Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Freedom From Religion Foundation Issues Letter to Dept. of War Education Activity Director Craft
MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 3 (TNSletter) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following letter to the Department of War Education Activity Director Paul Craft:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
August 27, 2026
Director Paul Craft
Department of War Education Activity
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04E12
Alexandria, VA 22350
SENT VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL: dodea.director@dodea.edu
Re: Constitutional concerns regarding DoWEA's "Western Civilization to 1500" curriculum Dear Director Craft:
I am writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) regarding constitutional ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 3 (TNSletter) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following letter to the Department of War Education Activity Director Paul Craft: * * * Here is the text of the letter: August 27, 2026 Director Paul Craft Department of War Education Activity 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04E12 Alexandria, VA 22350 SENT VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL: dodea.director@dodea.edu Re: Constitutional concerns regarding DoWEA's "Western Civilization to 1500" curriculum Dear Director Craft: I am writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) regarding constitutionaland educational concerns raised by the Department of War Education Activity's introduction of a new "Western Civilization to 1500" course for students in schools serving military families. FFRF is a national nonprofit organization with more than 41,000 members across the country, including many active-duty personnel and veterans. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
According to reporting by the Associated Press, DoWEA operates approximately 160 schools in 11 countries, educating roughly 70,000 children of active-duty military personnel and civilian service members. It is our understanding that beginning this fall, high school students may take 1 "Western Civilization to 1500" to satisfy their world history graduation requirement. We understand that the course will use The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition, Volume I: The Ancient World and Christendom, published by Encounter Books, with suggested lesson plans developed in partnership with Hillsdale College.
Historians and educators who reviewed excerpts of the textbook told the AP that it misleadingly conflates Western civilization with Christianity while portraying Islam as a threat to both. This 2 is particularly troubling given that the students subjected to this curriculum will include Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics and members of many other religious and nonreligious communities.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion. Public schools may, of course, teach objectively about religion and its role in history. But the government may not use our public school system to promote Christianity, denigrate other religions, or teach a sectarian interpretation of history designed to inculcate students with a preferred religious worldview. The reported content of The Golden Thread appears to cross that constitutional line.
The textbook reportedly credits Christianity with promoting humane treatment and a "humane cosmopolitanism," while portraying Islam as inherently more violent. It characterizes Arabs as resentful or bitter toward Christians and Jews.
Even more concerning, in a section on "Holy War and Martyrdom in Battle," the textbook reportedly portrays Christian warfare, including the Crusades, largely as defensive, while describing Islam as glorifying violence and warfare and invoking the Sept. 11 attacks and the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to characterize the religion. It further asserts that atrocities by radical Islamist terrorists have been "applauded by depressingly large numbers of ordinary Muslims."
Matthew Gabriele, a professor of history and religion at Virginia Tech, reportedly concluded that the textbook strips important context from the Crusades and Christian-Muslim conflicts in a way that portrays Islam as aggressive while minimizing the religious motivations and violence of the Christian church. He further criticized the book for selectively using modern events to advance a contemporary political project rather than providing a scholarly history, concluding, "this is not a scholarly history in any kind of real sense."3
The First Amendment bars the government from advancing religion or favoring one faith over another. As the Supreme Court has put it, "the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." McCreary Cty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). DoWEA should not place the federal government's imprimatur on religious apologetics masquerading as history.
Our concerns are magnified by the context in which this curriculum has been adopted. Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly advocated classical Christian education. In his 2022 book, Battle for the American Mind, he characterized secular education as a threat to America and Western civilization and urged parents to send their children to classical Christian schools.
Secretary Hegseth has also repeatedly linked the American founding, Western civilization, and Christianity, including arguing that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that troops should embrace God.4
Against that backdrop, DoWEA's leadership has been reorganized expressly to promote "patriotic values and classical learning." When you were appointed director in March, Secretary 5 Hegseth described you as the appropriate leader to reorient the school system toward those goals.
DoWEA subsequently hired Tiffany Hoben, who previously worked in the Florida Department of Education and oversaw implementation of a civics curriculum criticized for teaching that the Founders did not intend a full separation of church and state. It also hired Matthew Kirby, CEO of Liberty Classical Schools, as the DoWEA Americas Regional Director for Student Achievement.
Most significantly, you reportedly told DoWEA employees that classical learning was a priority coming directly from Secretary Hegseth and that he had tasked DoWEA with determining how lessons from classical learning in private schools could be introduced into "a public school setting like us."
That distinction between private and public schools is critical. It is well settled that public schools may not show favoritism towards or coerce belief or participation in religion. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1967); Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); McCollum v. Bd. of Ed., 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
Private religious schools are free to teach students that Christianity represents the pinnacle of civilization, that American institutions are divinely inspired, or that other religions are theologically mistaken. Federal public schools are not.
Military families should not have to wonder whether the education provided to their children by their own government comes with a religious agenda. Service members make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of this country. Their children should not be treated as a captive audience for an ideological experiment designed to import elements of private Christian education into federal schools.
Public schools have a duty to ensure that instructional materials and lessons do not promote a particular religious viewpoint. "[T]he discretion of the States and local school boards in matters of education must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987) (finding unconstitutional a statute allowing the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in classrooms). The Supreme Court in Edwards recognized that "[f]amilies entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family." Id. at 584.
Teaching about Christianity is constitutional. Teaching Christianity's historical claims as preferred truth, whitewashing Christian religious violence, or juxtaposing an idealized Christianity against a threatening Islam is another matter entirely.
And this isn't just a concern for Muslim students. Government promotion of Christianity necessarily sends a message to every non-Christian and nonreligious military family that their government has chosen a favored religious tradition. Our armed forces defend a nation whose Constitution protects the religious liberty of all Americans, not merely those who adhere to the beliefs preferred by current political leadership.
We therefore request that DoWEA immediately conduct a thorough constitutional and academic review of The Golden Thread and all accompanying curricular materials before permitting the course to proceed.
Specifically, we ask DoWEA to:
1. Ensure that the "Western Civilization to 1500" course presents Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religious traditions objectively and academically rather than promoting certain religious beliefs over others;
2. Submit The Golden Thread and associated lesson plans to independent review by qualified historians and religious studies scholars without ideological or institutional ties to the textbook, Hillsdale College, Encounter Books, or organizations involved in developing the curriculum;
3. Make publicly available the curriculum, lesson plans, teacher guidance, textbook-selection criteria and academic reviews used in approving the course;
4. Provide information regarding the individuals and organizations involved in selecting The Golden Thread and developing the course;
5. Explain what safeguards DoWEA has adopted to ensure that "classical learning" initiatives do not become a vehicle for promoting classical Christian education in federal public schools; and
6. Suspend use of any instructional materials that promote Christianity, disparage Islam or any other religion, or otherwise fail to maintain the religious neutrality required of federal public schools.
Students in military families deserve rigorous history, not religious propaganda. The federal government must educate these students, not evangelize them. Please inform us in writing of the steps DoWEA is taking to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Christopher Line, Legal Counsel, Freedom From Religion Foundation
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Department-of-War-Education-Activity-Military-School-Curriculum.pdf
News Release here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-contacts-pentagon-over-its-christianizing-of-history-curriculum/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
August 27, 2026
Director Paul Craft
Department of War Education Activity
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04E12
Alexandria, VA 22350
SENT VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL: dodea.director@dodea.edu
Re: Constitutional concerns regarding DoWEA's "Western Civilization to 1500" curriculum Dear Director Craft:
I am writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) regarding constitutional ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 3 (TNSletter) -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following letter to the Department of War Education Activity Director Paul Craft: * * * Here is the text of the letter: August 27, 2026 Director Paul Craft Department of War Education Activity 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04E12 Alexandria, VA 22350 SENT VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL: dodea.director@dodea.edu Re: Constitutional concerns regarding DoWEA's "Western Civilization to 1500" curriculum Dear Director Craft: I am writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) regarding constitutionaland educational concerns raised by the Department of War Education Activity's introduction of a new "Western Civilization to 1500" course for students in schools serving military families. FFRF is a national nonprofit organization with more than 41,000 members across the country, including many active-duty personnel and veterans. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
According to reporting by the Associated Press, DoWEA operates approximately 160 schools in 11 countries, educating roughly 70,000 children of active-duty military personnel and civilian service members. It is our understanding that beginning this fall, high school students may take 1 "Western Civilization to 1500" to satisfy their world history graduation requirement. We understand that the course will use The Golden Thread: A History of the Western Tradition, Volume I: The Ancient World and Christendom, published by Encounter Books, with suggested lesson plans developed in partnership with Hillsdale College.
Historians and educators who reviewed excerpts of the textbook told the AP that it misleadingly conflates Western civilization with Christianity while portraying Islam as a threat to both. This 2 is particularly troubling given that the students subjected to this curriculum will include Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics and members of many other religious and nonreligious communities.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion. Public schools may, of course, teach objectively about religion and its role in history. But the government may not use our public school system to promote Christianity, denigrate other religions, or teach a sectarian interpretation of history designed to inculcate students with a preferred religious worldview. The reported content of The Golden Thread appears to cross that constitutional line.
The textbook reportedly credits Christianity with promoting humane treatment and a "humane cosmopolitanism," while portraying Islam as inherently more violent. It characterizes Arabs as resentful or bitter toward Christians and Jews.
Even more concerning, in a section on "Holy War and Martyrdom in Battle," the textbook reportedly portrays Christian warfare, including the Crusades, largely as defensive, while describing Islam as glorifying violence and warfare and invoking the Sept. 11 attacks and the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to characterize the religion. It further asserts that atrocities by radical Islamist terrorists have been "applauded by depressingly large numbers of ordinary Muslims."
Matthew Gabriele, a professor of history and religion at Virginia Tech, reportedly concluded that the textbook strips important context from the Crusades and Christian-Muslim conflicts in a way that portrays Islam as aggressive while minimizing the religious motivations and violence of the Christian church. He further criticized the book for selectively using modern events to advance a contemporary political project rather than providing a scholarly history, concluding, "this is not a scholarly history in any kind of real sense."3
The First Amendment bars the government from advancing religion or favoring one faith over another. As the Supreme Court has put it, "the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." McCreary Cty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). DoWEA should not place the federal government's imprimatur on religious apologetics masquerading as history.
Our concerns are magnified by the context in which this curriculum has been adopted. Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly advocated classical Christian education. In his 2022 book, Battle for the American Mind, he characterized secular education as a threat to America and Western civilization and urged parents to send their children to classical Christian schools.
Secretary Hegseth has also repeatedly linked the American founding, Western civilization, and Christianity, including arguing that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that troops should embrace God.4
Against that backdrop, DoWEA's leadership has been reorganized expressly to promote "patriotic values and classical learning." When you were appointed director in March, Secretary 5 Hegseth described you as the appropriate leader to reorient the school system toward those goals.
DoWEA subsequently hired Tiffany Hoben, who previously worked in the Florida Department of Education and oversaw implementation of a civics curriculum criticized for teaching that the Founders did not intend a full separation of church and state. It also hired Matthew Kirby, CEO of Liberty Classical Schools, as the DoWEA Americas Regional Director for Student Achievement.
Most significantly, you reportedly told DoWEA employees that classical learning was a priority coming directly from Secretary Hegseth and that he had tasked DoWEA with determining how lessons from classical learning in private schools could be introduced into "a public school setting like us."
That distinction between private and public schools is critical. It is well settled that public schools may not show favoritism towards or coerce belief or participation in religion. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1967); Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); McCollum v. Bd. of Ed., 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
Private religious schools are free to teach students that Christianity represents the pinnacle of civilization, that American institutions are divinely inspired, or that other religions are theologically mistaken. Federal public schools are not.
Military families should not have to wonder whether the education provided to their children by their own government comes with a religious agenda. Service members make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of this country. Their children should not be treated as a captive audience for an ideological experiment designed to import elements of private Christian education into federal schools.
Public schools have a duty to ensure that instructional materials and lessons do not promote a particular religious viewpoint. "[T]he discretion of the States and local school boards in matters of education must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987) (finding unconstitutional a statute allowing the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in classrooms). The Supreme Court in Edwards recognized that "[f]amilies entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family." Id. at 584.
Teaching about Christianity is constitutional. Teaching Christianity's historical claims as preferred truth, whitewashing Christian religious violence, or juxtaposing an idealized Christianity against a threatening Islam is another matter entirely.
And this isn't just a concern for Muslim students. Government promotion of Christianity necessarily sends a message to every non-Christian and nonreligious military family that their government has chosen a favored religious tradition. Our armed forces defend a nation whose Constitution protects the religious liberty of all Americans, not merely those who adhere to the beliefs preferred by current political leadership.
We therefore request that DoWEA immediately conduct a thorough constitutional and academic review of The Golden Thread and all accompanying curricular materials before permitting the course to proceed.
Specifically, we ask DoWEA to:
1. Ensure that the "Western Civilization to 1500" course presents Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religious traditions objectively and academically rather than promoting certain religious beliefs over others;
2. Submit The Golden Thread and associated lesson plans to independent review by qualified historians and religious studies scholars without ideological or institutional ties to the textbook, Hillsdale College, Encounter Books, or organizations involved in developing the curriculum;
3. Make publicly available the curriculum, lesson plans, teacher guidance, textbook-selection criteria and academic reviews used in approving the course;
4. Provide information regarding the individuals and organizations involved in selecting The Golden Thread and developing the course;
5. Explain what safeguards DoWEA has adopted to ensure that "classical learning" initiatives do not become a vehicle for promoting classical Christian education in federal public schools; and
6. Suspend use of any instructional materials that promote Christianity, disparage Islam or any other religion, or otherwise fail to maintain the religious neutrality required of federal public schools.
Students in military families deserve rigorous history, not religious propaganda. The federal government must educate these students, not evangelize them. Please inform us in writing of the steps DoWEA is taking to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Christopher Line, Legal Counsel, Freedom From Religion Foundation
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Department-of-War-Education-Activity-Military-School-Curriculum.pdf
News Release here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-contacts-pentagon-over-its-christianizing-of-history-curriculum/
[Category: Religion]
Autumn 2026 RSE Research Awards Programme Opens Today
EDINBURGH, Scotland, Sept. 3 -- The Royal Society of Edinburgh issued the following news on Sept. 2, 2026:
* * *
Autumn 2026 RSE Research Awards programme opens today
The RSE's autumn 2026 Research Awards programme opens today, providing funding opportunities for all academic disciplines across all career stages.
Ten different research funding opportunities are on offer, designed to enable Scotland's academics to realise their potential, stimulate research in Scotland, and promote international collaboration.
The RSE's Research Awards programme has two calls per year in spring and autumn.
Deadlines:
* ... Show Full Article EDINBURGH, Scotland, Sept. 3 -- The Royal Society of Edinburgh issued the following news on Sept. 2, 2026: * * * Autumn 2026 RSE Research Awards programme opens today The RSE's autumn 2026 Research Awards programme opens today, providing funding opportunities for all academic disciplines across all career stages. Ten different research funding opportunities are on offer, designed to enable Scotland's academics to realise their potential, stimulate research in Scotland, and promote international collaboration. The RSE's Research Awards programme has two calls per year in spring and autumn. Deadlines: *The main deadline for this call is 12:00 noon on Wednesday, 21 October 2026
* The RSE-Fulbright Scholar Award has a deadline of 17:00 on Monday, 2 November 2026
* The 'Healthy Planet, Healthy People': Catalyst Awards and Change Awards have a deadline of 12:00 noon on Tuesday, 1 December 2026
We are pleased to highlight the following developments for this round:
* International Bilateral Visits are open with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan; Polish Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; and the Slovenia Academy of Sciences and Arts
* International Joint Projects are offered through two streams:
Stream one is for applicants applying with a partner institute of their choice. Through this Stream, the RSE normally expects secured match-funding from the partner institute, though exceptions can be made in accordance with Scottish Government priorities and in support of Scotland-Africa relations. In particular, applications are welcomed from the following six countries: Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda, Kenya, Ghana, and Uganda. Prior permission must be sought in advance. Applications without prior permission will be marked as ineligible.
Stream two applies to applicants applying with a Sister Academy with which the RSE holds a Memorandum of Understanding. This round includes the Italian National Academy (CNR); German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD); and the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (NSTC). Please note that a corresponding application must be submitted to the relevant Sister Academy by the international collaborator for the RSE to make joint award decisions with the Sister Academies. The CNR and NSTC accepts applications from 2 September to 21 October 2026, and the DAAD accepts applications from 15 June to 15 September 2026.
* Ireland-Scotland Bilateral Network Awards, offered jointly by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA) and the RSE, are available to support collaborative research projects between Ireland and Scotland under the theme of Culture, Language and Sport.
* 'Healthy Planet, Healthy People': Catalyst Awards supported by the Williamson Trust are open for a fourth round and have a later deadline of noon on Tuesday, 1 December 2026. For previous recipients of Catalyst Awards, the Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Change Award, offering up to pound sterling75,000 to expand a Catalyst Awarded project, is open, also with a deadline of noon on Tuesday, 1 December 2026.
* Personal Research Fellowships, a new development for autumn 2026 is a jointly funded Personal Research Fellowship with the Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS). Applications for ESS-RSE Personal Research Fellowships are welcomed under the theme Scotland's Biodiversity Pathways. Research may be undertaken in any discipline but should contribute to understanding how progress towards Scotland's biodiversity targets can be assessed, the causal pathways through which policy and governance interventions may influence biodiversity outcomes, and the extent to which such interventions are likely to deliver their intended effects.
* The RSE-Fulbright Scholar Award, in partnership with the US-UK Fulbright Commission, is open, enabling an academic from anywhere in the UK to go to a top university in the US for a maximum of three months to carry out lecturing and/or research. This award has a deadline of 17:00 on 2 November 2026.
* The Scotland-Asia Partnerships Higher Education Research (SAPHIRE) Fund, supported by the Scottish Government, returns for the autumn call. Applications are welcomed from Scotland-based researchers wishing to collaborate with partners in Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, New Zealand, Singapore, or South Korea on the theme of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Renewable Energy.
* * *
Original text here: https://rse.org.uk/autumn-2026-rse-research-awards-programme-opens-today/
* * *
Autumn 2026 RSE Research Awards programme opens today
The RSE's autumn 2026 Research Awards programme opens today, providing funding opportunities for all academic disciplines across all career stages.
Ten different research funding opportunities are on offer, designed to enable Scotland's academics to realise their potential, stimulate research in Scotland, and promote international collaboration.
The RSE's Research Awards programme has two calls per year in spring and autumn.
Deadlines:
* ... Show Full Article EDINBURGH, Scotland, Sept. 3 -- The Royal Society of Edinburgh issued the following news on Sept. 2, 2026: * * * Autumn 2026 RSE Research Awards programme opens today The RSE's autumn 2026 Research Awards programme opens today, providing funding opportunities for all academic disciplines across all career stages. Ten different research funding opportunities are on offer, designed to enable Scotland's academics to realise their potential, stimulate research in Scotland, and promote international collaboration. The RSE's Research Awards programme has two calls per year in spring and autumn. Deadlines: *The main deadline for this call is 12:00 noon on Wednesday, 21 October 2026
* The RSE-Fulbright Scholar Award has a deadline of 17:00 on Monday, 2 November 2026
* The 'Healthy Planet, Healthy People': Catalyst Awards and Change Awards have a deadline of 12:00 noon on Tuesday, 1 December 2026
We are pleased to highlight the following developments for this round:
* International Bilateral Visits are open with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan; Polish Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; and the Slovenia Academy of Sciences and Arts
* International Joint Projects are offered through two streams:
Stream one is for applicants applying with a partner institute of their choice. Through this Stream, the RSE normally expects secured match-funding from the partner institute, though exceptions can be made in accordance with Scottish Government priorities and in support of Scotland-Africa relations. In particular, applications are welcomed from the following six countries: Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda, Kenya, Ghana, and Uganda. Prior permission must be sought in advance. Applications without prior permission will be marked as ineligible.
Stream two applies to applicants applying with a Sister Academy with which the RSE holds a Memorandum of Understanding. This round includes the Italian National Academy (CNR); German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD); and the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (NSTC). Please note that a corresponding application must be submitted to the relevant Sister Academy by the international collaborator for the RSE to make joint award decisions with the Sister Academies. The CNR and NSTC accepts applications from 2 September to 21 October 2026, and the DAAD accepts applications from 15 June to 15 September 2026.
* Ireland-Scotland Bilateral Network Awards, offered jointly by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA) and the RSE, are available to support collaborative research projects between Ireland and Scotland under the theme of Culture, Language and Sport.
* 'Healthy Planet, Healthy People': Catalyst Awards supported by the Williamson Trust are open for a fourth round and have a later deadline of noon on Tuesday, 1 December 2026. For previous recipients of Catalyst Awards, the Healthy Planet, Healthy People: Change Award, offering up to pound sterling75,000 to expand a Catalyst Awarded project, is open, also with a deadline of noon on Tuesday, 1 December 2026.
* Personal Research Fellowships, a new development for autumn 2026 is a jointly funded Personal Research Fellowship with the Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS). Applications for ESS-RSE Personal Research Fellowships are welcomed under the theme Scotland's Biodiversity Pathways. Research may be undertaken in any discipline but should contribute to understanding how progress towards Scotland's biodiversity targets can be assessed, the causal pathways through which policy and governance interventions may influence biodiversity outcomes, and the extent to which such interventions are likely to deliver their intended effects.
* The RSE-Fulbright Scholar Award, in partnership with the US-UK Fulbright Commission, is open, enabling an academic from anywhere in the UK to go to a top university in the US for a maximum of three months to carry out lecturing and/or research. This award has a deadline of 17:00 on 2 November 2026.
* The Scotland-Asia Partnerships Higher Education Research (SAPHIRE) Fund, supported by the Scottish Government, returns for the autumn call. Applications are welcomed from Scotland-based researchers wishing to collaborate with partners in Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, New Zealand, Singapore, or South Korea on the theme of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Renewable Energy.
* * *
Original text here: https://rse.org.uk/autumn-2026-rse-research-awards-programme-opens-today/
Washington State Registered Nurse Files Federal Civil Rights Charge Against Nurse's Union for Illegal Religious Discrimination
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Sept. 2 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Washington State Registered Nurse Files Federal Civil Rights Charge Against Nurse's Union for Illegal Religious Discrimination
*
EEOC Charge: AFT union officials unlawfully refused Christian nurse's request for religious accommodation to union dues payment
Seattle, WA (September 2, 2026) - A Washington nurse has filed a federal Charge of Discrimination against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Sept. 2 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Washington State Registered Nurse Files Federal Civil Rights Charge Against Nurse's Union for Illegal Religious Discrimination * EEOC Charge: AFT union officials unlawfully refused Christian nurse's request for religious accommodation to union dues payment Seattle, WA (September 2, 2026) - A Washington nurse has filed a federal Charge of Discrimination against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),stating that union officials have engaged in religious discrimination by illegally denying her request for religious accommodation. The nurse, Rheanne Garrett, submitted her charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal representation by National Right to Work staff attorneys.
Since Washington State lacks Right to Work protections, union officials have the power to compel workers under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, under decades old precedents established by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, if funding a union violates employees' sincere religious beliefs, then they are entitled to a religious accommodation to union financial support.
Both the WSNA and the AFT have extensive histories of using their power and significant resources to promote pro-abortion and pro-LGBT causes that are antithetical to Garrett's faith. Due to her sincere religious convictions, Garrett chose to exercise her religious freedom by refusing to affiliate with, or financially support, either of the unions and their activism that conflicts with her religious beliefs.
EEOC Charge: Union Unlawfully Discriminating with Repeated Blanket Denials, Harassment
In early May, Garrett sent an email to the WSNA describing her sincerely held religious convictions and requested an accommodation from the requirement to join or pay dues to the union. For the next two months, email exchanges between Garrett and union officials proved unfruitful, despite Garrett even having provided a letter from her pastor that attested to her sincerely held religious beliefs. Although Garrett repeatedly sent the union more than sufficient information to justify her request, the union offered only blanket denials, insisting without explanation that she did not qualify for a religious accommodation.
If the EEOC finds merit to Garrett's charges, the agency will either take legal action against the WSNA itself, or will issue a "right to sue" letter to Garrett, which will entitle her to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union in federal court.
"By denying my repeated requests for a religious accommodation and holding the threat of discharge over me for refusing to compromise my religious beliefs," Garrett explains, "the Unions are violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and parallel state laws.
"The Unions are also engaging in quid-pro-quo harassment by threatening my job unless I compromise my religious convictions by joining or paying monies to the Unions," Garrett said.
"The Foundation is proud to help working women like Ms. Garrett who courageously stand up to protect their religious beliefs from the schemes of radical union officials," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "While the battle to preserve the right of religious employees opposed to funding union activities for religious reasons is important, more fundamental reform is needed to ensure that no one is forced to fund or associate with union bosses against their will, no matter whether their personal objection is political, religious, financial, or otherwise."
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintShare
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Sep 2, 2026 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/nurse-files-religious-discrimination-charge-09022026/
* * *
Washington State Registered Nurse Files Federal Civil Rights Charge Against Nurse's Union for Illegal Religious Discrimination
*
EEOC Charge: AFT union officials unlawfully refused Christian nurse's request for religious accommodation to union dues payment
Seattle, WA (September 2, 2026) - A Washington nurse has filed a federal Charge of Discrimination against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Sept. 2 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Washington State Registered Nurse Files Federal Civil Rights Charge Against Nurse's Union for Illegal Religious Discrimination * EEOC Charge: AFT union officials unlawfully refused Christian nurse's request for religious accommodation to union dues payment Seattle, WA (September 2, 2026) - A Washington nurse has filed a federal Charge of Discrimination against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),stating that union officials have engaged in religious discrimination by illegally denying her request for religious accommodation. The nurse, Rheanne Garrett, submitted her charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal representation by National Right to Work staff attorneys.
Since Washington State lacks Right to Work protections, union officials have the power to compel workers under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. However, under decades old precedents established by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, if funding a union violates employees' sincere religious beliefs, then they are entitled to a religious accommodation to union financial support.
Both the WSNA and the AFT have extensive histories of using their power and significant resources to promote pro-abortion and pro-LGBT causes that are antithetical to Garrett's faith. Due to her sincere religious convictions, Garrett chose to exercise her religious freedom by refusing to affiliate with, or financially support, either of the unions and their activism that conflicts with her religious beliefs.
EEOC Charge: Union Unlawfully Discriminating with Repeated Blanket Denials, Harassment
In early May, Garrett sent an email to the WSNA describing her sincerely held religious convictions and requested an accommodation from the requirement to join or pay dues to the union. For the next two months, email exchanges between Garrett and union officials proved unfruitful, despite Garrett even having provided a letter from her pastor that attested to her sincerely held religious beliefs. Although Garrett repeatedly sent the union more than sufficient information to justify her request, the union offered only blanket denials, insisting without explanation that she did not qualify for a religious accommodation.
If the EEOC finds merit to Garrett's charges, the agency will either take legal action against the WSNA itself, or will issue a "right to sue" letter to Garrett, which will entitle her to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union in federal court.
"By denying my repeated requests for a religious accommodation and holding the threat of discharge over me for refusing to compromise my religious beliefs," Garrett explains, "the Unions are violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and parallel state laws.
"The Unions are also engaging in quid-pro-quo harassment by threatening my job unless I compromise my religious convictions by joining or paying monies to the Unions," Garrett said.
"The Foundation is proud to help working women like Ms. Garrett who courageously stand up to protect their religious beliefs from the schemes of radical union officials," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "While the battle to preserve the right of religious employees opposed to funding union activities for religious reasons is important, more fundamental reform is needed to ensure that no one is forced to fund or associate with union bosses against their will, no matter whether their personal objection is political, religious, financial, or otherwise."
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintShare
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Sep 2, 2026 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/nurse-files-religious-discrimination-charge-09022026/
USPOULTRY Sets 2026-2028 Research Priorities to Address Emerging Industry Challenges
TUCKER, Georgia, Sept. 2 (TNSrpt) -- The U.S. Poultry Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
USPOULTRY Sets 2026-2028 Research Priorities to Address Emerging Industry Challenges
The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and its Foundation (USPOULTRY) have announced its 2026-2028 Research Priorities, establishing a focused research agenda to address emerging challenges and advance innovation, sustainability, poultry health and food safety across the poultry and egg industries.
USPOULTRY's research priorities are developed through an industry-driven process that brings together poultry ... Show Full Article TUCKER, Georgia, Sept. 2 (TNSrpt) -- The U.S. Poultry Foundation issued the following news release: * * * USPOULTRY Sets 2026-2028 Research Priorities to Address Emerging Industry Challenges The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and its Foundation (USPOULTRY) have announced its 2026-2028 Research Priorities, establishing a focused research agenda to address emerging challenges and advance innovation, sustainability, poultry health and food safety across the poultry and egg industries. USPOULTRY's research priorities are developed through an industry-driven process that brings together poultryproducers, veterinarians and other industry professionals to identify critical research needs. The USPOULTRY Foundation Research Advisory Committee plays a central role in this process, drawing on the expertise of industry professionals to identify research needs and evaluate proposals.
"Research plays an important role in helping our industry anticipate challenges, improve practices and identify solutions that can make a difference at the farm, plant and industry levels," said Dr. Denise Heard, vice president of research programs for USPOULTRY. "These priorities help connect the expertise of the research community with the real-world needs of the poultry and egg industries, ensuring our investments remain relevant, practical and innovative."
The 2026-2028 priorities address key areas across the broiler, turkey, layer and breeder sectors, including food safety; poultry health and disease prevention; nutrition; processing; production and management efficiency; animal welfare; environmental management; and other emerging issues.
Updated every two years, the priorities allow USPOULTRY to remain responsive to advancements in science and technology, evolving production practices, regulatory developments and emerging industry threats. They also provide researchers with greater insight into the areas where applied, science-based research can have the greatest impact.
The priorities will help guide USPOULTRY's research funding programs and provide strategic direction for researchers seeking funding. While proposals that align with identified priorities are encouraged, USPOULTRY will continue to consider innovative research that addresses significant or emerging industry needs.
USPOULTRY has a long history of supporting research that delivers practical benefits to the poultry and egg industries. Research proposals that promote or advance a specific commercial company or product are generally unlikely to receive USPOULTRY funding.
More information about research funding opportunities is available on the USPOULTRY website (https://www.uspoultry.org/programs/research/research-priorities/docs/USPOULTRY-Research-Priorities-2026-2028.pdf).
* * *
About USPOULTRY
U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY) is the All Feather Association progressively serving its poultry and egg members through research, education, communications and technical services.Founded in 1947, USPOULTRY is based in Tucker, Georgia.
* * *
About USPOULTRY Foundation
The USPOULTRY Foundation's mission is to support the recruitment and training of the brightest students, seek and fund scientific research, foster student scientists and promote careers in the poultry and egg industry.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.uspoultry.org/programs/research/research-priorities/docs/USPOULTRY-Research-Priorities-2026-2028.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.poultryfoundation.org/news/pressRelease.cfm?pid=9DF5EDB7AB659F61BB41672CAB36EF3D
* * *
USPOULTRY Sets 2026-2028 Research Priorities to Address Emerging Industry Challenges
The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and its Foundation (USPOULTRY) have announced its 2026-2028 Research Priorities, establishing a focused research agenda to address emerging challenges and advance innovation, sustainability, poultry health and food safety across the poultry and egg industries.
USPOULTRY's research priorities are developed through an industry-driven process that brings together poultry ... Show Full Article TUCKER, Georgia, Sept. 2 (TNSrpt) -- The U.S. Poultry Foundation issued the following news release: * * * USPOULTRY Sets 2026-2028 Research Priorities to Address Emerging Industry Challenges The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and its Foundation (USPOULTRY) have announced its 2026-2028 Research Priorities, establishing a focused research agenda to address emerging challenges and advance innovation, sustainability, poultry health and food safety across the poultry and egg industries. USPOULTRY's research priorities are developed through an industry-driven process that brings together poultryproducers, veterinarians and other industry professionals to identify critical research needs. The USPOULTRY Foundation Research Advisory Committee plays a central role in this process, drawing on the expertise of industry professionals to identify research needs and evaluate proposals.
"Research plays an important role in helping our industry anticipate challenges, improve practices and identify solutions that can make a difference at the farm, plant and industry levels," said Dr. Denise Heard, vice president of research programs for USPOULTRY. "These priorities help connect the expertise of the research community with the real-world needs of the poultry and egg industries, ensuring our investments remain relevant, practical and innovative."
The 2026-2028 priorities address key areas across the broiler, turkey, layer and breeder sectors, including food safety; poultry health and disease prevention; nutrition; processing; production and management efficiency; animal welfare; environmental management; and other emerging issues.
Updated every two years, the priorities allow USPOULTRY to remain responsive to advancements in science and technology, evolving production practices, regulatory developments and emerging industry threats. They also provide researchers with greater insight into the areas where applied, science-based research can have the greatest impact.
The priorities will help guide USPOULTRY's research funding programs and provide strategic direction for researchers seeking funding. While proposals that align with identified priorities are encouraged, USPOULTRY will continue to consider innovative research that addresses significant or emerging industry needs.
USPOULTRY has a long history of supporting research that delivers practical benefits to the poultry and egg industries. Research proposals that promote or advance a specific commercial company or product are generally unlikely to receive USPOULTRY funding.
More information about research funding opportunities is available on the USPOULTRY website (https://www.uspoultry.org/programs/research/research-priorities/docs/USPOULTRY-Research-Priorities-2026-2028.pdf).
* * *
About USPOULTRY
U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY) is the All Feather Association progressively serving its poultry and egg members through research, education, communications and technical services.Founded in 1947, USPOULTRY is based in Tucker, Georgia.
* * *
About USPOULTRY Foundation
The USPOULTRY Foundation's mission is to support the recruitment and training of the brightest students, seek and fund scientific research, foster student scientists and promote careers in the poultry and egg industry.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.uspoultry.org/programs/research/research-priorities/docs/USPOULTRY-Research-Priorities-2026-2028.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.poultryfoundation.org/news/pressRelease.cfm?pid=9DF5EDB7AB659F61BB41672CAB36EF3D
TPPF Releases New Research Calling for the Creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights
AUSTIN, Texas, Sept. 2 (TNSrpt) -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Releases New Research Calling for the Creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights
*
AUSTIN -Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released new research calling for the creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights within the Office of the Attorney General. The report finds that Texas has advanced parental rights through statute and a state constitutional amendment recognizing a parent's right and duty to nurture and protect their children, but that those protections remain ... Show Full Article AUSTIN, Texas, Sept. 2 (TNSrpt) -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release: * * * TPPF Releases New Research Calling for the Creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights * AUSTIN -Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released new research calling for the creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights within the Office of the Attorney General. The report finds that Texas has advanced parental rights through statute and a state constitutional amendment recognizing a parent's right and duty to nurture and protect their children, but that those protections remainunder-enforced.
The report recommends that the Legislature establish a centralized office in Austin charged with knowing current parental-rights laws, reviewing their original intent, providing courts and families with directly relevant legal information, and enforcing statutes that protect the parent-child relationship. It argues that parental rights are grounded in natural law, Western and American history, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and that involved parenting is strongly associated with better outcomes for children in school, work, and social life.
"Texas has led the nation in recognizing that parents, not the government, are best equipped to raise their children, but a right on paper is only as strong as the state's willingness to defend it," said Andrew Brown, Vice President of Policy. "Right now, a parent whose rights are violated has to hire a lawyer and fight a multi-year legal battle just to exercise authority the Texas Constitution already guarantees them. An Office of Parental Rights would give families a direct line to enforcement, instead of leaving them to fend for themselves against the state that promised to stand behind them."
"A single office dedicated to parental rights can close the gap between the laws Texas has written and the way those laws are applied," said Noah Torres, Policy Director for the Family Success Project. "Parents need an institution that understands the statutes, defends their original purpose, and makes sure the state's commitment to family authority is carried out in practice-not just announced on paper."
* * *
REPORT: https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-FSP-ParentalRights-Torres.pdf
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-releases-new-research-calling-for-the-creation-of-a-texas-office-of-parental-rights
* * *
TPPF Releases New Research Calling for the Creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights
*
AUSTIN -Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released new research calling for the creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights within the Office of the Attorney General. The report finds that Texas has advanced parental rights through statute and a state constitutional amendment recognizing a parent's right and duty to nurture and protect their children, but that those protections remain ... Show Full Article AUSTIN, Texas, Sept. 2 (TNSrpt) -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release: * * * TPPF Releases New Research Calling for the Creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights * AUSTIN -Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released new research calling for the creation of a Texas Office of Parental Rights within the Office of the Attorney General. The report finds that Texas has advanced parental rights through statute and a state constitutional amendment recognizing a parent's right and duty to nurture and protect their children, but that those protections remainunder-enforced.
The report recommends that the Legislature establish a centralized office in Austin charged with knowing current parental-rights laws, reviewing their original intent, providing courts and families with directly relevant legal information, and enforcing statutes that protect the parent-child relationship. It argues that parental rights are grounded in natural law, Western and American history, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and that involved parenting is strongly associated with better outcomes for children in school, work, and social life.
"Texas has led the nation in recognizing that parents, not the government, are best equipped to raise their children, but a right on paper is only as strong as the state's willingness to defend it," said Andrew Brown, Vice President of Policy. "Right now, a parent whose rights are violated has to hire a lawyer and fight a multi-year legal battle just to exercise authority the Texas Constitution already guarantees them. An Office of Parental Rights would give families a direct line to enforcement, instead of leaving them to fend for themselves against the state that promised to stand behind them."
"A single office dedicated to parental rights can close the gap between the laws Texas has written and the way those laws are applied," said Noah Torres, Policy Director for the Family Success Project. "Parents need an institution that understands the statutes, defends their original purpose, and makes sure the state's commitment to family authority is carried out in practice-not just announced on paper."
* * *
REPORT: https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-FSP-ParentalRights-Torres.pdf
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-releases-new-research-calling-for-the-creation-of-a-texas-office-of-parental-rights
MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments
EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments
(Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds.
-
The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments (Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds. - The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June2026.
"This quarter's investments reflect the diversity of innovation happening across Michigan and beyond," said Jeff Wesley, Executive Director of Michigan Rise. "From healthcare technologies and AI-powered software to advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and financial services, we're continuing to support founders tackling meaningful challenges and building scalable businesses. These investments demonstrate our commitment to helping entrepreneurs access the capital and support they need to launch, grow, and create lasting impact."
Investments this quarter include the following:
* Akadeum Life Sciences (akadeum.com) - Uses buoyant microbubbles to separate cells and molecules, improving sample preparation for research and clinical use.
* Adrenaline Interactive (adrenalineinteractive.ai) - Puts real-world brands into video games as part of gameplay, allowing ads to appear naturally within the experience.
* Ankra Health (ankrahealth.com) - Uses data from labs, wearables, and medical records to predict health risks early and guide actions to improve health.
* AutoSitu (autositu.com) - Uses AI to review development plans for zoning and building code issues, enabling faster approvals with fewer revisions.
* Bit-Farms (bit-farms.com) - Creates subscription-based micro-farms that help schools, restaurants, and organizations grow fresh produce on-site while reducing waste and transportation costs.
* Bloom (bloomnetwork.ai) - Connects electric mobility and hard tech companies with services that bring products to market.
* Clicki Referrals (joinclicki.com) - Enables service businesses to launch and manage referral programs that drive customer growth.
* Crebit (crebitpay.com) - Provides a stablecoin-powered payments platform for faster, lower-cost tuition and remittance payments.
* Culturewell (getculturewell.com) - Tests surfaces in healthcare facilities to identify harmful germs, assess risk, and guide cleaning to prevent infections.
* Essata Technologies (essata.io) - Provides software to manage energy use and infrastructure in commercial buildings.
* FinGoal (fingoal.com) - Provides analytics tools that help financial institutions better understand customer spending habits and deliver more personalized banking experiences.
* Jupid (jupid.com) - Embeds business formation, accounting, tax, and compliance tools into digital banking platforms for entrepreneurs.
* Luminur - Supports emergency clinicians with decision tools that reduce unnecessary CT scans in pulmonary embolism care.
* PhotoniCare (photoni.care) - Develops imaging technology to diagnose ear infections and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.
* Promethient (thermavance.com) - Manufactures heated and cooled seating systems for industrial, commercial, and specialty use.
* Sail (savewithsail.com) - Provides an HSA/FSA reimbursement platform that enables upfront payment and automatic reimbursement.
* Side Door (sidedoorapp.com) - Offers an online platform that helps home buyers and sellers manage their own transactions with support from vetted professionals when needed.
* ScopeMed (scopemedicine.com) - Develops a nasal cannula system that improves oxygen delivery during endoscopy.
* SPARE (gotspare.com) - Provides an embedded financial services platform that expands access to banking without physical branches.
* Sit Sense - Builds automated medical recliners that reposition patients to prevent pressure injuries and reduce strain on caregivers.
* VERN AI (vernai.com) - Uses real-time emotion recognition to support applications in customer service, mental health, and other industries.
* VETR Health (vetrhealth.com) - Combines in-home veterinary care, telehealth services, and wellness plans that make pet healthcare more convenient and accessible.
* Wimee AI (wimee.tv) - Helps children build vocabulary and reading skills through an interactive learning platform featuring stories, creative activities, and guided exploration.
The MSU Research Foundation invests in early-stage technology startups through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise family of venture funds. This coordinated approach provides capital and support from pre-seed through follow-on investment, helping startups launch, grow, and scale in Michigan.
For more information about the MSU Research Foundation's investment funds and portfolio companies, visit msufoundation.org/venture-funds.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/msu-research-foundations-captive-venture-funds-close-23-investments/
* * *
MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments
(Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds.
-
The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * MSU Research Foundation's Captive Venture Funds Close 23 Investments (Apr.-Jun. 2026) The MSU Research Foundation backed a diverse range of startups across healthcare, artificial intelligence, fintech, energy, and enterprise software sectors through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment funds. - The MSU Research Foundation announced 23 new startup investments through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise investment subsidiaries between April and June2026.
"This quarter's investments reflect the diversity of innovation happening across Michigan and beyond," said Jeff Wesley, Executive Director of Michigan Rise. "From healthcare technologies and AI-powered software to advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and financial services, we're continuing to support founders tackling meaningful challenges and building scalable businesses. These investments demonstrate our commitment to helping entrepreneurs access the capital and support they need to launch, grow, and create lasting impact."
Investments this quarter include the following:
* Akadeum Life Sciences (akadeum.com) - Uses buoyant microbubbles to separate cells and molecules, improving sample preparation for research and clinical use.
* Adrenaline Interactive (adrenalineinteractive.ai) - Puts real-world brands into video games as part of gameplay, allowing ads to appear naturally within the experience.
* Ankra Health (ankrahealth.com) - Uses data from labs, wearables, and medical records to predict health risks early and guide actions to improve health.
* AutoSitu (autositu.com) - Uses AI to review development plans for zoning and building code issues, enabling faster approvals with fewer revisions.
* Bit-Farms (bit-farms.com) - Creates subscription-based micro-farms that help schools, restaurants, and organizations grow fresh produce on-site while reducing waste and transportation costs.
* Bloom (bloomnetwork.ai) - Connects electric mobility and hard tech companies with services that bring products to market.
* Clicki Referrals (joinclicki.com) - Enables service businesses to launch and manage referral programs that drive customer growth.
* Crebit (crebitpay.com) - Provides a stablecoin-powered payments platform for faster, lower-cost tuition and remittance payments.
* Culturewell (getculturewell.com) - Tests surfaces in healthcare facilities to identify harmful germs, assess risk, and guide cleaning to prevent infections.
* Essata Technologies (essata.io) - Provides software to manage energy use and infrastructure in commercial buildings.
* FinGoal (fingoal.com) - Provides analytics tools that help financial institutions better understand customer spending habits and deliver more personalized banking experiences.
* Jupid (jupid.com) - Embeds business formation, accounting, tax, and compliance tools into digital banking platforms for entrepreneurs.
* Luminur - Supports emergency clinicians with decision tools that reduce unnecessary CT scans in pulmonary embolism care.
* PhotoniCare (photoni.care) - Develops imaging technology to diagnose ear infections and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.
* Promethient (thermavance.com) - Manufactures heated and cooled seating systems for industrial, commercial, and specialty use.
* Sail (savewithsail.com) - Provides an HSA/FSA reimbursement platform that enables upfront payment and automatic reimbursement.
* Side Door (sidedoorapp.com) - Offers an online platform that helps home buyers and sellers manage their own transactions with support from vetted professionals when needed.
* ScopeMed (scopemedicine.com) - Develops a nasal cannula system that improves oxygen delivery during endoscopy.
* SPARE (gotspare.com) - Provides an embedded financial services platform that expands access to banking without physical branches.
* Sit Sense - Builds automated medical recliners that reposition patients to prevent pressure injuries and reduce strain on caregivers.
* VERN AI (vernai.com) - Uses real-time emotion recognition to support applications in customer service, mental health, and other industries.
* VETR Health (vetrhealth.com) - Combines in-home veterinary care, telehealth services, and wellness plans that make pet healthcare more convenient and accessible.
* Wimee AI (wimee.tv) - Helps children build vocabulary and reading skills through an interactive learning platform featuring stories, creative activities, and guided exploration.
The MSU Research Foundation invests in early-stage technology startups through its Red Cedar Ventures and Michigan Rise family of venture funds. This coordinated approach provides capital and support from pre-seed through follow-on investment, helping startups launch, grow, and scale in Michigan.
For more information about the MSU Research Foundation's investment funds and portfolio companies, visit msufoundation.org/venture-funds.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/msu-research-foundations-captive-venture-funds-close-23-investments/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary Entitled 'Treading on the Market'
DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ninos P. Malek, economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California:
* * *
Treading on the Market
If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them?
-
On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists a ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ninos P. Malek, economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California: * * * Treading on the Market If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them? - On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists atire as it rolls along the road.
Lower rolling resistance can improve fuel economy in gasoline-powered vehicles and extend the range of electric vehicles. Those sound like good things. And, according to the California Energy Commission, they come at relatively little cost.
The CEC estimates that under the first phase of the regulation, a set of four tires will cost consumers about $6 more while saving the average driver approximately $85 in fuel costs over the life of the tires. Under the stricter second phase, beginning in 2033, the additional cost is estimated at $26 per set, while fuel savings are projected to be approximately $179.
Assuming those estimates are accurate, most people would probably say, "Sounds like a pretty good deal." But that raises an obvious economic question: If these tires are such a good deal for consumers, why does the government need to force people to buy them?
Good economics requires looking beyond the most obvious effects of a policy and considering its effects on all groups, not merely the group policymakers intend to benefit. Engineers and regulators can measure rolling resistance. What they cannot objectively measure is how much an individual consumer values lower rolling resistance relative to all the other characteristics he or she might want in a tire.
Different drivers will weigh those other characteristics differently. Some care about price, practicality, ride comfort, or brand reputation. Someone who puts 5,000 miles on his or her luxury car may place less value on the fuel efficiency of these new tires than someone who puts 50,000 miles on his or her minivan. Thus, the government cannot determine that low-rolling-resistance tires are the best choice for every consumer.
F.A. Hayek explained this problem beautifully in his famous 1945 essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society."
The commissioners and staff at the CEC may possess excellent scientific information about tire performance. But they do not possess what Hayek called knowledge of "the particular circumstances of time and place."
They do not know my budget, how many miles I drive, how long I plan to keep my car, what weather conditions I encounter, what other bills I need to pay this month, or how much I value fuel economy relative to traction, comfort, durability, and other characteristics. Multiply that problem by millions of California drivers, and the knowledge problem becomes obvious.
This is precisely why decentralized markets are superior to top-down regulation. Markets allow millions of individuals, each possessing knowledge of his or her own circumstances and preferences, to make different choices. There is a simple alternative to a government mandate: provide consumers with information. If lower-rolling-resistance tires really offer the savings the CEC projects, tire retailers have a compelling sales pitch:
"This set of tires costs $26 more today, but we estimate that it will save you $179 in fuel over the life of the tires."
That is useful information that will allow consumers to evaluate the trade-offs and decide for themselves. That is very different from having the government make the decision for them. Markets do more than provide information. They respond to consumer demand. If motorists value the fuel savings enough to pay for more efficient tires, their purchases create profit opportunities for manufacturers to produce more of them. No mandate is necessary.
One of the first lessons economics students learn is that people respond to incentives. Another is that good intentions do not guarantee good results. The CEC expects the regulation to produce substantial benefits. But regulations also change incentives in ways policymakers may not anticipate.
Consider a lower-income driver whose tires need replacing. An additional $26 may seem insignificant to an affluent household, but to someone struggling to pay rent, groceries, gasoline, insurance, and utility bills, every additional expense matters. The long-term savings may sound appealing to some consumers, but the buyer should be free to choose cheaper tires now and get the more fuel-efficient ones when he can afford them. Without this choice, some drivers might have to continue driving on worn tires, creating a safety trade-off that is easy to overlook when the focus is primarily on fuel savings. Sound economic analysis requires us to consider not merely the immediate and visible benefits of a policy, but also its less obvious costs and unintended consequences.
Interestingly, the CEC's Replacement Tire Efficiency Program exempts various specialty tires from its minimum performance standards, including competition tires, certain winter tires, off-road tires, motorcycle tires, temporary spare tires, and several other categories. Why? Because different tires serve different purposes. That is perfectly sensible. But once we acknowledge that tire buyers face trade-offs among different characteristics, we have already conceded much of Hayek's point.
The CEC argues that its standards can be achieved without sacrificing safety, tire life, or other important tire characteristics. Suppose that is entirely correct. It still does not resolve the fundamental economic question. Demonstrating that a product has desirable characteristics is not the same thing as demonstrating that the government should prohibit consumers from purchasing alternatives.
Supporters of low-rolling-resistance tires also argue that the standards will produce environmental benefits. According to the CEC, the standards are expected eventually to reduce gasoline consumption by approximately 141 million gallons annually and carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 2 million metric tons per year. Those benefits should similarly not simply be ignored, but the existence of an externality or so-called "market failure" does not automatically establish that a particular government intervention will improve matters. Economic analysis must compare real-world institutions, not an imperfect market with an imaginary perfect government. Government actors are human beings, too. They face information problems, imperfect incentives, political pressures, administrative costs, and the possibility of unintended consequences.
Competition allows us to discover information that cannot simply be known in advance by a central authority. An unhampered market allows tire manufacturers to experiment with different combinations of price, efficiency, traction, durability, safety, comfort, and performance. Consumers then reveal what they value through their decisions to buy--or to abstain from buying--those products. Those decisions transmit information throughout the market. Profits encourage manufacturers to produce more of what consumers value. Losses tell them to change course.
Perhaps the CEC is correct: California consumers overwhelmingly prefer lower-rolling-resistance tires once they understand the potential fuel savings. If so, there is an easier way to find out. If the CEC's numbers are right, tire manufacturers and retailers have every incentive to advertise those savings, and consumers have every incentive to take advantage of them. California is already notorious for its taxes and regulations. It does not need another mandate to protect consumers from choices Sacramento believes they should not be allowed to make. When it comes to California's tire market, perhaps the state should adopt a simpler rule: Don't tread on consumer choice.
* * *
Ninos P. Malek is an Economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California and a Lecturer at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. He teaches principles of macroeconomics, principles of microeconomics, economics of social issues, and intermediate microeconomics. His previous experience also includes teaching introductory economics at George Mason University.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/treading-on-the-market/
* * *
Treading on the Market
If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them?
-
On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists a ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Sept. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Ninos P. Malek, economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California: * * * Treading on the Market If efficient tires save Californians money, why mandate them? - On August 17, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California will have to meet minimum standards for "rolling resistance"--the force that resists atire as it rolls along the road.
Lower rolling resistance can improve fuel economy in gasoline-powered vehicles and extend the range of electric vehicles. Those sound like good things. And, according to the California Energy Commission, they come at relatively little cost.
The CEC estimates that under the first phase of the regulation, a set of four tires will cost consumers about $6 more while saving the average driver approximately $85 in fuel costs over the life of the tires. Under the stricter second phase, beginning in 2033, the additional cost is estimated at $26 per set, while fuel savings are projected to be approximately $179.
Assuming those estimates are accurate, most people would probably say, "Sounds like a pretty good deal." But that raises an obvious economic question: If these tires are such a good deal for consumers, why does the government need to force people to buy them?
Good economics requires looking beyond the most obvious effects of a policy and considering its effects on all groups, not merely the group policymakers intend to benefit. Engineers and regulators can measure rolling resistance. What they cannot objectively measure is how much an individual consumer values lower rolling resistance relative to all the other characteristics he or she might want in a tire.
Different drivers will weigh those other characteristics differently. Some care about price, practicality, ride comfort, or brand reputation. Someone who puts 5,000 miles on his or her luxury car may place less value on the fuel efficiency of these new tires than someone who puts 50,000 miles on his or her minivan. Thus, the government cannot determine that low-rolling-resistance tires are the best choice for every consumer.
F.A. Hayek explained this problem beautifully in his famous 1945 essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society."
The commissioners and staff at the CEC may possess excellent scientific information about tire performance. But they do not possess what Hayek called knowledge of "the particular circumstances of time and place."
They do not know my budget, how many miles I drive, how long I plan to keep my car, what weather conditions I encounter, what other bills I need to pay this month, or how much I value fuel economy relative to traction, comfort, durability, and other characteristics. Multiply that problem by millions of California drivers, and the knowledge problem becomes obvious.
This is precisely why decentralized markets are superior to top-down regulation. Markets allow millions of individuals, each possessing knowledge of his or her own circumstances and preferences, to make different choices. There is a simple alternative to a government mandate: provide consumers with information. If lower-rolling-resistance tires really offer the savings the CEC projects, tire retailers have a compelling sales pitch:
"This set of tires costs $26 more today, but we estimate that it will save you $179 in fuel over the life of the tires."
That is useful information that will allow consumers to evaluate the trade-offs and decide for themselves. That is very different from having the government make the decision for them. Markets do more than provide information. They respond to consumer demand. If motorists value the fuel savings enough to pay for more efficient tires, their purchases create profit opportunities for manufacturers to produce more of them. No mandate is necessary.
One of the first lessons economics students learn is that people respond to incentives. Another is that good intentions do not guarantee good results. The CEC expects the regulation to produce substantial benefits. But regulations also change incentives in ways policymakers may not anticipate.
Consider a lower-income driver whose tires need replacing. An additional $26 may seem insignificant to an affluent household, but to someone struggling to pay rent, groceries, gasoline, insurance, and utility bills, every additional expense matters. The long-term savings may sound appealing to some consumers, but the buyer should be free to choose cheaper tires now and get the more fuel-efficient ones when he can afford them. Without this choice, some drivers might have to continue driving on worn tires, creating a safety trade-off that is easy to overlook when the focus is primarily on fuel savings. Sound economic analysis requires us to consider not merely the immediate and visible benefits of a policy, but also its less obvious costs and unintended consequences.
Interestingly, the CEC's Replacement Tire Efficiency Program exempts various specialty tires from its minimum performance standards, including competition tires, certain winter tires, off-road tires, motorcycle tires, temporary spare tires, and several other categories. Why? Because different tires serve different purposes. That is perfectly sensible. But once we acknowledge that tire buyers face trade-offs among different characteristics, we have already conceded much of Hayek's point.
The CEC argues that its standards can be achieved without sacrificing safety, tire life, or other important tire characteristics. Suppose that is entirely correct. It still does not resolve the fundamental economic question. Demonstrating that a product has desirable characteristics is not the same thing as demonstrating that the government should prohibit consumers from purchasing alternatives.
Supporters of low-rolling-resistance tires also argue that the standards will produce environmental benefits. According to the CEC, the standards are expected eventually to reduce gasoline consumption by approximately 141 million gallons annually and carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 2 million metric tons per year. Those benefits should similarly not simply be ignored, but the existence of an externality or so-called "market failure" does not automatically establish that a particular government intervention will improve matters. Economic analysis must compare real-world institutions, not an imperfect market with an imaginary perfect government. Government actors are human beings, too. They face information problems, imperfect incentives, political pressures, administrative costs, and the possibility of unintended consequences.
Competition allows us to discover information that cannot simply be known in advance by a central authority. An unhampered market allows tire manufacturers to experiment with different combinations of price, efficiency, traction, durability, safety, comfort, and performance. Consumers then reveal what they value through their decisions to buy--or to abstain from buying--those products. Those decisions transmit information throughout the market. Profits encourage manufacturers to produce more of what consumers value. Losses tell them to change course.
Perhaps the CEC is correct: California consumers overwhelmingly prefer lower-rolling-resistance tires once they understand the potential fuel savings. If so, there is an easier way to find out. If the CEC's numbers are right, tire manufacturers and retailers have every incentive to advertise those savings, and consumers have every incentive to take advantage of them. California is already notorious for its taxes and regulations. It does not need another mandate to protect consumers from choices Sacramento believes they should not be allowed to make. When it comes to California's tire market, perhaps the state should adopt a simpler rule: Don't tread on consumer choice.
* * *
Ninos P. Malek is an Economics professor at De Anza College in Cupertino, California and a Lecturer at San Jose State University in San Jose, California. He teaches principles of macroeconomics, principles of microeconomics, economics of social issues, and intermediate microeconomics. His previous experience also includes teaching introductory economics at George Mason University.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/treading-on-the-market/