Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust: Groundbreaking Prostate Cancer Trial Launches in UK
LONDON, England, Dec. 9 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Groundbreaking prostate cancer trial launches in UK
Aquablation therapy, which uses robotics, AI and real-time imaging, is being trialled in seven countries
*
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust is the first hospital in the UK to recruit a patient to a new international surgical trial for prostate cancer.
The trial, sponsored by US company PROCEPT BioRobotics and supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), is investigating whether Aquablation
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Dec. 9 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Groundbreaking prostate cancer trial launches in UK
Aquablation therapy, which uses robotics, AI and real-time imaging, is being trialled in seven countries
*
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust is the first hospital in the UK to recruit a patient to a new international surgical trial for prostate cancer.
The trial, sponsored by US company PROCEPT BioRobotics and supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), is investigating whether Aquablationtherapy, a novel therapy using robotics, AI and real-time imaging compares favourably to traditional surgery, known as a radical prostatectomy.
Most cases of prostate cancer are localised, meaning the cancer is entirely within the prostate gland. Standard treatments range from active surveillance/monitoring of the cancer to treatments such as radiation and radical prostatectomy (surgical removal of the entire prostate gland), depending on the risk level of the cancer.
Aquablation therapy uses a robotic, high-pressure waterjet with dual image guidance. This technology allows surgeons to map the entire prostate in real time with ultrasound, delivering precise treatment that is less invasive than traditional surgery.
"This trial exemplifies the power of UK research to rapidly embrace cutting-edge technology"
The Royal Marsden is the first hospital in Europe to recruit a patient to the trial, which is being run in seven different countries. PROCEPT is aiming to recruit 280 patients globally. Men over 45 with early-stage, localised prostate cancer, who have already decided to have surgery, could be eligible for the trial.
"For men with prostate cancer confined to the prostate, curative options are excellent, however we are becoming increasingly focused on the side effects of the cancer treatment and how can we embrace new technology to maintain a man's quality-of-life following their surgery," said Mr Philip Charlesworth, Consultant Urological Surgeon at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
"This trial is measuring Aquablation therapy which uses a robotic approach to surgically remove the cancer, and to preserve a man's ability to remain continent and maintain sexual activity."
Professor Marian Knight, Scientific Director for NIHR Infrastructure, added: "This trial exemplifies the power of UK research, backed by the NIHR, to rapidly embrace cutting-edge technology and deliver it to patients.
"By investigating whether this robotic, AI-supported approach can maintain the high success rates of traditional surgery while significantly improving quality of life, we are fulfilling our commitment to innovate and reduce the long-term burden of prostate cancer treatment on men.
"The NIHR is proud to support this international collaboration, and we commend The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust for being the first in Europe to recruit a patient, demonstrating the UK's outstanding ability to deliver complex trials quickly."
Hope for improved quality of life for prostate cancer patients
Prostate cancer is a significant health concern globally, affecting one in eight men. More than 63,000 men in the UK are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year.
Removing the prostate is a very successful method of treating the cancer. But, it has a high risk of long-term quality of life side effects like erectile dysfunction and lack of bladder control. The hope is that Aquablation therapy would provide an equivalent success rate with an improved quality of life.
The innovative therapy is already widely used in the treatment of another prostate condition, called benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). BPH is a non-cancerous condition where the prostate gland grows larger than normal. The therapy is now being trialled for prostate cancer.
In this trial, researchers are identifying cancerous tissue to remove while avoiding the surrounding nerves and muscles associated with erectile function and bladder control. The robotic waterjet follows this personalised treatment plan to remove only targeted tissue.
The primary outcome is improvement in functional measures, including continence and erectile function, which will be assessed after six months.
"The potential for this trial is very exciting. It has an opportunity, depending on the results of the study, to add an alternative surgical treatment option for patients with localised prostate cancer across the globe," said Mr Charlesworth.
"The ultimate aim, and my passion, is to improve prostate cancer treatments so that they cause less harm and are less invasive for the patient. I feel that this is an incredibly exciting prospect for the future of prostate cancer care."
Supporting world-leading science
To date, there are over 25 centres globally recruiting patients into this trial. Four of these hospitals are in the UK:
* The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
* Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
* Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
* Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
By being the first country outside the US to recruit a patient, the UK has again demonstrated its ability to deliver fast, complex trial set-up and to support world-leading science in partnership with industry.
The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, alongside The Institute of Cancer Research, London and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at The Royal Marsden provided support to the trial. This is the UK's only NIHR BRC dedicated solely to cancer.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/groundbreaking-prostate-cancer-trial-launches-uk
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: New Study Details How Legal Psychedelic Services Can Treat Depression, Anxiety
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 9 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
New study details how legal psychedelic services can treat depression, anxiety
A new study has found notable improvements in mental health among participants who underwent legal, supervised sessions with psychedelics in Oregon.
By Gregory Ferenstein
A new study has found notable improvements in mental health among participants who underwent legal, supervised sessions with psychedelics in Oregon, the first state to legalize such services for adults. Published by Osmind, a mental health research
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 9 (TNSrep) -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
New study details how legal psychedelic services can treat depression, anxiety
A new study has found notable improvements in mental health among participants who underwent legal, supervised sessions with psychedelics in Oregon.
By Gregory Ferenstein
A new study has found notable improvements in mental health among participants who underwent legal, supervised sessions with psychedelics in Oregon, the first state to legalize such services for adults. Published by Osmind, a mental health researchand electronic health record company, the study analyzed treatment outcomes from individuals seeking relief from depression and anxiety under Measure 109 in Oregon. This 2020 voter-approved initiative decriminalized psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in psychedelic mushrooms, for therapeutic use by adults over 21 in state-licensed centers. While clinical trials have hinted at psilocybin's potential at scale, this report offers early evidence from a commercial setting.
The Osmind study (https://www.osmind.org/research/psilocybin-real-world-outcomes-oregon-measure-109?utm_source=chatgpt.com) relies on voluntary self-reports, making it "naturalistic" research that captures how these services perform outside the strict protocols of randomized trials (measuring outcomes through self-reported surveys is standard practice in real-world scientific research). The study tracked 88 participants and used standardized tools to measure changes: the PHQ-8 questionnaire for depression (a scale from 0 to 24, where higher scores indicate worse symptoms), the GAD-7 for anxiety, and the WHO-5 for overall well-being. Assessments occurred before the session, one day after, and a month later. No dosages were specified, but sessions followed state guidelines for supervised administration.
Results showed meaningful gains across the board. Depression scores on the PHQ-8 fell by an average of 4.6 points, shifting participants from moderate to mild severity, a change that meets the threshold for clinical significance. Anxiety dropped by 4.8 points (on the GAD-7 scale), and well-being rose by 10.7 points (on the WHO-5 index). No serious adverse events occurred during sessions, though 3 percent reported lingering issues, like heightened anxiety or family strain, a month later. These preliminary improvements suggest that psilocybin could offer rapid relief in a legal therapeutic setting, aligning with the compound's reputation for fostering emotional resilience.
Direct comparisons to other psilocybin studies or clinical trials are tricky, as many rely on different scales, populations, and measures. Some studies report quantified outcomes ("effect size") in the proportion of participants who had meaningful changes, while others report changes in a particular scale. As an example, in one randomized study, about two-thirds of participants continued to experience relief from major depressive disorder (MDD) remission five years after receiving treatment. That study only included participants diagnosed with major depression and measured outcomes with a different metric (the GRID-HAMD scale) than the Oregon study.
Nonetheless, Osmind's review of real-world data reveals significant results on depression and anxiety, consistent with more medicalized clinical trials. Oregon's approach to psychedelic treatment is a novel experiment, not just because it uses psychedelics, but because it created an entirely new mental health services framework. The state had to design training criteria for schools so that non-medical professionals could learn to administer a drug that is currently undergoing drug trials. By law, these "facilitators" did not need prior mental or medical training.
This new study shows promise for both the impact of psychedelics as a mental health treatment and for lowering the cost of licensed mental health services. Psychedelic therapy can be very expensive (over $15,000) when using a medical model, where two licensed therapists see a single patient for three extended sessions (based on countries where it is federally legal). In Oregon, professionals do not need to attend medical school and can administer group sessions, reducing the total cost per patient.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has requested that Health and Human Services (HHS) review whether psilocybin should continue to be banned as a Schedule I drug (the DEA request was publicly confirmed by Kathryn Tucker, JD, who is involved with the case; it was also confirmed privately by legal counsel to Reason staff). A Schedule I designation reflects the government's opinion that the substance has no medical value and is highly susceptible to abuse. Businesses that traffic in Schedule I substances, including Oregon psilocybin clinics, are considered federal criminal enterprises, are generally unable to access financial services, and are prohibited from claiming deductions on their federal income taxes using the "ordinary and necessary" standard that applies to other businesses. These federal penalties significantly increase the cost and risk faced by these businesses, and these additional financial burdens must be passed on to customers.
Data collected by Reason Foundation shows that states with legal psychedelic services do not display increased rates of criminal activity or hospitalizations. Taken together with this latest study, data from Oregon makes a strong case that psilocybin holds clear medical value and does not endanger public health, calling into question whether it should be considered a Schedule I drug.
* * *
Gregory Ferenstein is a senior fellow in drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/new-study-details-how-legal-psychedelic-services-can-treat-depression-anxiety/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Mandating Inefficiency - Minimum Lot Size Regulation and Housing
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 9 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Dec. 8, 2025:
* * *
Mandating inefficiency: Minimum lot size regulation and housing
Excessive land use restrictions are a primary contributor to the ongoing housing crisis, and minimum lot size regulations are among the most pervasive.
By Eliza Terziev, Housing Policy Analyst
Introduction
Excessive land use restrictions are a primary contributor to the ongoing housing crisis, and minimum lot size (MLS) regulations are among the most pervasive. MLS requirements dictate the smallest amount of land on
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 9 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Dec. 8, 2025:
* * *
Mandating inefficiency: Minimum lot size regulation and housing
Excessive land use restrictions are a primary contributor to the ongoing housing crisis, and minimum lot size regulations are among the most pervasive.
By Eliza Terziev, Housing Policy Analyst
Introduction
Excessive land use restrictions are a primary contributor to the ongoing housing crisis, and minimum lot size (MLS) regulations are among the most pervasive. MLS requirements dictate the smallest amount of land onwhich a home can be built. These rules are often coupled with minimum setback and square-footage regulations, creating a template for what homes must look like to obtain a permit. This bundle of laws makes smaller homes either unprofitable for developers or illegal. The homes produced by these design standards are out of reach for many Americans, underscoring a need for flexible housing options in the low-density forms most appealing to buyers.
Rolling back these regulations where they are excessive can open the door for smaller, denser, and less expensive units. Empirical evidence from many municipalities finds that allowing more homes per acre can lead to an influx of new units at the lower end of the market. Understanding the motivations behind MLS regulations, their current state, and what positive policy change would look like can pave the way for reform in this area.
History, rationale, and current state
Minimum lot size requirements are among the oldest and most pervasive elements of zoning, shaping land use patterns across nearly every city in the U.S. Throughout the 20th century, MLS regulation expanded, both in where it is imposed and the size of lots mandated. According to a report from the American Planning Association (APA), in the mid-20th century, it was not uncommon for localities to have lot requirements of over 20,000 square feet, with some areas requiring as much as five acres per unit. Despite growing populations, many of these laws have remained stagnant or become more severe. MLS laws serve three functions: generating tax revenue, providing water and sewer distribution, and maintaining aesthetics.
The inception of many MLS laws can be traced back to local tax policy. The Mercatus Center finds that MLS laws expanded during the baby boom, in part, to exclude smaller homes that could not generate enough property tax revenue relative to the number of children who would live in them. Specifically, "by setting a floor for land costs, [MLS] was intended to slow, if not exclude entirely, the entry of such families..."
Additionally, according to the APA, historical justifications for MLS regulations include the ability for local governments to plan their distribution of utilities, regulate congestion, and maintain air quality and health standards. For example, lots must be large enough to accommodate adequate water and sewage service, especially in areas not connected to a central system that relies on disposal methods such as septic tanks. Typically, zoning codes account for different levels of connection by having lower requirements where connection to central systems is possible, and higher requirements where it is not. Laws to ensure a minimum standard of sanitation are understandable. However, the vast majority of American homes are connected to central water and sewage, so sanitary concerns are a somewhat dubious justification in most areas today. Instead, today, MLS requirements are commonly used to promote spacious residential environments and to exclude denser housing options.
Figure 1 depicts the median lot size in each state. One influence is the environment and nature preservation. Nevada, which has the lowest median lot size, is largely uninhabitable, with development concentrated around cities and necessitating more efficient use of space. However, in less environmentally constrained areas, local land-use regulations play a significant role in determining lot sizes. Vermont combines extensive land conservation with some of the most stringent MLS requirements in the country, designed to preserve its rural character. The Northeastern Vermont Developments Association, for example, mandates an acre lot for every family as the densest option.
* * *
Figure 1: Median Lot Size by State, 2022
* * *
Source: Reason Foundation, using data from Visual Capitalist
Often, MLS requirements vary significantly on a granular level. Let's consider just one state. Florida has a wide range of minimum lot size requirements, determined either at the county or city level. Figure 2 shows the minimum lot sizes in a single city, Plantation, with just over 100,000 residents.
The patchwork of 18 different districts with 10 different minimum lot sizes in Plantation is not the result of meaningful differences in infrastructure capacity, but rather, a legacy of aesthetic preferences. In fact, Plantation was founded in the 1950s with the vision of large lots, fruit gardens, and a unique feel to every home in mind. Initial advertisements for the "anti-development" bolstered that there would be "a full acre with every home," to prevent crowding. The zoning code accompanied these preferences to ensure this outcome. While a large home far from neighbors is the dream for many, codifying this preference into law has downstream consequences that cannot be ignored. Today, the median home sale price in Plantation is $515,000, well over Florida's median of $404,400. Prices in Plantation have climbed so high that the city has signed on to a countywide gap-finance effort, despite a history of being resistant to affordable housing measures. Crystalized policy has not allowed Plantation to adapt to its modern challenges, highlighting a need for reform in this area. While their stories may be less clear, most other localities across the nation look just like this. Each county has its own version of these regulations, leading to varying MLS standards that can change from city to city and even street to street. As these areas look to tackle their affordable housing challenges, it would be helpful to reassess existing rules, such as minimum lot sizes, rather than trying another complicated and expensive approach.
* * *
Figure 2: Plantation, FL Minimum Lot Size by District (sq.ft.)
* * *
Source: Reason Foundation, using data from Plantation, Florida's Use Regulations
MLS regulations and the cost of development
The cost of housing can be divided into several categories, and the relative proportions depend on many factors. Location, current market conditions, and home construction processes all determine the division of cost categories. While construction is typically cited as making up the majority of the cost of new housing, evidence from Redfin suggests that, depending on location, the cost of land acquisition can be substantial. Tracking the cost of land as a share of home values across 40 U.S. metros, Redfin finds that the cost of land can be up to 60% of the home's value. Of the top 20 metros with the highest land-cost-to-home-value ratio, nine were in California, with the rest in other notorious high-cost areas, including Boston, New York City, and Seattle. Requiring developers to purchase more land than they need influences the types of projects they can take on and the cost of housing down the road.
Research finds that MLS regulations raise housing prices in two ways: directly and indirectly. Accounting for 78% of the cost increase, the direct effect refers to mandating larger homes, which are naturally more expensive. The indirect impact captures the amenities that larger lot sizes create, for example, less congestion and higher local tax revenue. A 2011 study of homes in the Boston area corroborates this finding, estimating that areas with restrictive MLS regulations have home prices 20% higher than towns that do not. Further, regions that restrict their MLS are likely to experience rapid home price appreciation after the restriction takes effect. The study finds that towns experienced home price increases of up to 40% 10 years after an increase in MLS listings, controlling for other factors. Importantly, this relationship goes both ways.
Houston, Texas, has among the most liberal land use rules in the country, and this trend extends to minimum lot sizes. In 2013, Houston expanded a previous policy allowing lots as small as 1,400 square feet across most of the city. This reduction is credited as one of the reasons home prices in Houston, even in its urban core, have remained lower than in comparable metros across the country. A flexible policy has made Houston resilient in a time of strain. Minimum lot-size rules raise housing costs across the board, and their impact is burdensome on entry-level homes.
Small single-family homes, often referred to as starter homes, have been hit especially hard by large lot size regulations, contributing to the phenomenon of the "missing middle." This phrase refers to the decline of middle-density development affordable to middle-income earners. By mandating expensive land purchases, small housing becomes unprofitable. Just by allowing more homes per acre, massive supply additions can be made specifically for middle-income buyers. Estimates by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) find that single family homes were built at an average rate of 5.5 units per acre (~8000 sq ft) from 2000-2024. Even a modest increase in density of eight units per acre (~5400 square feet) could have added 4.8 million additional units in this time frame. These findings are not just theoretical; they are supported by profit incentives that developers respond to. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that between 2009 and 2024, the percentage of single-family homes built on 7,000-square-foot lots or smaller rose from 25% to 39%, indicating a desire among developers to supply these density levels--if they are allowed to do so.
While large homes and neighborhood amenities are desirable for many, they should not be the only option. When land is a primary expense, requiring developers to purchase more of it than they need is a substantial barrier to new supply--especially for lower cost options. In combination with other regulatory reforms, many high-cost areas would benefit from allowing smaller land parcels for housing development.
Policy recommendations
Fully addressing current housing challenges requires not only expanding total housing supply but also enabling the construction of the types of homes that reflect the preferences of buyers, particularly single-family housing in the form of starter homes. Reforming minimum lot sizes will lower prices for many housing types, and it is an especially critical step toward opening the single-family market.
Key points
As policymakers work to liberalize land use in their communities through MLS reform, here are several key points to consider:
#1 Reduce and standardize minimum lot sizes
Where central water and sewer connectivity is possible, states and communities should reduce and standardize their MLS to modest entry-level sizes. While different communities will have varying levels of willingness, any change in regulations could increase the supply of affordable units. By reducing and standardizing, states can create a predictable development atmosphere and enable more efficient use of space where desired. Standardization also aids city planners in accounting for utilities, one of the primary motivations behind MLS regulations from a planning perspective. Importantly, reducing lot size minimums does not mean that every neighborhood will be dense--just that developers can offer more options to prospective residents.
#2 Couple MLS and dimension requirement reform
While clear MLS reform is the top priority in this area, these reductions must be supported by accompanying dimension reforms. For example, setback rules specify how far a structure must be from the edge of the property line. Setbacks are often justified on grounds of fire safety or privacy, but are frequently used in practice to maintain a suburban or rural feel for communities. If safety were the true motivation, it raises the question of why urban areas with far smaller setback requirements are not viewed as comparably at risk. Much like MLS, these laws mandate inefficient use of space and result in higher prices for residents. Reducing minimum lot sizes should be paired with adjustments to setback requirements to ensure land is used efficiently.
Further, square-footage requirements for structures restrict small housing options, like tiny homes (defined as having 400 square feet or less of living space). While some areas have changed their square-footage minimums to accommodate these housing options, many maintain larger minimums. For small lots to make sense, they must be paired with small homes. Together, MLS and dimension reforms enable compact development.
#3 Allow lot-splits by right
Lot splitting is dividing one existing lot into two or more lots. Allowing lot splits is critical for infill development and complements MLS reform by creating options for existing neighborhoods. For example, lot splits are a great way to integrate smaller housing options, like tiny homes and accessory dwelling units. Because adjusting minimum lot sizes only affects future development on raw land, it may fail to capture areas that already have homes but include property owners interested in more density. Allowing this practice by right is a valuable tool to ensure MLS reform reaches its full potential.
Recent lot size policy reform: Case studies
As housing becomes an increasingly relevant policy action item, several states and localities have reformed their MLS regulations. Below are three recent examples of putting the policy recommendations above into practice.
Maine, House Paper 1224 (2025)
In April 2025, Maine passed House Paper 1224, banning any municipality from setting an MLS requirement greater than 5,000 feet per dwelling unit in areas connected to central water and sewer systems. Importantly, this bill includes a provision that setback and other dimension requirements cannot be stricter for multifamily housing than for single-family housing, though no specific maximum is given. In addition to reforming lot size requirements, this bill loosens density rules and allows affordable housing projects an additional story above the existing local height limit. HP 1224 ranks among the most comprehensive, clear, and far-reaching statewide minimum lot size reforms to date.
Texas, Senate Bill 15 (2025)
Texas' 2025 Senate Bill 15 sets a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet for single-family lots in new subdivisions larger than five acres. These provisions apply only to municipalities with more than 150,000 residents at least partially in counties with over 300,000 residents. In qualifying municipalities, SB 15 also provides maximum setback limits. As of 2025, municipalities within 19 out of Texas' 254 counties meet the county population requirement to be subject to SB 15. While this change may seem incremental, the passing of this bill represents a massive win for Texas. The provisions in this bill were contentious and required revision from an initial 1,400-square-foot minimum proposed due to pushback from House members. While not as sweeping as initially desired, SB 15 opens the door for further reform and establishes a significant win for efficient use of land in the populated areas where Texans need it most.
The City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Legislation 1579 (2025)
In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a recent MLS reform reduced requirements across all existing subdistricts, effective May 7, 2025. Table 1 includes the change in minimum lot size per dwelling unit for each subdistrict.
Table 1: Pittsburgh Minimum Lot Size Reform by Subdistrict
Density Subdistrict ... MLS before 5/7/2025 (sq. ft) ... MLS effective 5/7/205 (sq. ft)
Very-Low Density ... 8,000 ... 6,000
Low Density ... 5,000 ... 3,000
Moderate Density ... 3,200 ... 2,400
High Density ... 1,800 ... 1,200
Very-High Density ... 1,200 ... No Minimum Lot Size
Source: The City of Pittsburgh
While Pittsburgh's current median home price is $235,000, which is well below the national average, prices in the city are rising. Through this legislation, lawmakers are taking active steps to ensure residents and developers are not faced with arbitrary hurdles.
Conclusion
Reducing MLS requirements does not mean mandating density or erasing existing neighborhood character. Instead, it provides flexibility, allowing communities to grow with their needs and respond to housing challenges as they arise. Buyers need these smaller homes, and developers are willing to answer. Reducing these regulations could substantially increase supply in the coming years through medium-density development. Homeowners can still enjoy traditional large single-family options, but others gain access to homes that better meet their needs, desires, and budgets. Given current home prices, mandating inefficiency through outdated lot size regulations is no longer a viable option.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/mandating-inefficiency-minimum-lot-size-regulation-and-housing/
CLF Joins Legal Fight to Defend New Bedford Victory
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 9 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 8, 2025:
* * *
CLF Joins Legal Fight to Defend New Bedford Victory
Community defeated this polluting trash facility once - and we intend to do it again
*
This fall, New Bedford residents won a major victory when the city's Board of Health rejected a proposed waste transfer station from South Coast Renewables (formerly Parallel Products). But the company has appealed that decision. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), on behalf of New Bedford community members, has filed a motion to intervene
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 9 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release on Dec. 8, 2025:
* * *
CLF Joins Legal Fight to Defend New Bedford Victory
Community defeated this polluting trash facility once - and we intend to do it again
*
This fall, New Bedford residents won a major victory when the city's Board of Health rejected a proposed waste transfer station from South Coast Renewables (formerly Parallel Products). But the company has appealed that decision. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), on behalf of New Bedford community members, has filed a motion to intervenein the appeal - to continue ensuring that local residents and public health remain at the forefront of this fight.
"The Board of Health already looked at the facts - and the truth is, the facts are on the community's side," said Alexandra St. Pierre, director of communities and toxics at CLF. "This facility is unnecessary and doesn't belong in New Bedford. It's an intrusive operation trying to force its way into a place that has clearly said 'no.' This appeal is an insult to the people who have fought so hard to protect their homes, their health, and their future."
The Board of Health voted to deny site assignment, finding the proposed location unfit for such a polluting facility. CLF has worked alongside South Coast Neighbors United and other local advocates for years to oppose this facility and will continue to fight alongside the community.
"We know what it takes to win - because we've done it before," added St. Pierre. "It takes a community with a strong voice and an unwavering spirit. That's the fuel behind this legal battle, and it's why we're confident justice will prevail again."
CLF experts are available for further comment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/clf-joins-legal-fight-to-defend-new-bedford-victory/
Wealth Inequality Is Not a Problem in Britain
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 8 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:
* * *
Wealth Inequality Is Not a Problem in Britain
*
The real problem? We can't build anything.
This article originally appeared at CapX.
On 4 December, the LSE Hayek Society organised a panel debate between Gary Stevenson and Kristian Niemietz on the question "Are the super-rich destroying the UK?" The article below is based on Niemietz's opening remarks.
The British economy is not in great shape, and it has not been for quite some time. This is a statement of the obvious.
We have had 18
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 8 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:
* * *
Wealth Inequality Is Not a Problem in Britain
*
The real problem? We can't build anything.
This article originally appeared at CapX.
On 4 December, the LSE Hayek Society organised a panel debate between Gary Stevenson and Kristian Niemietz on the question "Are the super-rich destroying the UK?" The article below is based on Niemietz's opening remarks.
The British economy is not in great shape, and it has not been for quite some time. This is a statement of the obvious.
We have had 18years of exceptionally weak productivity growth, and as a result, 18 years of exceptionally weak growth in real incomes. This is an anomaly by the standards of the previous 200 years or so of economic history.
On top of that, we also have a massive housing affordability crisis. In the 1990s, the average house price was less than four times the average annual gross salary. Today, it's about eight times that. So we have the dreadful combination of a nearly stagnant economy with sky-high housing costs.
These problems are not unique to this country, but they are more pronounced here than in most other developed economies, some of which have managed to avoid those problems altogether. Britain is performing badly relative to its own past, and relative to its peers.
So it is unsurprising that people from very different parts of the political spectrum are asking themselves why that is, and what can be done about it. What has caused this slowdown in economic growth? What has caused the housing crisis? And how do we get out of this situation?
Gary Stevenson thinks that he has discovered the root cause of Britain's malaise: wealth inequality. In his version of events, the super-rich are monopolising all the assets, including property and they are using the returns on those assets to buy even more assets a self-reinforcing downward spiral. A small, super-wealthy elite is getting wealthier and wealthier, while the rest of the country is sinking into abject poverty.
Gary has assembled a mass following on the basis of this thesis, so it is clearly persuasive to a lot of people. It is also completely wrong, for a number of reasons.
For a startwealth inequality is not even particularly high in this country. It is not high by historical standards, and it is not high by international standards.
The wealthiest 1% hold about 22% of the total wealth. That is much less than it used to be for most of the 20th century. It is also much less than it is in most of the rest on the world. The EU average is about 25%, Japan is about the same, and in the US, that share is more than 35%.
This is not a defence of the current distribution of wealth. The point is simply that if we want to know why Britain is doing badly relative to its peers, and relative to its own past, we need to find some factor that makes present-day Britain, to some degree, different from its peers, and different from its own past. Whatever that factor isit is not wealth inequality.
So much for wealth inequality. But Gary's argument also breaks down on a different level.
Let's have a look at the composition of wealth at the top of the distribution: what types of assets do the super-wealthy own?
Among households with net wealth levels of PS5 million or more, over 40% of that wealth is business wealth. These are people who own successful businesses. Obviously, this does not mean that they're all self-made entrepreneurs: business wealth can be inherited. We are not living in an Ayn Rand novel, where the wealthy are all self-made superheroes. But the point is that business wealth is not the sort of wealth that they have taken away from anyone else, or that they are just passively hoarding without doing anything with it. It is certainly not the sort of wealth that is fixed in supply, like gold or Rembrandt paintings.
Financial and pension fund wealth also accounts for over 40% of the wealth portfolio of the households with more than PS5m in net wealth. Property wealth, on the other hand, is not a huge part of it: a sixth of the total at most, and probably less if we go further up the wealth distribution.
This makes perfect sense. As people get wealthier, they can buy more shares and bonds, but it makes no sense for them to buy more and more residential properties. Even Elon Musk can only be in one place at a time, so there would be no point in him owning thousands of homes, even though he could easily afford that.
So it is clearly not the case that the super-wealthy are hoarding all the property. We can also see this if we look at the raw numbers. In this country, the rate of second home ownership is astonishingly low one of the lowest in Europe. In France, where they build a lot more, it is completely normal for better-off people to have holiday homes, on the coast or in the countryside. In the UK, that is a rare luxury. Only about 3% of the population have a second home (which usually means a holiday home in Cornwall, Devon, or the Welsh coast, not a place in a major population centre).
So if wealth inequality is not the issuewhat is?
It is something extremely mundane and unexciting: we have made it too difficult to build anything in this country. We are not building houses, we are not building business premises, we are not building infrastructure, we are not building power stations we are not even building water reservoirs.
Britain is 4 million homes short of the European average. Similar data for office buildings, retail and hospitality venues is harder to come by, but there has to be a similar gap for those. The road network is about a third below EU average. Electricity output is about a third below the EU average. Britain needlessly deprives itself of some of the key input factors of a prospering economy, much like the pot of a Bonsai tree deprives the roots of the tree the space it needs to grow.
And that, ultimately, is the main problem with this obsession with wealth inequality. It is not just that it lends itself to bad policy prescriptions, like the wealth tax. The bigger problem is the opportunity cost. Every minute we spend talking about wealth taxes and wealth inequality is a minute we no longer spend talking about how to build things. It is a minute we can no longer spend developing an agenda of " Abundance Yimbyism" applied to a British context.
An agenda of Abundance Yimbyism would not have to be a free-market libertarian agenda (although it would be even better if it were). It could have distinct centre-left flavours, as it does in the US.
But the British Left is distracted with other things, such as obsessing about the non-issue of wealth inequality. Wealth is not fixed, but political energy very much is, and it is in short supply. At the moment, too much of it is wasted on dead-end projects such as "Gary's Economics."
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/wealth-inequality-is-not-a-problem-in-britain/
OMRF receives grant to study autoimmune disease
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Dec. 8 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF receives grant to study autoimmune disease
*
For reasons that aren't fully clear, women are nine times more likely than men to develop an autoimmune disease called Sjogren's.
An Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist hopes to better understand why through studies funded by a new two-year, $468,875 grant from the National Institutes of Health.
"Our goal is to determine how age and gender affect the immune system in Sjogren's," said OMRF scientist Harini Bagavant, Ph.D.
... Show Full Article
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Dec. 8 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
OMRF receives grant to study autoimmune disease
*
For reasons that aren't fully clear, women are nine times more likely than men to develop an autoimmune disease called Sjogren's.
An Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist hopes to better understand why through studies funded by a new two-year, $468,875 grant from the National Institutes of Health.
"Our goal is to determine how age and gender affect the immune system in Sjogren's," said OMRF scientist Harini Bagavant, Ph.D."One specific goal is to learn why men are generally able to avoid inflammation in their salivary glands, but women are unable to do so."
Up to 4 million Americans live with Sjogren's, which affects moisture-producing glands. The disease causes painfully dry eyes and mouth, fatigue and joint pain. Although treatments can help manage some symptoms, Sjogren's has no known cure and can lead to irreversible tissue damage, neurological problems, lung disease and cancer.
"While Sjogren's itself doesn't kill people, it can cause a very low quality of life for someone in their 40s or older," Bagavant said.
The disease typically is diagnosed between the ages of 45 and 55, and it progressively worsens. For that reason, Bagavant will study the immune systems of older mice that develop Sjogren's-like symptoms.
Her research will focus on a specific type of immune cell whose main job is to patrol the body and kill infected or potentially cancerous cells. In Sjogren's, these cells go rogue and attack the salivary glands.
"This happens in both men and women," Bagavant said. "However, we believe that males have special protective signals that prevent inflammation once these cells reach the salivary glands."
If the study proves this hypothesis, the next step would be trying to create a similar protective mechanism in females. Potentially, that could lead to a major treatment upgrade, said Judith James, M.D., Ph.D., OMRF's executive vice president and chief medical officer.
"Currently Sjogren's is treated by managing symptoms," James said. "Dr. Bagavant's research could someday result in therapeutics that modify the disease course and prevent damage to the salivary glands."
Bagavant's grant is No. R21DE034962-01A1. It was awarded by the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research, part of the NIH. Previous research funded by the Presbyterian Health Foundation made Bagavant's new grant possible.
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/2025/12/08/omrf-receives-grant-to-study-gender-differences-in-autoimmune-disease/
Make a difference: Be a part of something bigger
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Dec. 8 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Make a difference: Be a part of something bigger
*
When it comes to cancer prevention and early detection, we must do better as a society. I got luckynot something you expect to hear when discussing a cancer diagnosisbut that's the beauty of early detection. I want to help others experience that luck, too.
I was diagnosed with a localized, non-aggressive case of Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma in late 2022. The good news is that it was caught extremely early because I spoke up when I noticed something
... Show Full Article
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Dec. 8 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Make a difference: Be a part of something bigger
*
When it comes to cancer prevention and early detection, we must do better as a society. I got luckynot something you expect to hear when discussing a cancer diagnosisbut that's the beauty of early detection. I want to help others experience that luck, too.
I was diagnosed with a localized, non-aggressive case of Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma in late 2022. The good news is that it was caught extremely early because I spoke up when I noticed somethingdidn't seem quite right. My early diagnosis allowed me to receive prompt treatment, and as of June 2023, I am cancer-free.
I chose to go public with my diagnosis after my first instinct told me to keep it to myself and a small group of close family members, friends and colleagues. But then I thought of my dad, who, in his 70s, told me he was diagnosed with the "Big C." He couldn't even say the word! I didn't want my diagnosis to be taboowhat if talking about it could change someone else's trajectory? If I could convince even one person to take care of themselves or keep up with their annual physicals and routine cancer screenings, it would be worth it.
When I first shared my story, I was amazed at the outpouring of support. I also had the opportunity to learn about many incredible organizations working to put an end to cancer as we know it. One of those organizations is the Prevent Cancer Foundation. I love its mission, its leadership and staff, and the size of the organizationbig enough to make a difference, but small enough to stay focused and nimble. I immediately knew I wanted to help the Foundation continue making an impact on the lives of people who need it most. Most importantly, I want to help the Foundation's efforts to provide safe, effective, affordable and ubiquitous cancer testing.
As someone who has always valued the power of philanthropy, supporting the Foundation and serving on its board of directors is something for which I will forever be grateful. From a young age, I was taught to give what I could, both in time and in treasure. That value has stayed with me, especially in my work with nonprofits like the Prevent Cancer Foundation and others around the world. It's inspiring to see the impact these organizations make, and I try to pass on that spirit of giving to my three kids.
I believe that general giving is a positive act and can be helpful. But focusing support on a few organizations you're passionate about, that's when you can really move the needle. Volunteering and giving don't just help the Prevent Cancer Foundationthese opportunities help you grow, connect and feel part of something bigger.
That's why I give. That's why I serve. And that's why I believe in a world where cancer is preventable, detectable and beatable for all.
***
Original text here: https://preventcancer.org/article/make-a-difference-be-a-part-of-something-bigger/
