Stanford Medicine scientists are using artificial intelligence to better capture how healthy cells surrounding tumors influence cancer cell behavior and how those interactions can inform treatments.

Even cells experience peer pressure. Scientists have long studied the ins and outs of cancer cells to learn more about the disease, but they’re increasingly finding that noncancerous cells near the cancer cells exert a powerful influence over a tumor’s trajectory.

“Not all cells in a tumor are cancer cells — they’re not even always the most dominant cell type,” said Sylvia Plevritis, PhD, chair of Stanford Medicine’s department of biomedical data science. “There are many other cell types that support tumors.

Damage to arteries continued in adult-equivalent mice in disease model

Undergoing a bone marrow transplant during adolescence may reduce the risk of stroke in people with sickle cell disease (SCD), while waiting until adulthood is unlikely to mitigate this risk, a mouse study suggests.

“We saw that if you wait until after the vasculature is damaged to do this procedure, the tissue doesn’t bounce back,” Manu Platt, PhD, the study’s corresponding author at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in an institute news release. “Down the line, this could be another key piece of information that is a motivator for earlier interventions.”

Jennifer Cochran and Christopher Manning have earned one of engineering’s highest professional distinctions.

Stanford faculty members Jennifer Cochran and Christopher Manning have been newly elected to the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). This honor is among the highest professional distinctions accorded engineers and recognizes accomplished experts from business, academia, and government.

“As a member of the National Academy of Engineering, these professionals belong to a select group of national and international peers who advance the welfare and prosperity of the nation by providing independent advice on matters involving engineering and technology, and by promoting a vibrant engineering profession and public appreciation of engineering,” said NAE President John L. Anderson.

Eight researchers, along with 13 additional alumni, are honored for significant contributions to engineering research, practice, and education.

Eight MIT researchers are among the 128 new members and 22 international members recently elected to the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) for 2025. Thirteen additional MIT alumni were also elected as new members.

One of the highest professional distinctions for engineers, membership in the NAE is given to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to “engineering research, practice, or education, including, where appropriate, significant contributions to the engineering literature” and to “the pioneering of new and developing fields of technology, making major advancements in traditional fields of engineering, or developing/implementing innovative approaches to engineering education.”

The eight MIT electees this year include:

…

Kristala L. Prather ’94, the Arthur Dehon Little Professor and head of the Department of Chemical Engineering, was honored for the development of innovative approaches to regulate metabolic flux in engineered microorganisms with applications to specialty chemicals production.

Inaugural Chair of Biomedical Engineering, an international leader in the molecular imaging of cancer, becomes UTSW’s first NAE member

Samuel Achilefu, Ph.D., inaugural Chair of Biomedical Engineering at UT Southwestern Medical Center and an internationally recognized leader in the fields of molecular imaging of cancer and nanotherapeutics, has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering (NAE).

Dr. Achilefu, who joined UT Southwestern in February 2022, becomes UTSW’s first faculty member to achieve this prestigious honor, one of the highest professional distinctions bestowed on an engineer. He is also a member of the National Academy of Medicine and a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors.

People from minoritized racial and ethnic groups continue to face numerous systemic barriers that impede their ability to access, persist, and thrive in STEMM higher education and the workforce.

To promote a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) in STEMM, organizations must actively work to dismantle policies and practices that disadvantage people from minoritized groups.

The recent deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor, in addition to the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on African Americans, are wrenching reminders of the many harms that societal racism, inequality, and injustice inflict on the Black community. These injustices are rooted in centuries of oppression—including slavery and Jim Crow, redlining, school segregation, and mass incarceration—that continue to influence American life, including the biomedical research enterprise. Despite leading an NIH Institute whose mission includes building a diverse scientific workforce, at NIGMS we’ve struggled with what an adequate response to this moment would be, knowing that the systems that mediate the distinct and disparate burdens Black students, postdocs, and scientists face are complex and often aren’t easily moved with the urgency that they demand. With that in mind, below we share thoughts on what each of us who is in the majority or in a position of power can do to help break the cycles of racial disparities that are woven into the fabric of the biomedical research enterprise and that limit opportunities Link to external web site for Black scientists Link to external web site.

Institutional structures, policies, and cultures Link to external web site, including those in the biomedical research enterprise, all contribute to racial inequality and injustice. This fact was laid bare for us by the responses to the request for information (RFI) we issued in 2018 on strategies to enhance successful postdoctoral career transitions to promote faculty diversity. Respondents cited bias and discrimination—including racism—most frequently as a key barrier to postdoctoral researchers attaining independent faculty positions.

Sexual harassment, including gender harassment, presents an unacceptable barrier that prevents women from achieving their rightful place in science, and robs society and the scientific enterprise of diverse and critical talent. As the largest single funder of biomedical research in the world, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) bears a responsibility to take action to put an end to this behavior. In 2019, the NIH began to bolster its policies and practices to address and prevent sexual harassment. This included new communication channels to inform the agency of instances of sexual harassment related to NIH-funded research. This week, the NIH announces a change that will hold grantee institutions and investigators accountable for this misconduct, to further foster a culture whereby sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviors are not tolerated in the research and training environment.

Last year, an Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) of the NIH presented a report and recommendations to end sexual harassment. A major theme of this report was the need for increased transparency and accountability in the reporting of professional misconduct, especially sexual harassment. The cases of sexual harassment that surfaced in the wake of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2018 report highlighted a substantial gap in the NIH’s oversight of the research enterprise: There was no straightforward mechanism for the agency to learn of sexual harassment or other misconduct taking place at grantee institutions in the context of NIH-funded research. It was not uncommon for the NIH to discover such cases through the media, amid rightful public outcry. Holding institutions and investigators accountable for this behavior was challenging.

Over the past couple of weeks, our nation has been confronted with ugly truths and hard history revealing how systemic racism rears its head in almost every space. Since the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed down our typical lifestyles, people seem to be listening.

This moment feels very different from other situations when we had to address human rights in the context of race relations in the United States. With that comes a host of emotions that White people have rarely had to deal with because of their racial privilege, and this includes White people working in academia.

Like many Black faculty, and Black people in general, I have received messages and texts from White colleagues apologizing, expressing their guilt and remorse, and asking what they can do to support their Black colleagues and friends.

I am writing these guidelines in response to the recent events that have impacted the Black community, specifically, the Black computing community. As the Department Chair of the Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Department at the University of Florida, I lead, one of, if not, the nation’s most diverse computing sciences (CS) department. We have the nation’s most Black CS faculty and PhD students. We are one of the top CS departments for the number of female faculty. As a researcher, I have had the honor of producing the nation’s most Black/African-American CS PhDs. I have also had the honor of hiring and promoting the most Black faculty in CS. My experiences span more than 20 years and those experiences are the foundation for these guidelines.