How to navigate toxic lab workplaces, according to UH research

Houston voices

Just like any workplace, labs can get toxic. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

There are many types of toxic bosses. The Micromanager. The Narcissist. The Incompetent Boss. The list goes on. But labs led by toxic PIs not only make for an abysmal workplace they can actually encourage research misconduct.

According to Charles Wood, author of “When lab leaders take too much control,” there are two types of toxic labs most at risk for this type of behavior: the executive model and the competition model.

Executive model

Wood described the executive approach to lab management as one where the mentor sets expectations for trainees, often with a particular goal in mind. In its negative form, this includes specifying experimental outcomes and instructing trainees on particular experiments to achieve a desired result.

It comes as no surprise that experimenting with the answer already in mind goes against scientific principles. Spiking biological samples, manipulating instruments – all these things have been suspected in labs according to the U.S. government’s Office of Research Integrity. The first line of defense is having the investigators replicate their experiment while being closely supervised. The consequences of misconduct, if the allegations are found to be credible, can include being debarred from further federal funding and having data sequestered.

Competition model

The competition model pits graduate students or postdocs against one another. In this case, whoever gets the result first is rewarded, while the others are punished. This makes a perfect breeding ground for misconduct. Imagine if a foreign student’s citizenship status is affected by whether or not they can produce the results their PI wants them to obtain. Of the competition model, Wood said that what students and postdocs learn can be catastrophic: “competition over collaboration and conformity over creativity.” He posits that researchers graduating from the PI’s toxic lab may be influenced to drop out of science completely or go on to run their own labs in a toxic way.

A correlation between mentors and ethical decision-making

Michael D. Mumford, et al. in “Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental predictors of research integrity” (Ethics & Behavior journal) found that for first-year doctoral students, “environmental experiences (including professional leadership) exert stronger effects on ethical decision making than the climate of the work group.”

Wood also noted that, regardless of the management style, certain scientists may be more prone to cheating. However, active involvement and openness by the principal investigator can serve as a preventive measure against this.

What can you do about it?

Chris Sowers in the “Toxic Boss Syndrome: How To Recover and Get Your Mojo Back” episode of his Better Humans podcast, shared how a few toxic bosses affected his job performance, self esteem and even interpersonal relationships. His first piece of advice is to get out quickly, even if you need to take a pay cut – he says a few thousand dollars are not worth the hit to your mental and physical health.

Vetting your lab’s PI will help enormously. Does the PI have a good track record of being a fair and kind mentor?

“If your principal investigator starts to exhibit toxic behavior, address this with him or her,” said Wood. He goes on to advise that “if you find yourself in a truly toxic environment, seek guidance from a graduate coordinator, assistant dean or other authority figure who oversees the pre- or postdoctoral training programs — and ask for help in finding another mentor.”

The Big Idea

No one has time or energy to dedicate to a toxic workplace. The costs are way too high to risk manipulating data. For one, all authors on a paper will be held responsible for the misconduct– not to mention the physical and mental stress a toxic lab will invite into your life.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

From Your Site Articles
"ChatGPT, even with improved filters or as it continues to evolve, will never be able to replace the critical and creative thinking we need in these disciplines.” Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

Houston expert: Analyzing the impact of generative AI on research

houston voices

Researchers have to write extremely specific papers that require higher-order thinking — will an intuitive AI program like OpenAI’s ChatGPT be able to imitate the vocabulary, grammar and most importantly, content, that a scientist or researcher would want to publish? And should it be able to?

University of Houston’s Executive Director of the Research Integrity and Oversight (RIO) Office Kirstin Holzschuh puts it this way: “Scientists are out-of-the box thinkers – which is why they are so important to advancements in so many areas. ChatGPT, even with improved filters or as it continues to evolve, will never be able to replace the critical and creative thinking we need in these disciplines.”

“A toy, not a tool”

The Atlantic published, “ChatGPT Is Dumber Than You Think,” with a subtitle advising readers to “Treat it like a toy, not a tool.” The author, Ian Bogost, indulged in the already tired trope of asking ChatGPT to write about “ChatGPT in the style of Ian Bogost.” The unimaginative but overall passable introduction to his article was proof that, “any responses it generates are likely to be shallow and lacking in depth and insight.”

Bogost expressed qualms similar to those of Ezra Klein, the podcaster behind, “A Skeptical Take on the AI Revolution.” Klein and his guest, NYU psychology and neural science professor Gary Marcus, mostly questioned the reliability and truthfulness of the chatbot. Marcus calls the synthesizing of its databases and the “original” text it produces nothing more than “cut and paste” and “pastiche.” The algorithm used by the program has been likened to auto-completion, as well.

However, practical use cases are increasingly emerging, which blur the lines between technological novelty and professional utility. Whether writing working programming code or spitting out a rough draft of an essay, ChatGPT does have a formidable array of competencies. Even if just how competent it is remains to be seen. All this means that as researchers look for efficiencies in their work, ChatGPT and other AI tools will become increasingly appealing as they mature.

Pseudo-science and reproducibility

The Big Idea reached out to experts across the country to determine what might be the most pressing problems and what might be potential successes for research now that ChatGPT is readily accessible.

Holzschuh, stated that there are potential uses, but also potential misuses of ChatGPT in research: “AI’s usefulness in compiling research proposals or manuscripts is currently limited by the strength of its ability to differentiate true science from pseudo-science. From where does the bot pull its conclusions – peer-reviewed journals or internet ‘science’ with no basis in reproducibility?” It’s “likely a combination of both,” she says. Without clear attribution, ChatGPT is problematic as an information source.

Camille Nebeker is the Director of Research Ethics at University of California, San Diego, and a professor who specializes in human research ethics applied to emerging technologies. Nebeker agrees that because there is no way of citing the original sources that the chatbot is trained on, researchers need to be cautious about accepting the results it produces. That said, ChatGPT could help to avoid self-plagiarism, which could be a benefit to researchers. “With any use of technologies in research, whether they be chatbots or social media platforms or wearable sensors, researchers need to be aware of both the benefits and risks.”

Nebeker’s research team at UC San Diego is conducting research to examine the ethical, legal and social implications of digital health research, including studies that are using machine learning and artificial intelligence to advance human health and wellbeing.

Co-authorship

The conventional wisdom in academia is “when in doubt, cite your source.” ChatGPT even provides some language authors can use when acknowledging their use of the tool in their work: “The author generated this text in part with GPT-3, OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.” A short catchall statement in your paper will likely not pass muster.

Even when being as transparent as possible about how AI might be used in the course of research or in development of a manuscript, the question of authorship is still fraught. Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the Science, writes in Nature, that “we would not allow AI to be listed as an author on a paper we published, and use of AI-generated text without proper citation could be considered plagiarism.” Thorp went on to say that a co-author of an experiment must both consent to being a co-author and take responsibility for a study. “It’s really that second part on which the idea of giving an AI tool co-authorship really hits a roadblock,” Thorp said.

Informed consent

On NBC News, Camille Nebeker stated that she was concerned there was no informed consent given by the participants of a study that evaluated the use of a ChatGPT to support responses given to people using Koko, a mental health wellness program. ChatGPT wrote responses either in whole or in part to the participants seeking advice. “Informed consent is incredibly important for traditional research,” she said. If the company is not receiving federal money for the research, there isn’t requirement to obtain informed consent. “[Consent] is a cornerstone of ethical practices, but when you don’t have the requirement to do that, people could be involved in research without their consent, and that may compromise public trust in research.”

Nebeker went on to say that study information that is conveyed to a prospective research participant via the informed consent process may be improved with ChatGPT. For instance, understanding complex study information could be a barrier to informed consent and make voluntary participation in research more challenging. Research projects involve high-level vocabulary and comprehension, but informed consent is not valid if the participant can’t understand the risks, etc. “There is readability software, but it only rates the grade-level of the narrative, it does not rewrite any text for you,” Nebeker said. She believes that one could input an informed consent communication into ChatGPT and ask for it to be rewritten at a sixth to eighth grade level (which is the range that Institutional Review Boards prefer.)

Can it be used equitably?

Faculty from the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, like Victor Lee, are already strategizing ways for intuitive AI to be used. Says Lee, “We need the use of this technology to be ethical, equitable, and accountable.”

Stanford’s approach will involve scheduling listening sessions and other opportunities to gather expertise directly from educators as to how to strike an effective balance between the use of these innovative technologies and its academic mission.

The Big Idea

Perhaps to sum it up best, Holzschuh concluded her take on the matter with this thought: “I believe we must proceed with significant caution in any but the most basic endeavors related to research proposals and manuscripts at this point until bot filters significantly mature.”

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

Understanding the Fly America Act is important for all researchers planning government-funded travel. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

What Houston researchers should know about the Fly America Act

houston voices

Commercial aviation witnessed a transformative shift following World War II. Initially reserved for military purposes, commercial air travel began to flourish as civilians embraced its convenience. This surge in air travel highlighted the necessity for regulating the industry.

In response, the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, emerged from the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, later becoming a component of the Department of Transportation under the Department of Transportation Act in 1967.

The evolution of air travel regulation continued in 1974 with the enactment of the Fly America Act. Designed to safeguard U.S. interests in international air travel funded by the government, this act prioritizes U.S. airline carriers. This initiative serves both to support domestic airlines and promote the U.S. aviation industry on a global stage when passengers travel on federal funds.

What some might not know is this legislation can impact researchers and their organizations.

Importance for researchers

Adhering to the Fly America Act applies not only to federal government employees but also their dependents, grantees, and other travelers funded by federal resources. Even foreign researchers visiting the U.S. under federally funded grants must choose U.S. flag air carriers for their travel.

A U.S. flag air carrier should not be confused with a traditional flag carrier. These are airlines that have historically been government-owned or are otherwise closely tied to the identity of a particular country, like British Airways or Aeroméxico. U.S. flag air carriers encompass a wide range of airlines, including smaller entities like Air Wisconsin Airlines and Avelo, a new carrier based in Houston. You can find a comprehensive list of U.S. flag air carriers here.

Navigating exceptions

While the Fly America Act carries strict guidelines, exceptions do exist. Instances where no U.S. flag air carriers serve the destination or where such carriers would extend the trip by over 24 hours warrant special consideration. In these cases, maintaining meticulous records is essential in order to validate the use of non-U.S. airlines. A list of exceptions can be found here.

Open Skies Agreements introduce another facet to the Fly America Act. These agreements between the U.S. Government and other countries enable travelers, including researchers, to use foreign air carriers for government-funded international travel. Several countries, including those in the European Union, Australia, Switzerland, and Japan, maintain Open Skies Agreements. Flights on British Airways are no longer permitted under an Open Skies Agreement due to the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. Proper documentation is essential when claiming a Fly America Act exception, even if covered under an Open Skies Agreement. Detailed travel itineraries, internal agency forms, and evidence of a Fly America exception must be included in travel receipts.

The Big Idea

Compliance with the Fly America Act ensures your travel expenses are reimbursable on government grants. It’s important to remember that cost and convenience are not exceptions to the act. A thorough understanding of Fly America Act’s provisions and exceptions is a must before you book your next flight.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

Absolutism has no bearing on the scientific process. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

Why absolutism has no place in research, according to University of Houston

Houston voices

Science, like politics, can elicit polarizing opinions. But with an ever-expanding body of knowledge — and the especially dizzying flurry of findings during the pandemic — is it fair to say that views on science are becoming more extreme?

Measuring the polarization

“A standard way of measuring polarization in the U.S. is asking Democrats and Republicans how warmly they feel toward members of their own group and members of their outgroup on a feeling thermometer from 0 to 100,” said Jessica Gottlieb, professor at the UH Hobby School of Public Affairs. “The difference in ingroup-outgroup warmth is then considered a measure of polarization. This has been measured by the American National Elections Studies systematically over the past several decades, and indeed the level of affective polarization has been increasing in the U.S.”

“Absolutism is the culprit.”

In an article in Foreign Affairs entitled, “How Extremism Went Mainstream,” the author notes that “the tools that authorities use to combat extremists become less useful when the line between the fringe and the center starts to blur.”

Science has traditionally been one such tool. However, this extremism — where everything is black and white — in politics, has made its unfortunate way into academia. John Lienhard is a professor at the University of Houston and host of “Engines of Our Ingenuity,” a national radio program which has been telling stories of how creativity has shaped our culture since 1988. According to Lienhard, extremism — as seen within the scientific enterprise — goes by a different name.

“Absolutism is the culprit – the need on the part of so many of us to know The Right Answer. The absolutists in the world will glom onto whatever vehicle suits them – religion, politics, education, and ultimately, science itself,” said Lienhard. In other words, good scientists amend and revise, while “the absolutist finds the honest practice of science hateful,” he says, “because science is a way of life where everything lies open to question.”

A series of approximations

In an article entitled, “If You Say Science Is Right You’re Wrong,” professor Naomi Oreskes introduces this quote by Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

“Even though a scientific theory is in a sense a social consensus, it is unlike any other sort of consensus in that it is culture-free and permanent.”

Well, no. Even a modest familiarity with the history of science offers many examples of matters that scientists thought they had resolved, only to discover that they needed to be reconsidered.

Some familiar examples are Earth as the center of the universe, the absolute nature of time and space, the stability of continents and the cause of infectious disease.

Absolutism in science is dangerous. Good scientists know how important it is to ask probing questions. In his book entitled, Science versus Absolutism: Science Approaches Truth by a Series of Approximations, the chemist T. Swann Harding asks the question: “What are scientific laws?” He goes on to answer:

“Most people appear to regard them as singularly exact and unalterable things … to violate them brings swift retribution. They are unchanging and eternal in character. Yet the so-called laws of science are really rules pieced together by man on a basis of much observation and experiment.”

In the past, so much of science was just plain wrong – until another researcher came around and amended the original belief (think Galileo). How are our modern times any different? There are still many situations where scientific thought has needed to be amended. Even as recently as the COVID crisis, researchers were revising their thoughts about the spread and contagiousness of the disease.

Allowing for dissent

In a Scientific American blog, Matt Nolan writes that “Dissent in Science Is Essential–up to a Point.” In it, he said, “It is the public who pay the price when marginalized science informs policy. History reminds us this is unsafe territory.” However, Lienhard adds that Einstein set limits on the validity of Newton’s laws just as nuclear fission provided an amendment to the conservation of energy law. There is always a new question to formalize where experimentation is being conducted.

Referred to as the “file drawer effect,” another predicament occurs when a researcher does not get the answer they were expecting, and therefore, decides to not publish the negative findings. Every answer is meaningful. And sometimes a negative answer — or no answer — is an answer.

Dissent, and perhaps a certain measure of disappointment, is a critical part of scientific inquiry.

The Big Idea

Science can be thought of as the best we know to the degree we understand a given problem at a given place and time. Absolutism has no bearing on the scientific process and in some cases actively obscures and colors that understanding. And that’s not black and white at all; that’s about as gray as it gets.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

If there are fewer grant proposals, does that mean innovation has slowed? UH gets to the bottom of the question. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

University of Houston: What a drop in NSF proposals means for the country's rate of innovation

houston voices

A 17 percent drop in proposals over the past decade to the National Science Foundation may be a mixed blessing.

A consistently rising budget – and this is in billions of dollars – is the preferred method of keeping the number of funded proposals ever higher. But a dip in the number of proposals submitted in the first place can have a similar effect of increasing the number of funded proposals, since the pool of submissions is much smaller.

In an article for Science Magazine, author Jeffrey Mervis poses the question: Has there been a decline in grant-worthy ideas? In NSF’s biology sector, Mervis notes that “demand has tumbled by 50 percent over the decade and the chances of winning a grant have doubled, from 18 percent in 2011 to 36 percent in 2020.” NSF’s leadership suggests two possible reasons for this phenomenon.

Eliminating fixed deadlines

“Dear Colleague” letters went out to numerous directorates within the NSF notifying PIs that fixed deadlines for small projects ($500,000 and less) would be taken out of the equation. For instance, the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering’s letter read: “in order to allow principal investigators (PIs) more flexibility and to better facilitate interdisciplinary research across disciplines” deadlines would be eliminated. The letter goes on to state that by eliminating fixed deadlines, PIs will be free to think more creatively and collaboratively – without the added stress of a deadline.

Wouldn’t less stress mean more applications? This doesn’t seem to be the case. In one instance, according to another article in Science, proposals dropped when the program ceased annual deadlines and replaced them with rolling deadlines.

Reducing stress for grant reviewers

That article goes on to say that these changes alleviate the strain on the grant reviewers without lowering standards. James Olds, assistant director of the Directorate for Biological Sciences, anticipated that the NSF program managers would get somewhat of a break, and that the new policy would relieve university administrators who process the applications from being overwhelmed.

Other factors at play

“It is highly unlikely there was one specific reason for the decrease,” said David Schultz, assistant vice president for Sponsored Projects in the Office of Contracts and Grants at the University of Houston, “but rather multiple factors contributing over time. One potential cause is that many major research institutions are diversifying their funding sources away from NSF and into other federal agencies more aligned with their strategic areas of research interest, such as NIH, DOD, and DOE. The NIH has seen an 11 percent increase in proposals over the same period, from 49,592 in 2011 to 55,038 in 2020.”

Tenure

“Another component is the documented decrease in the number of tenured faculty across the nation. Generally tenured faculty are more research-focused, as their ability to obtain externally funded research is a major criterion for promotion and tenure,” said Schultz. “While this may lead to fewer proposals, it does encourage new tenure track faculty to focus more efforts on the higher likelihood of being awarded an NSF grant.”

The Big Idea

Some people work better and more efficiently when presented with a deadline. Could that be the reason fewer proposals are being turned in? In his article, Mervis, deliberates over whether the number of proposals means that the nation is innovating more slowly than before. But how could that be?

The National Science Board, NSF’s presidentially appointed oversight committee, is trying to get to the bottom of the issue so as to mitigate it. Olds stands by the decision to remove deadlines, pointing out that it should be the strength of the proposal not the threat of a deadline which motivates the research project.

Schultz sees a silver lining. “With fewer proposals being submitted to the NSF, the shift creates an opportunity for smaller, emerging universities to increase their proposal submission and success rates.”

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

Every situation is unique and deserves a one-of-the-kind data management plan, not a one-size-fits-all solution. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

Houston research: Why you need a data management plan

Houston voices

Why do you need a data management plan? It mitigates error, increases research integrity and allows your research to be replicated – despite the “replication crisis” that the research enterprise has been wrestling with for some time.

Error

There are many horror stories of researchers losing their data. You can just plain lose your laptop or an external hard drive. Sometimes they are confiscated if you are traveling to another country — and you may not get them back. Some errors are more nuanced. For instance, a COVID-19 repository of contact-traced individuals was missing 16,000 results because Excel can’t exceed 1 million lines per spreadsheet.

Do you think a hard drive is the best repository? Keep in mind that 20 percent of hard drives fail within the first four years. Some researchers merely email their data back and forth and feel like it is “secure” in their inbox.

The human and machine error margins are wide. Continually backing up your results, while good practice, can’t ensure that you won’t lose invaluable research material.

Repositories

According to Reid Boehm, Ph.D., Research Data Management Librarian at the University of Houston Libraries, your best bet is to utilize research data repositories. “The systems and the administrators are focused on file integrity and preservation actions to mitigate loss and they often employ specific metadata fields and documentation with the content,” Boehm says of the repositories. “They usually provide a digital object identifier or other unique ID for a persistent record and access point to these data. It’s just so much less time and worry.”

Integrity

Losing data or being hacked can challenge data integrity. Data breaches do not only compromise research integrity, they can also be extremely expensive! According to Security Intelligence, the global average cost of a data breach in a 2019 study was $3.92 million. That is a 1.5 percent increase from the previous year’s study.

Sample size — how large or small a study was — is another example of how data integrity can affect a study. Retraction Watch removes approximately 1,500 articles annually from prestigious journals for “sloppy science.” One of the main reasons the papers end up being retracted is that the sample size was too small to be a representative group.

Replication

Another metric for measuring data integrity is whether or not the experiment can be replicated. The ability to recreate an experiment is paramount to the scientific enterprise. In a Nature article entitled, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, “73 percent said that they think that at least half of the papers can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.”

However, according to Kelsey Piper at Vox, “an attempt to replicate studies from top journals Nature and Science found that 13 of the 21 results looked at could be reproduced.”

That's so meta

The archivist Jason Scott said, “Metadata is a love note to the future.” Learning how to keep data about data is a critical part of reproducing an experiment.

“While this will be always be determined by a combination of project specifics and disciplinary considerations, descriptive metadata should include as much information about the process as possible,” said Boehm. Details of workflows, any standard operating procedures and parameters of measurement, clear definitions of variables, code and software specifications and versions, and many other signifiers ensure the data will be of use to colleagues in the future.

In other words, making data accessible, useable and reproducible is of the utmost importance. You make reproducing experiments that much easier if you are doing a good job of capturing metadata in a consistent way.

The Big Idea

A data management plan includes storage, curation, archiving and dissemination of research data. Your university’s digital librarian is an invaluable resource. They can answer other tricky questions as well: such as, who does data belong to? And, when a post-doctoral student in your lab leaves the institution, can s/he take their data with them? Every situation is unique and deserves a one-of-the-kind data management plan, not a one-size-fits-all solution.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Here are the 10 most-read Houston innovation headlines of 2025

Year in Review

Editor's note: As we ring in the new year, we're looking back at the stories that defined Houston innovation in 2025. The 10 most-read InnovationMap stories of the year highlight diversity, mentorship, and the startups that are shaping the future.

Houston named No. 2 most diverse major U.S. city for 2025

Houston is the No. 2 most diverse large city and the No. 5 most diverse city overall in America. Sky Noir Photography by Bill Dickinson/Getty Images

Houston has always been a diverse place, embracing people of many different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. The city earned recognition in WalletHub's rankings of the most diverse large American cities for 2025. The 2025 edition was the final installment in WalletHub's diversity study series, which annually compared 501 U.S. cities across 13 metrics in five categories that encompass "diversity" across socioeconomic, cultural, economic, household, and religious factors. Houston nearly topped the list of large U.S. cities, coming in at No. 2, and it ranked No. 5 in the overall national comparison.

What to know about the new emission inspection to register your car in Texas

An inspection is no longer required to renew registration, but an emission evaluation is. Photo by Tim Leviston/Getty Images

As of January 1, 2025, Texas vehicle owners no longer needed to obtain a safety inspection prior to vehicle registration. House Bill 3297, which passed during the 88th Legislature in 2023, eliminated the safety inspection program for non-commercial vehicles. But under the new law, the $7.50 fee that drivers had to pay as a safety inspection fee has not gone away. It now appears on your registration notice under a new name: "Inspection Program Replacement Fee."

Houston humanoid robotics startup secures millions in pre-seed funding

A concept design rendering of Persona AI's humanoid robot. Co-founder and CEO Nic Radford expects customers to take delivery of its first robot in 18 to 24 months. Rendering courtesy Persona AI.

In February 2025, a Houston-based startup developing AI-powered humanoid robots for manufacturers and other businesses raised more than $10 million in pre-seed funding — less than a year after its founding. Nic Radford, co-founder and CEO of Persona AI, declined to disclose the amount raised, however, he told InnovationMap that it was an eight-figure total.

2 Houston universities declared among world’s best in 2026 rankings

Rice is the No. 2 best school in Texas, and No. 119 in the world. Photo via Rice University

Two Houston universities were in a class of their own, earning top spots on a global ranking of the world's best universities. Rice University and University of Houston were among the top 1,200 schools included in the QS World University Rankings 2026. Ten more schools across Texas made the list.

Announcing the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards finalists

Meet the finalists for the Houston Innovation Awards, taking place Nov. 13. Graphic via Gow Media

In October 2025, InnovationMap was proud to reveal the finalists for the fifth-annual Houston Innovation Awards. This year's finalists were determined by an esteemed panel of judges, comprised of past award winners and InnovationMap editorial leadership, and they represented the best of Houston innovation this year.

Meet 6 mentors who are helping the Houston startup scene flourish

The 2025 Mentor of the Year will be announced on Nov. 13. Courtesy photos

Few founders launch successful startups alone — experienced and insightful mentors often play an integral role in helping business and founders thrive. The Houston startup community is home to many mentors who are willing to lend an ear and share advice to help entrepreneurs meet their goals. The Mentor of the Year category in our 2025 Houston Innovation Awards honored an individual like this, who dedicates their time and expertise to guide and support budding entrepreneurs. The award was presented by Houston City College Northwest.

Houston Nobel Prize nominee earns latest award for public health research

Dr. Peter Hotez with Dr. Maria Elena Bottazzi. Photo courtesy of TMC

Houston vaccine scientist Dr. Peter Hotez added one more prize to his shelf. Hotez — dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and professor of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, co-director of the Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development (CVD) and Texas Children’s Hospital Endowed Chair of Tropical Pediatrics — is no stranger to impressive laurels. In 2022, he was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his low-cost COVID vaccine. His big win of 2025 was this year’s Hill Prize, awarded by the Texas Academy of Medicine, Engineering, Science and Technology (TAMEST).

Apple announces 250,000-square-foot Houston factory as part of $500B plan

Apple's Houston factory will open in 2026. Getty Images

As part of a more than $500 billion, four-year investment across the U.S., Silicon Valley tech giant Apple announced plans to build a factory in Houston that will produce servers for its data centers to support the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) business. In a February 24 announcement, Apple said the company and its partners will build the 250,000-square-foot factory. The plant, set to open in 2026, will employ thousands of people.

10 Houston billionaires make Forbes' list of richest Americans in 2025

Pictured: Nancy and Richard Kinder, the richest Houstonian, according to the Forbes 400. Photo by Michelle Watson/Catchlight Group

America's wealthiest billionaires were $1.2 trillion richer in 2025, bringing their collective worth to a staggering $6.6 trillion. And Houston's own Richard Kinder became the richest billionaire in the city, according to the annual Forbes 400. The Kinder Morgan chairman was named the 11th richest Texas resident and ranked as the 108th richest American. He dethroned Tilman Fertitta to claim the title as the wealthiest Houstonian.

2 Houston suburbs named among 10 best places to live by U.S. News & World Report

Pearland is the No. 2 best place to live in the U.S. Photo via pearlandedc.com

The Houston suburbs of Pearland and League City landed among the top 10 best places to live in 2025, according to U.S. News & World Report. For the 2025-2026 "Best Places to Live in the U.S." rankings, U.S. News expanded its coverage from 150 to 250 U.S. cities, and updated its methodology to examine each city based on five livability indexes: Quality of life, value, desirability, job market, and net migration. Pearland ranked No. 3 nationwide, earning a 7.0 score alongside No. 1-winning Johns Creek, Georgia and No. 2 winner Carmel, Indiana.

10 promising Houston startups that made headlines in 2025

year in review

Editor's note: As we reflect on 2025, we're looking back at the stories and startups that made waves in Houston's innovation scene. These 10 startups reached memorable milestones, won prestigious awards, found creative solutions, and disrupted their industries.

Persona AI: Houston humanoid robotics startup inks new deal to deploy its rugged robots

A concept design rendering of Persona AI's humanoid robot. The company is expanding at the Ion and plans to deliver prototype humanoids by the end of 2026 for complex shipyard welding tasks. Rendering courtesy Persona AI.

Persona AI is building modularized humanoid robots that aim to deliver continuous, round-the-clock productivity and skilled labor for "dull, dirty, dangerous, and declining" jobs. The company was founded by Houston entrepreneur Nicolaus Radford, who serves as CEO, along with CTO Jerry Pratt and COO Jide Akinyode. It raised $42 million in pre-seed funding this year and is developing its prototype of a robot-welder for Hyundai's shipbuilding division, which it plans to unveil in 2026. The company won in the Deep Tech Business category at this year's Houston Innovation Awards. Continue reading.

Rheom Materials: Houston startup unveils its innovative leather alternative at the rodeo

Rheom Materials presented its bio-based alternative, Shorai, a 93 percent bio-based leather, at the rodeo and plans to scale it up this year. Photos courtesy Rheom Materials

Rheom Materials presented its scalable, bio-based alternative known as Shorai, a 93 percent bio-based leather, through two custom, western-inspired outfits that showed off cowboy flair through a sustainable lens at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo earlier this year.

Next up, the company said it aimed to scale production of Shorai, the Japanese word for “future,” at a competitive price point, while also reducing its carbon footprint by 80 percent when compared to synthetic leather. The company also made a large-scale production partnership with a thermoplastic extrusion and lamination company, Bixby International, this year. Continue reading.

Koda Health: Houston digital health platform Koda closes $7 million funding round

Tatiana Fofanova and Dr. Desh Mohan, founders of Koda Health, which recently closed a $7 million series A. Photo courtesy Koda Health.

Houston-based digital advance care planning company Koda Health closed an oversubscribed $7 million series A funding round this year. The round, led by Evidenced, with participation from Mudita Venture Partners, Techstars and Texas Medical Center, will allow the company to scale operations and expand engineering, clinical strategy and customer success. Koda Health, saw major growth this year by integrating its end-of-life care planning platform with Dallas-based Guidehealth in April and with Epic Systems in July. The company won the Health Tech Business category at the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards. Continue reading.

Veloci Running: Student-led startup runs away with prestigious prize at Rice competition

The H. Albert Napier Rice Launch Challenge awarded $100,000 in equity-free funding to student-led startups, including first-place finisher Veloci Running. Photo courtesy of Rice University.

Veloci Running took home the first-place prize and $50,000 at the annual Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship's H. Albert Napier Rice Launch Challenge. The company was founded by Tyler Strothman, a former track and field athlete and senior at Rice, majoring in sport management. Inspired by the foot pain he suffered due to the narrow toe boxes in his running shoes, Strothman decided to create a naturally shaped shoe designed to relieve lower leg tightness and absorb impact. Additional prize winners included SteerBio, Kinnections, Labshare and several others. Continue reading.

Square Robot Inc.: Houston robotics co. unveils new robot that can handle extreme temperatures

The new robot eliminates the need for humans to enter dangerous and toxic environments. Photo courtesy of Square Robot

Houston- and Boston-based Square Robot Inc.'s newest tank inspection robot became commercially available and certified to operate at extreme temperatures this fall. The new robot, known as the SR-3HT, can operate from 14°F to 131°F, representing a broader temperature range than previous models in the company's portfolio. According to the company, its previous temperature range reached 32°F to 104°F. The company also announced a partnership with downstream and midstream energy giant Marathon Petroleum Corp. (NYSE: MPC) last month. Continue reading.

Bot Auto: Houston autonomous trucking co. completes first test run without human intervention

Bot Auto completed its first test run without human assistance in Houston. Photo courtesy Bot Auto.

Houston-based Bot Auto, an autonomous trucking company, completed its first test run without human assistance earlier this year. Bot Auto conducted the test in Houston. The transportation-as-a-service startup added that this milestone “serves as a validation benchmark, demonstrating the maturity and safety of Bot Auto’s autonomy stack and test protocols.” This summer, founder Xiaodi Hou told the Front Lines podcast that Bot Auto had raised more than $45 million. Continue reading.

Nomad: Screen-free hiking app developed in Houston earns 'Best of the Best' award

NOMAD aims to help hikers stay in the moment while still utilizing technology. Photo courtesy UH.

An AI-powered, screen-free hiking system developed by Varshini Chouthri, a recent industrial design graduate from the University of Houston, received this year's Red Dot’s “Best of the Best” award, which recognizes the top innovative designs around the world. Known as NOMAD, the system aims to help users stay in the moment while still utilizing technology. Continue reading.

Little Place Labs, Helix Earth, Tempest Droneworx: Houston startups win big at SXSW 2025 pitch competition

Two Houston startups won the SXSW Pitch showcase in their respective categories. Photo via Getty Images

Houston had a strong showing at the SXSW Pitch showcase in Austin this year, with several local startups claiming top prizes in their respective categories.

Little Place Labs, a Houston space data startup, won the Security, GovTech & Space competition. Clean-tech company Helix Earth, which spun out of Rice University and was incubated at Greentown Labs, won in the Smart Cities, Transportation & Sustainability contest. Tempest Droneworx, a Houston-based company that provides real-time intelligence collected through drones, robots and sensors, won the Best Speed Pitch award. Continue reading.

6 Houstonians named to prestigious national group of inventors

top honor

Six Houston scientists and innovation leaders have been named to the National Academy of Inventors’ newest class of fellows. The award is the highest professional distinction awarded to academic inventors by the NAI.

The 2025 class is made up of 169 fellows who hold more than 5,300 U.S. patents, according to the organization. The group hails from 127 institutions across 40 U.S. states.

The Houston-based inventors are leading fields from AI to chemistry to cancer research.

“NAI Fellows are a driving force within the innovation ecosystem, and their contributions across scientific disciplines are shaping the future of our world,” Paul R. Sanberg, president of the National Academy of Inventors, said in a news release. “We are thrilled to welcome this year’s class of Fellows to the Academy. They are truly an impressive cohort, and we look forward to honoring them at our 15th Annual Conference in Los Angeles next year.”

The 2025 list of Houston-based fellows includes:

  • Vineet Gupta, Vice President for Innovation, Technology Development and Transfer at the University of Texas Medical Branch
  • Eva Harth, chemistry professor at the University of Houston
  • Dr. Raghu Kalluri, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Cancer Biology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  • Sanjoy Paul, Executive Director of Rice Nexus and AI Houston and Associate Vice President for Technology Development at Rice University
  • Dr. Jochen Reiser, President of the University of Texas Medical Branch and CEO of UTMB Health System
  • Todd Rosengart, Professor and Chair of the Department of Surgery at Baylor College of Medicine

"It is a great honor to be named a Fellow of the NAI. It is deeply gratifying to know that the work my students and I do — the daily push, often in small steps — is seen and recognized," Harth added in a news release from UH.

The 2025 fellows will be honored and presented with their medals by a senior official of the United States Patent and Trademark Office at the NAI Annual Conference this summer in Los Angeles.

View All Listings