Illinois University first in US to mandate mental health screenings in schools
The law also ensures that schools will be equipped with the necessary tools.Screening materials, technological support, and implementation frameworks will be provided at no cost. This support is crucial, especially for under-resourced districts.FOCUS ON EARLY DETECTIONThe screenings will serve as a first line of observation. Teachers and school staff may not always be trained to spot the subtler signs of anxiety, depression, or other mental health challenges.These screenings will offer a structured and consistent method to catch such signals early.Parents and caregivers will also be looped in.The state encourages schools to use the recently launched BEACON portal, a digital directory of behavioral health services, to connect families with mental health support in their communities.RESPONDING TO A NATIONAL CRISISData from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that anxiety and depression are now among the most diagnosed conditions in school-aged children.The aftermath of the pandemic has only increased the strain on young minds, and many schools are still struggling to meet the growing need for mental health resources.Illinois' law comes amid uncertainty over federal support. In June, the Trump administration rolled back nearly $1 billion in mental health grants, citing alleged misuse.Critics argue this could leave many schools across the country without the help they need.A SIGNAL TO OTHER STATESWhile other states have debated mental health legislation, none has made screenings mandatory. Illinois now becomes a testing ground. If successful, its model may influence similar policies elsewhere.Governor Pritzker called the law a necessary step to bring mental health to the forefront of student services. The message is clear: mental well-being deserves as much attention as any other aspect of a child's health.- Ends
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
ChatGPT is banned in this US states along with other AI bots: The reason will make you rethink AI in healthcare
The rise of AI in healthcare is inevitable, but its role must be clearly defined and carefully regulated. Illinois has taken a groundbreaking step by banning AI platforms like ChatGPT from delivering therapy or mental health assessments without supervision by licensed professionals. Signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker, this legislation addresses growing ethical and safety concerns surrounding AI's expanding role in mental healthcare. While AI tools offer efficiency and accessibility, they lack the empathy, nuanced understanding, and accountability essential for sensitive mental health support. The law ensures that treatment plans and emotional evaluations remain firmly in human hands, protecting vulnerable individuals from potential harm caused by unregulated AI advice. Illinois' move sets a precedent for responsible AI use in healthcare, emphasising that technology 'should assist not replace' qualified mental health professionals in delivering compassionate, effective care. ChatGPT's role in mental health just changed: Here's what the new law says Under the newly introduced Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, AI chatbots and platforms are strictly prohibited from: Creating or recommending treatment plans Making mental health evaluations Offering counseling or therapy services Unless these actions are supervised by a licensed mental health professional, they are deemed illegal under state law. Violators of this regulation could face penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, as enforced by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR). The law is designed to ensure that human expertise, emotional intelligence, and ethical standards remain central to the therapy process. How states are setting rules for AI in mental health care from Nevada to New York With this law, Illinois becomes a trailblazer in responsible AI governance. By defining what AI can and cannot do in healthcare, the state sets a critical precedent for the rest of the nation. Builds public trust in mental health systems. Protects vulnerable populations from unverified AI advice. Clarifies responsibility in case of harm or error. Rather than stifle technology, this law ensures that AI development proceeds with ethical boundaries — especially when human lives and emotions are on the line. Illinois is not the only state moving toward regulating AI's role in therapy. Other states are joining the effort to draw clear lines between acceptable AI use and areas requiring human judgment. Nevada: In June 2025, the state passed a law banning AI from providing therapeutic services in schools, protecting children from unregulated mental health advice. Utah: Enacted a regulation mandating that mental health chatbots must clearly state they are not human, and prohibits using users' emotional data for targeted ads. New York: Starting November 5, 2025, AI tools must redirect users expressing suicidal thoughts to licensed human crisis professionals. These actions reflect a national trend: mental healthcare must prioritise ethics, accountability, and human empathy, even in an AI-driven world. AI in mental health lacks empathy, ethics, and accountability; experts warn At the heart of this decision is a growing concern that AI lacks the emotional intelligence and ethical grounding necessary for mental health care. While generative AI systems like ChatGPT have demonstrated impressive capabilities in simulating conversations, they cannot truly understand or respond to human emotions in context. Key concerns: Lack of empathy: AI doesn't feel. It mimics language but lacks real human empathy. No accountability: If an AI tool provides harmful advice, there's no licensed person to hold responsible. Misinformation risk: Chatbots might unintentionally give dangerous or inappropriate guidance. Mario Treto Jr., Secretary of the IDFPR, said, 'The people of Illinois deserve quality healthcare from real, qualified professionals and not computer programs.' This law protects vulnerable individuals from placing trust in a machine that might misunderstand or mishandle emotional crises. AI chatbots are not therapists: APA urges stronger mental health regulations The American Psychological Association (APA) has been sounding the alarm since early 2025. In a report to federal regulators, the APA raised serious concerns over AI-driven chatbots pretending to be licensed therapists. These bots, while unregulated, have allegedly caused real-world harm. Suicide incidents following harmful or inappropriate AI responses. Violence and self-harm after users misunderstood AI advice as clinical guidance. Emotional manipulation by bots mimicking real human therapists. These events underscore the urgent need to prevent unregulated AI from entering sensitive domains where lives could be at stake. AI in mental health care allowed only for support, says Illinois Law Illinois' law doesn't completely ban AI from mental healthcare — rather, it limits its application to non-clinical support roles. AI can still be used for: Scheduling appointments and administrative workflows Monitoring therapy notes or patterns under human review Providing general wellness tips or FAQs Assisting clinicians with data analysis AI can assist — but it cannot replace human therapists. This approach encourages innovation without sacrificing safety. AI should empower professionals, not take their place. Also Read | Google DeepMind's Genie 3: How AI instantly builds interactive 3D worlds from a single text prompt ideal for gaming and education AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Harvard scientists warn of years-long setback from funding freeze
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of US soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it, said Ascherio. We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions - meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardised, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of difficult decisions and sacrifices ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze It's really devastating, agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. I'm in a position where I have to really think about, Can I revive this research?' he said. Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on? The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called politically motivated social science studies. White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalysed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole. But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country. Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized, Quackenbush said. We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.
Economic Times
5 hours ago
- Economic Times
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
AP Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio opens a liquid nitrogen freezer used to store blood samples used for research at the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health on Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2025 in Boston. Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally from millions of US soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. "It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it," said Ascherio. "We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'" Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions - meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardised, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to "surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights." "Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. "But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism." The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of "difficult decisions and sacrifices" said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze "It's really devastating," agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists."Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said."I'm in a position where I have to really think about, Can I revive this research?'" he said. "Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?" The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called "politically motivated social science studies." White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalysed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have "really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole." But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense."I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. "But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country." Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector."We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized," Quackenbush said. "We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence." (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. As RBI retains GDP forecast, 4 factors that will test the strength of Indian economy Is Shadowfax closing in on its closest rival? Can Coforge's ambition to lead the IT Industry become a reality? Berlin to Bharuch: The Borosil journey after the China hit in Europe Stock Radar: Syngene International showing signs of momentum after falling 26% from highs; what should investors do? Two Trades for Today: A life insurance major for a 4.85% upmove, a mid-cap diesel engine maker for almost 7% rise Multibagger or IBC - Part 18: This auto ancillary started with wheels. It now also powers wind & war Auto stocks: Yes, headwinds in the short term, but will structural change become tailwinds and prove analysts wrong?
