Meet Tommer Ender: Interim Director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI)
Jul 30, 2025 — Atlanta, GA

GTRI's interim Director Tommer Ender takes the helm as the organization reaches a new milestone in awards and revenue. During fiscal year 2025, GTRI secured $964 million in new awards, up 11% from the previous year, and earned $980 million in revenue.
Tommer Ender, Ph.D., serves as the interim Director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and Senior Vice President for Georgia Tech, stepping into the role following the departure of Jim Hudgens, who became President and CEO of UL Research Institutes in June.
Ender takes the helm at GTRI as it reaches a new milestone in awards and revenue. During fiscal year 2025, GTRI secured $964 million in new awards, up 11% from the previous year, and earned $980 million in revenue. GTRI's renowned researchers combine science, engineering, economics, policy, and technical expertise to support national security, the state of Georgia, and industry.
“Tommer has been a driving force behind GTRI’s growth and evolution, and I’m grateful he’s serving in this interim capacity,” said Tim Lieuwen, Georgia Tech’s executive vice president for research. “His deep roots at Georgia Tech — as an alumnus, researcher, and executive — give him a uniquely steady hand at a pivotal time. He leads with both technical expertise and human insight, a rare combination that will serve GTRI well in the months ahead.”
Ender leads over 3,000 GTRI employees and researchers across a variety of disciplines, including autonomous systems, cybersecurity, electromagnetics, electronic warfare, modeling and simulation, sensors, systems engineering, test and evaluation, and threat systems. As interim Senior Vice President of Georgia Tech, Ender also serves on the President’s Cabinet helping set operational and strategic direction for the Institute and reports to Tim Lieuwen, Georgia Tech’s executive vice president for Research.
With nearly 25 years of experience focused on national security and systems engineering research, Ender most recently served as GTRI’s Deputy Director for Research, leading the Electronics, Optics, and Systems Directorate (EOSD). He managed operations for an 800-person unit with an annual $300 million research portfolio across three research laboratories, and was also a member of the GTRI Executive Council, helping set GTRI strategy and informing critical decisions impacting the organization. Ender was previously the Director of GTRI’s Electronic Systems (ELSYS) Laboratory, which has over 500 personnel across 12 locations in the United States.
Ender’s personal area of research includes development of collaborative, executable Model -Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) tools utilizing multidisciplinary design optimization and trade space analytics applied to complex problems. He has also served as an instructor and course developer for Georgia Tech’s Professional Master’s in Applied Systems Engineering, and has been a member of several doctoral and master’s thesis committees at Georgia Tech and other universities.
“For the past two decades, I have had the privilege to work with GTRI’s renowned team of researchers who deliver innovative solutions to the world’s most complex issues,” said Ender. “I am humbled to have been appointed interim Director of GTRI to support our mission focused on national security, improving the human condition, serving the state of Georgia, and educating future technology leaders.”
Ender has been invited to participate in a number of national committees, including at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, offering up his expertise in the areas of systems and digital engineering. He is also a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and an active member of the International Council on Systems Engineers (INCOSE), National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), and Military Operations Research Society (MORS), regularly publishing with those organizations.
A three-time alumnus, Ender earned his bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees in Aerospace Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) and Certified Systems Engineering Professional (CSEP).
Georgia Tech will be conducting a national search to identify the permanent director of GTRI, with more details to follow.
For more information, please contact gtri.media@gtri.gatech.edu.
To learn more about GTRI, visit: Georgia Tech Research Institute | GTRI

GTRI's interim Director Tommer Ender takes the helm as the organization reaches a new milestone in awards and revenue. During fiscal year 2025, GTRI secured $964 million in new awards, up 11% from the previous year, and earned $980 million in revenue.
Scientists Pinpoint Hazards for Engineered Stone Fabrication Shop Workers
Jul 28, 2025 —

You've probably seen fabricated stone countertops on an HGTV remodeling show — and you might even have them in your own home.
The durable, affordable, and highly customizable product debuted in Italy in the 1970s and continues to grow in popularity. Between 2010 and 2018, U.S. imports of engineered stone slabs increased by 800%. One report predicted that global demand will increase 5.4% each year, to reach 97 million square meters by 2028.
Sometimes referred to as manufactured stone or quartz (which is, confusingly, also the name of one of its main components), to the untrained eye, the material looks no different from natural stone. One of its biggest advantages is that it can be made to resemble marble, granite, or nearly any other stone.
Beneath the material’s familiar smooth surface, however, lie safety risks for engineered stone workers.
Research conducted by a team of Georgia Tech scientists demonstrates that everyone in a fabrication shop is at risk, not just the workers cutting and fashioning the material.
The group included members of the Enterprise Innovation Institute’s Safety, Health, and Environmental Services (SHES) program: Jenny Houlroyd, Hilarie Warren, Brandon J. Philpot, and Sean Castillo. Together with Jhy-Charm Soo of Georgia Southern University, they recently published their findings in Oxford Academic.
The study divided engineered stone workers into four risk groups and charted their relative exposure to the material’s chief hazard: respirable crystalline silica.
A “Toxic Product”
Engineered stone differs notably from its natural counterpart, both in composition and in danger to worker health.
A stone slab cut from the ground, such as granite or marble, comprises several different minerals and typically has a concentration of 40% or less of mineral crystalline silica — usually quartz, which is the most abundant form of crystalline silica.
Engineered stone, however, can contain more than 90% silica. Slabs are produced when silica is crushed, combined with synthetic resins, and compressed using heat or pressure.
During fabrication, these slabs are cut and shaped by powered hand tools. The resulting dust contains tiny particles of respirable crystalline silica. Once inhaled, some of the particulate may stay in the lungs and cause an inflammatory response.
While crystalline silica is released from both natural and engineered slabs during fabrication, the engineered slabs’ significantly higher percentage of silica poses a much greater risk to human health.
A growing body of research indicates that breathing engineered stone dust leads to lung inflammation and can cause acute silicosis, an untreatable lung disease.
“I would classify engineered stone as a really toxic product,” said Houlroyd, manager of occupational health services at SHES. “When you have something that’s high-risk, you have to prepare for systems to fail and have backup measures.”
Committed to Safety
Over six years, the SHES research group collected air-sampling data, making 17 visits to 11 Georgia stone fabrication shops. The shops had all requested air-sampling services offered by SHES.
“The companies agree that by working with us, they commit to correcting the hazards and reducing exposures, as much as is feasible,” Houlroyd noted.
Because most kitchen and bathroom countertop fabrication shops are small employers, workers often complete a variety of tasks, resulting in a range of exposure factors.
The research team recommended that all manufactured stone fabrication workers wear respirators, such as an N95 mask. For employees who are the most exposed, they recommended a respirator with a powered air-purifying element or supplied air.
But personal protective equipment (PPE) alone does not ensure safe conditions.
“Most of the workers in this industry are relying on respirators as their primary source of protection, and they need a lot more to protect them,” explained Houlroyd. “PPE is the last line of defense, and safety needs to be addressed from all angles.”
Part of that multifaceted strategy includes repeated monitoring of air quality and equipment. It’s also crucial for employers to make sure that exposure risks are understood by all workers — not just employees, but also contract and day laborers, as well as those working for cash.
More Than Just a Job
As members of SHES, the Georgia Tech research team members are first and foremost health and safety consultants, with expertise spanning industrial hygiene, environmental compliance, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.
For Houlroyd, worker safety is not just a professional calling; it’s also a personal mission.
“My dad got sick with brain cancer from exposure to contaminants on the job, and he died four years ago,” she said.
“Though he didn’t work in the manufactured stone industry, his story is representative of many people who go to work each day to feed their family, are not aware of workplace hazards, and then find themselves sick.”
The public can play a part in worker safety, too.
“Consumers have a choice and can educate themselves about what type of countertop materials they choose to have installed — like how we look at food labels for nutritional information,” said Warren, who oversees the OSHA Training Institute Education Center at Georgia Tech.
“We should be aware of the risk to workers, as well as how the installation process in our homes should be properly managed to prevent dust contamination,” she added.
A Zero-Risk Solution
In 2024, Australia eliminated the risks associated with engineered stone fabrication. Despite having enacted stronger regulations in 2019, the country continued to see a rise in silicosis cases resulting from exposure to respirable crystalline silica.
Australia’s solution? Enacting a ban on the import and fabrication of the material until its safe manufacture can be demonstrated.
In their report, the Georgia Tech group recommends that the U.S. do the same. As Houlroyd put it, “I would love to see our country find a safer substitution and take this dangerous product off the market.”
____________________
Title: “Respirable dust and respirable crystalline silica exposures among workers at stone countertop fabrication shops in Georgia from 2017 through 2023”
Conflict of interest: Jenny Houlroyd has served as an expert witness in silicosis legal cases unrelated to this research. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding: The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as part of the OSHA 21(d) Consultation Program grant.

On average, fabrication stone plants use about 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of water per day. This saw is cutting though a slab of manufactured stone as water runs to keep the machinery from overheating, mitigate dust particulates, and polish the stone. (Photo: Mixed Bag Media)

Masks such as this respirator are an important tool for workers in stone fabrication plants. To prevent silica dust and other particulates from damaging their components, experts say respirators should be stored in clear, plastic bags or containers when not in use. (Photo: Mixed Bag Media)
Eve Tolpa
eve.tolpa@innovate.gatech.edu
Nuclear Power Isn’t What You Think — and That’s a Good Thing
Jul 25, 2025 — Atlanta, GA

Nuclear fuel pellets are primarily made of uranium dioxide (UO2), a ceramic material. They are typically enriched with uranium-235, an isotope that undergoes nuclear fission to produce energy. (Credit: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
“Nuclear” is a loaded, highly charged word. It can conjure images — both real and imagined — of explosive destruction.
Nuclear is also a loaded, highly charged technology. A single fuel pellet the size of a pencil eraser contains as much energy as a metric ton of coal, 150 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.
The technology’s complex history, along with its vast potential, is why nuclear scientists and engineers often find themselves moonlighting as myth busters. Georgia Tech experts are eager to untangle fact from fiction so nuclear can shine — safely.
“I am really excited about nuclear, but this is a technology that has a lot of myths and misinformation around it,” said Anna Erickson, Woodruff Professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering (ME), and leader of the Consortium for Enabling Technologies and Innovation (ETI), which is focused on nuclear technology.
“Concerns about nuclear weapons, accidents, and waste have overshadowed nuclear energy’s potential as a clean, carbon-free technology,” she added.
Here, Georgia Tech researchers share what nuclear is, why it’s important, and why its moment is now.
What Is Nuclear?
“Nuclear, as indicated by its name, is focused on the nucleus within an atom, but also the atom as a whole,” said Steve Biegalski, ME professor and chair of the Nuclear and Radiological Engineering and Medical Physics Program. “From an engineering perspective, we're looking at how we can use the physics of an atom — and the physics of a nucleus — to solve different scientific and societal problems.”
In 1938, German and Austrian scientists discovered that breaking apart an atom’s nucleus creates energy through fission. Many aspects of nuclear science, however, were advanced through the Manhattan Project during World War II, in which the U.S. developed the atomic bombs it later dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. This historical association has likely played a significant role in shaping the negative perception of nuclear technology.
But nuclear science isn’t only about international power and weapons, Biegalski said. Advances in nuclear science have contributed to life-saving cancer therapies, cutting-edge heart scans, and on-demand X-ray technologies.
Safe levels of radiation are all around us — for example, our imported fruits and vegetables are treated with radiation when they enter the country. Even kitty litter is radioactive — not very, but detectable by modern sensors.
“You might have slightly elevated radioactivity for a short while after you eat a banana in the morning,” Erickson said. “Our bodies have evolved to live with radiation.”
AI Has Entered the Chat
Lately, Erickson has been getting calls from major technology companies with questions about how to power data centers. She isn’t surprised — nuclear energy is widely being discussed as the way to power the AI revolution.
“Today’s energy needs are very different than they were in the past, and consistent, reliable, and independent electricity production is necessary — especially for the technology sector,” Erickson explained.
“At this stage, it’s not a question of whether nuclear energy can meet those demands, but how quickly we can make it a reality,” she added.
One of nuclear’s most distinguishing features is its power density, or how much power is produced by volume of raw material. Another defining feature is its reliability. Wind and solar are weather-dependent and provide power intermittently. Nuclear can supply power around the clock, and data centers require that level of consistency.
“There are discussions about developing a number of data centers just outside of Atlanta, and those will require full-size nuclear power plants to power them,” Biegalski said. “When we look at electricity production, these facilities need power 24/7, 365 days a year. Nuclear power can supply that, and wind and solar simply cannot.”
Great Power, Great Responsibility
According to Erickson, the nuclear reactors in use today are far more advanced than those associated with past disasters like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
New nuclear plants are designed with great efficiency in mind. Coal must be supplied continuously, whereas nuclear can be loaded once and run for years.
In addition to dispelling misinformation, nuclear experts are also knowledgeable about nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security. Georgia Tech is a leader in these areas. Experts like Erickson, Biegalski, and their Georgia Tech colleagues are regularly tapped to help design new reactors that are popping up across the country.
The Georgia Tech-led nuclear consortium, ETI, assesses how emerging technologies help or hurt nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Nuclear nonproliferation is the global effort to minimize the spread of nuclear weapons, technology, and development.
“One of our main missions is to understand expansion of civilian nuclear power through the lens of nuclear safeguards and nonproliferation,” Erickson said. “Specifically, we want to know how we can best prevent misuse and mishandling of nuclear materials and keep nuclear facilities safe, while also investing in advancing nuclear technology.”
A Shift in Public Opinion
Despite the popular culture — think Homer Simpson’s nuclear plant job handling green slime — the public is also becoming better informed about nuclear power’s relative safety, especially compared with other energy sources.
In early 2025, nearly 6 out of 10 Americans supported increased development of nuclear energy. But why are Americans gradually coming around to the idea?
Erickson may have the answer. “The technology’s potential is catching on across the globe,” she said. “In France, 70% of their electricity comes from nuclear energy.”
For one of her first research projects as a young student, Erickson analyzed what went wrong with the Chernobyl reactors. She understands why people can be wary of nuclear technology.
“Despite the uptick in support for nuclear, people still have concerns we need to answer, rather than just telling people to trust the experts,” Erickson said. “Talking to people is critical in promoting this technology and making sure we keep the public’s trust in this.”

Anna Erickson

Steven Biegalski
Catherine Barzler, Senior Research Writer/Editor
Institute Communications
catherine.barzler@gatech.edu
Stitched for Strength: The Physics of Stiff, Knitted Fabrics
Jul 25, 2025 —
Former Matsumoto Group member Krishma Singal operates a knitting machine used to create fabric samples for a previous study. Singal recently graduated from Georgia Tech with her Ph.D. (Photo Credit: Allison Carter)
School of Physics Associate Professor Elisabetta Matsumoto is unearthing the secrets of the centuries-old practice of knitting through experiments, models, and simulations. Her goal? Leveraging knitting for breakthroughs in advanced manufacturing — including more sustainable textiles, wearable electronics, and soft robotics.
Matsumoto, who is also a principal investigator at the International Institute for Sustainability with Knotted Chiral Meta Matter (WPI-SKCM2) at Hiroshima University, is the corresponding author on a new study exploring the physics of ‘jamming’ — a phenomenon when soft or stretchy materials become rigid under low stress but soften under higher tension.
The study, "Pulling Apart the Mechanisms That Lead to Jammed Knitted Fabrics," was published this week in Physical Review E, and also includes Georgia Tech Matsumoto Group graduate students Sarah Gonzalez and Alexander Cachine in addition to former postdoctoral fellow Michael Dimitriyev, who is now an assistant professor at Texas A&M University.
The work builds on the group’s previous research demonstrating that knitted materials can be mathematically ‘programmed’ to behave in predictable ways. “These properties are intuitively understood by people who knit by hand,” Matsumoto says, “but in order to manipulate and use these behaviors in an industrial setting, we need to understand the physics behind them. This new research is another step in that direction.”
An Unexpected Twist
Gonzalez, who led the research, first became interested in jamming while conducting adjacent research. “I was using model simulations to characterize how different yarn properties affect the behavior of knitted fabrics and noticed a strange stiff region,” she recalls. “In our previous research, we had also seen this behavior in lab experiments, which suggested that what we were seeing in the simulations was a genuine phenomenon. I wanted to investigate it further.”
After digging into the topic, she realized that what she was seeing was called ‘jamming.’ In knits, Gonzalez explains, jamming occurs when stitches are packed tightly together, and the fabric resists stretching. Although it’s a well-known phenomenon, the physics has mostly been investigated in granular systems, like snow or sand, rather than fabrics.
“In fabrics, when you pull softly, the response is surprisingly stiff, but when you start pulling harder and harder, the stitches rearrange, and the material softens,” Matsumoto says. “In granular systems, this is a little like how avalanches work. At low forces, the snow pack is solid, but when the slope is steep, the force of gravity liquidizes that snow pack into an avalanche.”
“In fabrics, it is a little like having a tangle in a piece of jewelry,” she adds. “If you pull on it, it gets quite stiff, but if you loosen the knot, the chain can reconfigure, and it's not so stiff.”
Unraveling the Physics of Jamming
Using a combination of experiments with industrially knitted fabrics and computer models, the team analyzed what causes jamming in fabrics and how to control it. “We wanted to determine how different yarn properties impacted jamming,” Gonzalez explains. “Our goal was to understand the mechanics of jamming through how yarn interacts at various touchpoints in stitches.”
The team found that both machine tension and yarn thickness played a key role in making a fabric more or less jammed, and that jamming behaves differently depending on which direction the fabric is stretched.
“When you stretch a knit along the rows, the stiffness of the yarn causes fabric jamming. Jamming in the other direction is due to yarn contacts,” says Gonzalez. “We also showed that the impacts of changing machine tension and yarn thickness differ depending on fabric direction.”
“Discovering that fabric jamming works differently in different directions was a key insight,” she adds. “To our knowledge, the physics of this has never been explored before.”
Modern Innovation — With a Centuries-Old Technique
The research dovetails with Matsumoto’s WPI-SKCM2 Center work, which involves investigating fundamental aspects of knots and chirality. The Center is interested in a class of materials called “knotted chiral meta matter” that could lead to more sustainable materials.
For example, knitting — which leverages chiral knots — could be used to create more elastic fabrics from natural materials. “In many cases, manufacturers use yarns that combine, for example, polyester, cotton, and elastane to create a desired elasticity,” Matsumoto says. “Our research suggests that manipulating the topology of the stitches could lead to a similar elasticity, reducing the need for petroleum-based fibers and creating a more sustainable textile.”
“Knitting has the potential to be extremely useful in manufacturing, but knowledge has typically been shared through intuition and word of mouth,” she adds. “By creating these mathematical models, we hope to formalize that knowledge in a way that’s accessible for large-scale manufacturing — so we can leverage this centuries-old intuition for modern innovation.”
Funding: This work was supported by the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; National Science Foundation (NSF); and Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA).
Written by Selena Langner
Contact: Jess Hunt-Ralston
Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership at Georgia Tech Celebrates 65 Years of Service
Jul 24, 2025 —

The Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership at Georgia Tech's Enterprise Innovation Institute receives a commendation from Gov. Brian P. Kemp at the Georgia State Capitol for 65 years of service to the manufacturing industry. The commendation acknowledged GaMEP for leveraging its world-renowned expertise and resources to advance manufacturing and economic prosperity across the state, supporting an industry that adds $82 billion to the economy and employs 425,000 residents. (Photo: Georgia Governor's Office)
The Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program of the Enterprise Innovation Institute at Georgia Tech, received recognition by Gov. Brian P. Kemp at the Georgia State Capitol for 65 years of service to the manufacturing industry.
The commendation acknowledged GaMEP for leveraging its world-renowned expertise and resources to advance manufacturing and economic prosperity across the state, supporting an industry that adds $82 billion to the economy and employs 425,000 residents, according to the National Association of Manufacturers.
This impact reflects decades of intentional growth and support for the industry. By 1960, more than 4,500 manufacturers had planted roots across Georgia — the result of strategic efforts by state leaders, with economic development assistance from Georgia Tech, to industrialize the economy. But growth brought new challenges. Manufacturers needed technical support to stay competitive. In response, the Georgia General Assembly voted to establish the Georgia Tech Industrial Extension Service (now known as the GaMEP). This created statewide field offices that provide a direct link between industry and innovation, delivering on-site technical expertise to help manufacturers thrive.
“Our role is to support those manufacturers so together we can help grow the state’s economy — and we’ve been really successful at that,” said Tim Israel, GaMEP director and EI2 associate vice president for corporate engagement/firm-based programs. “In 2024, Georgia experienced a significant return on its investment with the GaMEP generating an impressive $294 for every state dollar allocated to manufacturing projects. This remarkable outcome highlights the critical importance of the state’s strategic investments in strengthening Georgia’s manufacturing sector.”
Over the past decade alone, the GaMEP has provided assistance and education to more than 3,900 manufacturers across 144 counties, helping them create or retain 14,500 jobs, invest $1 billion in capital improvements, realize $3.5 billion in sales, and save nearly $450 million in costs. The GaMEP primarily serves small- to medium-sized manufacturers with 75% employing less than 250 workers. Its top-served industries include fabricated metal products, food, machinery, and chemical and transportation equipment manufacturing.
“When Georgia manufacturers become more productive and profitable, they hire more people, pay better wages, and stabilize local economies, especially in rural and underserved areas of the state,” said David Bridges, EI2 vice president. “This also creates pathways for career advancement for frontline workers who might not have had previous opportunities.”
Today, GaMEP’s reach spans 10 regions across the state, each led by a dedicated region manager who lives and works locally, offering manufacturers direct, knowledgeable connections to its expert team, valuable resources, and diverse partners.
“The GaMEP has been a trusted collaborator and valued partner in strengthening manufacturing across Georgia,” said Lloyd Avram, Georgia Association of Manufacturers CEO and president. “Together, we’ve supported thousands of manufacturers statewide — helping them embrace innovation, improve operations, and remain competitive. We appreciate their extensive expertise and shared dedication to advancing the industry, and we look forward to continuing our work together to ensure Georgia remains one of the best states for manufacturing.”
GaMEP’s impact and success by region, according to the Georgia Department of Economic Development regions:
Coastal Region
- Counties: Bryan, Bulloch, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, and Screven.
- Manufacturers served: 269.
- Jobs created/retained: 283.
- Capital improvement investment: $23,171,292.
- Costs saved: $1,645,061.
- Sales realized: $13,965,000.
- Success story: Roger Wood Foods.
East Region
- Counties: Burke, Columbia, Glascock, Hancock, Jefferson, Jenkins, Lincoln, McDuffie, Richmond, Taliaferro, Warren, Washington, and Wilkes.
- Manufacturers served: 169.
- Jobs created/retained: 3,899.
- Capital improvement investment: $127,754,280.
- Costs saved: $14,771,582.
- Sales realized: $975,465,000.
- Success story: Nutritional Resources.
East Central Region
- Counties: Barrow, Clarke, Elbert, Greene, Jackson, Jasper, Madison, Morgan, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, and Walton.
- Manufacturers served: 209.
- Jobs created/retained: 621.
- Capital improvement investment: $19,703,035.
- Costs saved: $2,535,494.
- Sales realized: $29,486,000.
- Success stories: Creature Comforts Brewing Company and Poly Tech Industries.
Metro Atlanta Region
- Counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, and Rockdale.
- Manufacturers served: 1,601.
- Jobs created/retained: 2,928.
- Capital improvement investment: $235,763,480.
- Costs saved: $112,083,262.
- Sales realized: $844,679,890.
- Success stories: Compass Technology Group, Construction Specialties, and Highland Forge.
Middle Region
- Counties: Baldwin, Bibb, Crawford, Houston, Jones, Monroe, Peach, Pulaski, Putnam, Twiggs, and Wilkinson.
- Manufacturers served: 170.
- Jobs created/retained: 972.
- Capital improvement investment: $121,814,846.
- Costs saved: $8,810,950.
- Sales realized: $300,213,400.
- Success story: Unified Defense.
Northeast Region
- Counties: Banks, Dawson, Forsyth, Franklin, Habersham, Hall, Hart, Lumpkin, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union, and White.
- Manufacturers served: 280.
- Jobs created/retained: 1,029.
- Capital improvement investment: $88,443,395.
- Costs saved: $63,999,228.
- Sales realized: $259,453,900.
- Success story: Freudenberg Sealing Technologies.
Northwest Region
- Counties: Bartow, Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Fannin, Floyd, Gilmer, Gordon, Haralson, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Walker, and Whitfield.
- Manufacturers served: 387.
- Jobs created/retained: 1,090.
- Capital improvement investment: $ $92,948,931.
- Costs saved: $141,460,651.
- Sales realized: $326,366,408.
- Success story: Trenton Pressing.
South Region
- Counties: Appling, Bleckley, Candler, Dodge, Emanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Johnson, Laurens, Montgomery, Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Treutlen, Wayne, Wheeler, and Wilcox.
- Manufacturers served: 176.
- Jobs created/retained: 969.
- Capital improvement investment: $219,300,221.
- Costs saved: $6,596,254.
- Sales realized: $39,632,275.
- Success story: Healthy Pet.
Southeast Region
- Counties: Atkinson, Bacon, Ben Hill, Berrien, Brantley, Brooks, Charlton, Clinch, Coffee, Cook, Echols, Irwin, Lanier, Lowndes, Pierce, Tift, Turner, and Ware.
- Manufacturers served: 166.
- Jobs created/retained: 281.
- Capital improvement investment: $20,684,800.
- Costs saved: $3,098,700.
- Sales realized: $77,724,500.
- Success stories: CJB Industries and South Georgia Pecan.
Southwest Region
- Counties: Baker, Calhoun, Colquitt, Decatur, Dougherty, Early, Grady, Lee, Miller, Mitchell, Seminole, Terrell, Thomas, and Worth.
- Manufacturers served: 130.
- Jobs created/retained: 130.
- Capital improvement investment: $12,266,730.
- Costs saved: $1,682,790.
- Sales realized: $5,002,020.
- Success story: Sweet Grass Dairy.
West Region
- Counties: Chattahoochee, Clay, Crisp, Dooly, Harris, Macon, Marion, Muscogee, Quitman, Randolph, Schley, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taylor, and Webster.
- Manufacturers served: 111.
- Jobs created/retained: 713.
- Capital improvement investment: $37,948,131.
- Costs saved: $3,197,600.
- Sales realized: $69,588,348.
- Success story: Oneda Corporation.
West Central Region
- Counties: Butts, Carroll, Coweta, Heard, Lamar, Meriwether, Pike, Spalding, Troup, and Upson.
- Manufacturers served: 234.
- Jobs created/retained: 1,658.
- Capital improvement investment: $90,750,763.
- Costs saved: $89,931,074.
- Sales realized: $615,900,002.
- Success stories: Complete Truck Bodies and Mountville Mills.
For more information about GaMEP’s impact, including impact by county, visit gamep.org/statewide-impact.
About the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership
The Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program of the Enterprise Innovation Institute at Georgia Tech, serves manufacturers by offering solution-based assistance that promotes top-line growth and reduces bottom-line cost. The GaMEP, a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership, has advanced manufacturing and economic prosperity in Georgia since 1960. For more information, visit gamep.org and like/follow on Facebook, LinkedIn, X, and YouTube.
Péralte Paul
peralte@gatech.edu
404.316.1210
College ‘General Education’ Requirements Help Prepare Students for Citizenship — But Critics Say It’s Learning Time Taken Away From Useful Studies
Jul 17, 2025 —

Students learn about the arts and humanities, social sciences, and science and mathematics in general education. Olga Pankova/Moment via Getty Images
What do Americans think of when they hear the words “general education”?
By definition, general education covers introductory college courses in arts and humanities, social sciences, and science and mathematics. It has different names, including core curriculum or distribution requirements, depending on the college or university.
It is also sometimes called liberal education, including by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, which describes it as providing “a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills.”
The liberal label can be fodder for conservative groups who argue that today’s general education is part of an indoctrination into higher education’s purported left-leaning belief systems. Some other conservatives support general education as a concept but want more emphasis on so-called traditional values and less on cross-cultural understanding. These initiatives position general education and college as a space for ideological battles.
As a scholar of historical connections between literacy and social class, I know that general education was designed to provide opportunity for all students without regard for their political preferences.
The value of a college education can be shaped by political affiliation. bernarddobo/iStock via Getty Images
An Education for All
Eighty years ago, a group of Harvard University faculty created what many colleges and universities still follow as a template for general education. This plan was outlined in the book “General Education in a Free Society.”
Harvard’s plan was meant for all students, including veterans studying under the GI Bill, and others we today refer to as first generation, where neither parent had a college degree.
General education made college more accessible to students who were not becoming doctors or lawyers but who also wanted careers outside the vocational trades. It helped make college a place for educating all citizens, not just students of socioeconomic privilege.
Expanding access to higher education was central to the 1947 special report Higher Education for American Democracy, commissioned by President Harry Truman. The goal was to provide a foundational education for all, especially in math and science. But the report, commonly known as the Truman Commission Report, also included disciplines that help students understand the world – such as writing and communication, literature, psychology and history.
The purposes of general education are central to two competing views of college today, views that I also hear expressed by students and parents I’ve met in my 28 years as a professor.
One view of college is of an on-campus experience steeped in the liberal arts that holistically prepares students to live in a functioning democracy. These benefits are seen as worth the time and costs.
The other view is of college as a sum of career-focused credentials that can begin and end anywhere, not specific to one college campus. These benefits are completely financial, to be gained via the cheapest, quickest means.
Both of these views are informed by national perspectives that further divide citizens on higher education as a whole, such as Vice President JD Vance’s 2021 statement that “there was a wisdom in what Richard Nixon said approximately 40, 50 years ago. He said, and I quote, ‘The professors are the enemy.’”
Both these groups of Americans, however, hope that obtaining a college degree will pay off for graduates who find employment and reach a standard of living better than their parents’ generation.
For the first group, general education is critical to developing the whole student for jobs and life. For the latter, it is an expensive obstacle to it.
Not surprisingly, these views on education and college often correspond to political party identification and whether a person attended college themselves.
A July 2023 Lumina Foundation and Gallup Poll showed that only 36% of Americans have a “great deal” of confidence in higher education, with significant partisan differences between the 20% of Republicans who have this confidence, the 56% of Democrats and the 35% of independents who have it. There are also measurable differences between those who have earned a postgraduate degree and those who have not.
To cut costs, more students are searching for ways to complete general education requirements before they begin college. PeopleImages/E+ via Getty Images
Questioning Value
As college costs continue to rise in 2025, families are struggling – even taking on payment plans for everyday purchases, also known as phantom debt – to make ends meet.
General education represents about a third of the requirements of a bachelor’s degree and most of an associate degree.
For those who see college as a waste of money, general education courses are a calculable loss on future income. In the past two decades, this – and the increasingly competitive admissions process for college – has contributed to a tenfold increase in low-income students who take Advanced Placement courses and a 50% increase since 2021 in the number of students in dual-credit coursework. Both programs allow students to complete general education-equivalent courses for free while still in high school.
Complete College America, a nonprofit advocacy group that works with states to increase college completion rates, supports these moves by students and parents, classifying general education under “gateway courses” to be completed “as soon as possible.”
Other groups promote stackable units of credit toward college degrees. This push to complete general education requirements before entering college is gaining momentum, despite studies that show Advanced Placement classes, and exams, favor and benefit mostly white, middle- to upper-class students because these students tend to have more time and resources to devote to AP coursework and also take multiple exams in order to earn college credit.
For college students, general education can offer benefits beyond career attainment. ferrantraite/E+ via Getty Images
Understanding the World
While arguments for streamlining college and its costs are evergreen, foundational lessons taught across fields of study are as relevant in 2025 as they were in 1945. The U.S. faces threats to its democracy, is navigating rapid advances in technology, and is adapting to population shifts that will change how its residents live and work.
General education gives students broad foundational knowledge that can be used in a variety of careers. By design, it teaches an understanding of the world outside one’s own and how to live in it – a core requirement for a functioning democracy.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Author:
Kelly Ritter, professor of Writing and Communication, Georgia Institute of Technology
Media Contact:
Shelley Wunder-Smith
shelley.wunder-smith@research.gatech.edu
How the World’s Nuclear Watchdog Monitors Facilities Around the World – and What it Means That Iran Kicked it Out
Jul 20, 2025 —

This travel case holds a toolkit containing equipment for inspecting nuclear facilities. Dean Calma/IAEA, CC BY
What happens when a country seeks to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program? Every peaceful program starts with a promise not to build a nuclear weapon. Then, the global community verifies that stated intent via the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Once a country signs the treaty, the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, provides continuous and technical proof that the country’s nuclear program is peaceful.
The IAEA ensures that countries operate their programs within the limits of nonproliferation agreements: low enrichment and no reactor misuse. Part of the agreement allows the IAEA to inspect nuclear-related sites, including unannounced surprise visits.
These are not just log reviews. Inspectors know what should and should not be there. When the IAEA is not on site, cameras, tamper-revealing seals on equipment and real-time radiation monitors are working full-time to gather or verify inside information about the program’s activities.
Safeguards Toolkit
The IAEA safeguards toolkit is designed to detect proliferation activities early. Much of the work is fairly technical. The safeguards toolkit combines physical surveillance, material tracking, data analytics and scientific sampling. Inspectors are chemists, physicists and nuclear engineers. They count spent fuel rods in a cooling pond. They check tamper seals on centrifuges. Often, the inspectors walk miles through hallways and corridors carrying heavy equipment.
That’s how the world learned in April 2021 about Iran pushing uranium enrichment from reactor-fuel-grade to near-weapons-grade levels. IAEA inspectors were able to verify that Iran was feeding uranium into a series of centrifuges designed to enrich the uranium from 5%, used for energy programs, to 60%, which is a step toward the 90% level used in nuclear weapons.
Around the facilities, whether for uranium enrichment or plutonium processing, closed-circuit surveillance cameras monitor for undeclared materials or post-work activities. Seals around the facilities provide evidence that uranium gas cylinders have not been tampered with or that centrifuges operate at the declared levels. Beyond seals, online enrichment monitors allow inspectors to look inside of centrifuges for any changes in the declared enrichment process.
Seals verify whether nuclear equipment or materials have been used between onsite inspections.
When the inspectors are on-site, they collect environmental swipes: samples of nuclear materials on surfaces, in dust or in the air. These can reveal if uranium has been enriched to levels beyond those allowed by the agreement. Or if plutonium, which is not used in nuclear power plants, is being produced in a reactor. Swipes are precise. They can identify enrichment levels from a particle smaller than a speck of dust. But they take time, days or weeks. Inspectors analyze the samples at the IAEA’s laboratories using sophisticated equipment called mass spectrometers.
In addition to physical samples, IAEA inspectors look at the logs of material inventories. They look for diversion of uranium or plutonium from normal process lines, just like accountants trace the flow of finances, except that their verification is supported by the ever-watching online monitors and radiation sensors. They also count items of interest and weigh them for additional verification of the logs.
Beyond accounting for materials, IAEA inspectors verify that the facility matches the declared design. For example, if a country is expanding centrifuge halls to increase its enrichment capabilities, that’s a red flag. Changes to the layout of material processing laboratories near nuclear reactors could be a sign that the program is preparing to produce unauthorized plutonium.
Losing Access
Iran announced on June 28, 2025, that it has ended its cooperation with the IAEA. It removed the monitoring devices, including surveillance cameras, from centrifuge halls. This move followed the news by the IAEA that Iran’s enrichment activities are well outside of allowed levels. Iran now operates sophisticated uranium centrifuges, like models IR-6 and IR-9.
Removing IAEA access means that the international community loses insight into how quickly Iran’s program can accumulate weapon-grade uranium, or how much it has produced. Also lost is information about whether the facility is undergoing changes for proliferation purposes. These processes are difficult to detect with external surveillance, like satellites, alone.
A satellite view of Iran’s Arak Nuclear Complex, which has a reactor capable of producing plutonium. Satellite image (c) 2025 Maxar Technologies via Getty Images
An alternative to the uranium enrichment path for producing nuclear weapons material is plutonium. Plutonium can’t be mined, it has to be produced in a nuclear reactor. Iran built a reactor capable of producing plutonium, the IR-40 Heavy Water Research Reactor at the Arak Nuclear Complex.
Iran modified the Arak reactor under the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to make plutonium production less likely. During the June 2025 missile attacks, Israel targeted Arak’s facilities with the aim of eliminating the possibility of plutonium production.
With IAEA access suspended, it won’t be possible to see what happens inside the facility. Can the reactor be used for plutonium production? Although a lengthier process than the uranium enrichment path, plutonium provides a parallel path to uranium enrichment for developing nuclear weapons.
Continuity of Knowledge
North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors in 2009. Within a few years, they restarted activities related to uranium enrichment and plutonium production in the Yongbyon reactor. The international community’s information about North Korea’s weapons program now relies solely on external methods: satellite images, radioactive particles like xenon – airborne fingerprints of nuclear activities – and seismic data.
What is lost is the continuity of the knowledge, a chain of verification over time. Once the seals are broken or cameras are removed, that chain is lost, and so is confidence about what is happening at the facilities.
When it comes to IAEA inspections, there is no single tool that paints the whole picture. Surveillance plus sampling plus accounting provide validation and confidence. Losing even one weakens the system in the long term.
The existing safeguards regime is meant to detect violations. The countries that sign the nonproliferation treaty know that they are always watched, and that plays a deterrence role. The inspectors can’t just resume the verification activities after some time if access is lost. Future access won’t necessarily enable inspectors to clarify what happened during the gap.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Author:
Anna Erickson, professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
Media Contact:
Shelley Wunder-Smith
shelley.wunder-smith@research.gatech.edu
Deep Dive Into Shark Ecology Provides Path to Conservation
Jul 24, 2025 —

Cameron Perry swims alongside a whale shark on a Georgia Aquarium expedition off the coast of St. Helena in the South Atlantic Ocean. Submitted photo.
Few animals captivate people’s imagination like sharks. From the enduring cultural legacy of Jaws, which celebrated its 50th anniversary this year, to the continued popularity of the Discovery Channel's Shark Week, now in its 37th year, media portrayals of the apex predator can shape public perception, illuminate their role within Earth's ecosystems, and influence conservation efforts.
For Cameron Perry, every week is shark week. The Georgia Tech alumnus earned his Ph.D. in ocean science and engineering in 2024 and now leads the whale shark and manta ray initiatives at Georgia Aquarium.
As a 6-year-old listening to his mother read him Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and imagining the creatures Captain Nemo encountered, Perry had dreams of exploring the oceans for himself. When he saw his first whale shark in Georgia Aquarium's 6.3-million-gallon tank, he set out to learn as much as he could about the gentle giants and help to conserve the endangered species.
Perry's research has taken him around the world to observe whale shark behaviors in St. Helena and the Galapagos Islands, working to understand their migration habits, reproduction, and global ecology. While most people won't encounter sharks daily as he does, Perry sees the aquarium as well as the media as effective tools in showcasing sharks in the proper light.
"They are kind of mysterious and unknown. For many people, they've never encountered sharks in their lifetime, and part of that captivation could lead to fear, but education can turn that fear into wonder and awe. There's a narrative that these animals are mindless eating machines, but the more you learn, you realize that's not the case," he said. “These creatures have existed for 400 million years; they're older than trees, and understanding their role on our planet is important to changing the narrative around sharks."
Perry likens sharks to the white blood cells of the ecosystems in which they live, as they help prevent the spread of disease through the consumption of dead or diseased prey, contribute to population control, and provide balance to the ocean's biodiversity.
Understanding Our Role
While at Georgia Tech, Perry worked alongside Regents’ Chair and Harry and Anna Teasley Chair in Environmental Biology Mark Hay, whose research has highlighted the role that sharks, and other large predators, play in habitat regulation within coral reefs. Hay explains that overfishing and other human activities have decimated shark populations in certain parts of the world, significantly affecting coral reefs and the populations that rely on them.
As the manager of a freshwater beach in Kentucky in 1975, Hay saw firsthand the impact that Jaws had on the beachgoing public at the time — including his lifeguards.
“I had about 25 lifeguards, and I made them swim a mile every day on our buoy line. After we all went to see Jaws, about half of them refused to swim the mile for over a week. They'd look at me and say, 'You can fire me. I'm not going in,' and I'd laugh and say, ‘We're in freshwater. Jaws isn't in there.’"
Hay said that while the movie remains a favorite of his, its depiction of sharks isn't representative of their behavior in the wild, as shark attacks are often accidents, not predatory actions. Like Perry, Hay believes that education can help protect sharks and bring a renewed focus to solving the ongoing issues facing the oceans.
"These ecosystems are degrading, and it's us that's doing it. What I am trying to do in my teaching is to go beyond cataloging the demise and take a more Georgia Tech-type approach by saying, 'If the bridge is broken, we have to be the ones to rebuild it,'" he said.
Hay keeps a saber-toothed tiger fossil on his desk as a constant reminder to himself that "everything I study was shaped by what used to be here," and how understanding nature can help preserve it for the future. Sharks are a captivating species, and both Perry and Hay stress that continued research and a commitment to education are the key to their conservation.
Steven Gagliano – Institute Communications
New Dataset Makes Health Chatbots Like Google's MedGemma More Mindful of African Contexts
Jul 23, 2025 — Atlanta, GA

A groundbreaking new medical dataset is poised to revolutionize healthcare in Africa by improving chatbots’ understanding of the continent’s most pressing medical issues and increasing their awareness of accessible treatment options.
AfriMed-QA, developed by researchers from Georgia Tech and Google, could reduce the burden on African healthcare systems.
The researchers said people in need of medical care file into overcrowded clinics and hospitals and face excruciatingly long waits with no guarantee of admission or quality treatment. There aren’t enough trained healthcare professionals available to meet the demand.
Some healthcare question-answer chatbots have been introduced to treat those in need. However, the researchers said there’s no transparent or standardized way to test or verify their effectiveness and safety.
The dataset will enable technologists and researchers to develop more robust and accessible healthcare chatbots tailored to the unique experiences and challenges of Africa.
One such new tool is Google’s MedGemma, a large-language model (LLM) designed to process medical text and images. AfriMed-QA was used for training and evaluation purposes.
AfriMed-QA stands as the most extensive dataset that evaluates LLM capabilities across various facets of African healthcare. It contains 15,000 question-answer pairs culled from over 60 medical schools across 16 countries and covering numerous medical specialties, disease conditions, and geographical challenges.
Tobi Olatunji and Charles Nimo co-developed AfriMed-QA and co-authored a paper about the dataset that will be presented at the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) conference next week in Vienna.
Olatunji is a graduate of Georgia Tech’s Online Master of Science in Computer Science (OMSCS) program and holds a Doctor of Medicine from the College of Medicine at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. Nimo is a Ph.D. student in Tech’s School of Interactive Computing, where he is advised by School of IC professors Michael Best and Irfan Essa.
Focus on Africa
Nimo, Olatunji, and their collaborators created AfriMed-QA as a response to MedQA, a large-scale question-answer dataset that tests the medical proficiency of all major LLMs. That includes Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and Anthropic’s Claude, among others.
However, because MedQA is trained solely on the U.S. Medical License Exams, Nimo said it is not adequate to serve patients in underdeveloped African countries nor the Global South at-large.
“AfriMed-QA has the contextualized and localized understanding of African medical institutions that you don’t get from Med-QA,” Nimo said. “There are specific diseases and local challenges in our dataset that you wouldn't find in any U.S.-based dataset.”
Olatunji said one problem African users may encounter using LLMs trained on MedQA is that they may advise unfeasible treatments or unaffordable prescription drugs.
“You consider the types of drugs, diagnostics, procedures, or therapies that exist in the U.S. that are quite advanced. These treatments are much more accessible, for example in the US, and Europe,” Olatunji said. “But in Africa, they’re too expensive and many times unavailable. They may cost over $100,000, and many people have no health insurance. Why recommend such treatments to someone who can’t obtain them?”
Another problem may be that the LLM doesn’t take a medical condition seriously if it isn’t predominant in the U.S.
“We tested many of these models, for example, on how they would manage sickle-cell disease signs and symptoms, and they focused on other “more likely” causes and did not rank or consider sickle cell high enough as a possible cause,” he said. “They, for example, don’t consider sickle-cell as important as anemia and cancer because sickle-cell is less prevalent in the U.S.”
In addition to sickle-cell disease, Olatunji said some of the healthcare issues facing Africa that can be improved through AfriMed-QA include:
- HIV treatment and prevention
- Poor maternal healthcare
- Widespread malaria cases
- Physician shortage
- Clinician productivity and operational efficiency
Google Partnership
Mercy Asiedu, senior author of the AfriMed-QA paper and research scientist at Google Research, has dedicated her career to improving healthcare in Africa. Her work began as a Ph.D. student at Duke University, where she invented the Callascope, a groundbreaking non-invasive tool for gynecological examinations
With her current focus on democratizing healthcare through artificial intelligence (AI), Asiedu, who is from Ghana, helped create a research consortium to develop the dataset. The consortium consists of Georgia Tech, Google, Intron, Bio-RAMP Research Labs, the University of Cape Coast, the Federation of African Medical Students Association, and Sisonkebiotik.
Sisonkebiotik is an organization of researchers that drives healthcare initiatives to advance data science, machine learning, and AI in Africa.
Olatunji leads the Bio-RAMP Research Lab, a community of healthcare and AI researchers, and he is the founder and CEO of Intron, which develops natural-language processing technologies for African communities.
In May, Google released MedGemma, which uses both the MedQA and Afri-MedQA datasets to form a more globally accessible healthcare chatbot. MedGemma has several versions, including 4-billion and 27-billion parameter models, which support multimodal inputs that combine images and text.
“We are proud the latest medical-focused LLM from Google, MedGemma, leverages AfriMed-QA and improves performance in African contexts,” Asiedu said.
“We started by asking how we could reduce the burden on Africa’s healthcare systems. If we can get these large-language models to be as good as experts and make them more localized with geo-contextualization, then there’s the potential to task-shift to that.”
The project is supported by the Gates Foundation and PATH, a nonprofit that improves healthcare in developing countries.