 |
|
|
|||||
The first 100 days of Trump’s second presidential term have included a surprising player that doesn’t seem likely to go away anytime soon: Signal. The encrypted messaging platform wasn’t necessarily in the public conscious until last month when top government officials discussed details of an impending military attack in Yemen in a group chat on the platform that inadvertently included The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg. The editor-in-chief published a piece called “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans” about his shocking inclusion, and quickly set off national interest in Signal. Signal subsequently told Wired that the incident led to a huge uptick in downloads of the app on top of what had already been a “banner year.” Critics argued that if the nation’s top officials were talking about war plans in one chat, there must be other unreported chats. And just a few weeks later, another chat was revealed by The New York Times. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was on that original Signal thread, also was reported to have shared detailed information about those same forthcoming strikes in another Signal chat thatfor some reasonincluded his wife, brother, and personal lawyer. Signal itself collects virtually no user data on its 30 million monthly users. But it’s still an unsecured consumer platform, often operated on a user’s personal phone, that’s vulnerable to hacks and surveillance. The Associated Press reported last week that Hegseth had an unsecured internet connection set up in his office so that he could use the Signal app on his computer. The app has a feature that allows users to set messages to automatically delete after a set period of time. That’s given some a false sense of security, but this week’s Semafor report on the massive right-leaning Signal group that’s attracted billionaires has reiterated that people can leak messages, and phones can always take screenshots. Turns out, what happens on Signal doesnt always stay on Signal.
Category:
E-Commerce
Cancer research in the U.S. doesnt rely on a single institution or funding streamits a complex ecosystem made up of interdependent parts: academia, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology startups, federal agencies, and private foundations. As a cancer biologist who has worked in each of these sectors over the past three decades, Ive seen firsthand how each piece supports the others. When one falters, the whole system becomes vulnerable. The United States has long led the world in cancer research. It has spent more on cancer research than any other country, including more than US$7.2 billion annually through the National Cancer Institute alone. Since the 1971 National Cancer Act, this sustained public investment has helped drive dramatic declines in cancer mortality, with death rates falling by 34% since 1991. In the past five years, the Food and Drug Administration has approved over 100 new cancer drugs, and the U.S. has brought more cancer drugs to the global market than any other nation. But that legacy is under threat. Funding delays, political shifts and instability across sectors have created an environment where basic research into the fundamentals of cancer biology is struggling to keep traction and the drug development pipeline is showing signs of stress. These disruptions go far beyond uncertainty and have real consequences. Early-career scientists faced with unstable funding and limited job prospects may leave academia altogether. Mid-career researchers often spend more time chasing scarce funding than conducting research. Interrupted research budgets and shifting policy priorities can unravel multiyear collaborations. I, along with many other researchers, believe these setbacks will slow progress, break training pipelines, and drain expertise from critical areas of cancer researchdelays that ultimately hurt patients waiting for new treatments. A 50-year foundation of federal investment The modern era of U.S. cancer research began with the signing of the National Cancer Act in 1971. That law dramatically expanded the National Cancer Institute, an agency within the National Institutes of Health focusing on cancer research and education. The NCI laid the groundwork for a robust national infrastructure for cancer science, funding everything from early research in the lab to large-scale clinical trials and supporting the training of a generation of cancer researchers. This federal support has driven advances leading to higher survival rates and the transformation of some cancers into a manageable chronic or curable condition. Progress in screening, diagnostics and targeted therapiesand the patients who have benefited from themowe much to decades of NIH support. But federal funding has always been vulnerable to political headwinds. During the first Trump administration, deep cuts to biomedical science budgets threatened to stall the progress made under initiatives such as the 2016 Cancer Moonshot. The rationale given for these cuts was to slash overall spending, despite facing strong bipartisan opposition in Congress. Lawmakers ultimately rejected the administrations proposal and instead increased NIH funding. In 2022, the Biden administration worked to relaunch the Cancer Moonshot. This uncertainty has worsened in 2025 as the second Trump administration has cut or canceled many NIH grants. Labs that relied on these awards are suddenly facing funding cliffs, forcing them to lay off staff, pause experiments, or shutter entirely. Deliberate delays in communication from the Department of Health and Human Services have stalled new NIH grant reviews and funding decisions, putting many promising research proposals already in the pipeline at risk. Philanthropys support is powerfulbut limited While federal agencies remain the backbone of cancer research funding, philanthropic organizations provide the critical support for breakthroughsespecially for new ideas and riskier projects. Groups such as the American Cancer Society, Stand Up To Cancer, and major hospital foundations have filled important gaps in support, often funding pilot studies or supporting early-career investigators before they secure federal grants. By supporting bold ideas and providing seed funding, they help launch innovative research that may later attract large-scale support from the NIH. Without the bureaucratic constraints of federal agencies, philanthropy is more nimble and flexible. It can move faster to support work in emerging areas, such as immunotherapy and precision oncology. For example, the American Cancer Society grant review process typically takes about four months from submission, while the NIH grant review process takes an average of eight months. But philanthropic funds are smaller in scale and often disease-specific. Many foundations are created around a specific cause, such as advancing cures for pancreatic, breast, or pediatric cancers. Their urgency to make an impact allows them to fund bold approaches that federal funders may see as too preliminary or speculative. Their giving also fluctuates. For instance, the American Cancer Society awarded nearly $60 million less in research grants in 2020 compared with 2019. While private foundations are vital partners for cancer research, they cannot replace the scale and consistency of federal funding. Total U.S. philanthropic funding for cancer research is estimated at a few billion dollars per year, spread across hundreds of organizations. I comparison, the federal government has typically contributed roughly five to eight times more than philanthropy to cancer research each year. Industry innovationand its priorities Private-sector innovation is essential for translating discoveries into treatments. In 2021, nearly 80% of the roughly $57 billion the U.S. spent on cancer drugs came from pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Many of the treatments used in oncology today, including immunotherapies and targeted therapies, emerged from collaborations between academic labs and industry partners. But commercial priorities dont always align with public health needs. Companies naturally focus on areas with strong financial returns: common cancers, projects that qualify for fast-track regulatory approval, and high-priced drugs. Rare cancers, pediatric cancers, and basic science often receive less attention. Industry is also saddled with uncertainty. Rising R&D costs, tough regulatory requirements, and investor wariness have created a challenging environment to bring new drugs to market. Several biotech startups have folded or downsized in the past year, leaving promising new drugs stranded in limbo in the lab before they can reach clinical trials. Without federal or philanthropic entities to pick up the slack, these discoveries may never reach the patients who need them. A system under strain Cancer is not going away. As the U.S. population ages, the burden of cancer on society will only grow. Disparities in treatment access and outcomes persist across race, income, and geography. And factors such as environmental exposures and infectious diseases continue to intersect with cancer risk in new and complex ways. Addressing these challenges requires a strong, stable, and well-coordinated research system. But that system is under strain. National Cancer Institute grant paylines, or funding cutoffs, remain highly competitive. Early-career researchers face precarious job prospects. Labs are losing technicians and postdoctoral researchers to higher-paying roles in industry or to burnout. And patients, especially those hoping to enroll in clinical trials, face delays, disruptions and dwindling options This is not just a funding issue. Its a coordination issue between the federal government, academia, and industry. There are currently no long-term policy solutions that ensure sustained federal investment, foster collaboration between academia and industry, or make room for philanthropy to drive innovation instead of just filling gaps. I believe that for the U.S. to remain a global leader in cancer research, it will need to recommit to the model that made success possible: a balanced ecosystem of public funding, private investment, and nonprofit support. Up until recently, that meant fully funding the NIH and NCI with predictable, long-term budgets that allow labs to plan for the future; incentivizing partnerships that move discoveries from bench to bedside without compromising academic freedom; supporting career pathways for young scientists so talent doesnt leave the field; and creating mechanisms for equity to ensure that research includes and benefits all communities. Cancer research and science have come a long way, saving about 4.5 million lives in the U.S. from cancer from 1991 to 2022. Today, patients are living longer and better because of decades of hard-won discoveries made by thousands of researchers. But science doesnt run on good intentions alone. It needs universities. It needs philanthropy. It needs industry. It needs vision. And it requires continued support from the federal government. Jeffrey MacKeigan is a professor of pediatrics and human development at Michigan State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Whatever else Donald Trump intends with his assault on the federal workforce, labor unions, and the National Labor Relations Board, one potential effect is clear: a devastating blow to Black Americans who for decades have used public-sector jobs to move up from subsistence living and toward the middle class. Federal employment has been a pathway to the middle class for African American workers and their families since Reconstruction, including postal work and other occupations, explained Danielle Mahones, director of the leadership development program at the University of California, Berkeley, Labor Center. [Now y]oure going to see Black workers lose their federal jobs. Black people are the only racial or ethnic group to be overrepresented in government jobs. Data analysis by the Pew Research Foundation shows that while Black people make up 12.8% of the nations population, they account for 18.6% of the federal workforce. At the U.S. Postal Service, Black workers comprised 30% of the total workforce in fiscal year 2022. Although the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that African Americans are still underrepresented in executive positions within the postal service, the overall numbers reflect a robust history of Blacks seeking out USPS jobs to move their lives forward. California has the second-largest population of federal workers outside the Washington, D.C., area. Deep federal job cuts will affect the states roughly 150,000 workers, and Black employees make up more than 10% of that total. Historically, Black workers have used federal positions, many of them union represented, as pathways to homeownership, higher education for their children, and retirement savingsopportunities that were not widely available to previous generations, said Andrea Slater, director of the Center for the Advancement of Racial Equity at Work at the University of California, Los Angeles, Labor Center. Those opportunities didnt insulate Black families from the decades-old practices of redlining housing policies, wage theft, and other inequities, Slater said, but a government job usually meant dependable employment and some form of pension. Federal jobs and government contracts have helped build and establish cohesive Black middle-class communities from the Bay Area to San Diego, Slater added. * * * Postal workers nationwide have publicly protested a proposed cut of 10,000 jobs, which they consider a step toward an Elon Musk-led attempt to privatize the postal service. At a Los Angeles rally in March, Brian Renfroe, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, told the crowd, We had an election in November, and some people voted for President Trump, and some people voted for Vice President Harris, some people voted for other candidates. But you know what none of them voted for? To dismantle the Postal Service. Still, a sense of unease hangs over the process. Asked for comment this week, a union representative in Northern California, who said the situation had their colleagues worried about losing jobs and civil service careers, refused to be quoted or identified. Trumps true motives for clear-cutting federal jobs and going after the unions arent known, but his animus toward union labor is no secret. During his first term, the presidents policymakers acted to weaken or abandon regulations that protected workers pay and safety, and Trump directed particular force against federal workers, more than a third of whom are covered by union contracts. Many workers and their unions were caught flat-footed by the scale and intensity of Trump 2.0s effort to decimate their ranks. Nobody was ready for this, UC Berkeleys Mahones said. This is part of a long-term project to eliminate the labor movement and unions. What is new, though, is the accelerationdoing something so massive, so quickly and chaotically, with no regard to the law nor humanity. Trump signed an order in March directing 18 departments to terminate contracts it had already signed with unions representing federal workers, and to shutter the process through which employees could file job-related grievances. Trump cited a 1978 law that makes exceptions from collective bargaining for departments that have national security missions. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 820,000 federal and D.C. government workers, said Trump has abused that narrow cutout in the law to go after multiple departments that are heavily unionizedand an accompanying fact sheet distributed by the White House all but confirmed that. The release claimed that certain federal unions have declared war on President Trumps agenda, adding that Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests. The AFGE and several other unions filed suit in federal district court in Northern California seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent Trumps mandate from taking effect. Caught in the middle, meanwhile, are hundreds of thousands of federal employees whose jobs are on the line, including Black workers who may have spent their entire careers in a single area of public-sector service. The specific requirements of government sector positions will likely require Black displaced workers to acquire new job skillsand ageism and racism continue to influence hiring practices, even in California, Slater said. This piece was originally published by Capital & Main, which reports from California on economic, political, and social issues.
Category:
E-Commerce
Dive into the exhilarating world of innovation with FC Explains, a video series that spotlights the game changers and visionaries from Fast Companys prestigious Most Innovative Companies list. This annual ranking celebrates the trailblazers who are reshaping industries and cultures, pushing boundaries, and transforming the world. First up is Bluesky.
Category:
E-Commerce
After Pope Francis’s funeral was held over the weekend, attention has now turned to the papal conclave to choose the next pope. If youre Catholicor if you recently watched Conclaveyou might be hedging your bets on who next will be seated at the Vatican. While the process usually happens behind closed doors, one TikTok user has created a “Fantasy Pope League,” in a similar style to fantasy football, an online game in which players collect points based on how real-life footballers perform each week, allowing people to play along at home and win points based off the real-life conclave. There are 10 times the number of people in this sweepstake as there are cardinals in the Catholic Church, says @itismaxhooray. Making it bigger and therefore more legitimate than the real conclave. @itismaxhooray What name will the new pope take? Youve had your say! Enter the pope fantasy league now! #pope #league #conclave #competition #fun #fantasy #guy #papal #name original sound – Max Although sign-ups have now closed, those playing along will be assigned a cardinal via sweepstake from the College of Cardinals. If they do well in the voting, you do well in the pope league, @itismaxhooray explains. Players must also answer extra questions when they sign up to score “pope points,” which apparently will prove vital when it comes to the final leaderboard. There may even be a prize. @itismaxhooray PLAY THE FANTASY POPE LEAGUE NOW! Link in bio #pope #league #conclave #fun #competition #fantasy original sound – Max The original post has more than 100,000 views at the time of writing and reportedly saw 2,000 sign-ups on its first day. Im a normal girl who can be trusted not to get too intense about the fantasy pope league, one person commented. Immediately signed up, wrote another. 15 years of Catholic school have prepared me for this. Cardinals are now on their way to everyone who registered. Today, the Vatican announced May 7 as the start date for the official conclave. The last two conclaves, held in 2005 to elect Pope Benedict XVI and in 2013 to elect Pope Francis, each lasted two days. Currently, there are 135 cardinals eligible to participate. My cardinal is 40:1 according to Oddschecker, not awful, one player commented. Just me and 99-year-old Angelo Acerbi against the world, wrote another.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] next »