Carnegie Science Center launching new name in September
The Carnegie Science Center announced on Wednesday that it will close for "final preparations" from Sept. 2-12, reopening on Sept. 13 as the Daniel G. and Carole L. Kamin Science Center. It's getting a new name after the Kamin family last January made the largest donation ever since the original contribution from founder Andrew Carnegie.
To celebrate, there will be free general admission on Saturday, Sept. 13 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., with free movies in The Rangos Giant Cinema and free Buhl Planetarium shows. There will also be live science demonstrations, giveaways and sneak peeks at exhibits yet to come.
"Realizing the vision for the new Kamin Science Center will be a boost that inspires every generation through the power of science," Jason Brown, the Henry Buhl Jr. director of the Science Center and vice president of Carnegie Museums, said in a news release.
"Thanks to the transformational generosity of Dan and Carole Kamin, the new name will honor our shared belief that science is for everyone. This moment reflects the beginning of a new era for the Science Center and reaffirms our mission to connect people and science and ignite curiosity that endures for a lifetime."
Dan and Carole Kamin also recently made a donation of $11.5 million to the Heinz History Center, allowing kids to get free admission year-round.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
HeartFlow IPO success reflects market embrace of AI in medtech industry
HeartFlow's $364m initial public offering (IPO) signals market validation for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in a company's product portfolio, an expert says. Roundly exceeding its $300m expectations for the IPO, the Bain Capital-backed AI-based coronary artery disease (CAD) platform developer debuted with a a $2.2bn valuation on the Nasdaq on 8 August. HeartFlow's current products are HeartFlow Plaque analysis, which aims to provide clinicians with the ability to more accurately assess patients with arterial plaque buildup (atherosclerosis), and HeartFlow FFRCT analyses CT angiogram (CCTA). Typically used alongside Plaque Analysis, FFRCT creates detailed 3D models of the arteries to assess the impact of blockages on blood flow. Plaque Analysis received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in 2022 and is claimed to be the only AI-based plaque quantification tool currently cleared by the agency. FFRCT received FDA clearance in 2014. To reach the IPO milestone, HeartFlow maintained a focus on testing its product offerings alongside physicians, generating real world evidence, taking on feedback and refining as needed, and ensuring they were truly ready to scale. HeartFlow also navigated the structural barriers of getting its product to market; again, real-world evidence – with over 3,000 peer-reviewed papers demonstrating its products' efficacy – spurred the company's commercialisation efforts. Medtech industry veteran, Brent Ness, CEO of Aclarion, who served as HeartFlow's chief commercial officer from 2014 to 2015, told Medical Device Network that HeartFlow's work on the underlying economic factors around its product, including working on contractual relationships with imaging centres to get them on board with the product, pre-reimbursement, have proven a key part of its success. 'Between FDA clearance and reimbursement, lots of technologies can't make it through that journey because there's no reimbursement, and therefore there's no adoption, and they run out of cash,' Ness explained. 'Part of the structural barrier stage of development involves getting the provider economics right and that market access work that needs to take place between the early payors and the key opinion leaders (KOL) advocating for the product. But payors aren't going to turn it on just because a KOL says so. 'This is why the shining jewel in HeartFlow's history has been their absolute commitment to leading with evidence.' AI's recognition in healthcare and its future According to Ness, the success of HeartFlow's IPO reflects the market validation of the overall rationale for using AI in imaging and the deployment of software-as-a-service (SaaS) based products as the 'raw material' underpinning the technology's ability to provide clinically actionable information and improve patient outcomes. Ness said this model is 'here to stay', having been 'completely validated by the market, which has recognised of its value, which obviously translates into revenue, and speaks to the long term success and viability of HeartFlow and the significant potential for other AI-based SaaS imaging developers.' To learn from HeartFlow's success, Ness views a critical role for SaaS-based AI software providers as being to try and shorten the timeframe between regulatory approval and reimbursement. 'The faster that new and novel technologies using AI can move through that Death Valley, the better it's going to be for patients, and the more money we're going to save as a collective society,' Ness said. 'The 'muscle' of these AI tools is proving to be valuable. It's got to be safe, and it's got to make sense economically, but we've got to figure out how to shorten that part of the journey.' "HeartFlow IPO success reflects market embrace of AI in medtech industry" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. 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
Medscape
8 minutes ago
- Medscape
GVHD in Children: What Dermatologists Need to Know
SEATTLE — With increasing survival rates after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in children, dermatologists may be seeing more skin conditions associated with HSCT, including the cutaneous manifestations of graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), according to Jennifer T. Huang, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. GVHD is the most common complication following HSCT, and while it can affect any body organ, the skin is the most commonly involved. 'In the US, there are 85 centers in 37 states that perform pediatric allogeneic transplants,' Huang said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) 2025 Annual Meeting. In the US, about 1400 allogeneic transplants are performed each year, and 15% are in children, she noted. While HSCT is generally associated with cancer treatment, in about one third of cases in children, allogeneic HSCT is used to treat nonmalignant conditions such as bone marrow failure, primary immunodeficiency, and hemoglobinopathy. Currently, 5-year survival after pediatric allogeneic HSCT ranges from 50% to 90%, said Huang, who is also director of pediatric oncodermatology at Boston Children's Hospital, Boston. As a result, dermatologists may be seeing more cases of not only cutaneous manifestations of GVHD but also other HSCT-associated effects, such as persistent hair loss and skin cancer. The grading criteria for acute GVHD are well established for the skin, liver, and intestinal tract effects. For the skin, severity is staged based on the percentage of body surface area affected by a rash and the presence or absence of blistering. Generalized erythroderma and the presence of blisters indicate a more severe stage of GVHD. When it presents with symptoms such as generalized erythroderma, desquamation, and bullae, acute, severe GVHD can mimic toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), a severe drug-induced skin reaction characterized by widespread epidermal necrosis. Because transplant recipients often take many medications, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two conditions. TEN-like GVHD is rare, noted Huang, a co-author of a case series and literature review of TEN-like acute GVHD in pediatric bone marrow transplant patients. 'Of the 10 patients in the series with TEN-like GVHD, seven had other organ involvement, and 80% died,' she said. Managing Acute GVHD When managing a patient with acute GVHD with cutaneous manifestations, a biopsy may not be very helpful. She referred to a small study conducted at Boston Children's Hospital of 27 children who underwent a biopsy for skin eruptions suspicious for acute GVHD. The biopsy yielded a definitive diagnosis of GVHD or other disorder in only four (15%) cases and changed management in only two patients. In contrast, a dermatology consultation was associated with changes in clinical management in nearly 80% of the patients (21 of the 27) compared with 7.4% (2 of the 27) of skin biopsy results. 'We should be careful about doing biopsies in these patients, unless you think that there's another diagnosis that's a slam dunk histopathological diagnosis like leukemia cutis,' she said. 'Otherwise, you cannot differentiate GVHD from drug rash or viral exanthem, and you should rely on your clinical signs and symptoms.' Second, dermatologists need to know the details of the transplant to evaluate the risk, and third, 'look for acral involvement and systemic symptoms to lead you to the diagnosis, and don't rely on skin biopsy,' she said. 'Importantly, treat aggressively and early, especially if there is TEN-like GVHD.' Chronic GVHD Acute GVHD is the most important risk factor for developing chronic GVHD, a complex, multisystem disorder that is distinct from acute GVHD, with features that resemble autoimmune and other immunologic conditions. 'I think of chronic GVHD as alloimmunity,' Huang explained. Continuing inflammation activates an 'alloresponse,' resulting in the development of what appears to be an autoimmune disease affecting the skin and other organs 'as a response to chronic inflammation,' she said. Chronic skin GVHD most commonly presents in children with eczematous, sclerotic, or lichenoid skin changes and can often be diagnosed clinically without a biopsy in many cases. If a patient presents with diagnostic features such as poikiloderma, lichen planus-like features, sclerotic features, morphea-like features, and lichen sclerosus-like features, biopsy confirmation is generally not required, she noted. Regardless of whether it's acute or chronic, there are minimal histopathologic criteria for diagnosing active GVHD, Huang said. These include the presence of apoptosis in the epidermal basal layer or lower Malpighian layer or outer root sheath of hair follicles, or acrosyringium, lichenoid inflammation, vacuolar changes, and lymphocytic satellitosis. Management of chronic GVHD is usually multifactorial, with three main goals: to improve quality of life (addressing symptoms, daily activities, and visible changes); to minimize systemic immunosuppression; and to avoid permanent disfigurement. 'There are effective topical therapies for skin GVHD that can minimize systemic immunosuppression, and these can often do the trick,' which include steroids, as well as tacrolimus and ruxolitinib, she said. Preventive measures are underutilized, such as gentle care for dry skin, treating other rashes, and, very importantly, sun protection, because sunburn can trigger GVHD, she added. Phototherapy is also a good therapeutic option for skin-directed therapy. In addition, there are now several FDA-approved targeted therapies for chronic GVHD in children, including ibrutinib, ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and axatilimab. 'As dermatologists, we can also guide therapy with biologics that we feel comfortable with but that our other colleagues may not know much about,' said Huang. 'Let's maximize skin-directed therapies for treating this disease. We don't want to lose the graft, and we also don't want permanent disfigurement — this has a lot to do with recognizing the disease early and treating it aggressively.' Huang reported having no relevant financial relationships or conflicts of interest.
Forbes
9 minutes ago
- Forbes
Judge Orders Restoration Of Some Of UCLA's Suspended Federal Grants
U.S. District Judge Rita Lin has ordered the Trump administration to restore a portion of the federal grants it had suspended for the University of California, Los Angeles earlier this month. The ruling represents a partial, if only temporary, victory for the university in its dispute with the government over allegations that it had violated various civil rights laws. In her order on Tuesday, Lin ruled that the National Science Foundation had violated a temporary restraining order she had issued on June 23 covering grants to University of California researchers from the EPA, NSF, or NEH. At that time, Lin enjoined those agencies from 'giving effect to any grant termination that results in the termination of funding… where the termination was communicated by means of a form termination notice that does not provide a grant-specific explanation for the termination that states the reason for the change to the original award decision and considers the reliance interests at stake.' Lin found that NSF had violated that order by suspending funding for UCLA research, and she ordered that all suspended grants from the agency between July 30 and Aug. 12 be restored. The ruling appears to cover about 300 NSF grants, representing a sizable proportion of the $584 million in federal awards the administration had frozen at UCLA. Grants from the National Institutes of Health are not included in her new ruling. Attorneys for the government had argued that the recent UCLA funding freeze was an 'indefinite suspension,' making it distinguishable from the grant 'terminations' that Lin had prohibited with her ruling in June. However, Lin dismissed that logic as mere semantics, writing 'suspensions differ from a termination in name only.' She added, 'NSF may have re-labeled its action a suspension, but it is a distinction without a difference in this case. After all, a terminated grant can be reinstated, just as a suspension can be 'lifted.' And a suspension, if it is of indefinite length, is functionally identical to a termination from the researcher's perspective.' Last week, the Trump administration demanded that UCLA pay $1 billion and make changes in various campus policies and rules as a way to resolve the government's charges that the institution had committed civil rights violations and practiced illegal affirmative action. That payment would have allowed the university to regain access to its grant money. UCLA finds itself as the first high-profile public institution to have its research funding threatened by the government over what many higher education leaders believe is a by-now-familiar strategy that relies on questionable charges and coercive tactics. Columbia University has negotiated a $200+ million settlement with the administration, an approach that Brown University also followed with a $50 million payment. Harvard University and Cornell University are reportedly still in negotiations with the government over potential settlements. UC System President James Milliken responded that UC was 'reviewing' the administration's demands, adding last week that 'as a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country's greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.' Milliken also said the university 'offered to engage in good faith dialogue with the Department to protect the University and its critical research mission.' However, the UCLA dispute has quickly escalated into political theater. California Governor Gavin Newsom said "Donald Trump has weaponized the DOJ (Department of Justice) to kneecap America's #1 public university system — freezing medical & science funding until @UCLA pays his $1 billion ransom," in an August 9 post on X. "California won't bow to Trump's disgusting political extortion," he added. Yesterday the Trump team fired back. "Bring it on, Gavin," said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, when she was asked about Newsom's response to the government's demands of UCLA. "This administration is well within its legal right to do this, and we want to ensure that our colleges and our universities are respecting the 1st Amendment rights and the religious liberties of students on their campuses and UCLA has failed to do that, and I have a whole list of examples that I will forward to Gavin Newsom's press office, if he hasn't seen them himself," Leavitt said.
