Michigan Matters: Catching up with Bob Riney, Kevin Guskiewicz and Eric Poe
Henry Ford Health and Michigan State University are teaming up in Detroit at an innovative medical research center, which Bob Riney, CEO of Henry Ford Health, and Kevin Guskiewicz, MSU President, talked about on CBS Detroit's Michigan Matters.
Riney talked about how it fit in with the innovative $3 billion project in the heart of the Motor City, which includes a new hospital, development and much more.
Bob Riney and Kevin Guskiewiz
Tim Lawlis/CBS Detroit
Guskiewicz, who has run the East Lansing university for over a year, is also visiting Detroit this week as part of his bus tour to highlight MSU's impact across the Great Lakes State.
Then Eric Poe, CEO of CURE Auto Insurance, discusses how the industry has changed in Michigan and how it impacts consumers. The company entered the Michigan market over three years ago.
Eric Poe
Tim Lawlis/CBS Detroit
CURE has made its mark by offering consumers insurance without incorporating a person's credit score, as most competitors do.
Poe also talks about fraud taking place in the auto insurance arena and its impact and efforts to address it with new legislation in Lansing.
(Watch Michigan Matters at its new time: 5:30 a.m. Sundays on CBS Detroit, 9:30 a.m. Sundays on CW Detroit 50 WKBD).
(Carol Cain is the 13-time Emmy-winning senior producer and host of Michigan).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Business Upturn
4 hours ago
- Business Upturn
Business Standard Offers Complimentary Access to the New York Times
By Business Wire India Published on June 9, 2025, 14:30 IST Business Standard Private Ltd. Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Business Standard's digital subscribers will now get complimentary unlimited access to The New York Times. Readers can enjoy global perspectives and Pulitzer-winning opinion from The New York Times – including News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter, and The Athletic – along with Business Standard's in-depth and insightful journalism on business and finance. With two of the world's most trusted newsrooms, readers can expect a deeper, more comprehensive, and diverse coverage, whether it's business, technology, culture, or politics. This initiative reflects Business Standard's continued commitment to delivering trusted, insightful content – now with a broader global lens. About Business Standard Business Standard is a financial publisher with two business dailies – in English with 13 editions across the country and in Hindi with 6 editions, popular websites in English and Hindi, backed by apps, an extensive social media presence, regular video shows, and podcasts. It also has a vibrant engagement with India's top business schools, with a dedicated app for their students. Highly regarded for its incisive journalism that is independent, ethical and fair, Business Standard has a few industry firsts, like introducing digital subscriptions in Indian media and organising some of the biggest events in the industry. About The New York Times The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) is a trusted source of quality, independent journalism whose mission is to seek the truth and help people understand the world. With more than 11 million subscribers across a diverse array of print and digital products — from News to Cooking to Games to The Athletic — The New York Times has evolved from a local and regional news leader into a diversified media company with curious readers, listeners and viewers around the globe. Submit your press release Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with Business Wire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Business Wire India, established in 2002, India's premier media distribution company ensures guaranteed media coverage through its network of 30+ cities and top news agencies.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Significant challenges' in use of AI within UK screen sector
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) within the UK screen sector raises 'significant legal, ethical, and practical challenges' such as the use of copyrighted material being used without the permission of the rights holders, a report has warned. Other issues highlighted by the British Film Institute (BFI) report include the safeguarding of human creative control, the fear of jobs being lost as positions are replaced through the use of AI, and investment in training in new skills. High energy consumption and carbon emissions, and the risks to creative content around biased data, are also described as being of concern. The report, which has been carried out in partnership with CoSTAR universities Goldsmiths, Loughborough and Edinburgh, analyses how the screen sector is using and experimenting with rapidly evolving generative AI technologies. It warned that the 'primary issue' was the use of copyrighted material – such as hundreds of thousands of film and TV scripts – in the training of generative AI models, without payment or the permission of rights-holders. 'This practice threatens the fundamental economics of the screen sector if it devalues intellectual property creation and squeezes out original creators,' the report said. But it added that the UK's strong foundation in creative technology – as it is home to more than 13,000 creative technology companies – means that the UK screen sector is well positioned to adapt to the technological shift. The report – titled AI in the Screen Sector: Perspectives and Paths Forward – said generative AI promises to democratise and revolutionise the industry, with the BBC, for example, piloting AI initiatives. Meanwhile, projects such as the Charismatic consortium, which is backed by Channel 4 and Aardman Animations, aim to make AI tools accessible to creators regardless of their budget or experience. It said this could empower a new wave of British creators to produce high-quality content with modest resources, though concerns about copyright and ethical use remain significant barriers to full adoption. The report sets out nine key recommendations it suggests should be addressed within the next three years to enable the UK screen sector to thrive in using AI. These include establishing the UK as a world-leading market of IP licensing for AI training, and embedding sustainability standards to reduce AI's carbon footprint. It also calls for structures and interventions to pool knowledge, develop workforce skills and target investments in the UK's creative technology sector, while it urges support for independent creators through accessible tools, funding and ethical AI products. The BFI's director of research and innovation, Rishi Coupland, said: 'AI has long been an established part of the screen sector's creative toolkit, most recently seen in the post-production of the Oscar-winning The Brutalist, and its rapid advancement is attracting multimillion investments in technology innovator applications. 'However, our report comes at a critical time and shows how generative AI presents an inflection point for the sector and, as a sector, we need to act quickly on a number of key strategic fronts. 'Whilst it offers significant opportunities for the screen sector such as speeding up production workflows, democratising content creation and empowering new voices, it could also erode traditional business models, displace skilled workers, and undermine public trust in screen content. 'The report's recommendations provide a roadmap to how we can ensure that the UK's world-leading film, TV, video games and VFX industries continue to thrive by making best use of AI technologies to bring their creativity, innovations and storytelling to screens around the globe.' Professor Jonny Freeman, director of CoSTAR Foresight Lab, said: 'This latest CoSTAR Foresight Lab report, prepared by the BFI, navigates the complex landscape of AI in the screen sector by carefully weighing both its transformative opportunities and the significant challenges it presents. 'The report acknowledges that while AI offers powerful tools to enhance creativity, efficiency, and competitiveness across every stage of the production workflow – from script development and pre-production planning, through on-set production, to post-production and distribution – it also raises urgent questions around skills, workforce adaptation, ethics, and sector sustainability.' CoSTAR is a £75.6 million national network of laboratories that are developing new technology to maintain the UK's world-leading position in gaming, TV, film, performance, and digital entertainment. Last month stars including Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Ian McKellen, wrote a joint letter to Sir Keir Starmer, urging the Prime Minister to introduce safeguards against work being plundered for free. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
