Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Surprising finding could pave way for universal cancer vaccine

An experimental mRNA vaccine boosted the tumor-fighting effects of immunotherapy in a mouse-model study, bringing researchers one step closer to their goal of developing a universal vaccine to “wake up” the immune system against cancer. Published today in Nature Biomedical Engineering, the University of Florida study showed that like a one-two punch, pairing the test vaccine with common anticancer drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors triggered a strong antitumor response in laboratory mice. A surprising element, researchers said, was that they achieved the promising results not by attacking a specific target protein expressed in the tumor, but by simply revving up the immune system — spurring it to respond as if fighting a virus. They did this by stimulating the expression of a protein called PD-L1 inside of tumors, making them more receptive to treatment. The research was supported by multiple federal agencies and foundations, including the National Institutes of Health. Senior author Elias Sayour, M.D., Ph.D., a UF Health pediatric oncologist and the Stop Children's Cancer/Bonnie R. Freeman Professor for Pediatric Oncology Research, said the results reveal a potential future treatment path — an alternative to surgery, radiation and chemotherapy — with broad implications for battling many types of treatment-resistant tumors. “This paper describes a very unexpected and exciting observation: that even a vaccine not specific to any particular tumor or virus — so long as it is an mRNA vaccine — could lead to tumor-specific effects,” said Sayour, principal investigator at the RNA Engineering Laboratory within UF’s Preston A. Wells Jr. Center for Brain Tumor Therapy. “This finding is a proof of concept that these vaccines potentially could be commercialized as universal cancer vaccines to sensitize the immune system against a patient’s individual tumor,” said Sayour, a McKnight Brain Institute investigator and co-leader of a program in immuno-oncology and microbiome research. Until now, there have been two main ideas in cancer-vaccine development: To find a specific target expressed in many people with cancer, or to tailor a vaccine that is specific to targets expressed within a patient's own cancer. “This study suggests a third emerging paradigm,” said Duane Mitchell, M.D., Ph.D., a co-author of the paper. “What we found is by using a vaccine designed not to target cancer specifically but rather to stimulate a strong immunologic response, we could elicit a very strong anticancer reaction. And so this has significant potential to be broadly used across cancer patients — even possibly leading us to an off-the-shelf cancer vaccine.” For more than eight years, Sayour has pioneered high-tech anticancer vaccines by combining lipid nanoparticles and mRNA. Short for messenger RNA, mRNA is found inside every cell — including tumor cells — and serves as a blueprint for protein production. This new study builds upon a breakthrough last year by Sayour’s lab: In a first-ever human clinical trial, an mRNA vaccine quickly reprogrammed the immune system to attack glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumor with a dismal prognosis. Among the most impressive findings in the four-patient trial was how quickly the new method — which used a “specific” or personalized vaccine made using a patient’s own tumor cells — spurred a vigorous immune-system response to reject the tumor. In the latest study, Sayour’s research team adapted their technology to test a “generalized” mRNA vaccine — meaning it was not aimed at a specific virus or mutated cells of cancer but engineered simply to prompt a strong immune system response. The mRNA formulation was made similarly to the COVID-19 vaccines, rooted in similar technology, but wasn’t aimed directly at the well-known spike protein of COVID. In mouse models of melanoma, the team saw promising results in normally treatment-resistant tumors when combining the mRNA formulation with a common immunotherapy drug called a PD-1 inhibitor, a type of monoclonal antibody that attempts to “educate” the immune system that a tumor is foreign, said Sayour, a professor in UF’s Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery and the Department of Pediatrics in the UF College of Medicine. Taking the research a step further, in mouse models of skin, bone and brain cancers, the investigators found beneficial effects when testing a different mRNA formulation as a solo treatment. In some models, the tumors were eliminated entirely. Sayour and colleagues observed that using an mRNA vaccine to activate immune responses seemingly unrelated to cancer could prompt T cells that weren’t working before to actually multiply and kill the cancer if the response spurred by the vaccine is strong enough. Taken together, the study’s implications are striking, said Mitchell, who directs the UF Clinical and Translational Science Institute and co-directs UF’s Preston A. Wells Jr. Center for Brain Tumor Therapy. “It could potentially be a universal way of waking up a patient’s own immune response to cancer,” Mitchell said. “And that would be profound if generalizable to human studies.” The results, he said, show potential for a universal cancer vaccine that could activate the immune system and prime it to work in tandem with checkpoint inhibitor drugs to seize upon cancer — or in some cases, even work on its own to kill cancer. Now, the research team is working to improve current formulations and move to human clinical trials as rapidly as possible. While the experimental mRNA vaccine at this point is in early preclinical testing — in mice not humans — information about available nonrelated human clinical trials at UF Health can be viewed here.

23andMe’s Bankruptcy Exposes Fragility of How Genetic Data is Utilized Beyond Fee-For-Service, Says Villanova Law Professor

When individuals sign up for direct-to-consumer genetic testing, the extent to which they ever think about their genetic data is likely in the context of the service for which they paid: information on predisposition to a genetic illness, or confirmation of an ethnic background, for example. But that data doesn’t just sit on a shelf, and while the most mainstream concern for such services is the privacy of your data, there is also the question of what else the companies do with it, and how. Ana Santos Rutschman, SJD, LLM, professor and faculty director of the Health Innovation Lab at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, is particularly interested in the latter. In June 2025, she co-authored an amicus brief centered on data protection and patient’s interests amid genetic testing company 23andMe’s bankruptcy proceedings. In December, many of those same co-authors published a paper in Nature Genetics, highlighting 23andMe’s bankruptcy as “an inflection point for the direct-to-consumer genetics market,” especially as it pertains to the broader corporate use of individuals’ scientific data. The reason? “How that data is used all depends on the policies of the individual companies,” she said. Genetic Testing Companies Use Your Data For More Than The Services You Pay For Those who utilize genetic testing companies—for any reason—are likely also consenting, often unknowingly, to other unrelated items. This includes acknowledgment of information related to how your data might be further used or monetized. “Most people don't think about secondary and tertiary uses of their data,” said Professor Rutschman. “[What they consent to] is displayed on the website somewhere, but it’s not easily understandable and accessible. It’s fine print.” Such companies often operate beyond the traditional “fee for a service” relationship with consumers. Yes, they will give you the information you paid for—finding out whether you have German ancestry or are predisposed to certain genetic disease—but instead of that genetic data just being stored somewhere, it’s often sold for research purposes. Today, in the age of AI big data, that might look something like this: The company puts your data in a box with parameters, along with thousands of others. Perhaps they are then able to observe a pattern that, until all that data was compiled, was previously unknown. They come up with a diagnostic or a medicine and patent it. That patent is licensed to somebody else, and the company makes money on the product. The use of that data for scientific purposes—even ones that turn a profit— is not problematic in itself, says Professor Rutschman. “Some people may even choose a company that allows scientific research over one that doesn’t. Many people may not care, but some will. The uses are not common knowledge, and that is worrisome. The public should be well-informed about what’s happening.” Deeper problems may arise when they aren’t informed of those potential uses of their data. Professor Rutschman cited the infamous Henrietta Lacks case, in which Lacks’ cells were, and continue to be, one of the most valuable cell lines in cancer research. Neither Lacks nor her family were paid for the widespread use of her genetic material until a settlement was reached long after her death. “When you have biologics involved, a concern is that if you have something potentially valuable, you may not see any money from it.” Bankruptcy Can Cause Policy Upheaval To understand the role bankruptcy can play in all of this, one needs to refer back to the power of individual company policy in this space. There are no external laws that dictate how these companies can further monetize their data, says Professor Rutschman, as long as they don’t violate other laws, such as privacy laws. That means that when a company like 23andMe goes bankrupt, as was the case in 2025, new ownership could enact completely different corporate policies for use of their property. In their specific case, the company was essentially bought back by 23andMe founder and CEO Anne Wojcicki’s non-profit, all but ensuring policies would remain the same. But that is exactly why Professor Rutschman and others are highlighting this specific case. “Bankruptcy is bad in the sense that there's a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “In this instance, the person coming in was the person who was there before, so the policy is likely to continue. But that's very rare. There are a roster of companies with access to biological materials. 23andMe is a good example of something not going horribly wrong, but with the understanding that it absolutely could.” Ways in which that could happen could be new ownership undermining the original intent of the data use by cessation of the company’s previous policies, or charging exorbitant prices to other entities to use that data for scientific research. “Because there is no law, these new owners can essentially do as they please with their proprietary data, unless they do something incredibly careless that amounts to the level of illegal,” Professor Rutschman said. “And that is concerning.” Onus Falls to Companies to Enact Safeguards To ensure a worst-case scenario for such companies does not unfold in a bankruptcy situation, Professor Rutschman points to a number of safeguards they could enact to protect their original commitments, ensure equitable access to data for scientific research and promote fair trade. One of which is implementing a company policy stating that commitments from a previous iteration of the company need to be honored if ownership is transferred. Those could include, as the authors recommend, policies “honoring original research-oriented commitments under which the data were collected,” as well as not “enclosing the dataset for exclusive commercial use.” She also highlights the need for Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) voluntary licensing commitments, which are inherently more science and market friendly. “Companies in many sectors have committed to this approach, and we are saying it should apply in this space as well. You’ll charge your royalty, but it can’t be a billion dollars for a data set, nor would it be done by exclusively selling to one entity. You can get that billion dollars by selling to 15, 50 or 100 companies, and from a scientific research perspective, that’s what we want. Otherwise, you have a monopoly or duopoly. “There are a lot of different models that can be used, but ultimately what we are arguing is leaving this unaddressed is a really bad idea. It leaves everything exposed, and something bad is more likely to happen.”

Covering the Economy? FAU has the ideal expert to help with your questions and stories

The economy isn’t just a headline, it’s the story behind nearly every headline. From grocery bills and mortgage rates to job growth, small business confidence, and federal policy decisions, economic forces shape daily life for Americans in ways that are immediate and deeply personal. For journalists, that makes the economy a constant, high-stakes beat. Audiences want clear answers: Why are prices rising? Are we headed for a slowdown? What does the Fed’s next move mean for my community? The challenge is cutting through jargon and partisan spin to deliver insight that’s accurate, grounded, and understandable. That’s where William Luther, Ph.D., stands out. A respected economist and Associate Professor at Florida Atlantic University, Luther brings serious academic credibility, but explains economic trends in plain language that resonates beyond the classroom. His expertise in monetary policy, inflation, unemployment, cryptocurrency, and economic growth makes him a valuable resource for breaking news, enterprise stories, and long-form analysis alike. Whether reporters are covering Florida’s housing market, national interest rate decisions, or the future of digital currency, Luther offers thoughtful, balanced analysis that helps audiences understand not just what’s happening, but why it matters. William Luther, Ph.D., is an expert in monetary economics and macroeconomics. He is an associate professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, director of the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project, and an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives. The Social Science Research Network currently ranks him in the top five percent of business authors.  View his profile Recent media coverage: ABC News Others downplayed the likelihood of a meaningful loss of Fed independence, since news of the DOJ investigation of Powell drew a rare degree of Republican opposition. Powell holds only a single vote on the 12-member board responsible for setting interest rates, they said. “Anytime we’re changing institutions, we should have some concern,” William Luther, a professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, told ABC News. “At the same time, we should recognize the institutional safeguards we have are pretty strong.” Newsweek William Luther, associate professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, said that the immediate net financial loss to those in Florida, and all Americans, appears to be "very, very large." Luther added Florida should expect a short-term "sharp contraction" in real estate and tourism, both vital sectors for the state's economy. NPR At the moment, the economy is performing very well. It wasn't performing very well not too long ago, both because of the pandemic, which reduced our ability to produce goods and services quite significantly, and then, as a result of some of the policy responses to that pandemic, we had very high inflation. NBC Will Luther, an economics associate professor at Florida Atlantic University, acknowledged the concerns among students. "Absolutely, there are students very much concerned with whether or not they will be able to get a job when they finish here. The good news is that they will. The bad news is it's a little harder right now than it was, say, two years ago," Luther said. Fox Nation FAU's William Luther joins Fox Nation's Deep Dive, hosted by the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, to discuss the economic impact of cryptocurrencies. Video courtesy of Fox Nation's Deep Dive.

ChristianaCare Plans to Build Health Campus in Georgetown, Delaware

At a time when there is uncertainty about the future of heath care in the U.S., ChristianaCare is doubling down on its investments to expand access to care in Delaware. As part of $865 million in new investments in Delaware over three years that ChristianaCare announced last July, ChristianaCare today submitted a Notice of Intent to the Delaware Health Resources Board to develop a new health campus in Georgetown. The proposed campus will bring more comprehensive care closer to home for residents of Sussex County, an area experiencing rapid population growth and long-standing gaps in access to essential health services. Designed to Meet the Needs of a Growing Community Similar to ChristianaCare’s West Grove Campus in southern Chester County, Pennsylvania, and its upcoming campuses in Springfield and Aston in Delaware County, the new campus will feature a health center offering primary care, specialty care, behavioral health and other outpatient services and a neighborhood hospital with eight emergency beds and eight inpatient beds. This facility is designed to make it easier for residents to receive timely, high-quality care in their own community. “Sussex county is home to a growing and aging population and is designated by the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) as a Medically Underserved Area,” said Janice E. Nevin, M.D., MPH, president and CEO of ChristianaCare. “This new campus will help close gaps in access by bringing high-quality, equitable and more convenient care directly into the community that needs it most. Our goal is simple: ensure that every Delawarean can access the care they need, in the right place at the right time.” Expanding Access While Strengthening Regional Care This new ChristianaCare campus will add local outpatient care, emergency and inpatient care, creating a closer network of services connecting residents to advanced specialty care at ChristianaCare’s regional hospitals. ChristianaCare is partnering with Emerus Holdings, Inc. with respect to the neighborhood hospital component. Emerus is the nation’s leading developer of this care delivery model, partnering in the operation of more than 45 acute care facilities nationwide. This partnership reflects ChristianaCare’s commitment to bringing nationally recognized, high-quality care to Delaware. “We are proud to continue our partnership with ChristianaCare to bring sustainable, compassionate and high-quality health care to the residents of Sussex County,” said Vic Schmerbeck, CEO of Emerus Holdings Inc. “Together, we are building a next-generation model of care designed around the needs of the community—today and for the future.” The 42,000-square-foot Georgetown campus is expected to open in late 2028. The campus is planned for 20769 DuPont Boulevard in Georgetown. The campus is estimated to cost $65.1 million. Planning for Today’s Demand and Tomorrow’s Growth ChristianaCare already offers a range of services in Sussex County—including primary care, specialty care, virtual care and home health and hospice services. However, Sussex and Kent counties are projected to see an 8% population increase by 2030, with a significant rise in residents age 65 and older. As demand for emergency, primary and specialty care grows, this new campus is designed to make care more local, more connected and more responsive to community needs. In addition, ChristianaCare will continue to explore opportunities to expand access to care in other areas of Delaware, including in Kent County.

Psychologists introduce third path to a ‘good life’ — one full of curiosity and challenge

For centuries, scholars and scientists have defined the “good life” in one of two ways: a life that is rooted in happiness, characterized by positive emotions, or one that is centered on meaning, guided by purpose and personal fulfillment. But what if there is another, equally valuable path — one that prioritizes challenge, change and curiosity? “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” — Erin Westgate, Ph.D., assistant professor psychology, director of the Florida Social Cognition and Emotion Lab This third dimension, which may result in a more psychologically rich life for some, is being explored in a new study — led by University of Florida psychologist Erin Westgate, Ph.D., in collaboration with Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago. According to their research, some people prioritize variety, novelty and intellectually stimulating experiences, even when those experiences are difficult, unpleasant or lack clear meaning. “This idea came from the question: Why do some people feel unfulfilled even when they have happy and meaningful lives?” Westgate said. “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” Westgate and Oishi’s research shows that a psychologically rich life is distinct from lives defined by happiness or meaning. While happiness focuses on feeling good, and meaning is about doing good, richness is about thinking deeply and seeing the world differently. And for a significant minority of people around the world, that third path is the one they would choose — even if it means giving up happiness or meaning. A new way to think about the ‘good life’ According to Westgate and Oishi, psychological richness is defined as a life filled with diverse, perspective-changing experiences — whether these are external, such as traveling or undertaking new challenges, or internal, like absorbing powerful books or pieces of music. “A psychologically rich life can come from something as simple as reading a great novel or hearing a haunting song,” Westgate said. “It doesn’t have to be about dramatic events, but it can shift the way you see the world.” Unlike happy or meaningful experiences, rich experiences are not always pleasant or purposeful. “College is a good example. It’s not always fun, and you might not always feel a deep sense of meaning, but it changes how you think,” Westgate said. “The same goes for experiences like living through a hurricane. You wouldn’t call it happy or even meaningful, but it shakes up your perspective.” Researchers in Westgate’s lab at UF have been studying how people respond to events like hurricanes, tracking students’ emotions and reactions as storms approach. The results show that many people have viewed these challenging experiences as psychologically rich — altering how they saw the world, even if they didn’t enjoy them. The roots of the idea While the study is new, the concept has been years in the making. Westgate and Oishi first introduced the term “psychologically rich life” in 2022, building on earlier research and scale development around 2015. Their latest paper expands the idea, showing that the concept resonates with people across cultures and fills a gap in how people define well-being. “In psychology and philosophy, dating back to Aristotle, there’s been a focus on hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being — happiness versus meaning,” Westgate said. “What we’re doing is saying, there’s another path that’s just as important. And for some people, it’s the one they value most.” While many people ideally want all three — happiness, meaning and richness — there are trade-offs. Rich experiences often come at the cost of comfort or clarity. “Interesting experiences aren’t always pleasant experiences,” Westgate said. “But they’re the ones that help us grow and see the world in new ways.” Westgate hopes the study will broaden how psychologists and the public think about what it means to live well. “We’re not saying happiness and meaning aren’t important,” Westgate said. “They are. But we’re also saying don’t forget about richness. Some of the most important experiences in life are the ones that challenge us, that surprise us and that make us see the world differently.”

Parents — Stop Trying to Be Your Teen's BFF

As teenagers push for independence, many parents respond by trying to become their friends and confidants. University of Rochester psychologist Judi Smetana says blurring the line between warmth and authority can backfire. “It’s great if kids want to disclose to you,” Smetana explains. “But it would be weird for parents to talk about their private lives with their kids. When parents start revealing things about themselves, it’s slippery. Your child should not be your confidant.” Smetana, an expert in adolescent development and parent-teen relationships, emphasizes that closeness and trust are essential — but they are not the same as “friendship.” Teenagers need structure, limits, and clear boundaries as they test autonomy. When parents overshare they risk shifting roles in ways that reduce parental influence. That doesn’t mean parent-child relationships remain rigid forever. The dynamics naturally evolve as children mature into early adulthood. “Let the child take the lead,” Smetana says. “There may show a willingness to become more like friends when parents don’t have the same authority. But there will still be some boundaries.” Her research underscores that healthy parent-teen relationships balance openness with guidance. Trust grows not from collapsing boundaries, but from maintaining them with consistency and care. For reporters covering parenting and adolescent behavior, Smetana is available to discuss: • Healthy boundaries in parent-teen relationships • Oversharing and role confusion in families • Adolescent autonomy and authority • How parent-child dynamics shift in early adulthood Click her profile to connect with her.

‘Love Island’ isn’t real, but it might reflect the way we date

For millions of viewers, “Love Island” has been a summer obsession – a chance to peek in on a sunny villa full of beautiful singles looking for love. But according to Andrew Selepak, Ph.D., a media professor at the University of Florida, the reality show isn’t really about romance. “The reality of reality TV is that it doesn’t reflect reality,” Selepak said. “These are people who were selected; they were cast just like you would cast a movie or a scripted TV show.” Still, what happens on the island isn’t completely disconnected from real life. The show's format, which is built on snap decisions, physical attraction, and frequent recouplings, mirrors the current dating landscape in unsettling ways. “I think it's reflective of the current culture that young people are experiencing with dating, which is very superficial and doesn't lead to long-term lasting relationships because a long-term lasting relationship can't be based on superficial qualities,” Selepak said. Selepak compares “Love Island” to “TV Tinder.” Much like on dating apps, contestants size each other up based on looks and vibes rather than values or long-term compatibility. And while the show promotes the idea of finding “the one,” the numbers tell a different story. “It’s like less than 12% of the couples actually remain together for any period of time,” Selepak said. “At some point, you would think people would realize it’s fake.” However, viewers continue to watch, and contestants continue to sign up. Why? Because the point isn't necessarily to find love. It's about visibility, likes and followers. “This is where you have the social media aspect playing in, where people are looking to become influencers and to gain fame, notoriety, likes and follows,” Selepak said. “The people who are on the shows, these are people who intentionally have gone out and said, 'I want my dirty laundry to be on TV.’ There's a narcissistic aspect of wanting to be on a show like that. Most people, I think, would be hesitant to tell their deep, dark secrets – or tell the things about themselves that they would normally only share with a select few – to a large audience.” For contestants, this often means performing love rather than experiencing it – a behavior that echoes real-world dating on social media. For audiences, “Love Island” gives them the dissatisfaction of watching beautiful people experience the same dating struggles they do. In the end, “Love Island” may not teach us how to find lasting love, but it might explain why so many people are struggling to.

Experts in the Media: What You Need to Know About Medication Safety and Everyday Health

From medication safety to seasonal illness prevention, pharmacists are often the most accessible, and overlooked,  healthcare professionals in our communities. In a recent segment on NBC, Dr. Shannon Yarosz breaks down common misconceptions about prescriptions, explains how drug interactions really work, and shares practical advice patients can use immediately to better manage their health. Dr. Shannon Yarosz is an Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Practice. Prior to joining the faculty at Cedarville University, served in multiple pharmacy roles. Her career reflects a deep commitment to patient care with experience in pediatrics, community pharmacy practice, and clinical healthcare services. As healthcare systems face growing pressure and patients navigate increasingly complex medication regimens, pharmacists are playing a larger role than ever before. This discussion highlights why their expertise matters, from helping patients avoid costly mistakes to providing front-line guidance on everyday health concerns. When should I stop taking antibiotics? Is it ok to stop when I begin feeling better? This question and several others were addressed in this week's Ask the Pharmacist segment on WDTN TV in Dayton, Ohio. Looking to know more or connect with Dr. Shannon Yarosz? Simply contact: Mark D. Weinstein Executive Director of Public Relations Cedarville University mweinstein@cedarville.edu

The Secret to Happiness? Feeling Loved.

After more than 50 years studying close relationships, University of Rochester psychologist Harry Reis has reached a deceptively simple conclusion: Happy people feel loved. That conclusion became the jumping-off point for a new book Reis co-wrote, “How to Feel Loved: The Five Mindsets That Get You More of What Matters Most” (Harper 2026), which blends decades of research on happiness and human connection. In it, Reis and his co-author, Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychologist at the University of California, Riverside, outline five research-backed mindsets that strengthen connection: sharing authentically, listening to people, practicing radical curiosity, approaching others with an open heart, and recognizing human complexity. The book was recently featured in The New York Times, which noted that the authors contend giving and receiving love function together like a seesaw: You lift a person up with the weight of your curiosity and attentiveness — and they do the same in turn. “The other side is very important also,” Reis told The Times. “To be sharing what’s important to you, to be sharing what you’re concerned about, so it can really become a two-way street.” Reis, who leads groundbreaking research on close relationships, is available to discuss: • The science of feeling loved vs. being loved • How digital distraction undermines connection • AI companionship and its psychological limits • Practical ways to build stronger, more resilient relationships • The link between love, happiness, and health Journalists writing about love and relationships can contact Reis by clicking on his profile.

A future in pharmacy, made possible by support and mentorship

A freshman chemistry major from Hinesville, Georgia, Geovanii Pacheco already has his sights set on a career in pharmacy. His ambition is rooted not just in a love for science, but in personal experience. Growing up, his family spent countless hours navigating prescriptions and insurance coverage for his older brother, Devin, who has autism. During those moments, one pharmacist consistently stood out. This was someone who advocated for his family, helped them through paperwork and made sure Devin got the medication he needed. “It really resonated with me,” Pacheco said. “As a pharmacist, I’d like to embody what she did for us, for others as well.” That goal brought Pacheco to Georgia Southern University where he is now supported by the National Science Foundation’s S-STEM Scholarship Program Award. This is a nearly $2 million grant designed to support Pell-eligible students pursuing degrees in biochemistry, biology, chemistry, geosciences, mathematics, physics or sustainability science. For Pacheco, the program has been nothing short of life-changing. “I can say that I’m not going to college with any financial stress,” he said. “I have no money coming out-of-pocket.” Administered through Georgia Southern’s College of Science and Mathematics, the federally funded program provides last-dollar scholarships that cover remaining costs after Pell Grants and other aid are applied. In addition to financial support, the program pairs students with dedicated faculty mentors and offers structured programming aimed at retention, professional development and long-term success. Sara Gremillion, Ph.D., professor of biology and principal investigator on the grant, said the goal is to ensure that students don’t just enroll in college, but that they also thrive once they arrive. “They may not have a strong expectation about what to expect in college,” said Gremillion. “This program not only removes financial barriers, but it also surrounds students with the support they need to navigate college and plan for their future.” Pacheco has felt that impact from day one. Thanks to the program, he moved into his residence hall a week early to attend a one-week Basebamp program to jump start his college experience. There, he met fellow scholarship recipients and connected with his faculty mentor before classes even began. His mentor, Shainaz Landge, Ph.D., associate professor of chemistry, has helped connect Pacheco with opportunities from joining the Student Affiliates of the American Chemical Society to learning about upcoming pre-pharmacy organizations and undergraduate research. “Students such as Geovanii serve as prime examples of the fulfillment derived from mentorship and teaching,” said Landge. “Their growth and engagement highlight the critical role that effective mentorship plays in fostering both academic development.” That blend of mentorship and financial support is exactly what the grant was designed to provide. Over five years, the program will serve dozens of students in eligible majors such as chemistry, biology, biomedical science, biochemistry, physics, mathematics, sustainability science and geoscience. Each student receives individualized scholarship support, up to $15,000 per year, based on need, along with a faculty mentor who stays with them throughout their undergraduate journey. For Pacheco and his family, the scholarship brought immediate relief. He vividly remembers opening the acceptance email with his mother and scrolling down to see the financial aid details. “She was tickled, let me tell you,” he said. “It lifted so much stress off her shoulders. It was life-changing.” Applications to be part of the next cohort of COSM S-STEM Scholars are open until Feb. 1, 2026. Eligibility requirements, necessary documentation and other information can be found at this webpage. Looking to know more about Georgia Southern University or the National Science Foundation’s S-STEM Scholarship Program Award? Simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.