James Greig Discusses Trends in Academia, Including Online Education and AI
The Pandemic's Impact on Education
'It's not exactly new, but the growth of online education is something I think has raised some concerns,' Dr. Greig says.
The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on education, forcing elementary, high school and college students to attend online courses to continue their education during the lockdowns. The fallout from that time has caused concern among educators and parents. There are indications that students who had to attend school at the elementary and high school level were noticeably behind where other students would have been at that same point in their education.
While college students are more independent and self-motivated, younger students rely more on their parents for assistance. How much parents can help often depends on their own educational experience. Dr. Greig strives to study this topic, concentrating on elementary and high school students.
Education is also being impacted by artificial intelligence (AI). 'The concerns about online education should be focused on the elementary grades because that's where the difficulties lie. For college students, the concern is different. There are some concerns that some students may use AI to generate papers,' Dr. Greig explains.
It is estimated that between 60% to 70% of college students regularly use AI tools in their coursework. Dr. Greig does believe there is a role for AI in education, but not when it entails writing papers. Instead, he thinks there are practical uses, such as generating an outline or a reference list. Those would be acceptable in his estimation.
Expanding Focus and Investing Time
Dr. Greig attributes his successful career in academia to his openness to new ideas and knowledge outside his field of expertise. He prides himself on being willing to try new things and invests his time and effort in any project that presents itself.
'I'm never satisfied with something done part way. I want to see projects through to completion,' Dr. Greig says.
Dr. Greig enjoys working with others and always maintains an open mind to the suggestions and ideas of others, though he refuses to take shortcuts. His goal is to bring a project to completion by doing things the right way and ensuring the final product can do what is required.
It's this willingness to explore 'new areas, new ideas and new efforts' that Dr. Greig believes puts him at the forefront of his field. He has noticed that many people are unwilling to explore beyond their comfort zone, choosing instead to narrow their focus on their area of expertise.
'I've never felt that way, so I'm always willing to explore things that maybe I'm not quite so sure about that helped me grow,' Dr. Greig explains.
About Marquis Who's Who®: Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who's Who in America®, Marquis Who's Who® has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Who's Who in America® remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms worldwide. The suite of Marquis® publications can be viewed at the official Marquis Who's Who® website, www.marquiswhoswho.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
7 hours ago
- Politico
Bhattacharya and Kennedy split on mRNA cuts
AROUND THE AGENCIES National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya is making the case that mRNA vaccine technology is 'promising, but not yet ready for prime time.' He cites a lack of public trust in the technology as the reason his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,recently canceled $500 million in mRNA vaccine development projects. Bhattacharya weighed in on Kennedy's decision in a conversation over the weekend with Steve Bannon, the longtime Trump ally and prominent MAGA figure, on Bannon's 'War Room' podcast: 'The reason that he did that — and I think it's very important for people to understand — as far as public health goes for vaccines, the mRNA platform is no longer viable,' Bhattacharya said. 'You can't have a platform where such a large fraction of the population distrusts the platform, if you're going to use it for vaccines, and expect it to work.' But, but, but: Kennedy, who has long been suspicious of the mRNA vaccine platform, offered an explanation for the funding cuts that contradicts Bhattacharya's reasoning. 'After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,' Kennedy said in a video posted on social media last week, referring to Covid-19 and flu mRNA vaccines. Big picture: Scientists and drugmakers worry that Kennedy's skepticism of mRNA could stifle cancer treatment developments, our Lauren Gardner reports. mRNA technology can instruct the immune system to attack problem proteins, so it holds promise as a customized treatment for rare cancers and diseases. As such, dozens of mRNA therapies are being studied or are in the drug-development pipeline. Bhattacharya seemed aware of the technology's use beyond flu and Covid vaccines. After telling Bannon that mRNA technology wasn't ready for widespread vaccine use, he added: 'For cancer, maybe it's another story.' WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. A swarm of jellyfish shut down reactors at a French nuclear power station, Ketrin Jochecová, our POLITICO colleague in Europe, reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. OPERATING ROOM A large-scale study of New York's Mount Sinai Health System suggests that artificial intelligence could help emergency departments better handle their patient loads. In the study, researchers from Mount Sinai trained an AI model on 1.8 million emergency department visits between January 2019 and December 2023. Then they tested the model by comparing it with two months' worth of nurse triage assessments of nearly 50,000 patient visits across the system's urban and suburban hospitals. The result: Nurse predictions were 81.6 percent accurate, while the AI model's assessments were 85.4 percent accurate. The study, published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health in July, had a few limitations, the authors noted, including that the research was conducted at a single health system over a short time span. Outcomes might differ in another setting, and longer-term trends could yield different results. Bird's eye view: 'The strength of this approach is its ability to turn complex data into timely, actionable insights for clinical teams — freeing them up to focus less on logistics and more on delivering the personal, compassionate care that only humans can provide,' Dr. Eyal Klang, study co-author and director of the Generative AI Research Program at Mount Sinai, said in a statement.
CNBC
10 hours ago
- CNBC
IPO performance vs. S&P 500 since April market low? It's not even close
Investors may need to wait at least a few more years until they get a crack at OpenAI as a public company, according to Renaissance Capital senior strategist Matt Kennedy, but investors who bought into the AI-led IPO market of 2025 have booked big gains already. Since the April 8 stock market low fueled by fears about President Trump's trade war, the Renaissance IPO ETF has posted a return of nearly 50%, close to doubling the return of the S&P 500 Index. Can that rise continue, or is the IPO market showing the signs of the type of investor euphoria that is setting it up for a big fall? Kennedy, whose firm specializes in IPO research, says what he expects from IPO market in the near-term is a possible "return to normalcy" rather than a repeat of the Covid-era IPO boom of 2020 and 2021 — the "crazy levels," as he put it on this week's CNBC "ETF Edge," when there was a burst of deals which saw far too many pre-profit companies go public through not just IPOs but a wave of SPAC offerings. Kennedy likens the current IPO resurgence to the post-financial crisis era, and specifically, a five-year stretch between 2014 and 2019 during which IPO offerings rebounded. But even that level of sustained pickup in deals, he said, "is going to feel like a very busy market after the past few years." According to Nate Geraci, president of NovaDius Wealth Management, the big gap between the IPO market returns since April and the stock market reflects the broader risk of sentiment, "and what you see is when animal spirits are high, it's typically good for IPOs," he said on "ETF Edge." He pointed to two of the most notable deals from the AI and crypto space: Coreweave and Circle. "Circle is up big since it went public. Coreweave has had huge gains. And when you have companies in areas such as crypto and AI where there is already a lot of investor interest, that will help," he said. It has helped the ETF industry too, according to Geraci, with a "monster year" for inflows into spot crypto ETFs — $26 billion in all, with bitcoin ETFs taking in $19 billion and ether ETFs taking in $7 billion. July alone saw investors add $6 billion to bitcoin funds and $5.5 billion to ether ETFs. Circle had given back a good deal of its gains since going public, but was still up roughly 50% this year before it reported earnings on Tuesday morning, which led to a new surge in the company's stock price. "Circle provided a lot of fuel for the fire," Kennedy said. "There's a saying on Wall Street that when ducks are quacking, feed them, so Circle really accelerated the timeline of a lot of crypto companies waiting to go public," he added. Peter Thiel-backed crypto exchange company Bullish is next in the pipeline, and raised the size of its IPO on Monday, suggesting a $5 billion valuation. Kennedy said there are plenty of other crypto companies that could follow with offerings, including Grayscale and Gemini, which have both filed for offerings, as well as Kraken, which is rumored to be considering an IPO, and Ripple. "There are several names we are watching out for," he said. The fintech resurgence in IPOs extends beyond crypto, with "buy now, pay later" company Klarna expected to move ahead with its IPO in the fall after multiple delays. "They seem pretty definitive about that timing," Kennedy said. Other delayed IPOs are planning to test the market now, too, such as StubHub, which is now poised for a September deal. Coreweave, which reports earnings later this week, has come down from its post-IPO peak, but is still sitting on a 250% gain since its deal. Kennedy said that as with crypto, there are plenty of pre-IPO AI companies waiting for their moment, and that could serve as further momentum for the IPO market activity. He said the current environment, in which AI companies just need to declare themselves open for business to get a billion-dollar valuation is "just crazy," but he added that it will be a "good thing in the long run" for a sustained flow of IPOs in the years ahead. While Kennedy said an OpenAI IPO might not arrive until 2028-2029, there are more than just the biggest-name companies going public that have an AI theme embedded in their business, such as design firm Figma and medtech company Heartflow. These are not AI companies building large language models, but companies where AI is integrated into everything they do, he
Los Angeles Times
15 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
RFK Jr.'s cancellation of mRNA vaccine research is even worse than it first seemed
On first glance, the data that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cited to justify canceling some $500 million in federal grants for mRNA vaccine research looked impressive. The data, according to the agency, were embodied in some 400 research papers listed in a compilation that ran to 181 pages. The document was headlined 'COVID-19 mRNA 'vaccine' harms research collection.' 'After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA,' Kennedy said on a video posted on X, referring to the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, 'HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits' for respiratory viruses such as COVID-19 and flu. 'We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted,' he wrote in an accompanying post. Is that so? A close look at the so-called data reveals that the vast majority of the cited papers — all but about 40 — have little or nothing to do with the vaccines. They concern the consequences of COVID-19 infection, not the shots. Many of the papers that do reference the vaccines are studies not of human subjects, but laboratory mice; in some of these studies the mice received the vaccines via injections directly into the brain or intravenously, which is not how people receive the vaccines. What's also important is the lack of evidence supporting the agency's claims. The data packet fails to include well-researched studies attesting to the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, including some published very recently. Among those is an exhaustive study by Danish researchers of more than 1 million recipients of the latest mRNA COVID booster, published July 28. That study investigated the incidence of 29 potential adverse side effects from the vaccine, including heart, liver and kidney failure; neurological conditions; diabetes; and arthritis. It found 'no statistically significant risk' of any of them from the vaccine. That includes myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that is often cited by anti-vaccine agitators as a dangerous side effect of the mRNA vaccines. That condition was most commonly seen among young men, particularly if they had received two shots within a short time span. But for the most part it was mild and short-term; once the booster was reformulated after 2022, the effect appeared to disappear. No deaths from the condition were known to have occurred, and myocarditis effects were more common and serious among unvaccinated people infected with COVID. Nor did the agency's data packet include an estimate of lives saved by the COVID vaccines, led by Stanford epidemiologist John P.A. Ioannidis and published July 25. That study calculated that from the beginning of the global vaccination campaign in 2020 through September 2024 as many as 4 million lives were saved by the vaccines. Ioannidis acknowledged that his estimate is 'conservative.' Indeed, in 2022 the Commonwealth Fund estimated that in just the first two years the vaccines were available, the shots prevented more than 18 million hospitalizations and more than 3 million COVID-related deaths in the U.S. alone. A 2022 study in The Lancet, a British medical journal, estimated as many as 20 million COVID-related lives saved around the world in just the first year of vaccination. Weigh those figures against Kennedy's assertion that the mRNA vaccines pose 'more risks than benefits,' and it becomes evident that decision-making has gone seriously awry at the Department of Health and Human Services under Kennedy's leadership. To Jake Scott, an infectious disease expert at Stanford Medical School who painstakingly examined the agency's data citations, they point to 'textbook confirmation bias'—the quest for information that confirms someone's preexisting beliefs. In this case, that someone is Kennedy, whose record of anti-vaccine advocacy is indisputable. The mismatch between the data packet cited by Kennedy and the established facts of the vaccines' safety and efficacy explain why Kennedy's cancellation of 22 contracts supporting mRNA vaccine research has been greeted by experts as a senseless and devastating blow against science and public health. 'I have have been in this business for over 50 years on the front lines of public health,...and I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body,' Michael Osterholm, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, told PBS. At the very least, if Kennedy is so convinced that the effects mRNA vaccines are not sufficiently well-understood, the solution is more research, not less. I asked Kennedy's department to respond to criticism of his decision, but received no response. A few words about the mRNA technology. Using messenger RNA as an intermediary in their actions, the vaccines instruct the body how to manufacture parts of a pathogen that its immune system can recognize and fight. For immunologists, the virtues of the new technology are manifest. Vaccines to combat new pathogens or new versions of existing pathogens can be engineered quickly, allowing them to be rolled out to stifle pandemics before they even emerge. The potential utility of mRNA vaccines is unprecedentedly broad. The possible targets under study today — including in some of the research contracts Kennedy cancelled — include flu, HIV, hepatitis C, malaria, tuberculosis, and cancer, Drew Weissman of the University of Pennsylvania and other scientists told Nature in 2021. Weissman shared the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine with Katalin Karikó in 2023 for their work on mRNA vaccines. In the U.S., the development of the mRNA COVID vaccine was sponsored by $2.5 billion in grants and purchase guarantees from the federal government to Moderna, one of the two drugmakers that brought out the COVID vaccines, partially through Operation Warp Speed, an R&D effort under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA. That's the agency that Kennedy has ordered to cancel the mRNA contracts. President Trump bragged about the achievement during his first term, but reversed course after the vaccines became the target of fearmongering from the right-wing and the anti-vaccine camp. Kennedy's video on X explaining his decision was replete with fundamental misconceptions about the vaccines, according to scientists and real-world data. 'As the pandemic showed us, mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract,' he said. But that's plainly contradicted by the record of lives saved and hospitalizations averted. Statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which falls under Kennedy's jurisdiction, show that the average weekly COVID case rate in late 2020 was 347.8 per 100,000 population among the unvaccinated, but 25 per 100,000 among the fully vaccinated and boosted population. The weekly average death rate in the same period was 7.8 among the unvaccinated and 0.1 among the vaccinated. He claimed that the vaccines promote the mutation of COVID; 'one mutation, and the vaccine becomes ineffective,' Kennedy said. Neither of those statements is supported by science. 'MRNA vaccines do not cause the virus to mutate — they do that all on their own,' writes Steven Novella, a neurologist and veteran misinformation debunker. 'What causes new variants to arise more quickly is allowing a virus to spread uninhibited throughout a population — the more it replicates, the more opportunities there are for new mutations. Widespread vaccination therefore decreases new mutations and variants.' Moreover, no 'one mutation' causes the vaccines to become ineffective; as vaccinologist Peter Hotez observes, in no known case has a single mutation rendered the vaccine ineffective. Boosters developed for COVID variants have remained relatively effective even as new variants become dominant. Anyway, the virtue of mRNA technology is that the vaccine can be rapidly retooled to meet the challenge of new variants. That brings us to the data package Kennedy's agency offered to defend his decision. It's not the product of U.S. government scientists, although one of its developers, Steven Hatfill, is currently on the HHS staff. Its other chief compilers are identified as Martin Wucher, a dentist ; Byram Bridle, a faculty member at a Canadian veterinary college; and Erik Sass, a nonfiction author. I reached out to all three for comment but received no reply. The compilation originated as material for a book titled 'TOXIC SHOT: Facing the Dangers of the COVID 'Vaccines',' an anthology of essays by prominent anti-vaxxers. The compilation doesn't make the case for canceling the research. A paper listed as support for the myocarditis threat, for example, states, 'no causality can be assumed or established' linking the condition to the vaccine because of the lack of a control group for comparison. 'There is no direct evidence of a vaccine-induced inflammatory response' to the vaccine. Kennedy's action is almost certain to hamstring American science for years, possibly decades, to come. It's the antithesis of Trump's claim to put 'America First,' for it cedes the development of a life-saving medical technology to Europe and China. And it's not limited to the development of vaccines for respiratory diseases. During a recent appearance on a podcast hosted by the right-wing influencer Steve Bannon, the newly-appointed commissioner of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, declared, 'As far as public health goes for vaccines, the mRNA platform is no longer viable.' Bhattacharya justified this statement by noting a rise in public skepticism about mRNA technology. What he didn't say was that the skepticism was promoted by Kennedy and other anti-vaxxers denigrating the technology; a competent and responsible NIH chief would be defending a technological innovation, not magnifying disinformation about it. The truth is that the mRNA platform is likely to be seen in retrospect as a historic advance in healthcare ... everywhere but in the United States.
