies voter behavior and emotion, focuses on how voters process political information to make their decisions. He has written several books on politics, worked behind the scenes on campaigns and ran for local office. Dannagal Young Professor of Communication Director of the Center for Political Communication Expertise: The spread of misinformation in politics and the intersection of entertainment and information, with an emphasis on political satire, political media effects, public opinion and the psychology of political humor. Kassra Oskooii Professor of Political Science and International Relations Expertise: Focuses on the interplay between the contextual and psychological determinants of political opinions and behaviors of high and low status group members. Erin Cassese Professor of Political Science and International Relations Expertise: Explores the behavior of women as voters and candidates for political office, and studies political psychology, gender stereotypes, public opinion, elections and the intersection of religion and politics. Yasser Payne Professor of Sociology and Africana Studies Expertise: Research program also focuses on Black racial identity; street identity; economic and educational opportunity or the impact of structural violence. Tim Shaffer SNF Ithaca Director Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Chair of Civil Discourse Expertise: Civil discourse in politics; can talk about partisanship, polarization and their impact on media outlets. advancement of democratic practices by focusing on the role of civic professionals in institutional settings. Alice Ba Professor and acting chair, Political Science and International Relations. Expertise: Her work on the international relations of East and Southeast Asia examines the structures, processes, and systemic effects of regionalism and cooperative regime building, as well as relations between smaller and major powers. Joanne Miller Professor of American Politics, Research Methods and Political Psychology Expertise: Studies political psychology, with an emphasis on political propaganda, misinformation and conspiracy theories. Muqtedar Khan Professor of Comparative Politics, International Relations and Political Theory Expertise: Issues surrounding U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim World as well as national security and counter-terrorism. To speak with any of these experts, simply visit their profle and click on the "contact" button, which will send a message directly to them (while also copying UD's media relations team).
Sustainable mining: Can we satisfy green energy demands without destroying ecosystems?
Minerals are essential for sustainable energy technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal power, yet their importance has led to geopolitical tensions, as seen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These resources are geographically constrained—South Africa's platinum is vital for hydrogen fuel cells, and China leads in mineral refining. Efforts to diversify sources often spark local disputes, as demonstrated by recent opposition in Minnesota to a green-transition minerals project due to environmental and social concerns. University of Delaware expert and Environmental peacemaker Saleem Ali, has a proposed solution: a "mineral trust," or a global mechanism to manage mineral distribution more effectively. As he outlines in a recent TED Talk, this trust would operate like an asset protection trust, with both mineral-producing and technology-demanding countries involved as trustees. It aims to stabilize commodity prices, prevent politicization of resources and enhance management efficiency. Ali has appointments in UD's Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences, Biden School of Public Policy and Administration, Data Science Institute, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy and Delaware Environmental Institute. He has written for and been quoted in multiple outlets, including Forbes. To speak with him further, click his profile.
West Sanctions Russian Aviation, But Moscow Decides to Keep Planes Flying Despite Risks When the U.S. and its allies slapped sanctions on Russia for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, severing aviation links was at the top of the list. Direct flights vanished and Russian airlines lost access to spare parts for their foreign airplanes. In retaliation, Vladimir Putin’s regime impounded foreign aircraft and shut off the world’s largest air space to countries imposing sanctions. Not since the early 1980s—when the U.S. suspended routes to the USSR over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, repression in Poland and downing of a Korean Air Lines plane—have aviation ties between the two countries dipped so low. Aviation sanctions today are having an impact but come with a major risk. If the fatal crash of a jetliner killing hundreds is linked to the lack of spare parts, Putin will blame sanctions and the West. The stakes are high as Russia seeks to use any issue from cluster bombs to soccer to widen cracks in Western unity over Ukraine. To get ahead of this, U.S. policymakers and their allies need to better explain the effects of sanctions, why they’re worth the risk and why the Russian state, not the West, is ultimately responsible for any fatal crash. U.S. government assessments place Russian aviation among sectors negatively impacted by sanctions. A closer look shows widening success in degrading this increasingly weak link in Russia’s political economy. By late 2021, foreign aircraft comprised 70% of Russia’s fleet of 801 passenger airplanes, which included 298 Airbuses, 236 Boeings, and 23 other foreign aircraft such as Embraers. In addition, 95% of Russian airline flights were on foreign-made aircraft. Consequently, sanctions aimed at depriving spare parts for foreign airplanes have caused many disruptions such as fare increases to cover higher costs of repairs. Some of Russia’s 53 airlines have periodically suspended or stopped flying some of their foreign planes. Reports of Russian airlines’ cannibalization of foreign aircraft similarly underscore a dire situation. Less well known is how sanctions hurt Russian manufacturing since Western technology is critical to aircraft such as the Sukhoi Superjet 100, which uses a French-Russian engine (though Russians are working on a substitution). Production of the Yakovlev design bureau’s MC-21 passenger airplane faces significant delays due to sanctions that force substitution of its Western-made parts. Sanctions even helped push Russia out of a joint venture with China to produce the CR929 widebody aircraft. While China is happy to help Russia thwart sanctions, this plane needs Western systems that sanctions complicate. In response, Russia has adapted to and thwarted some aviation sanctions, which I predicted would happen because Putin’s regime is reproducing a state-centered aviation sector rooted in the Soviet past. The war has accelerated the state’s growing control over this vital economic sector, which began before Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Examples include the state’s 51% ownership of Aeroflot since 1994, the merger of two smaller, state-run airlines in 2003 and the consolidation of aircraft manufacturing in the state-owned United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), which was created in 2006. More recently, the Russian state has helped the country’s airlines weather sanctions by facilitating the illegal confiscation of foreign aircraft. Russian airlines have also proven resourceful by purchasing spare parts through brokers in the United Arab Emirates and Turkey. Better known for supplying Russia with drones, Iran also agreed to provide Russian airlines with spare parts and has been fixing an Aeroflot Airbus for months. Many foreign airlines continue to fly to Russia, and Putin’s regime rewards friendly countries with overflight rights. But the longer sanctions remain, the harder it’s getting for Russia. To regain profitable foreign routes, its airlines are receiving government assistance to legitimately purchase the Western aircraft they illegally seized, although recent holdups in allocating such funds are causing doubts. In a throwback to the Soviet era, Putin’s regime boasts that Russia doesn’t need the West’s airplanes anyway since its one manufacturer, the UAC, will pick up the slack. Such import substitution is unlikely to succeed, as multiple delays suggest. More likely, Russia’s aviation sector will grow more reliant on the state, if not actually part of it like the UAC. This will make Russian aviation less efficient, less innovative and more expensive. Iranian airlines, which have long suffered under foreign sanctions despite some success circumventing them, present their Russian counterparts with a grim vision of the future such as being shut out of lucrative air travel markets and falling behind in emerging aviation technology. How does this shape safety in Russia’s skies? The short answer is that it’s not as bad as headlines suggest and the impact of sanctions is ambiguous at best. Click bait stories paint a dire picture but often conflate commercial, military and general aviation into alarming numbers that do not accurately capture what ordinary passengers face. Some accounts, such as one claiming 120 accidents occurred in 2023, provide few details or sources. Annual safety reports from Russia’s Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) allow for comparison over time but often obscure Russia’s situation by combining data from each post-Soviet state it monitors. Its 2019 report is mysteriously missing and its decision not to investigate the fatal crash of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Embraer Legacy 600 plane suggests meddling from above. That said, the IAC source base is the most systematic we have. Keeping in mind the potential for the politicization of its conclusions, what does a critical reading of its data alongside other sources suggest? First, fatal crashes in commercial and general aviation actually decreased in Russia from 18 in 2021 to 13 in 2022, and related deaths decreased from 70 to 24. Data for the first half of 2023 points in the same direction, with six fatal crashes and nine deaths. This trend was likely helped by the 14% decline in traffic after February 2022. While so many fatal crashes sound substantial, all but three in 2021 and all but one in 2022 involved small aircraft under 5,700 kilograms, not the jetliners we associate with most commercial flying. Absolute figures on crashes and deaths capture headlines but they don’t say much about safety without considering their relation to passengers flown or departures. According to the IAC, the rate of aviation accidents and the rate of fatal crashes per one million departures both increased from 2020 to 2021 but then decreased in 2022. The IAC does not single out Russia from other post-Soviet states for this metric. But since Russia has the largest aviation sector among those countries, these data suggest that its aviation safety has not dramatically worsened since early 2022. Indeed, even critics who argue that Russian airlines are less safe partly because of sanctions conclude that “2022 and 2023 were also good years for airline safety [in Russia] compared to 2021.” Comparisons with the U.S. similarly suggest that passenger aviation is not as disastrous as some headlines suggest. The IAC data indicates that Russia and other post-Soviet states are usually but not always behind the U.S. in passenger aviation safety. In 2018, for example, IAC countries reported a 0.8 rate of fatal crashes per 1 million departures of passenger aircraft above 5,700 kilograms. Comparable statistics from the National Transportation Safety Board showed a 0.11 rate for that year for scheduled U.S. carrier flights. In 2019, the rates were 2.3 (IAC) and 0.10 (U.S.), but in 2020, both IAC countries and the U.S. enjoyed a 0.0 rate of fatal crashes. The following year, however, IAC countries reported a 1.9 rate of fatal crashes, whereas the NTSB reported a 0.0 rate.1 Against this background of Russian airline safety, let’s now turn to the impact of sanctions. While some commentators emphasize that no fatal crashes have been tied to sanctions, others claim they make Russian airlines unsafe and that it’s only a matter of time before such a fatal crash happens. Some even argue that life-threatening dangers prove aviation sanctions are effective and could help turn Russians against Putin. To reassure the public, Russian aviation officials insist the country’s airlines are safe despite sanctions, as do Russian business media and aviation journalists. This plays to Putin’s claims to legitimacy based in part on withstanding anything the West throws at him. In sharp contrast, Ukrainian media tells Russians their airlines are a disaster waiting to happen precisely because of sanctions. Independent Russian journalists banished by Putin concur, raising alarms about efforts to cover up the impact of sanctions and about the many ways Russian airlines cut corners on safety. In short, an information war exists around the morbid question of whether a Russian jetliner will crash and the role sanctions could play. Fears of a fatal crash were validated by the emergency landing of a Ural Airlines A320 in September, apparently caused by malfunctioning hydraulics tied to sanctions. But a closer examination by a Russian aviation journalist suggests the pilots played a more important role by pressing on to an airport for which there wasn’t enough fuel. Recent Russian state assessments of aviation safety similarly point to pilot error and poor training as the chief causes of aviation incidents. More generally, airplane disasters are usually caused by a convergence of factors—bad weather, a manageable mechanical failure and pilot error—not just one problem. In public discussions, however, pinpointing sanctions’ role tracks more with the politics of the war than technical expertise. At the end of the day, Russian airlines and aviation authorities are solely responsible for putting planes in the sky and Russians’ lives at risk. They continue to claim that everything is fine. But if a fatal crash of a Boeing or Airbus flown by a Russian airline kills hundreds, I predict this narrative will quickly change. Putin will blame the West as he does for everything else affecting his legitimacy, from Russia’s economic problems and his diplomatic failures to protests against his regime and even the war he started in Ukraine. Such a scenario will be a serious test for policymakers who argue that punishing Russia with sanctions is still worth it. To prepare for this, they need to take a page from the Biden administration’s release of intelligence on Russia’s military buildup before the full-scale invasion: publicize as much intelligence as possible on sanctions and their impact, as well as Russia’s aviation sector and what it does or doesn’t do to ensure safety. As Putin’s regime falls back on Soviet-era secrecy about airline safety, sharing such intelligence will be a powerful tool. This will also contribute to broader Western efforts at combatting Russia’s better known disinformation campaigns such as those denying its human rights abuses in Ukraine.
Presidential scholar Meena Bose was interviewed by WNYW Fox 5 about the Democratic National Convention, and why New York City Mayor Eric Adams may not have been asked to take on a more prominent role. Dr. Bose is a professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Earlier this year, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced that it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), greatly reducing the restrictions on the drug. It represents a historic change in federal marijuana policy and a watershed moment for generations of activists that have sought legalization on a national level. While many advocates believe the shift bodes well for efforts to relax controls on other Schedule I drugs—including promising psychedelics like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD– Vanderbilt Law professor Robert Mikos argues that the marijuana rescheduling decision will not pave the way for rescheduling any other drug. Mikos explains that the decision preserves the barriers that make it virtually impossible to remove drugs from Schedule I. He labels those barriers the “tyrannies of scheduling.” In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” forthcoming in Fordham Law Review, Mikos lays out the core challenges posed by the existing scheduling process and offers a solution that would lead to “more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the benefits and dangers of controlled substances, as Congress intended.” The Role of Currently Accepted Medical Use in Scheduling Decisions The CSA creates five Schedules (I-V). Scheduling dictates how a drug is regulated under the statute. Schedule I drugs are subject to the most restrictive controls, and those controls are steadily relaxed as one moves down the schedules. Congress made all the initial scheduling decisions when it passed the CSA in 1970, but it also empowered the DEA, working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reschedule drugs based on new information acquired after the passage of the statute. Agency scheduling decisions are supposed to be based on three core characteristics of a drug: its abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). Unfortunately, these characteristics do not always suggest the same schedule for a drug. But as Mikos explains, the DEA has grossly simplified the scheduling process by suggesting that CAMU determinations should trump all other considerations. In particular, the agency has insisted that a drug with no CAMU must be placed on Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. According to Mikos, the DEA’s simplification of the scheduling process places tremendous weight on agency CAMU determinations and how the agency chooses to define this particular scheduling criteria. The Tyranny of Science In the past, the DEA insisted that the only way to demonstrate that a drug has a CAMU was by completing multiple controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that a drug is effective at treating some medical indication, the same requirement for new drug approval under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As Mikos has noted in his past work, completing such trials is “notoriously expensive and time-consuming,” requiring strict parameters and a large number of participants. The challenge is even more daunting for drugs already on Schedule I, because the CSA restricts research on such drugs. Due to regulatory restrictions, marijuana advocates have struggled to complete even a single RCT demonstrating marijuana’s medical efficacy. Indeed, in the past 50 years, only one Schedule I drug (Epidiolex) has ever been able to satisfy the DEA’s CAMU test, leading Mikos to label the agency’s science-focused approach the “Tyranny of Science.” The Tyranny of the Majority In 2023, however, HHS devised an alternative CAMU test that emphasizes practical experience over scientific research. “Because more than 30,000 health care practitioners (HCPs) had already recommended the drug to their patients in the thirty-eight states with medical marijuana laws,” Mikos explains, “the agency concluded there was enough clinical experience to demonstrate that marijuana has a CAMU and thus could be rescheduled.” But while this alternative test does not require completing RCTs – and thereby eliminates the Tyranny of Science – Mikos demonstrates that it is no less tyrannical than the DEA’s original CAMU test. According to Mikos, the alternative CAMU test simply “imposes a different form of tyranny: the Tyranny of the Majority.” He explains that to accumulate the clinical experience needed to satisfy the new test, advocates must convince popular majorities in a substantial number of states to legalize medical use of a drug. It took decades to build the public support necessary to do that for marijuana, and Mikos points out that no other Schedule I drug currently commands the same level of public support as marijuana. “Despite growing interest in the therapeutic value of [psychedelics, . . . less than a quarter of all Americans support legalizing psychedelics like psilocybin,” Mikos writes. “By comparison, 90% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana.” What is more, even if large numbers of states were to legalize medical use of a substance like psilocybin or MDMA, advocates will also have to convince large numbers of patients, their health care practitioners (HCPs), and their suppliers to risk federal sanctions in order to accumulate the clinical experience HHS demands to satisfy the new CAMU test. “While marijuana was finally able to run the gauntlet, no other Schedule I is likely to replicate that feat anytime soon. Other promising Schedule I drugs like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are likely to remain trapped on that schedule for the foreseeable future,” the paper states. A New Way Forward Mikos argues that the agencies did not need to create a new CAMU test to reschedule marijuana. He suggests that the DEA has placed too much emphasis on CAMU in scheduling decisions. The DEA “has no authority, and no good reason, to hold (or place) a drug on Schedule I solely because the drug lacks a currently accepted medical use.” Indeed, Mikos suggests the agency’s emphasis on CAMU runs contrary to the text of the CSA and provides insufficient information about a drug’s benefits and risks to make sensible scheduling decisions. Rather than propose yet another, less tyrannical CAMU test, Mikos suggests that the DEA should instead take a more flexible approach to scheduling, one that considers all 3 criteria – a drug’s abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether or not it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU)—to determine where a drug belongs among the statute’s five schedules. “Although my approach would not make it any easier to demonstrate CAMU, it would reduce the dominant influence CAMU determinations now wield over scheduling decisions,” Mikos concludes. It would enable the agency to remove drugs like marijuana, psilocybin, or MDMA from Schedule I, even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, if their abuse potential and dependence liability so warrant. “As a result,” he notes, “my approach would foster more rational administrative scheduling decisions going forward.”
#ExpertSpotlight: What is a Blue Moon?
The phenomenon of a Blue Moon, though rare, captures the imagination and curiosity of the public, making it a prime topic for media coverage. A Blue Moon typically refers to the occurrence of an additional full moon within a specific time frame, usually two full moons in a single calendar month or an extra full moon in a season. This celestial event is not just an astronomical curiosity but also a cultural and symbolic event that resonates deeply with people around the world. The significance of a Blue Moon extends beyond its scientific rarity, touching on themes of folklore, human understanding of time, and the natural world's rhythms. Journalists can explore several angles to connect this event with broader societal interests, including: Astronomical Significance: Explaining the science behind what causes a Blue Moon, how often they occur, and the different types of Blue Moons. Cultural and Historical Context: Delving into the myths, legends, and folklore associated with the Blue Moon across various cultures and how these stories have shaped human perception of time and nature. Impact on Astrology and Horoscopes: Investigating the Blue Moon's influence in astrology, including predictions and interpretations tied to this rare event. Environmental and Ecological Implications: Exploring how lunar cycles, including Blue Moons, affect wildlife, tides, and natural phenomena, contributing to broader discussions on the environment. Art and Literature: Highlighting references to Blue Moons in art, literature, and music, and how this natural phenomenon has inspired creativity throughout history. Public Engagement and Education: Covering events, public viewings, and educational opportunities that allow people to learn more about the moon and other astronomical phenomena. By covering these angles, journalists can provide their audiences with a comprehensive look at the Blue Moon, connecting this celestial event to a wide range of cultural, scientific, and environmental topics that resonate with the public's interests. Connect with an expert about Blue Moons: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo Credit: Kym MacKinnon
VP Harris Picks Gov. Tim Walz as Her Running Mate
Dr. Meena Bose talked to NY1 Spectrum News about Vice President Kamala Harris selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her presidential running mate. The interview was conducted by Hofstra alum and NY1 news anchor Shannan Ferry ’14. Dr. Bose is a professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency. Dr. Meena Bose is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.