If you’ve lived in Georgia long enough, you’ve almost certainly heard the friendly jabs tossed across divided Thanksgiving tables. On one side, a smirk and a mention of the “North Avenue Trade School.” On the other, a pointed retort: “To hell with Georgia.”

Few rivalries run deeper than the one known as “Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate,” the annual showdown between Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia (UGA). On Friday afternoon, November 28, the two will face off in one of the most anticipated matchups in years. These teams don’t like each other, and for a few hours every year, neither do friends, families, and even significant others.

Off the field, however, the schools are proving that collaboration, not competition, is the schools’ true strength.

For more than a century, Georgia’s flagship universities have united around complementary strengths, tackling the state’s biggest challenges together. That starts with making Georgians healthier.

“When Georgia Tech and UGA combine their strengths, together we create solutions that neither institution could achieve alone,” said Tim Lieuwen, executive vice president for Research at Georgia Tech. “These collaborations accelerate innovation in healthcare, improve lives across our state, and demonstrate that partnership — not rivalry — is Georgia’s most powerful tradition."

“The common denominator between these two great institutions is the populations they serve,” said Chris King, interim vice president for Research at UGA. “We have a duty to find solutions that help improve the quality of life for all Georgians, and that’s what these partnerships are all about.”

From programs like the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance (Georgia CTSA) to the National Science Foundation’s Engineering Research Center for Cell Manufacturing Technologies (CMaT), researchers at UGA and Georgia Tech are setting rivalries aside to build lasting partnerships that fuel innovation and expand the workforce to meet the state’s needs.

Pushing Cell Therapy Across the Goal Line
CMaT is an NSF-funded consortium of more than seven universities and 40 member companies. At Georgia Tech and UGA, teams are conducting many early stage translational projects to improve manufacturing of cell-based therapeutics.

One joint project between Andrés García, executive director of Georgia Tech’s Parker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering & Bioscience, and John Peroni, the Dr. Steeve Giguere Memorial Professor in Large Animal Medicine in UGA’s College of Veterinary Medicine, addresses treatment of bacterial infections that can follow bone repair surgeries.

Bone fractures and non-union defects often require surgical implants, but 1-5% are compromised by bacterial infection, costing hospitals more than $1.9 billion annually. Current treatments are limited to sustained, high doses of antibiotics, which are less effective and can generate antibiotic-resistant bacteria. García and Peroni are engineering synthetic biomaterials that locally deliver antimicrobial agents to eliminate infections and promote bone repair.

Steven Stice, D.W. Brooks Distinguished Professor and Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar at UGA’s Regenerative Bioscience Center, is also working with Georgia Tech’s Andrei Fedorov, professor and Rae S. and Frank H. Neely Chair in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, to improve the quality and control of producing natural, cell-derived healing materials for regenerative medicine.

Adult cells secrete tiny, bubble-like vesicles that help other cells heal and regenerate tissue. Stice developed methods to boost vesicle production, while Fedorov created a probe that accelerates the process.

“Cells simply don’t secrete these healing vesicles in the quantities needed for scalable, clinical-grade treatments,” said Stice, UGA lead and co-principal investigator for CMaT. “Our collaborative work changes that, accelerating production in a way that finally makes large-scale regenerative therapies feasible.”

“Georgia Tech and UGA's collective commitment to advancing science and technology exceeds the intensity of our athletic rivalry,” Fedorov said. “Together, we’re advancing cell and therapy biomanufacturing to develop lifesaving treatments for the most devastating diseases.”
 
Georgia Tech’s Francisco Robles and UGA’s Lohitash Karumbaiah are using manufactured T cells to target cancer. Robles, who leads the Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Lab in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, developed quantitative Oblique Back-illumination Microscopy (qOBM) to monitor tumor growth in real time. The method allows scientists to visualize patient-derived glioblastoma cell clusters generated in the Karumbaiah Lab, tracking tumor structure and behavior at various stages.

“Assessing therapeutic potency is often complex, costly, and ineffective for solid tumors,” Karumbaiah said. “qOBM simplifies the process by providing real-time, label-free monitoring of therapeutic efficacy against 3D solid tumors.”   

The work could help doctors personalize cancer treatments by providing early, detailed signs of whether a therapy is working.

“This technique is more compact and affordable and lets us watch T cells attack cell cultures in real time,” Robles said. “This breakthrough could transform how we study disease and screen new treatments.”

A Playbook for Local Healthcare
Created in 2007 by the National Institutes of Health, Georgia CTSA is one of several NIH-funded national partnerships advancing new health therapeutics and practices. Since 2017, it has comprised UGA, Georgia Tech, Emory, and the Morehouse School of Medicine. The alliance’s reach extends far beyond campus borders, bringing together researchers, clinicians, professional societies, and community and industry partners to identify local health challenges and translate research into practical solutions.

And out of this alliance have come many collaborative studies among CTSA’s members.

One, the Georgia Health Landscape Dashboard, is a tool to identify local health gaps and connect regional health professionals or policymakers with the researchers who can best address their community’s challenges. UGA College of Family and Consumer Sciences Associate Professors Alison Berg and Dee Warmath, along with community health engagement coordinator Courtney Still Brown, are working with Georgia Tech’s Jon Duke, director of the Center for Health Analytics and Informatics at the Georgia Tech Research Institute and a principal research scientist in the School of Interactive Computing.

The dashboard has already helped match researchers with communities by combining epidemiological data with “community voice” insights through surveys of residents and local leaders.

For example, when examining diabetes data, the dashboard indicates Randolph County has the state’s highest prevalence, despite declining by about 8% between 2021-24. Meanwhile, Treutlen County’s rate increased 29.2% during the same period. Perhaps Treutlen’s need for diabetic care is a growing concern, while Randolph’s is being addressed. And perhaps Hancock County, which ranks diabetes its top priority in the community voice category, is in search of immediate solutions.

“The Landscape Dashboard is a fantastic example of how the unique expertise found at Georgia Tech and UGA can be brought together to create something truly valuable for all Georgia,” Duke said. “By bringing together a range of data sources and health analytics approaches, this collaboration has created a tool that delivers novel insights into health, community, and policy across the state.”

Supported by UGA Cooperative Extension and the Biomedical and Translational Sciences Institute, the project leverages a network of agents in every county across the state. Warmath said the project’s strength lies in its ability to connect research with real-world needs.

“To build a community-responsive ecosystem for biomedical research, scientists must recognize local needs, share progress with communities to foster trust and acceptance, recruit clinicians and industry partners, and strengthen the relationships between patient and caregiver,” Warmath said.

Teaming Up for Maternal Health
Warmath and a team of researchers at UGA, Georgia Tech, and Emory are also collaborating on an NIH-funded project uniting experts in maternal health, biostatistics, and consumer science to explore how wearable technologies could improve delivery-room care.

During childbirth, clinicians monitor countless maternal and fetal vitals — contractions, heart rates, oxygen levels, kidney function, and more. What new insights, the researchers asked, could advanced wearable technologies offer in the delivery room, and what barriers might prevent their use?

Using nationwide surveys and focus groups, the team gathered information from a representative sample of pregnant, postpartum, and reproductive-age women, as well as healthcare professionals, to examine acceptance of wearable health technologies during labor and delivery. In their analysis of this rich data source, the team is identifying key variables that reveal gaps in technology acceptance and the unique needs of diverse maternal populations.

Each partner institution brings unique expertise. At Emory, principal investigator Suchitra Chandrasekaran contributes clinical insights from direct patient care. At UGA, Warmath applies her knowledge in consumer science to analyze end-user motivation, attitudes, and behaviors. At Georgia Tech, experts like Sarah Farmer in the Center for Advanced Communications Policy’s Home Lab facilitate large-scale data collection.

With data collection now complete, the team is analyzing results to inform future design and deployment of wearable technologies.

“Each school has a different perspective,” Farmer said. “It’s not as simple as one school does this but doesn’t do that. Each has their expertise, but they offer different perspectives and different resources that, when pooled, can make our research that much more effective.”

Whether advancing maternal health, mapping Georgia’s health needs, or engineering next-generation therapies, UGA and Georgia Tech continue to prove that collaboration is Georgia’s strongest tradition. Further, the undergraduate and graduate students who work in these labs and others represent the state’s highly skilled workforce of tomorrow.

“When our institutions work together, Georgia wins,” Warmath said.

— By David Mitchell

“Map region. Graphic clickable. Blank.”

That’s usually the only information Brandon Biggs receives from digital maps.

Biggs is a human-centered computing Ph.D. student in Georgia Tech’s School of Interactive Computing. He is almost totally blind due to Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis (LCA), a rare degenerative eye disorder affecting about one in 40,000 people.

Based on his experience, Biggs argues that most digital maps aren’t accessible to people who are blind. Even worse, he said, the needs of the blind are usually overlooked.

“When I started research on maps, I had never viewed a weather, campus, or building map, so I didn’t realize the amount of information maps contain,” Biggs said. “How do you represent shapes, orientation, and layout through audio and translate that into a geographic map?”

To answer these questions, Biggs founded XRNavigation, a company focused on developing accessible digital tools. Its flagship product, Audiom, is a cross-sensory map that people can see and hear through text.

“Sighted people view about 300 maps per year, while blind people view fewer than one,” he said. “Blind people don’t view maps; it’s not part of their lives.

“I want to ensure that for blind users, digital maps are no longer just ‘blank.’  They receive the information they need to know to navigate in this world and become more autonomous.”

Organizations that need to include accessible maps in their digital spaces can integrate Audiom into their website or app. 

Georgia Tech recently became one such organization and used Audiom to introduce the first fully accessible digital campus map.

Professor Bruce Walker advises Biggs in Walker’s Sonification Lab, which designs auditory displays for technologies.

“Brandon has the perfect and unique blend of technical skills, research savvy, innovativeness, lived experience, and never-stop attitude to tackle this problem while impacting and improving many lives,” Walker said.

Defining Accessibility

Biggs said most maps limit accessibility features to turn-by-turn directions, tables, or other kinds of alternative text that disregard spatial information. The ability to communicate spatial information distinguishes Audiom.

“According to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), all non-text content — like maps — must include a text alternative with an equivalent purpose,” Biggs said. “But what does ‘equivalent purpose’ mean for geographic maps?

“We argue that every single map, regardless of what it’s showing, communicates general spatialized information and relationships.”

Audiom also prioritizes the information that’s most important to blind users, including sidewalks and buildings.

“There’s a lot of information blind people just don’t get on maps but desperately need,” he said. “They couldn’t care less about the roads. They might need the road name, but they really need the sidewalks.

“If a blind person made a map, they might not even add the roads. And then they would add in the location of doorways, a critical detail that sighted people completely leave out.”

Biggs’s work is already gaining national recognition. XRNavigation was recently one of three companies selected by the Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) Foundation for a 2025 Gaady Award, which honors work being done to make digital technologies more accessible.

Past and present winners of Gaady Awards range from tech startups to major brands like T-Mobile.

Biggs will accept the award during a banquet on Thursday in San Francisco.

 

Will Ratcliff, the John C. and Leslie C. Sutherland Professor in the School of Biological Sciences, has been awarded a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The philanthropic organization’s awards are reserved for scientific research into awe-inspiring topics and will enable Ratcliff to continue groundbreaking research into the origins of multicellular life. 

Ratcliff’s lab has pioneered one of the world’s longest-running evolution experiments.  For more than a decade, the lab’s snowflake yeast has completed tens of thousands of life cycles. This work has provided a unique lens for studying how single-celled organisms make the leap to multicellularity, gradually evolving from simple clumps of cells into organisms. It’s among the first to demonstrate how single cells grow into the multicellular organisms that form the basis of all life, from fungi to fauna. 

“This grant is based on a conceptual breakthrough that emerged only after more than a decade of observing multicellular life evolve,” Ratcliff said.

The research is now at the stage when funding from organizations like Templeton is crucial. Ratcliff’s grant focuses on the concept of “agency,” or how a cell determines its function. 

“The human body contains 39 trillion cells — most of which help us survive and reproduce — yet they themselves won’t pass on their genetic material,” Ratcliff said. “For example, skin cells are never going to make a new human. 

“Multicellular organisms began as small groups where every cell contributed to reproduction. Over time, some cells shifted to supportive roles that didn’t reproduce, instead helping specialized reproductive cells, like sperm and eggs, succeed.”

This shift, in which most cells in an organism have given up the ability to reproduce, represents a fundamental shift biological agency. 

“It’s a key step in the evolution of complex life, as it allows organisms to make things like muscles, neurons, and skin cells,” Ratcliff said. 

But how did it begin? The researchers hypothesize that this shift in agency can occur very early in evolution, as a physical side effect of creating large, tough bodies. As multicellular organisms grow physically larger, cells on the interior may effectively become “stuck,” unable to ever leave the group. Much like a nerve cell in the body, these cells will never form a new organism. Instead, they are incentivized to help the reproductive cells in the organism succeed. 

“We’ve long thought that this type of specialization could only occur after a great deal of genetic modification,” Ratcliff said. “Yet that’s not what appears to be happening in snowflake yeast — it seemingly happens ‘for free’ as a side effect of simple cellular biophysics very early in the transition to multicellularity.” 

With the funding, Ratcliff and his frequent collaborator, School of Physics Associate Professor Peter Yunker, will be able to test this hypothesis using the group’s existing yeast. 

"This award will enable us to address crucial questions about the evolution of multicellularity — and the role that physics plays in the process,” Yunker said.

Their results could fundamentally reshape our understanding of evolution, showing how the simplest life forms can give rise to extraordinary complexity. With each yeast cell, the researchers are uncovering the building blocks of life itself.

 

 

311 chatbots make it easier for people to report issues to their local government without long wait times on the phone. However, a new study finds that the technology might inhibit civic engagement.

311 systems allow residents to report potholes, broken fire hydrants, and other municipal issues. In recent years, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to provide 311 services to community residents has boomed across city and state governments. This includes an artificial virtual assistant (AVA) developed by third-party vendors for the City of Atlanta in 2023.

Through survey data, researchers from Tech’s School of Interactive Computing found that many residents are generally positive about 311 chatbots. In addition to eliminating long wait times over the phone, they also offer residents quick answers to permit applications, waste collection, and other frequently asked questions.

However, the study, which was conducted in Atlanta, indicates that 311 chatbots could be causing residents to feel isolated from public officials and less aware of what’s happening in their community.

Jieyu Zhou, a Ph.D. student in the School of IC, said it doesn’t have to be that way.

Uniting Communities

Zhou and her advisor, Assistant Professor Christopher MacLellan, published a paper at the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems (DIS) Conference that focuses on improving public service chatbot design and amplifying their civic impact. They collaborated with Professor Carl DiSalvo, Associate Professor Lynn Dombrowski, and graduate students Rui Shen and Yue You.

Zhou said 311 chatbots have the potential to be agents that drive community organization and improve quality of life.

“Current chatbots risk isolating users in their own experience,” Zhou said. “In the 311 system, people tend to report their own individual issues but lose a sense of what is happening in their broader community. 

“People are very positive about these tools, but I think there’s an opportunity as we envision what civic chatbots could be. It’s important for us to emphasize that social element — engaging people within the community and connecting them with government representatives, community organizers, and other community members.”

Zhou and MacLellan said 311 chatbots can leave users wondering if others in their communities share their concerns.

“If people are at a town hall meeting, they can get a sense of whether the problems they are experiencing are shared by others,” Zhou said. “We can’t do that with a chatbot. It’s like an isolated room, and we’re trying to open the doors and the windows.”

Adding a Human Touch

In their paper, the researchers note that one of the biggest criticisms of 311 chatbots is they can’t replace interpersonal interaction.

Unlike chatbots, people working in local government offices are likely to:

• Have direct knowledge of issues
• Provide appropriate referrals
• Empathize with the resident’s concerns

MacLellan said residents are likely to grow frustrated with a chatbot when reporting issues that require this level of contextual knowledge.

One person in the researchers’ survey noted that the chatbot they used didn’t understand that their report was about a sidewalk issue, not a street issue.

“Explaining such a situation to a human representative is straightforward,” MacLellan said. “However, when the issue being raised does not fall within any of the categories the chatbot is built to address, it often misinterprets the query and offers information that isn’t helpful.”

The researchers offer some design suggestions that can help chatbots foster community engagement and improve community well-being:

• Escalation. Regarding the sidewalk report, the chatbot did not offer a way to escalate the query to a human who could resolve it. Zhou said that this is a feature that chatbots should have but often lack.
• Transparency. Chatbots could provide details about recent and frequently reported community issues. They should inform users early in the call process about known problems to help avoid an overload of user complaints.
• Education. Chatbots can keep users updated about what’s happening in their communities.
• Collective action. Chatbots can help communities organize and gather ideas to address challenges and solve problems.

“Government agencies may focus mainly on fixing individual issues,” Zhou said, “But recognizing community-level patterns can inspire collective creativity. For example, one participant suggested that if many people report a broken swing at a playground, it could spark an initiative to design a new playground together—going far beyond just fixing it.”

These are just a few examples of things, the researchers argue, that 311 services were originally designed to achieve.

“Communities were already collaborating on identifying and reporting issues,” Zhou said. “These chatbots should reflect the original intentions and collaboration practices of the communities they serve.

“Our research suggests we can increase the positive impact of civic chatbots by including social aspects within the design of the system, connecting people, and building a community view.”

A 30-year “snapshot study” of birds in the Pacific Northwest is showing their surprising resilience in the face of climate change. The project started when School of Biological Sciences Assistant Professor Benjamin Freeman found a study by Louise Waterhouse detailing birds in the mountains near Vancouver three decades ago. What followed was an ecological scavenger hunt: Freeman revisited each of the old field sites, navigating using his local knowledge and Waterhouse’s hand-drawn maps.

Freeman, who grew up in Seattle, mainly studies the ecology of tropical birds — but the discovery of Waterhouse’s paper made him curious about research closer to home. The results were surprising: over the last three decades, most of the bird populations in the region were stable and had been increasing in abundance at higher elevations.

The study, “Pacific Northwest birds have shifted their abundances upslope in response to 30 years of warming temperatures” was published in the journal Ecology this fall. In addition to lead author Freeman, the team also included Harold Eyster (The Nature Conservancy), Julian Heavyside (University of British Columbia), Daniel Yip (Canadian Wildlife Service), Monica Mather (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship), and Waterhouse (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Coast Area Research).

“It is great news that most birds in the region are resilient, and by doing this work, we can focus on the species that do need help, like the Canada Jay, which is struggling in this region,” Freeman says. “Studies like this help us focus resources and effort.”

Songbirds and snow

Conducting the fieldwork was a detective game, Freeman says. Each day, he would wake up at four in the morning to locate and visit the research areas — often navigating trails, open forest, and rough terrain on foot.

This area of the Pacific Northwest is punctuated with old-growth stands of trees — sections of forest that have never been logged or altered. “These areas feel like islands,” Freeman shares. “They feel ancient and untouched, but even in pristine habitats, birds are still responding to climate change.”

Most of the work was conducted during the birds’ breeding season, from late May into June. This is when the birds are most vocal, which is ideal for surveys, Freeman says. The downside? Even in June, there is often snow in the mountains. “I was out at dawn, hiking through snow in the freezing cold, wondering why I didn’t stay in bed,” he recalls. “But then I’d hear birds singing all around me and realize it was all worth it.”

Upward expansion — and resilience

By comparing the two “snapshots,” the team showed that while temperatures have increased over the last 30 years, most bird populations in the region haven’t declined — but they have become more abundant at higher elevations. “It’s encouraging,” Freeman says. “Thirty years of warming has led to changes, but for the most part, these bird populations are mostly stable or improving.”

One reason for this resilience could be the stability that old growth forests provide, and Freeman suggests that conserving wide swaths of mountain habitat might help birds thrive as they continue to adapt, while still supporting populations at lower elevations. The study also helps identify which bird species need additional support, like the Canada Jay — a gray and white bird known for following hikers in pursuit of dropped snacks.

It’s just one piece of Freeman’s larger research goal — he aims to do this type of snapshot research in many different places to identify general patterns, especially differences in temperate versus tropical environments.

“In the tropics, most bird species are vulnerable, with only a few resilient species. In the Pacific Northwest, we saw the opposite,” he says. “A pattern is emerging: temperate zones show more resilience, tropics more vulnerability.” 

Freeman is also conducting research with a group of students in Northern Georgia. “We predict that these Appalachian birds will be resilient as well,” he says, “but we need to study and understand what’s happening in nature — not just make predictions.”

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.70193

Funding: Packard Foundation