Spotlights

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

The Senate returned to Capitol Hill on the first day of a government shutdown to vote on two funding bills aimed at getting the government up and running amid an ongoing blame game among congressional leaders.

University of Rochester political scientist Gerald Gamm is watching the deliberations and political maneuverings closely and is in a unique position to lend insight on the negotiations and gamesmanship.

Gamm is a co-author of Steering the Senate (Cambridge University Press, June 2025). The book has received high praise from a multitude of sources, and has been called "essential reading for all who care — or worry — about the past and future of institutional leadership and capacity on Capitol Hill," "the best book we have about the organizational development of the Senate," and "a masterpiece . . . that unearths new information on the emergence of leadership institutions and the role of parties and showing their relevance for the Senate of today."

Gamm is available for interviews and can be contacted by clicking on his profile.

"What's the number one parent behavior that will hurt a child's chance of admission?" 

The question was posed to Robert Alexander, the University of Rochester vice provost and dean of enrollment management, on the podcast "College Knowledge." He was quick to answer.

"Parents needs to be empowering the student and not driving the conversation" when it comes to choosing a college and engaging with college admissions professionals, Alexander replied.

He explained that too many parents have a narrow view of what they deem as "acceptable" institutions of higher education for their child. They come by it honestly, he said, with most of their knowledge derived from their own college searches and dreams a generation ago. 

They tend to home in on 20 or 30 schools when, in reality, the universe of quality colleges and universities has expanded exponentially since the days these parents were considering where to study, Alexander said.

"Widening that lends and thinking beyond the 20 or 30 schools they know a lot about or think they know a lot about or see a lot of bumper stickers for, that's really important," Alexander said. "There are many more really great institutions and what's important is not your child getting into 'the best college' that they can, but instead their child finding the best fit at one or maybe a range of different institutions."

Alexander is an expert in undergraduate admissions and enrollment management who speaks on the subjects to national audiences and whose work has been published in national publications.

Click his profile to reach him.

Why do some rebellious teenagers shun parental warnings about their behavior while others take them to heart?

University of Rochester psychologist Judith Smetana has devoted her career to unpacking that question. Her research reveals that parents who live out their values — and take the time to understand the perspective of their teenagers — have the most success at positively shaping adolescent behavior.

Smetana’s latest study, published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, shows that when parents “walk the walk” and model their values consistently, teens perceive rules and warnings as supportive guidance rather than controlling commands.

But that alone won’t stop all risky teenage behavior. What really works, Smetana’s research finds, is “perspective-taking”: when parents try to understand their child’s feelings and the reasons for them.

Smetana is widely cited for her expertise on moral development, autonomy, and parent-teen conflict — and how these dynamics shape young people’s lives.

Connect with her by clicking on her profile.

The National Football League season kicks off this week and that means millions of fantasy football coaches are already overthinking their lineups.

But before they blame a bad draft slot or a fluke injury for bombing from one week to the next, they might want to look in the mirror and give their head a shake.

Renee Miller, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester, studies cognitive biases and literally wrote the book on bias in fantasy sports. She plays fantasy football, too.

She warns that our brains are wired to interpret fantasy football results in ways that are suboptimal and illogical.

“Biased thinking occurs in everyday life and work, and in fantasy sports,” Miller says. “Through the course of a season, you can see a full range of the ways cognitive bias affects a person’s weekly fantasy matchups.”

Here’s the good news: Miller says we can untangle those wires if we know what to look for.

Among the biggest culprits are what Miller calls “the endowment effect” (overvaluing and clinging to players you drafted high), “recency bias” (falling in love with last week’s star), and “confirmation bias” (cherry-picking stats that support what you already believe).

But especially beware of Week One. Thanks to the “primacy effect,” those games early in the season loom larger in memory than later ones. One hot debut or a disappointing flop can warp a coach’s thinking for weeks.

The result? Lineups driven more by emotion than logic — and possibly a lot of pick sixes.

Biases aren’t all bad, though. Sometimes instincts pay off. First impressions and recent performances sometimes hold fast.

But the best fantasy players, Miller says, know when to slow down and think systematically. They stay skeptical, challenge their gut reactions, and accept that they’ll be wrong sometimes.

So before you rage-drop that underperforming wide receiver or crown your Week One sleeper a superstar, remember, the smartest move might be to take a look in the mirror and give your head a shake.

Miller is available for interviews for journalists covering fantasy sports. Connect with her by clicking on her profile.

As America heads back to school, the renewed whirlwind of expectations for students and parents — from demanding coursework to social dynamics and balancing pick-up-and-drop-off schedules — can trigger anxiety for students and parents alike.

Jeremy Jamieson, associate professor of psychology who leads the University of Rochester’s Social Stress Lab, studies how social stressors affect decisions, emotion, and achievement and how embracing, rather than battling, those reactions can boost resilience.

“We’re not passive receivers of stress,” Jamieson told National Public Radio last year. “We’re active agents in actually making our own stress response.”

Jamieson’s research reveals that stress can be helpful when it is reframed as a mobilizer of energy and focus. In a study of students preparing for the GRE, for instance, those who were primed to view physical stress symptoms (like a racing heart) as beneficial outperformed their peers who didn’t reframe those symptoms.

As students confront the fall’s demands, a simple shift in mindset can make all the difference.

Jamieson’s research has so many practical applications that he is regularly sought out by media outlets on a wide variety of topics. In the last year, he has talked to Golf Digest about battling the “yips,” to The Atlantic about the rise of “anxiety-inducing” television, and to New York Magazine about the stress some people feel when talking on the phone.

He is available to discuss his research and to help explain and navigate seasonal pressures. Connect with him by clicking on his profile.

As the new academic year begins, and at a time when misinformation often travels faster than facts, University of Rochester’s Kevin Meuwissen offers educators and young learners clarity and practical strategies for identifying credible sources.

As an associate professor and chair of teaching and curriculum at the Warner School of Education and Human Development, Meuwissen focuses on how children and teens learn about politics and history — and how they can be taught to critically evaluate what they consume.

“Young people pay close attention to who’s been consistently accurate,” he says. “They’re more likely to trust someone over time if their information holds up.”

To empower students in our complex information environment, Meuwissen champions the so-called SIFT method — an easy-to-remember acronym and evidence-based toolkit that breaks down like this:

• Stop! Pause before reacting or sharing • Investigate the source • Find better coverage • Trace claims back to their origin He also warns about how emotional framing, AI-generated visuals, deep fakes, and repeated exposure can distort judgment through the illusory truth effect — making misinformation feel believable even when it isn’t. His "Ever Wonder: How Can You Tell If A Source Is Credible?" video  is a handy teaching tool. 

Meuwissen and his colleagues encourage teachers grappling with resistance over topics like climate science to consider not just evidence depth, but also students’ identities — political, cultural, and otherwise — when designing lessons. His approach emphasizes building trust, modeling thoughtful verification, and nurturing classroom norms rooted in accuracy — traits essential for forming discerning digital citizens.

Kevin Meuwissen is available for interviews about identifying misinformation. He can be contacted through Warner School of Education Director of Communications Theresa Danylak at tdanylak@warner.rochester.edu.

President Donald Trump has signaled a push to scale back federal regulation across a wide range of industries, reigniting a national debate over the costs and benefits of government rules. For Joseph Kalmenovitz, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Rochester’s Simon Business School who studies the economics of regulation, the moment underscores the importance of understanding not just what regulations do — but how much they cost.

Kalmenovitz, who combines legal training with cutting-edge empirical methods, has developed innovative ways to measure regulatory intensity. His research shows how compliance requirements translate into millions of additional hours of paperwork for firms — costs that often fall outside public view. A recent Bloomberg Law article cited his work in explaining how Wall Street alone devotes an estimated 51 million extra hours each year to compliance since the Great Financial Crisis.

Beyond tallying hours, Kalmenovitz’s studies also explore how overlapping rules across agencies — what he calls “regulatory fragmentation” — can stifle productivity, profitability, and growth, especially for smaller firms. His long-term aim is to provide evidence-based insights that can guide smarter rulemaking in Washington.

“The dream is that people will take insights from my work and use them to improve the way regulation is conceived,” he told Simon Business Magazine. Kalmenovitz is a leading voice in translating data into meaningful insights about the hidden costs and design of regulation whose work has been published in the Journal of Finance, the Review of Financial Studies, Management Science, and the Journal of Law and Economics. He is available for interviews and can be contacted through his profile.

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are scheduled to meet today in Alaska to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine, which Russia invaded in 2022.

But Ukraine, whose president wasn’t invited to the talks, and its European allies, whose representatives were also kept out of the conversation, have expressed fears that a deal could be struck without Kyiv’s involvement.

Randall Stone, a political scientist and director of the Skalny Center for Polish and Central European Studies at the University of Rochester, has been following the developments in the war closely and is available to lend insight to reporters covering the high-stakes summit.

“The war has shifted Russian strategy and economic ties away from the West and toward China, Iran, and India,” Stone told Newsweek last year. “If he succeeds in Ukraine, he will probably seeks to challenge U.S. NATO allies Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, whose membership in NATO he has always seen as a threat to Russia.”

Trump has downplayed his expectations for a possible breakthrough, voicing frustration with what he has described as Putin’s “meaningless” gestures toward resolving the conflict, and referring to the talks as a chance for him to see what Putin has in mind.

The two leaders are expected to hold a joint news conference at the conclusion of their talk.

Contact Stone for fresh perspective on the high-stakes summit.