university Experts
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Texas Senate Rematch Puts Tarrant County Back in the Political Spotlight
Less than a year after Democrats flipped a Texas Senate seat in Tarrant County, the two candidates are preparing for a November rematch — this time under very different electoral circumstances. Democratic State Sen. Taylor Rehmet defeated Republican Leigh Wambsganss by 14 percentage points in a January special-election runoff for Senate District 9, a district Donald Trump carried by 17 points in the 2024 presidential election. Now Rehmet and Wambsganss will face each other again on Nov. 3, with the winner securing a full four-year term. In a recent Fort Worth Report article examining the race, Adam Schiffer, professor of political science at Texas Christian University, explains why the dynamics of a regular midterm election could be significantly different from those surrounding January's special election. Special elections typically attract lower turnout, and January's runoff featured only Rehmet and Wambsganss. This fall, Tarrant County voters will see more than 70 races on the ballot, creating a much different political environment. “Democrats are extremely energized and motivated to vote right now, and Republicans are a bit dispirited,” Schiffer told the Fort Worth Report. “So that’s the kind of thing that then can work to Rehmet’s advantage.” Professor Schiffer studies American politics, with an emphasis on the news media, elections, and public opinion. His recent work has covered the hot topics of media bias and presidential primary elections. View his profile Schiffer also points to competing forces that could influence the contest. A larger electorate and greater partisan attention could change the makeup of the voters who participate, while Democratic enthusiasm could continue to benefit Rehmet. The race provides a timely opportunity to examine broader questions about voter turnout, partisan loyalty, candidate positioning and whether the political conditions that produce a special-election upset can carry over into a midterm election. Schiffer can provide expert perspective on the Senate District 9 rematch, Tarrant County's changing political landscape, voter behavior and the role that turnout and partisan enthusiasm can play in closely watched elections. To arrange an interview today, simply click on his profile below.
Twice a year, Americans are made to gain or lose one hour of sleep to accommodate an age-old custom of dubious origins. But that may soon change. On July 14, 2026, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives joined together to approve the Sunshine Protection Act, a bill that would effectively eliminate seasonal clock adjustments and institute permanent daylight saving time. Currently, this legislation is stalled in the Senate, but pressure is steadily mounting for the act’s passage before clocks once again “fall back” at the beginning of November. Amid the push, many researchers who specialize in sleep science and medicine hope Congressional lawmakers continue biding their time—and time in general—and weigh a different approach to the nation’s wakeup call conundrum. “Both the general public and the medical and scientific communities seem to largely support eliminating the practice of changing the clocks twice a year,” says Elizabeth Pantesco, PhD, assistant professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences and head of the Sleep and Heart Health Lab at Villanova University. “However, while political and public opinion often seem to slightly favor permanent daylight saving time, the sleep medicine and circadian science communities generally support permanent standard time.” As Dr. Pantesco explains, this support largely stems from experts’ understanding of circadian health. Permanent standard time would produce earlier morning light and earlier evening darkness, which is generally considered more favorable for optimizing the body’s 24-hour internal rhythms, than permanent daylight saving time. “Under permanent daylight saving time, reduced morning light and increased evening light exposure could shift the circadian clock later, while work, school and other social schedules remain fixed,” says Dr. Pantesco. “This can result in more difficulty falling asleep at night while still needing to get up at the same time in the morning, increasing the likelihood of circadian misalignment, poorer-quality sleep and shorter sleep.” Based on research and historical evidence, the consequences of this restlessness could extend far beyond bleary eyes and midday yawns. While permanent daylight saving time has never been analyzed in controlled trials, the existing literature on sleep restriction and circadian misalignment indicates that the policy change could have significant health and safety ramifications over an extended period. “Circadian misalignment and insufficient sleep have been associated with increased risks for cardiovascular and metabolic disease, as well as depression and other psychiatric outcomes. Long-term circadian disruption, particularly in research on shift work, has also been linked with certain cancers. More immediate consequences can include daytime sleepiness, impaired attention, reduced productivity and an increased risk of errors and motor vehicle crashes.” Dr. Pantesco also notes the possibility of some drawbacks with permanent standard time, which would shift an hour of daylight from evening to morning during the months currently on daylight saving time. Among the resultant pitfalls are that it could limit “opportunities for outdoor and social activities after work, affect businesses that benefit from evening activity and potentially increase risks for certain types of crime and for evening pedestrian or cyclist accidents.” Still, while the communal and societal effects of a permanent standard time have yet to be fully understood, the health benefits are strongly supported by circadian biology. As the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) contends, its institution could eliminate the chronic sleep disruption caused by seasonal clock changes while creating a “natural synchrony [optimal] for health, mood, performance and safety.” Among U.S. lawmakers, there is a contingent that wholeheartedly agrees, working to enshrine permanent standard time through a Sunshine Protection Act alternative—the Sunshine for Our Kids Act. Whether they will be able to convince their Congressional cohorts of the benefits of permanently “springing forward” over permanently “falling back” remains to be seen, however. As with most things, only time will tell.
How should journalists cover politics when democracy is at stake
Political coverage often centers on the president, but according to the University of Delaware’s Dannagal Young, journalists can sometimes provide more meaningful coverage by focusing more on democracy and less on the commander in chief’s every movement. Young calls this approach “democracy-centered reporting.” Instead of treating every presidential announcement or provocative statement as the central event, democracy-centered reporting asks how political actions affect democratic institutions, constitutional principles and Americans’ ability to exercise their rights as citizens, Young says. Young, professor of communication and director of UD’s Center for Political Communication, says “access journalism” has an important role, but an overreliance on access can also make political leaders the organizing principle of coverage. In moments when executive power is expanding, she argues, journalists should consider whether their coverage is inadvertently amplifying the power they are trying to scrutinize. Young can discuss: • How journalists can cover presidents without making the president the center of every story • The benefits and risks of access journalism • How coverage of political conflict affects public understanding of democracy To arrange an interview with Young, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
Public health risks after a major flood
Floodwaters may recede quickly, but the health consequences of a major disaster can last for months or even years, says University of Delaware epidemiologist Jennifer Horney. Horney, an expert in disaster recovery and public health, can discuss the longer-term health challenges communities face after major flooding events, including the Aug. 26 flash floods in Nepal that resulted in 1,450 deaths, with 6,000 people still missing. Horney can talk about: • How damage to health infrastructure can make it more difficult for people to access medical care after a disaster, and what communities can do to prepare for and reduce longer-term health consequences following flooding and other disasters. • How contaminated water and food can increase the risk of infectious disease, and how standing water left behind by floods can create breeding grounds for mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as dengue, malaria, encephalitis and chikungunya. • The impact disasters have on physical and mental health well after the immediate emergency has passed. To arrange an interview, visit Horney's profile and click on the contact button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
When Brand Activism Meets the Bottom Line
Should companies speak out on political issues? When does taking a stand become a business risk? University of Rochester political scientist and professor of business administration David Primo studies the tension between corporate strategy, free expression, and consumer backlash. His insights have become indispensable for journalists covering the CEOs, sports owners, and brands that increasingly find themselves at the center of public controversies. Primo was recently quoted in The Boston Globe about the fallout from New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s intervention in Ed Sheeran’s stadium tour after rapper Macklemore was dropped as an opening act. While Kraft had the legal right to regulate speech on private property, Primo argued, the larger business question is whether companies benefit from policing the political views of performers, employees, or partners. “You’re not going to be a successful arena owner if you start checking people’s politics before you book them,” Primo told The Globe. His expertise extends beyond concerts and stadiums. Primo researches corporate political activity, regulation, governance, and the strategic decisions organizations make when navigating contentious public issues. He has been a source in news stories about boycotts involving big brands like Harley-Davidson and Target. Primo can discuss: • Brand activism and corporate political speech • When companies should — or shouldn’t — take public positions • Consumer backlash and reputational risk • CEO activism and its business consequences • Corporate governance and political decision-making • The intersection of free expression and private businesses As debates over corporate values, sponsorships, employee activism, and executive leadership continue to shape headlines, Primo offers evidence-based insight into how businesses weigh the costs — and potential benefits — of entering the political arena. Connect with him by clicking on his profile.
States Are Helping Thousands of Families Balance Work, Care, and the Costs of Raising Young Children
Raising an infant or toddler requires time, care, and financial resources, often while families are stretching their budgets to cover groceries, housing, child care, and other everyday needs. State policies help determine whether families have them. During the past year, states expanded paid leave, tax credits, wages, perinatal health services, and child care assistance. These changes can help thousands of families during the earliest years of a child’s life. The 2026 Prenatal-to-3 State Policy Roadmap, released by the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center at Vanderbilt University, tracks those changes and explains what they mean for families. Delaware, Maine, and Minnesota began providing statewide paid family and medical leave programs, making paid leave a leading area of state momentum in 2026. Approximately 84,300 babies are born each year across those three states. The programs are funded through payroll contributions, with each state setting its own rules for whether and how employers and workers divide the cost. For parents who previously had no paid leave, the new programs can mean recovering from childbirth and spending up to 12 weeks with their baby without sacrificing all their income. Pennsylvania newly implemented the Working Pennsylvanians Tax Credit, a refundable state earned income tax credit equal to 10 percent of the federal credit. For an eligible Pennsylvania family with two children, the new credit can provide up to $731 annually, helping to cover everyday expenses, including groceries, diapers, and child care. This progress comes during a period of significant federal change. New requirements affecting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, along with other federal actions affecting early care and education programs, may make health coverage, food assistance, and child care harder for some families to access. Against this backdrop, state policy decisions take on greater importance because they can expand resources and services even as families encounter new barriers. “Families do not experience paid leave, minimum wage, health care, and child care in isolation. Together, these policies create a system of care that can help families meet their children’s needs during the most important years of development. This year’s Roadmap shows states continuing to strengthen that system, even in a complex policy environment.” -Dr. Cynthia Osborne, Executive Director and Professor of Early Childhood Education and Policy at Vanderbilt University State action extended beyond those four milestones. Minimum wages increased in 23 states, increasing pay for workers earning the state minimum. Four states began covering community-based doula services through Medicaid, giving more families the option of care before, during, and after birth. Other states invested in group prenatal care, newborn screening, and connections to health and community services. States also confronted one of the greatest pressures facing families with young children: finding and affording child care. Changes to child care subsidy programs allowed more families to qualify, lowered what some parents pay, and directed additional funding to providers working to keep care available. Together, these changes show states responding to the pressures families face all at once. A stronger system of care can give parents more time with a new baby, help families cover everyday costs, improve access to care before and after birth, and make child care easier to find and afford. About the 2026 Prenatal-to-3 State Policy Roadmap The Prenatal-to-3 State Policy Roadmap guides state leaders on the most effective investments to ensure all children thrive from the start. Grounded in rigorous evidence, the Roadmap identifies state policies and strategies that support infants, toddlers, and their families and reduce disparities in access and outcomes. Explore the 2026 Roadmap at pn3policy.org/roadmap. About the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center The Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center is a nonpartisan research center at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education and Human Development that provides state leaders with clear, evidence-based policy solutions to improve the lives of young children and their families. For more information, visit pn3policy.org.
After more than a decade of erosion, support for democracy has stopped falling and begun a modest but widespread recovery across the Americas. The findings are detailed in the 2026 Pulse of Democracy, released by Vanderbilt University’s Center for Global Democracy and the Kellogg Institute, part of the University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. The 2026 AmericasBarometer includes 25,282 interviews across 21 nationally representative surveys in countries across the Americas. The survey examines how citizens perceive and experience democracy and governance, including their views on democratic legitimacy, trust in institutions, corruption, citizen security, migration, political participation and government performance. This year’s study again includes the United States and Canada alongside Latin America and, for the first time, Cuba. The report finds that support for democracy increased across nearly every country surveyed between 2023 and 2026, marking the first broad regional upturn in a generation. Although citizens across much of the region report improvements in economic and physical security, they remain far less convinced that governments are honest, capable and responsive to their needs, highlighting the need to strengthen trust in government and accountability. “The modest recovery in support for democracy is real and encouraging, but it is also fragile,” said Noam Lupu, director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Global Democracy and the Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science. “People are reporting improvements in their economic and physical security, but they still want governments that are honest, capable and responsive.” Among the report’s key findings: About two-thirds of Latin Americans express support for democracy in 2026, up 6 percentage points from 2023. Support increased in nearly every country and across age groups and educational levels rather than being driven by any single demographic group. Substantial differences remain across countries, however, and the recovery follows nearly a decade of comparatively low democratic support. In most countries, fewer people say their national economy has worsened compared with 2023, and household food insecurity has declined from its pandemic-era peak. Still, roughly one in four people across the region report experiencing food insecurity, and improvements are unevenly distributed. The share of people who feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods has been declining steadily for nearly a decade and fell again in 2026. Crime victimization has declined only modestly, however, and substantial differences remain across countries. Citizens who experience greater economic security, less food insecurity, lower exposure to crime and fewer experiences with corruption express higher support for democracy. On average, several of these conditions improved across the region between 2023 and 2026, coinciding with the broader increase in democratic support. Everyday corruption has changed little, satisfaction with local public services remains low, and citizens’ evaluations of political leaders vary widely. The findings suggest that improvements in material conditions can bolster democratic goodwill, but persistent failures of governance and representation continue to hold it back. The share of adults reporting an intention to emigrate fell from 31 percent in 2023 to 25 percent in 2026, returning roughly to pre-pandemic levels. Improving conditions in countries of origin coincide with the decline, while migration pressures remain substantial and vary considerably across countries. “The findings offer some encouraging signs, but they also underscore the work that remains,” said Ann Mische, acting director of the Kellogg Institute and associate professor of sociology and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame. “Improving people’s daily lives matters, but strengthening democracy also requires institutions that people trust.” New data and expanded public resources Alongside the Pulse of Democracy, Vanderbilt’s Center for Global Democracy and LAPOP Lab are releasing the 2026 AmericasBarometer data and updated Data Playground, along with questionnaires, technical documentation, and other resources, free of charge. About the AmericasBarometer The AmericasBarometer is the flagship survey project of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Global Democracy and its LAPOP Lab, a global leader in comparative public opinion research. Since 2004, it has collected more than 433,000 interviews across 35 countries, creating an extensive comparative record of how citizens across the hemisphere perceive and experience democracy and governance. The surveys use nationally representative samples of voting-age adults and cover topics including democratic legitimacy, trust in institutions, corruption, citizen security, migration, political participation and government performance. About Vanderbilt University’s Center for Global Democracy The Center for Global Democracy (CGD) is Vanderbilt University’s leading social science institute dedicated to research and innovation in democratic politics. Its research examines how citizens perceive, experience, and support democracy across countries and over time. Its research portfolio includes the LAPOP Lab, a global leader in international survey research and home to the AmericasBarometer. About the Kellogg Institute The Kellogg Institute, part of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, is a leading center for interdisciplinary research dedicated to understanding, strengthening, and renewing democracy worldwide.
Is AI ethical? One philosophy professor has an answer.
During a snowstorm last winter, University of Delaware philosophy professor Thomas Powers fixed his own thermostat by typing the error codes into ChatGPT and following the instructions it provided. As he discovered on that cold, snowy night, AI can make DIY projects that much easier, potentially saving time and money. Ever the philosopher, Powers wondered about the ethics of his solution: What is the impact of taking the repair job away from someone who relies on the work? What about the risk of being wrong? Is the environmental impact of using AI worth the result? After 20 years in the Department of Philosophy and as director of the Center for Science, Ethics and Public Policy, Powers is uniquely suited to explore questions about the ethics of AI. What does “ethical AI” mean? POWERS: We want AI systems that are helpful and useful, but also safe. We want systems that don’t produce biased or dangerous results. One approach to achieve that, which I’m hopeful about, is to create systems that are “safe by design” or “ethical by design.” In other words, instead of relying entirely on outside regulation to prevent harmful behavior, we try to design the systems themselves so that they behave in ways we consider ethical. Is it possible to make an AI system truly “safe by design” if it eventually becomes capable of acting in ways its creators didn’t anticipate? POWERS: There is a big difference between most technologies and AI. With the latter, especially current large language models (LLMs), it appears that there is some unpredictability in their behaviors. Thus, their apparent autonomy complicates the "safe by design" motto. AI autonomy introduces the need for "guardrails" that constrain what AIs can do. But even this may not be possible. Why are AI companies hiring philosophers, and what does this mean for the field of philosophy? POWERS: Some of the hardest questions in AI aren’t purely technical questions. To build systems that are safe, fair or aligned with human values, you first have to decide what those concepts actually mean and how they can be translated into something a computer system can use. The challenge is to educate people who can move between those worlds — who understand the technology but can also ask the deeper questions about what we should want that technology to do. How has AI changed philosophy? POWERS: Philosophers have long discussed the philosophy of action with the concept of agency. For decades we assumed that an agent must be human — someone who acts on their own behalf, or on the behalf of another person, with some kind of plan or attitude. This concept transfers to discussions about AI, and whether it can be considered an agent and be responsible for its actions. The next step is to ask harder questions: Are autonomous AI agents responsible, in some sense, for what they do, and does this suggest or imply that they are conscious? I don’t think AI will become conscious any time soon, but I don’t think it is impossible, and other philosophers and scientists are broaching the question. To speak with Powers further about the philosophy of AI, reach out mediarelations@udel.edu. ABOUT THOMAS POWERS Thomas M. Powers, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. He is also the director of the Center for Science, Ethics & Public Policy at UD. Powers' current research focuses on the ethics of information technology and the philosophy of technology. He contributes to scholarship on rule-based conceptions of machine ethics, computer agency, the ethics of artificial intelligence, and other philosophical issues involving emerging technologies, including human-robot interaction.
Can Nature Adapt Fast Enough? Mark Urban Explores Whether Ecosystems Can Evolve With Climate Change
As scientists investigate whether an entire Arctic ecosystem can evolve in response to a rapidly warming climate, UConn’s Mark Urban brings leading expertise on the intersection of evolution, biodiversity, and climate change. Climate change is transforming the Arctic faster than almost anywhere else on Earth. Earlier snowmelt, warmer temperatures, and changing waterways are altering habitats and putting new pressures on the plants and animals that depend on them. But what if nature can evolve in response, not simply one species at a time, but as an interconnected ecosystem? That is the ambitious question behind a six-year, $15-million National Science Foundation-funded research project recently featured in The Guardian. Scientists working on Alaska’s North Slope are studying five interconnected species — white-crowned sparrows, feltleaf willow, Arctic grayling, aquatic mayflies, and ground beetles — to understand whether ecological relationships themselves can evolve as the climate changes. It is a question that sits squarely within the expertise of Mark C. Urban, Ph.D., Professor and Arden Chair of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut. Urban is a global expert on the impact of climate change on biodiversity, eco-evolution, and extinction risk. His research integrates ecology, evolution, and genetics to better understand how species and ecological communities respond to environmental change. He has also conducted extensive field research in Alaska, including research involving Arctic grayling and their ability to respond to a rapidly changing climate. Recently, his work was featured in an in-depth piece by The Guardian. “Across hundreds of experiments, we have seen this happening,” says Mark Urban, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Connecticut working on the project. “There is this incredible buffer ability of adaptive evolution.” How the evolution of one species can help the holistic ecosystems depends on how an adaptive trait ultimately translates into ecological properties. For example, if a fish species can quickly evolve, it means that not only is the population maintained, but so is the stream’s productivity. “Any ecological properties that depend on those populations are maintained as well,” Urban says. To get a better idea of whether the Arctic’s stream and tundra habitats will continue to prosper, scientists are mapping the genetic diversity of each of the five study species to see if there is enough to allow for adaptation – influencing the ecosystems’ resilience potential. “We can get so far with ecology, but at some point we want to get down to the basics of why organisms do the things they do, and can they change the things they do,” says Urban. “That’s something only genetics can explain.” Certain genes control the traits associated with succeeding in different environments. “The holy grail in genomics is to find that one gene that affects everything. The gene that rules them all,” he says. “I think that’s optimistic. Most of the traits are going to be determined by hundreds of thousands of genes.” The Guardian - September 2026 Studies reveal that many plants and animals have been able to persist through evolutionary rescue – the process by which a population on the brink of extinction survives and rebounds through rapid genetic adaptation. Scarlet monkeyflowers in Oregon and California, for example, rapidly evolved during the 2010s to survive a four-year drought. The implications extend far beyond the Arctic. Scientists have traditionally examined how individual species might migrate, acclimatize, or evolve as their environments change. But ecosystems are networks. Fish depend on insects, insects depend on vegetation and water conditions, and predators depend on prey. If those relationships change at different speeds, the consequences can ripple throughout an ecosystem. Urban's work examines precisely these kinds of connections — how ecological and evolutionary processes interact and ultimately influence biodiversity and the resilience of natural systems. His recent research has also examined the growing risk of species extinction as global temperatures rise. The emerging science raises some fascinating questions: How quickly can evolution occur? Can genetic diversity give ecosystems a natural buffer against climate change? What happens when one species adapts faster than another? And are there limits to how much change an ecosystem can absorb before it begins to unravel? As scientists attempt to understand whether nature can keep pace with a rapidly changing planet, Urban can provide valuable perspective on what evolution can — and cannot — do, and what the findings could mean for biodiversity and conservation around the world. If you're interested in speaking with Mark Urban about climate change, evolution, biodiversity, Arctic ecosystems, or extinction risk, click on his profile below.
Beyond the Cadaver: How Virtual Anatomy Is Changing the Way Future Nurse Anesthetists Learn
For generations, learning human anatomy has meant textbooks, models and traditional cadaver labs. At Augusta University, future nurse anesthetists are also learning with technology that puts a digitized human cadaver at their fingertips. The College of Nursing's Nursing Anesthesia Program is using Anatomage Tables, advanced anatomy systems that allow students to explore the human body digitally and in significant detail. Augusta University's program is the first Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist program in the nation to have two Anatomage Tables. According to the university, fewer than 10% of programs have access to even one. Michael Wilson, DNAP, assistant professor at Augusta University, regularly teaches with the technology and has played an important role in expanding its use within the program. For students preparing to work in anesthesia, being able to clearly visualize anatomy has direct relevance to their education. The tables can clearly display the nervous system, for example, helping students learn about nerve blocks that are critical to regional anesthesia. “There’s no guesswork with the table.” – Michael Wilson, DNAP Wilson says the technology also allows him to ask students much more detailed anatomy questions than would be possible using a traditional cadaver. Students can book independent lab time with the tables, giving them an opportunity to control the technology themselves and use it for additional study and practice. The technology is already becoming part of how students are assessed. Wilson administered the program's first lab practical using an Anatomage Table, an experience he described as a “huge success and landmark for the university.” Bringing Technology Into Health Sciences Education Wilson combines a background in anatomy and physiology with an interest in technology, using that experience to integrate Anatomage into nursing anesthesia education and explore its potential use with Adult Gerontology Acute Care Nurse Practitioner students. The technology builds on NAP’s legacy of innovation and excellence. Established in 1994, it was among Georgia’s first public programs, is now among the five largest in the nation and has been nationally recognized by U.S. News & World Report as a top graduate program.
