Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Health Foundation: Historic Underinvestment in GP Funding Puts Government's Neighbourhood Health Agenda at Risk
LONDON, England, Aug. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk
General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report.
The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams.
The Health Foundation has warned that the ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Aug. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report. The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams. The Health Foundation has warned that thegovernment's ambitions to move care into the community and realise its vision for a neighbourhood health service are at risk without a sustained focus to shift the proportion of NHS spending towards general practice.
Between 2015/16 and 2024/25, despite repeated government commitments to shift funding from secondary to primary care, the proportion of money spent by NHS England and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) on primary medical care fell from 8.8% to 8.3%. Over the same period, the share spent on acute services, such as hospitals, increased from 38.4% to 42.6%.
Under the current Labour government, the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts have provided a boost in funding. The 10-Year Health Plan committed to shifting the share of NHS investment going into primary and community care. But current policies, proposing the introduction of Integrated Health Organisations - most likely to be led by large NHS trusts - risk shifting the focus back towards hospitals. The report warns that a clear policy commitment is needed to increase the share of investment going into general practice so it can deliver the central role expected of it in the government's neighbourhood health agenda.
Practices provide the vast majority of first contact and ongoing care to the public throughout the year, yet the amount allocated to general practice per patient per year is substantially below the average cost of a single ambulance or emergency care episode. In 2026/27, for pound sterling219 per patient on average, practices will typically provide 5 to 6 appointments per patient per year, carry out all non-patient facing work and meet the costs of running a practice, such as staffing and overheads.
The report also calls for a review of all general practice funding streams, not just the Carr-Hill formula (which accounts for three fifths of payments made to practices and is currently undergoing a review). It finds that the way funding is distributed between practices may contribute to inequities, with the overall mix of payments playing an important role. Although the current Carr-Hill formula directs more funding to practices in more deprived areas and rural communities, this may not be sufficient. And once all funding streams are combined, these favour practices serving less deprived populations, underlining the need for government to look at all payments collectively.
The report, the first to provide a comprehensive picture of GP funding in England, also finds marked variation in GP earnings over time and between GPs. GP contractors' - also known as partners - income per session was nearly double that of salaried GPs, and a gender pay gap, disadvantaging female GPs, exists among both contractor and salaried GPs even after accounting for reported working hours.
The Health Foundation urges policymakers to commit to a clear multi-year investment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, which could be achieved through a minimum investment standard. This should be accompanied by a review of all funding streams and of where unwarranted variation in GP pay exists. This will be necessary to ensure any additional investment supports access, improves continuity of care, addresses inequalities and strengthens workforce sustainability.
Dr Luisa Pettigrew, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'General practice is the foundation of the NHS. Yet its funding has not kept pace with the role that recurrent governments have expected it to play. While the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts provided a boost in funding, this followed a decade in which the share of NHS spend going to general practice had fallen.
'The government consultation on proposed Neighbourhood Provider models states that there will be 'no new national funding'. But if the government are serious about delivering better neighbourhood health services and strengthening care outside of hospitals, more money will be needed in general practice. A clear, multi-year commitment to increasing investment is needed, alongside a review of all funding flows into general practice and of how they are used to ensure that funding is allocated fairly and efficiently.
'Without this, general practice and neighbourhood health ambitions are being set up to fail, and aspirations to shift care closer to home and reduce costly, avoidable pressure on hospitals will be left unrealised.'
* * *
REPORT: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/upload/publications/2026/Health_Foundation_General%20practice%20funding%20in%20England.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/historic-underinvestment-in-gp-funding-puts-government-s-neighbourhood-health-agenda-at-risk
* * *
Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk
General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report.
The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams.
The Health Foundation has warned that the ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Aug. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report. The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams. The Health Foundation has warned that thegovernment's ambitions to move care into the community and realise its vision for a neighbourhood health service are at risk without a sustained focus to shift the proportion of NHS spending towards general practice.
Between 2015/16 and 2024/25, despite repeated government commitments to shift funding from secondary to primary care, the proportion of money spent by NHS England and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) on primary medical care fell from 8.8% to 8.3%. Over the same period, the share spent on acute services, such as hospitals, increased from 38.4% to 42.6%.
Under the current Labour government, the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts have provided a boost in funding. The 10-Year Health Plan committed to shifting the share of NHS investment going into primary and community care. But current policies, proposing the introduction of Integrated Health Organisations - most likely to be led by large NHS trusts - risk shifting the focus back towards hospitals. The report warns that a clear policy commitment is needed to increase the share of investment going into general practice so it can deliver the central role expected of it in the government's neighbourhood health agenda.
Practices provide the vast majority of first contact and ongoing care to the public throughout the year, yet the amount allocated to general practice per patient per year is substantially below the average cost of a single ambulance or emergency care episode. In 2026/27, for pound sterling219 per patient on average, practices will typically provide 5 to 6 appointments per patient per year, carry out all non-patient facing work and meet the costs of running a practice, such as staffing and overheads.
The report also calls for a review of all general practice funding streams, not just the Carr-Hill formula (which accounts for three fifths of payments made to practices and is currently undergoing a review). It finds that the way funding is distributed between practices may contribute to inequities, with the overall mix of payments playing an important role. Although the current Carr-Hill formula directs more funding to practices in more deprived areas and rural communities, this may not be sufficient. And once all funding streams are combined, these favour practices serving less deprived populations, underlining the need for government to look at all payments collectively.
The report, the first to provide a comprehensive picture of GP funding in England, also finds marked variation in GP earnings over time and between GPs. GP contractors' - also known as partners - income per session was nearly double that of salaried GPs, and a gender pay gap, disadvantaging female GPs, exists among both contractor and salaried GPs even after accounting for reported working hours.
The Health Foundation urges policymakers to commit to a clear multi-year investment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, which could be achieved through a minimum investment standard. This should be accompanied by a review of all funding streams and of where unwarranted variation in GP pay exists. This will be necessary to ensure any additional investment supports access, improves continuity of care, addresses inequalities and strengthens workforce sustainability.
Dr Luisa Pettigrew, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'General practice is the foundation of the NHS. Yet its funding has not kept pace with the role that recurrent governments have expected it to play. While the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts provided a boost in funding, this followed a decade in which the share of NHS spend going to general practice had fallen.
'The government consultation on proposed Neighbourhood Provider models states that there will be 'no new national funding'. But if the government are serious about delivering better neighbourhood health services and strengthening care outside of hospitals, more money will be needed in general practice. A clear, multi-year commitment to increasing investment is needed, alongside a review of all funding flows into general practice and of how they are used to ensure that funding is allocated fairly and efficiently.
'Without this, general practice and neighbourhood health ambitions are being set up to fail, and aspirations to shift care closer to home and reduce costly, avoidable pressure on hospitals will be left unrealised.'
* * *
REPORT: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/upload/publications/2026/Health_Foundation_General%20practice%20funding%20in%20England.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/historic-underinvestment-in-gp-funding-puts-government-s-neighbourhood-health-agenda-at-risk
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary Entitled 'Can't Afford a House?'
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by David Youngberg, professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland:
* * *
Can't Afford a House?
Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is.
-
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse.
One provision stands out as particularly ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by David Youngberg, professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland: * * * Can't Afford a House? Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is. - The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse. One provision stands out as particularlydamaging: Section 1001, haughtily titled "Homes Are for People, Not Corporations." Big companies, the argument goes, are buying up houses, and that's why rent and home prices are so high. The section recycles President Trump's executive order from earlier this year banning institutional investors from owning single-family homes, a tactic Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have called for even earlier. While the ROAD Act's exceptions and definitions of "institutional investor" and "single-family home" allow for some workarounds, its nice-sounding solution actually exacerbates America's dysfunctional housing market.
The ban on institutional investors is as misguided as it is bipartisan. Such investors own a tiny percentage of the total single-family home inventory. Even in the metro areas where they are most concentrated, their share of total ownership doesn't even crack the double digits. To blame them for high housing costs is, to put it kindly, a stretch.
But even if big companies owned a large portion of single-family homes, they still wouldn't be the culprit behind the high cost of housing because homes are for people and corporations. Institutional investors don't buy homes to have them sit empty. They buy them so they can rent them out--that's the point of the whole enterprise--resulting in no net loss of housing. One might as well try to ban grocery stores because "food is for people, not corporations." As I've previously argued, institutional investors are middlemen and, like all middlemen, they improve efficiency and drive prices down, not up. Two recent studies confirm exactly that.
Examining the Atlanta metro area, where institutional investors have the biggest presence, economists Felipe Barbieri and Gregory Dobbels found that these investors bring rents down by 2.3%. It's not a huge amount, but it's directionally opposite to what critics claim.
Why does this happen? The authors note that because many of these rental homes are similar to each other and located close together, large investors rent homes more efficiently than small-time landlords. Maintenance costs are much lower when repairs involve comparable equipment in the same area.
At the same time, the market for single-family home rentals is still competitive. Even a sizable presence of Wall Street investors must compete with one another, as well as mid-sized investors and mom-and-pop landlords, not to mention duplexes, townhomes, and apartments. All that competition means that much of the savings gets passed on to renters.
But that's not the only reason big investors bring rental prices down. A study by economist Joshua Coven, which found a similar decrease in rent, pointed out another explanation that's both often ignored and painfully obvious: investment boosts construction.
When investors start buying single-family homes, these homes get a tiny bit more expensive. (Coven makes it clear that this is nowhere near enough to explain rising housing prices.) Developers respond to these higher prices and build more homes, resulting in a much smaller increase in prices than there would be otherwise. And the supply effect is huge: for every four homes institutional investors buy, builders add another house.
It's worth noting that Coven's study also covers the Atlanta metro area, which has one of the nation's least restrictive zoning laws, and is thus most responsive to changes in housing demand. Even a small increase in price generates a lot of construction. It's why despite Atlanta's surge in population, and with incomes similar to those of the average American, housing costs are about half those of the rest of the country.
Atlanta allows markets to work. The resulting affordability is a big reason people want to move there, and the resulting growth is why the area has enjoyed so much Wall Street investment.
High housing prices stem from government barriers to construction, not from investors buying homes. Zoning laws, environmental restrictions, parking requirements, historic preservation barriers, and NIMBY petitioners all make it so difficult to build that even big increases in prices fail to spur much construction. The end result is a doubling of housing costs.
That's why there are virtually no institutional investors in the expensive metro areas of San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles. People are fleeing the high housing prices of these regulation-choked cities. Investors, always a forward-looking bunch, see those dwindling populations and steer clear.
Los Angeles's sluggish recovery after the Eaton Fire last year illustrates how burdensome these barriers can be: 18 months after the disaster, just 1% of the 13,000 homes destroyed have been rebuilt. Delay is unavoidable to a certain extent--the fire left some soil toxic--but time-consuming and expensive regulations needlessly keep thousands of lots vacant and their owners without a home. The "accelerated" approval process the city created to encourage recovery only applies to homeowners who want to rebuild exactly what was there. Any new build that alters the footprint, size, or use must endure fees and approval delays. These problems get many times worse if the owner dares to add more units to the lot, which is exactly the kind of denser construction that the undersupplied city needs most.
The City of Angels could've treated the disaster as an opportunity to reinvent its housing policy and cut out the myriad regulations that block construction. Deregulation would've attracted much-needed investment and sparked a boom that would've transformed its devastated neighborhoods into affordable housing examples for the rest of the country. It could've allowed markets to work. But the city instead chose the familiar snail's pace of overregulation, and thousands remain displaced a year and a half after they lost their homes.
Government, not investors, is the root problem of housing prices. Rather than take on barriers to construction, politicians find it easier to blame Wall Street. America is short millions of housing units, and scapegoating won't build a single one. We need more housing investment, not less.
* * *
David Youngberg is professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, MD.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/cant-afford-a-house/
* * *
Can't Afford a House?
Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is.
-
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse.
One provision stands out as particularly ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by David Youngberg, professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland: * * * Can't Afford a House? Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is. - The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse. One provision stands out as particularlydamaging: Section 1001, haughtily titled "Homes Are for People, Not Corporations." Big companies, the argument goes, are buying up houses, and that's why rent and home prices are so high. The section recycles President Trump's executive order from earlier this year banning institutional investors from owning single-family homes, a tactic Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have called for even earlier. While the ROAD Act's exceptions and definitions of "institutional investor" and "single-family home" allow for some workarounds, its nice-sounding solution actually exacerbates America's dysfunctional housing market.
The ban on institutional investors is as misguided as it is bipartisan. Such investors own a tiny percentage of the total single-family home inventory. Even in the metro areas where they are most concentrated, their share of total ownership doesn't even crack the double digits. To blame them for high housing costs is, to put it kindly, a stretch.
But even if big companies owned a large portion of single-family homes, they still wouldn't be the culprit behind the high cost of housing because homes are for people and corporations. Institutional investors don't buy homes to have them sit empty. They buy them so they can rent them out--that's the point of the whole enterprise--resulting in no net loss of housing. One might as well try to ban grocery stores because "food is for people, not corporations." As I've previously argued, institutional investors are middlemen and, like all middlemen, they improve efficiency and drive prices down, not up. Two recent studies confirm exactly that.
Examining the Atlanta metro area, where institutional investors have the biggest presence, economists Felipe Barbieri and Gregory Dobbels found that these investors bring rents down by 2.3%. It's not a huge amount, but it's directionally opposite to what critics claim.
Why does this happen? The authors note that because many of these rental homes are similar to each other and located close together, large investors rent homes more efficiently than small-time landlords. Maintenance costs are much lower when repairs involve comparable equipment in the same area.
At the same time, the market for single-family home rentals is still competitive. Even a sizable presence of Wall Street investors must compete with one another, as well as mid-sized investors and mom-and-pop landlords, not to mention duplexes, townhomes, and apartments. All that competition means that much of the savings gets passed on to renters.
But that's not the only reason big investors bring rental prices down. A study by economist Joshua Coven, which found a similar decrease in rent, pointed out another explanation that's both often ignored and painfully obvious: investment boosts construction.
When investors start buying single-family homes, these homes get a tiny bit more expensive. (Coven makes it clear that this is nowhere near enough to explain rising housing prices.) Developers respond to these higher prices and build more homes, resulting in a much smaller increase in prices than there would be otherwise. And the supply effect is huge: for every four homes institutional investors buy, builders add another house.
It's worth noting that Coven's study also covers the Atlanta metro area, which has one of the nation's least restrictive zoning laws, and is thus most responsive to changes in housing demand. Even a small increase in price generates a lot of construction. It's why despite Atlanta's surge in population, and with incomes similar to those of the average American, housing costs are about half those of the rest of the country.
Atlanta allows markets to work. The resulting affordability is a big reason people want to move there, and the resulting growth is why the area has enjoyed so much Wall Street investment.
High housing prices stem from government barriers to construction, not from investors buying homes. Zoning laws, environmental restrictions, parking requirements, historic preservation barriers, and NIMBY petitioners all make it so difficult to build that even big increases in prices fail to spur much construction. The end result is a doubling of housing costs.
That's why there are virtually no institutional investors in the expensive metro areas of San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles. People are fleeing the high housing prices of these regulation-choked cities. Investors, always a forward-looking bunch, see those dwindling populations and steer clear.
Los Angeles's sluggish recovery after the Eaton Fire last year illustrates how burdensome these barriers can be: 18 months after the disaster, just 1% of the 13,000 homes destroyed have been rebuilt. Delay is unavoidable to a certain extent--the fire left some soil toxic--but time-consuming and expensive regulations needlessly keep thousands of lots vacant and their owners without a home. The "accelerated" approval process the city created to encourage recovery only applies to homeowners who want to rebuild exactly what was there. Any new build that alters the footprint, size, or use must endure fees and approval delays. These problems get many times worse if the owner dares to add more units to the lot, which is exactly the kind of denser construction that the undersupplied city needs most.
The City of Angels could've treated the disaster as an opportunity to reinvent its housing policy and cut out the myriad regulations that block construction. Deregulation would've attracted much-needed investment and sparked a boom that would've transformed its devastated neighborhoods into affordable housing examples for the rest of the country. It could've allowed markets to work. But the city instead chose the familiar snail's pace of overregulation, and thousands remain displaced a year and a half after they lost their homes.
Government, not investors, is the root problem of housing prices. Rather than take on barriers to construction, politicians find it easier to blame Wall Street. America is short millions of housing units, and scapegoating won't build a single one. We need more housing investment, not less.
* * *
David Youngberg is professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, MD.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/cant-afford-a-house/
FFRF: Michigan Police Department Must Remove Prominent Bible Passage
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room.
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads.
A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encountering ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room. "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads. A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encounteringan explicitly Christian message inside a government law enforcement facility made them feel like an outsider.
"As an atheist . . . I was offended by witnessing a violation of the separation of church and state in the city of Battle Creek Michigan Police Department waiting room," the resident reported to FFRF. "I personally felt discriminated against when observing the bible verse on display in a government building, concerned for the bias towards atheists and those of non-Judeo-Christian faith."
FFRF has sent a missive to the Police Department pointing out the constitutional transgression.
"Posting a bible quote on government property fails to respect this constitutional mandate of neutrality," FFRF Patrick O'Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude writes to Police Chief Shannon Bagley. "This posting promotes religion over nonreligion and Christianity over all other faiths."
People interact with and rely on law enforcement officers during some of the most urgent and vulnerable times of their lives, FFRF reminds the police chief. Battle Creek residents belonging to minority religions or with no religion at all, such as FFRF's complainant, should not be made to feel excluded because the local Police Department promotes a particular religious group's beliefs, implying official support for Christianity. Sectarian Christian displays marginalize community members among the 38 percent of Americans who are non-Christians, including the 31 percent of Michigan residents who are religiously unaffiliated.
"Imagine the outcry were a Quranic verse about peace posted at this Police Department. When a police department prominently displays New Testament Scripture, it sends a troubling message about whose beliefs are favored by those entrusted to safeguard citizens and enforce the law," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Every Battle Creek resident, Christian or non-Christian, religious or nonreligious, should be able to walk into their police department confident that they will be treated equally and will not be confronted with bible verses."
* * *
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 more than 41,000 members across the country, including over 1,000 members in Michigan, 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-michigan-police-department-must-remove-prominent-bible-passage/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room.
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads.
A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encountering ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room. "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads. A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encounteringan explicitly Christian message inside a government law enforcement facility made them feel like an outsider.
"As an atheist . . . I was offended by witnessing a violation of the separation of church and state in the city of Battle Creek Michigan Police Department waiting room," the resident reported to FFRF. "I personally felt discriminated against when observing the bible verse on display in a government building, concerned for the bias towards atheists and those of non-Judeo-Christian faith."
FFRF has sent a missive to the Police Department pointing out the constitutional transgression.
"Posting a bible quote on government property fails to respect this constitutional mandate of neutrality," FFRF Patrick O'Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude writes to Police Chief Shannon Bagley. "This posting promotes religion over nonreligion and Christianity over all other faiths."
People interact with and rely on law enforcement officers during some of the most urgent and vulnerable times of their lives, FFRF reminds the police chief. Battle Creek residents belonging to minority religions or with no religion at all, such as FFRF's complainant, should not be made to feel excluded because the local Police Department promotes a particular religious group's beliefs, implying official support for Christianity. Sectarian Christian displays marginalize community members among the 38 percent of Americans who are non-Christians, including the 31 percent of Michigan residents who are religiously unaffiliated.
"Imagine the outcry were a Quranic verse about peace posted at this Police Department. When a police department prominently displays New Testament Scripture, it sends a troubling message about whose beliefs are favored by those entrusted to safeguard citizens and enforce the law," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Every Battle Creek resident, Christian or non-Christian, religious or nonreligious, should be able to walk into their police department confident that they will be treated equally and will not be confronted with bible verses."
* * *
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 more than 41,000 members across the country, including over 1,000 members in Michigan, 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-michigan-police-department-must-remove-prominent-bible-passage/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Urges North Carolina: Don't Install Billy Graham Monument at Capitol
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument.
Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds feature ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr. The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument. Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds featuremonuments relating to the world wars, the Vietnam War, prominent presidents or those from the state and governors of North Carolina -- all included for secular reasons. A statue of Billy Graham can have no secular purpose and should not be placed at the seat of state government, FFRF emphasizes. The state/church watchdog is therefore asking that the Legislative Services Office use its discretion to refrain from using official government resources to promote a divisive religious figure and honor a single faith's leader.
"Although remarks by those who proposed the monument say that this monument would be to 'honor those people who have done great things for the people of this state,' the fact is that Graham lived his life in service to his evangelical Christian religion and the bible that he believed was an infallible reference manual," FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker write.
The question is not whether Graham was influential. He plainly was. The question is whether the seat of North Carolina government should permanently honor a figure whose influence was overwhelmingly religious and sectarian in nature, and whose public record included disparaging atheists, opposing LGBTQ+ equality, making antisemitic remarks and working to inject his evangelical beliefs into government.
Graham had a checkered history that included antisemitism, disdain for atheists and other alienating and divisive views. A released Watergate tape from 1972 caught Graham telling President Nixon that Jews had a "stranglehold" on the news. His career was additionally devoted to revivals, Christian conversions, hellfire preaching and the insertion of his brand of religion into what is supposed to be a secular country governed by a godless Constitution barring establishment of religion or governmental preference for religion.
Graham also notably lobbied Congress to pass a law declaring an annual National Day of Prayer, saying he wanted to "see the leaders of our country kneeling before almighty God in prayer." Unfortunately, Congress, in 1952 (with a minor amendment in 1988), did his bidding. This law enacted at Graham's behest has entangled religion and government, spawned countless inappropriate prayer breakfasts, prayerful governmental events and prayer resolutions at all levels of government, sending for generations a message that evangelical Christians are "insiders" and non-Christians and the nonreligious are "outsiders."
FFRF's freethinking North Carolina membership has been feeling estranged that the leaders of the state have chosen this outsized honor for Graham, especially given his years of advice columns deriding the nonreligious. In a column published on Aug. 7, 2010, by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Graham opined that "a true atheist has no real reason to believe in right and wrong, or to behave sacrificially toward others."
Graham vociferously opposed gay rights and marriage equality, saying that "we traffic in homosexuality at the peril of our spiritual welfare." Even in 1993, Graham's views offended public opinion so much that, after once suggesting that AIDS could be a "judgment" from God, he was forced to withdraw the remarks. He belonged to a denomination that refused to ordain women, including his own daughter, who defied the convention against preaching. The "Billy Graham" rule directing a man not to be alone with a woman other than his wife continues to influence evangelicals.
Billy Graham believed fervently in Christianity and people listened to him. But that is not worthy of a spot on the North Carolina Capitol grounds, which must serve and welcome all citizens, whether Christian, non-Christian, atheist or LGBTQ+. Graham sought to undo the only sure way to guarantee freedom of religion: a government free from religion. Giving him this unearned honor excludes those among the 31 percent of North Carolinians who are non-Christians, including the 26 percent of adult North Carolinians who are atheists, agnostics or religiously unaffiliated.
"North Carolinians are free to admire Billy Graham, and churches and religious organizations are free to build as many monuments to him as they wish," Gaylor and Barker state. "But the state Capitol is different. It should be a civic space that welcomes everyone, not a platform for the government to elevate an evangelical preacher whose life's work and public positions excluded and demeaned many of the people the state represents."
* * *
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 more than 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including almost 1,000 members and a chapter in North Carolina, 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-urges-north-carolina-dont-install-billy-graham-monument-at-capitol/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument.
Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds feature ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr. The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument. Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds featuremonuments relating to the world wars, the Vietnam War, prominent presidents or those from the state and governors of North Carolina -- all included for secular reasons. A statue of Billy Graham can have no secular purpose and should not be placed at the seat of state government, FFRF emphasizes. The state/church watchdog is therefore asking that the Legislative Services Office use its discretion to refrain from using official government resources to promote a divisive religious figure and honor a single faith's leader.
"Although remarks by those who proposed the monument say that this monument would be to 'honor those people who have done great things for the people of this state,' the fact is that Graham lived his life in service to his evangelical Christian religion and the bible that he believed was an infallible reference manual," FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker write.
The question is not whether Graham was influential. He plainly was. The question is whether the seat of North Carolina government should permanently honor a figure whose influence was overwhelmingly religious and sectarian in nature, and whose public record included disparaging atheists, opposing LGBTQ+ equality, making antisemitic remarks and working to inject his evangelical beliefs into government.
Graham had a checkered history that included antisemitism, disdain for atheists and other alienating and divisive views. A released Watergate tape from 1972 caught Graham telling President Nixon that Jews had a "stranglehold" on the news. His career was additionally devoted to revivals, Christian conversions, hellfire preaching and the insertion of his brand of religion into what is supposed to be a secular country governed by a godless Constitution barring establishment of religion or governmental preference for religion.
Graham also notably lobbied Congress to pass a law declaring an annual National Day of Prayer, saying he wanted to "see the leaders of our country kneeling before almighty God in prayer." Unfortunately, Congress, in 1952 (with a minor amendment in 1988), did his bidding. This law enacted at Graham's behest has entangled religion and government, spawned countless inappropriate prayer breakfasts, prayerful governmental events and prayer resolutions at all levels of government, sending for generations a message that evangelical Christians are "insiders" and non-Christians and the nonreligious are "outsiders."
FFRF's freethinking North Carolina membership has been feeling estranged that the leaders of the state have chosen this outsized honor for Graham, especially given his years of advice columns deriding the nonreligious. In a column published on Aug. 7, 2010, by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Graham opined that "a true atheist has no real reason to believe in right and wrong, or to behave sacrificially toward others."
Graham vociferously opposed gay rights and marriage equality, saying that "we traffic in homosexuality at the peril of our spiritual welfare." Even in 1993, Graham's views offended public opinion so much that, after once suggesting that AIDS could be a "judgment" from God, he was forced to withdraw the remarks. He belonged to a denomination that refused to ordain women, including his own daughter, who defied the convention against preaching. The "Billy Graham" rule directing a man not to be alone with a woman other than his wife continues to influence evangelicals.
Billy Graham believed fervently in Christianity and people listened to him. But that is not worthy of a spot on the North Carolina Capitol grounds, which must serve and welcome all citizens, whether Christian, non-Christian, atheist or LGBTQ+. Graham sought to undo the only sure way to guarantee freedom of religion: a government free from religion. Giving him this unearned honor excludes those among the 31 percent of North Carolinians who are non-Christians, including the 26 percent of adult North Carolinians who are atheists, agnostics or religiously unaffiliated.
"North Carolinians are free to admire Billy Graham, and churches and religious organizations are free to build as many monuments to him as they wish," Gaylor and Barker state. "But the state Capitol is different. It should be a civic space that welcomes everyone, not a platform for the government to elevate an evangelical preacher whose life's work and public positions excluded and demeaned many of the people the state represents."
* * *
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 more than 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including almost 1,000 members and a chapter in North Carolina, 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-urges-north-carolina-dont-install-billy-graham-monument-at-capitol/
[Category: Religion]
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation Awards $4.2 Million to Exceptional Early-Career Scientists
NEW YORK, Aug. 14 -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation awards $4.2 million to exceptional early-career scientists
The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation has named 14 new Damon Runyon Fellows, brilliant postdoctoral scientists conducting basic and translational cancer research in the laboratories of leading senior investigators. This prestigious Fellowship encourages the nation's most promising young scientists to pursue careers in cancer research by providing them with independent funding ($300,000 ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Aug. 14 -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation awards $4.2 million to exceptional early-career scientists The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation has named 14 new Damon Runyon Fellows, brilliant postdoctoral scientists conducting basic and translational cancer research in the laboratories of leading senior investigators. This prestigious Fellowship encourages the nation's most promising young scientists to pursue careers in cancer research by providing them with independent funding ($300,000total over four years) to investigate cancer causes, mechanisms, therapies, and prevention.
"There's so much talent and excitement and passion and energy at this stage of a scientist's career," said current Damon Runyon-Timmerman Traverse Fellow Antonio J. LaPorte, PhD. "To take advantage of that human spirit, we really need foundations like Damon Runyon to help out with funding."
"We are committed to continuing to provide financial support for these exceptional researchers, whose much-needed breakthroughs in cancer prevention, diagnostics, and therapeutics might otherwise go unfunded," said Yung S. Lie, PhD, President and CEO of Damon Runyon. "Damon Runyon Fellows are the future leaders of their fields."
May 2026 Fellows
Nicholas Aboreden, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with his sponsor Kimberly Stegmaier, MD, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston
Only two percent of the human genome contains instructions for making proteins. Much of the remaining 98 percent, once referred to as "genomic dark matter," consists of regulatory elements that act as molecular switches to turn genes on or off. These molecular switches are broadly categorized into two groups: enhancers (on-switches) and silencers (off-switches). While it is well-known that cancers exploit enhancer elements to amplify the expression of growth-promoting genes, silencers remain poorly understood. Dr. Aboreden's research focuses on the repressive mechanisms that cancer cells use to sustain uncontrolled growth. He is mapping the regulatory genome of an aggressive type of pediatric leukemia characterized by widespread gene repression. By identifying silencer elements that these cancer cells use to maintain a malignant state, his work aims to identify new therapeutic vulnerabilities to selectively target cancer. The insights gleaned from this work will have broad relevance across diverse tumor types. Dr. Aboreden received his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, his MS from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and his BS from Liberty University, Lynchburg.
Shihui Chen, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with her sponsor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, PhD, at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
During the first days of embryogenesis, genetically identical cells begin the process of differentiation, switching genes "on" or "off" to establish distinct cell lineages that will ultimately form the embryo and supporting tissues. Aberrant reactivation of these embryonic gene regulatory programs later in life is a hallmark of many cancers. Dr. Chen's research investigates how genetically identical cells acquire distinct fates during early mammalian development and explores the shared gene regulatory mechanisms that govern both development and cancer. Using mouse embryos as a model system, she will determine how CARM1, a regulator that is frequently overexpressed in human cancers, controls gene expression programs that drive early cell fate decisions. This work will reveal fundamental mechanisms that establish and maintain cellular identity and provide insight into how developmental pathways are hijacked during cancer initiation and progression. Dr. Chen received her PhD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and her BS from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan.
Stephanie A. Gaglione, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with her sponsor Alexander Marson, MD, PhD, at The J. David Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco
Cancer immunotherapies can be engineered to direct T cells against specific tumor antigens, but many challenging cancers lack viable targets. Recent advances suggest that an understudied source of antigens can generate strong immune responses. These cryptic antigens originate from unusual and noncoding parts of viruses and tumor genomes and may be shared between patients. Dr. Gaglione will apply cutting-edge tools to comprehensively profile the antigen landscape of virally-driven cancers, mapping which antigens are presented to the immune system and which trigger tumor-specific immune responses. This work will reveal new, potentially shared targets for T cell-based therapies, including engineered T cells and cancer vaccines. Beyond virally-driven cancers, these approaches may help identify therapeutic targets and mechanisms in other diseases with T cell involvement. Dr. Gaglione received her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, her MSc from the University of Oxford, Oxford, and her BASc from the University of Toronto, Toronto.
Yi Hua, PhD [Connie and Bob Lurie Fellow], with his sponsor Alice Y. Ting, PhD, at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford
Cell surface proteins play prominent roles in regulating immune responses and govern intercellular communications within the tumor microenvironment. To study the roles of cell surface proteins during cancer progression at exceptional molecular resolution, Dr. Hua aims to develop SortID, a novel labeling technology based on an engineered bacterial enzyme. SortID will be able to rapidly label any exposed protein residues on the cell surface, enabling precise mapping of the cell surface without pre-installed tags. To demonstrate its transformative utility, Dr. Hua will deploy SortID to map the surface of SLAMF7, a critical therapeutic target in multiple myeloma. Ultimately, SortID will provide a highly precise and comprehensive map of cell surface interactions, deepening our understanding of cancer progression and unlocking novel targets for targeted immunotherapies. Dr. Hua received his PhD from Princeton University, Princeton, and his BS from Tsinghua University, Beijing.
Devon Jeltema, PhD, with her sponsor Britt A. Glaunsinger, PhD, at the University of California, Berkeley
A family of enzymes called PARPs help cells defend against viruses and other stressors by chemically modifying other molecules. While research on PARPs has historically focused on their modification of proteins, Dr. Jeltema's research explores the modification of RNA by PARPs. Her project aims to investigate how RNA modification affects immune responses to threats like viral infection and cancer. Using biochemical and sequencing tools to map which RNA molecules are modified, Dr. Jeltema hopes to identify a new facet of immune defense that can be harnessed to treat cancer. Dr. Jeltema received her PhD from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and her BS from Wheaton College, Norton.
Jaejin Kim, PhD [Hope Funds for Cancer Research Fellow], with his sponsor Elaine Fuchs, PhD, at The Rockefeller University, New York
Inflammatory diseases such as eczema, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease often recur years later in the same places, suggesting that tissues can "remember" past insults. Such memories can be beneficial, accelerating wound healing and pathogen defense, but they can also be maladaptive, predisposing tissues to chronic inflammation and cancer. It remains unclear how this memory is preserved in stem cells that otherwise appear normal, and which features promote regeneration versus cancer. Dr. Kim aims to identify the genes and molecular mechanisms underlying tissue memory and to define their consequences for wound repair and tumorigenesis. Identifying the "bad memories" that drive tumorigenesis could open opportunities to selectively erase them--reducing cancer risk without compromising normal regeneration--and may one day help prevent inflammation-linked cancers before they arise. Dr. Kim received his PhD and BSc from Seoul National University, Seoul.
Zhuoran Li, PhD [Connie and Bob Lurie Fellow], with her sponsor Katrin J. Svensson, PhD, at Stanford University, Stanford
Changes in appetite and metabolism can affect how tumors develop, how they progress, and overall patient prognosis. Peptide hormones are small signaling molecules that help organs communicate and coordinate whole-body metabolism. Recent computational studies suggest that the brain may produce many more peptides than previously recognized--yet for most of these, we still do not know what they do, where they act, or how they work together. Dr. Li aims to identify new peptide signals produced by the brain and determine how they affect appetite and regulate metabolism. This work may reveal new brain-body signaling pathways that could ultimately help support cancer treatment and improve patient well-being. Dr. Li received her PhD from Stanford University, Stanford, and her BS from Peking University, Beijing.
Rachael A. McMinimy, PhD [Connie and Bob Lurie Fellow], with her sponsor Isha Himani Jain, PhD, at The J. David Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco
Normal cells convert glucose into energy via cellular respiration in the mitochondria, but cancer cells often rely on alternative metabolic pathways that support rapid growth. Central to this strategy is the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex, an enzymatic switch that controls how cells use glucose. Dr. McMinimy studies a newly discovered pathway that regulates this switch through selective protein degradation. By understanding and manipulating this pathway, she hopes to redirect cancer cell metabolism back toward the mitochondria, potentially slowing tumor growth. Dr. McMinimy received her PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and her BA from Oberlin College, Oberlin.
Gayathri Muthukumar, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with her sponsor Carolyn Bertozzi, PhD, at Stanford University, Stanford
More than half of all FDA-approved biotherapeutics target proteins on the cell surface involved in intercellular communication. The vast majority of these proteins are decorated with post-translational modifications (PTMs), such as the addition of a sugar molecule, but our understanding of how individual PTMs affect communication in a disease context is poor. As aggressive tumors often have surface proteins thickly coated in sugar molecules, they are suspected to play a role in in driving oncogenic growth and tumor immune evasion. Dr. Muthukumar will map cell surface and intracellular membrane PTMs in cancer cells, and then interrogate the role each of these PTMs play in oncogenesis with precise mutational genomic screens. This will highlight the PTMs that drive tumor pathology, allowing for the development of new precision therapeutics and cancer diagnostic markers. Dr. Muthukumar received her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and her BA from Columbia University, New York.
Angelos Pistofidis, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with his sponsor Seychelle M. Vos, PhD, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
During mitosis, two copies of the genome condense and segregate, a process catalyzed by a protein known as transcription termination factor 2 (TTF2). Mutations in TTF2 have been associated with incomplete genome segregation, DNA damage, and cell death. Research has shown that TTF2 is necessary for many cancers, making it a prime target for future cancer therapeutics. Dr. Pistofidis aims to use a combination of structural biology, biochemistry, and single-molecule biophysics to outline the molecular mechanism of TTF2. Ultimately, this work will reveal vulnerabilities in the mechanism of TTF2 that can be exploited for the development of cancer therapeutics. Dr. Pistofidis received his PhD from McGill University, Montreal, and his MSc from the University College London, London.
Bailey Schultz, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with his sponsor Jeremy Rock, PhD, at The Rockefeller University, New York
Estimates suggest that a quarter of the world's population has been infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which causes tuberculosis (TB) and kills more people than any other pathogen. The relationship between TB and cancer is bidirectional: a history of TB is associated with a higher risk of developing cancer (especially respiratory cancers), while many cancers and chemotherapies increase the risk of contracting TB by weakening the immune system, and some immunotherapies can even reactivate dormant TB infections. Better anti-TB drugs are urgently needed, but drug development efforts have been hampered by an incomplete molecular-level understanding of how M. tuberculosis grows and divides. Dr. Schultz is using genome-wide CRISPR-based approaches to identify and study genes that regulate mycobacterial cell growth and division. His work will point to new drug targets and help anticipate possible routes of antibiotic resistance, hopefully leading to new treatments for TB that will ease its burden on cancer patients. Dr. Schultz received his PhD from Harvard University, Cambridge, and his BS from Stanford University, Stanford.
Christina A. Stephens, PhD [National Mah Jongg League Fellow], with her sponsor Naomi R. Latorraca, PhD, and Ruben L. Gonzalez, Jr., PhD, at Columbia University, New York
Solid tumors, like those commonly found in breast and lung cancers, are challenging to treat using state-of-the-art cell engineering techniques due to their heterogeneous surface proteins. There is thus a need to identify unique markers on tumor cells that can be used as molecular targets. Recently, a subclass of surface proteins known as aGPCRs has been recognized as potential markers and propagators of several cancers, but little is known about their molecular mechanism. Dr. Stephen's research uses single-molecule microscopy coupled with molecular dynamics simulations to provide a detailed picture of the factors that control aGPCR activation. Dr. Stephens will ultimately use these assays to screen and optimize therapeutic targeting of aGPCRs implicated in cancer. Dr. Stephens received her PhD from the University of California, San Francisco, and her BS from the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.
Yang Su, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with his sponsor Samie R. Jaffrey, MD, PhD, at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York
The oncogene c-MYC is a "master regulator" that drives aggressive cancer growth but is widely considered "undruggable" due to its lack of an accessible drug-binding pocket. Inside a cell, the levels of c-MYC protein are tightly controlled at both the RNA and protein levels by various chemical modifications. For example, c-MYC messenger RNA (mRNA) is frequently modified with the addition of a methyl group, which typically triggers rapid mRNA decay. Dr. Su and his colleagues recently discovered that c-MYC mRNA can also be decorated with two methyl groups, a completely new class of modification. Crucial questions remain unanswered: What is the biological impact of this modification on c-MYC? Which enzyme installs it? How does it alter c-MYC function? Dr. Su will address these questions using multidisciplinary approaches, revealing a fundamentally new mechanism of c-MYC regulation and paving the way for novel therapeutics designed to interfere with c-MYC modifications in cancer cells. Dr. Su received his PhD from the University of Georgia, Athens, and his BS from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou.
Shuya Wang, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with her sponsor David S. Pellman, MD, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston
Even within the same tumor, cancer cells can differ in which genes they turn on or off, allowing some cells to adapt, survive treatment, or become more aggressive. These differences are often driven by changes in the epigenome, a layer of regulation that controls gene activity. Dr. Wang's project explores the origin of epigenetic heterogeneity in cancer, focusing on the role of genome instability in driving epigenetic changes. By identifying the genes and pathways that connect these processes, she aims to better understand how cancer cells generate and maintain epigenetic heterogeneity, revealing new ways to limit tumor evolution, adaptation, and treatment resistance across all cancer types. Dr. Wang received her PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her BS from Emory University, Decatur.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.damonrunyon.org/discovery/damon-runyon-cancer-research-foundation-awards-42-million-exceptional-early-career
* * *
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation awards $4.2 million to exceptional early-career scientists
The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation has named 14 new Damon Runyon Fellows, brilliant postdoctoral scientists conducting basic and translational cancer research in the laboratories of leading senior investigators. This prestigious Fellowship encourages the nation's most promising young scientists to pursue careers in cancer research by providing them with independent funding ($300,000 ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Aug. 14 -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation awards $4.2 million to exceptional early-career scientists The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation has named 14 new Damon Runyon Fellows, brilliant postdoctoral scientists conducting basic and translational cancer research in the laboratories of leading senior investigators. This prestigious Fellowship encourages the nation's most promising young scientists to pursue careers in cancer research by providing them with independent funding ($300,000total over four years) to investigate cancer causes, mechanisms, therapies, and prevention.
"There's so much talent and excitement and passion and energy at this stage of a scientist's career," said current Damon Runyon-Timmerman Traverse Fellow Antonio J. LaPorte, PhD. "To take advantage of that human spirit, we really need foundations like Damon Runyon to help out with funding."
"We are committed to continuing to provide financial support for these exceptional researchers, whose much-needed breakthroughs in cancer prevention, diagnostics, and therapeutics might otherwise go unfunded," said Yung S. Lie, PhD, President and CEO of Damon Runyon. "Damon Runyon Fellows are the future leaders of their fields."
May 2026 Fellows
Nicholas Aboreden, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with his sponsor Kimberly Stegmaier, MD, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston
Only two percent of the human genome contains instructions for making proteins. Much of the remaining 98 percent, once referred to as "genomic dark matter," consists of regulatory elements that act as molecular switches to turn genes on or off. These molecular switches are broadly categorized into two groups: enhancers (on-switches) and silencers (off-switches). While it is well-known that cancers exploit enhancer elements to amplify the expression of growth-promoting genes, silencers remain poorly understood. Dr. Aboreden's research focuses on the repressive mechanisms that cancer cells use to sustain uncontrolled growth. He is mapping the regulatory genome of an aggressive type of pediatric leukemia characterized by widespread gene repression. By identifying silencer elements that these cancer cells use to maintain a malignant state, his work aims to identify new therapeutic vulnerabilities to selectively target cancer. The insights gleaned from this work will have broad relevance across diverse tumor types. Dr. Aboreden received his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, his MS from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and his BS from Liberty University, Lynchburg.
Shihui Chen, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with her sponsor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, PhD, at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
During the first days of embryogenesis, genetically identical cells begin the process of differentiation, switching genes "on" or "off" to establish distinct cell lineages that will ultimately form the embryo and supporting tissues. Aberrant reactivation of these embryonic gene regulatory programs later in life is a hallmark of many cancers. Dr. Chen's research investigates how genetically identical cells acquire distinct fates during early mammalian development and explores the shared gene regulatory mechanisms that govern both development and cancer. Using mouse embryos as a model system, she will determine how CARM1, a regulator that is frequently overexpressed in human cancers, controls gene expression programs that drive early cell fate decisions. This work will reveal fundamental mechanisms that establish and maintain cellular identity and provide insight into how developmental pathways are hijacked during cancer initiation and progression. Dr. Chen received her PhD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and her BS from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan.
Stephanie A. Gaglione, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with her sponsor Alexander Marson, MD, PhD, at The J. David Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco
Cancer immunotherapies can be engineered to direct T cells against specific tumor antigens, but many challenging cancers lack viable targets. Recent advances suggest that an understudied source of antigens can generate strong immune responses. These cryptic antigens originate from unusual and noncoding parts of viruses and tumor genomes and may be shared between patients. Dr. Gaglione will apply cutting-edge tools to comprehensively profile the antigen landscape of virally-driven cancers, mapping which antigens are presented to the immune system and which trigger tumor-specific immune responses. This work will reveal new, potentially shared targets for T cell-based therapies, including engineered T cells and cancer vaccines. Beyond virally-driven cancers, these approaches may help identify therapeutic targets and mechanisms in other diseases with T cell involvement. Dr. Gaglione received her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, her MSc from the University of Oxford, Oxford, and her BASc from the University of Toronto, Toronto.
Yi Hua, PhD [Connie and Bob Lurie Fellow], with his sponsor Alice Y. Ting, PhD, at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford
Cell surface proteins play prominent roles in regulating immune responses and govern intercellular communications within the tumor microenvironment. To study the roles of cell surface proteins during cancer progression at exceptional molecular resolution, Dr. Hua aims to develop SortID, a novel labeling technology based on an engineered bacterial enzyme. SortID will be able to rapidly label any exposed protein residues on the cell surface, enabling precise mapping of the cell surface without pre-installed tags. To demonstrate its transformative utility, Dr. Hua will deploy SortID to map the surface of SLAMF7, a critical therapeutic target in multiple myeloma. Ultimately, SortID will provide a highly precise and comprehensive map of cell surface interactions, deepening our understanding of cancer progression and unlocking novel targets for targeted immunotherapies. Dr. Hua received his PhD from Princeton University, Princeton, and his BS from Tsinghua University, Beijing.
Devon Jeltema, PhD, with her sponsor Britt A. Glaunsinger, PhD, at the University of California, Berkeley
A family of enzymes called PARPs help cells defend against viruses and other stressors by chemically modifying other molecules. While research on PARPs has historically focused on their modification of proteins, Dr. Jeltema's research explores the modification of RNA by PARPs. Her project aims to investigate how RNA modification affects immune responses to threats like viral infection and cancer. Using biochemical and sequencing tools to map which RNA molecules are modified, Dr. Jeltema hopes to identify a new facet of immune defense that can be harnessed to treat cancer. Dr. Jeltema received her PhD from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and her BS from Wheaton College, Norton.
Jaejin Kim, PhD [Hope Funds for Cancer Research Fellow], with his sponsor Elaine Fuchs, PhD, at The Rockefeller University, New York
Inflammatory diseases such as eczema, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease often recur years later in the same places, suggesting that tissues can "remember" past insults. Such memories can be beneficial, accelerating wound healing and pathogen defense, but they can also be maladaptive, predisposing tissues to chronic inflammation and cancer. It remains unclear how this memory is preserved in stem cells that otherwise appear normal, and which features promote regeneration versus cancer. Dr. Kim aims to identify the genes and molecular mechanisms underlying tissue memory and to define their consequences for wound repair and tumorigenesis. Identifying the "bad memories" that drive tumorigenesis could open opportunities to selectively erase them--reducing cancer risk without compromising normal regeneration--and may one day help prevent inflammation-linked cancers before they arise. Dr. Kim received his PhD and BSc from Seoul National University, Seoul.
Zhuoran Li, PhD [Connie and Bob Lurie Fellow], with her sponsor Katrin J. Svensson, PhD, at Stanford University, Stanford
Changes in appetite and metabolism can affect how tumors develop, how they progress, and overall patient prognosis. Peptide hormones are small signaling molecules that help organs communicate and coordinate whole-body metabolism. Recent computational studies suggest that the brain may produce many more peptides than previously recognized--yet for most of these, we still do not know what they do, where they act, or how they work together. Dr. Li aims to identify new peptide signals produced by the brain and determine how they affect appetite and regulate metabolism. This work may reveal new brain-body signaling pathways that could ultimately help support cancer treatment and improve patient well-being. Dr. Li received her PhD from Stanford University, Stanford, and her BS from Peking University, Beijing.
Rachael A. McMinimy, PhD [Connie and Bob Lurie Fellow], with her sponsor Isha Himani Jain, PhD, at The J. David Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco
Normal cells convert glucose into energy via cellular respiration in the mitochondria, but cancer cells often rely on alternative metabolic pathways that support rapid growth. Central to this strategy is the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex, an enzymatic switch that controls how cells use glucose. Dr. McMinimy studies a newly discovered pathway that regulates this switch through selective protein degradation. By understanding and manipulating this pathway, she hopes to redirect cancer cell metabolism back toward the mitochondria, potentially slowing tumor growth. Dr. McMinimy received her PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and her BA from Oberlin College, Oberlin.
Gayathri Muthukumar, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with her sponsor Carolyn Bertozzi, PhD, at Stanford University, Stanford
More than half of all FDA-approved biotherapeutics target proteins on the cell surface involved in intercellular communication. The vast majority of these proteins are decorated with post-translational modifications (PTMs), such as the addition of a sugar molecule, but our understanding of how individual PTMs affect communication in a disease context is poor. As aggressive tumors often have surface proteins thickly coated in sugar molecules, they are suspected to play a role in in driving oncogenic growth and tumor immune evasion. Dr. Muthukumar will map cell surface and intracellular membrane PTMs in cancer cells, and then interrogate the role each of these PTMs play in oncogenesis with precise mutational genomic screens. This will highlight the PTMs that drive tumor pathology, allowing for the development of new precision therapeutics and cancer diagnostic markers. Dr. Muthukumar received her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and her BA from Columbia University, New York.
Angelos Pistofidis, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with his sponsor Seychelle M. Vos, PhD, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
During mitosis, two copies of the genome condense and segregate, a process catalyzed by a protein known as transcription termination factor 2 (TTF2). Mutations in TTF2 have been associated with incomplete genome segregation, DNA damage, and cell death. Research has shown that TTF2 is necessary for many cancers, making it a prime target for future cancer therapeutics. Dr. Pistofidis aims to use a combination of structural biology, biochemistry, and single-molecule biophysics to outline the molecular mechanism of TTF2. Ultimately, this work will reveal vulnerabilities in the mechanism of TTF2 that can be exploited for the development of cancer therapeutics. Dr. Pistofidis received his PhD from McGill University, Montreal, and his MSc from the University College London, London.
Bailey Schultz, PhD [Timmerman Traverse Fellow], with his sponsor Jeremy Rock, PhD, at The Rockefeller University, New York
Estimates suggest that a quarter of the world's population has been infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which causes tuberculosis (TB) and kills more people than any other pathogen. The relationship between TB and cancer is bidirectional: a history of TB is associated with a higher risk of developing cancer (especially respiratory cancers), while many cancers and chemotherapies increase the risk of contracting TB by weakening the immune system, and some immunotherapies can even reactivate dormant TB infections. Better anti-TB drugs are urgently needed, but drug development efforts have been hampered by an incomplete molecular-level understanding of how M. tuberculosis grows and divides. Dr. Schultz is using genome-wide CRISPR-based approaches to identify and study genes that regulate mycobacterial cell growth and division. His work will point to new drug targets and help anticipate possible routes of antibiotic resistance, hopefully leading to new treatments for TB that will ease its burden on cancer patients. Dr. Schultz received his PhD from Harvard University, Cambridge, and his BS from Stanford University, Stanford.
Christina A. Stephens, PhD [National Mah Jongg League Fellow], with her sponsor Naomi R. Latorraca, PhD, and Ruben L. Gonzalez, Jr., PhD, at Columbia University, New York
Solid tumors, like those commonly found in breast and lung cancers, are challenging to treat using state-of-the-art cell engineering techniques due to their heterogeneous surface proteins. There is thus a need to identify unique markers on tumor cells that can be used as molecular targets. Recently, a subclass of surface proteins known as aGPCRs has been recognized as potential markers and propagators of several cancers, but little is known about their molecular mechanism. Dr. Stephen's research uses single-molecule microscopy coupled with molecular dynamics simulations to provide a detailed picture of the factors that control aGPCR activation. Dr. Stephens will ultimately use these assays to screen and optimize therapeutic targeting of aGPCRs implicated in cancer. Dr. Stephens received her PhD from the University of California, San Francisco, and her BS from the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.
Yang Su, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with his sponsor Samie R. Jaffrey, MD, PhD, at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York
The oncogene c-MYC is a "master regulator" that drives aggressive cancer growth but is widely considered "undruggable" due to its lack of an accessible drug-binding pocket. Inside a cell, the levels of c-MYC protein are tightly controlled at both the RNA and protein levels by various chemical modifications. For example, c-MYC messenger RNA (mRNA) is frequently modified with the addition of a methyl group, which typically triggers rapid mRNA decay. Dr. Su and his colleagues recently discovered that c-MYC mRNA can also be decorated with two methyl groups, a completely new class of modification. Crucial questions remain unanswered: What is the biological impact of this modification on c-MYC? Which enzyme installs it? How does it alter c-MYC function? Dr. Su will address these questions using multidisciplinary approaches, revealing a fundamentally new mechanism of c-MYC regulation and paving the way for novel therapeutics designed to interfere with c-MYC modifications in cancer cells. Dr. Su received his PhD from the University of Georgia, Athens, and his BS from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou.
Shuya Wang, PhD [Robertson Foundation Fellow], with her sponsor David S. Pellman, MD, at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston
Even within the same tumor, cancer cells can differ in which genes they turn on or off, allowing some cells to adapt, survive treatment, or become more aggressive. These differences are often driven by changes in the epigenome, a layer of regulation that controls gene activity. Dr. Wang's project explores the origin of epigenetic heterogeneity in cancer, focusing on the role of genome instability in driving epigenetic changes. By identifying the genes and pathways that connect these processes, she aims to better understand how cancer cells generate and maintain epigenetic heterogeneity, revealing new ways to limit tumor evolution, adaptation, and treatment resistance across all cancer types. Dr. Wang received her PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her BS from Emory University, Decatur.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.damonrunyon.org/discovery/damon-runyon-cancer-research-foundation-awards-42-million-exceptional-early-career
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: We Need to Do Nothing About AI
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mani Basharzad, Institute of Economic Affairs research associate:
* * *
We Need to Do Nothing About AI
Fear of new technology is hardly new.
-
In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson.
The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically more ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mani Basharzad, Institute of Economic Affairs research associate: * * * We Need to Do Nothing About AI Fear of new technology is hardly new. - In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson. The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically morepowerful over the next decade." Second, they argue that it could "transform the economy on a scale larger than the Industrial Revolution, but over a much shorter period, bringing both large-scale job displacement and significant improvements in living standards." Third, they argue that "economists, policymakers, and technology leaders must act now to create the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to ensure AI benefits society."
These propositions have created an unusual consensus among economists and policymakers. They also reflect a broader public anxiety about AI and its impact on people's livelihoods. Yet, as Stanford economist John Cochrane remarked in response to the letter, "You see AI everywhere, except in productivity and labor statistics." That is the first problem with the argument: those are the two places where the letter's predictions should already be showing up.
The letter makes extraordinary claims, and as the famous saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet the evidence offered is remarkably thin. The language is dramatic--"large-scale job displacement," "larger than the Industrial Revolution," and "major gains in living standards"--but every prediction is qualified by one word: could. There is still little evidence that AI has fundamentally reshaped employment or productivity.
Take the labor market as an example. A widely cited survey claimed that employers plan to reduce graduate hiring because of AI. But the study was forecasting the future, not describing present reality. It found that "four in ten employers believe entry-level roles could disappear within the next five years." Once again, the evidence rests on expectations and fears rather than observed outcomes.
Now compare that with what is actually happening. Economist Valentin Boboc has argued that entry-level jobs are growing fastest at firms that are aggressively adopting AI. If AI were already eliminating these positions, we would expect to see the opposite.
Consider youth unemployment. Which developed country currently faces one of the most severe youth employment crises? The answer is not a country overwhelmed by AI, but the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people aged 16-24 are classified as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), at an estimated annual cost of pound sterling125 billion ($169 billion) to the economy.
The greatest threat to young workers is not AI, but poor government policy. In the UK, higher employer National Insurance contributions have increased the cost of hiring. More generous long-term sickness benefits have weakened incentives to return to work for some claimants. Large increases in the minimum wage have also raised the cost of employing inexperienced workers. These policies provide a far more convincing explanation for weak youth employment than AI does.
The fundamental problem with the letter is its demand for urgent action in the absence of convincing evidence. It asks governments and institutions to intervene now to address a risk that has yet to materialize. The consensus itself appears to rest more on speculation than on observed facts.
As F.A. Hayek warned in his Nobel Prize lecture, quoting Alfred Marshall: "Students of social science must fear popular approval: evil is with them when all men speak well of them." When there is overwhelming agreement that governments must "act now," economists should become more skeptical, not less.
The mindset that governments must immediately regulate AI may prove more dangerous than AI itself. Markets generally adapt to technological change. When genuine market failures emerge, there is a case for government intervention. But where, exactly, is the market failure in AI today that demands immediate regulation?
Many of the economic problems we face today are the result of government failures rather than market failures. Excessive labor market regulation in many European countries has made hiring and firing employees so costly that employers become reluctant to take risks on new workers. Henry Hazlitt's life contrasted this with the period before Franklin D. Roosevelt's labor reforms:
In those years, it was not hard for a young man to get a job. With no government-imposed obstacles to hiring and firing, no minimum wage laws, no workday or workweek restrictions, and no unemployment or social security taxes, employer and potential employee needed only to agree on the terms of employment.
Fear of new technology is hardly new. Nor has it been confined to critics of free markets such as Stiglitz or Krugman. During the Industrial Revolution, David Ricardo added a chapter titled "On Machinery" to Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, arguing that machinery could often be "very injurious" to workers and might not always serve the general good. Technological pessimism has a long history even among champions of free markets.
That is why I am not surprised to see free-market economists among the signatories of this letter. What is surprising is their willingness to advocate immediate policy intervention without enough evidence that such intervention is needed.
Until there is clear evidence of widespread economic harm, we should do nothing about AI. Building regulations around what might happen, rather than what has happened, risks stifling innovation, protecting incumbent firms from competition, and erecting barriers to new entrants.
* * *
Mani Basharzad is a Research Associate at the Institute of Economic Affairs and an Asia Freedom Fellow at the London School of Economics. His work has been published by the New York Post, National Review, The Spectator, and Daily Express.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/we-need-to-do-nothing-about-ai/
* * *
We Need to Do Nothing About AI
Fear of new technology is hardly new.
-
In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson.
The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically more ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Mani Basharzad, Institute of Economic Affairs research associate: * * * We Need to Do Nothing About AI Fear of new technology is hardly new. - In recent weeks, a letter on AI titled "We Must Act Now" has made headlines. Its list of signatories brought together an unlikely coalition of intellectuals, from Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen, and Niall Ferguson. The signatories agree on three key propositions. First, they argue that "AI may become radically morepowerful over the next decade." Second, they argue that it could "transform the economy on a scale larger than the Industrial Revolution, but over a much shorter period, bringing both large-scale job displacement and significant improvements in living standards." Third, they argue that "economists, policymakers, and technology leaders must act now to create the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to ensure AI benefits society."
These propositions have created an unusual consensus among economists and policymakers. They also reflect a broader public anxiety about AI and its impact on people's livelihoods. Yet, as Stanford economist John Cochrane remarked in response to the letter, "You see AI everywhere, except in productivity and labor statistics." That is the first problem with the argument: those are the two places where the letter's predictions should already be showing up.
The letter makes extraordinary claims, and as the famous saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet the evidence offered is remarkably thin. The language is dramatic--"large-scale job displacement," "larger than the Industrial Revolution," and "major gains in living standards"--but every prediction is qualified by one word: could. There is still little evidence that AI has fundamentally reshaped employment or productivity.
Take the labor market as an example. A widely cited survey claimed that employers plan to reduce graduate hiring because of AI. But the study was forecasting the future, not describing present reality. It found that "four in ten employers believe entry-level roles could disappear within the next five years." Once again, the evidence rests on expectations and fears rather than observed outcomes.
Now compare that with what is actually happening. Economist Valentin Boboc has argued that entry-level jobs are growing fastest at firms that are aggressively adopting AI. If AI were already eliminating these positions, we would expect to see the opposite.
Consider youth unemployment. Which developed country currently faces one of the most severe youth employment crises? The answer is not a country overwhelmed by AI, but the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people aged 16-24 are classified as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), at an estimated annual cost of pound sterling125 billion ($169 billion) to the economy.
The greatest threat to young workers is not AI, but poor government policy. In the UK, higher employer National Insurance contributions have increased the cost of hiring. More generous long-term sickness benefits have weakened incentives to return to work for some claimants. Large increases in the minimum wage have also raised the cost of employing inexperienced workers. These policies provide a far more convincing explanation for weak youth employment than AI does.
The fundamental problem with the letter is its demand for urgent action in the absence of convincing evidence. It asks governments and institutions to intervene now to address a risk that has yet to materialize. The consensus itself appears to rest more on speculation than on observed facts.
As F.A. Hayek warned in his Nobel Prize lecture, quoting Alfred Marshall: "Students of social science must fear popular approval: evil is with them when all men speak well of them." When there is overwhelming agreement that governments must "act now," economists should become more skeptical, not less.
The mindset that governments must immediately regulate AI may prove more dangerous than AI itself. Markets generally adapt to technological change. When genuine market failures emerge, there is a case for government intervention. But where, exactly, is the market failure in AI today that demands immediate regulation?
Many of the economic problems we face today are the result of government failures rather than market failures. Excessive labor market regulation in many European countries has made hiring and firing employees so costly that employers become reluctant to take risks on new workers. Henry Hazlitt's life contrasted this with the period before Franklin D. Roosevelt's labor reforms:
In those years, it was not hard for a young man to get a job. With no government-imposed obstacles to hiring and firing, no minimum wage laws, no workday or workweek restrictions, and no unemployment or social security taxes, employer and potential employee needed only to agree on the terms of employment.
Fear of new technology is hardly new. Nor has it been confined to critics of free markets such as Stiglitz or Krugman. During the Industrial Revolution, David Ricardo added a chapter titled "On Machinery" to Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, arguing that machinery could often be "very injurious" to workers and might not always serve the general good. Technological pessimism has a long history even among champions of free markets.
That is why I am not surprised to see free-market economists among the signatories of this letter. What is surprising is their willingness to advocate immediate policy intervention without enough evidence that such intervention is needed.
Until there is clear evidence of widespread economic harm, we should do nothing about AI. Building regulations around what might happen, rather than what has happened, risks stifling innovation, protecting incumbent firms from competition, and erecting barriers to new entrants.
* * *
Mani Basharzad is a Research Associate at the Institute of Economic Affairs and an Asia Freedom Fellow at the London School of Economics. His work has been published by the New York Post, National Review, The Spectator, and Daily Express.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/we-need-to-do-nothing-about-ai/
Boston Foundation: Boston Fed Report on Family Wealth Provides Valuable Statewide Insight Into Wealth Gaps, Say Community Partners
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 13 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 12, 2026:
* * *
New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners
The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartial ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 13 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 12, 2026: * * * New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartialresearch will inform their ongoing, cross-sector work to ensure all Massachusetts residents have economic opportunities.
The study, Family Wealth in Massachusetts: Findings from the 2025 Massachusetts Economic Conditions and Household Opportunity Survey (Mass ECHOS), is the largest of its kind in Massachusetts and provides a sobering confirmation of persistent wealth disparities across place and demographic groups in Massachusetts, as well as within many of the broader demographic categories. The survey, which garnered about 5,000 usable responses from across Massachusetts, asked respondents to share information about family wealth components and used these to calculate net wealth, along with analyses of gifts, inheritances, and estate planning.
"James Baldwin said, 'Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced,'" noted Lee Pelton, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation. "This well-designed, far-reaching, and rigorously documented survey by the Boston Fed allows us to face the challenge of equity with new vigor and knowledge that our work to strengthen homeownership, improve educational outcomes, and support small businesses can and will over time strengthen the economic well-being of people across the Commonwealth. It provides vitally important data to guide TBF's continuing efforts to build a Greater Boston that works for everyone."
"As the Commonwealth and country celebrate 250 years, we must remain committed to urgently building a future that increases opportunity and quality of life for all people. This new, statewide report provides data that highlights the wide gaps in wealth and access to economic mobility, emphasizing the many neighborhoods and demographics in need of transformative support and impact," said James E. Rooney, President & CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. "Through the Chamber and Chamber Foundation, we are strengthening our initiatives, including Supercharging Housing Production, Small Business Strong, Pacesetters, and our financial literacy partnership with Boston Public Schools, to ensure that our state is a place where every person and family can deepen their roots, build wealth that uplifts their families and communities, and create a meaningful legacy."
"Having wealth is the ability to financially navigate an unexpected job loss, a serious illness, or buy and/or maintain a home. It is the difference between one's ability to live to their fullest potential and a trajectory that mires them in debt," said Ali Noorani, President and CEO, Barr Foundation. "According to this important new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, about a third of the Commonwealth's families do not have $400 in cash or the equivalent to address an emergency expense. This is a clear indication to us that economic inequity is so deeply rooted that solutions can only be found in collaboration. The surest way to reduce the wealth gap is by working together across sectors and ideologies to remove barriers and improve access to capital."
"We are deeply invested in creating a thriving local, economy where everyone has the opportunity to prosper," said Turahn Dorsey, President and CEO, Eastern Bank Foundation. "Our work in the areas of affordable housing, small business development and workforce development aims to address the disparities and close the gaps described in the Federal Reserve's latest report. We need good data and the kind of honest perspective on the challenges that the research provides to have the impact that we intend."
Among the key findings*:
* Overall, Massachusetts families have a median household wealth of roughly $374,000, but one-in-six families in the Commonwealth have zero or negative wealth--that is, their debts and other liabilities exceed the value of their assets.
* White families in the survey had an estimated median net wealth of $549,200, versus $305,000 for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) families. For Hispanic and Black families, median net wealth was strikingly lower. Among Black families, it was $7,800, and for Hispanic families, it was $1,200.
* The survey also found substantial differences in wealth by educational attainment. Families where the respondent or spouse had not completed high school had median net wealth of $1,100, versus $280,800 for those with some college, including technical and associate's degrees, $455,000 for bachelor's degree holders and $947,400 for those with graduate degrees.
* And the survey found that overall homeowners had substantially higher net wealth than renters, with an estimated median of $790,500, compared to $1,500 for renters.
Beyond these broad measures, the data are striking in their illustration of the precariousness of life for millions of Massachusetts residents. Consistent with estimates for the nation from other data, more than one in three households in Massachusetts said they did not have $400 on hand to pay for an emergency expense, such as car repairs, an illness, or a household emergency. In Massachusetts' 26 Gateway Cities, that percentage rises to just over half.
The report funders reiterate the Boston Fed's note that these survey data cannot be directly compared with those in the well-known 2015 Boston Fed study "The Color of Wealth," because of their different methodologies and geographies. The findings, however, clearly demonstrate that the broad wealth gaps in Massachusetts, which developed over centuries, remain distressingly large and should motivate a renewed call to action.
The funders who supported the collection of the data used in this Boston Fed report will continue to explore the data in greater detail, broaden the conversation on wealth gaps, and work to develop the collaborative solutions needed to shape a more equitable Massachusetts.
* * *
*The full report contains important information on confidence intervals across these data.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/one-time-pubs/2026/Massechos_full_report.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/august/massechos-partner-reaction-20260812
* * *
New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners
The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartial ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Aug. 13 (TNSrpt) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release on Aug. 12, 2026: * * * New Boston Fed report on family wealth provides valuable statewide insight into wealth gaps, say community partners The Boston Foundation (TBF) and a committee of strategic partners, including the Barr Foundation, Eastern Bank Foundation, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, say the new study of family wealth in Massachusetts, released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, provides unprecedented insights into wealth gaps in the state. The rigorous, impartialresearch will inform their ongoing, cross-sector work to ensure all Massachusetts residents have economic opportunities.
The study, Family Wealth in Massachusetts: Findings from the 2025 Massachusetts Economic Conditions and Household Opportunity Survey (Mass ECHOS), is the largest of its kind in Massachusetts and provides a sobering confirmation of persistent wealth disparities across place and demographic groups in Massachusetts, as well as within many of the broader demographic categories. The survey, which garnered about 5,000 usable responses from across Massachusetts, asked respondents to share information about family wealth components and used these to calculate net wealth, along with analyses of gifts, inheritances, and estate planning.
"James Baldwin said, 'Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced,'" noted Lee Pelton, President and CEO of the Boston Foundation. "This well-designed, far-reaching, and rigorously documented survey by the Boston Fed allows us to face the challenge of equity with new vigor and knowledge that our work to strengthen homeownership, improve educational outcomes, and support small businesses can and will over time strengthen the economic well-being of people across the Commonwealth. It provides vitally important data to guide TBF's continuing efforts to build a Greater Boston that works for everyone."
"As the Commonwealth and country celebrate 250 years, we must remain committed to urgently building a future that increases opportunity and quality of life for all people. This new, statewide report provides data that highlights the wide gaps in wealth and access to economic mobility, emphasizing the many neighborhoods and demographics in need of transformative support and impact," said James E. Rooney, President & CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. "Through the Chamber and Chamber Foundation, we are strengthening our initiatives, including Supercharging Housing Production, Small Business Strong, Pacesetters, and our financial literacy partnership with Boston Public Schools, to ensure that our state is a place where every person and family can deepen their roots, build wealth that uplifts their families and communities, and create a meaningful legacy."
"Having wealth is the ability to financially navigate an unexpected job loss, a serious illness, or buy and/or maintain a home. It is the difference between one's ability to live to their fullest potential and a trajectory that mires them in debt," said Ali Noorani, President and CEO, Barr Foundation. "According to this important new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, about a third of the Commonwealth's families do not have $400 in cash or the equivalent to address an emergency expense. This is a clear indication to us that economic inequity is so deeply rooted that solutions can only be found in collaboration. The surest way to reduce the wealth gap is by working together across sectors and ideologies to remove barriers and improve access to capital."
"We are deeply invested in creating a thriving local, economy where everyone has the opportunity to prosper," said Turahn Dorsey, President and CEO, Eastern Bank Foundation. "Our work in the areas of affordable housing, small business development and workforce development aims to address the disparities and close the gaps described in the Federal Reserve's latest report. We need good data and the kind of honest perspective on the challenges that the research provides to have the impact that we intend."
Among the key findings*:
* Overall, Massachusetts families have a median household wealth of roughly $374,000, but one-in-six families in the Commonwealth have zero or negative wealth--that is, their debts and other liabilities exceed the value of their assets.
* White families in the survey had an estimated median net wealth of $549,200, versus $305,000 for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) families. For Hispanic and Black families, median net wealth was strikingly lower. Among Black families, it was $7,800, and for Hispanic families, it was $1,200.
* The survey also found substantial differences in wealth by educational attainment. Families where the respondent or spouse had not completed high school had median net wealth of $1,100, versus $280,800 for those with some college, including technical and associate's degrees, $455,000 for bachelor's degree holders and $947,400 for those with graduate degrees.
* And the survey found that overall homeowners had substantially higher net wealth than renters, with an estimated median of $790,500, compared to $1,500 for renters.
Beyond these broad measures, the data are striking in their illustration of the precariousness of life for millions of Massachusetts residents. Consistent with estimates for the nation from other data, more than one in three households in Massachusetts said they did not have $400 on hand to pay for an emergency expense, such as car repairs, an illness, or a household emergency. In Massachusetts' 26 Gateway Cities, that percentage rises to just over half.
The report funders reiterate the Boston Fed's note that these survey data cannot be directly compared with those in the well-known 2015 Boston Fed study "The Color of Wealth," because of their different methodologies and geographies. The findings, however, clearly demonstrate that the broad wealth gaps in Massachusetts, which developed over centuries, remain distressingly large and should motivate a renewed call to action.
The funders who supported the collection of the data used in this Boston Fed report will continue to explore the data in greater detail, broaden the conversation on wealth gaps, and work to develop the collaborative solutions needed to shape a more equitable Massachusetts.
* * *
*The full report contains important information on confidence intervals across these data.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/one-time-pubs/2026/Massechos_full_report.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/august/massechos-partner-reaction-20260812