All Activity

Google updated the Googlebot-News documentation to remove wrong information The post Google Clarifies Googlebot-News Crawler Documentation appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Prime minister’s attempt to fire Ronen Bar pushed country to brink of constitutional crisisView the full article

Election hands victory to centrist leader who vowed to defy the US presidentView the full article

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has torn through Washington at breakneck speed. During the first 100 days of President Donald The President’s second term, DOGE has played a central role in cutting more than 200,000 federal jobs. The organization has over that same time implemented aggressive cost-cutting measures (including to foreign food aid and medical research), overhauled longtime government cybersecurity systems, and targeted federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs for elimination. Most of these changes have been driven, in part, by AI tools—a move that has sparked serious concerns among experts. Critics say the rushed, untested use of artificial intelligence could lead to wrongful firings, mishandling of sensitive data, and lasting damage to core public services. “It’s misguided for us to think that people who control technology and the associated power levers are naive about AI’s capabilities,” says Julia Stoyanovich, director of the Center for Responsible AI at New York University. “And their goal is not to do things better, or to make it so that everything is more efficient; rather, their goal is just to reduce the size of government, to reduce government spending, and to do this in a way that is just disorienting to everybody in society.” Musk, who said earlier this month he would step back from DOGE to focus more on Tesla after the EV maker posted a dismal quarterly earnings report, has advocated for deploying AI to boost government efficiency. In practice, that has meant feeding sensitive Department of Education data into AI systems to identify programs for elimination; pushing to use AI to reassess benefits programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs; creating a chatbot for the U.S. General Services Administration to analyze contract data; and deploying AI tools—including Grok, the chatbot developed by xAI, which Musk owns—to monitor federal employee communications for critical sentiment toward Musk or The President. According to one anonymous government official who spoke to The Washington Post in February, the end goal is something even more drastic: the replacement of “the human workforce with machines.” (Neither the White House nor DOGE responded to Fast Company’s requests for comment.) To critics, such efforts represent a reckless and dangerous gamble. Experts warn that AI-driven government downsizing risks violating civil rights, mishandling some of the most sensitive personnel data in the country, and introducing hidden biases (even if accidentally) into critical decisions. As CNN reports, federal agencies, with their aging systems and complex missions, are ill-suited to abrupt automation, and without deep understanding of the underlying data, AI systems could misfire—cutting essential staffers and services based on flawed outputs. David Evan Harris, a chancellor’s public scholar with the University of California, Berkeley, tells Fast Company there’s also a massive alarm bell going off around the question of data protection and whether DOGE is safeguarding the information it is plugging into outsize AI systems supplied by companies like Anthropic and Musk’s xAI. “It’s very unclear what kinds of security protocols the DOGE team is using,” he says, “and if they are taking any steps to make sure that private data of government employees and U.S. citizens, and even confidential data about U.S. government programs is not being turned into training data or retained improperly by any of these AI companies that they’re working with.” Perhaps even more concerning, as Harvard researchers Bruce Schneier and Nathan E. Sanders argued in The Atlantic in February, replacing federal civil servants with AI could fundamentally weaken democratic governance by concentrating executive power. As they see it, with fewer human workers exercising independent judgment, future leaders could reshape government agencies at the push of a button—sidestepping traditional checks and balances designed to prevent abuses of power. Still, there are signs the momentum around DOGE may be shifting. This month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against DOGE, seeking records about the agency’s use of AI across federal programs, citing concerns about mass surveillance and “politically motivated misuse.” Meanwhile, a group of Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, demanding more information on DOGE’s AI practices. And despite Musk’s sweeping promises, analyses suggest the agency’s impact has been overstated: According to recent estimates published by The New York Times, DOGE’s touted cost savings might not actually amount to much, given that all the agency-related firings, rehirings, and lost productivity will cost some $135 billion this fiscal year. Public sentiment appears to be souring as well: A recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 57% of Americans disapprove of Musk’s efforts with DOGE—a significant uptick over February, when 49% disapproved. These factors might force a reckoning for DOGE, but time is short. Once AI is entrenched in government operations, undoing the damage could be even harder than preventing it. “The AI industry is famous right now for being locked in a race to the bottom and throwing caution to the wind so that they can launch products as fast as possible,” says Harris. “Combining that race to the bottom with DOGE’s race to use AI for anything they can possibly think of is really concerning.” View the full article

When the Vietnam War finally ended on April 30, 1975, it left behind a landscape scarred with environmental damage. Vast stretches of coastal mangroves, once housing rich stocks of fish and birds, lay in ruins. Forests that had boasted hundreds of species were reduced to dried-out fragments, overgrown with invasive grasses. The term ecocide had been coined in the late 1960s to describe the U.S. military’s use of herbicides like Agent Orange and incendiary weapons like napalm to battle guerrilla forces that used jungles and marshes for cover. Fifty years later, Vietnam’s degraded ecosystems and dioxin-contaminated soils and waters still reflect the long-term ecological consequences of the war. Efforts to restore these damaged landscapes and even to assess the long-term harm have been limited. As an environmental scientist and anthropologist who has worked in Vietnam since the 1990s, I find the neglect and slow recovery efforts deeply troubling. Although the war spurred new international treaties aimed at protecting the environment during wartime, these efforts failed to compel post-war restoration for Vietnam. Current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East show these laws and treaties still aren’t effective. Agent Orange and daisy cutters The U.S. first sent ground troops to Vietnam in March 1965 to support South Vietnam against revolutionary forces and North Vietnamese troops, but the war had been going on for years before then. To fight an elusive enemy operating clandestinely at night and from hideouts deep in swamps and jungles, the U.S. military turned to environmental modification technologies. The most well-known of these was Operation Ranch Hand, which sprayed at least 19 million gallons of herbicides over approximately 6.4 million acres of South Vietnam. The chemicals fell on forests, and also on rivers, rice paddies, and villages, exposing civilians and troops. More than half of that spraying involved the dioxin-contaminated defoliant Agent Orange. Herbicides were used to strip the leaf cover from forests, increase visibility along transportation routes, and destroy crops suspected of supplying guerrilla forces. As news of the damage from these tactics made it back to the U.S., scientists raised concerns about the campaign’s environmental impacts to President Lyndon Johnson, calling for a review of whether the U.S. was intentionally using chemical weapons. American military leaders’ position was that herbicides did not constitute chemical weapons under the Geneva Protocol, which the U.S. had yet to ratify. Scientific organizations also initiated studies within Vietnam during the war, finding widespread destruction of mangroves, economic losses of rubber and timber plantations, and harm to lakes and waterways. In 1969, evidence linked a chemical in Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T, to birth defects and stillbirths in mice because it contained TCDD, a particularly harmful dioxin. That led to a ban on domestic use and suspension of Agent Orange use by the military in April 1970, with the last mission flown in early 1971. Incendiary weapons and the clearing of forests also ravaged rich ecosystems in Vietnam. The U.S. Forest Service tested large-scale incineration of jungles by igniting barrels of fuel oil dropped from planes. Particularly feared by civilians was the use of napalm bombs, with more than 400,000 tons of the thickened petroleum used during the war. After these infernos, invasive grasses often took over in hardened, infertile soils. “Rome Plows,” massive bulldozers with an armor-fortified cutting blade, could clear 1,000 acres a day. Enormous concussive bombs, known as “daisy cutters”, flattened forests and set off shock waves killing everything within a 3,000-foot radius, down to earthworms in the soil. The U.S. also engaged in weather modification through Project Popeye, a secret program from 1967 to 1972 that seeded clouds with silver iodide to prolong the monsoon season in an attempt to cut the flow of fighters and supplies coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail from North Vietnam. Congress eventually passed a bipartisan resolution in 1973 urging an international treaty to prohibit the use of weather modification as a weapon of war. That treaty came into effect in 1978. The U.S. military contended that all these tactics were operationally successful as a trade of trees for American lives. Despite Congress’s concerns, there was little scrutiny of the environmental impacts of U.S. military operations and technologies. Research sites were hard to access, and there was no regular environmental monitoring. Recovery efforts have been slow After the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese troops on April 30, 1975, the U.S. imposed a trade and economic embargo on all of Vietnam, leaving the country both war-damaged and cash-strapped. Vietnamese scientists told me they cobbled together small-scale studies. One found a dramatic drop in bird and mammal diversity in forests. In the A Lưới valley of central Vietnam, 80% of forests subjected to herbicides had not recovered by the early 1980s. Biologists found only 24 bird and five mammal species in those areas, far below normal in unsprayed forests. Only a handful of ecosystem restoration projects were attempted, hampered by shoestring budgets. The most notable began in 1978, when foresters began hand-replanting mangroves at the mouth of the Saigon River in Cần Giờ forest, an area that had been completely denuded. In inland areas, widespread tree-planting programs in the late 1980s and 1990s finally took root, but they focused on planting exotic trees like acacia, which did not restore the original diversity of the natural forests. Chemical cleanup is still underway For years, the U.S. also denied responsibility for Agent Orange cleanup, despite the recognition of dioxin-associated illnesses among U.S. veterans and testing that revealed continuing dioxin exposure among potentially tens of thousands of Vietnamese. The first remediation agreement between the two countries only occurred in 2006, after persistent advocacy by veterans, scientists, and nongovernmental organizations led Congress to appropriate $3 million for the remediation of the Da Nang airport. That project, completed in 2018, treated 150,000 cubic meters of dioxin-laden soil at an eventual cost of over $115 million, paid mostly by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The cleanup required lakes to be drained and contaminated soil, which had seeped more than 9 feet deeper than expected, to be piled and heated to break down the dioxin molecules. Another major hot spot is the heavily contaminated Biên Hoà airbase, where local residents continue to ingest high levels of dioxin through fish, chicken, and ducks. Agent Orange barrels were stored at the base, which leaked large amounts of the toxin into soil and water, where it continues to accumulate in animal tissue as it moves up the food chain. Remediation began in 2019; however, further work is at risk with the The President administration’s near elimination of USAID, leaving it unclear if there will be any American experts in Vietnam in charge of administering this complex project. Laws to prevent future ecocide are complicated While Agent Orange’s health effects have understandably drawn scrutiny, its long-term ecological consequences have not been well studied. Current-day scientists have far more options than those 50 years ago, including satellite imagery, which is being used in Ukraine to identify fires, flooding, and pollution. However, these tools cannot replace on-the-ground monitoring, which often is restricted or dangerous during wartime. The legal situation is similarly complex. In 1977, the Geneva Conventions governing conduct during wartime were revised to prohibit “widespread, long term, and severe damage to the natural environment.” A 1980 protocol restricted incendiary weapons. Yet oil fires set by Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991, and recent environmental damage in the Gaza Strip, Ukraine, and Syria indicate the limits of relying on treaties when there are no strong mechanisms to ensure compliance. An international campaign currently underway calls for an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to add ecocide as a fifth prosecutable crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. Some countries have adopted their own ecocide laws. Vietnam was the first to legally state in its penal code that “Ecocide, destroying the natural environment, whether committed in time of peace or war, constitutes a crime against humanity.” Yet the law has resulted in no prosecutions, despite several large pollution cases. Both Russia and Ukraine also have ecocide laws, but these have not prevented harm or held anyone accountable for damage during the ongoing conflict. Lessons for the future The Vietnam War is a reminder that failure to address ecological consequences, both during war and after, will have long-term effects. What remains in short supply is the political will to ensure that these impacts are neither ignored nor repeated. Pamela McElwee is a professor of human ecology at Rutgers University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. View the full article

The cutting edge of zipper technology involves zippers that work remotely. Japanese zipper maker YKK says it has developed a prototype for a self-propelled zipper that zips up with just the push of a button. These self-propelled zippers aren’t meant for your jeans or jackets, but rather for industrial uses, like tall tents that can’t be zipped up without using a ladder. That’s the mostly likely place you’ve seen YKK’s logo (it has 40% global market share). The company says the tech will save time and be safer than putting workers high up in the air to zip and unzip in hard-to-reach use cases. YKK conducted experiments with the zippers in February. It says that in one trial, the self-propelled zipper was able to zip up a 16-foot membrane in 40 seconds; in another, it zipped two arched shelter tents together in 50 seconds. The secret to the tech is a motorized screw that hooks the teeth of the zipper behind it as it moves forward. Video of the prototype shows the zipper and the button pushed to turn it on both connected to a cable, and the zipper itself is encased in a clear, transparent shell. YKK isn’t releasing the self-propelled zipper yet, but says it will continue to develop the prototype for practical use. If the company can get the tech off the ground, its wide adoption could push tents, temporary shelters, and partition dividers higher than they already go without any human-ladder limitations in the way. View the full article

Middle management can be exhausting—particularly at the beginning of a managerial career. On the one hand, these employees have to get down into the weeds and help members of their team do their jobs in the most effective ways. They may have some inexperienced reports who need help and development to work effectively and independently. On the other hand, their daily work is governed by layers of leadership above that restrict their autonomy and require them to convince others that new things they would like to try are worth the effort. This combination creates a situation in which middle managers can feel locked in. They are constantly solving problems from their direct reports while determining how to carry out new orders from above. A heavy workload combined with a lack of autonomy can lead to burnout. If you oversee middle managers, here are some things you can do to help detect whether there is a problem and intervene quickly: Tap into your network One significant problem middle managers have is that they may lack a good peer group. Frontline employees often band together and create a social group that creates camaraderie at work and may also extend to lunch outings or happy hour gatherings. Middle managers (particularly when they first ascend into a supervisor role) often lose that social connection. With their promotion, they go from being one of the frontline staff to being one of “them.” Yet they may not be embraced immediately by other managers. So they not only struggle with the difficulties of the tasks they are given, but they may face that struggle alone. It’s important to create a good social network that middle managers can plug into. This gives them the benefit of a community to talk to, and members of that team can alert other leaders if they see a colleague struggling. Watch for defections When managers start to burn out, they lose resilience. Resilience enables people to maintain a calm and even disposition, even when things go wrong. It enables managers to work closely with team members who need more training or who have made a mistake. As emotional resilience breaks down, managers are more likely to react to mistakes and requests for assistance with anger and annoyance. They may be more likely to punish mistakes rather than use them as learning opportunities. These reactions are likely to create frustration among this manager’s direct reports. As a result, members of this supervisor’s team may look for other jobs, either by transferring elsewhere in the company or leaving altogether. Exit interviews with frontline employees can help to detect this problem by gathering information about why people are leaving. If a manager is burning out, it will be more effective to work with them to help reestablish their resilience rather than putting them on a punitive performance improvement plan that does not address the emotional component of the problem. Ask better questions When you meet with your direct reports, you might expect to get information from them that would help you to see whether they are exhibiting signs of burnout. Unfortunately, most leaders often ask generic questions like “How are you doing?” While some workplaces create enough psychological safety to allow employees to feel comfortable talking about fatigue with the job, most new managers will put on a brave face and say they are fine. To address this, it’s important to ask a few questions that require longer answers; these can provide you with insight into how your middle managers are handling the strain. One valuable approach is to ask your reports how they handled a particular situation, rather than how are they doing. This question gets your them to relive the situation in front of you, to describe what happened and how they addressed it. A lot of what you’re listening for in this response is the emotion behind it. If you see anger or frustration on the part of your supervisee, that’s a signal that they are having difficulty with the stress of the job. If they talk about losing patience with particular employees, that may also be a warning sign. Use these conversations as a way to encourage middle managers you work with to talk with you when they are feeling overwhelmed. One of the best ways to help your team feel better about their work is for them to know that they are not dealing with stresses alone, and that you are available if they need help. View the full article

Beijing hardens rhetoric as it rolls out social media videos portraying itself as standing up to American ‘bullying’ View the full article

Paid-for citizenship offer must be scrapped under European Court of Justice rulingView the full article

Since assuming office, the The President administration has upended diversity, equity, and inclusion programs with startling efficiency. Over his first 100 days, President Donald The President has taken a multipronged approach to derailing DEI initiatives across the federal government, academic institutions, and even the private sector. Through an array of executive actions, The President has targeted federal anti-discrimination measures that date back 60 years and threatened to withhold funding from public schools and universities that maintain DEI programs. By explicitly directing federal agencies to investigate private employers, The President’s orders have also had a chilling effect across corporate America—leading a number of companies to cut back on DEI initiatives or at least create the illusion of doing so. As each day seems to bring a new DEI-related action or court ruling, it’s clear that undoing the progress many employers and federal institutions have made on equity and inclusion continues to be a core priority for this government. Here’s a closer look at how The President has chipped away at DEI programs during just his first few months in office: The federal workforce The President has moved swiftly to eliminate DEI programs that are squarely within his purview—namely, reversing the equity requirements that President Joe Biden had put in place during his term. One of The President’s first edicts was an executive order that forced agencies to eliminate all “illegal DEI” efforts. The order explicitly noted that DEI offices would have to be disbanded and roles like chief diversity officer would have to be terminated. The The President administration also told federal workers they were required to report anyone who tried to continue DEI work under a different name—or risk “adverse consequences.” Since The President handed down this order in January, federal agencies have cut at least 428 DEI roles and put those workers on administrative leave, according to The New York Times. (That figure only includes data from the agencies that have publicly reported those job cuts.) Some federal workers who were affected by the cuts claimed their roles had little to do with DEI. Others have said that even their employee resource groups were affected as agencies cracked down on DEI to comply with the executive order. Through other executive actions, The President reiterated the importance of merit-based hiring across the federal government, and that it “should not be based on impermissible factors, such as one’s commitment to illegal racial discrimination under the guise of ‘equity,’ or one’s commitment to the invented concept of ‘gender identity’ over sex.” By rescinding an executive order that dates back to 1965, The President also took aim at a key policy that has been critical to promoting racial equity and curtailing discriminatory hiring practices among federal contractors. For decades, this order has forced the hand of companies that do business with the federal government, compelling them to adopt affirmative action plans that diversified the workforce. With The President’s action, some of the largest employers in the country are no longer subject to those requirements. The education system In recent weeks, The President has ramped up pressure on the education system, fixing his sights on some of the most elite universities in the country. The administration is currently in the midst of a very public fight with Harvard University, stripping the school of billions of dollars in federal funding, in part because of its refusal to amend its DEI policies and admissions practices. (A number of other universities have also been singled out by The President over DEI-related issues and face similar threats to their funding.) Last week, The President pushed through an executive action aimed at college accreditors, who he argues have helped impose DEI requirements on universities. The President’s actions have already pushed many colleges to revise their DEI programs, regardless of whether they have been explicitly targeted: A recent Politico analysis found that more than 30 public universities have either closed their DEI offices or restructured them over the past few years—including the University of Michigan, which was once known for its robust DEI program. While The President’s ongoing battle with higher education has garnered more attention, other academic institutions have not escaped scrutiny over their DEI efforts. In a memo earlier this month, the The President administration ordered all public schools to eliminate DEI programs, again threatening to rescind federal funding. For now, this directive has been blocked by federal judges—and a coalition of attorneys general in Democratic states have brought a lawsuit against the The President administration. Since taking office, The President has also mounted investigations into the public school systems in California, Colorado, and Maine over DEI-related concerns like gender-neutral bathrooms and the rights of transgender students. The private sector Beyond the executive order targeting federal contractors, the The President administration has attempted to exert its influence over the private sector in other ways. In the same action, The President clearly directed federal agencies to investigate private-sector companies over any DEI programs that “constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” This edict has sparked fear and confusion among corporate leaders, with many executives reportedly losing sleep over the threat of federal investigations. Experts say that a major source of concern has been the lack of clarity around what might be considered “illegal DEI.” The President’s orders have accelerated a shift in corporate America that had already been underway for some time. In the years since the racial reckoning of 2020, many companies have quietly backed away from the DEI initiatives they had seemingly embraced at the time. Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in 2023, however, employers have taken more drastic action in response to conservative activists like Robby Starbuck, who has waged social media campaigns to pressure companies into cutting their DEI programs. Companies like Walmart and McDonald’s have eliminated certain DEI policies and pulled out of the Human Rights Commission’s Corporate Equality Index, an annual benchmarking survey that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ workers and is often touted by employers. Even tech giants like Meta and Google have made notable changes to representation goals, which had become common practice across the industry. Some DEI experts argue that not all of these changes should be seen as a full-throated rebuke of diversity work. In some cases, employers are merely folding DEI work into other teams or tweaking programs to ensure they are legally sound—not to mention evaluating whether they continue to be effective. “If you see that there’s no longer a DEI title at this company, I think that could be bad news,” Joelle Emerson, the cofounder and CEO of culture and inclusion platform Paradigm, previously told Fast Company. “Or it could be that the company is actually very strategically embedding some of this expertise in ways that are going to have more impact on the business.” In fact, a survey recently conducted by Paradigm found that only a fraction of companies—19%—had actually reduced funding for DEI programs. Still, plenty of companies are now operating from a place of fear, carefully calibrating their external messaging on DEI and in some cases overcorrecting to avoid litigation or excessive scrutiny from The President. The administration’s anti-DEI agenda also seems to be shaping the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s priorities under new acting chair Andrea Lucas, who has issued guidance on what the agency considers “unlawful DEI-related discrimination.” In March, Lucas made a controversial decision to send letters to 20 prominent law firms requesting details on their DEI-related practices—four of which have already reached settlement agreements with the EEOC and agreed to drop the term DEI. View the full article

The first 100 days of The President’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 The President 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 that—for some reason—included 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 doesn’t always stay on Signal. View the full article

Cancer research in the U.S. doesn’t rely on a single institution or funding stream—it’s 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, I’ve 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 research—delays 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 therapies—and the patients who have benefited from them—owe much to decades of NIH support. But federal funding has always been vulnerable to political headwinds. During the first The President 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 administration’s 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 The President 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. Philanthropy’s support is powerful—but limited While federal agencies remain the backbone of cancer research funding, philanthropic organizations provide the critical support for breakthroughs—especially 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. In comparison, the federal government has typically contributed roughly five to eight times more than philanthropy to cancer research each year. Industry innovation—and 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 don’t 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. It’s 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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. View the full article

Whatever else Donald The President 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]ou’re 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 nation’s 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 state’s 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 savings—opportunities 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 didn’t 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 The President, 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. The President’s true motives for clear-cutting federal jobs and going after the unions aren’t known, but his animus toward union labor is no secret. During his first term, the president’s policymakers acted to weaken or abandon regulations that protected workers’ pay and safety, and The President 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 The President 2.0’s effort to decimate their ranks. “Nobody was ready for this,” UC Berkeley’s Mahones said. “This is part of a long-term project to eliminate the labor movement and unions. What is new, though, is the acceleration—doing something so massive, so quickly and chaotically, with no regard to the law nor humanity.” The President 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. The President 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 The President has abused that narrow cutout in the law to go after multiple departments that are heavily unionized—and 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 The President’s agenda,” adding that The President “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 The President’s 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 skills—and 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. View the full article

Dive into the exhilarating world of innovation with FC Explains, a video series that spotlights the game changers and visionaries from Fast Company’s 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. View the full article

FTSE 100 group plans to sell at least $3bn-$4bn of assets this year as it seeks to reduce debtsView the full article

Bank announces $3bn share buyback programme that will begin next monthView the full article

Germany’s largest lender boosted by strong performance in investment bankingView the full article

Train connections being gradually restored but no cause established for outage that paralysed Iberian peninsulaView the full article

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. My friend hired me but isn’t paying me what we agreed A friend of mine recently started a business, and I happened to be the perfect candidate for the job because it’s a very specific niche. I was working for someone else, and she asked me to work for her. I would be getting paid the same amount and working the same hours, so I agreed to work for her. Unfortunately, she hasn’t been holding up her end of the deal with pay, and the hours are way different than we initially discussed. The first few months I was understanding because business started slow, but months later I’m finding that nothing is changing. I also am finding I’m helping her in many ways that take up my time and are basically free for her because I’m a friend. I want to know how to approach this situation and bring it up to her without ruining the friendship entirely and burning a bridge. I can’t keep going like this because not only am I not making nearly what I thought I would as we discussed, but I also am putting a lot of time into helping grow her business, which I was happy to help with but I’m starting to feel like I’m being taken advantage of. My previous job was an established place and usually very busy. I was paid the same amount every day even if it wasn’t fully booked. My friend said she would pay me the same per day, but somewhere along the way she changed that without discussing it with me. In the beginning I understood that with only a booking or two in a day, she couldn’t pay me the full amount per day. But recently it’s gotten very busy and even on days we worked all day, she would pay me half or a fraction of what we said. I’m there sometimes 8-9 hours and getting paid nearly nothing, plus doing extra tasks. = I want to tell her that if she doesn’t have the ability to pay me the full amount if she’s struggling that I just show up and do individual bookings for a fee each. But I don’t know if that’s out of line. I hate to make it about money, but I’m getting so tired. I work two jobs and it’s starting to interfere with my other job and this one I do on the weekends, so if I’m going to trade my time to work I want to make it worth it for me. You say you’d hate to make it about money, but it is about money. She lured you away from another job with an agreement about money that she has failed to uphold. It’s okay to be honest that the money matters! Friend or not, the agreement was never that you’d work for free; the agreement was that you’d leave another job to help her in exchange for an agreed-upon amount of money. Say this to her: “I tried to be flexible when you were just starting out, but I was only able to leave my other job because we agreed that I’d be paid $X. With that not happening, I can’t make this work financially and need to find other work, so I’m not going to be able to keep coming in.” If you’re truly wiling to just do individual bookings (and aren’t just looking for something to placate her), you could add, “I’d be able to just come in for individual bookings if we stuck to a per-booking fee, but that’s the most I can do with our current set-up.” (But also, are you really willing to do that? It sounds like it would prevent you from finding another weekend job. It’s okay to just stop completely.) As for the worry about the relationship: right now it sounds like you’re worried a lot more about the relationship than she is. She hired a friend away from a paying job and then immediately broke (and is still breaking) her promises about pay. Let her worry about keeping your friendship under those circumstances, particularly if she gives you any guilt about leaving. 2. We get free food as “appreciation” — and I can’t eat any of it This is a low-stakes question, but it is bothering me a bit. I have been a teacher at my current school for seven years. There are approximately 60 teachers and a similar number of support staff. Our required monthly faculty meeting takes place at lunch, but lunch is provided to “compensate” for losing a duty-free lunch (which is part of our contract). Required professional development is flooded with candy to make it more palatable. During parent/teacher conferences, dinner is provided since we have to be at school so late on those days. Every spring, we have teacher appreciation week, where the parent-teacher organization provides food for us every day. The issue is that I have type 2 diabetes. I take no medication or insulin; I manage it strictly with what I eat. It is incredibly frustrating to me that during all of these events, I cannot have any of the perks. I can’t eat donuts, sandwiches, pizza, candy, sweet drinks, pasta, cookies, etc. I have never seen a single low-carb option. I bring my own lunch to faculty meetings and conferences. I actively avoid the faculty lounge during teacher appreciation week to avoid the temptation and awkward questions about why I’m not eating whatever is provided. I have excellent will power, and I would certainly never try to dictate what other people eat or don’t eat, but I feel a little overlooked. I know I can’t be the only person on our staff who has this issue or other dietary restrictions, but it seems like no one else has a problem with the constant barrage of carb-loaded snacks and meals. Is this worth mentioning? Am I being too sensitive? Is it reasonable to ask to occasionally have something to show appreciation that isn’t food-related, or do I just need to let it go? Free food is an easy go-to because so many people love it, and a lot of them love it passionately. It can be hard to come up with another similarly priced perk that will please as many people as free food does. But it’s absolutely reasonable to ask for a wider variety of options! For example, with the required monthly meeting, talk to whoever organizes lunch, explain you can’t eat what’s being provided, and ask how to ensure there’s something there you can eat. If this is a required lunch, they really, really should ensure they’re accounting for your needs (but they can’t if they don’t tell them what you need). And can whoever liaises with the parent-teacher organization ask them to provide a wider range of options — not just sweets, but fruit/a veggie platter/whatever specific suggestions you can make that would work? You probably won’t be the only person who would appreciate having healthier options included. But someone has to speak up and request them! 3. My spouse’s company is suddenly competing with mine My husband and I have recently become competitors at work, and I’m not sure how to handle it. Our relationship started before either of our current careers and, for over a decade, we had no overlap whatsoever. Over the last few years, our roles have been slowly converging. Fast forward to this week, and I’ve been on calls at my job where my husband’s agency has been named as a direct competitor to a project my company is pitching to the client I work on. It’s not the team my husband works on, but he knows that team well and they even collaborate on some of his projects. Do you have any advice to handle this with work? I’m not worried about handling this with my husband; we just won’t discuss the project together. We occasionally vent about work together, but in a general way (“Jane is up to her shenanigans again” or “that contract I’m working on still hasn’t been signed”). Am I obligated to mention it to my boss? Should I try not to get involved in this new business pitch? It’s a good opportunity for me at my job, but the more I am involved, the more I feel weird about hearing about his agency as the main competitor. You should disclose it to your boss; it will be much weirder if it comes out later and it turns out you knew and didn’t say anything. You don’t need to frame it as a big deal. You can simply say, “I feel like I should let you know that my husband works for CompanyName, since they’re also pitching for the X project. It’s not his team and I’ll be scrupulous on my side sides about not discussing anything related to project, but I thought I should tell you that in case it poses any conflicts.” 4. Explaining I got bad news during a vacation I just went to visit my parents, and my coworkers know that was the reason for my recent time off. The visit ended with my dad in the hospital and he will likely either not recover at all or recover enough to be discharged into home hospice care. How should I best deal with the fact that my whole team is going to ask how my vacation went? Should I send out an email to my immediate team that basically says, “Before you ask, my trip ended with my dad in the hospital so please don’t bring it up”? Should I pretend it was good? Should I say it was rough every time someone asks? Should I grunt and change the topic? I imagine you won’t be able to respond to this before I need to figure out my own answer, but I’m asking in case it helps someone else. It depends on what you’re comfortable with. It’s fine to say, “It went differently than expected. My dad had a health crisis while I was there and that’s still ongoing, so we’re working on that currently.” If you don’t want to get into it, it’s also fine to reply with something bland and vaguer (anything from “it was OK, how were things here?” to “there’s some health stuff going on in my family, so it was a hard week”), immediately followed up by a subject change if you don’t want to discuss it more. I’m sorry about your dad! 5. How can I help my dyslexic and ADHD employee write better? I have a wonderful junior employee who is enthusiastic, a fast learner, helpful, has a excellent analytical mind and is an all-round delight to work with. However, her writing needs improvement. Some of the gaps I’d expect from any junior employee (know your audience, be concise, structure documents logically, check spelling and grammar before sending to your manager), but some are probably due to her dyslexia (words out of order, incorrect homophones, errant punctuation) or possibly ADHD (maybe some of these examples are really about attention to detail). She disclosed these diagnoses to me recently. How can I help her improve while accommodating her neurodiversity? Most of the dyslexia resources I can find give strategies to help with reading comprehension, but I don’t think she has any issues there. I’ve seen suggestions to use AI writing assistance tools but, due to legitimate reasons, our workplace is unlikely to have these anytime soon. Whenever you’re trying to figure out what accommodations might help someone, the Job Accommodation Network is a really good first stop. They offer an encyclopedia of potential accommodations for a wide range of disabilities, and a super helpful starting place for thinking about options. Their page on accommodations for learning disabilities might be exactly what you need. (Scroll down to “accommodation ideas.”) They also have something called “Situations and Solutions Finder,” where you can enter keywords based on disability, limitation, and/or occupation, and they’ll pull up examples of real-life accommodations they’ve seen made. The post my friend hired me but isn’t paying what we agreed, we get free food as “appreciation” but I can’t eat any of it, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

Tariffs, spending cuts and concerns of immigration over-reach drag on the president’s approval ratings in his first 100 daysView the full article

The US president’s popularity has fallen along with the S&P 500 and American consumer sentimentView the full article

Debt-laden utility was a ‘better business after our stewardship’, says executive from Australian groupView the full article

UK’s largest bakery chain is not curtailing its ambitious growth plans despite investor worriesView the full article

Staying on top of new funding opportunities is key to growing and sustaining your small business. Grants can help you cover costs, fuel innovation, or simply provide some breathing room—without the pressure of repayment. Each week, we search for the most current small business grant programs available, so you don’t have to. Whether you’re just getting started or looking to scale, these grants could be the opportunity you’ve been waiting for. Check out this week’s list of active small business grants: Fund Your Growth with the Latest Small Business Grant Opportunities Finding reliable funding can be one of the biggest challenges for entrepreneurs and small business owners. Whether you’re launching a startup, expanding your team, or investing in new technology, securing a grant can offer the boost you need—without taking on debt. That’s why we’re here every week with the latest verified small business grant opportunities from across the country. Flint Launches Rescue Fund for Small Businesses Recovering from Pandemic The City of Flint, in partnership with LISC Flint, has launched the Flint Small Business Rescue Fund, a one-time grant initiative aimed at supporting local businesses still recovering from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars, the program will provide reimbursement grants of up to $20,000 to 20 eligible small businesses located within Flint city limits. The application period opens April 18 and runs through April 30, 2025. NJEDA to Open Applications for Route 80 Business Assistance Grant Program The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) will begin accepting applications next week for the Route 80 Business Assistance Grant Program, a financial aid initiative designed to support small businesses impacted by lane closures on Route 80 in Morris County. Applications open Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Gran Coramino Expands Small Business Grant Program to $1.5 Million, Adds AI Training Through New Partnership Gran Coramino Tequila, co-founded by comedian Kevin Hart and tequila maker Juan Domingo Beckmann, has announced a new round of $10,000 grants for small businesses in under-resourced communities. The expansion brings the total amount awarded through The Coramino Fund to over $1.5 million, benefiting more than 150 entrepreneurs across the United States. Applications for this latest round of grants are now open. Optimum Business Launches $125K Grant Program for Kanawha County Small Businesses Optimum Business and the Charleston Area Alliance have announced the opening of applications for the Lifting Up Small Businesses Grants, a new initiative aimed at bolstering small business growth in Kanawha County. As part of the program, 25 small businesses will each receive a $5,000 grant, totaling $125,000 in funding to support long-term economic prosperity in the region. Comcast RISE to Award $3 Million in Support to Small Businesses in Grand Rapids and Muskegon Comcast announced Thursday that 100 small businesses in Grand Rapids, Muskegon, and surrounding communities will receive comprehensive grant packages through the Comcast RISE program. The initiative is part of a broader $3 million national effort aimed at supporting 500 small businesses across five U.S. regions. This article, "The Latest Small Business Grants Available to Entrepreneurs in the US" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Staying on top of new funding opportunities is key to growing and sustaining your small business. Grants can help you cover costs, fuel innovation, or simply provide some breathing room—without the pressure of repayment. Each week, we search for the most current small business grant programs available, so you don’t have to. Whether you’re just getting started or looking to scale, these grants could be the opportunity you’ve been waiting for. Check out this week’s list of active small business grants: Fund Your Growth with the Latest Small Business Grant Opportunities Finding reliable funding can be one of the biggest challenges for entrepreneurs and small business owners. Whether you’re launching a startup, expanding your team, or investing in new technology, securing a grant can offer the boost you need—without taking on debt. That’s why we’re here every week with the latest verified small business grant opportunities from across the country. Flint Launches Rescue Fund for Small Businesses Recovering from Pandemic The City of Flint, in partnership with LISC Flint, has launched the Flint Small Business Rescue Fund, a one-time grant initiative aimed at supporting local businesses still recovering from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars, the program will provide reimbursement grants of up to $20,000 to 20 eligible small businesses located within Flint city limits. The application period opens April 18 and runs through April 30, 2025. NJEDA to Open Applications for Route 80 Business Assistance Grant Program The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) will begin accepting applications next week for the Route 80 Business Assistance Grant Program, a financial aid initiative designed to support small businesses impacted by lane closures on Route 80 in Morris County. Applications open Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Gran Coramino Expands Small Business Grant Program to $1.5 Million, Adds AI Training Through New Partnership Gran Coramino Tequila, co-founded by comedian Kevin Hart and tequila maker Juan Domingo Beckmann, has announced a new round of $10,000 grants for small businesses in under-resourced communities. The expansion brings the total amount awarded through The Coramino Fund to over $1.5 million, benefiting more than 150 entrepreneurs across the United States. Applications for this latest round of grants are now open. Optimum Business Launches $125K Grant Program for Kanawha County Small Businesses Optimum Business and the Charleston Area Alliance have announced the opening of applications for the Lifting Up Small Businesses Grants, a new initiative aimed at bolstering small business growth in Kanawha County. As part of the program, 25 small businesses will each receive a $5,000 grant, totaling $125,000 in funding to support long-term economic prosperity in the region. Comcast RISE to Award $3 Million in Support to Small Businesses in Grand Rapids and Muskegon Comcast announced Thursday that 100 small businesses in Grand Rapids, Muskegon, and surrounding communities will receive comprehensive grant packages through the Comcast RISE program. The initiative is part of a broader $3 million national effort aimed at supporting 500 small businesses across five U.S. regions. This article, "The Latest Small Business Grants Available to Entrepreneurs in the US" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article