Northwestern launches mental health research institute fueled by $25 million donation
CHICAGO — Northwestern University is launching a new research institute to study young adults' mental health, made possible by a $25 million donation from an anonymous donor.
The Institute for Adolescent Mental Health and Well-Being will bring together researchers across various fields from psychiatry and neurobiology to communication studies and social policy. Housed in the psychology department at the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, the institute will work to translate findings into wellness programs that directly benefit Northwestern students and 'beyond,' according to a news release.
The launch comes as mental health challenges for teenagers and young adults have continued to increase over the last decade.
A 2023 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 40% of American high school students had persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness.
This initiative aims to directly address this issue by uniting researchers across the university to advance research on the mental and emotional health of young adults during a 'critical stage of brain development,' according to the news release.
'Conducting research that leads to better health outcomes and caring for the well-being of our students are two of our University's most important priorities,' Northwestern President Michael Schill said in the release. 'This transformative gift will enable us to further both of these vital pursuits, driving new discoveries that support the needs of our students and young people globally.'
The institute will partner with the university's Division of Student Affairs, enabling researchers to study student mental health while providing staff with the latest insights to implement new mental health programming.
'College students nationwide have shown a growing need for mental health support, and we are finding that the same is true of our students here at Northwestern,' Vice President for Student Affairs Susan Davis said in the release. 'I am eager to partner with our expert faculty to develop new resources that will better serve our student community.'
The donor's gift will also fund student programs, helping translate the latest findings in mental health research into support for Northwestern students.
Recognizing the challenges young adults face, the donor stressed the 'urgent' need to support their well-being, believing Northwestern to be well-equipped to make a substantial difference in this area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
28 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Study Links TikTok Skincare Routines to Lifelong Skin Allergies and Other Risks
A search for the hashtag 'skincare' on TikTok turns up more than 35 million videos, but most follow the same formula. 'Get ready with me,' a beauty influencer coos before walking viewers through their routine, which often involves several steps and a slew of products. These videos are wildly popular, but new research suggests they may do more harm than good. In the first study of the risks and benefits of social media skincare routines—published today in the journal Pediatrics—Northwestern University researchers analyzed the regimens of TikTok creators aged seven to 18. The findings revealed that these girls use an average of six different products on their faces, and some use more than a dozen. The typical routine costs roughly $168 per month and includes 11 different active ingredients, which are chemicals designed to address a specific skin concern such as acne or aging. The creators of these videos are chasing flawless skin, and they want to help you find it too. But the reality is that layering this many active ingredients at once increases the risk of developing skin irritation, Sun sensitivity, and a skin allergy known as contact dermatitis, according to the researchers. Previous studies have shown that developing this allergy can limit the kinds of soaps, shampoos, and cosmetics you can use for the rest of your life. 'That high risk of irritation came from both using multiple active ingredients at the same time, such as hydroxy acids, as well as applying the same active ingredient unknowingly over and over again when that active ingredient was found in three, four, five different products,' said lead author Molly Hales, a postdoctoral research fellow and dermatologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, according to a university statement. For this study, Hales and a colleague each created a new TikTok account and reported themselves to be 13 years old. They gathered a sample of 100 unique skincare videos, then documented the demographics of the creators; the number and types of products used; and the total cost of each regimen. All but one of the 82 creators were girls with clear, light, blemish-free skin, according to the study. The researchers then created a list of each product's active and inactive ingredients and identified which were most likely to cause contact dermatitis. The 100 videos featured 260 distinct products. Among the 25 top-viewed videos, 76% contained at least one potential contact allergen—typically fragrance. But the most common ingredients were chemical exfoliants called alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs). The top videos contained three AHAs per regimen on average, with some featuring up to seven of these exfoliants. The most popular active ingredient, citric acid, was found in 29% of all products. AHAs can cause skin irritation and increase Sun sensitivity, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Because of this, it's important to use these ingredients in moderation and follow them with SPF to prevent sunburn and reduce the risk of developing skin cancer. Despite this, only 26% of videos about daytime skincare routines included sunscreen. 'The overall low rate of sunscreen use in the videos represents a significant missed opportunity, particularly for the youngest creators and users who do not yet need acne treatments, antiaging ingredients, or even topical emollients but would benefit from diligent sun protection,' the authors state. In one video, a 10-year-old with red hair and fair, freckled skin—which are markers of melanoma risk—applied eight different products, none of which contained SPF. Gizmodo reached out to TikTok for comment, but the company did not respond by the time of publication. A TikTok spokesperson told The Guardian, 'this type of content is common across all media, and the authors admit they did not assess its impact on teen wellbeing. However, they did find actual benefits to teen self-expression, parent-teen bonding, and building a supportive community on TikTok.' Still, the researchers concluded that these videos 'offer little to no benefit for the pediatric populations they are targeting.' The regimens are overly complicated, time consuming, expensive, and increase children's exposure to irritation, allergy, and sun damage, they say. What's more, the proliferation of skincare content has increased the stigma around acne, eczema, aging, and other skin conditions, Tess McPherson of the British Association of Dermatologists—who was not involved in the study—told The Guardian. 'Younger and younger children are seeking skincare products when they don't need them, they're not helpful,' she said. 'This is a very concerning statement on society and how we view how skin should look.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."
