October 4, 2026

One year ago, Congress stripped away more than $1 billion in federal funding for public media. Yet we continue to deliver information that helps millions of people sustain healthy and balanced lives. This is only possible with the help of readers like you. Power this work when you make a donation today. — Kris Husted, Consumer Health Editor

by Andrea Muraskin

In a new study out of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, psychologists compared how eating alone versus eating with other people affects blood sugar. After eating bread, participants who ate with a buddy experienced a smaller blood glucose spike compared to those who ate the same amount of bread while sitting alone. The social group also cleared glucose from their blood more quickly. As NPR’s Short Wave reports, researchers see this as an example of the positive effect social bonds may have on human physiology. So I hope you’re taking some time to break bread with loved ones this weekend…or even strangers.

In other news this week, disability advocates worry that a change to federal regulations threatens disabled Americans’ rights to dine, work, go to school and generally live their lives around able-bodied people – rather than being segregated to nursing homes or other institutions. Also, NPR visits a lab where researchers are genetically modifying human embryos in hopes of preventing genetic diseases from getting passed down to the next generation. And, a medical professor with lung cancer is living longer and better thanks to cutting edge targeted therapies, while advocating for better screening and access.

From professor to patient: One man's journey on the frontier of lung cancer treatment

Dr. Bryant Lin with his sons at a San Francisco Giants baseball game in spring 2025. He says he loved going to Giants games with his sons before getting diagnosed. "Fortunately, we have been able to go again as a family in 2025 and 2026," he says.

The Lin family

Lung cancer is still the top cancer killer. But new developments are shifting what the future might hold for patients, as NPR’s Yuki Noguchi reports.

Stanford University medical professor Bryant Lin has long advocated for better lung cancer screening. Then two years ago, Lin, a nonsmoker, was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer himself. Lin is optimistic though, “because we're creating all of these personalized, specialized precision therapeutics for lung cancer," he says.

It’s worth noting how far science has come already. "Survival used to be under a year, and now it's often several years and sometimes many years," says UCLA oncologist and researcher Jonathan Goldman. He says that’s thanks to the ability to genetically analyze the mutations causing cancer on a patient-by-patient basis, and select drugs targeted to that particular cancer subtype. Compared to chemotherapy, the targeted drugs are better at shrinking tumors, and come with fewer side effects. They’re also being used to treat breast and liver cancers.

Lin says these new therapies have given him both a longer life, and better quality of life. He still teaches, travels, and attends San Francisco Giants baseball games with his wife and teenage sons.

But cost can be a steep barrier to accessing targeted cancer therapies, even for a professor at an elite college. Lin says he had to wait for a prior authorization from his health insurer to get a $16,000 medication, delaying treatment at a critical time. Some drugs add up to hundreds of thousands out of pocket, he says. Insurers almost always require prior authorization for the treatments, or deny coverage for new drugs that haven't yet received expert endorsement as standard protocol.

In a way though, time has been on Lin’ side. He started taking a daily pill called Tagrisso (or osimertinib) when he was first diagnosed in 2024, just three months after the drug received FDA approval. A year later Tagrisso stopped working, and Lin moved on to another just-approved drug combination. He’s currently looking into the possibility of a personalized mRNA vaccine for himself, which have shown promise boosting the immune system to fight pancreatic cancer.

Professionally, he’s still pushing for better ways to screen for lung cancer – which is typically screened for using a CT scan, with only 18% of high-risk patients getting the recommended test.

Learn more about Bryant Lin’s story and advances in genetically targeted cancer treatments.

Plus: A cancer vaccine made just for you. mRNA is back and it's fighting melanoma

Newsletter continues after sponsor message

This startup wants to prove gene-editing embryos is safe for making healthy babies

Cathy Tie, the founder and CEO of Origin Genomics, replenishes nutrients sustaining cells the New York City startup is using to test its technology for repairing defective genes.

Mackenzie Calle for NPR

Proponents of genetically modifying embryos say the technology could allow people with devastating inherited diseases to have healthy children. Critics worry it could lead to a genetically stratified dystopian future, as imagined in A Brave New World or the film Gattaca. But no matter what you think about it, companies are developing such embryos, and hoping to change the U.S. law that prohibits using them to create babies. NPR’s Rob Stein got exclusive access to tour the labs of one of these controversial startups, Origin Genomics in New York City.

The embryos at the lab were donated by couples whose families have been plagued for generations by life-threatening genetic disorders like Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis and hereditary cancers. Scientists extract stem cells from the embryos to see which of their experimental gene editors might safely correct the genetic defects.

"What we are proposing is something completely revolutionary: Apply this amazing precision genome editing to embryos that have a mutation before they are born," says Cathy Tie, founder and CEO of Origin Genomics (pictured above). "That allows the next generation to not be born with these diseases. It changes the entire paradigm of medicine as we know it."

Most scientists think it's still premature to try to use genetically modified human embryos to produce babies — and it may never be safe. But newer, more precise gene-editing techniques, such as prime editing and base editing, have improved the accuracy of the technology.

Other companies are already screening embryos for traits like IQ and height in addition to risk for diseases. "I just don't think they're being honest with us about why they're really doing this," says Fyodor Urnov, who studies gene editing at the University of California, Berkeley. "They're really in the business of embryo — and thus ultimately baby — improvement."

Stein also spoke with a Manhattan couple who provided embryos for Origin’s lab, and are also investors in the startup. Nicole and Asaf Ezra have been struggling to get pregnant through IVF. But most embryos they’ve produced contain an inherited genetic mutation that causes polyps in the digestive system. Many of Nicole’s relatives who carry the mutation have developed colon cancer.

"We just don't want to pass on cancer to our kids," Asaf says. "Who would want that, right?"

Check out the full story to see more photos from the lab, and learn more about the weighty debate over creating genetically modified babies.

Also: Scientists are modifying wildlife DNA. Should these species be released into nature?

Now is your moment.

Public media is our collective right to a free and independent press in action.

Our journalism is free of corporate or political influence — we’re accountable only to you, the public.

But a free press is only sustained if we all take action. Together, we decide whether this service will merely survive… or thrive. Join the community that makes this work possible by donating now.

Donate Now ➔

Trump administration reverses stance on integration of people with disabilities

Hundreds of disability advocates gathered in New York in 2025 to protest cuts to Medicaid and demand the enforcement of disability rights protections.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

For nearly 50 years, the federal government has said people with disabilities should live, work and learn, in the most integrated setting possible rather than be segregated in institutions like nursing homes.

Last week, a federal judge agreed to strip out mentions of "integration" from federal regulations tied to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a landmark civil rights law that prohibits disability discrimination and regulates federally funded disability programs. The judge did so after the Justice Department declined to defend its own rules in a lawsuit brought by several states challenging the legality of those rules, as NPR’s Jonaki Mehta reports.

It felt "like a knife in your chest,” when he heard about the ruling, said Bruce Darling, president and CEO of the Center for Disability Rights. “What people are hearing is that the federal government has made a determination that [disabled people] don't have a right to live in freedom, that they can be locked up against their will,” he says.

It's important to note that the court's decision did not undo integration protections tied to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or those established by decades of case law, says Jennifer Mathis, a disability rights lawyer. But she says the lack of clarity introduced by the ruling will impact disabled peoples’ rights and how states behave. What’s more, states are under pressure from the government to reduce Medicaid spending and “looking for things to cut,” she says. Mathis worries that state leaders will now feel freer to take away funds from programs for community-based living.

"There's nothing that is more cherished and hard-won than the right to live, work and participate and be included in your community," says Alison Barkoff, who worked on disability rights enforcement during the Obama administration and is now a health law and policy professor at George Washington University. She says the disability community is hard at work trying to protect integration.

Thanks to recent advocacy efforts, Barkoff says some members of Congress have reaffirmed their commitment to the rights of people with disabilities to get services they need in their community. This week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a resolution asserting the federal government's longstanding interpretation of the Supreme Court’s landmark Olmstead decision. Delaware already passed a law incorporating the regulations in Section 504 that were stripped from federal law, and Barkoff says other states are moving in a similar direction. Bruce Darling of the Center for Disability Rights helped draft the Latonya Reeves Freedom Act, a bipartisan bill that would codify integration for disabled people into federal law.

Learn more.

Plus: Meal deliveries can save money and improve health. Will they survive Medicaid cuts?

Before you go:

The safest way to protect yourself from measles when traveling is to be vaccinated.

Malte Mueller/Getty Images

Travel plans? Here's what to know as measles exposures reach trains and games

The U.S. has more thalidomide survivors than the government admits

There's a global pandemic treaty that's signed — and in 'limbo.' What's the holdup?

Listen: How feelings make us smarter

We hope you enjoyed these stories. Find more of NPR's health journalism online.

All our best,
Andrea Muraskin and your NPR Health editors

Listen to your local NPR station.

Visit NPR.org to hear live radio from WAMU 88.5 (edit station).

What do you think of today's email?

We'd love to hear your thoughts, questions and feedback: health@npr.org

Enjoying this newsletter?

Forward to a friend! They can sign up here.

Looking for more great content?

Check out all of our newsletter offerings
— including Goats & Soda, Up First, Life Kit and more!

You received this message because you're subscribed to Health emails. This email was sent by National Public Radio, Inc., 1111 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20002

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy