Forecasting retail sales just got smarter, thanks to Google searches

houston voices

Search trends predict future retail revenue up to three quarters in advance. Photo via Pexels

Imagine being able to predict the future of retail sales — not with months-old economic reports, but with real-time digital breadcrumbs left behind by consumers. Thanks to new research from K. Ramesh (Rice Business) and Gary Lind (University of Pittsburgh), that future is already here.

Key findings

  • Search trends predict future retail revenue — up to three quarters ahead.
  • Markets don’t fully price in search-based insights, especially before earnings announcements.
  • Trading strategies using search data outperform traditional asset-pricing models by 2–3%.
  • Analysts often underuse this data, resulting in predictable forecast errors.
  • At the macro level, search trends closely track — and often lead — official retail sales and GDP.

Their study shows that Google search trends are powerful predictors of consumer demand, capable of forecasting U.S. retail sales up to three quarters in advance. The implications span industries and audiences — from Wall Street traders to Main Street retailers, and from data-driven CFOs to curious business students.

A smarter, faster crystal ball for retail demand

Retail sales drive nearly 70% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), making them one of the most important indicators of economic health. Yet traditional forecasting relies heavily on backward-looking data and broad economic indicators. Ramesh and Lind’s work offers a leap forward: search data from Google Trends — publicly available and easy to use — can offer a faster, more precise signal of where sales are headed.

“If you want to understand consumer demand,” says Ramesh, the Herbert S. Autrey Professor of Accounting at Rice Business, “look at what people are searching for — not just what companies report after the fact. These digital footprints can tell us where revenue is going, often before the market catches up.”

This low-cost approach stands in stark contrast to expensive alternatives, such as satellite images of parking lots, in-store foot traffic from mobile data, or retail scanner feeds — tools often reserved for hedge funds and large institutional investors. Google Trends offers a scalable, accessible option for anyone seeking insight into consumer behavior.

Why this matters for investors and analysts

The researchers analyzed search patterns for nearly 200 publicly traded U.S. retail companies between 2004 and 2019. They found that firms with rising search volumes tend to report higher revenues — often well before analysts or investors react.

In fact, investment strategies built around these trends earned 2–3% higher returns than traditional models would predict. And most of these gains were concentrated around earnings announcements — a sign that markets were slow to recognize what search data had already revealed.

The advantage is even more striking for companies that fly under Wall Street’s radar. For firms with limited analyst coverage, the predictive power of search data on stock performance was more than 80% stronger.

A new tool for analysts — if they’ll use it

Despite the clear signal in the data, the study finds that analysts routinely fail to incorporate search-based insights into their forecasts. That gap translates into missed revenue predictions and market inefficiencies — which sophisticated investors can exploit.

“The search data are out there,” says Lind, a Rice Business Ph.D. ’19 graduate now on faculty at Pitt Business. “They’re public, powerful, and free. Analysts who ignore them are missing an opportunity.”

The impact of this research extends well beyond equity markets. By aggregating Google search data across the retail sector, the authors found strong alignment with U.S. Census retail sales figures and GDP trends. In other words, these digital signals reflect not just firm-level interest, but macroeconomic momentum.

A data wake-up call

This makes search trends a potentially valuable early-warning system for policymakers, central banks, and anyone responsible for interpreting the economic landscape. During volatile or uncertain periods, such tools could offer precious foresight into shifting consumer behavior.

In a digital era where consumers research before they shop — whether online or in-store — it’s no surprise that their Google queries leave valuable clues. What’s surprising is how often businesses, investors, and even economists still overlook them, Ramesh says. “Search data is a goldmine. And it's just sitting there, waiting to be used.”

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom.

Lind and Ramesh, “Using Internet Search Data to Predict Aggregate Retail Sales and Enhance Firm-Level Revenue Expectations,” Contemporary Accounting Research (April 2025): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13043.

Nurturing what is known as “promotion focus” can help managers spot fresh ideas.
Photo by Diego PH on Unsplash

Houston researchers: Here's what it takes to spot a great new idea

houston voices

Having a “promotion focus” really does create a mental lens through which new ideas are more visible.

Key findings:

  • New ideas can be crucially important to businesses, driving innovation and preventing stagnation.
  • Recognizing those ideas, though, isn’t always easy.
  • Nurturing what is known as “promotion focus” can help managers spot fresh ideas.

Whenever the late surgeon Michael DeBakey opened a human chest, he drew on a lifetime of resources: the conviction that heart surgery could and should be vastly improved, the skill to venture beyond medicine’s known horizons and the vision to recognize new ideas in everyone around him, no matter how little formal training they had.

Appreciating new ideas is the heartbeat of business as well as medicine. But innovation is surprisingly hard to recognize. In a pioneering 2017 article, Rice Business Professor Jing Zhou and her colleagues published their findings on the first-ever study of the traits and environments that allow leaders to recognize new ideas.

Recent decades have produced a surge of research looking at how and when employees generate fresh ideas. But almost nothing has been written on another crucial part of workplace creativity: a leader’s ability to appreciate new thinking when she sees it.

Novelty, after all, is what drives company differentiation and competitiveness. Work that springs from new concepts sparks more investigation than work based on worn, already established thought. Companies invest millions to recruit and pay star creatives.

Yet not every leader can spot a fresh idea, and not every workplace brings out that kind of discernment. In four separate studies, Zhou and her coauthors examined exactly what it takes to see a glittering new idea wherever it appears. Their work sets the stage for an entirely new field of future research.

First, though, the team had to define their key terms. “Novelty recognition” is the ability to spot a new idea when someone else presents it. “Promotion focus,” previous research has shown, is a comfort level with new experiences that evokes feelings of adventure and excitement. “Prevention focus” is the opposite trait: the tendency to associate new ideas with danger, and respond to them with caution.

But does having “promotion focus” as opposed to “prevention focus” color the ability to see novelty? To find out, Zhou’s team came up with an ingenious test, artificially inducing these two perspectives through a series of exercises. First, they told 92 undergraduate participants that they would be asked to perform a set of unrelated tasks. Then the subjects guided a fictional mouse through two pencil and paper maze exercises.

While one exercise showed a piece of cheese awaiting the mouse at the end of the maze (the promise of a reward), the other maze depicted a menacing owl nearby (motivation to flee).

Once the participants had traced their way through the mazes with pencils, they were asked to rate the novelty of 33 pictures — nine drawings of space aliens and 24 unrelated images. The students who were prepped to feel an adventurous promotion focus by seeking a reward were much better at spotting the new or different details among these images than the students who’d been cued to have a prevention focus by fleeing a threat.

The conclusion: a promotion focus really does create a mental lens through which new ideas are more visible.

Zhou’s team followed this study with three additional studies, including one that surveyed 44 human resource managers from a variety of companies. For this study, independent coders rated the mission statements of each firm, assessing their cultures as “innovative” or “not innovative.” The HR managers then evaluated a set of written practices — three that had been in use for years, and three new ones that relied on recent technology. The managers from the innovative companies were much better at rating the new HR practices for novelty and creativity. To recognize novelty, in other words, both interior and external environments make a difference.

The implications of the research are groundbreaking. The first ever done on this subject, it opens up a completely new research field with profound questions. Can promotion focus be created? How much of this trait is genetic, and how much based on natural temperament, culture, environment and life experience? Should promotion focus be cultivated in education? If so, what would be the impact? After all, there are important uses for prevention focus, such as corporate security and compliance. Meanwhile, how can workplaces be organized to bring out the best in both kinds of focus?

Leaders eager to put Zhou’s findings to use right away, meanwhile, might look to the real-world model of Michael DeBakey. Practice viewing new ideas as adventures, seek workplaces that actively push innovation and, above all, cultivate the view that every coworker, high or low, is a potential source of glittering new ideas.

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom.

Jing Zhou is the Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of Management and Psychology in Organizational Behavior at the Jones Graduate School of Business of Rice University. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Song, J., & Wu, J. (2017). "Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity." Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2): 180-202.

ChatGPT enhances creativity and problem-solving in ways that traditional search tools can’t match. Photo courtesy of Rice Business Wisdom

Houston researchers find AI provides fresh perspectives to everyday problems

houston voices

We all know ChatGPT has forever changed how we do business. It’s modified how we access information, compose content and analyze data. It’s revolutionized the future of work and education. And it has transformed the way we interact with technology.

Now, thanks to a recent paper by Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung (Rice Business), we also know it’s making us better problem solvers.

Key findings:

  • A recent study finds ChatGPT-generated ideas are deemed an average of 15% more creative than traditional methods.
  • ChatGPT enhances “incremental,” but not “radical,” innovation.
  • ChatGPT boosts creativity in tasks normally associated with human traits, like empathy-based challenges.

According to the study published in Nature Human Behavior by Chung and Byung Cheol Lee (University of Houston), ChatGPT enhances our problem-solving abilities, especially with everyday challenges. Whether coming up with gifts for your teenage niece or pondering what to do with an old tennis racquet, ChatGPT has a unique ability to generate creative ideas.

“Creative problem-solving often requires connecting different concepts in a cohesive way,” Chung says. “ChatGPT excels at this because it pulls from a vast range of data, enabling it to generate new combinations of ideas.”

Can ChatGPT Really Make Us More Creative?

Chung and Lee sought to answer a central question: Can ChatGPT help people think more creatively than traditional search engines? To answer this, they conducted five experiments.

Each experiment asked participants to generate ideas for solving challenges, such as how to repurpose household items. Depending on the experiment, participants were divided into one of two or three groups: one that used ChatGPT; one that used conventional web search tools (e.g., Google); and one that used no external tool at all. The resulting ideas were evaluated by both laypeople and business experts based on two critical aspects of creativity: originality and appropriateness (i.e., practicality).

In one standout experiment, participants were asked to come up with an idea for a dining table that doesn’t exist on the market. The ChatGPT group came up with suggestions like a “rotating table,” a “floating table” and even “a table that adjusts its height based on the dining experience.” According to both judges and experts, the ChatGPT group consistently delivered the most creative solutions.

On average, across all experiments, ideas generated with ChatGPT were rated 15% more creative than those produced by traditional methods. This was true even when tasks were specifically designed to require empathy or involved multiple constraints — tasks we typically assume humans might be better at performing.

However, Chung and Lee also found a caveat: While ChatGPT excels at generating ideas that are “incrementally” new — i.e., building on existing concepts — it struggles to produce “radically” new ideas that break from established patterns. “ChatGPT is an incredible tool for tweaking and improving existing ideas, but when it comes to disruptive innovation, humans still hold the upper hand,” Chung notes.

Charting the Next Steps in AI and Creativity

Chung and Lee’s paper opens the door to many exciting avenues for future study. For example, researchers could explore whether ChatGPT’s creative abilities extend to more complex, high-stakes problem-solving environments. Could AI be harnessed to develop groundbreaking solutions in fields like medicine, engineering or social policy? Understanding the nuances of the collaboration between humans and AI could shape the future of education, work and even (as many people fear) art.

For professionals in creative fields like product design or marketing, the study holds especially significant implications. The ability to rapidly generate fresh ideas can be a game-changer in industries where staying ahead of trends is vital. For now, take a second before you throw out that old tennis racquet. Ask ChatGPT for inspiration — you’ll be surprised at how many ideas it comes up with, and how quickly.

-----

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Based on research by Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung and Byung Cheol Lee (University of Houston). Lee and Chung, “An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity.” Nature Human Behavior (2024): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1.


Grocery purchase data can accurately predict credit risk for individuals without traditional credit scores, potentially broadening the pool of qualified loan applicants. Photo via Unsplash

Houston researchers find alternate data for loan qualification

houston voices

Millions of consumers who apply for a loan to buy a house or car or start a business can’t qualify — even if they’re likely to pay it back. That’s because many lack a key piece of financial information: a credit score.

The problem isn’t just isolated to emerging economies. Exclusion from the financial system is a major issue in the United States, too, where some 45 million adults may be denied access to loans because they don’t have a credit history and are “credit invisible.”

To improve access to loans and peoples’ economic mobility, lenders have started looking into alternative data sources to assess a loan applicant’s risk of defaulting. These include bank account transactions and on-time rental, utility and mobile phone payments.

A new article by Rice Business assistant professor of marketing Jung Youn Lee and colleagues from Notre Dame and Northwestern identifies an even more widespread data source that could broaden the pool of qualified applicants: grocery store receipts.

As metrics for predicting credit risk, the researchers found that the types of food, drinks and other products consumers buy, and how they buy them, are just as good as a traditional credit score.

“There could be privacy concerns when you think about it in practice,” Lee says, “so the consumer should really have the option and be empowered to do it.” One approach could be to let consumers opt in to a lender looking at their grocery data as a second chance at approval rather than automatically enrolling them and offering an opt-out.

To arrive at their findings, the researchers analyzed grocery transaction data from a multinational conglomerate headquartered in a Middle Eastern country that owns a credit card issuer and a large-scale supermarket chain. Many people in the country are unbanked. They merged the supermarket’s loyalty card data and issuer’s credit card spending and payment history numbers, resulting in data on 30,089 consumers from January 2017 to June 2019. About half had a credit score, 81% always paid their credit card bills on time, 12% missed payments periodically, and 7% defaulted.

The researchers first created a model to establish a connection between grocery purchasing behavior and credit risk. They found that people who bought healthy foods like fresh milk, yogurt and fruits and vegetables were more likely to pay their bills on time, while shoppers who purchased cigarettes, energy drinks and canned meat tended to miss payments. This held true for “observationally equivalent” individuals — those with similar income, occupation, employment status and number of dependents. In other words, when two people look demographically identical, the study still finds that they have different credit risks.

People’s grocery-buying behaviors play a factor in their likelihood to pay their bills on time, too. For example, cardholders who consistently paid their credit card bill on time were more likely to shop on the same day of the week, spend similar amounts across months and buy the same brands and product categories.

The researchers then built two credit-scoring predictive algorithms to simulate a lender’s decision of whether or not to approve a credit card applicant. One excludes grocery data inputs, and the other includes them (in addition to standard data). Incorporating grocery data into their decision-making process improved risk assessment of an applicant by a factor of 3.11% to 7.66%.

Furthermore, the lender in the simulation experienced a 1.46% profit increase when the researchers implemented a two-stage decision-making process — first, screening applicants using only standard data, then adding grocery data as an additional layer.

One caveat to these findings, Lee and her colleagues warn, is that the benefit of grocery data falls sharply as traditional credit scores or relationship-specific credit histories become available. This suggests the data could be most helpful for consumers new to credit.

Overall, however, this could be a win-win scenario for both consumers and lenders. “People excluded from the traditional credit system gain access to loans,” Lee says, “and lenders become more profitable by approving more creditworthy people.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom based on research by Rice University's Jung Youn Lee, Joonhyuk Yang (Notre Dame) and Eric Anderson (Northwestern). “Using Grocery Data for Credit Decisions.” Forthcoming in Management Science. 2024: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.02364.


Using biased statistics in hiring makes it more difficult to predict job performance. Photo via Getty Images

Houston research finds race, gender ineffective predictors of employee productivity

houston voices

The Latin phrase scientia potentia est translates to “knowledge is power.”

In the world of business, there’s a school of thought that takes “knowledge is power” to an extreme. It’s called statistical discrimination theory. This framework suggests that companies should use all available information to make decisions and maximize profits, including the group characteristics of potential hires — such as race and gender — that correlate with (but do not cause) productivity.

Statistical discrimination theory suggests that if there's a choice between equally qualified candidates — let's say, a man and a woman — the hiring manager should use gender-based statistics to the company's benefit. If there's data showing that male employees typically have larger networks and more access to professional development opportunities, the hiring manager should select the male candidate, believing such information points to a more productive employee.

Recent research suggests otherwise.

A peer-reviewed study out of Rice Business and Michigan Ross undercuts the premise of statistical discrimination theory. According to researchers Diana Jue-Rajasingh (Rice Business), Felipe A. Csaszar (Michigan) and Michael Jensen (Michigan), hiring outcomes actually improve when decision-makers ignore statistics that correlate employee productivity with characteristics like race and gender.

Here's Why “Less is More”

Statistical discrimination theory assumes a correlation between individual productivity and group characteristics (e.g., race and gender). But Jue-Rajasingh and her colleagues highlight three factors that undercut that assumption:

  • Environmental uncertainty
  • Biased interpretations of productivity
  • Decision-maker inconsistency

This third factor plays the biggest role in the researchers' model. “For statistical discrimination theory to work,” Jue-Rajasingh says, “it must assume that managers are infallible and decision-making conditions are optimal.”

Indeed, when accounting for uncertainty, inconsistency and interpretive bias, the researchers found that using information about group characteristics actually reduces the accuracy of job performance predictions.

That’s because the more information you include in the decision-making process, the more complex that process becomes. Complex processes make it more difficult to navigate uncertain environments and create more space for managers to make mistakes. It seems counterintuitive, but when firms use less information and keep their processes simple, they are more accurate in predicting the productivity of their hires.

The less-is-more strategy is known as a “heuristic.” Heuristics are simple, efficient rules or mental shortcuts that help decision-makers navigate complex environments and make judgments more quickly and with less information. In the context of this study, published by Organization Science, the heuristic approach suggests that by focusing on fewer, more relevant cues, managers can make better hiring decisions.

Two Types of Information "Cues"

The “less is more” heuristic works better than statistical discrimination theory largely because decision makers are inconsistent in how they weight the available information. To factor for inconsistency, Jue-Rajasingh and her colleagues created a model that reflects the “noise” of external factors, such as a decision maker’s mood or the ambiguity of certain information.

The model breaks the decision-making process into two main components: the environment and the decision maker.

In the environment component, there are two types of information, or “cues,” about job candidates. First, there’s the unobservable, causal cue (e.g., programming ability), which directly relates to job performance. Second, there's the observable, discriminatory cue (e.g., race or gender), which doesn't affect how well someone can do the job but, because of how society has historically worked, might statistically seem connected to job skills.

Even if the decision maker knows they shouldn't rely too much on information like race or gender, they might still use it to predict productivity. But job descriptions change, contexts are unstable, and people don’t consistently consider all variables. Between the inconsistency of decision-makers and the environmental noise created by discriminatory cues, it’s ultimately counterproductive to consider this information.

The Bottom Line

Jue-Rajasingh and her colleagues find that avoiding gender- and race-based statistics improves the accuracy of job performance predictions. The fewer discriminatory cues decision-makers rely on, the less likely their process will lead to errors.

That said: With the advent of AI, it could become easier to justify statistical discrimination theory. The element of human inconsistency would be removed from the equation. But because AI is often rooted in biased data, its use in hiring must be carefully examined to prevent worsening inequity.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom based on research by Rice University's Diana Jue-Rajasingh, Felipe A. Csaszar (Michigan) and Michael Jensen (Michigan). For more, see Csaszar, et al. “When Less is More: How Statistical Discrimination Can Decrease Predictive Accuracy.”

As corporate debt markets continue to grow in importance, it will become crucial for investors and regulators to understand the nuanced factors influencing their liquidity. Photo via Getty Images

Rice research on bond and stock market differences, earnings variations

houston voices

At the end of every quarter, publicly traded companies announce their profits and losses in an earnings report. These updates provide insight into a company’s performance and, in theory, give investors and shareholders clarity on whether to buy, sell or hold. If earnings are good, the stock price may soar. If they’re down, the price might plunge.

However, the implications for the stock price may not be immediately clear to all investors. In the face of this uncertainty, sellers will ask for high prices, and buyers will offer low ones, creating a significant “bid-ask spread.” When this happens, it becomes more costly to trade, and the stock becomes less liquid.

This is a well-documented effect on equity stock markets. However, according to research by Stefan Huber (Rice Business), Chongho Kim (Seoul National University) and Edward M. Watts (Yale SOM), the corporate bond market responds differently to earnings news. This is because bond markets differ from stock markets in a significant way.

Stocks v. Bonds: What Happens When Earnings Are Announced?

Equities are usually traded on centralized exchanges (e.g., New York Stock Exchange). The exchange automatically queues up buyers and sellers according to the quote they’ve entered. Trades are executed electronically, and the parties involved are typically anonymous. A prospective buyer might purchase Microsoft shares from someone drawing down their 401(k) — or they could be buying from Bill Gates himself.

Corporate bond markets work differently. They are “over-the-counter” (OTC) markets, meaning a buyer or seller needs to find a counterparty to trade with. This involves getting quotes from and negotiating with potential counterparties. This is an inherent friction in bond trading that results in much higher costs of trading in the form of wider bid-ask spreads.

Here’s what Huber and his colleagues learned from the research: Earnings announcements prompt many investors to trade. And on OTC markets, potential buyers and sellers become easier to find and negotiate with.

A Stronger Bargaining Position for Bonds

According to Huber, “When earnings information comes out, a lot of people want to trade. In bond markets, that makes it much easier to find someone to trade with. The more options you have to trade, the stronger your bargaining position becomes, and the lower your trading costs go.”

He compares the process to shopping in a market with a flexible approach to pricing.

“Let's say you're at a farmers market and you want to buy an apple,” Huber says. “If there is only one seller, you buy the apple from that person. They can ask for whatever price they want. But if there are multiple sellers, you can ask around, and there is potential to get a better price. The price you get depends on the number of options you have in trading partners.”

What’s at Stake?

Although bonds receive less attention than equities, the stakes are high. There is about $10 trillion in outstanding corporate debt in the U.S., and more than $34 billion in average daily trading volume.

A detailed record of bond trades is available from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which requires that trades be reported via their Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE).

The study from Huber and co-authors uses an enhanced version of TRACE to examine trades executed between 2002 and 2020. The team analyzed the thirty-day periods before and after earnings announcements to gather data about volume, bid-ask spreads and other measures of liquidity.

They find that, like on the stock market, there are more investors and broker-dealers trading bonds around earnings announcements. However, unlike on the stock market, transaction costs for bonds decrease by 6 to 7 percent in the form of bid-ask spreads.

What Sets This Research Apart?

“Taking a purely information asymmetry-based view would predict that what happens to stock liquidity would also happen to bonds,” Huber says. “A piece of information drops, and some people are better able to work with it, so others price protect, and bid-ask spreads and the cost of trading go up.”

“But if you consider the search and bargaining frictions in bond markets, you get a more nuanced picture. While information asymmetry increases, like it does on stock markets, the information prompts more investors into bond trading, which makes it easier to find counterparties and get better transaction prices. Consequently, bid-ask spreads go down. This search and bargaining friction does not really exist on equities exchanges. But we cannot ignore it in OTC markets.”

As corporate debt markets continue to grow in importance, it will become crucial for investors and regulators to understand the nuanced factors influencing their liquidity. This study provides a solid foundation for future research.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom. For more, see “Earnings News and Over-the-Counter Markets.” Journal of Accounting Research 62.2 (2024): 701-35.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

5 incubators and accelerators fueling the growth of Houston startups

meet the finalists

Houston is home to numerous accelerators and incubators that support founders in pushing their innovative startups and technologies forward.

As part of our 2025 Houston Innovation Awards, the new Incubator/Accelerator of the Year category honors a local incubator or accelerator that is championing and fueling the growth of Houston startups.

Five incubators and accelerators have been named finalists for the 2025 award. They support startups ranging from hard-tech companies to digital health startups.

Read more about these organizations below. Then join us at the Houston Innovation Awards on Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled.

Get your tickets now on sale for this exclusive event celebrating Houston Innovation.

Activate

Hard tech incubator Activate supports scientists in "the outset of their entrepreneurial journey." The Houston hub was introduced last year, and joins others in Boston, New York, and Berkley, California—where Activate is headquartered. It named its second Houston cohort this summer.

This year, the incubator grew to include its largest number of concurrent supported fellows, with 88 companies currently being supported nationally. In total, Activate has supported 296 fellows who have created 236 companies. Those companies have raised over $4 billion in follow-on funding, according to Activate. In Houston, it has supported several Innovation Awards finalists, including Solidec, Bairitone Health and Deep Anchor Solutions. It is led locally by Houston Managing Director Jeremy Pitts.

EnergyTech Nexus

Cleantech startup hub EnergyTech Nexus' mission is to accelerate the energy transition by connecting founders, investors and industrial stakeholders and helping to develop transformative companies, known as "thunderlizards."

The hub was founded in 2023 by CEO Jason Ethier, Juliana Garaizar and Nada Ahmed. It has supported startups including Capwell Services, Resollant, Syzygy Plasmonics, Hertha Metals, EarthEn Energy and Solidec—many of which are current or past Innovation Awards finalists. This year Energy Tech Nexus launched its COPILOT Accelerator, powered by Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator (IN²) at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). COPILOT partners with Browning the Green Space, a nonprofit that promotes diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the clean energy and climatech sectors. Energy Tech Nexus also launched its Liftoff fundraising program, its Investor Program, and a "strategic ecosystem partnership" with Greentown Labs.

Greentown Labs

Climatetech incubator Greentown Labs offers its community resources and a network to climate and energy innovation startups looking to grow. The collaborative community offers members state-of-the-art prototyping labs, business resources and access to investors and corporate partners. The co-located incubator was first launched in Boston in 2011 before opening in Houston in 2021.

Greentown has seen major changes and activity this year. In February, Greentown announced Georgina Campbell Flatter as its new CEO, along with a new Board of Directors. In July, it announced Lawson Gow as its Head of Houston, a "dedicated role to champion the success of Greentown Houston’s startups and lead Greentown’s next chapter of impact in the region," according to Greentown. It has since announced numerous new partnerships, including those with Energy Tech Nexus, Los Angeles-based software development firm Nominal, to launch the new Industrial Center of Excellence; and Houston-based Shoreless, to launch an AI lab onsite. Greentown Houston has supported 175 startups since its launch in 2021, with 45 joining in the last two years. Those startups include the likes of Hertha Metals, RepAir Carbon, Solidec, Eclipse Energy (formerly GoldH2) and many others.

Healthtech Accelerator (TMCi)

The Healthtech Accelerator, formerly TMCx, focuses on clinical partnerships to improve healthcare delivery and outcomes. Emerging digital health and medical device startups that join the accelerator are connected with a network of TMC hospitals and seasoned advisors that will prepare them for clinical validation, funding and deployment.

The Healthtech Accelerator is part of Texas Medical Center Innovation, which also offers the TMCi Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics. The Healthtech Accelerator named its 19th, and latest, cohort of 11 companies last month.

Impact Hub Houston

Impact Hub Houston supports early-stage ventures at various stages of development through innovative programs that address pressing societal issues. The nonprofit organization supports social impact startups through mentorship, connections and training opportunities.

There are more than 110 Impact Hubs globally with 24,000-plus members spanning 69 countries, making it one of the world’s largest communities for accelerating entrepreneurial solutions toward the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

---

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston City College Northwest, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.



Rice University launches  engineering-led brain science and health institute

brain research

Rice University has announced the creation of a new interdisciplinary center known as the Rice Brain Institute (RBI).

The new hub will aim to use engineering, natural sciences and social sciences to research the brain and reduce the burden of neurodegenerative, neurodevelopmental and mental health disorders.

“The Rice Brain Institute reflects Rice’s strength in collaboration without boundaries,” Rachel Kimbro, dean of the School of Social Sciences, said in a news release. “Our researchers are not only advancing fundamental science but they’re also ensuring that knowledge reaches society in ways that promote human flourishing.”

RBI researchers will work in thematic clusters focusing on neurodegeneration, mental health, brain injury and neurodevelopment. The clusters will work toward goals such as significantly improving key brain health outcomes, reducing mortality and mental health disorders and improving quality of life for patients living with brain injuries and neurodevelopmental disorders, according to Rice.

The institute will focus on “engineering-driven innovation,” rather than traditional neuroscience, to design tools that can measure, model and modulate brain activity based around Rice’s expertise in soft robotics, neuroimaging, data science and artificial intelligence—making it unique among peer organizations, according to Rice.

Additionally, RBI will be structured around three collaborative Rice “pillars”:

  • The Neuroengineering Initiative, launched in 2018, brings together neuroscience, engineering, and related fields experts
  • The Neuroscience Initiative, a new initiative that brings together cell biologists, neurobiologists, biochemists, chemists and physicists to explore fundamental mechanisms of the brain and nervous system
  • The Brain and Society Initiative, also a new initiative, considers brain research within the broader social and policy landscape

Rice’s Neuroengineering Initiative has already garnered more than $78 million in research funding, according to Rice, and has established major partnerships, like the Rice-Houston Methodist Center for Neural Systems Restoration.

“Rice is uniquely equipped to bridge and connect scientific understanding of the brain and behavior sciences with the technologies and policies that shape our world,” Amy Dittmar, the Howard R. Hughes Provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, added in the news release. “By uniting faculty in neuroengineering, neuroscience and psychological sciences, this interdisciplinary hub embodies the kind of bold, nimble collaboration that allows Rice to turn discovery into societal impact to save lives and enhance human flourishing.”

The formation of the RBI coincides with recent support of the Dementia Prevention Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT), which landed voter approval earlier this week and aims to make Texas the center for dementia research via brain-health tech. According to the World Economic Forum, brain disorders and mental health disorders cost the global economy an estimated $5 trillion per year and could be as high as $16 trillion by 2030.

“Few areas of research have as direct and profound an impact on human well-being as brain health,” Rice President Reginald DesRoches added in the news release. “As rates of Alzheimer’s, dementia and other neurological diseases rise in our country and around the world, universities have a responsibility to lead the discovery of solutions that preserve memory, movement and quality of life. We all know someone who has been affected by a brain-related health issue, so this research is personal to all of us.”

Texas voters OK $3 billion for new dementia research institute

state funding

Texas voters on Nov. 4 overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that provides $3 billion in state funding over a 10-year span for the newly established Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT).

Thanks to the passage of Proposition 14, Texas now boasts the country’s largest state-funded initiative dedicated to dementia research and prevention, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Up to $300 million in grants will be awarded during the 10-year funding period.

“This is a transformative moment for Texas and for the fight against Alzheimer’s and all other dementia,” said Joanne Pike, president and CEO of the Alzheimer’s Association. “Texans have chosen to invest in hope, innovation, and solutions for the millions of families affected by these devastating diseases. With the passage of Proposition 14, Texas is now poised to lead the nation in dementia research and prevention.”

The association says DPRIT will drive scientific breakthroughs, attract top-notch dementia researchers to Texas, and generate thousands of jobs statewide.

An estimated 460,000 Texans are living with dementia, the association says, and more than one million caregivers support them.

DPRIT is modeled after the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT). Since 2008, the state agency has awarded nearly $4 billion in grants to research organizations for cancer-related academic research, prevention programs, and product development.

An analysis by the McKinsey Health Institute found that investing in brain health initiatives like DPRIT could boost Texas’ GDP by $260 billion. Much of that GDP bump could benefit the Houston area, which is home to dementia-focused organizations such as UTHealth Houston Neurosciences, Baylor College of Medicine’s Center for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston’s Collaborative Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders Program, and the Houston Methodist Research Institute’s John M. O’Quinn Foundation Neurodegenerative Disorders Laboratory.

The Greater Houston Partnership says DPRIT holds the potential “to elevate Texas — particularly Houston — as a hub for brain health research.”

State Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican, is one of DPRIT’s champions. She sponsored legislation this year to create the institute and ask Texas voters to approve the $3 billion in funding.

“By establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, we are positioning our state to lead the charge against one of the most devastating health challenges of our time,” Huffman said in May. “With $3 billion in funding over the next decade, we will drive critical research, develop new strategies for prevention and treatment, and support our health care community.”

View All Listings