Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Southeastern Legal Foundation Welcomes Amicus Support for Massapequa School Board Free Speech Lawsuit
ROSWELL, Georgia, Sept. 26 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation welcomes amicus support for Massapequa School Board free speech lawsuit
[September 25, 2026] Today, four organizations and one New York school board member filed an amicus brief (https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/docLib/2026-09-25-The-Buckeye-Institute-Amicus-Brief-in-Wachter-v-James.pdf) supporting SLF's lawsuit on behalf of two school board members against New York Attorney General Leticia James over her threat to remove members of the Massapequa school ... Show Full Article ROSWELL, Georgia, Sept. 26 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Southeastern Legal Foundation welcomes amicus support for Massapequa School Board free speech lawsuit [September 25, 2026] Today, four organizations and one New York school board member filed an amicus brief (https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/docLib/2026-09-25-The-Buckeye-Institute-Amicus-Brief-in-Wachter-v-James.pdf) supporting SLF's lawsuit on behalf of two school board members against New York Attorney General Leticia James over her threat to remove members of the Massapequa schoolboard if they publicly spoke - or allowed public discussions at school board meetings - about transgender students using the locker rooms of their opposite biological sex. The brief was filed by Buckeye Institute, Defense of Freedom Institute, Manhattan Institute, Center for American Liberty, and Kate DelliCarpini, President of the Cold Spring Harbor Central School District's Board of Education.
SLF filed the lawsuit (https://slfliberty.org/slf-sues-new-york-ag-letitia-james-in-federal-court-for-threatening-school-board-members-with-removal-if-they-allow-debate-about-trans-athletes-in-k-12-schools/) last year on behalf of Kerry Wachter, the Massapequa school board president. Ms. Wachter joined SLF in the fight against AG James over her guidance letter which threatened the free speech of school board members. James threatened the removal of members if they used the wrong pronouns of a trans person or allowed students or parents to publicly speak on their discomfort with using the bathroom or locker rooms with trans students.
SLF President Kim Hermann said, "We cannot thank the Buckeye Institute and all other organizations who signed onto this amicus brief enough. This is a huge showing of support for this case which aims to restore the freedom of students, parents, and school board members to speak out publicly about any of their concerns regarding transgender issues. School board meetings should be a safe space and instead Leticia James has attempted to shape them to fit her own woke ideas."
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/southeastern-legal-foundation-welcomes-amicus-support-for-massapequa-school-board-free-speech-lawsuit/
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation welcomes amicus support for Massapequa School Board free speech lawsuit
[September 25, 2026] Today, four organizations and one New York school board member filed an amicus brief (https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/docLib/2026-09-25-The-Buckeye-Institute-Amicus-Brief-in-Wachter-v-James.pdf) supporting SLF's lawsuit on behalf of two school board members against New York Attorney General Leticia James over her threat to remove members of the Massapequa school ... Show Full Article ROSWELL, Georgia, Sept. 26 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Southeastern Legal Foundation welcomes amicus support for Massapequa School Board free speech lawsuit [September 25, 2026] Today, four organizations and one New York school board member filed an amicus brief (https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/docLib/2026-09-25-The-Buckeye-Institute-Amicus-Brief-in-Wachter-v-James.pdf) supporting SLF's lawsuit on behalf of two school board members against New York Attorney General Leticia James over her threat to remove members of the Massapequa schoolboard if they publicly spoke - or allowed public discussions at school board meetings - about transgender students using the locker rooms of their opposite biological sex. The brief was filed by Buckeye Institute, Defense of Freedom Institute, Manhattan Institute, Center for American Liberty, and Kate DelliCarpini, President of the Cold Spring Harbor Central School District's Board of Education.
SLF filed the lawsuit (https://slfliberty.org/slf-sues-new-york-ag-letitia-james-in-federal-court-for-threatening-school-board-members-with-removal-if-they-allow-debate-about-trans-athletes-in-k-12-schools/) last year on behalf of Kerry Wachter, the Massapequa school board president. Ms. Wachter joined SLF in the fight against AG James over her guidance letter which threatened the free speech of school board members. James threatened the removal of members if they used the wrong pronouns of a trans person or allowed students or parents to publicly speak on their discomfort with using the bathroom or locker rooms with trans students.
SLF President Kim Hermann said, "We cannot thank the Buckeye Institute and all other organizations who signed onto this amicus brief enough. This is a huge showing of support for this case which aims to restore the freedom of students, parents, and school board members to speak out publicly about any of their concerns regarding transgender issues. School board meetings should be a safe space and instead Leticia James has attempted to shape them to fit her own woke ideas."
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/southeastern-legal-foundation-welcomes-amicus-support-for-massapequa-school-board-free-speech-lawsuit/
Reason Foundation: Don't Blame Harm Reduction for the Overdose Crisis
LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 26 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Don't blame harm reduction for the overdose crisis
A closer look at Seattle, Burlington, and Vancouver challenges the claim that harm reduction caused their overdose crises.
Layal Bou Harfouch
Drug Policy Analyst
September 25, 2026
-
In a recent essay in The Atlantic, staff writer Michael Powell argued that some American and Canadian cities have allowed harm reduction to grow from a limited public-health strategy into an ideology, one that tolerates public drug use and disorder while failing to stem ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 26 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Don't blame harm reduction for the overdose crisis A closer look at Seattle, Burlington, and Vancouver challenges the claim that harm reduction caused their overdose crises. Layal Bou Harfouch Drug Policy Analyst September 25, 2026 - In a recent essay in The Atlantic, staff writer Michael Powell argued that some American and Canadian cities have allowed harm reduction to grow from a limited public-health strategy into an ideology, one that tolerates public drug use and disorder while failing to stemoverdose deaths. Powell points to Seattle, Burlington, Vt., and Vancouver, among other places, and argues that their experiences show the negative consequences of placing too much emphasis on the autonomy of people who use drugs and too little on treatment, enforcement, and the interests of surrounding communities.
The problems Powell observes deserve attention. Open-air drug markets, discarded syringes, theft, public drug use, and neighborhoods overwhelmed by visible addiction should not be dismissed as the unavoidable price of compassionate drug policy. But establishing that these problems exist in cities that practice harm reduction is different from establishing that harm-reduction policies caused them. Powell frequently groups together very different policies, from syringe services and supervised consumption to safer supply, decriminalization, and decisions about policing, and then evaluates them against broad citywide outcomes. A more useful question is whether the evidence supports the specific causal claims he makes about each policy and place.
Harm reduction is not one uniform policy. Naloxone distribution, sterile syringe programs, drug-checking for contaminants, supervised consumption sites, and prescribed alternatives to the illicit drug supply all work in different ways and address different risks. Each should be assessed on its own terms, including when the evidence points to tradeoffs or unintended effects.
The conditions Powell describes should concern anyone interested in sensible drug policy. In Burlington, a city of roughly 45,000 people, 585 drug overdoses were recorded in 2024, 28 of them fatal. Powell argues that cities have placed too much emphasis on accommodating drug use and should instead restore enforcement against public drug use and dealing while putting greater pressure and resources toward treatment, including mandated treatment in some cases.
One of Powell's central arguments is that overdose deaths rose sharply in cities that embraced strong harm-reduction policies. That claim deserves closer examination in the places he highlights.
In Burlington, the recent trend already complicates the picture. Powell notes that Vermont recorded 170 overdose deaths in 2025, a 37 percent decline from the state's 2022 peak. Burlington's experience with harm reduction is also more limited than Powell's framing might suggest. The city approved an overdose prevention center only in 2024, meaning the facility Powell criticizes had not yet opened when many of the overdose and public-disorder problems described in his article occurred. Harm-reduction services existed before then, but the timing makes it difficult to attribute the city's earlier deterioration to the supervised-consumption policy that features prominently in his critique.
Seattle offers a different test because harm-reduction services were already well-established there. Powell points to 7,089 overdose deaths in King County between 2016 and 2025 as evidence of the severity of the crisis. But that total obscures a significant reversal within the period he cites. King County's overdose mortality rate more than tripled between 2018 and 2023, as fentanyl became pervasive in the local drug supply, then fell 32 percent between 2023 and 2025. Harm-reduction efforts continued during that decline, including widespread naloxone distribution and other overdose-prevention services. That does not establish that those policies caused the decline. But the rise and subsequent fall in deaths while harm reduction remained in place make the mortality trend considerably harder to attribute to the policies themselves.
Vancouver provides the longest test of Powell's argument. North America's first sanctioned supervised injection site opened there in 2003, and Powell acknowledges research finding fewer overdose deaths and infectious diseases associated with the program. Yet, he contrasts those findings with the dramatic rise in overdose deaths across the rest of British Columbia (a Canadian province geographically larger than the state of Texas) over the following two decades. Those are different levels of analysis. Evidence that a supervised consumption site reduces deaths among people who use it can coexist with rising population-level mortality driven by a rapidly changing illicit drug market. The relevant question is whether the intervention reduced the harms it was designed to address, not whether it single-handedly reversed a regional overdose crisis.
If harm-reduction policies themselves are driving higher overdose mortality, we should expect the same pattern elsewhere. But we don't see that. New York City provides one useful counterexample. The city opened the nation's first publicly recognized overdose prevention centers in November 2021 as overdose deaths were climbing. Deaths continued to rise the following year, increasing 12 percent from 2021 to 2022, before declining slightly in 2023 for the first time since 2018. That decline accelerated considerably in 2024, when overdose deaths fell 28 percent, from 3,056 to 2,192, the city's first substantial decrease after nearly a decade of increases. The centers operated throughout this period as the city continued investing in syringe exchange services, overdose prevention, treatment, and other harm-reduction programs. The timeline does not establish that harm reduction caused the decline. But it does show that overdose deaths can fall substantially while harm-reduction policies remain in place, further weakening the argument that the presence of those policies explains citywide overdose trends.
The spread of illicit fentanyl makes that distinction even more important. Fentanyl reached different parts of the country at different times, rapidly changing the risk of overdose as it entered local drug supplies. A 2024 JAMA Network Open study of Oregon illustrates how easily that shift can be mistaken for the effect of a policy. Researchers initially observed an increase in overdose deaths following the implementation of Measure 110, which decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs. After accounting for the timing of fentanyl's spread into Oregon, however, they found no association between decriminalization and overdose mortality.
Another problem with evaluating harm reduction this broadly is that the term encompasses policies that work in very different ways. Among harm-reduction interventions, providing sterile syringes to reduce transmission of HIV and hepatitis C serves a different purpose than operating a supervised consumption site to prevent fatal overdoses or prescribing pharmaceutical opioids through safer-supply programs. Each should be evaluated based on its own objective evidence base.
* * *
Chart: Harm-reduction interventions serve different purposes
Policies grouped under the term "harm reduction" use different approaches and target different risks associated with drug use.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Harm Reduction Coalition; Health Canada
* * *
For syringe service programs, the evidence is particularly strong. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these programs are associated with an estimated 50 percent reduction in HIV and hepatitis C incidence. Nearly three decades of research also show that comprehensive syringe service programs do not increase illegal drug use or crime. In addition to providing sterile injection equipment, many offer infectious-disease testing, vaccination, and connections to medical care and substance use treatment.
Evidence that overdose prevention centers reduce deaths across an entire city is less settled. These facilities provide a supervised setting where trained staff can intervene when an overdose occurs, while also reducing risks associated with unsafe injection and connecting participants to other services. Powell acknowledges that studies have found people who consume drugs at supervised sites are far less likely to die from an overdose than those using elsewhere. A recent systematic review examining studies published in Canada between 2016 and 2024 found mixed results. Large provincial analyses generally found no statistically significant association between supervised consumption sites and overall overdose mortality, while some studies examining smaller geographic areas found reductions near the facilities themselves.
In Toronto, for example, neighborhoods within 500 meters of a supervised consumption site experienced 67 percent fewer overdose deaths per 100,000 residents after the sites opened. An Alberta analysis also found that greater use of supervised consumption sites was correlated with fewer fentanyl-related overdose deaths between 2017 and 2020. Both studies were observational, however, meaning they can identify associations but cannot establish that the sites alone caused the reductions.
The evidence therefore supports a narrower conclusion than either side of the debate often makes. Overdose prevention centers can prevent fatal overdoses among people who use them, and some evidence suggests benefits in the areas immediately surrounding them. The evidence that they reduce mortality across an entire city or province is less clear. That distinction matters when Powell cites rising citywide overdose deaths as evidence against the facilities themselves.
Powell raises legitimate concerns about diversion within safer-supply programs, meaning prescribed medications being sold, traded, or otherwise passed on to someone other than the person for whom they were prescribed. In British Columbia, he points to reports that prescribed hydromorphone was diverted and exchanged for fentanyl, prompting the province to tighten its program by requiring some recipients to consume prescribed drugs under pharmacist supervision. Diversion should factor into how these programs are evaluated, but it cannot be considered in isolation from the risks of the illicit supply they are meant to replace.
A more useful question when considering safer supply programs is how those risks compare with the alternative people already face. Safer supply is intended for people at high risk of overdose who would otherwise rely, at least in part, on an illicit drug market increasingly dominated by fentanyl and other adulterants that can lead to accidental overdose. Early research has associated participation in these programs with lower individual overdose risk, reduced use of fentanyl and other street-acquired drugs, and fewer hospital and emergency room visits, although Health Canada acknowledges that the evidence base is still developing.
That tradeoff is central to a harm-reduction approach. No drug policy eliminates every risk, and expecting one to do so sets an unrealistic standard for evaluating policy. The question is whether an intervention reduces overall harm compared with existing conditions, while identifying and addressing unintended consequences as they emerge.
Public drug use and disorder need to be addressed; safer-supply programs can create risks of diversion, and cities should not treat harm reduction as a reason to abandon enforcement against conduct that harms others. But those observations do not support his broader indictment of harm reduction. The evidence he cites from Seattle, Burlington, and Vancouver does not establish that syringe services, supervised consumption, naloxone distribution, or other harm-reduction interventions caused those cities' overdose crises. In several cases, the evidence points in the opposite direction: Individual interventions have reduced the specific harms they were designed to address even as the broader overdose crisis worsened around them.
The lesson from these cities is not that harm reduction has failed. It is that no single approach can carry the weight of the overdose crisis. Policymakers should preserve interventions that demonstrably reduce death and disease, address diversion or other unintended consequences where the evidence identifies them, enforce laws against conduct that harms others, and expand access to evidence-based treatment. Abandoning effective harm-reduction tools because they did not solve every dimension of the drug crisis would repeat the mistake Powell warns against: allowing ideology to substitute for evidence.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/dont-blame-harm-reduction-policies-for-americas-overdose-crisis/
* * *
Don't blame harm reduction for the overdose crisis
A closer look at Seattle, Burlington, and Vancouver challenges the claim that harm reduction caused their overdose crises.
Layal Bou Harfouch
Drug Policy Analyst
September 25, 2026
-
In a recent essay in The Atlantic, staff writer Michael Powell argued that some American and Canadian cities have allowed harm reduction to grow from a limited public-health strategy into an ideology, one that tolerates public drug use and disorder while failing to stem ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Sept. 26 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Don't blame harm reduction for the overdose crisis A closer look at Seattle, Burlington, and Vancouver challenges the claim that harm reduction caused their overdose crises. Layal Bou Harfouch Drug Policy Analyst September 25, 2026 - In a recent essay in The Atlantic, staff writer Michael Powell argued that some American and Canadian cities have allowed harm reduction to grow from a limited public-health strategy into an ideology, one that tolerates public drug use and disorder while failing to stemoverdose deaths. Powell points to Seattle, Burlington, Vt., and Vancouver, among other places, and argues that their experiences show the negative consequences of placing too much emphasis on the autonomy of people who use drugs and too little on treatment, enforcement, and the interests of surrounding communities.
The problems Powell observes deserve attention. Open-air drug markets, discarded syringes, theft, public drug use, and neighborhoods overwhelmed by visible addiction should not be dismissed as the unavoidable price of compassionate drug policy. But establishing that these problems exist in cities that practice harm reduction is different from establishing that harm-reduction policies caused them. Powell frequently groups together very different policies, from syringe services and supervised consumption to safer supply, decriminalization, and decisions about policing, and then evaluates them against broad citywide outcomes. A more useful question is whether the evidence supports the specific causal claims he makes about each policy and place.
Harm reduction is not one uniform policy. Naloxone distribution, sterile syringe programs, drug-checking for contaminants, supervised consumption sites, and prescribed alternatives to the illicit drug supply all work in different ways and address different risks. Each should be assessed on its own terms, including when the evidence points to tradeoffs or unintended effects.
The conditions Powell describes should concern anyone interested in sensible drug policy. In Burlington, a city of roughly 45,000 people, 585 drug overdoses were recorded in 2024, 28 of them fatal. Powell argues that cities have placed too much emphasis on accommodating drug use and should instead restore enforcement against public drug use and dealing while putting greater pressure and resources toward treatment, including mandated treatment in some cases.
One of Powell's central arguments is that overdose deaths rose sharply in cities that embraced strong harm-reduction policies. That claim deserves closer examination in the places he highlights.
In Burlington, the recent trend already complicates the picture. Powell notes that Vermont recorded 170 overdose deaths in 2025, a 37 percent decline from the state's 2022 peak. Burlington's experience with harm reduction is also more limited than Powell's framing might suggest. The city approved an overdose prevention center only in 2024, meaning the facility Powell criticizes had not yet opened when many of the overdose and public-disorder problems described in his article occurred. Harm-reduction services existed before then, but the timing makes it difficult to attribute the city's earlier deterioration to the supervised-consumption policy that features prominently in his critique.
Seattle offers a different test because harm-reduction services were already well-established there. Powell points to 7,089 overdose deaths in King County between 2016 and 2025 as evidence of the severity of the crisis. But that total obscures a significant reversal within the period he cites. King County's overdose mortality rate more than tripled between 2018 and 2023, as fentanyl became pervasive in the local drug supply, then fell 32 percent between 2023 and 2025. Harm-reduction efforts continued during that decline, including widespread naloxone distribution and other overdose-prevention services. That does not establish that those policies caused the decline. But the rise and subsequent fall in deaths while harm reduction remained in place make the mortality trend considerably harder to attribute to the policies themselves.
Vancouver provides the longest test of Powell's argument. North America's first sanctioned supervised injection site opened there in 2003, and Powell acknowledges research finding fewer overdose deaths and infectious diseases associated with the program. Yet, he contrasts those findings with the dramatic rise in overdose deaths across the rest of British Columbia (a Canadian province geographically larger than the state of Texas) over the following two decades. Those are different levels of analysis. Evidence that a supervised consumption site reduces deaths among people who use it can coexist with rising population-level mortality driven by a rapidly changing illicit drug market. The relevant question is whether the intervention reduced the harms it was designed to address, not whether it single-handedly reversed a regional overdose crisis.
If harm-reduction policies themselves are driving higher overdose mortality, we should expect the same pattern elsewhere. But we don't see that. New York City provides one useful counterexample. The city opened the nation's first publicly recognized overdose prevention centers in November 2021 as overdose deaths were climbing. Deaths continued to rise the following year, increasing 12 percent from 2021 to 2022, before declining slightly in 2023 for the first time since 2018. That decline accelerated considerably in 2024, when overdose deaths fell 28 percent, from 3,056 to 2,192, the city's first substantial decrease after nearly a decade of increases. The centers operated throughout this period as the city continued investing in syringe exchange services, overdose prevention, treatment, and other harm-reduction programs. The timeline does not establish that harm reduction caused the decline. But it does show that overdose deaths can fall substantially while harm-reduction policies remain in place, further weakening the argument that the presence of those policies explains citywide overdose trends.
The spread of illicit fentanyl makes that distinction even more important. Fentanyl reached different parts of the country at different times, rapidly changing the risk of overdose as it entered local drug supplies. A 2024 JAMA Network Open study of Oregon illustrates how easily that shift can be mistaken for the effect of a policy. Researchers initially observed an increase in overdose deaths following the implementation of Measure 110, which decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs. After accounting for the timing of fentanyl's spread into Oregon, however, they found no association between decriminalization and overdose mortality.
Another problem with evaluating harm reduction this broadly is that the term encompasses policies that work in very different ways. Among harm-reduction interventions, providing sterile syringes to reduce transmission of HIV and hepatitis C serves a different purpose than operating a supervised consumption site to prevent fatal overdoses or prescribing pharmaceutical opioids through safer-supply programs. Each should be evaluated based on its own objective evidence base.
* * *
Chart: Harm-reduction interventions serve different purposes
Policies grouped under the term "harm reduction" use different approaches and target different risks associated with drug use.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Harm Reduction Coalition; Health Canada
* * *
For syringe service programs, the evidence is particularly strong. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these programs are associated with an estimated 50 percent reduction in HIV and hepatitis C incidence. Nearly three decades of research also show that comprehensive syringe service programs do not increase illegal drug use or crime. In addition to providing sterile injection equipment, many offer infectious-disease testing, vaccination, and connections to medical care and substance use treatment.
Evidence that overdose prevention centers reduce deaths across an entire city is less settled. These facilities provide a supervised setting where trained staff can intervene when an overdose occurs, while also reducing risks associated with unsafe injection and connecting participants to other services. Powell acknowledges that studies have found people who consume drugs at supervised sites are far less likely to die from an overdose than those using elsewhere. A recent systematic review examining studies published in Canada between 2016 and 2024 found mixed results. Large provincial analyses generally found no statistically significant association between supervised consumption sites and overall overdose mortality, while some studies examining smaller geographic areas found reductions near the facilities themselves.
In Toronto, for example, neighborhoods within 500 meters of a supervised consumption site experienced 67 percent fewer overdose deaths per 100,000 residents after the sites opened. An Alberta analysis also found that greater use of supervised consumption sites was correlated with fewer fentanyl-related overdose deaths between 2017 and 2020. Both studies were observational, however, meaning they can identify associations but cannot establish that the sites alone caused the reductions.
The evidence therefore supports a narrower conclusion than either side of the debate often makes. Overdose prevention centers can prevent fatal overdoses among people who use them, and some evidence suggests benefits in the areas immediately surrounding them. The evidence that they reduce mortality across an entire city or province is less clear. That distinction matters when Powell cites rising citywide overdose deaths as evidence against the facilities themselves.
Powell raises legitimate concerns about diversion within safer-supply programs, meaning prescribed medications being sold, traded, or otherwise passed on to someone other than the person for whom they were prescribed. In British Columbia, he points to reports that prescribed hydromorphone was diverted and exchanged for fentanyl, prompting the province to tighten its program by requiring some recipients to consume prescribed drugs under pharmacist supervision. Diversion should factor into how these programs are evaluated, but it cannot be considered in isolation from the risks of the illicit supply they are meant to replace.
A more useful question when considering safer supply programs is how those risks compare with the alternative people already face. Safer supply is intended for people at high risk of overdose who would otherwise rely, at least in part, on an illicit drug market increasingly dominated by fentanyl and other adulterants that can lead to accidental overdose. Early research has associated participation in these programs with lower individual overdose risk, reduced use of fentanyl and other street-acquired drugs, and fewer hospital and emergency room visits, although Health Canada acknowledges that the evidence base is still developing.
That tradeoff is central to a harm-reduction approach. No drug policy eliminates every risk, and expecting one to do so sets an unrealistic standard for evaluating policy. The question is whether an intervention reduces overall harm compared with existing conditions, while identifying and addressing unintended consequences as they emerge.
Public drug use and disorder need to be addressed; safer-supply programs can create risks of diversion, and cities should not treat harm reduction as a reason to abandon enforcement against conduct that harms others. But those observations do not support his broader indictment of harm reduction. The evidence he cites from Seattle, Burlington, and Vancouver does not establish that syringe services, supervised consumption, naloxone distribution, or other harm-reduction interventions caused those cities' overdose crises. In several cases, the evidence points in the opposite direction: Individual interventions have reduced the specific harms they were designed to address even as the broader overdose crisis worsened around them.
The lesson from these cities is not that harm reduction has failed. It is that no single approach can carry the weight of the overdose crisis. Policymakers should preserve interventions that demonstrably reduce death and disease, address diversion or other unintended consequences where the evidence identifies them, enforce laws against conduct that harms others, and expand access to evidence-based treatment. Abandoning effective harm-reduction tools because they did not solve every dimension of the drug crisis would repeat the mistake Powell warns against: allowing ideology to substitute for evidence.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/dont-blame-harm-reduction-policies-for-americas-overdose-crisis/
International Myeloma Foundation: Myeloma May Be Curable for Some
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, Sept. 26 -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Myeloma May Be Curable for Some. Experts Are Working to Arrive at a Definition for Cure.
September 24, 2026 -- At the 23rd International Myeloma Society Annual Meeting & Exposition, international experts are working toward criteria that could identify when a patient's remission is durable enough to be called a cure.
Myeloma has always been incurable, as the vast majority of patients relapse after initial therapy and have shorter life expectancy. However, due to outstanding advances ... Show Full Article NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, Sept. 26 -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news: * * * Myeloma May Be Curable for Some. Experts Are Working to Arrive at a Definition for Cure. September 24, 2026 -- At the 23rd International Myeloma Society Annual Meeting & Exposition, international experts are working toward criteria that could identify when a patient's remission is durable enough to be called a cure. Myeloma has always been incurable, as the vast majority of patients relapse after initial therapy and have shorter life expectancy. However, due to outstanding advancesin the field, this is changing. The 23rd Annual Meeting of the IMS in Glasgow, Scotland, is being held now. At this meeting, leading experts, including members of the IMF's International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG), proposed a working definition of cure. A shared standard could help researchers determine which patients have sustainable remission without treatment and how to measure progress toward making cure possible for more people.
The shift reflects years of progress in immunotherapy, combination treatments, earlier intervention, and increasingly sensitive disease monitoring. In recent years, myeloma practitioners are seeing their patients reach "deep, lasting remissions, including some who remain disease-free and off therapy for many years. Major advances in immunotherapy, combination treatments, early intervention, and sensitive techniques for disease monitoring have shifted the field from asking whether myeloma can be controlled to defining what cure actually means," as explained in this IMS media brief.
The evidence is promising, but it does not yet establish how many patients are cured or how long they must remain disease-free. The IMS media brief adds, "Myeloma remains incurable for most patients. Relapse is still common. High-risk and ultra-high-risk disease continue to resist even the most intensive therapies."
Long-term results from the CARTITUDE-1 trial have sharpened that question. The study evaluated ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
In a September 2025 ASCO Post, IMF Chair of the Board Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, shared: "in one center where serial measurable residual disease (MRD) studies were done, all 12 patients who were progression-free for at least 5 years also achieved MRD negativity at 10-6 level and had no evidence of active disease on positron-emission tomography/computed tomography assessments. This opens the possibility that some patients in this cohort may be potentially cured, which is quite remarkable given that the trial participants had been heavily pretreated. However, we need more follow-up to determine whether there is a sustained plateau in the time to disease progression and/or the progression-free survival curve to establish curability and to determine the proportion of patients who can be cured."
A Proposed Definition of Cure
At the IMS meeting, myeloma researchers and experts are considering the following proposed criteria for defining cure in multiple myeloma:
* A myeloma patient could be newly diagnosed or have relapsed myeloma
* A myeloma patient should be in sustained Complete Remission (CR) by standard criteria.
* The patient has achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) is at 10-6sensitivity, as assessed by either next-generation sequencing (NGS) or next-generation flow (NGF)
* The MRD-negativity is sustained for 5 years without any therapy. This is irrespective of previous sustained MRD-negativity on therapy.
- There should be at least 4 MRD assessments in 5 years, with the last one being at 5 years; additionally, all negative and no positive tests in between, if performed.
* Negative by functional imaging (PET/CT or Diffusion-Weighted MRI, Whole-Body MRI)
- At least at the beginning of a five-year period, and at the end of the five-year period with no intervening positivity, if performed.
These proposed criteria require sustained MRD-negativity at a sensitivity of 10-6 for five years without therapy, repeated MRD tests, and negative functional imaging at the beginning and end of that period. The rigor reflects the central challenge: a deep response during treatment is not the same as a lasting remission after treatment ends.
The hope of this 2026 IMS meeting is to build consensus guidelines that help experts use these tools in the future to determine which patients can safely be called cured.
A clear standard would help doctors and researchers:
* identify lasting remission without treatment and
* develop a way to measure the work needed to help more patients achieve such a remission.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.myeloma.org/news-events/multiple-myeloma-news/IMS-2026-working-toward-defintion-cure-myeloma
* * *
Myeloma May Be Curable for Some. Experts Are Working to Arrive at a Definition for Cure.
September 24, 2026 -- At the 23rd International Myeloma Society Annual Meeting & Exposition, international experts are working toward criteria that could identify when a patient's remission is durable enough to be called a cure.
Myeloma has always been incurable, as the vast majority of patients relapse after initial therapy and have shorter life expectancy. However, due to outstanding advances ... Show Full Article NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, Sept. 26 -- The International Myeloma Foundation issued the following news: * * * Myeloma May Be Curable for Some. Experts Are Working to Arrive at a Definition for Cure. September 24, 2026 -- At the 23rd International Myeloma Society Annual Meeting & Exposition, international experts are working toward criteria that could identify when a patient's remission is durable enough to be called a cure. Myeloma has always been incurable, as the vast majority of patients relapse after initial therapy and have shorter life expectancy. However, due to outstanding advancesin the field, this is changing. The 23rd Annual Meeting of the IMS in Glasgow, Scotland, is being held now. At this meeting, leading experts, including members of the IMF's International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG), proposed a working definition of cure. A shared standard could help researchers determine which patients have sustainable remission without treatment and how to measure progress toward making cure possible for more people.
The shift reflects years of progress in immunotherapy, combination treatments, earlier intervention, and increasingly sensitive disease monitoring. In recent years, myeloma practitioners are seeing their patients reach "deep, lasting remissions, including some who remain disease-free and off therapy for many years. Major advances in immunotherapy, combination treatments, early intervention, and sensitive techniques for disease monitoring have shifted the field from asking whether myeloma can be controlled to defining what cure actually means," as explained in this IMS media brief.
The evidence is promising, but it does not yet establish how many patients are cured or how long they must remain disease-free. The IMS media brief adds, "Myeloma remains incurable for most patients. Relapse is still common. High-risk and ultra-high-risk disease continue to resist even the most intensive therapies."
Long-term results from the CARTITUDE-1 trial have sharpened that question. The study evaluated ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
In a September 2025 ASCO Post, IMF Chair of the Board Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, shared: "in one center where serial measurable residual disease (MRD) studies were done, all 12 patients who were progression-free for at least 5 years also achieved MRD negativity at 10-6 level and had no evidence of active disease on positron-emission tomography/computed tomography assessments. This opens the possibility that some patients in this cohort may be potentially cured, which is quite remarkable given that the trial participants had been heavily pretreated. However, we need more follow-up to determine whether there is a sustained plateau in the time to disease progression and/or the progression-free survival curve to establish curability and to determine the proportion of patients who can be cured."
A Proposed Definition of Cure
At the IMS meeting, myeloma researchers and experts are considering the following proposed criteria for defining cure in multiple myeloma:
* A myeloma patient could be newly diagnosed or have relapsed myeloma
* A myeloma patient should be in sustained Complete Remission (CR) by standard criteria.
* The patient has achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) is at 10-6sensitivity, as assessed by either next-generation sequencing (NGS) or next-generation flow (NGF)
* The MRD-negativity is sustained for 5 years without any therapy. This is irrespective of previous sustained MRD-negativity on therapy.
- There should be at least 4 MRD assessments in 5 years, with the last one being at 5 years; additionally, all negative and no positive tests in between, if performed.
* Negative by functional imaging (PET/CT or Diffusion-Weighted MRI, Whole-Body MRI)
- At least at the beginning of a five-year period, and at the end of the five-year period with no intervening positivity, if performed.
These proposed criteria require sustained MRD-negativity at a sensitivity of 10-6 for five years without therapy, repeated MRD tests, and negative functional imaging at the beginning and end of that period. The rigor reflects the central challenge: a deep response during treatment is not the same as a lasting remission after treatment ends.
The hope of this 2026 IMS meeting is to build consensus guidelines that help experts use these tools in the future to determine which patients can safely be called cured.
A clear standard would help doctors and researchers:
* identify lasting remission without treatment and
* develop a way to measure the work needed to help more patients achieve such a remission.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.myeloma.org/news-events/multiple-myeloma-news/IMS-2026-working-toward-defintion-cure-myeloma
Rockefeller Foundation and Mission 300 Accelerator Launch Demonstration to Test Whether AI Demand Can Help Finance Energy Access in Africa
NEW YORK, Sept. 25 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
The Rockefeller Foundation and Mission 300 Accelerator Launch Demonstration to Test Whether AI Demand Can Help Finance Energy Access in Africa
* New initiative will test whether growing demand for AI and other digital workloads can serve as an anchor customer for otherwise underutilized mini-grids in Africa
* Projections show that initial demonstrations, including in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo could expand or strengthen reliable electricity access for approximately 85,000 ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 25 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release: * * * The Rockefeller Foundation and Mission 300 Accelerator Launch Demonstration to Test Whether AI Demand Can Help Finance Energy Access in Africa * New initiative will test whether growing demand for AI and other digital workloads can serve as an anchor customer for otherwise underutilized mini-grids in Africa * Projections show that initial demonstrations, including in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo could expand or strengthen reliable electricity access for approximately 85,000local people
* Independent evaluation will inform whether this new approach can improve the economics of providing electricity without making community electricity less affordable or reliable
-
NEW YORK | September 24, 2026 -- Today, the Mission 300 Accelerator housed in RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC), the charitable affiliate of The Rockefeller Foundation, announced the Emergent Grid Project, a new to test whether growing global demand for compute -- the processing power needed to run AI and other digital work -- can improve the economics of distributed renewable energy and help expand affordable, reliable electricity access in underserved communities across Africa.
As rapid growth in AI and data-center demand puts increasing pressure on electricity systems globally, the Emergent Grid is testing a different proposition: whether flexible AI and digital computing demand can be put to work in places where electricity systems need more support.
"Global demand for compute doesn't have to push electricity costs higher for people. We think it can actually do the opposite," said Mission 300 Accelerator CEO Andrew Herscowitz. "If we build it right, that same demand becomes the reason someone in a remote village finally gets reliable, affordable power. We call this the Emergent Grid: connecting global demand for compute with communities where that demand could help make reliable electricity more viable."
More than 560 million people across sub-Saharan Africa still live without access to electricity, even as the continent faces a broader annual development financing gap of more than $400 billion. Closing the energy access gap will require mobilizing significantly more private investment alongside public and development finance. Yet Africa faces a structural challenge: mini-grids are often built with capacity to accommodate future demand, leaving power generation underutilized during their early years of operation and increasing reliance on scarce grants and subsidies, even as surrounding communities continue to need more reliable, affordable electricity.
The Emergent Grid aims to turn underutilized electricity into an economic asset. The idea is simple: The demonstrations will test placing small amounts of computing capacity alongside African mini-grids, using electricity that might otherwise go unused - or developing new generation to serve both the community and digital demand, and sell that computing capacity to paying customers. That payment creates a potentially profitable revenue stream for the energy system while lowering costs. If the model works, those revenues could reduce subsidy requirements, strengthen project finances, and help attract more private investment to expand electricity access. Because the computing load is flexible, it can be reduced or shifted when electricity is needed by the local community.
The demonstrations will be guided by four principles:
* Community first: Households, businesses, schools, health clinics, and other essential services always have priority for electricity. Compute should strengthen community electricity access, never compete with it, and deliver meaningful benefits for surrounding communities.
* Compute is a tool, not the objective: The goal is reliable, affordable electricity for underserved communities and the opportunities that access enables.
* Digital demand can be a bridge: Compute can provide an anchor customer for mini-grids, generating steadier revenue while local household and business demand grows. As community electricity use increases, compute can be reduced, shifted, or potentially relocated, or electricity generation can be scaled.
* Test before scaling: The project is designed to generate evidence before advocating for broader replication or scale.
The Emergent Grid will test the model through an initial portfolio, including in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Kenya, five sites will test whether flexible computing can serve as an anchor for new solar-plus-storage systems serving communities of approximately 50,000 people. In DRC, computing will be added to an existing solar plant with underused generation that currently serves more than 30,000 people, as well as more than 350 small and medium-sized businesses and 30-40 social institutions. In Sierra Leone, computing will be integrated in three rural sites that serve local communities but have underused generation capacity.
Across the demonstrations, the project will test four fundamental questions: whether the model works technically; whether it generates enough additional revenue to improve mini-grid economics and brings down costs; whether it delivers meaningful benefits for communities; and, ultimately, whether successful approaches can attract investment and be replicated and scaled with less or no philanthropic support.
Independent monitoring, evaluation, and learning will assess technical, financial, and community outcomes, including electricity affordability and reliability, project economics, electricity access, and broader socioeconomic impacts.
Reliable electricity can support local businesses and essential services, while the connectivity required for many computing workloads could also expand access to digital financial services, commerce, education, and healthcare. The project will explore whether combining better electricity and connectivity can create broader economic opportunities for the communities these systems serve.
"Building rural power systems is only part of the challenge as we work to bring electricity to communities in Africa. The broader issue is ensuring those systems remain financially and operationally sustainable to deliver long-term benefits. This initiative is testing a practical idea that could help strengthen both." -- Kate Steel, Senior Vice President, NRECA International
"Africa's energy and digital access gaps have long been treated as separate challenges, but they are deeply connected. The Emergent Grid gives us an opportunity to test what becomes possible when we address them together, creating stronger infrastructure, unlocking investment and expanding access to education, healthcare and economic opportunity." -- Ibrahima Guimba-Saidou, CEO of the Partnership for Digital Access in Africa (PDAA)
The Emergent Grid is being developed by the Mission 300 Accelerator working alongside philanthropies, developers, researchers, and technical experts, as part of The Rockefeller Foundation's work to expand energy access and test new approaches to financing distributed infrastructure. The initiative builds on the Accelerator's work supporting Mission 300, the World Bank Group and African Development Bank Group initiative to connect 300 million Africans to electricity by 2030, while testing whether this model could ultimately contribute to expanding reliable, affordable electricity access at scale.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world, including in association with RF Catalytic Capital Inc (RFCC). We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance. For more information, follow us on LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation, X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and YouTube @rockefellerfound, and sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/rockefeller-foundation-mission-300-launch-test-ai-demand-finance-energy-access-africa/
* * *
The Rockefeller Foundation and Mission 300 Accelerator Launch Demonstration to Test Whether AI Demand Can Help Finance Energy Access in Africa
* New initiative will test whether growing demand for AI and other digital workloads can serve as an anchor customer for otherwise underutilized mini-grids in Africa
* Projections show that initial demonstrations, including in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo could expand or strengthen reliable electricity access for approximately 85,000 ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 25 -- The Rockefeller Foundation posted the following news release: * * * The Rockefeller Foundation and Mission 300 Accelerator Launch Demonstration to Test Whether AI Demand Can Help Finance Energy Access in Africa * New initiative will test whether growing demand for AI and other digital workloads can serve as an anchor customer for otherwise underutilized mini-grids in Africa * Projections show that initial demonstrations, including in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo could expand or strengthen reliable electricity access for approximately 85,000local people
* Independent evaluation will inform whether this new approach can improve the economics of providing electricity without making community electricity less affordable or reliable
-
NEW YORK | September 24, 2026 -- Today, the Mission 300 Accelerator housed in RF Catalytic Capital (RFCC), the charitable affiliate of The Rockefeller Foundation, announced the Emergent Grid Project, a new to test whether growing global demand for compute -- the processing power needed to run AI and other digital work -- can improve the economics of distributed renewable energy and help expand affordable, reliable electricity access in underserved communities across Africa.
As rapid growth in AI and data-center demand puts increasing pressure on electricity systems globally, the Emergent Grid is testing a different proposition: whether flexible AI and digital computing demand can be put to work in places where electricity systems need more support.
"Global demand for compute doesn't have to push electricity costs higher for people. We think it can actually do the opposite," said Mission 300 Accelerator CEO Andrew Herscowitz. "If we build it right, that same demand becomes the reason someone in a remote village finally gets reliable, affordable power. We call this the Emergent Grid: connecting global demand for compute with communities where that demand could help make reliable electricity more viable."
More than 560 million people across sub-Saharan Africa still live without access to electricity, even as the continent faces a broader annual development financing gap of more than $400 billion. Closing the energy access gap will require mobilizing significantly more private investment alongside public and development finance. Yet Africa faces a structural challenge: mini-grids are often built with capacity to accommodate future demand, leaving power generation underutilized during their early years of operation and increasing reliance on scarce grants and subsidies, even as surrounding communities continue to need more reliable, affordable electricity.
The Emergent Grid aims to turn underutilized electricity into an economic asset. The idea is simple: The demonstrations will test placing small amounts of computing capacity alongside African mini-grids, using electricity that might otherwise go unused - or developing new generation to serve both the community and digital demand, and sell that computing capacity to paying customers. That payment creates a potentially profitable revenue stream for the energy system while lowering costs. If the model works, those revenues could reduce subsidy requirements, strengthen project finances, and help attract more private investment to expand electricity access. Because the computing load is flexible, it can be reduced or shifted when electricity is needed by the local community.
The demonstrations will be guided by four principles:
* Community first: Households, businesses, schools, health clinics, and other essential services always have priority for electricity. Compute should strengthen community electricity access, never compete with it, and deliver meaningful benefits for surrounding communities.
* Compute is a tool, not the objective: The goal is reliable, affordable electricity for underserved communities and the opportunities that access enables.
* Digital demand can be a bridge: Compute can provide an anchor customer for mini-grids, generating steadier revenue while local household and business demand grows. As community electricity use increases, compute can be reduced, shifted, or potentially relocated, or electricity generation can be scaled.
* Test before scaling: The project is designed to generate evidence before advocating for broader replication or scale.
The Emergent Grid will test the model through an initial portfolio, including in Sierra Leone, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Kenya, five sites will test whether flexible computing can serve as an anchor for new solar-plus-storage systems serving communities of approximately 50,000 people. In DRC, computing will be added to an existing solar plant with underused generation that currently serves more than 30,000 people, as well as more than 350 small and medium-sized businesses and 30-40 social institutions. In Sierra Leone, computing will be integrated in three rural sites that serve local communities but have underused generation capacity.
Across the demonstrations, the project will test four fundamental questions: whether the model works technically; whether it generates enough additional revenue to improve mini-grid economics and brings down costs; whether it delivers meaningful benefits for communities; and, ultimately, whether successful approaches can attract investment and be replicated and scaled with less or no philanthropic support.
Independent monitoring, evaluation, and learning will assess technical, financial, and community outcomes, including electricity affordability and reliability, project economics, electricity access, and broader socioeconomic impacts.
Reliable electricity can support local businesses and essential services, while the connectivity required for many computing workloads could also expand access to digital financial services, commerce, education, and healthcare. The project will explore whether combining better electricity and connectivity can create broader economic opportunities for the communities these systems serve.
"Building rural power systems is only part of the challenge as we work to bring electricity to communities in Africa. The broader issue is ensuring those systems remain financially and operationally sustainable to deliver long-term benefits. This initiative is testing a practical idea that could help strengthen both." -- Kate Steel, Senior Vice President, NRECA International
"Africa's energy and digital access gaps have long been treated as separate challenges, but they are deeply connected. The Emergent Grid gives us an opportunity to test what becomes possible when we address them together, creating stronger infrastructure, unlocking investment and expanding access to education, healthcare and economic opportunity." -- Ibrahima Guimba-Saidou, CEO of the Partnership for Digital Access in Africa (PDAA)
The Emergent Grid is being developed by the Mission 300 Accelerator working alongside philanthropies, developers, researchers, and technical experts, as part of The Rockefeller Foundation's work to expand energy access and test new approaches to financing distributed infrastructure. The initiative builds on the Accelerator's work supporting Mission 300, the World Bank Group and African Development Bank Group initiative to connect 300 million Africans to electricity by 2030, while testing whether this model could ultimately contribute to expanding reliable, affordable electricity access at scale.
* * *
About The Rockefeller Foundation
Investing $30 billion over the last 113 years to promote the well-being of humanity, The Rockefeller Foundation is a pioneering philanthropy built on unlikely partnerships and innovative solutions that deliver measurable results for people in the United States and around the world, including in association with RF Catalytic Capital Inc (RFCC). We leverage scientific breakthroughs, artificial intelligence, and new technologies to make big bets across energy, food, health, and finance. For more information, follow us on LinkedIn @the-rockefeller-foundation, X @RockefellerFdn, Instagram @rockefellerfdn, and YouTube @rockefellerfound, and sign up for our newsletter at www.rockefellerfoundation.org/subscribe.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/rockefeller-foundation-mission-300-launch-test-ai-demand-finance-energy-access-africa/
More Than $180,000 in Grants Will Strengthen Connection Between People and Animals in Escondido
SAN DIEGO, California, Sept. 25 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
More Than $180,000 in Grants Will Strengthen Connection Between People and Animals in Escondido
*
September 25, 2026 - Escondido, CA - Escondido residents will have greater access to veterinary care, therapeutic animal programs and educational experiences thanks to $183,000 in grants from Escondido Community Foundation (ECF), an affiliate of San Diego Foundation (SDF).
The grants come as ECF celebrates 20 years of local philanthropy in Escondido. This year's funding supports seven nonprofit ... Show Full Article SAN DIEGO, California, Sept. 25 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release: * * * More Than $180,000 in Grants Will Strengthen Connection Between People and Animals in Escondido * September 25, 2026 - Escondido, CA - Escondido residents will have greater access to veterinary care, therapeutic animal programs and educational experiences thanks to $183,000 in grants from Escondido Community Foundation (ECF), an affiliate of San Diego Foundation (SDF). The grants come as ECF celebrates 20 years of local philanthropy in Escondido. This year's funding supports seven nonprofitorganizations working to strengthen the connection between people and animals through veterinary care, pet adoption and support, therapeutic programs, spay and neuter services and wildlife education.
ECF recognized this year's grantees during its 2026 Grants Celebration on Sept. 24 at the California Center for the Arts in Escondido.
Media assets: Photos of the grantees at the celebration are available for use here. Please credit San Diego Foundation.
This year's grants support:
* Frosted Faces Foundation, $35,000: For Senior Animal Programs to Support People & Pets, helping Escondido residents adopt and foster senior pets while providing ongoing veterinary care to help pets and their families stay together.
* Foundation for Animal Care and Education (FACE), $35,000: For Save-A-Life, providing financial assistance to Escondido families facing urgent, life-threatening veterinary emergencies so their pets can receive needed care.
* San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, $35,000: For Escondido Students at the Safari Park, providing free transportation, admission and educational programming for Escondido elementary school classrooms, with a focus on Title I schools serving under-resourced communities.
* Spay Neuter Action Project (SNAP), $33,000: For Low-Cost Spay/Neuter for Escondido Pets, providing affordable spay and neuter, vaccination and microchipping services to help local pet owners keep their animals healthy and safe.
* Ride Above Disability Therapeutic Riding Center, $25,000: For Improving Access to Escondido Residents, expanding access to therapeutic riding and equine-assisted activities that support physical, emotional and mental well-being.
* Project Street Vet, $10,000: For Escondido Outreach, providing free veterinary care for pets belonging to people experiencing homelessness and housing instability.
* Helen Woodward Animal Center, $10,000: For Pet Encounter Therapy, bringing therapy animals to skilled nursing facilities, memory care communities, recovery centers and social service organizations to provide comfort, connection and engagement.
"Animals bring comfort, companionship and joy into our lives, and for many people, that bond can be incredibly meaningful," said Rosemary Burson, Escondido Community Foundation board chair. "These grants will ensure more Escondido residents can care for the animals they love, experience the healing power of those connections and give young people opportunities to learn about and appreciate the wildlife around them. As we celebrate 20 years of giving in Escondido, we're grateful to our members whose generosity continues to make this work possible."
For two decades, ECF has brought people together through philanthropy to respond to emerging needs and benefit those who live, work and play in Escondido.
To become an ECF member, visit EscondidoCommunityFoundation.org.
About San Diego Foundation
San Diego Foundation believes in just, equitable and resilient communities where every San Diegan can prosper, thrive and feel like they belong. We partner with donors, nonprofits and regional leaders to advance solutions that respond to community needs and strengthen San Diego. Since 1975, SDF has granted more than $2 billion to nonprofits to improve quality of life in San Diego County and beyond. Learn more at SDFoundation.org.
Media Contact
Nancy Ives Schroeder, Intesa Communications
nancy@intesacom.com
(619) 540-3751
***
Original text here: https://www.sdfoundation.org/news-events/sdf-news/more-than-180000-in-grants-will-strengthen-connection-between-people-and-animals-in-escondido/
* * *
More Than $180,000 in Grants Will Strengthen Connection Between People and Animals in Escondido
*
September 25, 2026 - Escondido, CA - Escondido residents will have greater access to veterinary care, therapeutic animal programs and educational experiences thanks to $183,000 in grants from Escondido Community Foundation (ECF), an affiliate of San Diego Foundation (SDF).
The grants come as ECF celebrates 20 years of local philanthropy in Escondido. This year's funding supports seven nonprofit ... Show Full Article SAN DIEGO, California, Sept. 25 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release: * * * More Than $180,000 in Grants Will Strengthen Connection Between People and Animals in Escondido * September 25, 2026 - Escondido, CA - Escondido residents will have greater access to veterinary care, therapeutic animal programs and educational experiences thanks to $183,000 in grants from Escondido Community Foundation (ECF), an affiliate of San Diego Foundation (SDF). The grants come as ECF celebrates 20 years of local philanthropy in Escondido. This year's funding supports seven nonprofitorganizations working to strengthen the connection between people and animals through veterinary care, pet adoption and support, therapeutic programs, spay and neuter services and wildlife education.
ECF recognized this year's grantees during its 2026 Grants Celebration on Sept. 24 at the California Center for the Arts in Escondido.
Media assets: Photos of the grantees at the celebration are available for use here. Please credit San Diego Foundation.
This year's grants support:
* Frosted Faces Foundation, $35,000: For Senior Animal Programs to Support People & Pets, helping Escondido residents adopt and foster senior pets while providing ongoing veterinary care to help pets and their families stay together.
* Foundation for Animal Care and Education (FACE), $35,000: For Save-A-Life, providing financial assistance to Escondido families facing urgent, life-threatening veterinary emergencies so their pets can receive needed care.
* San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, $35,000: For Escondido Students at the Safari Park, providing free transportation, admission and educational programming for Escondido elementary school classrooms, with a focus on Title I schools serving under-resourced communities.
* Spay Neuter Action Project (SNAP), $33,000: For Low-Cost Spay/Neuter for Escondido Pets, providing affordable spay and neuter, vaccination and microchipping services to help local pet owners keep their animals healthy and safe.
* Ride Above Disability Therapeutic Riding Center, $25,000: For Improving Access to Escondido Residents, expanding access to therapeutic riding and equine-assisted activities that support physical, emotional and mental well-being.
* Project Street Vet, $10,000: For Escondido Outreach, providing free veterinary care for pets belonging to people experiencing homelessness and housing instability.
* Helen Woodward Animal Center, $10,000: For Pet Encounter Therapy, bringing therapy animals to skilled nursing facilities, memory care communities, recovery centers and social service organizations to provide comfort, connection and engagement.
"Animals bring comfort, companionship and joy into our lives, and for many people, that bond can be incredibly meaningful," said Rosemary Burson, Escondido Community Foundation board chair. "These grants will ensure more Escondido residents can care for the animals they love, experience the healing power of those connections and give young people opportunities to learn about and appreciate the wildlife around them. As we celebrate 20 years of giving in Escondido, we're grateful to our members whose generosity continues to make this work possible."
For two decades, ECF has brought people together through philanthropy to respond to emerging needs and benefit those who live, work and play in Escondido.
To become an ECF member, visit EscondidoCommunityFoundation.org.
About San Diego Foundation
San Diego Foundation believes in just, equitable and resilient communities where every San Diegan can prosper, thrive and feel like they belong. We partner with donors, nonprofits and regional leaders to advance solutions that respond to community needs and strengthen San Diego. Since 1975, SDF has granted more than $2 billion to nonprofits to improve quality of life in San Diego County and beyond. Learn more at SDFoundation.org.
Media Contact
Nancy Ives Schroeder, Intesa Communications
nancy@intesacom.com
(619) 540-3751
***
Original text here: https://www.sdfoundation.org/news-events/sdf-news/more-than-180000-in-grants-will-strengthen-connection-between-people-and-animals-in-escondido/
FFRF Dissects Trump's '250 Victories for People of Faith'
MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 25 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
September 24, 2026
FFRF dissects Trump's '250 victories for people of faith'
-
The White House's newly released list of President Trump's "Top 250 Victories for People of Faith" is a revealing catalog of the administration's efforts to redefine religious liberty.
The sprawling list, released to coincide with America's 250th anniversary, claims to provide "250 reasons why Trump is the most pro-faith, pro-life, and pro-religious liberty president in American history."
"Trump was elected ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 25 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 24, 2026 FFRF dissects Trump's '250 victories for people of faith' - The White House's newly released list of President Trump's "Top 250 Victories for People of Faith" is a revealing catalog of the administration's efforts to redefine religious liberty. The sprawling list, released to coincide with America's 250th anniversary, claims to provide "250 reasons why Trump is the most pro-faith, pro-life, and pro-religious liberty president in American history." "Trump was electedpresident, not pastor in chief, and has long forgotten he took an oath to defend and support a Constitution that is godless and separates religion from government," comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. "This inappropriate list is pure pandering to his white Christian nationalist base."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has reviewed the list. Far from documenting 250 distinct advances for religious freedom, it mixes a handful of legitimate protections for free exercise of religion with a deluge of Christian nationalist initiatives, culture-war policies, unfinished investigations and proposed rules, ceremonial proclamations, repetitious claims and assertions that omit crucial context.
"These are not 250 victories for religious liberty. They are a remarkably candid accounting of this administration's campaign to privilege religion, especially conservative Christianity, through the machinery of what is supposed to be a secular government," adds FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. "Religious freedom means every American is free to believe or disbelieve as conscience dictates. It does not mean the president gets to enlist the federal government in promoting religion."
Most revealingly, the White House repeatedly calls the government's promotion of religion a "victory." The administration celebrates establishing the White House Faith Office and faith centers throughout the federal government, creating its so-called Religious Liberty Commission and Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, expanding government funding opportunities for religious organizations, promoting prayer and religion in public schools, organizing Christian worship services at the Pentagon and using the federal government to encourage Americans to pray.
FFRF has repeatedly sounded the alarm about many of the very actions the White House now boasts about.
When Trump established the White House Faith Office and Anti-Christian Bias Task Force in February 2025, FFRF warned that the initiatives threatened to privilege religion rather than protect genuine religious liberty. The Faith Office was tasked not merely with accommodating religious exercise but with helping faith-based organizations obtain government grants and influencing federal policy.
FFRF has also closely monitored Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which features overwhelmingly conservative religious voices and has repeatedly promoted greater religious involvement in government and public education. Its recently released report attacks the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and recommends expanding government entanglement with religion. FFRF has called the report a roadmap for transforming religious freedom from a shield protecting individual conscience into a sword for securing religious privilege.
The White House's assertion that the commission represents "every major faith" is impossible to square with its official roster. The commission's identified religious leadership is predominantly conservative Christian while the broader advisory structure contains barely any religious diversity.
Government promotion of religion becomes a 'victory'
Some of the administration's proudest entries illustrate exactly why FFRF is concerned.
The White House counts its "America Prays" initiative as a religious-liberty accomplishment. That government-backed campaign calls on Americans to organize weekly prayer gatherings as part of the nation's 250th anniversary. FFRF objected when it was unveiled, warning that the White House was improperly using government resources and prestige to organize and encourage worship, which is outside governmental purview.
The administration similarly boasts of "Rededicate 250," the National Mall May prayer rally at which Americans were called upon to rededicate the nation as "one nation under God." FFRF protested the event and documented its overwhelmingly Christian character and participation by top government officials.
The list celebrates Trump and administration officials publicly reading Scripture during "America Reads the Bible," something FFRF previously criticized as yet another example of the administration misusing public office to promote Christianity.
And the White House counts as a "victory" Trump's Religious Freedom Day proclamation pledging to promote faith throughout American life. FFRF pointed out at the time that Religious Freedom Day actually commemorates the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the foundational American statements against government-sponsored religion.
Pentagon proselytizing is celebrated as 'spiritual support'
The list also touts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's religious activities as an achievement, including monthly Pentagon worship services and Hegseth's encouragement that service members "lean into their faith" and "rely on God."
FFRF has repeatedly objected to Hegseth using his government office to promote Christianity. It first challenged his Pentagon prayer meetings in May 2025 after learning that a Christian nationalist pastor had been invited to preach at the Pentagon, proselytize and lead attendees in the Lord's Prayer.
FFRF has since documented Hegseth's escalating sectarian rhetoric, including his declaration that "we are in God we trust" while attacking "godless" Americans, and called on him to resign after he invoked Scripture at a Pentagon prayer service while framing military conflict in explicitly religious terms.
The Constitution protects every service member's right to practice a religion or no religion. It does not authorize the secretary of defense to turn the Pentagon into a platform for his personal theology.
The White House even claims victories that did not occur
The list is not merely ideological. Several entries are misleading or badly overstated.
Two entries celebrate efforts to weaken the Johnson Amendment, the federal law that prohibits tax-exempt nonprofits, including churches, from intervening in partisan elections. The White House says the Justice Department "reached an agreement" protecting houses of worship and separately credits the Treasury Department with announcing forthcoming guidance.
But the proposed agreement was never approved. On March 31, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit before considering the proposed settlement. FFRF applauded that ruling and subsequently warned Treasury and the IRS against attempting administratively to accomplish what the unsuccessful litigation did not. The White House list omits that consequential fact.
Another entry claims the administration eliminated a restriction that forced faith-based organizations to "ban religious aspects of their programs" to receive federal funds. That seriously mischaracterizes the previous rules. Religious organizations were free to retain their religious identity, names, symbols, governance and privately funded religious activities. The restriction generally prevented direct federal assistance from paying for worship, religious instruction or proselytizing.
In other words, the supposed burden on religious freedom was actually a safeguard preventing taxpayers from being compelled to subsidize religious worship.
Other "victories" are not victories at all. The list repeatedly counts investigations, lawsuits, proposed rules, statements, proclamations and requests to Congress as accomplishments. It even counts NASA astronauts talking about their personal faith and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Religious freedom belongs to everyone
FFRF concedes that a few items on the White House list represent legitimate government functions that protect religious freedom. Prosecuting attacks against synagogues, protecting houses of worship from violence and reasonably accommodating employees' religious practices can help safeguard constitutional rights. That makes the administration's conflation of legitimate protections with government-sponsored prayer and preferential treatment for religion all the more troubling.
And religious Americans do not speak with one voice on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, vaccines, education or the numerous other policy disputes that the White House packages as "victories for people of faith." The administration's own list demonstrates the problem with treating "people of faith" as a political constituency whose interests supposedly coincide with one particular theological and ideological agenda.
Religious liberty protects Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and members of every other faith -- but it equally protects atheists, agnostics and Americans who want nothing to do with religion.
"The First Amendment does not contain a 'people of faith' clause," says Barker. "It protects freedom of conscience for all of us. The White House seems to believe religious liberty means asking what conservative Christian activists want and then using government power to give it to them. That turns the First Amendment on its head."
FFRF will continue monitoring and challenging administration actions that cross the constitutional line between protecting private religious exercise and using public office, public money and governmental power to promote religion.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-dissects-trumps-250-victories-for-people-of-faith/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
September 24, 2026
FFRF dissects Trump's '250 victories for people of faith'
-
The White House's newly released list of President Trump's "Top 250 Victories for People of Faith" is a revealing catalog of the administration's efforts to redefine religious liberty.
The sprawling list, released to coincide with America's 250th anniversary, claims to provide "250 reasons why Trump is the most pro-faith, pro-life, and pro-religious liberty president in American history."
"Trump was elected ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 25 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * September 24, 2026 FFRF dissects Trump's '250 victories for people of faith' - The White House's newly released list of President Trump's "Top 250 Victories for People of Faith" is a revealing catalog of the administration's efforts to redefine religious liberty. The sprawling list, released to coincide with America's 250th anniversary, claims to provide "250 reasons why Trump is the most pro-faith, pro-life, and pro-religious liberty president in American history." "Trump was electedpresident, not pastor in chief, and has long forgotten he took an oath to defend and support a Constitution that is godless and separates religion from government," comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. "This inappropriate list is pure pandering to his white Christian nationalist base."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has reviewed the list. Far from documenting 250 distinct advances for religious freedom, it mixes a handful of legitimate protections for free exercise of religion with a deluge of Christian nationalist initiatives, culture-war policies, unfinished investigations and proposed rules, ceremonial proclamations, repetitious claims and assertions that omit crucial context.
"These are not 250 victories for religious liberty. They are a remarkably candid accounting of this administration's campaign to privilege religion, especially conservative Christianity, through the machinery of what is supposed to be a secular government," adds FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. "Religious freedom means every American is free to believe or disbelieve as conscience dictates. It does not mean the president gets to enlist the federal government in promoting religion."
Most revealingly, the White House repeatedly calls the government's promotion of religion a "victory." The administration celebrates establishing the White House Faith Office and faith centers throughout the federal government, creating its so-called Religious Liberty Commission and Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, expanding government funding opportunities for religious organizations, promoting prayer and religion in public schools, organizing Christian worship services at the Pentagon and using the federal government to encourage Americans to pray.
FFRF has repeatedly sounded the alarm about many of the very actions the White House now boasts about.
When Trump established the White House Faith Office and Anti-Christian Bias Task Force in February 2025, FFRF warned that the initiatives threatened to privilege religion rather than protect genuine religious liberty. The Faith Office was tasked not merely with accommodating religious exercise but with helping faith-based organizations obtain government grants and influencing federal policy.
FFRF has also closely monitored Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which features overwhelmingly conservative religious voices and has repeatedly promoted greater religious involvement in government and public education. Its recently released report attacks the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and recommends expanding government entanglement with religion. FFRF has called the report a roadmap for transforming religious freedom from a shield protecting individual conscience into a sword for securing religious privilege.
The White House's assertion that the commission represents "every major faith" is impossible to square with its official roster. The commission's identified religious leadership is predominantly conservative Christian while the broader advisory structure contains barely any religious diversity.
Government promotion of religion becomes a 'victory'
Some of the administration's proudest entries illustrate exactly why FFRF is concerned.
The White House counts its "America Prays" initiative as a religious-liberty accomplishment. That government-backed campaign calls on Americans to organize weekly prayer gatherings as part of the nation's 250th anniversary. FFRF objected when it was unveiled, warning that the White House was improperly using government resources and prestige to organize and encourage worship, which is outside governmental purview.
The administration similarly boasts of "Rededicate 250," the National Mall May prayer rally at which Americans were called upon to rededicate the nation as "one nation under God." FFRF protested the event and documented its overwhelmingly Christian character and participation by top government officials.
The list celebrates Trump and administration officials publicly reading Scripture during "America Reads the Bible," something FFRF previously criticized as yet another example of the administration misusing public office to promote Christianity.
And the White House counts as a "victory" Trump's Religious Freedom Day proclamation pledging to promote faith throughout American life. FFRF pointed out at the time that Religious Freedom Day actually commemorates the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the foundational American statements against government-sponsored religion.
Pentagon proselytizing is celebrated as 'spiritual support'
The list also touts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's religious activities as an achievement, including monthly Pentagon worship services and Hegseth's encouragement that service members "lean into their faith" and "rely on God."
FFRF has repeatedly objected to Hegseth using his government office to promote Christianity. It first challenged his Pentagon prayer meetings in May 2025 after learning that a Christian nationalist pastor had been invited to preach at the Pentagon, proselytize and lead attendees in the Lord's Prayer.
FFRF has since documented Hegseth's escalating sectarian rhetoric, including his declaration that "we are in God we trust" while attacking "godless" Americans, and called on him to resign after he invoked Scripture at a Pentagon prayer service while framing military conflict in explicitly religious terms.
The Constitution protects every service member's right to practice a religion or no religion. It does not authorize the secretary of defense to turn the Pentagon into a platform for his personal theology.
The White House even claims victories that did not occur
The list is not merely ideological. Several entries are misleading or badly overstated.
Two entries celebrate efforts to weaken the Johnson Amendment, the federal law that prohibits tax-exempt nonprofits, including churches, from intervening in partisan elections. The White House says the Justice Department "reached an agreement" protecting houses of worship and separately credits the Treasury Department with announcing forthcoming guidance.
But the proposed agreement was never approved. On March 31, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit before considering the proposed settlement. FFRF applauded that ruling and subsequently warned Treasury and the IRS against attempting administratively to accomplish what the unsuccessful litigation did not. The White House list omits that consequential fact.
Another entry claims the administration eliminated a restriction that forced faith-based organizations to "ban religious aspects of their programs" to receive federal funds. That seriously mischaracterizes the previous rules. Religious organizations were free to retain their religious identity, names, symbols, governance and privately funded religious activities. The restriction generally prevented direct federal assistance from paying for worship, religious instruction or proselytizing.
In other words, the supposed burden on religious freedom was actually a safeguard preventing taxpayers from being compelled to subsidize religious worship.
Other "victories" are not victories at all. The list repeatedly counts investigations, lawsuits, proposed rules, statements, proclamations and requests to Congress as accomplishments. It even counts NASA astronauts talking about their personal faith and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Religious freedom belongs to everyone
FFRF concedes that a few items on the White House list represent legitimate government functions that protect religious freedom. Prosecuting attacks against synagogues, protecting houses of worship from violence and reasonably accommodating employees' religious practices can help safeguard constitutional rights. That makes the administration's conflation of legitimate protections with government-sponsored prayer and preferential treatment for religion all the more troubling.
And religious Americans do not speak with one voice on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, vaccines, education or the numerous other policy disputes that the White House packages as "victories for people of faith." The administration's own list demonstrates the problem with treating "people of faith" as a political constituency whose interests supposedly coincide with one particular theological and ideological agenda.
Religious liberty protects Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and members of every other faith -- but it equally protects atheists, agnostics and Americans who want nothing to do with religion.
"The First Amendment does not contain a 'people of faith' clause," says Barker. "It protects freedom of conscience for all of us. The White House seems to believe religious liberty means asking what conservative Christian activists want and then using government power to give it to them. That turns the First Amendment on its head."
FFRF will continue monitoring and challenging administration actions that cross the constitutional line between protecting private religious exercise and using public office, public money and governmental power to promote religion.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-dissects-trumps-250-victories-for-people-of-faith/
[Category: Religion]
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation: AI-Based "Oncologist's Assistant" to Help Match Patients With Targeted Therapies
NEW YORK, Sept. 25 (TNSjou) -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
AI-based "oncologist's assistant" to help match patients with targeted therapies
September 24, 2026
-
Researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, led by former Damon Runyon Clinical Investigator Eliezer M. Van Allen, MD, PhD, have built an experimental artificial-intelligence tool designed to help oncologists keep up with the rapidly evolving field of precision cancer therapy. With over 100 precision therapies (and counting) approved for the treatment of cancer, each of ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 25 (TNSjou) -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * AI-based "oncologist's assistant" to help match patients with targeted therapies September 24, 2026 - Researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, led by former Damon Runyon Clinical Investigator Eliezer M. Van Allen, MD, PhD, have built an experimental artificial-intelligence tool designed to help oncologists keep up with the rapidly evolving field of precision cancer therapy. With over 100 precision therapies (and counting) approved for the treatment of cancer, each ofwhich targets a specific cancer-driving mutation, clinicians can find it difficult to stay abreast of new FDA approvals, even when one might provide a life-saving treatment option.
This new tool, dubbed an "oncologist's assistant," is designed to help clinicians identify targeted therapies that may benefit a given patient based on their cancer's genetic profile. To create it, the team trained a large language model (the one behind ChatGPT) on a highly curated database of information about targeted medicines, known as the Molecular Oncology Almanac. In early testing with about 100 realistic scenarios from physicians, it provided accurate responses 93% of the time. Further tuning ensued--including, crucially, the instruction to report when no approved options were found, an answer people-pleasing AI tools are often loath to give.
The goal, Dr. Van Allen clarified, is "to be helpful to an oncologist without taking away the autonomy, decision-making, and relationship between the patient and provider." The tool is currently intended for research purposes only, as more refinement is needed before any model is used for clinical care.
This research was published in Cancer Cell (https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(25)00551-3).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.damonrunyon.org/discovery/ai-based-oncologists-assistant-help-match-patients-targeted-therapies
* * *
AI-based "oncologist's assistant" to help match patients with targeted therapies
September 24, 2026
-
Researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, led by former Damon Runyon Clinical Investigator Eliezer M. Van Allen, MD, PhD, have built an experimental artificial-intelligence tool designed to help oncologists keep up with the rapidly evolving field of precision cancer therapy. With over 100 precision therapies (and counting) approved for the treatment of cancer, each of ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 25 (TNSjou) -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * AI-based "oncologist's assistant" to help match patients with targeted therapies September 24, 2026 - Researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, led by former Damon Runyon Clinical Investigator Eliezer M. Van Allen, MD, PhD, have built an experimental artificial-intelligence tool designed to help oncologists keep up with the rapidly evolving field of precision cancer therapy. With over 100 precision therapies (and counting) approved for the treatment of cancer, each ofwhich targets a specific cancer-driving mutation, clinicians can find it difficult to stay abreast of new FDA approvals, even when one might provide a life-saving treatment option.
This new tool, dubbed an "oncologist's assistant," is designed to help clinicians identify targeted therapies that may benefit a given patient based on their cancer's genetic profile. To create it, the team trained a large language model (the one behind ChatGPT) on a highly curated database of information about targeted medicines, known as the Molecular Oncology Almanac. In early testing with about 100 realistic scenarios from physicians, it provided accurate responses 93% of the time. Further tuning ensued--including, crucially, the instruction to report when no approved options were found, an answer people-pleasing AI tools are often loath to give.
The goal, Dr. Van Allen clarified, is "to be helpful to an oncologist without taking away the autonomy, decision-making, and relationship between the patient and provider." The tool is currently intended for research purposes only, as more refinement is needed before any model is used for clinical care.
This research was published in Cancer Cell (https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108(25)00551-3).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.damonrunyon.org/discovery/ai-based-oncologists-assistant-help-match-patients-targeted-therapies