SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ELISA " 40 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Singer who dated Prince in the ‘90s says she couldn’t handle the musician dating around: ‘I wasn’t the only one’
Elisa Fiorillo, who dated Prince in the ‘90s and reunited with him to play in his band in the 2010s, recalled her experience being romantically involved with the ‘Purple Rain’ musician.
Singer who dated Prince in the ‘90s says the pop star’s lack of fidelity wasn’t for her: ‘I couldn’t do that’
Elisa Fiorillo opened up about her relationship with the late “Purple Rain” musician in a new biography.
Palm Health Foundation Welcomes New Leadership
Dr. Roger L. Duncan III and Elisa Cramer join board of trustees; Dr. Paul Rashid appointed to Community Investment Committee SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 – Palm Health Foundation today announced the election of two new trustees and the appointment of a new member to its Community Investment Committee.The new leaders bring decades of combined experience in medicine, mental […]
‘Clueless’ star Elisa Donovan was ‘devastated’ to lose ‘Showgirls’ role to Elizabeth Berkley after making it to final talks
Elisa Donovan of ‘Clueless’ thought she was going to play another iconic ‘90s part. She was ‘devastated’ when she didn’t get it.
Sister Partners With Branded Entertainment Company Common Interest
ane Featherstone and Elisabeth Murdoch's Sister Group has entered the branded entertainment market by buying a stake in Common Interest
Sister Group Strikes Partnership With Branded Entertainment Company Common Interest, Makes Minority Investment
Sister Group, Jane Featherstone and Elisabeth Murdoch‘s ever-growing transatlantic powerhouse, has entered the branded entertainment business by forging a strategic partnership with London-based compa...
Nicholas Sparks Helped Vote a Serial-Killer Drama Into the 100 Best TV Shows of the Century; the...
Jeff Probst, June Squibb and Elisabeth Moss turned in ballots too.
Nicholas Sparks Helped Vote a Serial-Killer Drama Into the 100 Best TV Shows of the Century; the...
Jeff Probst, June Squibb and Elisabeth Moss turned in ballots too.
The Market Forces Quietly Adding Thousands To Patient Bills
By Elisabeth Rosenthal and KFF Health News HealthDay ReportersWEDNESDAY, Sept. 9, 2026 (HealthDay News) — After a failed round of in vitro fertilization this year, Anne Hug’s fertility doctor said she had a single polyp in her uterus that should be removed to improve the chance of pregnancy. Hug, a ...
Arsenal sign De Almeida from PSG
The 28-year-old France international arrives after five seasons with PSG and can operate at centre-back or right-back.Photo by Alex Bierens de Haan/Getty ImagesElisa De Almeida has joined Arsenal from...
Grace Meat + Three closing September 13 in the Grove
Grace Meat + Three (4270 Manchester), the nine-year-old restaurant inspired by the Southern tradition of pairing a choice of meat with three side dishes, will close after service on September 13, owners Rick and Elisa Lewis announced. With its lease in The Grove coming up for renewal, the husband-and-wife team chose to consolidate operations at […]
Meta Ran Ads for an App That Promised to Nudify Female Politicians
One advertisement featured a pornographic video with a deepfake closely resembling a prominent US politician. Apple removed the app from the App Store after an inquiry from WIRED.
Rosie O’Donnell returning to “The View” for season 30: ‘I will go’ with ‘all’ past cohosts
O’Donnell also recalled a “tense time” with Whoopi Goldberg the last time she was at the Hot Topics table, while she publicly sparred with Elisabeth Hasselbeck in 2025.
Does public health *need* MAHA?
Last week, our friend Dr. Craig Spencer sparked an ongoing volatile discussion with his Atlantic article “Public Health Needs MAHA.” Some have come out in strong dissent, others are cheering, and others are simply lamenting that we find ourselves in such a divided world to begin with. We will dare to dip our toes in these controversial waters, too. Does public health need MAHA? We think in some ways yes, and in other ways, no. MAHA leaders versus the everyday MAHA supporter The vitriol in this debate mostly comes from one collapsed distinction: the leadership of MAHA is not necessarily the same as the people who support it. Say “MAHA” and most people picture RFK Jr. Fair enough, as he coined the term and holds most of the power. And, yes, some MAHA followers treat Kennedy as something close to a saint. But talk to the grassroots, and it’s not a monolith. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People who distrust vaccines and vaccine supporters. It’s a wide, eclectic coalition. The data backs this too: 4 in 10 Americans support the movement—that’s a lot of people! But according to polls, vaccines and medical choice (the issues most tied to Kennedy personally) are cited by only 4% as their reason for supporting the movement. For many, the motivations are much broader. Many MAHA supporters are signing up for the idea that “something needs to change” with health in this country. They’re asking good-faith questions about corporate influence on our health systems, health care costs, nutrition, chemicals, and clean air and water. These are all questions that plenty of public health professionals recognize as legitimate and also care about very deeply. Blurring the lines between the leadership and grassroots does real damage in two important ways: It hands the 4 in 10 exactly the narrative already fed—that the health ecosystem doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and paints every critic with the same brush. It gives the actual bad actor more power. RFK Jr. has done irreparable damage and can’t be trusted. What the MAHA movement gets right A healthy population is something the public health field was literally built on, and many of these topics are things we have dedicated our lives to. Yet the MAHA movement has captivated nearly half the country in a way the public health establishment has failed to achieve. So that means MAHA is doing something right. Some of it may be timing (after a Covid-19 pandemic and deep frustration and mistrust with institutions). The movement also does three other things really well: 1. It gives a new, louder voice to system failures. While MAHA is not a monolith, one theme stays consistent across their stories: the system failed them. For some, it was the system that flooded their communities with opioids and then walked away. For others, it was the system that let their business collapse during Covid with no safety net in sight. For others still, it was the system that failed to help them manage a complex chronic illness, bouncing them from physician to physician without any real answers. And in many ways, our health ecosystems are failing Americans. Why are medical bills so incomprehensible? Why do some kids get a healthy school lunch and others don’t? Why do an epidemiologist and a MD/PhD student have to start newsletters in the middle of the biggest public health emergency in a century, just so people can get straight information? Because the systems failed. This deep-seated frustration driving many Americans to search for solutions elsewhere needs to be recognized. 2. MAHA has brilliant comms central to their efforts. MAHA figured out something most health institutions still have not: the information landscape changed. It’s participatory now, not top-down; influence runs through many nodes in a community, not one institution; and storytelling and telling audiences “what you really think” moves people more than data dumps do. MAHA goes where audiences are listening, using podcasts, social media, and memes in ways most health institutions would scoff at—but it works. 3. They are very good at organizing. A MAHA meeting feels like a rally: energy, speakers, music, and most importantly, an action for everyone. Someone’s writing the next policy brief, someone’s seeding a narrative, someone knows the next legislative deadline, someone’s sending the text messages for a campaign. None of this is new (ask the civil rights movement), but MAHA knows it works and has capitalized on it. What MAHA gets wrong This list could be much longer, and this newsletter has spent a lot of time covering it, but here are a few things: Poor use of scientific evidence. This is the fundamental problem with many MAHA policies: the hype outpaces the science, and experts are often villainized for pointing this out. MAHA leadership has traded real solutions for cheap wins. For example, instead of taking on the powerful food industry and passing real reforms, it has celebrated french fries made of beef tallow and taken out artificial dyes from still very sugary children’s cereal. These changes won’t move the needle on America’s diet. MAHA leadership has tried to dismantle vaccine access in the U.S. While many MAHA supporters emphasize other issues, the effort to change vaccine policy has become MAHA’s signature effort. This is not surprising given RFK Jr.’s extensive track record campaigning against vaccines. It has rallied behind the wrong leader. RFK Jr. has a decades-long track record of villifying doctors, scientists, and public health workers, well before he became HHS secretary. He is known for his decades-long work sowing distrust in vaccines as well as life-saving treatments like antiretroviral therapy for HIV. This is not a serious person who can move the needle on health in the U.S, and he has already done serious damage. Public health needs more than defense Defending the evidence is absolutely necessary so health in the U.S. doesn’t move further backward. The public health establishment is very good at defense. The problem is this defense often sounds like defending the status quo, which has failed many people. Public health needs to offer an alternative to RFK Jr.’s MAHA—one that is rooted in evidence, truly listens to and addresses people’s frustrations, and has innovative solutions and the courage to change the systems. How do we get there? Find common ground. Do you know what most people care most about? The abysmal cost of healthcare. Start there. Fight for the human loudly. Too often, communications and engagement center on science with a capital S, funding mechanisms, or the CDC/FDA/NIH. Not the person. So the public doesn’t see themselves in it. Instead, they see people fighting for the very powerful systems that they feel negatively impact their health and well-being. Let the public feel and hear that you see their frustrations, you get it, and you’re fighting for them within the system. Recognize when pro-science messages are alienating people. Facts absolutely matter, but angrily venting only alienates people further. Our friend Elisabeth Marnik recently wrote a New York Times article about her experience growing up unvaccinated and how listening and empathetic conversation are the only ways to reach people that really work (a position backed by communication science). Her comments section was full of hateful comments from pro-vaccine individuals attacking her for daring to suggest we approach vaccine-hesitant individuals with empathy. It is possible to both stand firm behind scientific evidence and empathize with people who don’t trust it. Lean into politics smartly. Often, public health has shied away from politics: Don’t touch it, lest you get burned. But this fails to recognize that the third rail is what fuels the train: who is elected determines our budgets, our priorities, and our authority. Being political means being very savvy in strategy on both sides of the aisle, knowing your audience, and recognizing that political capital is as scarce as financial resources and needs to be allocated accordingly. Bottom line So does public health need MAHA? That’s not really the right question. Public health has a responsibility not to dismiss 40% of the country who feel heard by this movement and are frustrated that the system has failed them. And it has a responsibility to stick to the evidence and recognize MAHA leadership for what it is: a danger to our nation’s health. Both can, and should, be done. Love, YLE and KP A big thanks to Craig Spencer, who had the courage to put his neck out there to start a much-needed discussion at such a critical moment—one that is determining the identity of an entire field. Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD is completing an emergency medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. In her free time, she writes the newsletters You Can Know Things debunking health myths and rumors and The Public Health Roundup. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Acknowledgments
This is a Pew Research Center report from the Pew-Knight Initiative, a research program funded jointly by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Find related reports online at https://www.pewresearch.org/pew-knight/. Primary Researchers Elisa Shearer, Senior ResearcherLuxuan Wang, Research AssociateKaterina Eva Matsa, Director, News and Information Research Michael Lipka, Associate Director, News […]
College students reveal political ignorance on Trump, Iran and socialism
Fox News’ Johnny Belisario questions college students on the Jersey Shore about current events. Students struggle to identify recent Trump actions, describe the situation in Iran or explain political midterms and socialism.
‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Star Shares The Text Elisabeth Moss Sent After Trump Won — And Fans Will Recognize It
The actor recalled texting Moss, “What are we going to do? This can’t be.”
Rosie O’Donnell reveals if she’d return to 'The View,' takes shot at Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Rosie O'Donnell reveals whether she would ever return to 'The View.' The comedian also threw shade at former cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
Ann Dowd reveals what 'Handmaid's Tale' costar Elisabeth Moss texted her after Donald Trump's election
Ann Dowd was in a panic the morning she woke up to find that Donald Trump had been elected. But then she got a text from her 'Handmaid's Tale' costar Elisabeth Moss with a message of resilience.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck jumps from 'The View' to rival daytime talk show
Elisabeth Hasselbeck has landed a new daytime TV hosting gig after returning to 'The View' earlier this year, as she heads to 'CBS Mornings' under the controversial leadership of Bari Weiss.
Using AI for medical advice; pelvic floor exercises; the hidden dangers of burning incense; plus other stories with Vanderbilt Health sources
Colin Walsh, MD,Associate Professor of Biomedical Informatics, was on WTVF News Channel 5‘s “Morningline” show in an interview about whether or not it is safe to use AI for medical advice. Time magazine reporter Stacey Colino interviewed Elisabeth Sebesta, MD, Assistant Professor of Urology, for a story about pelvic floor exercises for issues including menopause, erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence in men. “Each Breath,” published by the American Lung Association, quoted Brian Christman, MD, Adjunct Professor of Medicine, for a story about the hidden dangers of burning incense. William Schaffner, MD, Professor of Preventive Medicine, was quoted by several news outlets about public health issues, including: Healthline (low vaccination rates lead to more cases of measles, whooping cough and other preventable diseases); ABC News (U.S. measles cases surpass 2,000 for second year in a row); and CIDRAP News (high-dose flu shots cut rates of hospitalization in older adults). Sarah Rohde, MD, Associate Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, was quoted in a People magazine story on patient Makalii Andrade, a surfer from Kauai Island who suffered a serious neck injury in 2022 and recently underwent surgery at Vanderbilt Health to begin the final phase of his recovery. James Crowe, MD, Director of the Vanderbilt Center for Antibody Therapeutics, for a piece in Nature about antibodies against a strain of Ebola. SFGATE reporter Gillian Mohney interviewed Xue Zhong, PhD, Research Assistant Professor, Division of Genetic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology, for a story about a study of a blood test looking at Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers. Matthew Franklin Mart, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, was quoted in a Healio story about how inflammation and illness severity is linked to less cognitive resilience after a person has been an ICU patient. The “How We Really Feel” podcast host Sula Windgassen, PhD, interviewed Lindsey C. McKernan, PhD, MPH, Associate Professor of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Urology, for an episode focusing on pelvic and bladder health. The podcast is also available on YouTube and the podcast website. In addition, podcaster Monica Sanford interviewed cardiologist Mark Glazer, MD, for her podcast “The Monica Sanford Show”; the two-part interview is here and here.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Natalie Palamides Signs With Brillstein Entertainment Partners
Natalie Palamides, the actress, comedian, writer and director, has signed with Brillstein for management in all areas.
Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal on health care
Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal sits down with Lester Holt to discuss the challenge of reforming the American health care system.
Building Trust in Health Science by Leading with Communities
Amy Gyau-Moyer and Elisabeth Solomon discuss how a NAM action collaborative is co-developing community-driven approaches to improve trust in health science.
How Women Can Prioritize Health — and What to Check Annually
More than 6 in 10 women struggle prioritizing their health according to a survey, so Dr. Elisa Port, chief breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai and author of “Breast Advice,” joins TODAY with a closer look at the biggest issues and questions women face regarding their health. She breaks down the four Ws that help reduce risk of breast cancer, shares her recommendations for prioritizing screenings, and highlights the benefits and risks of hormone replacement therapy.
Dr. Elisabeth Ploran named inaugural dean of SFA’s College of Health Professions
Following a nationwide search, Stephen F. Austin State University has appointed Dr. Elisabeth Ploran as the inaugural dean of the College of Health Professions. Ploran will begin her tenure in July, coinciding with the launch of the new college.
Spring Donor Celebration honors the ‘greater good’ at Vanderbilt Health
Four open-heart operations later, Eden is now in second grade and bubbling with ebullient energy. To honor the lifesaving compassionate care she received at Monroe Carell, her parents established a fund in her name, as Elisa Hill put it, “to be for another family what others were for us.”
Huff-Lonergan, Hansen, Keating selected for endowed positions in animal science
Elisabeth Huff Lonergan, University Professor of animal science, was named the Morrison Chair in Meat Science. Stephanie Hansen, professor of animal science, and Aileen Keating, professor of animal science, will hold the title of Tyrone D. Artz, M.D., Chair for Faculty Excellence in Animal Science.
Weekend reads: What paper mills charge for author slots; UK Biobank data breached; what researchers think of the future of science
If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed. The week at Retraction Watch featured: 10 years ago, Elisabeth Bik published a preprint heard around the wor…
High School Roundup: Kearney, Secor lead Londonderry softball team
Elisabeth Kearney pitched a one-hitter and Paige Secor cracked two homers for all three RBIs in Londonderry's 3-1 victory over Portsmouth in Division I softball on Friday.
Is Elisabeth Moss in ‘The Testaments’?
'The Handmaid's Tale' spinoff is all about June and Luke's daughter, Hannah.
How Bans on Corporate Political Donations Influence Campaign Platforms
Julia Cagé, Caroline Le Pennec, and Elisa Mougin discuss their recent research on France’s 1995 ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns. The ban pushed candidates to de-emphasize local politics in favor of national issues and, in many cases, adopt more extreme rhetoric.
'The View' returning star Elisabeth Hasselbeck gets 'armor of God' for protection from show
Elisabeth Hasselbeck's friend gave her real 'armor of God' for protection ahead of her return to 'The View' that includes a 'helmet of salvation' and 'breastplate of righteousness.'
Ex-'View' cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck slams college frat hazing as producing 'terrorists'
Former 'View' cohost and 'Survivor' alum Elisabeth Hasselbeck has spoken out against college fraternities for 'torturing our youth' into 'terrorists' with hazing practices.
Hartford HealthCare committed to advancing health equity in Connecticut
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — In honor of Black History Month, Hartford HealthCare is highlighting its ongoing commitment to advancing health equity across Connecticut. Elisabeth Michel, director …
Celebrating Women in Science Day 2026 at CERN
Every year, on 11 February, CERN celebrates the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. In an effort to amplify diverse voices in STEM, six women scientists from CERN open up about their careers and the lessons they hope to pass on to the next generation. Francesca is an Italian biomedical engineer pursuing her PhD at CERN, working in the robotics team of the Beams Department. She’s currently working on the MARCHESE project, in affiliation with Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, focusing on contactless monitoring of physiological parameters. Despite choosing a scientific career and often volunteering in scientific outreach initiatives, Francesca continues to nurture her passion for the humanities and arts. “I firmly believe that collaboration and inclusion are the right paths to improve the world together. I’m driven by a strong curiosity about everything around me.” Berare is a Turkish experimental physicist who worked with the ATLAS experiment during her MSc and PhD on searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. During her PhD, she became a Support Scientist for the Beamline for Schools (BL4S) competition, which marked the beginning of her journey combining research with science communication. She now works for both BL4S and ELISA, the mini proton accelerator at CERN’s Science Gateway. She fondly remembers the moment when the BL4S 2022 winners arrived at the experimental zone: “I felt incredibly lucky to share my passion with young, curious and really passionate people. We spent two weeks of beam time together watching their ideas turn into reality. All the intricate details of running an experiment, we accomplished them as a team.” Mia is a Canadian research fellow in the Accelerator Systems Department, working on beam developments for fundamental physics with radioactive molecules. Mia pursued a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering before moving to Vancouver for a master’s degree in engineering physics. Her interest in radioactive ion beam production brought her to CERN, where she studied actinide beams for three years as a PhD student in the Marie Curie European Training network “LISA” (Laser Ionisation and Spectroscopy of Actinides) at ISOLDE – a facility at CERN where scientists study the properties of atomic nuclei, with further applications in fundamental studies, astrophysics, and material and life sciences. Laura is a German mechanical engineer at CERN working on research and development to produce cavities for future accelerators. She studied mechanical and aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Munich. She joined CERN four years ago as a technical student for her master’s thesis and continued as a fellow working on collimators. Laura says that “as a child, I took part in girls’ day initiatives, which sparked my fascination for astrophysics and engineering. Later, it felt natural for me to give something back by organising workshops for young students to make STEM seem less intimidating and more accessible.” She particularly enjoys being close to the CERN Main Workshop and understanding how design ideas become real components. Paraskevi is a Greek physicist working at CERN’s HiRadMat (High-Radiation to Materials) facility, designed to deliver high-intensity beams to an irradiation area where material samples, as well as accelerator component assemblies, can be tested. She studied physics at NKUA, specialising in nuclear and particle physics, and is now pursuing her PhD at HiRadMat in collaboration with the University of Liverpool, studying novel materials for high-intensity beam diagnostics. “Continuous learning is one of my biggest motivators, and I am looking forward to exploring the limits of our knowledge on beam-material interactions,” says Paraskevi. Silvia is a Spanish physicist and deputy project manager for the Muon Drift Tube of the CMS detector, a general-purpose detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). She started her career at CERN more than 20 years ago as a technical student, working on prototypes of the first dipoles for the LHC. “My first motivation came in high school, from my teacher,” says Silvia about what made her pursue a career in STEM. “My favourite part about my job is learning. You can learn something new every day.” In parallel to this initiative, like every year since 2017, from 2 to 6 February 66 women scientists and engineers visited schools in Geneva, Switzerland, and in the Haute-Savoie and Ain regions of France to meet with students. Organised in collaboration with CERN, the University of Geneva, EPFL, LAPP and LAPTh, this event allowed more than 4200 students between 6 and 17 years old to meet a woman scientist, discuss their profession and career path, ask questions and participate in classroom activities.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck returning to 'The View' after slamming Joy Behar, 'sinking' show
Elisabeth Hasselbeck will return to 'The View' after publicly slamming current cohost Joy Behar's coverage of Donald Trump's inauguration performer, Carrie Underwood.
How a clothing brand is navigating Saks' bankruptcy, payment delays
Fisayo Che is the founder of Elisamama, a brand that's sold at Saks. She's finding a path forward as the department store goes through bankruptcy.
When science meets compassion
For Leader in Action Elisabeth Starosta, UND ‘empowered me to explore all my interests — science, global studies, mentoring — and to find meaning in each one’