Curing the incurable: teaching an old drug new tricks to fight ovarian cancer – The Guardian

In May, PhD students who are funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) were invited to enter the Max Perutz science writing award 2020 and to tell the general public why your research matters. From the many entries received, the 10 that made the shortlist covered diverse topics, including motor neurone disease, self-harm, babies experiences of pain, and bone loss resulting from space travel.

The essays were judged by the Observers Ian Tucker, the Science Museums Roger Highfield, Prof Fiona Watt from the MRC, Bristol Universitys Andy Ridgeway and the journalist and broadcaster Samira Ahmed.

At a virtual ceremony last Tuesday, the 1,500 prize was presented to the winner, Sarah Taylor from the MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine at the University of Edinburgh for her article about her research into the influence of proteins on the effectiveness of chemotherapy.

Here we publish the winning article, described by Samira Ahmed as a terrifically told and intriguing story.

She sits in the small consulting room once again, waiting to hear the news of her latest scan. It has been a difficult journey since the last time she sat in this chair, before her most recent round of treatment began. Over a month of exhaustion, vomiting, soreness, sleepless nights and the inevitable hair loss. But this time, the chemotherapy has not been successful. After all the side effects, all the pain that she has endured, her tumour is still growing, a dark mass on her ovary. Where does she go from here? What can she do when the treatment shes pinned all her hopes on just stops working?

This situation is all too common for women with high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), a devastating form of ovarian cancer. Only 35% survive longer than five years following their diagnosis. While chemotherapy and surgery are highly effective at initially shrinking tumours, the cancer continues to fight back. Over time the tumour changes, with cells that survive treatment prevailing and replicating, passing on the protective traits that give them that survival edge. The tumour becomes completely resistant to chemotherapy, and no barrier remains to stop it from growing out of control and overwhelming the body.

However, there are groups of patients whose cancers are much more sensitive to chemotherapy treatment than others, who can be completely cured by chemotherapy. One key to this is DNA repair proteins, the tools that all cells use to protect their DNA from damage. Think of this DNA as the instruction manual for a cell, detailing how to build all the proteins the cell requires to live and carry out different functions. Cancer cells often have defective DNA repair proteins, as this allows them to adapt and grow rapidly. Strange as it may sound, this can be a good thing from our perspective! Chemotherapy kills cancer cells by attacking their DNA, and those which lack DNA repair proteins essentially forgot to bring a first aid kit they cannot fix themselves up and keep going. This means that the chemotherapy can completely kill off the cancer, so the patient will survive. This reveals gaps in the armour of this cancer, which we can exploit to help the women who need it most.

No two cancers are quite the same, even within a specific type like HGSOC. Some have completely functional DNA repair proteins. Some have defective proteins initially but can adapt and fix these. Others can make excessive amounts of the proteins to combat the effects of chemotherapy and survive. I hope that by learning what happens to these proteins as a cancer cell becomes resistant to chemotherapy, I can make new drugs to prevent the crucial DNA repair proteins from functioning, which will enable the chemotherapy to kill cancer cells more effectively.

The first question that I asked was which, if any, of these proteins are actually important for the way HGSOC reacts to chemotherapy. I used cells taken from HGSOC patient tumours and adapted to grow easily in the lab, called cell lines, which have similar properties to an actual tumour in a patient. By using cell lines taken from a selection of patient tumours, scientists can build up a picture of the similarities and differences between patient tumours. I started by assessing the growth of various cell lines when treated with a drug called carboplatin, the standard chemotherapy used to treat HGSOC. The slower the cells grow, the more effective it is as a treatment. I found that there was a lot of variation in sensitivity to carboplatin between the different cell lines unsurprising really since one of the main challenges in cancer research is how many differences there are between individuals tumours, and even between different parts of the same tumour.

Next, I set out to find the reason for these differences, looking for changes in the DNA repair proteins. I studied a database of ovarian cancer patients looking for clues on what could be going on, and found that it is common for the tumour cells to produce either abnormally high or low amounts of certain DNA repair proteins. So, I decided to measure the amount of repair proteins produced by my cell lines. I found that in the cell line that was most sensitive to chemotherapy, one of these repair proteins was almost entirely missing! This is a really good indicator that this protein could be an important factor behind repairing the damage caused by chemotherapy.

So, I had identified a protein potentially involved in chemotherapy effectiveness. What next? I wanted to confirm that this protein acts in the way I suspected within the cancer cells. I blocked the cell lines from producing the protein I was interested in, and again looked to see how sensitive to chemotherapy the cancer cells were. This confirmed my initial suspicions removing the protein made the cancer cells much more susceptible to chemotherapy!

As I am only in my first year of working on this project, there is still much to be done, but this is an exciting starting point. I certainly find it very exciting! I plan to study the mechanism used by these cancer cells to alter the amount of this repair protein, and see how smart the cancer cells are are they cheating the chemotherapy by producing more of this protein to prevent the cells from being killed? Does this result in a chemotherapy-resistant tumour? Most importantly, I would like to identify patients whose cancers have high levels of this repair protein, for whom conventional chemotherapy might be less effective, and focus on how I can help them. To tackle this problem, I would like to test drugs that block this protein from carrying out DNA damage repair, leaving the cancer powerless, unable to repair the damage inflicted by chemotherapy. My dream is that one day this will help more women to leave that consulting room feeling victorious, having beaten the odds, and able to shut the door for good on their way out.

Here is the original post:

Curing the incurable: teaching an old drug new tricks to fight ovarian cancer - The Guardian

Invitae CEO on how COVID-19 testing could have a positive impact on the future of genetics testing – Report Door

Invitae CEO Sean George joins Yahoo Finances on the move to talk about how Invitae is bringing genetic testing and information into mainstream discussions.

JULIE HYMAN: Im watching shares of Invitae, which have just about tripled this year. We are joined now by the CEO, Sean George, from San Francisco. Sean, thanks for joining us. You guys do diagnostic testing and you dont do it for COVID specifically, but you do it for a host of other diseases. And weve obviously seen COVID-19 testing really expand. You can drive up and get it in places. There are now going to be at-home tests that are going to be introduced. Do you think that this then gets people more comfortable with testing for a range of different diseases? Or are you hoping that it does?

SEAN GEORGE: Well, I think it does. And I think in general, trend of the last decade or so is people are starting to understand that this diagnostic information is very useful in advance of when theres an actual problem. Obviously, people are now getting very familiar with COVID testing, what it could have done prior to, and certainly during an outbreak and to manage it.

And when you think about how fundamental in an individuals genomic information is for their health, the idea is starting to catch hold with more and more people, especially generalists, and the idea that genetic information used at the right time, ahead of time, at every stage in life, has profound implications on an individuals health.

ADAM SHAPIRO: So these kinds of tests, we keep hearing in relation to COVID, the issue of false positives. But putting that to the side, in the traditional diagnostic models, whats an accepted, if there is, metric, for when youre going to get a false positive or false negative? How does the industry deal with that issue?

SEAN GEORGE: Right, and especially in medical genetics, that threshold is very, very, very, very tight. Its exacting on 99 and a few nines of how the percentage of sensitivity and specificity these tests need to have because of the profound implications of genetics. Whether its dealing with cancer, cardiovascular disorders, pediatric disorders, battling cancer as 45 million people are per year in the markets we serve, and to answer those fundamental questions and then take concrete medical next steps. The sensitivity specificity, the precision of the tests need to be extraordinarily high.

Story continues

BRIAN CHEUNG: Hey, Sean, Brian Cheung here. So for those that maybe arent that well versed in this type of science, explain to us exactly where you fit in the business world of things that might be tangentially related to genetic testing. I mean, do you guys work with say CRISPR firms or types of, I guess, diagnostic or treatment relative to businesses in that space? Where does your business fit in that universe?

SEAN GEORGE: I think the way to think about it, the people who, certainly anybody who has had an introduction or a brush with genetics and the health care, their clinician, were the number one brand in medical genetics around the globe. Their clinician certainly knows us and has been working with us for many years. And again, whether thats to diagnose any number of 1,000 rare disorders, to help an individual understand their prognosis and next best steps for cancer treatment.

Certainly around reproductive health. You may have heard carrier screening or non-invasive prenatal screening. Those are the kind of tests that we do. And we primarily do it with your clinician. Certainly up until now, mostly the specialists of the world, the medical genetics, the various conditions. Like I said, there are thousands. Ever increasingly, as we have dramatically driven down the price of the, weve driven down the cost of this testing by almost two orders of magnitude over the last 10 years.

And ever increasingly, generalists are starting to use this information. Theyre becoming more comfortable with it. We have tools and front end capabilities to allow clinicians to use the information without the deepest of knowledge around each individual gene, around each individual condition. And have tools online to follow the patients, follow up on their results, make sure they understand what the next best step is, and really support the clinician, the patient with the use of genetics in mainstream medical care.

JULIE HYMAN: And Sean, when were talking about genetics testing, is it mostly probability testing, particularly for cancers when you talk about carrier testing that youre at X percent risk for developing a certain disorder? Or is genetics testing also increasingly being used for actual diagnosis?

SEAN GEORGE: The kind of testing we specialize, the kind of testing put into play by most clinicians, medical geneticists, is a little more precise than just a very slight probability increase over average risk. These are, carrier screens, you mentioned, this will tell you whether you and your partner are carrying different conditions. It will tell you what are the odds specifically of having a child who might be affected by the condition. Or if you were to have a child, what would the odds be.

Ill take, for example, some of the cardiovascular diseases or cancer genetic diseases. If you have some of these genes that are affected, your risk is 30 to 80 times the population average risk of these conditions. So its quite prognostic. Now like I said, when you do get an answer, it really helps to diagnose the condition far earlier than you would otherwise be able to without the use of genetics.

And then depending on the disease, there are a variety of next steps, all the way from preventive approaches to therapies. And we work with over 100 biopharmaceutical partners too, who have therapies that are specifically targeted against genetic conditions that we can introduce our patients to as early as possible.

JULIA LA ROCHE: Sean, this is such a fascinating discussion, what youve been bringing up, and youre talking about the next best action. And its such an interesting way to look at health care, especially looking at it from preventative as well, or even just having a better understanding of your genetics and what it could mean or what the outcomes can be. I guess for you, if we could just kind of step back, what is the moonshot for you when it comes to your business and the broader health care system?

SEAN GEORGE: And in fact, were kind of, Im not sure at what inning we are in of that moonshot, I think its probably early, first or second. But the real idea, and when we founded the company, it was a simple idea. Genetics is so impactful for health care on an individual basis, yet is sparingly used at all in modern health care around the globe. The moonshot is really to have an individuals genome available, managed on their behalf, so that information can be put into play at the right point, at the right time, with all of the people around them that can help put that information to use for their health.

So for example, upon birth. 3% of live births end up in the NICU or the PICU because of genetic conditions. Having that information instantaneously would dramatically improve the outcome of the children in that situation. Some 20% to 30% of populations primary health care complaint over their lives will be genetic in nature.

Knowing that ahead of time instead of after years and years and years of symptoms kind of popping up and then getting worse over time and finally getting diagnosed, knowing ahead of time can greatly improve the preventive measures taken. I think we will in five to 10 years, we will look back in horror thinking that women had children, started families without accessing the fundamental genetic information that can introduce so much risk along the way, either for the women themselves during carrying to term, and then certainly upon delivery.

And I think cancer is another example. Its one of the more advanced conditions when considering molecular medicine. I think again, in 10 years well look back, and the idea that we didnt access the fundamental information about a persons genetic background and the genomics of the cancer itself to precision tailor treatment to them, I think well look back and wonder why we didnt do it faster.

But again, a big problem with that has been cost in the past, and weve taken care of that and are continuing to work on it. So I think across all stages in life, were about to see here in the next decade this genetic information to be used almost as a medical utility. Again, and our aim is, the moonshot is to across all stages of life, all the way from birth until youre dealing with aging and senescence.

Read the rest here:

Invitae CEO on how COVID-19 testing could have a positive impact on the future of genetics testing - Report Door

IBCN 2020: IBCN 2020: Molecular Correlates of Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy Response In Muscle-Invasive Blad… – UroToday

(UroToday.com) While cisplatin-based chemotherapy is a mainstay for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), and none of the reported biomarkers for predicting response have been implemented in the clinic thus far.

Dr. Ann Taber presented data from researchers at the Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, where they performed comprehensive genomic, transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic analysis of 300 MIBC patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy to identify molecular changes associated with treatment response. Based on mutational signatures, they identified two patient groups: those characterized by mutations in a tri-nucleotide signature 5 context (SBS5) that are related to ERCC2 mutations, and those related to APOBEC mutations.

Expression data identified the basal/squamous gene expression subtype to be associated with poor cisplatin-based treatment response. Immune cell infiltration and high PD-1 protein expression was also significantly associated with treatment response; they identified a unique subset that corresponds to an immune desert, which was associated with poor treatment response (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Association of immune cell infiltration and cisplatin-based treatment response.

The authors then assigned patients to high and low genomic instability groups based on SBS5 mutations, indels, allelic imbalance and BRCA2 mutation status. Patients with high genomic instability had a response rate of 71% versus 49% for patients with low genomic instability (p = 0.007). Through further integration, they identified a group of patients with a very high response rate (80%) characterized by high genomic instability and non-basal/squamous gene expression subtype and a group of patients with a very low response rate (25%) characterized by low genomic instability and basal/squamous gene expression subtype (p<0.001, Figure 2).

Figure 2: Patient subclassification based on genomic instability and basal/squamous gene expression subtype.

The results highlight several molecular correlates of chemotherapy response. These findings are now the basis of a new clinical trial for the treatment of metastatic bladder cancer following radical cystectomy.1

Presented by: Ann Taber, Ph.D., Department of Molecular Medicine (MOMA), Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

Written by:Anirban P. Mitra, MD, Ph.D., Urologic Oncology Fellow, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, Twitter: @APMitra, with Ashish M. Kamat, MD, MBBS, President of IBCN and IBCG, Endowed Professor, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, Twitter:@UroDocAsh,at the International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN) Annual Meeting, #IBCN2020, October 17, 2020.

References:1. Treatment Of Metastatic Bladder Cancer at the Time Of Biochemical reLApse Following Radical Cystectomy (TOMBOLA). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04138628.

The rest is here:

IBCN 2020: IBCN 2020: Molecular Correlates of Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy Response In Muscle-Invasive Blad... - UroToday

Treadwell Announces Initiation of New Clinical Trial of CFI-400945 in Patients with Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) – BioSpace

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) today announced the commencement of a new sub-study evaluating CFI-400945, an oral, first-in-class inhibitor of Polo-like Kinase 4 (PLK4), in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

We are very excited to see the initiation of this trial, that builds on preclinical work demonstrating an association between loss of the tumor suppressor PTEN, a common alteration in this disease setting, and response to CFI-400945, says Dr. Mark Bray, Treadwell Chief Scientific Officer and Co-Founder.

This is the first trial that evaluates a precision medicine approach for patients with advanced prostate cancer using liquid biopsies for genomic testing. This innovative trial design, which incorporates liquid biopsy-based biomarker evaluation, helps meet the urgent need to identify more effective therapies for men with advanced prostate cancer, said Dr. Lesley Seymour, CCTGs Director, Investigational New Drug Program and a Medical Oncologist in the Department of Oncology at Queens University.

The study is supported by the Canadian Cancer Society, Prostate Cancer Canada and the Movember Foundation through a Translation Acceleration Grant to Tak Mak (The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), the Canadian Clinical Trials Group and a team of co-investigators from across Canada.

Our understanding of the molecular drivers of prostate cancer is increasing, and for some of these molecular variations we have few therapeutic options, says the trail study chair Dr. Aaron R. Hansen, GU Medical Oncology Site Lead Division of Medical Oncology at Princess Margaret Cancer Center. The innovative trial design of IND234 will match men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer with agents designed to target their specific molecular abnormalities, in order to improve their outcomes.

This sub-study is part of the IND.234 - Prostate Cancer Biomarker Enrichment and Treatment Selection (PC-BETS) Study. The primary endpoint is clinical benefit rate defined as proportion of patients who had PSA decline 50%, complete or partial objective response, or stable disease for 12 weeks.

The CCTG IND234 trial will be open at sites across Canada, for a full list of participating centers and for additional information about the study, please visit http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

About CFI-400945

CFI-400945 is a first-in-class, oral selective and potent inhibitor of Polo-like Kinase 4 (PLK4), which regulates centriole duplication and thus mitotic progression. PLK4 is overexpressed in a variety of solid tumors and elevated expression is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Depletion of PLK4 expression in cancer cells by RNA interference leads to mitotic defects and cell death. PLK4 was identified as a drug target based on functional screening to identify vulnerabilities of genomically unstable breast cancers.

Anti-tumor activity of CFI-400945 has been shown in mice bearing human cancer xenografts, including robust tumor growth inhibition and durable tumor regression in primary tumor xenografts from breast cancer.

About Treadwell Therapeutics

Treadwell Therapeutics is a clinical-stage oncology company exploiting cancer cells vulnerabilities to develop first-in-class and best-in-class small molecules to address unmet needs in patients with cancer.

The Companys robust, internally developed pipeline includes a first-in-class PLK4 kinase inhibitor, CFI-400945 and a potentially best in class TTK inhibitor, CFI-402257 in Phase 2 studies, and CFI-402411, an oral immunomodulatory kinase inhibitor with activity toward HPK1, in Phase 1/2 studies. For more information, please visit http://www.treadwelltx.com.

About Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG)

Celebrating its 40th year, the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) is a cancer clinical trials research cooperative that runs phase I-III trials to test anti-cancer and supportive therapies in over 80 institutions across Canada and internationally. From its operations centre at Queens University, CCTG has led and participated in over 500 trials in over 40 countries aimed at improving survival and quality of life for all people with cancer. CCTG is a national program of the Canadian Cancer Society that provides core funding for the Group. To learn more about the CCTG, go to http://www.cctg.ca

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201019005662/en/

Here is the original post:

Treadwell Announces Initiation of New Clinical Trial of CFI-400945 in Patients with Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) - BioSpace

Prop. 14: In the COVID age, can California still afford its stem cell research program? – CALmatters

In summary

Proposition 14 asks voters to spend nearly $8 billion to continue the stem cell research program at a time when the coronavirus pandemic has decimated the state budget.

For the second time in 16 years, California voters will decide the fate of the states multi-billion dollar stem cell research program that established the state as a worldwide leader.

How the times have changed.

In November, as the pandemic drags on, Proposition 14 asks voters to spend nearly $8 billion to continue the program during a period when the research environment has significantly evolved and coronavirus has battered the states budget.

The bond measure would approve $5.5 billion in bonds to keep the states stem cell research agency running and grants flowing to California universities and companies.

At least $1.5 billion would be earmarked for brain and central nervous system diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons. The overall cost of the bonds and their interest totals about $7.8 billion, according to the state legislative analyst. The state would pay about $260 million annually for 30 years, or about 1 percent of Californias annual budget.

Proposition 14 is essentially a repeat with a bigger price tag and a few tweaks of Proposition 71, which California voters approved in 2004 after then-President George W. Bush prohibited, on religious grounds, all federal funding of any stem cell research using human embryos.

The bond measure would approve $5.5 billion in bonds to keep the states stem cell research agency running and grants flowing to California universities and companies.

That groundbreaking measure authorized $3 billion in state bonds to create the states stem cell research agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and fund grants for research into treatments for Alzheimers disease, cancer, spinal cord injuries and other diseases.

The institute has nearly used up its original funding, so Prop. 71s author, real estate investor and attorney Robert N. Klein II, led a new effort to get Prop. 14 on the November ballot.

This time, embryonic stem cell research is in a much different place, with federal funding no longer blocked and more funding from the biotech industry.

Voters will want to consider what Californias previous investment in stem cell research has accomplished. Its a nuanced track record.

While many scientific experts agree that Prop 71 was a bold social innovation that successfully bolstered emerging stem cell research, some critics argue that the institutes grantmaking was plagued by conflicts of interest and did not live up to the promises of miracle cures that Prop. 71s supporters made years ago. Although the agency is funded with state money, its overseen by its own board and not by the California governor or lawmakers.

The agency had done a very good job of setting priorities for stem cell research, including research using human embryos, and doling out $300 million annually to build up California as a regenerative medicine powerhouse, according to a 2013 evaluation by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

But the report also found that because the institutes board is made up of scientists from universities and biotech firms likely to apply for grants, board members had almost unavoidable conflicts of interest.

Because human stem cells can develop into many types of cells, including blood, brain, nerve and muscle cells, scientists have long looked to them for potential treatments for currently incurable diseases and injuries. Researchers use two types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, derived from unused human embryos created through in vitro fertilization, and adult stem cells, which are harder to work with but in some cases can be coaxed in a lab into behaving more like embryonic stem cells.

From the start, stem cell research has been ethically charged and politically controversial because human embryos are destroyed in some types of studies. Federal restrictions on the research have waxed and waned, depending on which political party holds power. While former President Bush restricted federal money for embryonic stem cell research, former President Obama removed those restrictions.

The Trump administration has restricted government research involving fetal tissue but not embryonic stem cells. However, anti-abortion lawmakers have called on the President to once again end federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

California-funded research has led to one stem cell treatment for a form of Severe Combined Immunodeficiency known as the bubble baby disease. Children with the rare disease dont make enough of a key enzyme needed for a normal immune system. Without treatment, they can die from the disease if not kept in a protective environment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now reviewing the treatment but has not yet approved it for widespread use.

Although many of the agencys early grants were for basic science, the institute also has supported 64 clinical trials of treatments for many types of cancer, sickle cell disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, kidney disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonlyknown as Lou Gehrigs disease.

A June 2020 analysis by University of Southern California health policy researchers estimated that taxpayers initial $3 billion investment in the research institute helped create more than 50,000 jobs and generated $10 billion for the states economy.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has endorsed Proposition 14, and other supporters include the Regents of the University of California, the California Democratic Party, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, patient advocacy groups like the March of Dimes, and some local politicians and chambers of commerce.

Supporters have raised more than $8.5 million, including about $2 million from billionaire Dagmar Dolby, to pass the measure, according to California Secretary of State campaign finance reports.

The passage of Proposition 71 helped save my life, Sandra Dillon, a blood cancer patient, wrote in a San Diego Union-Tribune commentary supporting Proposition 14. She wrote that she had benefited from a drug developed with Institute-funded research that has been designated by the FDA as a breakthrough therapy.

It is unimaginable to think that Californians would vote to discontinue this amazing effort I dont know where I would be or what condition I would be in if it wasnt for the investment Californians made nearly two decades ago.

I think the agencys done good work, but this was never planned to be funded forever with debt.

Lawrence Goldstein, a UC San Diego professor of cellular and molecular medicine and stem cell researcher, said the grants were instrumental in furthering his research on treatments for Alzheimers disease and that Prop. 14 will help create new jobs. The agency has funded a great deal of very important stem cell medical research thats already produced terrific results and has the prospect of saving many more lives in the decade to come, he said.

Opponents include one member of the institutes board and a nonprofit that advocates for privacy in genetic research. They contend that the proposition seeks too much money and does not sufficiently address the conflicts of interest that cropped up after Prop. 71 was passed. They also note that private funding, including venture capital, for stem cell research has grown in recent years. Opponents had raised only $250 by late September, from a single contribution by the California Pro Life Council.

The editorial boards of some of Californias biggest newspapers also have opposed the measure, including the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News/East Bay Times. The Fresno Bee, Modesto Bee, and San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper editorial boards support Prop 14.

Jeff Sheehy, the only institute board member not to support Proposition 14, told CalMatters that the research environment has changed since voters initially approved state funding for stem cell research in 2004 and that California should prioritize other needs like education, health care, and housing.

I think the agencys done good work, but this was never planned to be funded forever with debt, Sheehy said. At this point the state cant afford it; were looking at a huge deficit.

Read more here:

Prop. 14: In the COVID age, can California still afford its stem cell research program? - CALmatters

Identification of a prognostic gene signature based on an immunogenomic landscape analysis of bladder cancer. – UroToday

Cancer immune plays a critical role in cancer progression. Tumour immunology and immunotherapy are one of the exciting areas in bladder cancer research. In this study, we aimed to develop an immune-related gene signature to improve the prognostic prediction of bladder cancer. Firstly, we identified 392 differentially expressed immune-related genes (IRGs) based on TCGA and ImmPort databases. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that these genes were enriched in inflammatory and immune-related pathways, including in 'regulation of signaling receptor activity', 'cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction' and 'GPCR ligand binding'. Then, we separated all samples in TCGA data set into the training cohort and the testing cohort in a ratio of 3:1 randomly. Data set GSE13507 was set as the validation cohort. We constructed a prognostic six-IRG signature with LASSO Cox regression in the training cohort, including AHNAK, OAS1, APOBEC3H, SCG2, CTSE and KIR2DS4. Six IRGs reflected the microenvironment of bladder cancer, especially immune cell infiltration. The prognostic value of six-IRG signature was further validated in the testing cohort and the validation cohort. The results of multivariable Cox regression and subgroup analysis revealed that six-IRG signature was a clinically independent prognostic factor for bladder cancer patients. Further, we constructed a nomogram based on six-IRG signature and other clinicopathological risk factors, and it performed well in predict patients' survival. Finally, we found six-IRG signature showed significant difference in different molecular subtypes of bladder cancer. In conclusions, our research provided a novel immune-related gene signature to estimate prognosis for patients' survival with bladder cancer.

Journal of cellular and molecular medicine. 2020 Oct 13 [Epub ahead of print]

Yongwen Luo, Liang Chen, Qiang Zhou, Yaoyi Xiong, Gang Wang, Xuefeng Liu, Yu Xiao, Lingao Ju, Xinghua Wang

Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China., Department of Biological Repositories, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China., Department of Pathology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical School, Washington, DC, USA.

PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33048468

See the article here:

Identification of a prognostic gene signature based on an immunogenomic landscape analysis of bladder cancer. - UroToday

3 Covid-19 Trials Have Been Paused for Safety. Thats a Good Thing. – The New York Times

Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the F.D.A.s vaccine advisory panel, said that pausing a trial is a huge logistical challenge especially for one like Johnson & Johnsons, with plans for 60,000 volunteers in 10 countries.

Its this big warship that you just stop moving, Dr. Offit said.

Once a trial is paused, a safety board may ask for a volunteer who experienced an adverse event to be unblinded in other words, to find out if the volunteer got the placebo or the treatment. If the volunteer received a placebo, then the treatment cant be the cause of the event and the trial can continue.

If it turns out that the volunteer got the treatment, the board does a flurry of detective work. The members look over the medical records. They may ask for more information about volunteers health or even order new tests not just for the people who experienced adverse events, but for everyone in the trial.

The board uses this evidence to come to a conclusion about whether the treatment most likely had anything to do with the event. On very rare occasions, for example, some vaccines can cause a nerve disorder called Guillain-Barr syndrome. But the condition takes weeks to develop. If a volunteer shows signs of Guillain-Barr syndrome on the day of a vaccine injection, it cant be the cause.

Regulators then review the decision of these boards and may accept it or ask for more information. For trials that are running in several countries at once, this review can make pausing a trial even more of a challenge. After AstraZeneca paused its global trials on Sept. 6 for a review, regulators in Brazil, India, Japan, South Africa and the United Kingdom all gave the green light for the trial to resume. But American regulators are still keeping the U.S. trial on pause as they continue to look over the evidence.

If a safety board rules that an adverse event most likely was not a result of the vaccine or treatment, it may allow the trial to start up again. If, on the other hand, theres some urgent problem a contaminated batch of drugs, for example the trial may have to stop. When the evidence isnt so clear, the board may let the trial resume with extra tests or exams. A second case of the same event might be more common than you would expect from chance, forcing the trial to end.

See the original post here:

3 Covid-19 Trials Have Been Paused for Safety. Thats a Good Thing. - The New York Times

Role of Caspase-1 in the Pathogenesis of Inflammatory-Associated Chron | JIR – Dove Medical Press

Meseret Derbew Molla,1 Yonas Akalu,2 Zeleke Geto,3 Baye Dagnew,2 Birhanu Ayelign,4 Tewodros Shibabaw1

1Department of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; 2Department of Human Physiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; 3Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia; 4Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

Correspondence: Meseret Derbew MollaDepartment of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, PO Box 196, Gondar, Ethiopia, Tel +251918331617Email messidrm19@gmail.com

Abstract: Caspase-1 is the first and extensively studied inflammatory caspase that is activated through inflammasome assembly. Inflammasome is a cytosolic formation of multiprotein complex that aimed to start inflammatory response against infections or cellular damages. The process leads to an auto-activation of caspase-1 and consequent maturation of caspase-1 target molecules such as interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-18. Recently, the role of caspase-1 and inflammasome in inflammatory-induced noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) like obesity, diabetes mellitus (DM), cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), cancers and chronic respiratory diseases have widely studied. However, their reports are distinct and even they have reported contrasting role of caspase-1 in the development and progression of NCDs. A few studies have reported that caspase-1/inflammasome assembley has a protective role in the initiation and progression of these diseases through the activation of the noncanonical caspase-1 target substrates like gasdermin-D and regulation of immune cells. Conversely, others have revealed that caspase-1 has a direct/indirect effect in the development and progression of several NCDs. Therefore, in this review, we systematically summarized the role of caspase-1 in the development and progression of NCDs, especially in obesity, DM, CVDs and cancers.

Keywords: caspase-1, inflammasome, IL-1, IL-18, noncommunicable diseases

This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Originally posted here:

Role of Caspase-1 in the Pathogenesis of Inflammatory-Associated Chron | JIR - Dove Medical Press

Stephanie Wolkoffs Revelations Are Exactly What the First Amendment Should Protect – The Atlantic

Despite these alarming developments, all is not lost for free speech and government transparency. When Trump ascended to the presidency, he gained more than new resources and incentives to manipulate or suppress information. As a state actor, he also acquired the burden of operating under the First Amendment. There is indeed ample First Amendment precedent under which the court can and should find Wolkoffs agreement unenforceable. As a foundational matter, the Supreme Court has, time and again, deemed speech about government officials and public figures at the very heart of the First Amendment, extolling our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. The Justice Departments own arguments about the centrality of the first ladys office to the presidency place Wolkoffs revelations squarely at the First Amendments core. More so, presidents, including this one, routinely rely on their spouses for political advantage. Through everything from policy initiatives to, yes, those darned Christmas decorations, first ladies have traditionally served as political assets to presidents. This reality, too, places first spouses words and activities well within the realm of public debate that the Supreme Court deems central to the First Amendment.

Because First Amendment protections serve the public as well as the speaker, they cannot simply be signed away through an employment contract, whether for a paid or volunteer position. The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that public employers do not have an unlimited right to fire or otherwise discipline employees for speaking, as citizens, on matters of public concern. The Court has imposed such limits partly because speech by public employees on subject matter related to their employment holds special value precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment.

Orly Lobel: Trumps extreme NDAs

The agreement that the Justice Department seeks to enforce here extends considerably further than workplace discipline. It purports to subject the signer to restraints on speech about their White House employment for at least the length of the presidents term, and possibly for the rest of the signers life. Courts have only ever upheld such agreements, and allowed constructive trusts to be imposed as remedies for their violation, in the context of national-security information. As noted above, even those decisions are controversial, and such NDAs are currently facing a new set of legal challenges.

The Trump family, in short, simply cannot have it both ways. They cannot serve as Americas first family, with all the fame, power, and resources that entails, and still control their image with the domineering tactics that they employed as private citizens. For better or worse, the goings-on of Donald and Melania Trump are now Americas business. And in this business, the founding document is the Constitution.

This story is part of the project The Battle for the Constitution, in partnership with the National Constitution Center.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Continue reading here:

Stephanie Wolkoffs Revelations Are Exactly What the First Amendment Should Protect - The Atlantic

The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem – USA TODAY

Ken Paulson, Opinion columnist Published 4:00 a.m. ET Oct. 16, 2020 | Updated 8:59 a.m. ET Oct. 16, 2020

The Supreme Court is a vital component of our democracy. Here's how the process works to nominate, confirm, and oppose a potential justice. USA TODAY

Can you imagine a U.S. Supreme Court nominee being unable to explain the Second Amendment? Or drawing a blank on the ruling in Roe v. Wade?

That would lead to cries of outrage, a 24-news cycle and in all likelihood, the withdrawal of the nomination.

But when Judge Amy Coney Barrett struggled to name all the freedoms of the First Amendment and Senator Ben Sasse (R-NEB) tried to help her out with the wrong answer, it was barely a blip on Twitter.

It began today when Sasse tossed Barrett what presumably was intended as a softball question: What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?

Barretts response: Speech, religion, press, assembly. speech, press, religion, assembly (now counting on her hands) I dont know. What am I missing?

She turned to the wrong person for a lifeline. Sasse quickly said redress or protest.

Then came the most astonishing moment of all. A relieved Barrett said Oh, OK.

Oh, OK? Not quite.The fifth freedom is the right to petition government for redress of grievances, a guarantee close to the hearts of lobbyists. The right to protest is not one of the five freedoms, but it can be used in tandem with all of those rights.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Dont get me wrong. Ive had the privilege to testify before a Congressional committee and Ive been interviewed live on national television. Both can be nerve-wracking experiences. If I were to do both at the same time, with my future and that of the Supreme Court at stake, Im pretty sure I would struggle to remember my middle name. Of course, if the interviewer offered up the wrong middle name, Im pretty sure I would catch that.

That said, it was a mental lapse and not the crime of the century. In the end, this isnt about a judge or a senator.

Its about the First Amendment. Its five freedoms are at the heart of the American experience, giving each of us the right to express ourselves freely and to exercise our personal faith, while providing the tools needed to keep a check on the abuse of government power.

But instead of that bundling of rights making the First an untouchable amendment, it does just the opposite. The First Amendment has no clout.

The news media are all in on freedom of the press. Churches and religious organizations will readily fight for freedom of religion. Support for freedom of speech tends to be based on what is being said. Assembly is a popular freedom in the abstract, unless civil unrest looms in highly visible cities. For what its worth, the right of petition is just fine.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening statement in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.(Photo: AP)

The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem.

When journalists assert their right to freedom of the press, but rarely write about incursions on faith, thats a problem.

When people of faith are outraged by COVID-19 limits on church attendance and dismiss the news media as fake news, thats a problem.

When a university proclaims itself to be a marketplace of ideas and tries to limit assembly to a free speech zone, thats a problem.

When someone uses their free speech at full volume on social media, only to demand the firing of public figures who do the same, thats a problem.

Our rights to speech, press, religion, assembly and petition are embodied in the most important 45 words in American history. Those freedoms are buffeted, though, by those who choose to embrace the First Amendment selectively.

The Second Amendment poses no such problem. It is clearly about the right to bear arms, though the whole militia business muddies things up a bit. Its constituency is clear and powerful. (See the right to petition.)

Sasse followed up with a second question to Barrett about the First Amendment, asking if she knew why the five freedoms were packaged in a single amendment.

I don't know why, actually, she responded. Im sure there's a story that I don't know there about why those appeared in the First Amendment all together rather than being split up in different amendments.

And this was where the previously imprecise senator nailed it.

You don't really have freedom of religion if you don't also have freedom of assembly, Sasse explained. You don't really have freedom of speech if you can't also publish your beliefs and advocate for them. You don't really have any of those freedoms if you can't protest at times and seek to redress grievances in times when government oversteps and tries to curtail any of those freedoms.

The very best way to protect your favorite First Amendment freedom is to take a stand for all of them. That requires respecting the exercise of free expression in all its forms, even if the expression isnt to your liking. That mindset would contribute to a more civil society and more consistent support for the amendment that makes Americas ideals possible. It may also prove handy for a future Supreme Court nominee.

Ken Paulson is the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, a former editor of USA TODAY and a member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/16/free-press-free-speech-freedom-religion-assembly-seek-redress-column/3665682001/

Go here to read the rest:

The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem - USA TODAY

Media Summit to explore ‘On the Front Lines with the First Amendment’ – SUNY Oswego

The 2020 edition of the college's Lewis B. ODonnell Media Summit will convene an all-star group to discuss On the Front Lines with the First Amendment on Wednesday, Oct. 28.

The centerpiece panel presentation will take place virtually at 3:30 p.m. via Zoom, and will feature Connie Schultz, a Pulitzer-Prize winning, nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate; Oswego alumna Michelle Garcia, editorial manager of NBC News NBC BLK, which which tells stories by, for and about the Black community; Bret Jaspers, politics reporter for KERA Public Media in Dallas-Fort Worth;Steve Brown, investigative reporter at WGRZ in Buffalo;and Ava Lubell, a Legal Fellow at the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic. Communication studies faculty member Michael Riecke will serve as moderator.

Student co-directors Mikayla Green and Benjamin Grieco noted that when they and the rest of the team were looking at themes for the 16th annual summit, they watched the world in which journalists operate change so much in a few months, as the press adapted to covering and telling the stories of COVID-19, the Black Lives Matter movement, the upcoming election and so many compelling, fast-moving stories.

We were told to aim high, said Grieco, a senior journalism major and editor in chief of The Oswegonian. Our guests dont have to travel, which makes it easier. We could ask, Do you have four hours to talk to these students who are really interested in what you have to say?

Especially with the summit coming just days before such a pivotal election, the virtual arrangement helped secure a high caliber of participants, they noted.

A popular panelist at a previous summit, Schultz also is a Professional in Residence at Kent State University School of Journalism. She won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for Commentary for columns that judges praised for providing a voice for the underdog and the underprivileged. She also won the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Social Justice Reporting and the Batten Medal, which honors a body of journalistic work that reflects compassion, courage, humanity and a deep concern for the underdog. Schultz is the author of three books published by Random House, plus her first novel, The Daughters of Erietown, a New York Times bestseller.

Over the last decade, Garcia has covered major social movements across the United States including the fight for marriage equality, #MeToo and the Black Lives Matter movement, to name a few. The 2006 SUNY Oswego journalism graduate and former Oswegonian editor in chief was named to Folios list of 20 in their 20s, won a GLAAD Media Award with her staff about the advancement of the HIV treatment drug Truvada, taught at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and has coached several successful writers along the way. Previously, Garcia was an editor at Vice, Out, Vox, Mic and The Advocate.

Jaspers stories have aired on the BBC, NPRs All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition, and Here & Now, and APMs Marketplace. He previously reported on politics and the Colorado River basin for KJZZ in Phoenix, and before that was managing editor at WSKG in upstate New York. Awards include three 2020 Regional Murrow Awards for reporting at KJZZ, one for Hard News, and two as part of KJZZs series Tracing the Migrant Journey. That series also won a 2020 Kaleidoscope Award for excellence in covering an issue of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.

Brown has spent a lifetime in journalism after graduating from Canisius College in 1983. He has been honored with multiple award including six regional Murrow Awards, four of which he collected while working for 2 On-Your-Side. In 2019, he won a national Murrow Award for his short documentary about a man who sought to have the Catholic Church admit a priest was his biological father. Before coming in Buffalo, Brown spent 15 years as a correspondent for Fox News.

Lubell provides pro bono legal advice to NYC metro area journalists on a range of First Amendment issues arising from newsgathering and publication. Previously, Lubell served as the General Counsel of Quartz Media, which focuses on global business news and has reporters based in cities around the world. She previously also worked at Slate as general manager and general counsel; as special assistant for briefing under New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and as the political director for the Women and Politics Institute at American University. She is an affiliate member of the NYC Bar Association Communications and Media Law Committee.

The panelists traditionally visit classrooms on the day of the event, and that is something organizers plan to continue via Zoom rooms.

I remember being a freshman and knowing that someone will show up to your class and tell some really cool stories, said Green, a senior broadcasting major and vice president of production for WTOP-TV 10. Im glad we can still do that.

The popular Career Connectors component is still in the plan, this time in a virtual environment where current students can talk to recent graduates in the industry and network on a one-on-one basis.

This year's Career Connectors include Natalie Brophy '17, a reporter for Gannett/USA Today Network; Imani Cruz '17, talent and development, MTV Networks;Justin Dobrow '17, program operations manager, Peacock for NBCUniversal Media;Stephanie Herbert '18, media director for MOST (Museum of Science and Technology) in Syracuse;Allif Karim '18, sports director for WDVM-TV in Maryland; andOmy Melo '14, junior editor at Nickelodeon.

As different as everything is this year, we do want to keep it familiar, Green said. But one way we can change it is to make it even more open virtually.

We dont really want to change that tradition or standard, Grieco added. Were trying to maintain that legacy. It may be virtual, but everything else is, so why cant we keep doing the same things?

Organizers expect student media WTOP and WNYO to broadcast the Zoom feed of the panel discussion as well.

Louis A. Borrelli Jr., a pioneer in cable television, online media and broadcast production services and a 1977 Oswego graduate, made a founding gift for the media summit in 2005. Two years later, 1976 graduate Al Roker, the national weather anchor and co-host of the third hour of NBC's "Today" show, provided additional funding to rename the summit in memory of longtime professor Dr. Lewis B. O'Donnell, a seminal figure in the college experiences of Borrelli, Roker and many others.

The annual School of Communication, Media and the Arts highlight is organized by a student team with journalism faculty member Brian Moritz serving as advisor.

For more information, visit MediaSummit.org.

Read the rest here:

Media Summit to explore 'On the Front Lines with the First Amendment' - SUNY Oswego

A victory for the First Amendment and workers in Michigan – Washington Policy

BLOG

UAW and other unions withdrew their effort to overthrow a new rule in Michigan that will requre public employees to opt-in on an annual basisas a condition for the state to collect union dues. In early October, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh denied unions a preliminary injuction.

If the state may completely prohibit payroll deductions for union dues without running afoul of the First Amendment, it follows that a yearly reauthorization requirement for payroll deductions also does not implicate the First Amendment, Steeh wrote. [T]he State is not constitutionally obligated to provide payroll deductions at all.

Common (and Constitutional) sense prevailed, but the suit raises some important questions too. Why are taxpayers still footing the bill for private dues collection? Why won't some unions accept the principle of voluntary association?

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018's Janus v ASFCME that government employees could not be forced to join a public employee union or be forced to pay dues and fees if they refused, the Court was simply affirming that government employees did not surrender their constitutional rights as a condition of employment. Prior to Janus, state and local goverrnmnets would generally force employees into becoming union members or paying the union fees if they opted out. These unions are private organizations, yet had the strong arm of government to enforce membership and take dues money direct from their paychecks.

In 2018, following the Janus ruling, King 5 interviewed Lynne Dodson, the Secretary Treasurer of the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO, who said, "We need to focus on talking with our members showing what the value is with unions. I think it will grow power and numbers we have. We will do much more direct talking and organizing,

Her sentiment is the right one and it is the one other private organizations have, which is that you need to persuade people your organization is of value and worth joining. Government union backed critics of WPC like to point to membership renewals amongst government employees as indicating of our "failure" on Janus policy. They fail to grasp the point that voluntary membership is fine-- but forced membership is not.

Annual renewal of membership allows for better accountability, prevents creating obstuctions to members who wish to opt-out, and is a small price to pay for taxpayers footing the bill for your membership dues collection.

Speaking of annual memberships, have you renewed your WPC membership yet?

Go here to read the rest:

A victory for the First Amendment and workers in Michigan - Washington Policy

They Said What? First Amendment Issues in 2020 | Franczek PC – JD Supra

A presidential election like no other in history, a global pandemic causing an unprecedented economic and emotional toll on our communities, and a remote learning environment where virtual communication reigns, whether in the school setting or through social media. What are the rules to navigate discussion and debate on these issues and others in the public school setting, and how can administrators work within them to model respectful discourse not just for students but for our school communities at large? This episode covers the Seemore+

A presidential election like no other in history, a global pandemic causing an unprecedented economic and emotional toll on our communities, and a remote learning environment where virtual communication reigns, whether in the school setting or through social media. What are the rules to navigate discussion and debate on these issues and others in the public school setting, and how can administrators work within them to model respectful discourse not just for students but for our school communities at large? This episode covers the rights of employees and students to exercise their first amendment rights and respect the rights of others, whether teaching on controversial topics, sponsoring student clubs or publications, or navigating political messages shared by school community members through personal social media. Seeless-

Continue reading here:

They Said What? First Amendment Issues in 2020 | Franczek PC - JD Supra

Letter to the Editor: Government suppression of First Amendment during pandemic – The Owensboro Times

Graphic by Owensboro Times

Every statewide elected official takes an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States andthe Commonwealth of Kentucky. As your elected State Treasurer, I have the addedresponsibility of watching all state expenditures, billions of dollars every year, and making surethat your taxpayer dollars are not being used in a way that violates the Constitution.

In recent weeks, there have been stories circulating nationwide about the efforts of the Archbishop of San Francisco to overturn the punitive limits imposed on churches by the mayorof San Francisco. The last few days have seen a resurgence in the targeting of Orthodox Jewishcommunities in New York, as well as other houses of worship, by imposing hard caps of 10 and 25 people per service, regardless of the size of the church or synagogue. As efforts to protectcivil liberties in those areas moves forward, we must remember that the targeting of religiousexercise by state and local officials is not limited to the coastal blue states.

Kentucky, whose politics will never be confused with New York or California, has itself seenmultiple federal courts strike down executive orders issued by Gov. Andy Beshear, on the grounds that the orders limiting religious services, travel, or protest, violated the fundamental,constitutional rights of Kentuckians. In any other time in our history, a series of defeats of thismagnitude would have been met with much greater attention and demand for accountability.

Due to my role as a watchdog of public spending, I directed my office to review the way taxpayer dollars were being spent to enforce the administrations questionable executive ordersrelating to First Amendment activities. Protecting our Commonwealth and its great citizens need not be done at the expense of the First Amendment. It is possible to protect the Commonwealth while respecting, and adhering to, a principle upon which this country was founded. My office requested information from a number of health departments around the Commonwealth, and received responses from several departments, as well as the Kentucky State Police.

Our investigation uncovered numerous instances of law enforcement being used to monitor orshut down faith-based services; derogatory or confrontational comments made about religious exercise by those in leadership; and selective, targeted enforcement of mass gathering prohibitions, in violation of the First Amendment. The actions taken at a local level seem to be directly correlated to the decisions made, and the tone set, by the Governors administration in Frankfort, which itself has too often used daily briefings and press releases as opportunities to disparage or threaten any person or institution that questions the legality and appropriateness ofthe administrations orders.

On Oct. 22, I will be presenting my offices findings to the Interim Joint Committee onJudiciary in Frankfort. This will be an opportunity for legislators to consider what we haveuncovered in relation to executive actions during last few months, and for the public to learnmore about how taxpayer dollars have been spent to enforce arbitrary government orders.

Kentuckians have established a constitution and laws that demand respect for the FirstAmendment rights of all citizens, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. During the1930s, as our nation was trapped within the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, andfacing the rise of dangerous forces around the world, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughesreminded the country that [t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of great emergency. Heastutely noted that [e]mergency does not create power and that [e]mergency does not increasegranted power. The extraordinary challenges presented in 2020 do not provide justification forexpanding the Governors powers, or for ignoring the fundamental tenets that separate ourdemocracy from failed and oppressive autocratic states arounds the world.

The First Amendment must be vigorously defended by all elected officials, particularly in times of emergency, when it is the easiest for the government to justify unconstitutional restrictions. Iencourage every Kentuckian to continue to demand that our government adhere to the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, and I look forward to continuing to serve the Commonwealth as your State Treasurer.

Written by Kentucky State Treasurer Allison Ball

Read more:

Letter to the Editor: Government suppression of First Amendment during pandemic - The Owensboro Times

Election 2020: Here are what the two Knox County charter amendments on the ballot mean – WBIR.com

People in Knox County heading to vote will vote on two wordy amendments to the county charter. Here are what they mean.

KNOX COUNTY, Tenn. If you live in Knox County and are getting ready to cast your vote in the November election, you should know the last two measures on the ballot will require some extra thought.

Knox Countians will vote on two amendments to the county charter. On paper, the paragraphs explaining what you're voting for are a little daunting and filled with legal jargon -- so let's break them down to save you some reading time in the voting booth.

Amendment 1: Should voters or the mayor choose the law director?

The first amendment is asking if you would like to give the Knox County mayor the power to choose their own law director in the future, meaning voters would no longer directly elect the position starting in 2024. Voting "yes" would also allow the County Commission and School Board to hire their own attorneys.

People in support of a "yes" vote for this amendment say nearly all other local governments in Tennessee function in this manner -- with a mayor appointing this position. They say allowing the mayor, County Commission and School Board to choose their own attorneys will clear up a lot of conflicts of interest, saying the current system of having the law director represent all three at once is unfair and counter-intuitive since they can disagree with each other on legal matters. For example: the long negotiations over the TVA Tower deal.

Those who believe you should vote "no" say people should continue to have the power to vote for one of the most important and powerful jobs in the county. A "no" vote would allow voters to continue directly hiring or firing the law director instead of giving the power to the mayor -- incentivizing law directors to run their office efficiently in the interests of voters. It would also be the cheaper option for tax payers since hiring other attorneys for the commission and school board would increase legal fees slightly.

Amendment 2: Should the mayor be required to submit contracts less than $100K to the County Commission for record?

This amendment is much more straightforward than it looks on paper: Should Knox County law require the mayor to submit all contracts to the County Commission to keep them on public record?

Currently, the Knox County Charter requires the mayor to receive Commission approval on all contracts costing more than $50,000 unless the Commission sets that figure at a larger amount in advance. In this case, the Commission has decided that "larger amount" is any contract more than $100,000 over its anticipated life, so any contracts less than that are strictly the responsibility of the mayor.

A "yes" vote on this amendment would require the mayor to submit any of those contracts less than $100,000 in full to the Commission during its monthly meetings, even though they do not require their vote. This would make the text of these contracts more readily available to the public to know what contracts the mayor is approving. Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs said he supports this measure because it increases public oversight and transparency in local government.

Go here to see the original:

Election 2020: Here are what the two Knox County charter amendments on the ballot mean - WBIR.com

First Amendment rights The Mountain-Ear – The Mountain -Ear

Dear Editor,

Ours is not a theocracy. Ours is a representative democracy. Our nation was founded, in part, in response to the religious tyranny experienced by its new citizens in the countries from which theyd fled. Thus, commitment to the separation of church and state was vital. This meant our nation would never establish a national church nor show preference for any one religion.

Our 1st Amendment not only protects speech, it also protects four other rights, among them religious liberty. It begins, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Respect for religious liberty is even more critical today than it was in 1787, as our nation is now vastly more diverse.

Which brings me to the topic of abortion.

When and under what circumstances abortion should be legal is a highly nuanced and contentious issue. For the religion of my mother, an embryo was to be protected absolutely from the moment of conception. It was believed, too, that the prohibition against direct abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason should not just be a personal religious/moral decision, but legally prohibited for allregardless of the embryos or fetuss viability, regardless of the threat to the mothers life, and regardless of an individuals religious convictions.

The dilemma for me as a citizen is whether my own personal religious beliefs, and/or those of my mother, should be imposed on everyone else regardless of their own theology. Personally, I think not, absolutely.

Denise Fazio, Ed.D.,Boulder County

Like Loading...

Read the original:

First Amendment rights The Mountain-Ear - The Mountain -Ear

The Enemy of My Enemy: A Joint Effort Protecting the First Amendment – The Humanist

The American Humanist Association recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in their Supreme Court case involving a Christian students claim against their university. Many AHA supporters have taken to social media to question this unlikely partnership between two very different organizations. And indeed, the AHA did not expect to be filing such a brief a year ago when it was on the opposite side of ADF in American Legion v. American Humanist Association.

However the case in question here, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski presents a starkly different issue than American Legion. First, the matter revolves around the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, not the Establishment Clause. Second, the court is poised to obliterate one of the key enforcement tools of the First Amendment. Doing so will directly impact future cases brought by ADF, AHA, and any other organization or individual seeking to vindicate their First Amendment rights, whether it be under the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause.

In ADFs case, Chike Uzuegbunam, a Christian student, was denied the ability to use a designated free-speech zone to distribute literature and speak to other students at Georgia Gwinnett College, a public institution in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Uzuegbunam was cited for open air speaking, not covered under permissive speech in the schools freedom of expression policy, and disorderly conduct under the colleges student code of conduct. This denial occurred even though he properly reserved the space pursuant to the schools policy.

The schools actions against Uzuegbunam deterred another student, Joseph Bradford, from using the free-speech zone for fear of similar treatment. Both students filed a claim seeking a declaration and injunctions against the freedom of expression policy and the student code of conduct, and nominal damages for the violation of their First Amendment rights. In response, the college changed its policies, striking the challenged portions. The court then dismissed the case in full, determining all claims were moot, meaning there was no longer any issue for Uzuegbunam to litigate since the policies at issue no longer existed.

The problem that concerns the AHA is the dismissal of nominal damages. These damages are, as the name implies, nominaltypically an award between $1 and $10. Despite this low value, these damages tend to be the only form of relief for a First Amendment violation.

The lifespan of a First Amendment claim goes through many trials and tribulations involving claims for equitable and monetary relief. Equitable relief is asking a court to order the opposing party to stop doing whatever it was that gave rise to the violationan injunctionor to state that the conduct does in fact violate a righta declaration. Monetary relief is asking the court to order compensation for a violated right that results in some measurable losstypically compensatory relief. The important difference is that equitable relief can be mooted. If that action or conduct is stopped before an injunction or declaration is given, theres no reason for either. In contrast, monetary relief isnt mooted because the measurable loss exists regardless of whether the action or conduct does. However, qualified immunity bars monetary relief from public officials and employees.

Enter the problem: Religion Clause violations rarely produce actual damages and often stem from easily mootable laws. As such, what relief can someone claim for a First Amendment violation by a government or public entity? This is where nominal damages play a pivotal role. Nominal damages are predominantly considered non-mootable even where injunctions and declarations are unavailable. They are also not considered monetary relief as they are not based on a measurable loss nor do they compensate a claimant. As such, they survive regardless of who violated your rights and regardless of whether theyve ceased the act or conduct causing the violation.

For many, this may seem like a non-issue. If there is no issue anymore, why should a claim continue through the litigation process? But now apply this to Uzuegbunam: a student is denied the ability to exercise their First Amendment right, whether it is promoting theistic or nontheistic religion. The student files a claim, paying all of their necessary fees and/or attorneys fees. The school answers with a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgement. The student files responses defending the claim, again paying the required fees. Then, the school changes its policies and the entire claim is dismissed, with no ability to recoup what youve already invested. Practically speaking, such a scenario would deter most from pursuing a claim for their First Amendment rights. This example can be applied to children in public schools forced to pray or be involved in a religious exercise, requirements that one swear on a religious text to speak at a town hall, denying atheist prisoners the right to form groups, or even to the censorship of theistic, nontheistic, or atheist speech and practice.

Thats precisely why the AHA filed its amicus brief on behalf of ADF. First Amendment rights protect not just mainstream religions, but all theistic and nontheistic beliefs. Without the guarantee that a right can be vindicated, the ability to protect those rights will be detrimentally impeded and the government will be given a free pass to violate those rights. This detriment will only be amplified for the nonmainstream religions and worse still for the nonreligious. As such, the AHA views ADFs case as the necessary momentum to prevent the Supreme Court from taking away nominal damages.

As AHA Legal Director Monica Miller aptly notes in the amicus brief, if this court affirms, the Supreme Court will be telling Congress, the executive branch, every state, and every municipality in our nation that it is proper to experiment on our liberties by passing laws that violate the First Amendment. Further, Miller stresses, In todays political climatefueled by a global pandemic and the death of at least 200,000 Americans, an economic recession, widespread racial injustices, record-setting fires, and now the heartbreaking passing of iconic Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgthe message sent by such a Supreme Court ruling will cause more damage to our country than the ruling itself.

Go here to see the original:

The Enemy of My Enemy: A Joint Effort Protecting the First Amendment - The Humanist

The U.S. Army Is Now Possibly Violating the First Amendment on Facebook – VICE

The U.S. Army esports team is streaming its members playing video games on Facebook. After troubles facing down activists and trolls on Twitch, the U.S. Army has largely moved its streaming operation to Facebook. On Tuesday, during a game of Counter: Strike Global Offensive, several gamers found the stream and began to ask the Army about war crimes, much as they did on Twitch. The Army banned them from commenting on the stream, which is a possible violation of the First Amendment according to the Knight First Amendment Institute, a nonprofit that prosecutes First Amendment cases.

The Army is still streaming on Twitch, but its broadcasts are intermittent. It takes long breaks, as many as six days, between streams on Twitch. It streams more frequently on Facebook. On Tuesday, when it started to stream, viewers began asking hard questions.

How ya gonna groom zoomers on Facebook? Did yalls feelings get hurt too much on Twitch? Mark Slatera pseudonymasked.

According to OConnell and Slater, the Army removed both of these comments and prevented them from commenting on the stream, a possible violation of the First Amendment. Later, the comments were reinstated and Slater and OConnell could comment again. When that occurred I couldn't say, Slater told Motherboard on Discord. Once I received the message that the comment was removed I could no longer comment additionally in the livestream. However, I could interact with previous streams. Slater and OConnell provided Motherboard with screenshots showing the moderator removed their comments.

According to the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, a nonprofit that takes on First Amendment cases and successfully sued Donald Trump for blocking people on Twitter, even a temporary ban could be a violation of the First Amendment.

Even if the ban was temporary in nature, the governmentin this case, the Armycannot ban a user from commenting on their esports livestream on Facebook or any other platform based on comments critical of the military, Lyndsey Wajert, a legal fellow at the Knight, told Motherboard in an email. This type of viewpoint discrimination runs afoul of the First Amendment, and we will be looking into this matter further.

The U.S. Army esports team moderates its chat on Facebook and Twitch. The rules on Facebook dont appear until someone attempts to chat during a livestream, at which point the rules pop up. They are be accepting, respect boundaries, no profanity, keep it clean, dont self promote, dont be rude, dont flood chat, dont criticize.

The absurdity of the U.S. Army esports presence on Facebook is that a government entity sincerely puts Dont criticize on their chat rules, Slater told Motherboard on Discord.

For OConnell, asking the military tough questions in a public space is about far more than just trolling. I think its important to question the Armys activities on Facebook because they are preying on young gamers in an attempt to boost their recruitment numbers, he told Motherboard in a Twitter DM. What they are doing is predatory and harmful to young teenagers. They are equating video games with real life combat.

The Pentagon has recently turned to video game streaming as a way to bolster recruitment and build the militarys brand. The U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, and National Guard are all streaming video games, mostly on Twitch but also on Facebook. It hasnt been going well.

The Navy spent $2 million to get into Twitch, but is on a break from streaming right now after a Sailor played on a stream where one of his friends named his character after a veiled reference to a racial slur. A National Guard streamer repeated an anti-semetic phrased on stream. The Army is streaming intermittently and mostly on Facebook. And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attempted to pass legislation to prevent the Pentagon from using its budget to stream video games online.

No one has been banned from U.S. Army eSports Team channels on our platforms. There have been cases where individuals have been timed out for excessive spamming or harassment, Lisa M. Ferguson, Deputy Director and Media Relations Chief of U.S. Army Recruiting Command Public Affairs, said. In these cases, individuals have saturated the channel with their content not allowing any others to chat or post. The time out feature allows the team to pause that persons ability to chat or post for limited time. This allows for others to then have their voices heard as well. The posts are not censored or removed, and they are allowed to continue once their time out is up.

Update: This story has been updated with comment from the U.S. Army.

See the rest here:

The U.S. Army Is Now Possibly Violating the First Amendment on Facebook - VICE

ASU journalism student sues, claiming university violated her First Amendment rights in fallout from controversial tweet – The Arizona Republic

ASU's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication in downtown Phoenix.(Photo: The Republic)

An Arizona State University journalism student is suing after she says she was removed from leading the student-run radio station over a controversial tweet.

The suit names the Arizona Board of Regents, ASU, the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication and Kristin Gilger, Cronkite interim dean.

The lawsuit claims that the university violated RaeLee Kleins First Amendment rights to free expression by refusing to allow her to continue as station manager of Blaze Radio because of her tweet.

The university, in a statement to The Arizona Republic on Tuesday, refuted that claim, saying, Kleins conduct in the aftermath of the tweet rather than the tweet itself meant that she was no longer able to perform the job for which she was hired.

But Klein said she was first scolded about her tweetand later scolded for her media appearances and conversations with elected officials as her situation gained attention.

"They were first upset by my free speech and now theyre upset that Ive become this cause clbrefor free speech, so its just disappointing to see them keep taking the same stance and not want to work or correct the situation," Klein told The Republic.

Jack Wilenchik, Kleins attorney, filed the complaint in U.S. District Court on Monday.

Klein faced swift backlash from within and outside her radio stationafter a tweet she posted in the aftermath of police shooting Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 23. Klein shared a New York Post article with graphic details from a police report accusing Blake of sexual assault.

The Aug. 29 tweet, deleted later, was captioned, Always more to the story, folks. Please read this article to get the background of Jacob Blake's warrant. You'll be quite disgusted.

Many interpreted her tweet as justifying or excusing police brutality against Black people. Klein defended it as sharing truthful information and an additional perspective, as journalists are taught.

The radio station board quickly voted to remove Klein, but Klein refused to step down. In the weeks of turmoil following, Klein said she was told that she could not stay on as station manager and was offered several other job alternatives.

The school has said Klein was not removed because of the views she expressed.

Klein's lawsuit states that ASU is unlawfully preventing Klein from being station manager based on the content of her free speech. It asks the court to rule for her to remain in that position.

Because ASU is an entity of state government, it cannot legally deny benefits like a job at the radio station on the basis of speech, according to the lawsuit. The university also cannot restrict a student'sright to speech or require a student toendorsea certain public policy view, the lawsuit says.

Rae'Lee Klein in the Blaze Radio studio at Arizona State University. Klein has sued the school in the aftermath of her controversial tweet.(Photo: Courtesy of Rae'Lee Klein)

The complaint states that Klein's tweet was in line with journalistic ethics and standards, which require the open exchange of views, even views journalists find repugnant. The tweet was from her personal account and expressed an "objectively uncontroversial opinion" that Blake's alleged sexual assault was upsetting, per the lawsuit.

Cronkite students are required to tweet and are graded on their social media engagement, according to the filing. The complaint highlights the school's social media policy and instances where the radio station faculty adviser and journalism dean shared political or opinionated views on social media.

After the tweet controversy,Blaze Radio board members deleted Klein's online account so she no longer could do her job, the lawsuit says. ASU funds and owns Blaze Radiobut has failed or refused to restore Klein's access, according to the complaint.

Klein said she hopes she will be reinstatedbut also wants to serve as an example for other students.

(I hope)to be able to encourage students to set the tone and change the tune that free speech is absolutely protected on college campuses," she said. "Im hoping it kind of changes the tone of how universities perceive it as well as the confidence of students to be able to feel protected by it.

Wilenchik, Kleins attorney, said he had discussions with ASUs in-house attorney before filing the lawsuit. Wilenchik said he asked school officials to confirm they had no intention of removing Klein from her position and that they would restore her access to the online station account. As the situation still couldnt be resolved,Wilenchik said he filed suit.

Wilenchik said hes representing Klein for free because he believes in her cause. He said when students locked her out of the station account, they said they wanted unity, but free speech isabout disunity.

Its all about not having homogenous thought, its all about challenging people with new ideas, new perspectives, new facts," Wilenchik said. "Running a radio station, running a journalism school, running a news agencyis not about unity it never will be and never should be it is about having that kind of debate, having that kind of exchange of ideas that this country was founded on and stands for.

ASU has hired attorney David Bodney, a media law and First Amendment expert, to defend its position.

There was no First Amendment violation here, and Ms. Kleins claims are meritless, Bodney said in a statement provided by ASU. ASU and the Cronkite School have deep and abiding commitments to free speech and excellence in journalism, and this lawsuit disregards an array of facts that show just how baseless these claims really are.

ASU said Kleins conduct after the tweet meant she no longer could lead a student radio station with hundreds of members.

Several radio station board members previously told The Republic that Klein had lost the confidence of those in the organization and caused students at the station to feel alienated.

Klein was not fired as a Cronkite student-employee, but was rather offered several new roles instead of Blaze Radio station manager, including the option of starting her own radio station, ASU said.

But she rejected those opportunities,insisting instead on a right to lead the organization even after it was clear that she had lost the confidence of the student volunteers and board members and could no longer effectively do so, per the university statement.

Reach the reporter at Alison.Steinbach@arizonarepublic.com or at 602-444-4282. Follow her on Twitter @alisteinbach.

Support local journalism.Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2020/10/13/journalism-student-sues-asu-citing-free-speech-rights/3645632001/

Visit link:

ASU journalism student sues, claiming university violated her First Amendment rights in fallout from controversial tweet - The Arizona Republic

Crisis of conscience: Government suppression of the first amendment during the COVID pandemic – Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

Every statewide elected official takes an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As your elected State Treasurer, I have the added responsibility of watching all state expenditures, billions of dollars every year, and making sure that your taxpayer dollars are not being used in a way that violates the Constitution.

In recent weeks, there have been stories circulating nationwide about the efforts of the Archbishop of San Francisco to overturn the punitive limits imposed on churches by the mayor of San Francisco. The last few days have seen a resurgence in the targeting of Orthodox Jewish communities in New York, as well as other houses of worship, by imposing hard caps of 10 and 25 people per service, regardless of the size of the church or synagogue. As efforts to protect civil liberties in those areas moves forward, we must remember that the targeting of religious exercise by state and local officials is not limited to the coastal blue states.

Kentucky, whose politics will never be confused with New York or California, has itself seen multiple federal courts strike down executive orders issued by Governor Andy Beshear, on the grounds that the orders limiting religious services, travel, or protest, violated the fundamental, constitutional rights of Kentuckians. In any other time in our history, a series of defeats of this magnitude would have been met with much greater attention and demand for accountability.

Due to my role as a watchdog of public spending, I directed my office to review the way taxpayer dollars were being spent to enforce the administrations questionable executive orders relating to First Amendment activities. Protecting our Commonwealth and its great citizens need not be done at the expense of the First Amendment. It is possible to protect the Commonwealth while respecting, and adhering to, a principle upon which this country was founded. My office requested information from a number of health departments around the Commonwealth, and received responses from several departments, as well as the Kentucky State Police.

Our investigation uncovered numerous instances of law enforcement being used to monitor or shut down faith-based services; derogatory or confrontational comments made about religious exercise by those in leadership; and selective, targeted enforcement of mass gathering prohibitions, in violation of the First Amendment. The actions taken at a local level seem to be directly correlated to the decisions made, and the tone set, by the Governors administration in Frankfort, which itself has too often used daily briefings and press releases as opportunities to disparage or threaten any person or institution that questions the legality and appropriateness of the administrations orders.

On October 22, I will be presenting my offices findings to the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary in Frankfort. This will be an opportunity for legislators to consider what we have uncovered in relation to executive actions during last few months, and for the public to learn more about how taxpayer dollars have been spent to enforce arbitrary government orders.

Kentuckians have established a constitution and laws that demand respect for the First Amendment rights of all citizens, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. During the 1930s, as our nation was trapped within the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, and facing the rise of dangerous forces around the world, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes reminded the country that [t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of great emergency. He astutely noted that [e]mergency does not create power and that [e]mergency does not increase granted power. The extraordinary challenges presented in 2020 do not provide justification for expanding the Governors powers, or for ignoring the fundamental tenets that separate our democracy from failed and oppressive autocratic states arounds the world.

The First Amendment must be vigorously defended by all elected officials, particularly in times of emergency, when it is the easiest for the government to justify unconstitutional restrictions. I encourage every Kentuckian to continue to demand that our government adhere to the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, and I look forward to continuing to serve the Commonwealth as your State Treasurer.

More here:

Crisis of conscience: Government suppression of the first amendment during the COVID pandemic - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era