Caused by the Vibrio coralliilyticus pathogen, the infection is one of the most notorious causes of tissue loss and death in stony corals. In the study, all untreated corals bleached within 48 hours. But corals exposed to the predatory bacteria fared much better: more than half showed no signs of bleaching beyond the infection site — and disease progression was effectively halted.
“Disease is a major driver of death for these corals, and with sea surface temperatures continuing to rise globally, we anticipate that rates of disease will only increase. It’s part of a deadly synergy profoundly threatening Caribbean coral reefs,” says lead author Lauren Speare, assistant professor in the School of Biological Sciences. “Predatory bacteria function like a living probiotic, fighting coral disease without harsh side effects. This could be a targeted way to protect and treat our most vulnerable coral reefs."
The study, “Halobacteriovorax Halts Disease Progression in Endangered Caribbean Corals,” was published in The ISME Journal. In addition to Speare, the research team included Georgia Tech master's student Chloe Manley and postdoctoral scholar Macey Coppinger; University of California, Santa Barbara graduate students Sunni Patton and Eddie Fuques, and Professor Rebecca Vega Thurber, director of the UCSB Marine Science Institute.
Speare became interested in the research while completing her postdoctoral training with Thurber. “Dr. Thurber discovered that predatory bacteria are present in many coral microbiomes,” Speare recalls. “We theorized that they might be contributing to what keeps the ecosystem healthy, balancing it through predation.”
At the time, the theory was hard to test. Marine predatory bacteria are difficult to preserve long-term, making experiments challenging. The bacteria are also extremely scarce, with populations increasing during a coral infection and rapidly declining after. Catching them while their populations are high is a matter of timing, Speare says.
"It's a bit like trying to catch a mountain lion in the act of hunting a deer. If we aren’t looking at the right time, we might miss it entirely,” Speare says. “I knew that if I wanted to study these bacteria in more detail, I would need to carefully design my experiments and timing.”
To test their theory, the team spent six weeks conducting experiments at the Mote’s Elizabeth Moore International Center for Coral Reef Research and Restoration (IC2R3) in Summerland Key, Florida, a facility that maintains lab-grown living corals in seawater aquariums.
“First, we had to make our corals sick,” Speare says. “But there wasn’t an established way to reliably create these infections in this species in a laboratory setting.”
After weeks of experimenting, Speare developed a “pathogen-sticker,” a small agar patch containing the disease-causing pathogens. When placed at the coral’s base, it mimics how infections spread in the wild.
Then, at the first sign of infection, the team treated the coral with the Halobacteriovorax predatory bacteria. “Surprisingly, the most effective method was to pour the bacteria directly into the sick coral’s tank,” Speare says. “The bacteria are tiny, so we were able to create a concentrated liquid of them by using a filter small enough that only they can pass through.”
Halobacteriovorax are among the fastest-known predatory bacteria, and quickly navigate to their food source – presumably the pathogen causing the infection.
Because of the straightforward delivery method, Speare believes the team’s methods could be readily adapted for coral restoration efforts, offering a simple way to deliver treatment on natural reefs.
“There are several approaches to treating corals and mitigating stress, but these techniques don’t work for all situations and all species,” she explains. “Corals are complex, and there is no single cure-all, so we need as many tools as possible to help corals survive.”
For Speare, the next step will be to move from lab-based work to reef environments. She’s particularly curious as to why the predatory bacteria aren’t already moderating illness on natural reefs. “If this is such an effective way to control pathogens, why isn’t this system preventing disease outbreaks on reefs already?" she says. "We need to understand what's limiting this natural defense system – and that’s what we’re digging into next."
Funding: Lauren Speare was supported as a Simons Foundation Awardee of the Life Sciences Research Foundation. The Vega Thurber Lab was funded by the National Science Foundation.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ismejo/wraf270
]]>As the brain develops, billions of neurons form precise networks that enable perception, movement, and cognition. Disruptions in this process can contribute to neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and schizophrenia. To better understand how such disorders arise, Jain’s lab will use molecular and genetic tools to trace the pathway from gene expression to neural connectivity to behavior.
“I am honored and excited to receive support from the Whitehall Foundation,” Jain says. “It will help us pursue research questions at a stage when our findings can still shape our lab’s long-term direction.”
Jain joined Georgia Tech in 2024. He earned a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology from the University of Arizona and completed postdoctoral work at the University of California, Los Angeles.
]]>This battle of the brains has also been playing out over the course of evolution, but not as a simple clash between old and new.
“There was a theory proposed in the ‘50s that the brain evolved in layers starting with basic bodily functions, to emotions in the reptilian brain, leading up to sophisticated reasoning in humans,” explains Nabil Imam, an assistant professor in the School of Computational Science and Engineering and a faculty member with Georgia Tech’s Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society (INNS). “This is not how an evolutionary biologist would think about the problem.”
Instead of a “new” brain layered over an “ancient” one — or even a logical brain versus an emotional one — research published in Science Advances reveals that brain evolution may come down to wiring.
By studying the architecture of both biological and artificial brains, Imam’s team found that brain evolution is a strategic allocation of limited real estate. They propose a computational tug-of-war between two fundamentally different types of internal wiring — ones established even before birth.
This new understanding not only helps resolve a longstanding mystery in brain evolution but could also help us design more efficient AI systems.
When we refer to our “logical” or “lizard” brains, we’re really talking about different groups of brain regions. The logical brain is known as the neocortex, the brain’s outer layer responsible for vision, perception, reasoning, and other higher-level functions. For the lizard brain, the story gets a bit complicated.
“The limbic system, sometimes called the ‘reptilian brain,’ controls emotion broadly speaking — but it also has other components with distinct functions,” explains Imam. The system has separate regions for memory, smell, and navigation in addition to emotional regulation. “Why do people group all these different regions into one big system? There hasn’t been a good theory for what is common between these different circuits.”
To investigate, Imam’s team looked beyond individual regions to examine how these systems scale across species. Instead of comparing single areas based on function, the team analyzed how the limbic system and the neocortex change together across evolutionary history.
The result was remarkably consistent. When one component of the limbic system was larger, the others were also larger, while the neocortex was consistently smaller. These regions don’t vary independently. “Rather,” says Imam, “it’s a coordinated expansion of these regions across species.”
This reveals something new: The limbic system behaves not as a loose collection of functions, but as a unified network that expands and contracts as a group across evolution.
But what is driving this coordinated push and pull?
Imam argues that it comes down to how these different parts of the brain are wired before birth.
In the neocortex, neural circuits are organized as spatial maps. Areas that process touch in nearby parts of your body, like your index finger and thumb, are physically close to each other in the brain. The same is true for sight and sound.
Wires in the limbic system, however, are not spatially organized. They function more like a bar code, firing in unique, distributed patterns to represent specific scents or complex memories.
To test whether this was an innate trait or acquired through experience, the team developed AI models for different senses. They found that when they pre-wired an AI with localized, spatial connectivity, the network was naturally very good at processing vision, sound, and touch information. Conversely, distributed, “barcode-style” networks were essential for the AI to excel at scent recognition and memory.
The final piece of the puzzle explains how the size of brain components changes predictably across species. Because resources like space and energy are limited, natural selection chooses which system to prioritize.
The team simulated evolution by creating a multimodal network where the spatial and distributed domains competed for “real estate.” When the environment rewarded smell, all areas of the distributed system expanded and the neocortex shrank. When vision was rewarded, the opposite occurred.
This explains why the nine-banded armadillo, which relies on scent, has a massive limbic system, while the highly visual squirrel monkey is dominated by its neocortex. Across the 182 species studied, the research shows that brain evolution is not about adding new layers of "logic," but about strategically reallocating space between different wiring systems to support survival.
By translating this biological architecture to AI systems, engineers could create machines that learn as efficiently as the human brain, requiring far less data and energy.
“Today's artificial neural networks are trained by vast amounts data — it’s about nurture,” says Imam. “But the brain is not a blank slate that gets trained by experience. It is a mix of nature and nurture, and the nature is that pre-wired architecture.”
“We could translate that architecture to AI systems to make it more brain-like, or make it learn or function as efficiently as the brain.”
This work was a collaboration with Cornell University and was supported by the National Science Foundation.
DOI: doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aec6112
]]>Media Contact
Bryant Wine
College of Computing
T1D is caused by the autoimmune destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells, requiring individuals to manage their blood glucose levels through lifelong insulin therapy. Transplanting pancreatic islets has long been investigated as a potential curative treatment, but long-lasting success in extrahepatic sites has been limited—particularly when islets are transplanted beneath the skin—due to poor blood vessel formation, immune rejection, and cellular stress following transplantation.
Vlahos’ research addresses these limitations by combining synthetic biology and tissue engineering in a new way: engineering cells to actively reshape their local environment after transplantation to make it more hospitable for the graft. Rather than relying solely on biomaterials or porous structures to support transplanted cells, the project focuses on programming the cells themselves to sense stress and respond dynamically.
]]>Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering
]]>Artificial intelligence isn't just changing the way we think about human intelligence — it's changing the way we study the mind. "In recent years," says School of Psychology Assistant Professor Ratan Murty, "it has become very apparent to us that we have new ways to study the brain."
Those new methods were top of mind as over 100 researchers from across Atlanta gathered for this year’s Computational Cognition Conference (CoCo Con). Hosted by Georgia Tech’s Center of Excellence in Computational Cognition (CoCo) on March 13, the conference allowed researchers from Georgia Tech and beyond working at the intersection of the mind and advanced computing to gain insights into both human cognition and artificial intelligence.
CoCo itself is “a hub for research, education, and community” housed within the Georgia Tech School of Psychology says Robert Wilson, associate professor in Psychology and director of CoCo. Launched in 2023, the center is home to more than 50 affiliate faculty and 100 trainees across Georgia Tech, Atlanta, and beyond using computational methods to study the mind. Through chalk talks, educational programs, and conferences like CoCo Con, the center aims to rethink how we approach the study of the mind.
The conference featured multidisciplinary talks spanning the full breadth of computation cognition — from exploration and avoidance in anxiety, what makes music memorable, the theory of mind in humans and machines, dynamic drift diffusion modeling, and the structure of memory for narratives — overall highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the field.
Additionally, the day featured a robust poster session highlighting work by the eight inaugural CoCo Pilot Grant recipients as well as other postdoctoral scholars, graduate students, and undergraduates doing computational cognition research at Atlanta-based institutions. In total, there were 20 posters ranging from the physics of cognition to naturalistic decision making and beyond.
A running theme throughout the conference was the growing influence of cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence — and how researchers are preparing for the ethical, social and practical challenges that they bring. “The next operating system won’t run on your phone,” said DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, senior academic professional in the Scheller College of Business and one of the conference speakers. “It will run on your brain.” With such rapidly advancing technology and the growing reach of computational cognition research, institutions like CoCo are looking to rethink the current practices of studying brain data in a modern light.
Ending the conference was a panel discussion with researchers from across psychology, anthropology, and related fields to reflect on the future of brain research. Together, they explored what it means to do computational cognition research through the central question: What should be in the CoCo canon?
The discussion emphasized that understanding what we are studying — and how we study it — is particularly important in an interdisciplinary field. While the narrative or canon of a field is defined by shared knowledge, skills, and history, computational cognition blurs those boundaries. Ultimately, as posed by Emory Department Chair and Professor of Anthropology Dietrich Stout, the field is “an interdisciplinary space trying to become a disciplinary space” within the vast array of sciences, technology, mathematics, and engineering.
With or without a defined canon, the day underscored the importance of computational cognition for understanding not just how the mind works, but the future of cutting-edge technologies that shape how we approach the study of the mind.
]]>Media Contact: Audra Davidson
Research Communications Program Manager
Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society
“It’s a tremendous honor to be recognized alongside such an inspiring group of scientists,” Manafzadeh says. “I’ve always been motivated by big, fundamental questions, and it’s exciting to see that kind of curiosity-driven research celebrated.”
Manafzadeh will join Georgia Tech in August 2026 as an assistant professor in the School of Biological Sciences. Her research investigates how joints function and how they evolved, using advanced technology to create animations of moving skeletons with sub-millimeter precision.
“My research is aimed at understanding how joints work and where they come from,” she explains. “Physicians can repair ACL injuries and perform hip replacements, but we still don’t fully understand joint mechanics at a fundamental level.” Because joints are a shared feature of virtually all vertebrates, she adds, nearly all movement — from slithering to sprinting to soaring — depends on them.
Manafzadeh first applied these methods to pterodactyls, “reanimating” the extinct animals to study how they flew. Now, her research could also open doors to personalized surgical treatments for people and new designs for bio-inspired robots.
]]>Technical Research Writer / Editor
Georgia Tech College of Sciences
]]>For most, that heart-pounding uncertainty ends the moment the foot finds solid ground. But for many individuals living with conditions like stroke or spinal cord injury (SCI), that sense of disconnect is a permanent reality.
“These conditions of course have a huge effect on our ability to move around and be independent — but the other side of it is the sensory feedback that we lose,” says Matthew Flavin, an assistant professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Most rehabilitation treatments primarily focus on restoring movement, but “even if you have motor control, if you can’t feel when your foot's touching the ground it can be really hard for you to move around safely.”
In a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Flavin and an interdisciplinary team of researchers introduce a way to bridge this gap: a wearable “sensory substitution” system that translates foot pressure into high-tech patterns of heat and vibration they can feel elsewhere.
The system uses high-resolution pressure-sensing insoles designed by the team, which are placed inside a user's shoes to record how their weight shifts in real-time. This data is streamed via Bluetooth to a flexible, skin-conformable array of haptic receivers worn on the forearms, a part of the body that often retains sensation in SCI. The receivers give quick pressure feedback through vibration, while also alerting the user to longer-term pressure “hotspots” through heat.
“One of the limitations of a lot of approaches in haptics is that you're having to map a missing sense onto a completely different sense,” says Flavin. “We’re keeping the type of information that we're missing, which is the distribution of pressure, and we're just basically putting it on a different part of their body.”
Rerouting the lost sensation was key to making the device intuitive to learn. Participants were able to correctly identify the “feel” of the ground through their arms with high accuracy within a mere two-hour session. When tested with a small group of participants with stroke or SCI, the wearable significantly improved standing balance and led to steadier walking.
“What’s encouraging about these early results is that participants appeared to use the feedback in ways that supported balance and walking,” says John Rogers, a materials science and engineering professor at Northwestern University who collaborated on this study. “Our study suggests that providing pressure information through another part of the body could be a practical path for helping people compensate for lost sensation.”
While vibration provides immediate feedback for walking and balance, the team views the thermal feedback as a tool for long-term health. Heat is a slower, low-frequency signal that could alert patients to pressure hotspots, potentially preventing diabetic foot ulcers or pressure injuries for those who are bedridden or use wheelchairs.
The small, lightweight system is completely untethered, making it suitable for use during daily activities in and outside the clinic. It’s also highly adaptable to different injury types, which is ideal for conditions as variable as stroke, SCI, and diabetic neuropathy. Placement of the haptic receivers can be adjusted based on where a patient has the most sensation, and the sensitivity of the insoles can be tailored to each patient.
As a member of several of Georgia Tech’s Interdisciplinary Research Institutes — the Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society, the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines, and the Parker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Biosciences — Flavin credits the project’s success to an interdisciplinary effort and deep engagement with clinicians and patients.
“This reinforces the importance of really engaging with your stakeholders very early on,” says Flavin. “If you're not continually refining that concept with those stakeholders, you quickly find that they might be looking for something that your device isn't delivering.”
With new funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the team is now working to make the technology even smaller and more reconfigurable, moving closer to a standard wearable for daily clinical use.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2536577123
]]>Photos:
Maxwell Guberman
Scientists have captured the most detailed structural images to date of a specific type of protein’s DNA repair process. The research could reveal ways to inhibit the effects of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations that heighten the risk for breast, ovarian, and other cancers.
“This work lets us see, step by step, one mechanism by which cancer cells could manage to repair their DNA when BRCA genes mutate and fail,” says study co-author Vicki Wysocki, who is chair of the Georgia Tech School of Chemistry and Biochemistry. “By capturing this process in detail, this study opens the door to understanding how those cancerous cells survive and how treatments might disrupt that mechanism.”
Designated as a Breakthrough Article, the study Mechanism of single-strand annealing from native mass spectrometry and cryo-EM structures of RAD52 homolog Mgm101 was recently published in Nucleic Acids Research.
In addition to Wysocki, who is a professor in the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and a professor emerita at Ohio State University, the Georgia Tech research team included co-first author Zihao Qi, a Ph.D. candidate in the Wysocki Lab.
They were joined by Ohio State researchers co-first author Carter Wheat and senior author Charles Bell, who is a professor of biological chemistry and pharmacology in the College of Medicine. Additional authors include Metro High School student Miqdad Hussain and CAS researcher Katerina Zakharova.
Normally, BRCA genes help prevent cancer by acting as tumor suppressors — producing proteins that help repair broken DNA. When cancer cells lack the tumor-suppression function of normal BRCA genes, research has shown that a protein called RAD52 performs DNA repair.
Since RAD52 allows cancer cells to survive and replicate without tumor suppression, researchers have wondered if blocking it would kill the cancerous cells. Blocking RAD52, however, requires fully understanding its repair activities, which have been difficult to capture with even the most sophisticated techniques.
DNA strands break every day in cells, which is why proteins exist to fix the breaks and keep cellular processes running smoothly, the team says. But because repairs must happen quickly and human proteins are often more complex than their ancestral counterparts, even the most advanced imaging equipment can’t capture every step in the process.
In order to understand RAD52 better, the research team turned to its ancestral protein, Mgm101, to observe several key steps in its DNA repair process.
The team decided to leverage multiple types of imaging. Wysocki’s lab at Georgia Tech conducted native mass spectrometry and mass photometry, using light to measure masses of protein-DNA complexes. The results showed that the ancestral protein Mgm101 assembled from a single copy of itself into a large multi-unit ring composed of 19 copies of the protein.
“This ring is essentially a template,” Wysocki explains. “The first strand of DNA can come down, and then the second strand comes on and starts being annealed to the first strand.” Annealing occurs when two single strands of DNA come together to form the characteristic double helix structure.
The findings were supported by what Bell’s lab determined using cryogenic electron microscopy, observing structures floating in solution and frozen in a thin layer of ice.
“RAD52 high-resolution structures have been determined with single-stranded DNA, but not with the two DNAs that it’s trying to anneal,” Bell says. “Its job is to bind single-stranded DNA and anneal it to its complement sequence. It’s been captured structurally, but only in a few states relevant to the reaction.”
“Here, we have more of the states along the full pathway from substrate, to intermediate and product. And the duplex intermediate is a conformation that’s never been seen before.”
Previously, researchers were unsure if this DNA repair process used one protein ring or two rings working together, the team says. Their findings show that just one ring is used — and that this is likely consistent across different species.
Next, the team plans to try capturing the same phases of the DNA repair process with RAD52 from humans. A clearer understanding of how this family of proteins binds to DNA strands and coaxes them back together after a break provides insights for drug targets that could halt the process in cancer cells empowered by mutated BRCA genes, they say.
“It’s still a proposed mechanism: Just because we see these snapshots of the process doesn’t mean we know all the details, but we do have the best snapshots for any protein that does this single-strand annealing,” says Bell. “This focuses our strategies for drug development.”
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkag320
Funding: This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The cryo-EM data were collected at Ohio State’s Center for Electron Microscopy and Analysis and processed using the Ohio Supercomputer Center.
]]>Research Writer / Editor
Georgia Tech College of Sciences
]]>This concept of “lab tool as lab assistant” is the premise of a recent paper in npj | Computational Materials titled “Thinking Microscopes: Agentic AI and the Future of Electron Microscopy,” by Vida Jamali, assistant professor the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering; Amirali Aghazadeh, assistant professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering; and Josh Kacher, associate professor in the School of Materials Science and Engineering.
In the paper, the team introduces the concept of “thinking electron microscopes,” in which agentic AI systems are directly integrated with the instrument. This allows microscopes to move beyond their conventional role as characterization tools and toward functioning as co-scientists for human users.
Drawing on advances in specialized large language models, or LLMs, that demonstrate their ability to collaborate, reason over data, and integrate prior knowledge, the team envisions specialized LLM-based agents assigned to specific roles and areas of knowledge expertise. By explicitly incorporating domain knowledge into specialized agents and distributing information across multiple agents with focused expertise, the approach enables parallel evaluation of competing hypotheses, clearer separation of roles — such as planning, simulation, and critique — and more transparent and robust reasoning.
Within the experimental pipeline, these agents can analyze materials’ properties, physical data, chemical processes, and other relevant parameters. They could also collaborate with an agent that specializes in experimental design, refining iterative closed-loop experimentation, and real-time scientific discovery.
Although the research focuses on AI collaboration, the team notes that human researchers must retain accountability for the accuracy and integrity of both the experimental process and the results reported. This oversight begins with advocating for greater open access to research materials in all formats, building community-driven data repositories, and adopting standardization in how experimental parameters and metadata are reported. Equally important, researchers should be willing to report data from failed experiments as well as successful outcomes. Finally, organizations should work together to standardize secure APIs that enable shared, remote access to infrastructure across distances.
We see this as a step toward scientific instruments that do more than acquire data; systems that can reason over experiments, adapt measurements, and participate in the scientific discovery process alongside researchers. - Vida Jamali, assistant professor the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
The team is already developing these systems by connecting cloud-based, agentic infrastructures to microscopes at the Institute for Matter and Systems at Georgia Tech. With the addition of agentic AI, the goal is to accelerate discovery and engineering of new nanoscale materials for energy and quantum applications, as well as advance capabilities in cryo-electron microscopy and structural biology. These tools can optimize data collection, link real-time microscope observations with structural models of proteins, and dynamically adjust and prioritize experiments. The team sees this work as the first step toward the next generation of “thinking” electron microscopes, as well as an advancement in scientific discovery across domains.
- Christa M. Ernst
This research is supported by the Institute for Data Engineering and Science and the Institute for Matter and Systems
Original Publication
Jamali, V., Aghazadeh, A. & Kacher, J. Thinking microscopes: agentic AI and the future of electron microscopy. npj Computational Materials 12, 149 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-026-02077-y
Jain is one of 15 scientists selected this year for “their promise to change their fields by solving nature’s puzzles in a broad range of fields and develop next-generation technologies that can reveal biological function,” according to a Searle Scholars Program press release.
“We are honored to be part of the Searle Scholars Program,” Jain says. “For a young lab with ambitious goals, this kind of recognition means everything. It gives us the confidence and resources to pursue high-risk, high-reward questions that could one day make a real difference for people affected by neurodevelopmental disorders.”
Jain received his Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology from the University of Arizona and completed his postdoctoral work at the University of California, Los Angeles. He joined Georgia Tech in 2024.
]]>“I’m honored to receive the 2026 Odum Award,” says Weigel, who is a senior academic professional in the School of Biological Sciences. “Georgia Tech is widely recognized for its research excellence, but teaching is mission-critical to the ways we serve the public good. This award reflects the incredible work happening in our classes and communities that drives science, and science education, forward.”
Weigel is among 10 individuals selected nationwide for annual ESA awards. “This year’s award recipients have each contributed something important to ecology, often in very different ways,” says ESA President Peter Groffman. “These are ecologists whose efforts have shaped the field, supported colleagues and created opportunities for others. I’m glad to see that kind of work acknowledged.”
Weigel’s work focuses on improving biology education by examining how student backgrounds, values, and instructional practices shape learning outcomes. Her impact spans K–12 students, undergraduates, graduates, and members of the Atlanta community.
Known for her teaching innovations, she has pioneered new courses in biology, ecology, and statistics, and is also a leader in the Vertically Integrated Projects program at Georgia Tech.
From studying the dynamics of flu, to using drone aerial footage to monitor Georgia Tech’s changing landscape, to a long-term project monitoring the trees of the Campus Arboretum, Weigel shares that “students thrive when they develop skills through real-world experiences."
Weigel has also creatively infused the traditional “nature” topics and fieldwork found in ecology curricula with modern technology and programming skills used in research. “Effectively introducing professional skills, like programming in the language R, is innovative nationally,” she says. By making R, an open-source programming language, more accessible, “we’re preparing undergraduates for success in graduate school and their careers, and empowering them to learn other programming languages in the future.”
In addition to teaching, Weigel plays a central role in mentoring and supporting students across the Institute. She serves as the undergraduate academic advisor for around one-sixth of Georgia Tech’s Biology majors, mentors graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants, and is an instructor for the “Tech to Teaching” capstone course in the Center for Teaching and Learning.
]]>Selena Langner
College of Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
One the oldest existing biological societies in the world, the Linnean Society of London is renowned as the venue where, in July 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace first publicly announced the theory of evolution by natural selection — more than a year before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. The annual Bicentenary Medal is considered one of the most prestigious awards for researchers studying natural history.
“This honor is profoundly meaningful to me — both as an evolutionary biologist and a Londoner,” says Stroud. “To be recognized here, at the very heart of evolutionary biology’s history, is deeply personal, incredibly exciting, and very special.”
Stroud is one of 10 exemplary researchers to be recognized by the Linnean Society this year with a medal or award.
“We are thrilled to celebrate the 2026 Linnean Society medal and award recipients, whose work advances our vision of a world where nature is understood, valued and protected,” says Mark Watson, who serves as president of the Linnean Society. “At a time when the importance of biodiversity and conservation has never been clearer, their achievements show the power of curiosity, dedication and scientific endeavor.”
At Georgia Tech, Stroud investigates the ecological and evolutionary processes of lizards in order to understand patterns of biological diversity at a larger scale. “Studying lizards in their natural habitats allows us to directly investigate how species adapt and evolve in real time,” he explains, “and this helps us understand how ecological and evolutionary processes shape life on Earth."
For over 10 years, he has run one of the longest-running evolutionary studies of its kind: catching, documenting, and releasing each of the 1,000 lizards who reside on “Lizard Island,” Stroud’s living lab in Florida.
In 2025, he was awarded a Packard Fellowship to further develop the project by equipping each lizard with a tiny sensor backpack to document their behaviors and movements in real time — with the goal of creating evolution’s first high-definition map.
In 2014, Stroud also founded a community science project called “Lizards on the Loose” to introduce middle school students to ecological science. A collaboration with Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, the program now reaches students from over 100 schools across South Florida.
]]>It was the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The world needed a vaccine that didn’t exist, and there was no clear timeline for one. No one knew how long the vaccine development process would take — or whether it would work at all.
Then, less than a year later, Pfizer and BioNTech set a record for how fast a drug moved from clinical trials to federal authorization — and to people waiting as the virus surged worldwide. That speed depended on more than scientific discovery. It hinged on trials, regulatory approval, and manufacturing at scale.
Startup BioNTech, a small biotech firm, had spent years developing mRNA technology. Pfizer, a huge pharmaceutical company, brought deep experience running large clinical trials, working with regulators, and manufacturing at scale. The two companies had worked together before, which meant they did not have to build trust, decision-making structures, or workflows in the middle of a crisis. Trials moved quickly. They knew what regulators required and how to meet those demands.
According to Georgia Tech research, that kind of business alignment is far from common — and can explain why many promising drugs never reach patients.
Manpreet Hora, senior associate dean for programs and professor of operations management in Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business, studies what happens after a drug leaves the lab. In a study published in Production and Operations Management, he and his coauthors analyzed nearly 300 biotech–pharma partnerships to understand why some drugs make it through and others stall.
“If you are a patient, this process is out of your control,” Hora said. “In some cases, it can cost lives.”
Drug development often depends on handoffs. Small biotech firms typically generate early discoveries. Larger pharmaceutical companies step in to run trials, work with regulators, and bring products to market.
But complications can arise when companies that lack similar experience levels try to develop the drug together.
Decision-making slows down. Roles become unclear. The process starts to erode.
"That's why partner choice matters," Hora said, comparing the process to a popular TV show. "It's like going on Shark Tank — just because someone is offering money doesn't mean they're the right partner."
Hora said the Pfizer–BioNTech partnership worked because both companies approached the work the same way, despite the difference in their size. Pfizer is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. BioNTech was a much smaller firm.
As of September 2025, 5 billion doses of the Pfizer–BioNTech Covid vaccine have been distributed globally.
Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, Albert Bourla, attributes the unprecedented success to a “world class collaboration” with BioNTech. He said, "I think it was because both companies had developed very similar cultures…We were both really very purpose-driven.”
Hora's research comes to the same conclusion: In an industry where drugs can take a decade to reach patients, the wrong partner can mean they never arrive at all.
]]>Manpreet Hora, a professor at Georgia Tech's Scheller College of Business, analyzed nearly 300 biotech–pharma partnerships and found that mismatched partners, such as companies with different experience levels, cultures, or decision-making styles, stall drug development. Roles blur. Trials drag. Promising treatments never reach patients.
The Pfizer–BioNTech Covid vaccine is the counterexample: two companies, vastly different in size, aligned on purpose and process. That alignment is what made speed possible.
Hora's takeaway: in an industry where drugs take a decade to reach patients, the wrong partner can mean they never arrive at all.
]]>The paper, The Borderlands of Foldability: Lessons from Simplified Proteins, is a meta-analysis of six decades of protein research and reveals that ancient proteins may have been far more complicated and dynamic than previously thought.
Recently published in the journal Trends in Chemistry, the study includes Georgia Tech researchers Lynn Kamerlin, professor in the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Georgia Research Alliance Vasser-Woolley Chair in Molecular Design, and Quantitative Biosciences Ph.D. candidate Alfie-Louise Brownless.
Co-authors also include Institute of Science Tokyo graduate student Koh Seya and Liam M. Longo, who serves as a specially appointed associate professor at Science Tokyo and as an affiliate research scientist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science.
The research has implications ranging from the origins of life and the search for life in the universe to cutting-edge medical innovation. “One of the biggest unanswered questions in science is how life first began,” says Kamerlin, who is a corresponding author of the study. “Understanding how the first protein-like molecules formed and what the earliest proteins may have been like is a key part of that puzzle.”
“Proteins power our bodies — and all life on Earth,” she adds. “Simply put, the evolution of proteins is the reason that we’re able to have this conversation at all.”
If proteins are the scaffolding of life, amino acids are the components that make up that scaffolding. “Today, an average protein is constructed from a chain of about 300 amino acids, involving 20 different types of amino acids,” Kamerlin shares. Proteins fold when these chains twist into a specific 3-dimensional shape, creating structures critical for biology.
However, while these folds are essential, exactly how a protein knows which way to fold remains a mystery. “We know that proteins didn’t just fold randomly,” Kamerlin shares, “because randomly trying all possible configurations would take a protein longer than the age of the universe.”
It’s a cornerstone problem in biological science called “Levinthal’s Paradox,” and highlights a fundamental mystery: Proteins fold incredibly quickly into very specific combinations — but like a sheet of paper spontaneously folding into an origami swan, researchers don’t know how proteins “choose” the folds they make.
“We can predict what a protein will look like, but can’t tell you how it got there,” Kamerlin adds. “That’s what we’re interested in exploring: how small early proteins developed into the complex proteins that support every living thing on today’s Earth.”
Early proteins likely had access to just half of today’s amino acids. “About 10-12 amino acids were likely available on early Earth,” Kamerlin says. Like writing a story with just the letters “A” through “L,” researchers assumed that the ‘vocabulary’ proteins could build from such a limited amino acid alphabet would also be constrained.
“There is a language to protein folding,” Kamerlin explains. “That language is hidden in their structures. Our research is in trying to understand the rules — the grammar and vocabulary that dictate a protein fold.”
The grammar they discovered was surprising: with a combination of creative techniques and environmental support, complex structures can arise from limited amino acid alphabets.
“We found that it is possible to develop complex folds with very simple tools — and certain environments, like salty ones, can help support that,” Kamerlin shares. “Early proteins could also cross-link and associate, interacting like LEGO blocks to create more complex structures.”
Now, the team is conducting research in environments that could mimic conditions on early Earth — aiming to discover more about how these regions could have given rise to today’s complex proteins. “This aspect of our research also ties into the amazing space research happening at Georgia Tech,” Kamerlin says. “While we’re interested in understanding early life on Earth, our work could help inform where best to look for evidence of life beyond our planet.”
Kamerlin specializes in creating computer models that simulate possible scenarios – creating an opportunity to quickly and efficiently test many theories. The most compelling of these can then be tested by her collaborator and co-author at Science Tokyo, Liam Longo, in lab experiments.
Protein folding is also at the forefront of medical innovation, ranging from diagnostic tools to cancer treatments and neurodegenerative diseases. “In the broader scope, we’re interested in discovering what we can design, what we can stress test, and what we can reconstruct with AI and other computational tools,” Kamerlin says. “Because if you can understand how proteins fold, you gain the ability to design them.”
Funding: NASA, the Human Frontier Science Program, and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trechm.2026.03.001
]]>Selena Langner
College of Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Artificial intelligence has been touted as the most transformative technology of our time. With only a few years of mainstream use, it’s changed how we work and communicate, generated billions of dollars in investments, and sparked global debate. But according to leading neuroethics expert Karen Rommelfanger, the race isn’t over yet.
“Can you think of a more transformative technology than one that intervenes with the fundamental organ that drives your experience in the world?”
That fundamental organ is the brain.
Technologies interfacing directly with the brain have been reserved for treating severe injury or disease for decades. Now, neurotechnology is expanding into brain-responsive wearables meant to enhance, augment, and monitor everyday life. As these technologies accelerate and AI is incorporated, the question is no longer if neurotechnology will transform society, but how — and who will shape the boundaries.
These are some of the questions on which Karen Rommelfanger has built her career. Trained as a biomedical researcher and neuroscientist, Rommelfanger went on to found the Institute for Neuroethics, the world’s first think and do tank devoted entirely to neuroethics, public engagement, and policy implementation.
“The brain is special; it’s central to who we are,” says Rommelfanger, who was also an inaugural recipient of the Dana Foundation Neuroscience and Society Award. “And that means when you intervene with the brain, there are unique responsibilities. The field of neuroethics addresses things like: How do you ensure mental privacy? How do you protect free will? How do you ensure that people have the power to be narrators of their own lives and their cognitive experience?”
Now, Rommelfanger is joining Georgia Tech’s Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society (INNS) as a professor of the practice, where she will work to further embed neuroethics into Georgia Tech’s research and technology development ecosystem.
“Georgia Tech is producing the next generation of neurotechnologists, and Karen’s expertise will help ensure we’re preparing them to think about societal impact as deeply as they think about the technical and scientific aspects of their work,” says Christopher Rozell, executive director of INNS. “Her leadership strengthens the Institute in exactly the way this moment in neurotechnology demands.”
“Georgia Tech has many, many ways that it leads in the technology ecosystem. But one of the powerful, unique ways it can lead is through neurotechnology,” says Rommelfanger. “I hope that the INNS, given its unique mandate for neuroscience, neurotechnology, and society, can be a lighthouse for these types of conversations.”
From institutional review boards to mandatory responsible research conduct training, ethics are a foundational part of scientific research. But designing neurotechnologies raises ethical challenges beyond the scope of typical training. What happens when discoveries leave the lab and enter people’s lives?
That question sits at the core of Rommelfanger’s work. She argues it’s a neurotechnologist’s responsibility to recognize and proactively address the need for unique safeguards for privacy, autonomy, and long-term responsibility. Her solution is to move neuroethics upstream, embedding it directly into the research, design, and deployment of neurotechnology through an approach she calls “neuroethics by design.”
“Neuroethics by design considers ethics as a core criterion where principles can drive innovation with more of a lens toward societal outcomes,” she says — an approach informed by years of advising national-level brain research initiatives and her experience at the intersection of clinical practice and ethics scholarship.
Rather than treating ethics as a compliance checklist or a post hoc review, neuroethics by design integrates ethical thinking throughout the entire innovation lifecycle, from early ideation and research questions to product requirements, governance strategies, and long-term sustainability. She has used the approach for years as an embedded partner for neurotechnology startups in her neuroethics consultancy, Ningen Co-Lab.
After decades as a traditional academic professor and then years advising companies and policymakers with this philosophy, Rommelfanger says Georgia Tech is the right place to scale this work. With its strength in neurotechnology and INNS’s rare focus on neuroscience and society, “I could not think of a better place to launch and pilot this neuroethics by design scaling effort.”
She will work with INNS to help equip researchers, students, and industry partners with practical tools for ethical decision-making. Her vision is not to create neuroethicists as a standalone profession, but to cultivate ethically engaged neurotechnologists and engineers.
Central to her plans at INNS are hands-on training programs that bring ethics out of the abstract and into practice. “I wanted to be a professor of the practice because, while the field does need more scholars, what it really needs most at this point are practitioners.”
Rommelfanger is exploring modular content that can be embedded into existing courses across disciplines, as well as immersive training — such as neuroethics boot camps and problem-solving hackathons — that bring together students, faculty, and professionals to tackle real-world challenges collaboratively.
“No one discipline can solve all the ethical challenges ahead,” says Rommelfanger. She is particularly interested in creating spaces where experts from across science and engineering, policy and law, design and the arts, and philosophy can work side by side with people with lived experience of neurological conditions. “The onus is not on scientists alone, but is a shared responsibility that benefits immensely from dialogue, accountability, and action across diverse communities.”
By situating neuroethics within Georgia Tech’s broader research ecosystem, Rommelfanger hopes INNS can help shift how the field evolves globally.
“It's really difficult to get your arms around something once it's out of the gate,” she says, citing the rapid adoption of AI without proper ethical or policy guidelines. “With neurotechnology, we still have a little bit of time, but not that much time. We are at that moment where we could change the course of global history.”
Amino acids also play a critical role commercially where they are manufactured and added to pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements, cosmetics, animal feeds, and industrial chemicals — an energy-intensive process leading to greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and pollution.
A landmark new system developed at Georgia Tech could lead to an alternative: a commercially scalable, environmentally sustainable method for amino acid production that is carbon negative, using more carbon than it emits.
The breakthrough builds on a method that the team pioneered in 2024 and solves a key issue – increasing efficiency to an unprecedented 97% and reducing the bioprocess cost by over 40%. It’s the highest reported conversion of CO2 equivalents into amino acids using any synthetic biology system to date.
Published in the journal ACS Synthetic Biology, the study, “Cell-Free-Based Thermophilic Biocatalyst for the Synthesis of Amino Acids From One-Carbon Feedstocks,” was led by Bioengineering Ph.D. student Ray Westenberg and Professor Pamela Peralta-Yahya, who holds joint appointments in the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. The team also included Shaafique Chowdhury (Ph.D. ChBE 25) and Kimberly Wennerholm (ChBE 23); alongside University of Washington collaborators Ryan Cardiff, then a Ph.D. student and now a Chain Reaction Innovations Fellow at Argonne National Laboratory, and Charles W. H. Matthaei Endowed Professor in Chemical Engineering James M. Carothers; in addition to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Synthetic Biology Team Leader Alexander S. Beliaev.
"This work shifts the narrative from simply reducing carbon emissions to actually consuming them to create value,” says Peralta-Yahya. “We are taking low-cost carbon sources and building essential ingredients in a truly carbon-negative process that is efficient, effective, and scalable.”
The work builds on the cell-free technology the team used in their earlier study. “Previously, we discovered that a system that uses the machinery of cells, without using actual living cells, could be used to create amino acids from carbon dioxide,” Peralta-Yahya explains. “But to create a commercially viable system, we needed to increase the system’s efficiency and reduce the cost.”
The team discovered that bits of leftover cells were consuming starting materials, and — like a machine with unnecessary gears or parts — this limited the system’s efficiency. To optimize their “machine,” the team would need to remove the extra background machinery.
"Leftover cell parts were using key resources without helping produce the amino acids we were looking for,” says Peralta-Yahya. “We knew that heating the system could be one way to purify it because heat can denature these components.”
The challenge was in how to protect the essential system components from the high temperatures, she adds. “We wondered if introducing enzymes produced by a heat-loving bacterium, Moorella thermoacetica, might protect our system, while still allowing us to denature and remove that inefficient background machinery.”
The results were astounding: after introducing the enzymes, heating and “cleaning” the system, and letting it cool to room temperature, synthesis of the amino acids serine and glycine leaped to 97% yield — nearly three times that of the team’s previous system.
To make the system viable for large-scale use, the team also needed to reduce costs. “One of the most costly components in this system is the cofactor tetrahydrofolate (THF),” Peralta-Yahya shares. “Reducing the amount of THF needed to start the process was one way to make the system more inexpensive and ultimately more commercially viable.”
By linking reaction steps so waste from one step fueled the next, the team devised a method to recycle THF within the system that reduces the amount of THF needed by five-fold — lowering bioprocessing costs by 42%.
“This decrease in cost and increase in yield is a critical step forward in creating a method with real potential for use in industry and manufacturing,” Peralta-Yahya says. “This system could pave the way for moving this carbon-negative technology out of the lab and onto the continuous, industrial scale."
Funding: The Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E); U.S. Department of Energy; and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.5c00352
]]>Selena Langner
College of Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
If you’ve walked the aisles of a grocery store, scrolled through social media, watched television, or set foot in a fast-casual restaurant chain in recent months, you know that protein is having its moment.
So, why are brands pushing protein? An International Food Information Council study found that 70% of adults are looking to increase their protein intake. But as it makes its way into more products than ever before, is it too much of a good thing?
Lesley Baradel is a registered dietitian, nutritionist, and lecturer in the College of Sciences at Georgia Tech. She joined Generating Buzz to discuss the protein-packed trend, with implications ranging from health and wellness to marketing and how the rise of GLP-1s factors into the increased focus on the macronutrient.
"The IOP has a long and distinguished history as the primary learned society and professional body for physicists in the U.K., Ireland, and beyond,” says Kamerlin, who completed both a Master of Natural Sciences and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Organic Chemistry from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. “As a society, it plays an important role in building community, promoting science, advancing advocacy for our discipline, and supporting the next generation of physicists.”
Kamerlin joins a list of distinguished Fellows that includes legendary physicists such as Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, a preeminent astrophysicist responsible for the discovery of pulsars (a previously unknown type of star) and the first female president of the IOP.
“It is a great honor to be awarded Fellowship of the IOP, particularly as women more broadly remain vastly underrepresented in physics,” Kamerlin says. “I look forward to giving back to the physics community, supporting the mission of the society, and working to remind the next generation that physics is for everyone."
Kamerlin’s research in computational biophysics is at the intersection of chemistry and biology, where she focuses on investigating fundamental physical chemistry and using computational tools to understand complex biomolecular problems. Currently, she is interested in leveraging machine learning tools to design new enzymes and in predicting protein structures and behaviors using large language models.
In addition to her roles at Georgia Tech, Kamerlin is a senior editor of Protein Science, the editor-in-chief of Electronic Structure, and was named a 2025-27 visiting professor at Lund University. She was also named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, received the 2026 Inspiration and Resilience Award from the Biochemical Society, and was the 2023 Biophysical Society Theory & Computation Subgroup Mid-Career Award Winner.
]]>“The Sloan Research Fellows are among the most promising early-career researchers in the U.S. and Canada, already driving meaningful progress in their respective disciplines,” says Stacie Bloom, president and chief executive officer of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. “We look forward to seeing how these exceptional scholars continue to unlock new scientific advancements, redefine their fields, and foster the wellbeing and knowledge of all.”
"This is a wonderful and welcome surprise that will support my ongoing research on mountains across the globe,” says Freeman. “It's a vote of confidence and will let me get out there and get to work."
Freeman is one of 126 scientists selected this year for the honor and will receive a two-year $75,000 grant of flexible funding to support his research.
He joins the ranks of nearly 50 faculty from Georgia Tech who have received Sloan Research Fellowships, including School of Mathematics’ Alex Blumenthal in 2024, Hannah Choi in 2022, Yao Yao in 2020, Konstantin Tikhomirov in 2019, Lutz Warnke in 2018, Zaher Hani in 2016, Jen Hom in 2015, and Greg Blekherman in 2012; School of Chemistry and Biochemistry's Vinayak Agarwal in 2018; School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences' Christopher Reinhard in 2015; and School of Physics’ Chunhui (Rita) Du in 2024 and Tamara Bogdanović in 2013.
Freeman joined the Institute in 2023 and was also recently named a 2024 Packard Fellow by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and 2025 Early Career Fellow by the Ecological Society of America.
Known for his groundbreaking research in climate change and bird ecology, Freeman studies birds worldwide from Appalachia to Ecuador. He specializes in tropical populations where his work is centered on understanding how mountain species respond to a changing climate — and how to facilitate their survival.
“Tropical mountains are some of Earth’s largest biodiversity hotspots; they harbor an extraordinary number of species,” shares Freeman. “Additionally, tropical mountain birds are particularly sensitive to environmental change, so they can serve as an early warning system for global conservation efforts.”
Previously, his research has shown that some species are on an ‘escalator to extinction’ with vulnerable groups moving to higher elevations to escape warming temperatures. At the top of the escalator, some summit-dwelling species are disappearing.
“We know that many species are on this escalator,” Freeman says. “The next step is to figure out which species are most vulnerable and why. In order to direct conservation efforts, we need to know who is vulnerable, why small increases in temperature have dramatic effects, and what can be done to help.”
To uncover those answers, Freeman is taking two approaches: mapping global patterns with big picture data and conducting on-the-ground research in the tropics.
To target the former, he created the Mountain Bird Network, which supports community scientists in conducting bird surveys on their local mountains. The goal is to create a system that allows researchers to diagnose vulnerable species before they are too sparse to save.
“When a species is in trouble, we need to know as soon as possible,” Freeman says. “Once a population is small enough to be at risk of extinction, it’s very hard to reverse that process. The Mountain Bird Network collects data on mountain bird abundances and distributions across the globe, which, when used with data from a global citizen science program called eBird, can be leveraged to build models to identify which species might be vulnerable before those populations become critically small.”
Freeman’s other avenue of research involves building an ambitious living laboratory in Pinchincha, Ecuador. The research site will span thousands of meters along the flanks of a local mountain, spanning lowland rainforest, foothill rainforest, and cloud forest ecosystems.
“The mountain is home to thousands of birds from hundreds of species,” Freeman says. “My goal is to track and understand their daily lives — and how climate changes impact them.”
Using cutting-edge tracking technology, he will tag and monitor their daily movements, mapping those against microclimate sensors placed at different elevations along the mountain’s slopes. The challenge of placing and maintaining thousands of tiny sensors in rugged conditions means that it has never been done before.
“We’ll track these birds for at least five years –- but hopefully for decades,” Freeman says. “The data we gather at Tech Mountain will be the first of its kind, and my hope is that it makes a real difference in conservation efforts worldwide.”
]]>