Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics appoints new director
Dr Krzysztof Kredens, a reader in forensic linguistics at the University, took up the position on 1 August 2024 The move comes after founding director, Professor Tim Grant, announced he was stepping down Dr Nicci MacLeod, who completed her PhD at the university in 2006, has been promoted to deputy director. The Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics (AIFL) has announced the appointment of Dr Krzysztof Kredens as its new director. Dr Kredens is a reader in forensic linguistics and was one of the three founding members of the Centre for Forensic Linguistics (CFL), the predecessor to AIFL, when he joined Aston University in 2007. He takes over the role vacated by fellow founding member of the Centre and latterly Institute, Professor Tim Grant, who steps down after five years as AIFL Director, and another six as CFL director prior to that. Dr Nicci MacLeod has been appointed as deputy director, with both commencing their new roles on 1 August 2024. Dr MacLeod is a senior lecturer in forensic linguistics and has been involved with the subject at the University since beginning her PhD in 2006. She has been programme director for the MA Forensic Linguistics since 2022. The mission of AIFL is to improve the delivery of justice through the analysis of language. Its experts study forensic texts and contexts producing academically rigorous, high impact research using insights and methods from diverse areas of linguistics to achieve this mission. Dr Kredens said: “I am delighted to be taking up the role of director at the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics. “On behalf of the Institute, I would like to thank Professor Tim Grant for his service as CFL/AIFL Director. His leadership over the years has been invaluable and his impact has been profound. “While he will be stepping down from his role, he will continue to share his expertise and experience and keep contributing to AIFL and the University in other capacities. Dr MacLeod said: “It has been a genuine privilege to work under Tim’s Directorship, and we look forward to his continuing involvement with AIFL for many years to come. Having been involved with forensic linguistics at Aston University for the past eighteen years, I am thrilled to take on this new role and excited to continue this important work. Professor Grant said: “Being Director of AIFL has been the highlight and privilege of my career so far, and deciding to step back one of the biggest decisions. I’m delighted with the appointment of Krzysztof and Nicci as director and deputy director, and excited to see where they take AIFL next.”
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.
Expert Perspective: UMW's Steven E. Harris lends his opinion to The Russia File
The following piece was written by Steven E. Harris published by the Wilson Center in April 2024 Sanctions Are Spoiling Russia’s Plans to Make Its Own Airplanes Putin’s regime is feeling confident these days. Advances on the battlefield in Ukraine, expansions in armaments production, and the dithering of Republicans in the U.S. Congress show the war has turned in Russia’s favor. A well-orchestrated presidential election and some real public support buoy the regime. Political opponents are either dead, in prison, or in exile. Putin’s regime has also declared victory in blunting Western sanctions and now plans to permanently thwart them with programs of import substitution. Nowhere is this better seen than in aviation, where the state proclaims it will produce over a thousand new airplanes to replace the foreign aircraft its airlines have long flown. But this bold vision for aviation autarky has little chance of succeeding. Russia’s Short-Term Success in Blunting Aviation Sanctions Thus far, Putin’s regime has weathered aviation sanctions through a two-pronged strategy. First, Russian airlines illegally kept about 400 foreign airplanes—primarily Airbuses and Boeings—owned by foreign leasing companies. Second, the state bankrolled settlement claims in order to purchase some of these airplanes so that airlines could fly them abroad without risk of repossession and reduce their foreign debt. To date, approximately 170 foreign airplanes have been legally acquired in this fashion, and the Ministry of Transportation recently asked for more cash to continue settling claims on the remaining 230 foreign planes. The next question is how long Russian airlines, from the state-owned flag carrier Aeroflot to private companies such as S7 and Ural Air Lines, can continue flying their foreign planes. As I wrote in late October, safety has been degraded far less than predicted. But in the absence of spare parts, software updates, and thorough maintenance by foreign providers, Russian airlines have about two years before they will have to ground Boeings and Airbuses for major repairs performed using third-party spare parts. Anticipating the eventual retirement of foreign planes, Putin’s regime has embarked on a massive program to make all-Russian airplanes. This program promises independence from Western technology and leasing companies but reveals the success of sanctions and fundamental weaknesses in state capacity. The 2030 Aviation Manufacturing Plan Announced in June 2022, the program calls for the state-owned industrial conglomerate Rostec to manufacture 1,036 airplanes with only Russian parts by 2030. In January 2024, the state allocated 283 billion rubles (U.S. $3.1 billion) to help finance the production of 609 airplanes and prioritize medium-haul aircraft in the overall manufacturing plan. Before sanctions, Russian manufacturers produced a small number of narrow body, medium-haul airplanes such as the MC-21 and the Superjet-100 (SSJ-100) with Western components. Twelve SSJ-100s were manufactured in 2021 and ten the following year. Among the aircraft slated to replace Boeings and Airbuses, the plan called for production in 2023 of three medium-haul Tupolev-214 (Tu-214) airplanes and two Superjet-NEW planes (Superjet-100s with all-Russian parts). None of these were built. In fact, the state-owned United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) failed to manufacture a single passenger airplane in 2023. More recently, the UAC conceded further delays of up to two years for rollout of the MC-21, SSJ-NEW, and Tu-214, as well as of smaller, short-haul aircraft such as the Ilyushin-114 (Il-114) and the “Baikal.” The transition to total import substitution is proving difficult, making it impossible to fulfill early targets of the manufacturing plan. By withdrawing access to Western technology critical for manufacturing, sanctions have successfully shut down production. Russian manufacturers will produce at best inferior aircraft that fly shorter routes using more fuel. At its current rate, the UAC is unlikely to manufacture more than a dozen or so showcase narrow body airplanes before 2030. The manufacturer may have better luck producing simpler planes, such as the Baikal, but the state’s injection of 283 billion rubles doesn’t target its production or that of two other short-haul airplanes. Since the UAC will likely not meet the plan’s annual targets any time soon, Russia’s airlines will have to make do with their aging foreign airplanes and acquire spare parts from third parties. Putin admitted as much at his call-in event in December 2023, during which he praised the import-substitution plan but added that the government would continue to purchase illegally held foreign planes. What Will Russia’s Aviation Manufacturing Plan Actually Produce? Rather than produce new aircraft, the immediate purpose of the state’s manufacturing plan is political theater. The infusion of 283 billion rubles was meant to show the public, before the presidential elections, that Putin’s regime is serious about securing commercial aviation and to generate a sense of normalcy in the midst of war. In the long run, the manufacturing plan is more likely to produce further distortions in Russia’s political economy. These include corruption, secrecy, technologically backward aircraft, and even more state control over commercial aviation. The 283 billion rubles will help Rostec keep state-run subsidiaries such as the United Engine Corporation operating with soft budget constraints and favorable contracts that now lack any competition from Western firms. Executives will siphon off their share of the funds, while Putin’s regime will turn a blind eye as long as everyone remains loyal. If the manufacturing plan continues to falter, state-owned manufacturers will have more incentive to keep their failures secret. In 2023, for example, the Ural Civil Aviation Factory kept hidden cost overruns for the Baikal. When news of a 48 percent increase was finally publicized, Putin’s point man for the Far East region, Yuri Trutnev, was incensed and proclaimed, “Our people are like that: they don’t like to share information.” For now, Putin’s regime allows the Russian business media to report fairly openly about the country’s aviation industry on issues such as spare parts and safety, state subsidies, and shortfalls in production. But if commercial flying becomes more precarious and the manufacturing plan remains unfulfilled, the government will likely limit what the public knows about its airlines and long-term plans to maintain them. As the economic historian Mark Harrison shows in his recent book, Secret Leviathan, secrecy in the Soviet era significantly degraded state capacity in many areas, including production. Post-Soviet autocrats face a similar “secrecy/capacity tradeoff,” while newer techniques of disinformation further erode capacity. In attempting to revive the Soviet Union’s autarkic aviation industry, Putin’s regime will find it hard to avoid similar reductions in capacity. Insofar as Russia’s commercial aviation industry is concerned, the lesson for the West is that it pays to play the long game. Russia has effective tools for blunting sanctions in the short run, but in the long run it faces structural obstacles and the absence of Western technology, both of which will degrade this economic sector. The main question remains whether the United States and its allies can keep up the pressure by enforcing sanctions.
Florida Tech, Kennedy Space Center to Study Waste Treatment in Space
Associate professor of chemical engineering Toufiq Reza has spent years researching sustainable waste conversion techniques on Earth. When Florida Tech offered him a sabbatical, he took the chance to learn what that conversion process looks like in outer space while further strengthening the university’s already deep ties to NASA. In Fall 2023, Reza became the first professor to leverage school funding to spend a semester at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. He worked with Annie Meier, who leads a team developing ways to convert astronaut-generated trash into fuel during missions, known as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). “I wanted to do something different that I haven’t done. I have been doing research in my field; I know who the players are,” Reza said.” I could have easily gone to a research lab at another university and continued my research. But I wanted to learn something new.” His sabbatical prompted a new partnership between NASA Kennedy and Florida Tech. This summer, they signed an annex to their existing Space Act Agreement which will allow Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the university to conduct joint research regarding logistical waste treatment and ISRU. “At NASA, we want researchers who are doing something that could help us, that could be synergistic, and to not reinvent the wheel,” said Jose Nuñez, university partnerships and small sat capabilities manager at NASA Kennedy. “The goal is to find professors who can benefit the agency in an area that needs more research.” As part of the agreement, KSC will share raw materials, waste simulant samples and information such as gas composition data with Florida Tech. In return, the university will analyze and share findings, such as what useful products can be taken from trash-to-gas waste for use as plant nutrients, and evaluate value-added applications. “I will encourage students to work on some of their technologies, test them in our lab and vice versa. This is a massive thing,” Reza said. “We can learn from each other to help each other.” Already, Reza’s students have visited Meier’s lab, and Meier and her KSC team came to Florida Tech to present her research and visit the university’s research facilities. Meier’s goals are similar to Reza’s: Both researchers want to find sustainable ways to convert trash and waste into energy, materials and chemicals. However, the methods aren’t completely transferrable between the two different environments of Earth and space. On Earth, Reza explained, waste can be burned or stored in a landfill. Neither of those options are viable in space. “You cannot dig up the moon soil and start burying. There is no oxygen or air to actually burn it…there is no water,” Reza explained. Currently, astronaut waste, such as food packaging, clothing, hygiene items and uneaten food, is launched back towards Earth and incinerates on the way there. However, Meier is working to advance waste mitigation technology, which Reza got to see up close. One of her projects, the Orbital Syngas/Commodity Augmentation Reactor (OSCAR), mixes oxygen, heat and trash in a reactor, which burns the trash and collects the gas it creates. Over the course of the semester, Reza assisted in KSC’s Applied Chemistry Lab, where Meier’s research took place. He offered both expertise and extra hands, from helping measure samples to reading through literature. He also took note of innovative technology for potential new research ideas, such as potentially developing a way of protecting metal coatings in space using the tools he learned. Meier’s waste conversion technology is built for a space environment, but Reza said it is unlikely that her complete systems could be used for waste conversion on Earth. Just as water and oxygen are limited resources in space but are plentiful on Earth, vacuums are plentiful resources in space but are expensive to create back home. However, that doesn’t stop the researchers from seeking inspiration through the new partnership. “We can learn from them and then take a part of their technology and integrate it with ours to make our technology more sustainable and vice versa,” Reza said. “They can improve their technology by utilizing part of our technology as well. As Meier said, “I wanted to learn on the terrestrial side how we can infuse some of our technology, and he wanted to learn from us to grow into the space sector, so it was a really cool match.”
Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams '95 M.S. took the trip of a lifetime in June, traveling to the International Space Station (ISS) on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft. Not long after their arrival to the ISS, however, the spacecraft began having mechanical issues. Since then, the pair have been left stranded in space with no return flight booked to come home. As the scientific world, public and international media watch, experts like Don Platt from Florida Tech are supporting ongoing media coverage until the two astronauts return to Earth. To return Starliner to Earth, the thrusters need to fire correctly at the right time to get the crew safely out of orbit. "Clearly, you need to have thrusters to be able to position your spacecraft, to move away from the space station, to get into the position to safely reenter the Earth's atmosphere," said Don Platt, associate professor of space systems at Florida Tech. "They claim just doing a rocket burn, they can probably make it home, but they don't know where'd they land," said Platt. The problem lies with the propulsion system inside the service module. "It sounds as if they've experienced a different amount of heating than expected with some of these thrusters, and had some affected things like valves that control the flow of propellant to the thrusters. So sometimes those valves will leak or not open all the way based on the amount of heat they are experiencing," said Platt. Platt explained that the valves for these thrusters are comparable to fuel injectors in a car. They simply open and close to feed the propellant into the combustion chamber − the end result being thrust (power). Part of the challenge for Boeing teams is that they can't exactly replicate what the spacecraft is experiencing in space. Platt said that heat is not just created from the thruster itself, but from the Sun. August 11 - Florida Today Don Platt, the director of Florida Tech’s Spaceport Education Center in Titusville and an associate professor of space systems, explained that Boeing is currently trying to figure out what went wrong with Starliner and to see if there is still a chance to use the thrusters. "There's probably very little they can do to fix them at this point," Platt said. "What they can do is they can look at what thrusters are working properly, and how can we then use those thrusters to efficiently get the vehicle back into the atmosphere and then to the surface of the Earth." While Starliner has been having extensive issues and now Boeing has some tough decisions to make about what's next, Platt said we need to remember that this was a test mission. "I think that we've had a lot of success in space over the last decade or so, and we've probably gotten used to things going perfectly," Platt said. "Although space is not that easy, and we can see problems, problems do pop up from time to time. Even back in the days of the shuttle program, there used to be issues with the orbiter, even on orbit, and they'd have to think about, 'can we keep flying this mission, or do we need to return to the Earth?'" August 13 - Central Florida Public Media For now, all we can do is watch and wait. But if you're a journalist following this ongoing story, then let us help with your coverage. Dr. Don Platt's work has involved developing, testing and flying different types of avionics, communications, rocket propulsion systems as well as astrobiology/biotechnology systems and human deep space exploration tools. Don is available to speak with media anytime. Simply click on the icon below to arrange an interview today.
‘You Can Do and Be Anything Coming From an HBCU’
A late July dinner was the finale to her second internship with ChristianaCare for Tania Paden. Her eight weeks at Christiana Hospital had left her feeling more confident in herself and excited to continue exploring direct patient care as she prepares to head back to Delaware State University in the fall. “I learned how to be more comfortable with direct patient care and communicate with the patients,” Paden said. “My favorite thing would have to be going to tour the different units and getting shadowing experiences throughout the hospital.” Paden is one of 10 Future of Health Scholarship Program recipients at ChristianaCare. Graduates from Delaware high schools attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were each awarded a $12,500 annual scholarship and a paid summer internship in 2021 each year until they graduate. The program, a partnership between ChristianaCare and the HBCU Week Foundation, is designed to help support HBCU students as they pursue degrees in health care. Teachable moments and big opportunities Paden’s enthusiasm is shared by Natalie Torres, director of Inclusion & Diversity at ChristianaCare, who oversees the scholarship program. “This experience is so much more than offering the scholarship funding,” Torres said. “It’s the time, it’s those quiet moments in-between meetings and their experiences where the teachable moments really take place. “When they come to us, we really want to lock into their lived experiences, and not only make sure they can thrive at ChristianaCare, but in life.” With these scholarships and other community-based endeavors, ChristianaCare continues to work to build a diverse workforce and represent its communities. Forbes recently listed ChristianaCare as one of America’s Best Employers for Diversity for the fourth year in a row. Although she is a young intern herself, Aniyah Barnett, a rising biochemistry junior at Hampton University, jumped at the chance to help make new caregivers feel comfortable at ChristianaCare. She played a key role welcoming medical and dental residents to campus. “My favorite project was probably the new resident orientation,” Barnett said. “I spent time getting all the new residents together, making sure they have all the information they need, and getting to meet them!” A pathway to medicine For Ashley Christopher, Esq., founder and CEO of HBCU Week Foundation, these scholarships mean a lot. Ten years ago, Christopher had a stroke that left her feeling scared and alone as she lay in hospital. Her cardiologist, a Black woman, was the only one who made her feel heard, she told the students during their summer-end dinner. With IT experiences gained at ChristianaCare, Future of Health scholar Solomon Devard is thinking about continuing on that path to become a system administrator for a big corporation. “She was the only one who made me feel safe, secure and seen during a time where I was questioning life as I knew it,” Christopher said. “You can do and be anything coming from an HBCU. This scholarship gives students who want to go to HBCUs a pathway to the field of medicine for more people who look like me to tend to the care of patients.” The HBCU Week Foundation creates opportunities through coaching and scholarships for students who want to attend HBCUs. To support these efforts, ChristianaCare committed $500,000 to providing financial and networking support, and hands-on experiences for HBCU students. “These students are energized, they’re talented, and I’m so excited for the next step,” Christopher said. “I just feel so happy to be a part of that process.”
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.”
Saving Lives, One Device at a Time: Clinical Engineering
Behind every health care provider, or perhaps already in the palms of their hands, is a piece of equipment necessary to their patient’s health and survival. Modern medical treatment relies on complex equipment to keep patients alive and healthy during procedures and recovery. Take live-saving equipment such as telemetry monitors, MRI machines and ventilators as just a few examples. But what happens when all that equipment needs repair? Enter ChristianaCare’s clinical engineering technicians. This team of 35 employees — one of the largest clinical engineering teams in the nation — is responsible for overseeing the care, testing and repair of the roughly 50,000 pieces of medical equipment in use throughout the ChristianaCare system. The Clinical Engineering team is overseen by Director Blake Collins, MBA, CBET, CHTM, nationally recognized for excellence in the profession. He brings two decades of experience as a clinical engineer in the United States Navy, seven of which were served with the U.S. Marine Corps, to his role. His team has won numerous trade industry awards for its success as a “solutions provider” for the health system. "Think of health care as a triangle,” said Collins. “You have the patient, the provider and the equipment. You can’t have successful health care delivery without those three elements.” Begun in the 1970s as the hospital system’s “TV repair shop,” he joked, the Clinical Engineering department evolved dramatically after subsequent national developments in electrical safety testing and oversight for the care and functionality of medical equipment. ‘Everyone truly cares’ Today, the Clinical Engineering department maintains close to 50,000 pieces of medical equipment throughout the ChristianaCare system, including its three hospitals and all its imaging centers. “From thermometers to linear accelerators, MRIs, CTs — we manage all of it,” Collins said. Last year, the team completed 25,000 work orders, or roughly 2,100 per month. “We get to help people in so many different ways,” said John Learish, Clinical Engineering manager. Samantha Daws, Clinical Engineering supervisor, echoed the sentiment. “The Clinical Engineering Department within ChristianaCare is the most talented group of technicians I have ever had the privilege to work with,” she said. “Everyone truly cares about keeping the equipment working to ensure all caregivers have what is needed to provide quality health care to our community.” Saving lives, one device at a time What’s so important about what Clinical Engineering offers to ChristianaCare? In short: Anyone could need medical care at any time, and if medical equipment were out of commission or wrongly calibrated, lives would be at stake. Collins recalls a pivotal moment during his tenure in the Navy, when he needed an emergency appendectomy while stationed on board an aircraft carrier. “I was the only biomedical technician on the ship,” he said. “And the doctor doing the procedure asked me, jokingly, ‘Hey Collins, is this equipment going to work?’ “He was kidding, but it’s true that we never know when we or a loved one is going to end up under the equipment that we work on as engineers.” This experience gained new significance for Collins after successful open-heart surgery at ChristianaCare in 2022 — followed by his mother, who had the same procedure, also successfully, in 2023. “I had not one inkling or shadow of a doubt that the equipment was going to work fine,” he said. “You never know who will end up needing care. So we take it very, very seriously.” Icon in the field For his outstanding service as Director of Clinical Engineering at ChristianaCare, Collins was presented with the 2024 John D. Hughes Iconoclast Award from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), a career-marking honor in health care technology management. The award recognizes innovation and leadership in the field; for Collins, it shows how well the Clinical Engineering team works together to deliver safe medical equipment across the ChristianaCare system. “Blake has been a relentless advocate for ChristianaCare,” read his nomination. “He has implemented numerous initiatives and processes to improve his department … and work smarter through the use of technology and automation.” The next time you see a ChristianaCare provider pick up an instrument or turn on a machine, think about the Clinical Engineering team — and rest assured that your equipment is ready to go.
Expert Insight: NFL Fandom: The Last Cultural Unifier?
In 2024, few cultural touchstones unify America. One of the remaining cultural unifiers is the NFL. It is almost guaranteed that the Super Bowl will be the most watched television program each year. Add Taylor Swift (another rare cultural unifier) attending to watch her boyfriend and an appealing halftime musical guest, and you can have over 120 million people watching the same program at the same time. Nothing else comes close. There is little doubt that the NFL is the undisputed champion of American sports. But how do the various NFL fandoms compare? Which team has the top fandom, and which struggles (struggle is relative here, as the lowest-ranked NFL fandom is still impressive)? This is an interesting question in a couple of ways. First, it reveals something important about the level of connection in different cities. Cities with stronger fan bases tend to have more of a shared identity. Boston residents share more love across their teams (Celtics, Red Sox, Bruins, Patriots) than folks from Tampa Bay. “Sports” cities are fundamentally different. It's also an interesting marketing analysis. Fandoms are people who share passion and love for what are essentially brands. Examining fandom can reveal something critical about how brands that inspire fandom are built. Comparing fan bases can also inflame passions. Sports fans are (often) the ultimate fans as they closely identify with their teams and feel each victory as a personal triumph and each loss as a defeat. Because fans’ identities are tied to their teams, ranking fan bases can feel like an attack. Saying Browns fans aren’t as good of fans as Ravens fans feels like an attack on Cleveland. The deeper perspective motivating this analysis is that fandom is about cultural passion, so what people are fans of largely dictates the tone and content of our societies. A society that loves baseball, country music, and trucks feels very different from one that favors soccer, opera, and Vespas. The fandom rankings are a snapshot in time of how fandom works in the NFL. And remember, the NFL is not just the top sports league in America but also the closest thing we have in 2024 to a shared societal passion. Analyzing Fandoms I have been ranking NFL and other fan bases for more than a decade. These fandom analyses are an example of brand equity analytics, and they use two types of data. The goal is to understand the relationship between market characteristics and fandom outcomes at the league level. We can then evaluate each team based on how it performs relative to league norms. The fandom or market outcome measures include things like data on prices, attendance, and social media following. These are measures of fan engagement. Prices provide a signal of how much market power a team has created. Attendance shows the enthusiasm of fans in the market to pay for tickets and take the time to travel and attend. Social media following reveals how many fans the team has in and out of their home market. Each metric has advantages and limitations. Social media following provides an indication of national fandom, but it also captures casual fans who would never pay for a ticket. The second aspect of the analysis focuses on market potential. NFL markets vary from New York, with a population of 20 million, to Green Bay, with a few hundred thousand. Income levels in San Francisco are far higher than in Jacksonville or Cleveland. I use a range of demographics, but income and population are the major factors. Again, the metrics are good but not perfect. For example, using MSA populations isn’t perfect because teams have different footprints. The Packers are more of a Wisconsin team than a Green Bay team. The teams in New York and LA share a market. Should they each get half of the metro area population? One factor that I do not control for is competition. In the southeast, NFL teams may compete with SEC teams. I have debated this issue (with myself) and have decided to neglect it. This year's analysis includes a significant change from last year. The significant change is that I am not controlling for team performance. Controlling for team performance is helpful because it isolates core or unchanging fandom. This approach has appeal, as we can argue that teams with more passionate fandoms will be more resilient against losing seasons. The downside of controlling for performance is that we get less of a measurement of the fandom's overall value. If a team like Kansas City is on an extended winning streak, then the Chiefs brand is very valuable at the moment. Controlling for winning makes the analysis more about the core, near-permanent passion of a fandom, while not controlling makes the results more relevant to current brand power. The analysis involves three steps. The first step creates measures of each team’s relative fandom outcomes and market potential. The second step develops a statistical model of the relationship between market potential and fandom outcomes. The third step compares each team's fandom outcomes with the statistical model's predictions. The third step is a comparison of actual results versus predicted – the key point is that the prediction is based on leaguewide data. As these analyses are always imperfect, the best way to consider the fandom rankings is as tiers. I like the idea of quadrants. Some brief comments on the members of each quadrant (Elite, Solid, Role Players, Benchwarmers). I will be discussing each fandom on social media. TikTok: @fanalyticspodcast Instagram: @fanalyticsmikelewis YouTube: @fanalyticsmike A bonus figure follow the Quad overviews. The Results Quadrant 1: The Elite The Dallas Cowboys lead the top group of teams, followed by the Packers, Eagles, Chiefs, 49ers, Raiders, Patriots, and Steelers. Sounds a lot like what the man on the street would list as the top NFL brands. The Cowboys and Packers leading the way is no surprise. The Cowboys are second in social following and the leaders in attendance. The Packers are an astonishing fandom story as the team is located in the definitive small market. The Eagles leading the Steelers is going to be troubling in Western Pennsylvania, but the Eagles have more pricing power and more social following. The 49ers are a solid NFL fandom with few weaknesses. The Patriots are in a new era, and it will be fascinating to see if they maintain their top-tier position as Brady and Belichick become memories. The Chiefs' presence in the top group is a change from past years and is due to the shift away from controlling for performance. The Chiefs have a great fandom, but the team’s success currently pumps them up. The Chiefs are in a brand-building phase as the team continues building its dynasty. The question for the Chiefs is where they end up long-term. I don't fully understand the Raiders' ranking. The Raiders are midrange in attendance and social following but do well because are reported to have the highest prices in the league. I suspect this is more an idiosyncrasy of the Las Vegas market than a reflection of significant passionate fandom. Quadrant 2: Solid Performers The Quadrant 2 teams are the Broncos, Giants, Panthers, Seahawks, Saints, Ravens, Texans, and Browns. These are the solid performers of NFL fandoms (brands). These are teams with above expected fandom outcomes for their relative market potentials. The Quadrant 2 clubs are all passionate fanbases (maybe one exception) despite very different histories. For example, the AFC North rival Ravens and Browns differ in both relative history and frequency of winning. Cleveland fandom involves significant character, while the Ravens are a “blue-collar” brand that has been a consistent winner. There are a lot of great stories in Quad 2. The Saints were once the Aints but are now a core part of New Orleans. The Broncos and Giants are great fandoms who are probably angry to be left out of Quad 1. The Panthers' position is unexpected and may be due to some inflated social media numbers. This is the challenge when an analysis is based only on data. When data gets a little weird, like an inflated social media follower count dating back to Cam Newton's days, the results can also get a little weird. This is a teachable moment—do not analyze and interpret data without knowing the context (the data-generating processes). Quadrant 3: Role Players Quadrant 3 fandoms are teams whose fandom outcomes are slightly below average league performance (for similar markets). The Quadrant 3 teams include (in order) the Bills, Falcons, Buccaneers, Jets, Vikings, Bears, Dolphins, and Bengals. There are some interesting teams in Quad 3. The Bills have a great and notorious fandom. Jumping through flaming tables in subzero weather should get you into the top half of the rankings? The big-market Jets and the small-market Bengals have two of the most fascinating QBs in the league. Both clubs could be poised to get to Quad 2 with a Super Bowl or two. Da’Bears may be one of the most disappointing results. A team with an SNL skit devoted to their fandom in a market like Chicago shouldn’t be in Quad 3. Other quick comments: The Falcons need to win a title. Florida is tough for professional teams. The Vikings should play outside. Quadrant 4: Hopium These are the NFL's weakest fandoms, with the key phrase being “the NFL’s.” The Quad 4 teams, in order, are the Lions, Rams, Jaguars, Colts, Titans, Commanders, Chargers, and Cardinals. It’s a lot of teams who have not won regularly and have many moves and name changes. The Lions are poised for a move upward and maybe a sleeping giant of a fandom. They have the most watchable coach in the league and the most surprising celebrity fan. An interesting side story in Quad 4 is the battle for Los Angeles between the Rams (formerly of Saint Louis) and the Chargers (previously San Diego). They play in the same market, but the Rams have won more. But will Herbert lead the Chargers past the Rams? Quad 4 illustrates an important lesson: consistency. The Rams moved from St. Louis and then back to LA. The Chargers went from San Diego to LA. The Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night. The Titans were the Oilers and moved from Houston to Nashville. The Cardinals were the other NFL team Saint Louis lost. The Commanders should have stopped with their previous name. The Fandom Outcomes / Market Potential Matrix The following figure is a bit of bonus material that may provide some insight into the inner workings of the analysis. The figure below shows the performance of each team on the Fandom Outcome and the Market Potential Indexes. The upper left region features teams with less lucrative markets but above-average fandoms, like the Packers, Steelers, and Chiefs. The lower right region is the teams with below-average fandom outcomes despite high potential markets, like the Commanders, Chargers, and Rams. This pictorial representation is also interesting as it shows teams with similar positions. These similarities can be somewhat surprising. For example, the Lions and Dolphins have very similar profiles despite the differences between Detroit and Miami. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.
Stephen Pearlman, M.D., Honored for Excellence in Neonatology Education
Stephen Pearlman, M.D., MSHQS, will receive the 2024 Avroy Fanaroff Neonatal Education Award at the American Academy of Pediatrics’ annual meeting in September. This honor, presented by the AAP’s section on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, recognizes an educator who makes outstanding contributions in neonatal-perinatal medicine for health care students, professionals or the public. Pearlman, an expert in neonatology, intensive care and pediatrics, is clinical effectiveness officer for acute care at ChristianaCare. He is also professor of pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University. “Stephen is deeply committed to excellence in neonatal education and the highest quality care,” said Kert Anzilotti, M.D.,MBA, system chief medical officer at ChristianaCare. “As a faculty member, physician and leader, he continues to make a lasting impact at ChristianaCare and beyond with his pioneering initiatives in quality improvement and safety in health care.” A faculty member for almost 40 years, Pearlman has served ChristianaCare in clinical, educational and administrative roles. Among them, he was chair of the Pediatric and Neonatal Safety Committee, director of Neonatal Quality Improvement, associate director of Neonatology and director of Pediatric Medical Education. Pearlman has led initiatives that have been spotlighted by the federal government as exemplars of how to improve safety at health systems. He developed an innovative quality-improvement curriculum for neonatal fellows, which the Organization of Neonatal-Perinatal Training Program Directors adopted. “I’m passionate about educating clinicians about ways to improve the quality of patient care, so it’s humbling to receive this recognition,” Pearlman said. “I am honored to have been selected as a recipient of this award.” Pearlman is also an associate editor of Quality Improvement for the Journal of Perinatology and an executive committee member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Perinatal Section.
