Spotlights

A dramatic decline in reading for pleasure in the United States has fewer American parents reading aloud to their children — and experts warn the consequences can be dire.

“It builds connections,” Carol Anne St. George, an expert in early literacy at the University of Rochester’s Warner School of Education and Human Development, recently told The74 for an article citing a 41-percent decline in parents reading to children daily.

“People talk about text to text, text to world,” St. George said, “and those are the kinds of things that help children cognitively think and classify their world around them.”

Many young parents grew up in an education system focused on reading as a means to testing and building skills rather than enjoyment. As a result, St. George worries, they often view reading to their young as an obligation rather than a joy and a time to bond.

Experts say an increased reliance on screens and digital content and time pressures and competing demands on families have also fueled the decline.

St. George notes that children benefit greatly from being read to regularly. The advantages of early literacy include:

• Having a more robust vocabulary and stronger communications skills.
• Being better prepared to learn in school.
• Having a closer relationship with their parents.
• Higher academic achievement and better health outcomes later in life.

What Parents Can Do St. George advises parents to:

• Let children choose books they enjoy.
• Make reading part of a daily routine and that bedtime is ideal.
• Focus on fun and connection.
• Model good reading behavior because children mimic what they see.

St. George is available for media interviews and can be reached by contacting Theresa Danylak, the director of communications at the Warner School, at tdanylak@warner.rochester.edu.

The on-again-off-again nationwide boycott of Target has the retailer’s new chief executive, Michael Fiddelke, officer facing relentless pressure from activists on both sides of the issue.

David Primo, a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester, says Fiddelke can’t seem to move Target from the crosshairs despite slashing prices on thousands of products and investing in stores, workers, and technology.

“Target remains a battleground for activists on the left and the right, and its new CEO hasn’t yet figured out how to extricate the company from this role,” Primo recently told USA Today. “Fiddelke already faces a huge challenge in turning around a company with significant operational issues. This certainly doesn’t help matters.”

Target has reported 13 straight quarters of sluggish sales. Company officials have admitted that shopper anger has contributed.

Activists in Minneapolis, where Target is based, organized a nationwide boycott last year over the company’s rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. From church pulpits to community gatherings, the policy about-face was widely viewed as a betrayal of Black Americans who had propped up the retail giant’s bottom line.

Primo studies corporate political strategies, among other areas, and regularly shares his insights with business journalists and political reporters. His essays have appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and he’s been interviewed by many radio and television outlets, including Bloomberg and National Public Radio.

Contact him by clicking on his profile.

With the recent presidential comments on potential alien life, UFO enthusiasts have new hope that finally we’re going to get federal “disclosure” of UFOs, aliens and the great government conspiracy surrounding both. But, as a scientist who studies the search for life in the Universe, the question I have is much simpler: What would disclosure really need to disclose? What is required for actual, factual proof that aliens exist and they’ve been visiting Earth?

We’ve already had three years of Congressional hearings on UFOs that have produced zero proof of anything. What we need now is simple: hard physical evidence. That is what disclosure needs to deliver. Not stories about alien spaceships being held by the government, but the actual spaceships themselves. Not stories about alien bodies but the actual icky, gooey bodies with their icky gooey tentacles. If disclosure provides physical evidence that independent laboratories and independent scientists all over the world can verify, then it will live up to its hype. That would make “Disclosure Day” truly history-making.

As teenagers push for independence, many parents respond by trying to become their friends and confidants.

University of Rochester psychologist Judi Smetana says blurring the line between warmth and authority can backfire.

“It’s great if kids want to disclose to you,” Smetana explains. “But it would be weird for parents to talk about their private lives with their kids. When parents start revealing things about themselves, it’s slippery. Your child should not be your confidant.”

Smetana, an expert in adolescent development and parent-teen relationships, emphasizes that closeness and trust are essential — but they are not the same as “friendship.” Teenagers need structure, limits, and clear boundaries as they test autonomy. When parents overshare they risk shifting roles in ways that reduce parental influence.

That doesn’t mean parent-child relationships remain rigid forever. The dynamics naturally evolve as children mature into early adulthood.

“Let the child take the lead,” Smetana says. “There may show a willingness to become more like friends when parents don’t have the same authority. But there will still be some boundaries.”

Her research underscores that healthy parent-teen relationships balance openness with guidance. Trust grows not from collapsing boundaries, but from maintaining them with consistency and care.

For reporters covering parenting and adolescent behavior, Smetana is available to discuss:

• Healthy boundaries in parent-teen relationships
• Oversharing and role confusion in families
• Adolescent autonomy and authority
• How parent-child dynamics shift in early adulthood

Click her profile to connect with her.

After more than 50 years studying close relationships, University of Rochester psychologist Harry Reis has reached a deceptively simple conclusion: Happy people feel loved.

That conclusion became the jumping-off point for a new book Reis co-wrote, “How to Feel Loved: The Five Mindsets That Get You More of What Matters Most” (Harper 2026), which blends decades of research on happiness and human connection.

In it, Reis and his co-author, Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychologist at the University of California, Riverside, outline five research-backed mindsets that strengthen connection: sharing authentically, listening to people, practicing radical curiosity, approaching others with an open heart, and recognizing human complexity.

The book was recently featured in The New York Times, which noted that the authors contend giving and receiving love function together like a seesaw: You lift a person up with the weight of your curiosity and attentiveness — and they do the same in turn.

“The other side is very important also,” Reis told The Times. “To be sharing what’s important to you, to be sharing what you’re concerned about, so it can really become a two-way street.”

Reis, who leads groundbreaking research on close relationships, is available to discuss:

• The science of feeling loved vs. being loved
• How digital distraction undermines connection
• AI companionship and its psychological limits
• Practical ways to build stronger, more resilient relationships
• The link between love, happiness, and health

Journalists writing about love and relationships can contact Reis by clicking on his profile.

What if boats, buoys, and other items designed to float could never be sunk — even when they’re cracked, punctured, or tossed by an angry sea?

If you think unsinkable metal sounds like science fiction. Think again.

A team of researchers at the University of Rochester led by professor Chunlei Guo has devised a way to make ordinary metal tubes stay afloat no matter how much damage they sustain. The team chemically etches tiny pits into the tubes that trap air, keeping the tubes from getting waterlogged or sinking. Even when these superhydrophobic tubes are submerged, dented, or punctured, the trapped air keeps them buoyant and, in a very literal sense, unsinkable.

“We tested them in some really rough environments for weeks at a time and found no degradation to their buoyancy,” says Guo, a professor of physics and optics and a senior scientist at the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics. “You can poke big holes in them, and we showed that even if you severely damage the tubes with as many holes as you can punch, they still float.”

Guo and his team could usher in a new generation of marine tech, from resilient floating platforms and wave-powered generators to ships and offshore structures that can withstand damage that would sink traditional steel.

Their research highlights the University of Rochester’s knack for translating physics into practical wonder.

For reporters covering materials science, sustainable engineering, ocean tech, or innovative design, Guo is the ideal expert to explain why “unsinkable metal” might be closer to everyday use than you think.

To connect with Guo, contact Luke Auburn, director of communications for the Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, at luke.auburn@rochester.edu.

Higher learning in the age of artificial intelligence isn’t about policing AI, but rather reinventing education around the new technology, says Chris Kanan, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Rochester and an expert in artificial intelligence and deep learning.

“The cost of misusing AI is not students cheating, it’s knowledge loss,” says Kanan. “My core worry is that students can deprive themselves of knowledge while still producing ‘acceptable work.’”

Kanan, who writes about and studies artificial intelligence, is helping to shape one of the most urgent debates in academia today: how universities should respond to the disruptive force of AI.

In his latest essay on the topic, Kanan laments that many universities consider AI “a writing problem,” noting that student writing is where faculty first felt the force of artificial intelligence. But, he argues, treating student use of AI as something to be detected or banned misunderstands the technological shift at hand.

“Treating AI as ‘writing-tech’ is like treating electricity as ‘better candles,’” he writes.

“The deeper issue is not prose quality or plagiarism detection,” he continues. “The deeper issue is that AI has become a general-purpose interface to knowledge work: coding, data analysis, tutoring, research synthesis, design, simulation, persuasion, workflow automation, and (increasingly) agent-like delegation.”

That, he says, forces a change in pedagogy.

What Higher Ed Needs to Do His essay points to universities that are “doing AI right,” including hiring distinguished artificial intelligence experts in key administrative leadership roles and making AI competency a graduation requirement.

Kanan outlines structural changes he believes need to take place in institutions of higher learning.

• Rework assessment so it measures understanding in an AI-rich environment. • Teach verification habits. • Build explicit norms for attribution, privacy, and appropriate use. • Create top-down leadership so AI strategy is coherent and not fractured among departments. • Deliver AI literacy across the entire curriculum. • Offer deep AI degrees for students who will build the systems everyone else will use. For journalists covering AI’s impact on education, technology, workforce development, or institutional change, Kanan offers a research-based, forward-looking perspective grounded in both technical expertise and a deep commitment to the mission of learning.

Connect with him by clicking on his profile.

With global attention on Venezuela following the U.S. removal of Nicolás Maduro, one of the central questions is whether taking out a leader actually changes the political system that put him in power.

Two University of Rochester political scientists — Hein Goemans and Gretchen Helmke — study different sides of this issue, and can shed light on why authoritarian regimes often survive even when leaders fall and what the U.S. intervention means for Venezuela and the world order.

Goemans specializes in how wars begin and end, regime survival, and why so-called “decapitation strategies” — removing a leader without dismantling the broader power structure — so often fail to produce stable outcomes. His research draws on cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to authoritarian regimes in Latin America.

In a recent interview with WXXI Public Media, Goemans warned that removing Maduro does not resolve the underlying system of military and economic control that sustained his rule. Without changes to those institutions, he said, power is likely to remain concentrated among the same elite networks.

“The problem isn’t just the leader,” Goemans explained. “It’s the structure that rewards loyalty and punishes defection. If that remains intact, the politics don’t fundamentally change.”

Helmke, a leading scholar of democracy and authoritarianism in Latin America, emphasizes that legitimacy, not just force, determines whether democratic transitions take hold.

Her research helps explain why democratic breakthroughs so often stall after moments of dramatic change, and why outside interventions can unintentionally weaken domestic opposition movements by shifting power toward regime insiders.

“When the institutions and elites remain in place, uncertainty — not democratic transition — often becomes the dominant political reality,” she said.

For journalists covering the fast-moving situation, Goemans and Helmke are available to discuss why removing leaders rarely brings the political transformation policymakers expect and what history suggests comes next. They can address:

• Why regime-change operations so often backfire, even when dictators are deeply unpopular
• What sidelining democratic opposition means for legitimacy
• Whether U.S. claims that Maduro is illegitimate hold up under international and U.S. law
• How prosecuting a foreign leader in U.S. courts could reshape norms of sovereignty
• The risks the U.S. intervention poses to the rules-based international order and NATO
• How interventions affect international norms, including sovereignty and the rule of law, and why short-term tactical successes can create long-term strategic risks.
• Why treating global politics as a series of “one-off” power plays misunderstands how states actually enforce norms over time
• How competing factions inside the U.S. administration may be driving incoherent foreign policy

Geomans also brings rare insight into the internal dynamics of U.S. policymaking, having taught and observed Stephen Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides who is helping shape the administration’s worldview. (Goemans taught Miller at Duke University in 2003.)

Click on the profiles for Goemans and Helmke to connect with them.

As interest in cryptocurrencies move from the fringes to mainstream conversation and public policy debate, Derek Mohr, clinical associate professor of finance at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester, offers a clear-eyed voice on the subject.

Mohr specializes in financial innovation and digital assets, and he’s been in demand with reporters looking to understand the economics behind everything from “Bitcoin-powered” home heaters to gas stations offering discounts for crypto purchases.

His message? Not everything that markets itself as a breakthrough actually adds up.

For instance, some companies have pitched devices that promise to heat a home using excess energy generated from bitcoin mining. Mohr recently told CNBC the idea might sound clever, but that its practicality collapses under basic financial and engineering realities.

“The bitcoin heat devices I have seen appear to be simple space heaters that use your own electricity to heat the room . . . which is not an efficient way to heat a house,” Mohr said. “Yes, bitcoin mining generates a lot of heat, but the only way to get that to your house is to use your own electricity.”

Bitcoin mining, he explained, has become so specialized that home computers have virtually zero chance of earning a mining reward. Industrial mining farms operate on custom-built chips far more powerful than any consumer device.

In other words, consumers who think they’re heating their homes and earning crypto are, in reality, just paying for electricity and getting no real mining benefit.

A pragmatic voice in a volatile space Mohr’s research and commentary help explain not just what is happening in the crypto world, but why it matters for consumers, businesses, and regulators. Whether evaluating the economics of mining or the viability of crypto payments, he brings a steady, analytical perspective to a domain dominated by hype and fast-moving news cycles.

For journalists covering cryptocurrency, fintech, and the future of financial transactions, Mohr is available for interviews on digital payments, bitcoin mining economics, crypto regulation, and emerging trends in financial technologies.

Top contact him, reach out to University of Rochester media relations liaison David Andreatta at david.andreatta@rochester.edu.