Experts for the Media

Ho-ho-ho and a bottle of Tums?

From feeding a crowd to juggling travel and schedules and managing finances during a challenging economic time, the holidays can feel like a pressure cooker.

But University of Rochester psychologist Jeremy Jamieson, one of the country’s leading researchers on stress, says the pressures of the season of giving (and giving and giving and giving some more) can be mitigated by mentally reframing the stress we feel. In other words, what matters is how we interpret our stress.

Jamieson’s Social Stress Lab studies a technique called "stress reappraisal": the practice of reframing stress responses as helpful rather than harmful. According to researchers, people can learn to treat their signs of stress — the racing heart, the sweaty palms, the mental sense of urgency — as tools that prepare them to meet a challenge rather than a sign that they’re falling apart.

“Stress reappraisal isn’t about calming down or shutting stress off,” Jamieson says. “It’s about changing the meaning of your stress response. If you view the demands as something you can handle, your body shifts into a challenge state, which is a more adaptive, productive kind of stress.”

The research behind this approach has grown considerably.

In one of Jamieson’s studies, published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, the Social Stress Lab trained community college students to reinterpret stress as a resource. The results were striking: students experienced less anxiety, performed better on exams, procrastinated less, were more likely to stay enrolled, and approached academic challenges with healthier physiological responses.

Newer findings from the lab also suggest that stress reframing can support people facing workplace pressures, caregiving responsibilities, and major life transitions.

In short, stress isn’t the enemy of our well-being during the holidays. The real culprit is believing stress is dangerous.

Jamieson is available for interviews and can explain how people can use stress reappraisal strategies to navigate holiday pressures — and other high-demand moments — with more confidence, better health, and better outcomes.

Click on his profile to connect with him.

For decades, talk of UFOs has thrived on fuzzy photos and personal anecdotes—never the kind of hard data scientists can actually test. But new peer-reviewed studies have changed the conversation, says Adam Frank, a University of Rochester astrophysicist who studies life in the universe and the nature of scientific discovery.

Two recent papers, published in reputable astronomy journals, claim to have found evidence of “non-terrestrial artifacts” in astronomical photographs from the 1950s — objects that appear to be  orbiting Earth before the Space Age began.

“That’s an extraordinary claim,” Frank says, “and, as Carl Sagan famously said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.'

“The good news is that, finally, there’s something associated with UFOs that science can work with.”

Led by astronomer Beatriz Villarroel and her VASCO project (Vanishing and Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations), the studies passed the first test of scientific credibility: rigorous peer review. Now, Frank says, comes the harder part — the “call-and-response” that defines real science.

“Getting a paper published doesn’t make the claim right,” he explains. “It just means the debate can begin. Other scientists will now dig into the data, test the methods, and try to tear the claim apart. That’s how science works.”

Frank is a frequent on-air commentator for live interviews and segments in national media outlets and the author of The Little Book of Aliens (Harper Collins, 2023). He also regularly contributes to written publications, including The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and Scientific American. In 2021 he received the Carl Sagan Medal, which recognizes and honors outstanding communication by an active planetary scientist to the general public. It is awarded to scientists whose efforts have significantly contributed to a public understanding of, and enthusiasm for, planetary science.

Connect with him by clicking on his profile. 

A “brain-on-a-chip” technology might sound like science fiction, but it’s real-world hope.

James McGrath, a biomedical engineer at the University of Rochester, leads a team that develops micro-scale tissue chips to study diseases in lieu of conducting animal experiments. The team’s “brain-on-a-chip” model replicates the blood-brain barrier — the critical membrane separating the brain from the bloodstream — to mimic how the barrier functions under healthy conditions and the duress of infections, toxins, and immune responses that can weaken it.

Recent findings from McGrath’s team show how systemic inflammation, such as that caused by sepsis, can compromise the barrier and harm brain cells. The researchers also demonstrated how pericytes — supportive vascular cells — can help repair barrier damage, an insight that could guide new therapies for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

The research culminated in a pair of recent studies published in Advanced Science and Materials Today Bio. “We hope that by building these tissue models in chip format, we can arrange many brain models in a high-density array to screen candidates for neuroprotective drugs and develop brain models with diverse genetic backgrounds,” McGrath says.

McGrath aims to transform how scientists test drugs and predict neurological side effects before they occur — helping rewrite how we study, and one day safeguard, the brain.

Contact McGrath by clicking on his profile