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

Meet 6 mentors who are helping the Houston startup scene flourish

meet the finalists

Few founders launch successful startups alone — experienced and insightful mentors often play an integral role in helping the business and its 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 will honor an individual like this, who dedicates their time and expertise to guide and support budding entrepreneurs. The award is presented by Houston City College Northwest.

Below, meet the six finalists for the 2025 award. They support promising startups in the medical tech, digital health, clean energy and hardware sectors.

Then, join us at the Houston Innovation Awards this Thursday, Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled. The event is just days away, so secure your seats now.

Anil Shetty, InformAI

Anil Shetty serves as president and chief medical officer for biotech company Ferronova and chief innovation officer for InformAI. He's mentored numerous medical device and digital health companies at seed or Series A, including Pathex, Neurostasis, Vivifi Medical and many others. He mentors through organizations like Capital Factory, TMC Biodesign, UT Venture Mentoring, UTMB Innovation and Rice's Global Medical Innovation program.

"Being a mentor means empowering early-stage innovators to shape, test, and refine their ideas with clarity and purpose," Shetty says. "I’m driven by the opportunity to help them think strategically and pivot early before resources are wasted. At this critical stage, most founders lack the financial means to bring on seasoned experts and often haven’t yet gained real-world exposure. Mentorship allows me to fill that gap, offering guidance that accelerates their learning curve and increases the chances of meaningful, sustainable impact."

Jason Ethier, EnergyTech Nexus

Jason Ethier is the founding partner of EnergyTech Nexus, through which he has mentored numerous startups and Innovation Awards finalists, including Geokiln, Energy AI Solutions, Capwell Services and Corrolytics. He founded Dynamo Micropower in 2011 and served as its president and CEO. He later co-founded Greentown Labs in Massachusetts and helped bring the accelerator to Houston.

"Being a mentor means using my experience to help founders see a clearer path to success. I’ve spent years navigating the ups and downs of building companies, struggling with cash flow, and making all the mistakes; mentoring gives me the chance to share those lessons and show entrepreneurs the shortcuts I wish I’d known earlier," Ethier says. "At Energytech Nexus, that role goes beyond just helping individual founders — it’s about creating a flywheel effect for Houston’s entire innovation ecosystem."

Jeremy Pitts, Activate Houston

Jeremy Pitts serves as managing director of Activate Houston, which launched in Houston last year. He was one of the founders of Greentown Labs in the Boston area and served in a leadership role for the organization between 2011 and 2015. Through Activate, he has mentored numerous impactful startups and Innovation Awards finalists, including Solidec, Coflux Purification, Bairitone Health, Newfound Materials, Deep Anchor Solutions and others.

"Being a mentor to me is very much about supporting the person in whatever they need. Oftentimes that means supporting the business—providing guidance and advice, feedback, introductions, etc," But just as important is recognizing the person and helping them with whatever challenges they are going through ... Sometimes they need a hype man to tell them how awesome they are and that they can go do whatever hard thing they need to do. Sometimes they just need an empathetic listener who can relate to how hard these things are. Being there for the person and supporting them on their journey is key to my mentorship style."

Joe Alapat, Liongard

Joe Alapat founded and serves as chief strategy officer at Houston software company Liongard and chief information officer at Empact IT, which he also owns. He mentors through Founder Fridays Houston Group, Software Day by Mercury Fund, SUPERGirls SHINE Foundation, Cup of Joey and at the Ion. He's worked with founders of FlowCare, STEAM OnDemand, Lokum and many other early stage startups.

"Being a mentor to me means unleashing an individual’s 10x—their purpose, their ikigai (a Japanese concept that speaks to a person’s reason for being)," Alapat says. "Mentoring founders in the Houston community of early stage, high-growth startups is an honor for me. I get to live vicariously through a founder’s vision of the future. Once they show me that compelling vision, I’m drawn to bring the future forward with them so the vision becomes reality with a sense of urgency."

Neal Dikeman, Energy Transition Ventures

Neal Dikeman serves as partner at early stage venture fund Energy Transition Ventures, executive in residence at Greentown Labs, and offices in and supports Rice Nexus at the Ion. He mentors startups, like Geokiln, personally. He also mentored Helix Earth through Greentown Labs. The company went on to win in the Smart Cities, Transportation & Sustainability contest at SXSW earlier this year. Dikeman has helped launch several successful startups himself, most recently serving on the board of directors for Resilient Power Systems, which was acquired by Eaton Corp for $150 million.

"Founders have to find their own path, and most founders need a safe space where they can discuss hard truths outside of being 'on' in sales mode with their team or board or investors, to let them be able to work on their business, not just in it," Dikeman says.

Nisha Desai, Intention

Nisha Desai serves as CEO of investment firm Intention and mentors through Greentown Labs, TEX-E, Open Minds, the Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator, Avatar Innovations and The Greenhouse. She currently works with founders from Solidec, Deep Anchor Solutions, CLS Wind and several other local startups, several of which have been nominated for Innovation Awards this year. She's served a board member for Greentown Labs since 2021.

"When I first started mentoring, I viewed my role as someone who was supposed to prevent the founder from making bad decisions. Now, I see my role as a mentor as enabling the founder to develop their own decision-making capability," Desai says. "Sometimes that means giving them the space to make decisions that might be good, that might be bad, but that they can be accountable for. At the end of the day, being a mentor is like being granted a place on the founder's leadership development journey, and it's a privilege I'm grateful for."

---

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, Houston Methodist developing soft 'sleep cap' for brain health research

Researchers and scientists at Rice University and Houston Methodist are developing a “sleep cap” that aims to protect the brain against dementia and other similar diseases by measuring and improving deep sleep.

The project is a collaboration between Rice University engineering professors Daniel Preston, Vanessa Sanchez and Behnaam Aazhang; and Houston Methodist neurologist Dr. Timea Hodics and Dr. Gavin Britz, director of the Houston Methodist Neurological Institute and chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery.

According to Rice, deep sleep is essential for clearing waste products from the brain and nightly “cleaning cycles” help remove toxic proteins. These toxic proteins, like amyloids, can accumulate during the day and are linked to Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological issues.

Aazhang, director of the Rice Neuroengineering Initiative, and his team are building a system that not only tracks the brain’s clearing process but can also stimulate it, improving natural mechanisms that protect against neurodegeneration.

Earlier proof-of-concept versions of the caps successfully demonstrated the promise of this approach; however, they were rigid and uncomfortable for sleep.

Preston and Sanchez will work to transform the design of the cap into a soft, lightweight, textile-based version to make sleep easier, while also allowing the caps to be customizable and tailored for each patient.

“One of the areas of expertise we have here at Rice is designing wearable devices from soft and flexible materials,” Preston, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering, said in a news release. “We’ve already shown this concept works in rigid device prototypes. Now we’re building a soft, breathable cap that people can comfortably wear while they sleep.”

Additionally, the research team is pursuing ways to adapt their technology to measure neuroinflammation and stimulate the brain’s natural plasticity. Neuroinflammation, or swelling in the brain, can be caused by injury, stroke, disease or lifestyle factors and is increasingly recognized as a driver of neurodegeneration, according to Rice.

“Our brain has an incredible ability to rewire itself,” Aazhang added in the release. “If we can harness that through technology, we can open new doors for treating not just dementia but also traumatic brain injury, stroke, Parkinson’s disease and more.”

The project represents Rice’s broader commitment to brain health research and its support for the Dementia Prevention Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT), which passed voter approval last week. The university also recently launched its Rice Brain Institute.

As part of the project, Houston Methodist will provide access to clinicians and patients for early trials, which include studies on patients who have suffered traumatic brain injury and stroke.

“We have entered an era in neuroscience that will result in transformational cures in diseases of the brain and spinal cord,” Britz said in the release. “DPRIT could make Texas the hub of these discoveries.”

Autonomous truck company with Houston routes goes public

on a roll

Kodiak Robotics, a provider of AI-powered autonomous vehicle technology, has gone public through a SPAC merger and has rebranded as Kodiak AI. The company operates trucking routes to and from Houston, which has served as a launchpad for the business.

Privately held Kodiak, founded in 2018, merged with a special purpose acquisition company — publicly held Ares Acquisition Corp. II — to form Kodiak AI, whose stock now trades on the Nasdaq market.

In September, Mountain View, California-based Kodiak and New York City-based Ares disclosed a $145 million PIPE (private investment in public equity) investment from institutional investors to support the business combo. Since announcing the SPAC deal, more than $220 million has been raised for the new Kodiak.

“We believe these additional investments underscore our investors’ confidence in the value proposition of Kodiak’s safe and commercially deployed autonomous technology,” Don Burnette, founder and CEO of Kodiak, said in a news release.

“We look forward to leading the advancement of the commercial trucking and public sector industries,” he added, “and delivering on the exciting value creation opportunities ahead to the benefit of customers and shareholders.”

Last December, Kodiak debuted a facility near George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Airport for loading and loading driverless trucks. Transportation and logistics company Ryder operates the “truckport” for Ryder.

The facility serves freight routes to and from Houston, Dallas and Oklahoma City. Kodiak’s trucks currently operate with or without drivers. Kodiak’s inaugural route launched in 2024 between Houston and Dallas.

One of the companies using Kodiak’s technology is Austin-based Atlas Energy Solutions, which owns and operates four driverless trucks equipped with Kodiak’s driver-as-a-service technology. The trucks pick up fracking sand from Atlas’ Dune Express, a 42-mile conveyor system that carries sand from Atlas’ mine to sites near customers’ oil wells in the Permian Basin.

Altogether, Atlas has ordered 100 trucks that will run on Kodiak’s autonomous technology in an effort to automate Atlas’ supply chain.

View All Listings